Talk:PFM-1 mine

Use in Chechnya

I removed the comment about the mine not being used because Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance 2005-2006 (p.269) states that

Status 
Found in Afganistan, Chechnya

Does anyone have a source that contradicts this ? Megapixie 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Having discussed - I will remove the comment about having not being used in Chechnya. Cheers. Megapixie 03:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War?

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)

... 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)

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.

Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

DISPUTED

Disputed template added to the section on July 31,2022 in order to maintain full transparency. And separated the disputed from other military use. Keep Ukraine / Russian edit to the section. If wished a current affair template could also be added. Hash it out below, other talk regarding PFM-1 edits above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:B184:F900:B05E:69E2:BA21:E08E (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What is disputed exactly? That Ukraine and Russia accuse each other? Or the content of the accusations? Please clarify. -- Sloyment (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Use in Ukraine

There's reports of Russia using these in Ukraine. 2601:14C:8380:DD90:A1AF:AC71:827:B425 (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

DW has said

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.

GarrulousEchidna (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an active edit war in this section, with Russian propagandists falsely claiming Ukrainian responsibility. Fulvio (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit war is being completely won by US/UK/Ukraininan propagandists because... well you know the reasons. I've seen a big number of cases of these petals scatered around Donetsk hurting people. E.g this one: https://t.me/liza_fund/916. This is not a propagandist or military channel. It is a volunteering organization helping children / other people. All those sources still are claimed to be false (guess by whom) Spuneo (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A telegram message from a generally unknown organization is not sufficient evidence for any claim being made by Spuneo. Aldagautr (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There's plenty of video evidence that surfaced since the very first day of the invasion of soldiers and civilians alike tossing objects and slaping the mines with sticks to clear them. Not sure where the DW is getting its informations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.11.66.68 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Just apply the NPOV approach. Wikipedia should not take sides. -- 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. -- Sloyment (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed the allegations of use during the ongoing conflict by both Russia and Ukraine. I see both parts of the content as poorly sourced and undue. I'd feel differently if the allegations were widely covered by media independent of the conflict. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s a fact that they accuse each other. Russian television even showed pictures of these mines being cleared up (but that could be a fake). -- Sloyment (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the potential for furthering disinformation is high here. Could we remove the content pending consensus for inclusion? Per WP:ONUS, the goal here is for proponents of adding the content to build consensus before it's put into the article. The sources you added, one Russian state media outlet and one Russian tabloid paper, are not the independent media sources that would prove this content is due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You will hardly find any unbiased outlets about the ongoing conflict. That’s what the NPOV approach is made for. Just explain both sides, don’t take sides. -- Sloyment (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument. Are you willing to remove the content and wait to see if it persuades a consensus of other editors? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree it's difficult to verify, here's a twitter link https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1553644971433000960 DW factcheck out-of-date, these are sand-coloured version.Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, as I understand WP:ONUS, articles can be overloaded by too much details, in which case the details should go into an extra article. This doesn’t apply here as it is only a short paragraph. So, no, I don’t think it should be removed. -- Sloyment (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with whatever sloyment says this wiki page is being openly brigaded by politically bias users and it’s already a fact that they have been used in the Ukraine war, this isn’t a real dispute Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing Ukraine use of it's 3mln stock of this mines and only saying it is used by Russia is exactly how US-led western community "unnoticed" Dragon Tooth use in Vietnam, but noticed when it's Soviet copies were used in Afghan.

From Dragon Tooth artice: "The use of Dragontooth mines in Vietnam went largely unnoticed,^{[by whom?]} likely as a product of its essentially classified usage primarily in Laos as part of Operation Igloo White. Production of the system had ceased by 1970, and it was predicted that existing stocks would be exhausted by the end of 1971." 176.116.142.233 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Specifically Reddit, I can even link a comment of a user openly saying what he edited in because he didn’t like its claims of Ukraine using the bombs Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Also I don’t think it’s use in the 2022 Ukraine war should get its own tab it should just be put under military use Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Right now, the Donetsk agglomeration is being mined by these mines, but no one will find a mention of this in Wikipedia, because this act of terror is carried out by Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.22.152 (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

Following the argument that TASS is a biased source (I agree), we must admit that so is the Ukrainskaya Pravda, Forbes, Euromaidan Press and others, and thus, we should perform a moreso independent investigation.

Ukrainskaya Pravda sites the words of the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Irina Venediktova. She has stated the following: "A message from Kharkiv!!! Right now!!! Attention — 'Petal'! Cassette bombs with 'Lepestok' mines are being dropped...". She is referencing the 9M27K3 rockets here.

The Forbes article is a case of editorial bias. They reference the Ukrainskaya Pravda article when talking about the mining of the exits from Mariupol, while the Ukrainskaya Pravda talked about the mines being laid in Kharkiv. The author sited the BBC interview with Director Dominik Stillhart, who, however, has stated that while the approaches were mined, never mentioned the type of mine used, and thus, we cannot conclude the usage of PFM-1.

