Talk:No man's land

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

original definition[edit]

No Man's Land has more than this definition and the term predates WWI. The term could mean:

  1. An unclaimed or unowned piece of land; a wasteland.
  2. Land under dispute by two opposing parties; especially, the field of battle between two opposing entrenched armies.
  3. Any area into which a man does not venture because of fear or uncertainty; a realm of danger or ambiguity (this definition probably descends from meaning 2).

I suggest this page be moved to, maybe, No_man's_land_(war), and this name be for a disambiguation page. --

The current version (changed by myself) implements this suggestion. I'm still not sure whether to keep the disambig marker or not... --Joy [shallot] 13:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

land mines[edit]

I don't have much confidence in the land mines remark. Man traps yes.. land mines not the greatest problem. -- 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Land mine[edit]

Yes. Land mines were used atleast by Germany and Britain during World War One. Britain produced land mines during WW1 that used poison gas too. PyrE 12:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

File:who actually claimed the no mans land today?


  • Strongly oppose - "the term referring to the unoccupied land between two opposing forces" is not the same as the legal term which allowed alienation of land. Both articles are of sufficient length to stand alone--Matilda talk 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • terra = land (Latin)
nullius = no man's (Latin)
Also see it:Terra di nessuno:

Terra di nessuno (in inglese No Man's Land ) [...] (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That the two terms can be translated into one in Italian does not make them synonymous in English --Matilda talk 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • But terra nullius is just Latin for no man's land... ( (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC))
      • Please check what synonomous means per the link above - they may be the same words - they do not mean the same thing as per the articles. Terra nullius is a legal term and a subject of some importance in the dispossession of indigenous Australians, the description of "no man's land" in this article, ie No man's land is a term for land that is not occupied or more specifically land that is under dispute between countries or areas that will not occupy it because of fear or uncertainty. During war (especially World War I), it is a term used as the area of land between two enemy trenches that neither side wishes to openly move on or take control of due to fear of being attacked by the enemy in the process has nothing to do with the concept of Terra nullius, a term by the way that is never translated from the Latin when used in court cases.--Matilda talk 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the absence of further comment I am removing the tags--Matilda talk 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the provincial anecdotical evidence of "no man's land" should be removed. No man's land is indeed the same as terra nullius. However, the article needs to be focused on the war zone and the article on terra nullius on the legal term. Arebenti (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WW I & WW I Use[edit]

It was called 'No man's land' because nether side could occupy the area without the occupiers being killed by the opposing side. With the advent of machine guns such as the Vickers and MG 08, both sides could bring down overwhelming fire on the land making survival without cover impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
No Man's LandNo man's land — Should likely be standardized as lowercase given it's not really a proper place but a battlefield concept. Labattblueboy (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Support as the nominator notes. I don't think we have to move the dab page, as all the alternative uses appear to require uppercase: we can just redirect No Man's Land to no man's land and put an {{otheruses}} hatnote on the latter. Ucucha 16:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support moving No Man's Land but Oppose moving No Man's Land (disambiguation), for reasons given by Ucucha: the disambiguation page lists numerous places that are proper places. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment' I have removed the dab. page friom the move discussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"The U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba is separated from Cuba proper by an area called the Cactus Curtain. " Does this sentence sound a little odd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


"The term was applied to a little-used area on ships called the forecastle" is incorrect on two counts. The forecastle was neither little-used nor no man's land. From William Falconer's Dictionary of the Marine: "It probably derives this name from its situation, as being neither on the starboard nor larboard side of the ship, nor on the waist or forecastle; but, being situated in the middle, partakes equally of all those places." James Galloway (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


How long did the no man's land last following the 1948 armistice.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It practically lasted until the Six-Day War when it was annexed by Israel (1967). The area was never internationally recognized as Israeli.
Pls see my objection to your deletion in, and reply here, if convenient. Etan J. Tal(talk) 21:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Of similar relevance is: Latrun "In the 1949 ceasefire agreement, the fort remained a salient under Jordanian control, which was in turn surrounded by a perimeter of no man's land". Etan J. Tal(talk) 21:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sections should normally contain more than a sentence or two of text. In such a situation the image crosses that section, the see also section and part of the references section. If you don't think you'll expand the text any further, you could place both it and the image in the Cold War section.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
No man's land between Israel and Jordan is of no relevance whatsoever to the Cold War, hence there is no need to artificially include it in this section. There are sure creative ways to solve the "crossing problem" beside deleting a very relevant photo. I did my best. Etan J. Tal(talk) 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

“Terra nemo”[edit]

“Terra nemo” is a barbarism, since the Classical Latin genitive of nemo is neminis (often replaced by nullius: see Wiktionary). Neminis terra or Terra nullius would be more correct. — Tonymec (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Entirely agree. I'm not sure when that chance happended but the inserstion of terra nemo in the lead was not appropriate. If anything were to be inserted it should be Terra nullius.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)