This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Flame fougasse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Flame fougasse has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 7, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a
flame fougasse (pictured) can shoot a jet of flame 10 feet (3.0 m) wide and 30 yards (27 m) long? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Is it totally expedient to actually explain with diagrams how to make this terrible but simple weapon. Until 5 minutes ago I had no idea that with gasoline, pine oil and a few other ingredients I could create my own version of napalm! On perusing other pages such on IEDs or car bombs I see that the "how to" has not been included, albeit that would obviously add to the understanding of the subject (e.g. how they are wired up, where there detonator's are, the sequence of arming etc). However this page clearly gives instructions with images on how to build a Flame fougasse. This would not be such an issue except its components are easily available (as it was developed as weapon to be used if the UK was invaded by the Nazis in 1940). Considering the world's political climate and being an open website, is this article not presenting ideas to terrorists or how to set up and apply this technology? By placing a picture of the flame it creates on the main page could not be a better advert. What moral responsibility do the authors of this "how to build a flame bomb article" take if there are now a spate of attacks using such a device? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.111.80 ( talk) 09:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have never read before on Wikipedia such a obvious piece on how to create a dangerous weapon. Then when I go to complain on the talk page, what do I see but someone has already been here before me. Worse still the creator of the article, takes the overtly patronising tone to these concerns by saying:
I wonder whether those above will be taking such a high-minded view when the next Anders Behring Breivik comes along and uses these instructions to produce a very simple but very deadly device. (Particularly as one suggests that it's use would be worthless as it's "limited effect weapon", I am sure they might be reluctant in the future to comfort any victims affected by third or fourth degrees burns to their bodies) How hard could it be to build such a weapon? There are clearly drawn diagrams and even instructions on the correct amounts of chemicals to use to make it effective!!! Does WP:NOTMANUAL not mean anything any more? Or what about this discussion on the manufacture of Nitroglycerin? Seems if this website has guidelines then they should be adhered to? Or does the arrogance of one editor carry more weight than the common sense of an IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.43.224 ( talk) 20:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I have read oral histories of the Korean War stating that when US troops improvised fougasse type devices for defensive fortifications, they often used the term "Martin flare" to describe the device. Has anyone else heard this terminology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 ( talk) 12:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 18:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Overall, I regard this as a good article (which is not the same as a Wikipedia:Good article); however, it needs a little more work before I can award GA-status. I've lightly cleaned up the article by adding some dual units were only Imperial units were used, as I worked my way through it so I'm not listing these as "problems" to be fixed.
The article is generally well referenced, well-illustrated, and is reasonable comprehensive in scope.
At this point I'm putting the review On Hold.
I'm willing the discuss, on this review page, if necessary, the use of WP:Primary sources, but not a substitutes for information that is readily available elsewhere.
Pyrotec ( talk) 21:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I am still concerned over the use of Original Records and the arguement "that there is no alternative": some citations I'll probably have to accept, but some are plainly not acceptable in their current form, i.e.:
Pyrotec ( talk) 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
An interesting article on a topic that appears not to be at that well known.
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The opening paragraph claims that:
later at 2,000 sites in Scotland.[5] Although never used in Britain
Since Britain could be either an abbreviation of great britain (island, containing most of Scotland), or the UK (including all of Scotland) this claim seems unlikely and either untrue or in need of further clarification ("Britain" -> "Mainland Britain" to differentiate Scottish islands). I have no access to the source to check the claims, which share a citation.
69.196.167.192 ( talk) 05:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flame fougasse. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Flame fougasse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Flame fougasse has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 7, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a
flame fougasse (pictured) can shoot a jet of flame 10 feet (3.0 m) wide and 30 yards (27 m) long? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Is it totally expedient to actually explain with diagrams how to make this terrible but simple weapon. Until 5 minutes ago I had no idea that with gasoline, pine oil and a few other ingredients I could create my own version of napalm! On perusing other pages such on IEDs or car bombs I see that the "how to" has not been included, albeit that would obviously add to the understanding of the subject (e.g. how they are wired up, where there detonator's are, the sequence of arming etc). However this page clearly gives instructions with images on how to build a Flame fougasse. This would not be such an issue except its components are easily available (as it was developed as weapon to be used if the UK was invaded by the Nazis in 1940). Considering the world's political climate and being an open website, is this article not presenting ideas to terrorists or how to set up and apply this technology? By placing a picture of the flame it creates on the main page could not be a better advert. What moral responsibility do the authors of this "how to build a flame bomb article" take if there are now a spate of attacks using such a device? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.111.80 ( talk) 09:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have never read before on Wikipedia such a obvious piece on how to create a dangerous weapon. Then when I go to complain on the talk page, what do I see but someone has already been here before me. Worse still the creator of the article, takes the overtly patronising tone to these concerns by saying:
I wonder whether those above will be taking such a high-minded view when the next Anders Behring Breivik comes along and uses these instructions to produce a very simple but very deadly device. (Particularly as one suggests that it's use would be worthless as it's "limited effect weapon", I am sure they might be reluctant in the future to comfort any victims affected by third or fourth degrees burns to their bodies) How hard could it be to build such a weapon? There are clearly drawn diagrams and even instructions on the correct amounts of chemicals to use to make it effective!!! Does WP:NOTMANUAL not mean anything any more? Or what about this discussion on the manufacture of Nitroglycerin? Seems if this website has guidelines then they should be adhered to? Or does the arrogance of one editor carry more weight than the common sense of an IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.43.224 ( talk) 20:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I have read oral histories of the Korean War stating that when US troops improvised fougasse type devices for defensive fortifications, they often used the term "Martin flare" to describe the device. Has anyone else heard this terminology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 ( talk) 12:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 18:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Overall, I regard this as a good article (which is not the same as a Wikipedia:Good article); however, it needs a little more work before I can award GA-status. I've lightly cleaned up the article by adding some dual units were only Imperial units were used, as I worked my way through it so I'm not listing these as "problems" to be fixed.
The article is generally well referenced, well-illustrated, and is reasonable comprehensive in scope.
At this point I'm putting the review On Hold.
I'm willing the discuss, on this review page, if necessary, the use of WP:Primary sources, but not a substitutes for information that is readily available elsewhere.
Pyrotec ( talk) 21:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I am still concerned over the use of Original Records and the arguement "that there is no alternative": some citations I'll probably have to accept, but some are plainly not acceptable in their current form, i.e.:
Pyrotec ( talk) 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
An interesting article on a topic that appears not to be at that well known.
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The opening paragraph claims that:
later at 2,000 sites in Scotland.[5] Although never used in Britain
Since Britain could be either an abbreviation of great britain (island, containing most of Scotland), or the UK (including all of Scotland) this claim seems unlikely and either untrue or in need of further clarification ("Britain" -> "Mainland Britain" to differentiate Scottish islands). I have no access to the source to check the claims, which share a citation.
69.196.167.192 ( talk) 05:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flame fougasse. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)