Talk:List of land mines

Photos
Someone (i.e. a war-nut or peace-advocate) should get pictures of all the mines and add them to the respective articles. 24.126.199.129 19:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The list (and articles) are still very much work in progress. I was going to try and arrange a visit to http://www.wood.army.mil/hdtc/toc.html to photograph their collection (with their permission) http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Special-Programs/SP-776Spring-2005/ClassTrip/detail/dismines.htm . Megapixie 01:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Woah. That's some impressive initiative. If I had any sort of connections I'd lobby for a barnstar for that effort. Incidentally, all I really meant was that someone should find a website that had all of the images but was willing to have them used on Wikipedia. 24.126.199.129 11:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Livens projector a type of mine?
I am not clear why the Livens projector is listed here as a type of mine. The only reason seems to be that it is mentioned here where this reference says: ...is arguably the first chemical mine. Well I would be interested to hear that argument. In the meantime, that article's own reference of the subject, Chemical Warfare in World War I: The American Experience, 1917 - 1918 is available here and it says nothing to support this contention. Can we achieve a consensus here? Gaius Cornelius 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We can only collate secondary sources. I'm guessing he cites the chemical warfare reference for the date of first use, rather than the fact that it is a mine. In Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance 2005-2006 a longer version of the essay is reprinted (it doesn't have significantly more detail) - he says

The British-developed Livens Projector (a 'projectile fougasse' or 'earth mortar') was first employed in 1917 and is arguably the first chemical mine.
 * I think the connection that he makes is with a fougasse, and thus a landmine. While I agree - that is pretty weak. The fact that it is printed in Jane's tends to make it a fact from a fairly steady secondary source. I'd be happy to add an asterix and a note at the bottom explaining it's inclusion. Megapixie 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the kind of thing I was thinking of. Please make any changes you see fit. Or I'm open to further discussion. Megapixie 01:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Livens Projector must be included at all, I would prefer to see it deleted from the main list and then referenced from a footnote that indicates that some authorities inlcude it. That would better reflect its status as a landmine. Gaius Cornelius 17:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't think it's a landmine. I think the argument for classing it as a landmine is pretty shaky. The problem is that it is regarded by a landmine, by someone considered an authority on such things - to the extent that the essay describing it as such is reproduced in what must be ranked as a pretty rock solid source for such things (Jane's). Not including it in the list itself would be pretty much ignoring WP:Verify - quoting from it: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false.
 * I've added "see note" to both occurances of it in the list, and I'm happy to see the note text modified - but we really do have to include it in the list proper. Thanks. Megapixie 05:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, what is the relationship between Jane's and this web-site that has been cited? In any event is: is Jane's (or whatever is being cited) so very authoritative that a tentative ...is arguably... must be regarded as truth even though no such argument is offered. The non-landmine status is not just my opinion: while other sources don't explicitly deny that the projector is some kind of landmine, isn't more likely that this is because this possibility had not even occured to the author rather than some concern that it might be true. Gaius Cornelius 19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay -
 * My understanding is that the article has been printed in three places:
 * Engineer Bulletin July 1998 as "The Origins of Military Mines: Part I"
 * The FAS website - a verbatum copy of the "Engineer Bulletin" article
 * Jane's Mine's and Mine Clearance 2005-2006 as "The Origins of Land Mines" - where the article is reproduced in an expanded form - but is largely the same (minus the footnotes)
 * Jane's expanded version of the article (also credited to "Colonel William C Schneck") includes the line on page 13 - my emphasis.


 * The British-developed Livens Projector (a 'projectile fougasse' or 'earth mortar') was first employed in 1917 and is arguably the first chemical mine.


 * His argument, as to why the Livens Projector could be considered as a landmine (which I have highlighted) is only present in the Jane's version of the article. He thinks that the Livens projector is like a Fougasse, which was a primitive forerunner to the modern landmine. This similarity with the Fougasse makes it like a landmine. I would agree that it is Colonel Schnecks :interpretation of the facts that presents it as a "the first chemical landmine" rather than any stamp or official designation making it "Chemical landmine Mk I". But it is the fact the opinion is reprinted in a :reputable source that means that we have to include it (even if we disagree with it). Megapixie 12:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)