Jump to content

Talk:Unexploded ordnance/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Opening paragraph readability

...UXOs/UXBs, sometimes acronymized as UO...

This doesn't track very well, and is wrong anyway because UO would be an initialism or an abbreviation, not an acronym. Later in the paragraph, an explanation is needed on the choice/meaning of term remediation community, or else it should be replaced with something that seems less like impenetrable jargon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.190.3 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


Treaty on unexploded ordnance

I didn't find any mention of this treaty... Is there anything about it somewhere else? Kromsson (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

UXAPB

Can anyone tell me what the official designation U.X.A.P.B. stands for? I found it in a document dated August 1943 concerning a United Kingdom police force and in connection with civil defence work. See Lincolnshire Special Constabulary. Thanks. (RJPe (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Its O.K., I have found the answer. It's 'unexploded anti-personnel bomb'. The answer was in the issue of the police pamphlet which preceded the one I quoted. (RJPe (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Several links were removed here as broken [1]. However the first and last are not broken for me. I've left them out as they don't seem of great relevance and there are already way too many external links but thought I'd note it here Nil Einne (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Germany

I'm a bit shocked that this page lacks information on UXOs in Germany, which unearths around 2,000 tonnes of such munitions per year, the most recent example being a 1.8 tonne monster in the Rhine river in Koblenz. This is a pretty gross omission from the page. Is anybody willing to help track down some good sources to add this much-needed information? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are some first ideas:
  • German Wikipedia on "Blindgänger" (UXOs)
  • German Wikipedia on "Langzeitzünder" (long-delay fuses)
  • Interview with a UXO expert: "It's estimated that the number of unexploded bombs in Germany totals more than 100,000, and each year several hundred are defused." (Article in Der Spiegel English and German)
  • "The area of Germany around Cologne was bombed heavily during World War II and finding unexploded ordinance is relatively commonplace, particularly during construction projects. Indeed, hardly a week goes by without an explosive being found somewhere in Germany. " (Article in Der Spiegel)
  • "Über 100.000 Fliegerbomben des Typs, der in Göttingen explodierte, sind im Zweiten Weltkrieg allein auf Hamburg niedergegangen, ihre Blindgängerquote betrug 13 Prozent. "Wir gehen davon aus, dass es in Hamburg noch 3000 unentdeckte Bomben gibt", sagt Stahl. Auch in Berlin sollen noch über 3000 Blindgänger im Untergrund verborgen sein. Zahlen für das gesamte Bundesgebiet existieren nicht, weil die Kampfmittelräumung Ländersache ist. Es könnten um die 100.000 sein, schätzen Experten. Vor allem in Großstädten und Ballungsräumen wie dem Ruhrgebiet ist die Gefahr am größten. Hier waren die Schwerpunkte der alliierten Luftangriffe. Entdeckt werden die Blindgänger meist bei Bauarbeiten. (...) 5500 Bomben werden jedes Jahr in Deutschland entschärft." (Article in Stern)
--Richterks (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


10–20 % allied airmen bomb were duds. According to the assessment of experts 1-2 UXO will blow up jearly. Particularly insidious are the time bomb with detonator, which were used in the doctrine "Moral bombing". They should kill rescue teams. (Lifesaving teams, salvage teams,fire brigade) Experts say that about 100.000 UXO could be. Article in Stern) BTW Moral Bombing was the attempt to demoralize the civilian population by kill them. Thats the reason to chose the twons (city ​​districts)by combustibility and not by urban strategic characteristics. (First stray bombs then fire bombs) 87.186.46.218 (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Could anyone explain the discrepancy between 2000 tons per year (with the heaviest bombs having about 2 tons, so we are talking about ~10000 pieces more likely) and one bomd defused every 15 days? This doesn't match up. Last i checked, my calender has 365 days. ;-) --2A02:8071:2CCB:F200:14B9:855C:FC04:8A74 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

France

It's not the Département du déminage but the Bureau du déminage http://lannuaire.service-public.fr/services_nationaux/administration-centrale-ou-ministere_168975.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miko75011 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

American bombs

Unexploded ordnance from the American civil war poses hazard worldwide? That's cool to know.--Kohelet (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Intructive that article's section on UXO in the USA is larger than sections on UXO caused by USA activities (vis Laos). Latter would be several orders of magnitude greater problem than the former. NPOV? Gergyl (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add a link to my gallery of Laos UXO photos.

Opinions please. http://www.pbase.com/mkelpie/laos_uxo

Why not. Can only improve article POV. Gergyl (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

American bias, NPOV

The article appears to have a very strong lean towards information for the USA.

Amongst other things, the intro includes "In the United States UXO, as defined in 10 USC 101(e)(5), is one of three categories of military munitions...". I don't think this belongs here, why specifically talk about US interests in UXO in the opening and no other country? There is a bias here that needs addressing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.58.24.158 (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The legal definition in one country is completely irrelevant, especially in the lede. I've removed the text, but moved the source to the United States section. Sjö (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Explosive remnants of war

Unsourced stub about a term should be merged to the article about the thing the term stands for Sjö (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.Fgnievinski (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Sjö (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Undefined acronym "MEC"

Possibly "Munitions and Explosives of Concern"? Can anyone nail it down definitively? Plsuh (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone put "Munitions and Explosives of Concern" into the article but didn't discuss it here and gave no sources, so I undid it. I think we should give it another month or so for someone to come up with a source, then change "MEC" to something else. Plsuh (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It's easy enough to find, see e.g. the glossary in this document https://www.fws.gov/refuges/whm/pdfs/UXO_Handbook_8-9-06.pdf . My concern is that a) it looks like it's specific to the US, at least it seems to be only US documents that appear high in the list b) the definition is wider as MEC includes small arms ammunition and explosives. I think that the term should be mentioned and explained, but with those clarifications. Sjö (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

References worse now than before

In this edit today, Catlemur unfortunately destroyed ALL the dates of the 10 references he meant to fix. He overwrote the dates of publication (DOP) with accessdates. The date of the publication ALWAYS trumps the accessdate. Accessdate is ONLY interesting if there is no DOP. The template needs to be opened completely to see author and date entry boxes. Catlemur, PLEAZE reinsert all the dates and authors you deleted. Thanks--Wuerzele (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There you go, enjoy the rotten refs.--Catlemur (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I hand updated many of the references, and confirmed that rerunning the reFill script on the article makes no changes. Please let me know if you have any concerns about my edits. GoingBatty (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Move pictures?

