Talk:Land mine

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

message: What article on landmines is complete without pictures of landmine victims?
please, someone incorporate this news item  into this article. Kingturtle 23:30, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  more info 

message: 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)
=== 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
-----
Also not mentioned, but im pretty sure Finland does manufacture devices classed as "land mines", or very least retains capability to, cause most if not all mines in the FDF inventory are infact domestic including but not restricted to several types of AP and AT mines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturers 

message: 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
-----
Also not mentioned, but im pretty sure Finland does manufacture devices classed as "land mines", or very least retains capability to, cause most if not all mines in the FDF inventory are infact domestic including but not restricted to several types of AP and AT mines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Email suggestion 

message: 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)
: It looks great. Just a note, the final paragraph of the Demining section on the Land mine page discusses the issue of land mines in the Falkland Islands, including "efforts exist to prevent removal of the mines". This appears to be out of date, as the last land mines on the Islands were cleared in November of 2020 as described on the page Land mines in the Falkland Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mines_in_the_Falkland_Islands. Thank you. BadgerMc (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demining 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reorganizing 

message: :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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: : 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)
thread_title:  Flowers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Which branch of the UN is responsible for clearing mines? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image (PTAB) 

message: 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  tended to attract children. Warchild here  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 . Here has some pictures of yellow submunitions, though I'm not sure exactly what they are. Megapixie 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Toy Shaped Mines 

message: 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)
replies: text: See Talk:Fuse (explosives). Megapixie 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Fuze vs. Fuse

message: 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)
thread_title: China

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cure

message: 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)
thread_title:  World War I mines 

message: As I live in Spain, I have heard many times in the media Spain is a mine producer. But in the article i couldn't find this statement, so i searched on the ICBL web with this conviction...
and there i found...COUNTRIES THAT produce CLUSTER MUNITIONS http://www.icbl.org/content/download/30199/477655/version/1/file/LM08_Ban_Production_Clusters_Factsheet.pdf
I would thank someone more involved in the article actualize this fact.thankyou!--Josepsbd (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain is a producer

message: How is it "minefield" (also produced by naval mines, don't forget) redirects to land mine?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  20:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In the Navy

message: I feel some distinction should be made between the defensive land mines mentioned in the whole of the article, and the offense mines used prior to assaults (in the American Civil War and World War I, and possibly elsewhere).  For example, the mention of using mines prior to Passchendale likely refers to the latter -- actual mines dug under fortifications and filled with explosives. --FBM 216.104.138.238 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive vs Defensive 

message: I've removed the term 'step shaft' from the first sentence. If it is a term used to describe mines (and a quick google didn't produce any evidence that it is), it's an uncommon one. The phrasing 'A step shaft (aka land mine)...' suggests that the term 'land mine' is in some way less accurate/less used than 'step shaft', which doesn't seem to be the case. If 'step shaft' is a technical/military term, it should be introduced and explained as such. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  step shaft 

message: Since the Japanese Army didn't have land mines, they improvised by digging a hole, putting an aircraft bomb with a soldier in it, and covering it up. Then, when an enemy vehicle drew near, the soldier was to detonate the aircraft bomb by striking its tip with a hammer.
Source: "Tales of the Gun: Japanese Weapons of WWII" by the History Channel --Arima (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Human Suicide Mine 

message: In the current intro:
"Such devices are typically detonated automatically by way of pressure from the target stepping or driving on it, though other detonation mechanisms may be possible." 
"[M]ay be possible"? Really?  Can't we be a little more confident than that?  The existence of space aliens "may be possible". On the other hand, things like tripwires, magnetic sensors, etc. are not only possible, they do in fact exist, are used, and have been used on a widespread basis for decades. The article itself discusses them down the page! Surely this is a case where we can be just a little bit bold and go with the word "are", instead of the qualified, unsure "may be".  Isn't it?
Sorry if I'm being a little pedantic. :)  Pet peeve of mine.  Anyway, I'll just make the change and pipe down.
Oh, also notice "it" used as pronoun for "devices" in intro.  will fix.... No major substantive changes. 
  24.3.48.180 (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Elimination of Weasel Language

message: The usage and primary topic of  is under discussion, see talk:Mine (disambiguation) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mine"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Land mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626141634/http://213.162.22.164/fileadmin/pdf/review_conference/regional_conference/amman/Historical_Uses_Study.pdf to http://213.162.22.164/fileadmin/pdf/review_conference/regional_conference/amman/Historical_Uses_Study.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Land mine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131075506/http://www.apopo.org/detection_rats.php to http://www.apopo.org/detection_rats.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213173621/http://asmmag.com/features/new-technology-for-detecting-land-mines to http://www.asmmag.com/features/new-technology-for-detecting-land-mines
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213173621/http://asmmag.com/features/new-technology-for-detecting-land-mines to http://www.asmmag.com/features/new-technology-for-detecting-land-mines
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The statement that landmines have killed [see subject] is of zero notability at best and deceptive at worst (by implying nuclear weaponsweapons are frequently  used in war Firejuggler86 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "more people than nuclear and chemical weapons combined"?? 

message: I do not believe that the "Before explosives" section is relevant to the topic of the article. Does anyone have input on this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:4706:D2:C7C:762A:AF97:D4FB (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Before explosives" section 

message: I want to challenge this claim. It is contradicted by the more detailed numbers in the Casualties section, and the source for it is a now-deleted web page which itself doesn’t explain the figure or site a source Pi (Talk to me!) 22:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's likely that the UN (UNMAS?) is the primary source for this. I found another, more recent figure from the UN: "in 2021, more than 5,500 people were killed or maimed by landmines" https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/04/1135252 Yawkat (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  15-20,000 deaths per year