Nevertheless, ever since the statement from the Prosecutor General, there has been no photographic evidence of the PFM-1 mines being present/used in the area of Kharkiv (City).

Russian claims of the usage of the PFM-1 mines in Lysychansk [1] and Donetsk [2] were backed by videographic and photographic evidence, albeit requiring geolocation and further verification. Furthermore, the Russian side claims that the mines are present in the Kharkivsky Rayon as well, but in Russian-controlled areas of Nova Kazacha [3]. Another video apparently showcases the usage of 9M27K3 against the Russian-controlled village of Novovoskresenke in Kherson [4], which is also backed by Suspilne Media (Ukrainian), but with an opposite rhetoric, blaming the Russian side [5]. Theories are being publicly entertained that the Russian forces are mining the cities themselves, even those that are under their control. Images of 9M27K3 casettes being torn is a clear indicator of the usage of MLRS "Smerch" for their deployment [6] [7].

We cannot rule out that Russia has not been using it's Army Aviation (helicopters) for the deployment of these mines, as the Mi-8 has the capability of doing that, and that has been showcased specifically by Russia [8]. The regional administration of the Sumy region has issued a warning on March 17 [Needs citation], saying that Russian aircraft allegedly casette bombs carrying PFM-1 mines. Sabotage groups of the LPR militias have also reportedly been caught with the PFM-1 and MON-50 [9], of Soviet & Russian origin (acc. to Ukrainian sources) [10][11]

There is no information present on the net (or I couldn't find it) that Ukraine has destroyed its stockpile of 5.95 million PFM-1 mines. In 1999, it only destroyed 101,088 PFM-1 mines in its stockpile, with a contract for the destruction of the rest being present in 2013, but I could not find any confirmation whether it was carried out. (would be appreciated if someone could).

Evidence is pointing towards the usage of the mines by the Ukrainian side as well, so only blaming the Russian side is disingenious. It is even moreso crazy to claim that Russia mined its own approaches of advance and cities/villages under its own control in the hopes of a false flag/cripple the enemy, rather than going with a more plausible theory. The effect of the false flag on the residents of Donetsk is also questionable, as they do not need further motivation against the Ukrainian side, and both the self-proclaimed republics of DPR and LPR have already been in an armed conflict with Ukraine for 8 years. Mk0uQ (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Another theory to entertain would be that because the photographic and videographic evidence so far has showcased singular cases of PFM-1 mines, they could be pre-placed. However, assuming this would put us in the grey area of sampling bias. Every 9M27K3 charge has 312 mines, but I do not know the spread of those mines, which is what could result in sampling bias. Mk0uQ (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You write: “we should perform a moreso independent investigation” – Sorry, but that is not the scope of Wikipedia (see WP:OR). -- Sloyment (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

By that I meant not very literally going to Ukraine there and checking, but instead getting more resources to judge the usage of the mines, and which side uses them, and eliminate the more unreliable ones present in the article, or warn about the unreliability. I am not sure what Wikipedia is pursuing with its articles, but shouldn't this be the case? Mk0uQ (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You're in the clear. Talk page discussion is an exception to WP:OR, and discussing which sources are best to use (or not use) is entirely appropriate for this venue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the main issue with documenting it's use in the 2022 invasion is the lack of evidence from traditionally reliable sources. Forbes and Ukrayinska Pravda both claim usage in Kharkiv and Mariupol, although there is little photographic evidence. There is a lot of evidence of the usage in Donetsk, the key issue is the only sources reporting it are state-owned propaganda or unreliable for Wiki purposes (Twitter, Telegram, etc).

The Forbes article linked here 1 states that both Russia, Ukraine, and the Red Cross confirm PFM-1 mines were used in Mariupol, although both sides claim the other was the perpetrator. They also share footage from the Ukrainian MoD showing alleged Russian usage in Popasna. Regarding the usage of mines in Donetsk, there is quite a lot of videographic and photographic usage of PFM-1 mines in Donetsk (Link doesn't work, but it linked to the results on Twitter search "PFM-1 mine donetsk), but the key issue is that known propaganda sources like TASS, RT, and other sources unreliable for Wiki are the ONLY sources reporting this, and the perpetrator is also unknown. Regarding Kharkiv, the original statement I can find is a Facebook post by Ukrainian General Prosecutor Irina Venediktova, with no photographic or videographic evidence, which was cited by UkPravda and Euromaidan Press.

I think the best bet would be to include all four areas of usage in the Wiki article - Mariupol, Kharkiv, Popasna, and Donetsk - although with words like "allegedly", "claimed", and "reportedly". This is a tough situation as far as Wiki sourcing and neutrality goes. Jebiguess (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree - lack of traditional sources is the problem, but it will be very difficult to find an unbiased published source, so until any official investigations, the entire page should be riddled with the intermediary words such as "allegedly".