I've done a lot of moving of text. This has left several pictures grouped at the top. Maybe somebody better than I am at publishing layout would consider them better if organised differently? Pol098 (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent problems with banned user

Hi. I can see that there are some problems with an unsigned user recently, who tries to install information about Germany. I don't know what the history is with this particular user or what restrictions has been imposed, but I do know that the material he is trying to add to this article seems very credible.

If the banned user is not allowed to add the particular information for simple editorial restrictions, I might be of help? In line with that, I intend to add this piece of information to the article in the near future. RhinoMind (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead, by all means. Maybe the Germany section will be a little bit too long and detailed with your addition, but the Frankfurt bomb is very relevant, it being the largest evacuation in recent years. Sjö (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, the entire article might grow out of proportions with time, something I have thought a little bit about in the light of my own recent expansions. But that could be solved - should it happen - by migrating info to other pages I guess. Just some thoughts. RhinoMind (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the German stuff, I can see that several editors who tried to insert the info, was also reverted! Are they all banned? I can't really make sense of it. RhinoMind (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
They were all sockpuppets of a banned user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CadAPL/Archive. Sjö (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh. Looks complicated! RhinoMind (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
And he or she is back (or perhaps a meatpuppet). I've reverted, but used some of the text and sources in the Germany section. Sjö (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

A remarkable resource - UXO database for US Incidents

I was doing other research and found this: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/2001uxoreport.pdf
Table three in the report lists a lot of incidents of UXO in the United States up to 1999. →StaniStani 09:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Unexploded ordnance. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

TeleSur

@SandyGeorgia: Hi. You recently removed a source on the situation in Colombia with the statement: "TeleSUR is deprecated as a source on Wikipedia, not reliable".

I have seen this practise implemented on Wikipedia in other situations. But who has decided that TeleSUR is a deprecated source on Wikipedia? And where does it say that TeleSUR sources are not to be used on Wikipedia? I have never seen any useful information in this respect.

Also, it would be great if editors are presented with some sort of list of censored and banned media sources on Wikipedia. And in particular where, how and why these decisions has been made. Otherwise it can not be taken serious of course.

Personal comment: My immediate thoughts on this, are that banning TeleSUR is purely US propaganda politics. And therefore not of any interest to the international Wikipedia that presents this particular article.

RhinoMind (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Rhino ... there is a list of deprecated sources. Once upon a time, long ago in another galaxy, when sources were blacklisted, there was some sort of bot or script or something technical that prevented editors from adding them at all, but that is no longer working. It is unfortunate. Now you have to follow the list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Hope this helps, and sorry for putting you in that spot. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Thanks a lot. I will have a look into that. Really don't understand why TeleSur has been banned altogether from Wikipedia.
It sure sounds a bit chaotic and unfortunate that this bot is no longer in working order. Maybe a harsh way of implementing stuff, but definitively shortcuts endless over-and-over arguments. RhinoMind (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It is a bummer; whatever was the technical thing of days gone by, it stopped you when you tried to post a blacklisted source, but that's gone. And to satisfy your curiosity about Telesur, the problem is that editors stated that they don't just have a bias: they fabricate. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that sounds awful. I was going to say that I can't understand why even deprecated sources can't be used to some extent. There are many situations where deprecated and even biased sources just conveys simple facts without any subjective angling at all. And there are situations where they testify biased opinions, which can be needed in some articles (not this one here). But when they start to fabricate "facts" it gets really difficult. Wonder what they fabricated. I'll have a deeper look through that wiki-link you provided. RhinoMind (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@RhinoMind: I tried looking for more reliable sources that discuss the demining program, but I can't find any. It seems like Dialogo Americas used to have an article about thi, but it seems to have been deleted and apparently there isn't a web archive. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Hi and thank you for taking this up here on Talk. It is much more constructive when we can discuss things. Yes, we need better sources for the time-schedule and the demining program overall, but you deleted an entire paragraph, which wasn't based on the TelSur ref alone. That was the main reason I reverted you deletion.
About the Telesur source. I haven't spent much time looking for a better source on the details of the demining program. I appreciate that you tried, but deleting the info, including the dubious-tag, will not help to solve the problem. It will not provide us with a better and more useful source. Instead, a deletion will only hide the underlying problem and we might never look for and find a better source. If you read the discussion we had above, you will know that the problem with the Telesur source is based on the fact that it is a state funded media and perhaps because Telesur have mediated false information in some cases. Nothing special, and something that can be stated about thousands of reliable media really. It is a rather obscure case when you look in to it, and nothing has been documented in relation to putting Telesur on the "deprecated list", really. I think this should be discussed on the deprecated list of course, although I am not going to spend time on it in the near future. Anyway, whatever we think of Telesur, or Wikipedia's list of deprecated sources, I don't think it has ever been doubted that a demining program in Colombia has been established? The task is not to delete information about the demining program, but to find a source that documents it (and the details of it) better. Let's try to find those sources, and let other editors help out. RhinoMind (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unexploded_ordnance/Archive_1&oldid=958497302"