Talk:PFM-1 mine

message: I removed the comment about the mine not being used because Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance 2005-2006 (p.269) states that
 Status 
 Found in Afganistan, Chechnya
Does anyone have a source that contradicts this ? Megapixie 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having discussed - I will remove the comment about having not being used in Chechnya. Cheers. Megapixie 03:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use in Chechnya

message: I have read (in an old edition of Jane's Military Vehicles and Ground Support Equipment) that the PFM was first used during the Yom Kippur War. If true, this information should be included in the article.--172.190.97.157 (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yom Kippur War? 

message: Disputed template added to the section on July 31,2022 in order to maintain full transparency.  And separated the disputed from other military use. Keep Ukraine / Russian edit to the section.    If wished a current affair template could also be added.    Hash it out below, other talk regarding PFM-1 edits above   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:B184:F900:B05E:69E2:BA21:E08E (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What is disputed exactly? That Ukraine and Russia accuse each other? Or the content of the accusations? Please clarify. -- Sloyment (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  DISPUTED 

message: Can someone either manage this page, or lock it to prevent random people from making edits every now and then? Reports of them being used in the current war has led to multiple people changing the article constantly because they disagree with what's being written. 183.90.36.12 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: To add: redirect from Petal mine to this article. 204.11.186.190 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add 

message: I found this article as a result of a BBC news story. (Ukraine war: The deadly landmines killing hundreds,   https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65204053.  I am glad to have such an article; that is the purpose of Wikipedia.
I suggest a few improvements. It reads too much like a training manual and the first reference bears this out by referring to a British drill/training example. 
I think it needs to be more of an encyclopedic article accessible to everyone. It contains abbreviations and some jargon. Is “self-liquidation” the same as “self-destruct” which would be better understood by most people? The external link is a bare URL without even the benefit of a title.
Finally, given the invasion of Ukraine, there ought to be as much said about the non-signatories to the treaty, notably Russia, as the delayed compliance of Ukraine.
I hope my impression is helpful. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical. Lacks balance. 

message: The self destruct timeframe of 1-40 hours is not given in citation [10] nor does it give an "Activation pressure" it does however give a required displacement for activation. Is there a better source for the timeframe? cat-uxo.com only states "[PFM-1s will] self-destruct after a period of time". Should that part be edited? 2604:3D08:5A7A:48F0:7AD9:434B:7EAB:5F13 (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a explosive liquification timeframe, which I believe references the 40g of explosive liquid contained within the mine. I still cannot find a source for it however 141.193.175.203 (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

text: I found a couple of sources, one from 2008 from a since dead Russian page with the information, including the only mention I can find of the ambient temperature. Also added source from bullet-picket. See Here KarmaKangaroo (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for "Self-liquidation timeframe: 1-40 hours" 

message: Forbes quotes the Twitter user "666_mancer" which writes "Popasna, the Russians are filling residential areas of the city with land mines". The point is that that channel uses the video of the Lugansk People's Republic in which they denounce that on their territories the Ukrainian army has released those PFM-1 mines. They really turned the meaning of the video upside down. I am removing the source for now. Mhorg (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbes misquotes the source 

message: Why does this section exist when it only mentions Belarus briefly and Ukraine at length? It should have a report, perhaps a table, indicating the compliance of all the signatories to the treaty, as well as noting those countries, including all the permanent members of the Security Council which have not signed the treaty. Furthermore, the treaty deals with all anti-personnel mines so the details of compliance belong in that article, not this one. 
If there isn’t information about other countries by the end of July, I am going to delete this paragraph. If you know the history of this article and agree with me, go ahead and delete the section. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources used in the section include the numbers of PFM-1s still in the Ukrainian arsenal. Why should we delete it? Mhorg (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliance with the Ottawa Convention