: Just apply the NPOV approach. Wikipedia should not take sides. -- [[User:Sloyment|Sloyment]] ([[User talk:Sloyment|talk]]) 12:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
: Just apply the NPOV approach. Wikipedia should not take sides. -- [[User:Sloyment|Sloyment]] ([[User talk:Sloyment|talk]]) 12:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
:
: From [[WP:NPOV]]: “Articles must not ''take'' sides, but should ''explain'' the sides, fairly and without editorial [[bias]]. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”
:
: Is TASS a reliable source? [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources]] states that “In a 2022 RfC, editors achieved a strong consensus that TASS is a biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and that the source is generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context.” So because TASS is biased, it can’t be used to add prove that Doneck has been littered with PFM-1 mines by Ukrainian troops. Probably no source can do that at the moment. But if the aim is to explain the sides according to the NPOV approach, TASS is a very good source because of its bias. -- [[User:Sloyment|Sloyment]] ([[User talk:Sloyment|talk]]) 13:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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)[reply]
... the mine's shape was dictated by aerodynamics.
This is a meaningless statement. The article should elaborate - in what way was it dictated by aerodynamics ? It reads like the writer just copied it and doesn't know what it means. Rcbutcher (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not completely meaningless, but it's not clear and it's not the full story. The mine's shape is a combination of three factors:
Packing in their carrying rack. The mines nest in pairs and then rack up in neat lines. This also places the fuzes in line so that their arming strips can be pulled out (actually the mines are pushed off the rack and the strip remains). Photo here: http://a-popov.livejournal.com/167446.html
Camouflage. Air-scattered circular mines without vegetation look too much like perfect circles on the ground and the eye is good at spotting them. An irregular shape, it doesn't have to look 'like a rock', is better.
Aerodynamics. They're aerodynamically unstable so that they auto-rotate down like a sycamore seed. These are very fragile and will burst if trodden on (unarmed!) - Soviet era plastics moulding.
DW's fact-checking team investigated whether butterfly mines were used by Russia in Ukraine. So far, there is no evidence for these claims. The images circulating online at the moment are not from Ukraine and are outdated.
There is an active edit war in this section, with Russian propagandists falsely claiming Ukrainian responsibility. Fulvio (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war
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)[reply]
Use in Donetsk in July 2022
Someone has added the following, "As of 2022 the mines are only used by the Russian army. In late July 2022, the Russian army dispersed mines in the area of Donetsk city, using mortars and shells. The quantity of mines dispersed is so high that people living in this area are recommended not to exit home." This lacks any citation.
(It also appears to be either Ukrainian propaganda, or based on it.)ENSOsurfer (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NPOV: “Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”
Is TASS a reliable source? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources states that “In a 2022 RfC, editors achieved a strong consensus that TASS is a biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and that the source is generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context.” So because TASS is biased, it can’t be used to add prove that Doneck has been littered with PFM-1 mines by Ukrainian troops. Probably no source can do that at the moment. But if the aim is to explain the sides according to the NPOV approach, TASS is a very good source because of its bias. -- Sloyment (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