Although I really, really despise the Forbes article, and would rather the page reference something else. I couldn't find any evidence on the BusinessInsider article that they referenced talking about the PFM-1 mines, and the referenced Twitter thread didn't provide any evidence of them actually being used in Mariupol either, as it is mostly anecdotal, and not really too knowledgable either... In fact, the Forbes article even said that "Although Red Cross workers did originally report mines on the evacuation route, these were not witnessed directly. In a clarification statement, they noted that continued fighting and the lack of a ceasefire prevented the evacuation going ahead.", meaning that the ICRC workers didn't even have visual confirmation (during the evacuation events, which the Forbes article is referencing), so the Forbes article is super, super weak in its evidence game. And then the author updated it, added a clickbait title "(Video evidence!)" and provided video evidence of their usage in Popasna, and somehow extrapolated THAT evidence onto their usage in Mariupol by Russia.

I am not dismissing their usage, because the quouted Bulgarian news report did say that they were used, as it confirms that Russian MoD said that they are there. Combine that with the Ukrainian allegations, and that means they were 100% used. This means that it cannot be attributed to either side, as both the Russian MoD and the Ukrainian AF are not a reliable source, but some other source proving their usage should be used, rather than the Forbes article (I really despise how badly it was written). If there is an ICRC article implicitly stating that they were used - I'd rather the page reference that. Mk0uQ (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with sloyment on whatever he says this wiki page is being brigaded by users who openly say they want (and did) remove the claims of Ukrainians using the bomb because they don’t like Russia Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Аs a result of the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_378#RfC_on_TASS TASS is generally unreliable for factual reporting. --Yakudza (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Anything like this thread on the n-tv news agency? Apparently someone added this article, which was erased and is not TASS.

  Also, while TASS is unreliable according to the thread, I would like to highlight the word generally. The article uses an article from pravda.com.ua, which is a Ukrainian source, so I don't see why it stays. The article was not presenting statements from TASS as a fact, but rather as an accusation, and was quoting the statements from pro-Kremlin politicians, which is a caveat included in the thread you linked. The TASS report clearly quoted the territorial defense headquarters of the DPR. Mk0uQ (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yeh, I fixed it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

To add

To add: redirect from Petal mine to this article. 204.11.186.190 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Too technical. Lacks balance.

I found this article as a result of a BBC news story. (Ukraine war: The deadly landmines killing hundreds, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65204053. I am glad to have such an article; that is the purpose of Wikipedia. I suggest a few improvements. It reads too much like a training manual and the first reference bears this out by referring to a British drill/training example. I think it needs to be more of an encyclopedic article accessible to everyone. It contains abbreviations and some jargon. Is “self-liquidation” the same as “self-destruct” which would be better understood by most people? The external link is a bare URL without even the benefit of a title. Finally, given the invasion of Ukraine, there ought to be as much said about the non-signatories to the treaty, notably Russia, as the delayed compliance of Ukraine. I hope my impression is helpful. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Source for "Self-liquidation timeframe: 1-40 hours"

The self destruct timeframe of 1-40 hours is not given in citation [10] nor does it give an "Activation pressure" it does however give a required displacement for activation. Is there a better source for the timeframe? cat-uxo.com only states "[PFM-1s will] self-destruct after a period of time". Should that part be edited? 2604:3D08:5A7A:48F0:7AD9:434B:7EAB:5F13 (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a explosive liquification timeframe, which I believe references the 40g of explosive liquid contained within the mine. I still cannot find a source for it however 141.193.175.203 (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I found a couple of sources, one from 2008 from a since dead Russian page with the information, including the only mention I can find of the ambient temperature. Also added source from bullet-picket. See Here KarmaKangaroo (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Forbes misquotes the source

Forbes quotes the Twitter user "666_mancer" which writes "Popasna, the Russians are filling residential areas of the city with land mines". The point is that that channel uses the video of the Lugansk People's Republic in which they denounce that on their territories the Ukrainian army has released those PFM-1 mines. They really turned the meaning of the video upside down. I am removing the source for now.[12] Mhorg (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Compliance with the Ottawa Convention

Why does this section exist when it only mentions Belarus briefly and Ukraine at length? It should have a report, perhaps a table, indicating the compliance of all the signatories to the treaty, as well as noting those countries, including all the permanent members of the Security Council which have not signed the treaty. Furthermore, the treaty deals with all anti-personnel mines so the details of compliance belong in that article, not this one.

If there isn’t information about other countries by the end of July, I am going to delete this paragraph. If you know the history of this article and agree with me, go ahead and delete the section. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources used in the section include the numbers of PFM-1s still in the Ukrainian arsenal. Why should we delete it? Mhorg (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Toy

"...that they were deliberately designed to look like a toy." Is that really plausible? Benjamin (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. WP doesn't make decisions on such things. The point is that reliable WP:SECONDARY sources have stated this (which they have), and WP then reports that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course. Anyway, what's the evidence? Benjamin (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Looked at the sources. One is an opinion piece that talks about booby trapped toys, but doesn't mention the mine specifically. The other is a book I don't have access to. Benjamin (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not generally a fan of removing content outright, but we shouldn't give it such credence. Benjamin (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)