Brigadier General James Monroe Williams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

Comments

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

more info

What article on landmines is complete without pictures of landmine victims? please, someone incorporate this news item [2] 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.

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)

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)[reply]

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)

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 [1]. Thank you. BadgerMc (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_mines_in_the_Falkland_Islands

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)

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)[reply]

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 ~~~~
Neutral changed vote to neutral, with the provisio that the lead paragraph contains "Land mine or Landmine". Megapixie 07:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - all of the references and external links use the word "landmine" Turnstep 12:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All my reference books – including dictionaries and encyclopaedias – say land mine. – Axman (☏) 12:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Why does it say step shaft in the opening paragraph? A quick Google and Google Image search for step shaft brings up nothing land mine-/landmine-related. I spent eight months in Cambodia and a year in Bosnia, observing humanitarian demining in both cases, and never heard land mines referred to as step shafts... --92.0.141.208 (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry for the double-post, but how does this article have limited geographic scope or whatever? Landmines are a problem worldwide. --92.0.141.208 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Image at top of page is labelled incorrectly. Caption states "From left to right: an M14, Valmara 69, and VS-50". The first mine is not an M14. jfdavis668 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [5] tended to attract children. Warchild here [6] 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 [7]. Here has some pictures of yellow submunitions, though I'm not sure exactly what they are. Megapixie 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See Talk:Fuse (explosives). Megapixie 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Spain is a producer

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)[reply]

The 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, known informally as the Ottawa Treaty.

The treaty does not include anti-tank mines, cluster bomb/munitions or claymore-type mines operated in command mode but focuses specifically on anti-personnel mines, because these pose the greatest long term (post-conflict) risk to humans and animals since they are typically designed to be triggered by any movement or pressure of only a few kilograms, whereas anti-tank mines require much more weight (or a combination of factors that would exclude humans).

Osummer (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Osummer (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Navy

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)[reply]

Offensive vs Defensive

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)[reply]

The reference to were the word "mine" comes from is referenced in the beginning of the page. It covers that shafts are dug in a mine like fashion under fortifications or troop posistion. The mine shaft is then filled with kegs of gun powder and other debris to enhance the effects of the blast. The reader is sure to be able to understand that a "mine" can be used in a offensive or defensive way. In reference to were the word comes from a defensive position could dig those underground mines surrounding the fields around the fortress to blow if the place is surrounded by an opposing force. They attacking force coukd also use the same means to breach the walls of a fortress by digging a shaft that goea under the walls. No doubting that it would be started at night and out of sight of the fortress' lookouts to preserve the surprise factor.

Osummer (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Osummer (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

step shaft

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)[reply]

Japanese Human Suicide Mine

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)[reply]

Do they have official names? In FT they have names like T45 LE and T13 Mrp8196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Elimination of Weasel Language

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)BA[reply]

"Mine"

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

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"more people than nuclear and chemical weapons combined"??

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)[reply]

  • I have removed it, it didn't make much sense in the paragraph it was used in. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Before explosives" section

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)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Land_mine