Talk:Demining

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good links[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

Humanitarian vs. Military[edit]

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)[reply]

The current article is almost exclusively featuring photos with military personnel and military mine plows. Is that really anywhere close to reality? To my knowledge, the military is famous for planting mines, but it isn't exactly known for doing much about clearing them. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_clearance_organization does have a long list of civilian mine clearing organizations, and a short note about military clearing (basically saying that soldiers need to pass through mine fields, without giving a second thought about how future generations might deal with the remaining mines).
I think the article could benefit from some major changes: Focus on civilian workers/equipment/problems, with those topics being mentioned first and in more detail, and remove most or all text and photos about military clearing operations (of course, military details can be also interesting - but it might be more suitable to move them to a separate page). Well, or keep it all on one page, but I am having problems to imagine how that could look like... having photos of tank-like mine plows on the same page - alongsides with large groups of civilian mine clearers whom are doing most of the real work on their knees - that could be a stark contrast. --2OO.3OO.2OO.3OO (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your statement that this article should be mainly about humanitarian demining, but I disagree with your claim that it isn't already. Actually, by far the greater part of the article is about humanitarian demining. I think you're being misled by the pictures. It's true that the majority show military operations, but there are some good reasons for that. First, the pictures have to comply with Wikipedia's licensing requirements (see Wikipedia's image use policy), and most of those happen to be military pictures. For example, I simply could not find a good picture of civilians on their knees with prodders (I agree that this is still the real work); the best by far was that WWII picture. Similarly, I'd love to have a picture of a civilian wielding a metal detector in a minefield, but had to settle for those soldiers in that top picture. If you can find good pictures of civilians doing these things that satisfy Wikipedia's policy, I would happily use them. I do have one picture of a civilian in protective equipment, but there is no point in having more than one. Finally, pictures serve an explanatory purpose, so it made sense to have a gallery of pictures of military equipment to illustrate the different kinds of mechanical deminers. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Errors[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ANOTHER CORRECTION[edit]

ORIGINAL

Mechanical clearance Special machines effectively combine mine detection and removal into one operation. In the past, these machines were applied in both mine clearance and demining but are now generally only used for demining. They can be used to verify land that is not expected to be contaminated or as an extra layer of security after an area has cleared by another method, such as dogs.

ISSUE

Actually, the US Army still uses and is continuing to develop mechanical clearance devices. So "now generally used only for demining" is incorrect. Specifically, mine roller systems are being developed, deployed and refined for military mine clearance.

For Reference see the Pearson Engineering web-site at www.pearson-eng.com

98.166.116.145 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Ford Cook[reply]

Factual errors[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Confusing language[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

interwiki ru[edit]

Hello, I want to ask, if this interwiki-Link is correct. I removed the Link, because the russian article links to Mine plow. So I think, the russian article does not deal with demining. Otherwise a Bot added this link immediately after I removed it --Joschi90 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NASA tech spinoff?[edit]

Why is this article categorized in the Category:NASA technology spinoffs?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plant section[edit]

[31] is a dead link, see http://acfnewsource.org.s60463.gridserver.com/index.html

Add this to the plant section http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009012.html "The Death of the Land Mine-Detecting Flower JULIA LEVITT, 11 NOV 08"

"Aresa Biodetection" is a wiki page that could be linked to this page.

ChloeDaddy (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

incomplete or false Lemma[edit]

Acording to the introduction half the info is missing. Where is all about the sweeping of naval Mines ?--WerWil (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an edit to fix this problem. --Albany NY (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Several "External Resources"[edit]

Hi, I am removing several links, and listing others here as questionable.

Questionable: Mine Advisory Group. It's a good group, but seems to be a special interest or lobbyist-type group.
Questionable: APOPO. Seems to be SPAM.
Questionable: European Union in Humanitarian Demining. Seems to be a university research project that ended in 2005.
I'm removing Mineseeker Operations because it's SPAM.
I'm removing Demining with hero rats because it's a dead link.
I'm removing Manual Mine Clearance because it's a website similar to Flickr.

Overall, the article seems based on NGOs' websites instead of reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacarids (talk • contribs) 23:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mine Kafon[edit]

Perhaps Mine Kafon may be mentioned ? KVDP (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Demining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Clearance section seems oddly placed[edit]

It's very strange to see the mechanical clearance section placed in the humanitarian demining section. It talks almost exclusively about military vehicles used to remove mines and specifically says they don't meet the UN standard for humanitarian demining. It seems to set out like this exclusively because today this kind of military mine clearance isn't often done under fire anymore but I really don't think that's enough to call something a humanitarian effort. If something is being done by active service military forces, using military vehicles and isn't clearing mines to humanitarian standards it really should be considered a military effort even if the engineers are working in secured areas. Especially when you consider why devices like mine flails are/were used - because they are radically faster than humanitarian mine efforts which allows for acceptably safe paths to be cleared for military vehicles promptly, even if that leaves large numbers of mines undetonated. When put into that context; where military purposes are being put way above total mine clearence there's no way that this can be considered a humanitarian effort, even if the military contributes to such efforts at times.109.153.3.240 (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Demining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Demining. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demining. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Demining. 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) 15:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Demining. 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) 11:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Demining/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 16:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Well-written, easy to understand, avoids jargon. There were a couple of minor typos which I corrected myself.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section effectively summarizes the article, especially the first few sentences. If I was going to be especially picky, I'd suggest adding something about the cost of demining to the third paragraph of the lead, in the sense of economic, time, and cost in lives, since those costs seem to be important aspects but are left out of the lead.

No issues with layout, the article is well organized. No words to watch issues, fiction, or list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Article is well referenced. When performing spot checks of some of the referenced material, I found some of the citations less helpful, such as #66, which cites Kasban et al., 2010, pp. 89-112, which was the entire 24-page article, so it made that information difficult to verify. Did not find any instances of close paraphrasing from the sources I checked.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). References are from reliable sources.
2c. it contains no original research. No OR
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyright violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Article is very comprehensive and did not leave me wondering about additional topics
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article is concise.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Article is neutral
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. I should have checked the article history before starting this to notice that is is still being actively developed, but the article is considered stable because it is not changing due to an edit war or content dispute, all changes are being made by one editor.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are tagged with copyright status, no non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are relevant and help illustrate the topic
7. Overall assessment. Well-written article


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demining&oldid=1206929128"