Talk:Disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Disaster has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management. |
[edit] Addition of disaster categories
Two points here Sneaky, first we need a reference for your work and second, the new material is too long for the introduction. While you've provided references for each disaster category, your work looks to be original thought without references and therefore not allowed in wikipedia. The new material needs to be tightened up a lot. Way too long.... Also a new thought, an asteriod strike in the Amazon would be a catastrophe even though few people would be killed directly. Revmachine21 13:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok Rev, I've started work to improve the referencing. There is more to do, and I will see what can be done to condense it. I've also added a subheading so the introduction is back to its original length. Anyway, I can assure you its not out of my own head. This is well-known stuff to disaster researchers. On your final point... an asteroid strike would have an effect well beyond the Amazon, as any dinosaur would tell you. But if you think a volcanic eruption in, say, the Aleutian Islands which affects noone is a disaster I'd be interested in why. It would actually be just a natural process... User:Sneakysnaga 21:21, 25 August 2005
- Just moved apartments and was out of action over the weekend. I still might consider an eruption in such an area a disruption of the area had a value measurable in human terms. Amazon = biodiversity & CO2 sink, Aleutian Islands = do they have a perceived value? I can think of loss of habitat to geographically specific species.
[edit] Some disasters missing?
Nice article, though I was disappointed to find some of the man-made disaster categories had not yet been written. I have three further comments.
Firstly, I was wondering if there are some types of man-made disasters missing? I am thinking mostly of transport accidents. Can major airplane crashes or train crashes or sinking of ships (eg. Titanic) be considered disasters? Also, crowd stampedes and crushes ranging from football stadia disasters to religious pilgrammage crowd disasters?
Secondly, a more general point about when a disaster becomes a catastrophe? Some of the larger disasters (such as a supervolcano erupting or an asteroid impact) would seem to me to be more like catastrophes, especially near the point of eruption/impact. Further away from the area of the catastrophe, you would have disaster zones. But my main point here is that no-one has done for the Catastrophe page what you have done for the Disaster page. And some content from here might be best over there. Such as what I've mentioned below.
Thirdly, and this is more looking at global catastrophes, where would things like species extinction events, deforestation, environmental disasters, oil spills, global warming and so forth, fit in something like this? Overpopulation could be added to the list. And many things I have forgotten. I can also remember a book I read about possible ways in which life on Earth and in the Universe as a whole could end. What about a nearby star going supernova? The Sun reaching the end of its life? And finally, going for the kill so to speak, what about UNIVERSAL disasters/catastrophes? Things like the heat death of the universe and the half-life of the proton?
Hmm. I went from train crashes to the heat death of the universe! :-) Carcharoth 02:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Does this duplicate stuff elsewhere?
I've been looking around Wikipedia and found several areas that seem to be duplicating what is being done here. I found a Disasters category [1] as well as List of disasters and this article I am commenting on right now Disaster. These all seem to take a slightly different angle on disasters, but they also seem rather similar. Is there any way to build on what is being done in all three areas, rather than having three separate projects going on? In particular, should all the disasters listed in List of disasters be added to the Disaster category? [2] Also, the subsections of the Disaster page seems to be duplicating the subcategories at the Disaster category [3]. To top it all off, there is a wikibook as well [4]. I would like to spend some time helping to tidy this up, but I'm not sure quite what to do and where to start! Can anyone advise? Carcharoth 22:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think that the article would be much better if it let the listing to the separate articles for natural/technological/sociological hazards/disasters (i.e. six articles). This article could then concentrate on the definitions of hazard/disaster and their classification. Any comments? rxnd ( t | € | c ) 11:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] reworking of intro to man-made disasters
Well, it's more of a removal of extraneous text than a reworking, but:
- I've replaced "caused by an act of god" with "caused by a natural phenomenon." The second statement is neutral, and does not reflect any religious beliefs.
- I've removed the following text: "The power grid and telecommunication infrastructure could be made more resilient against outages however, probably due to cost and feasibilit constraints, the systems were intentionally left vulnerable to outage."
It sounds like someone having a rant about their most recent power outage, and doesn't belong in the article. See my other edits in the history: I've just been doing some copyediting over each section to make the text easier to read. I may right here later if I need to make any more major changes. Graham 09:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Disaster Management Wikiproject?
There is an awful lot of duplication and confusion in the disaster management field on Wikipedia. The categories are confusing and non-intuitive. There are several really good articles like this one, but there is need for overview and coherence. I think that we should start a Disaster Management Wikiproject to better coordinate terminology and content. --Drdan 19:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Restructuring
This article is too big and it duplicates much of other pages. It should be a starting article for natural hazards, man-made hazards (which does not yet exist), and emergency management/BCP. Those should be the three headings. There is also a confusion in the use of the terms disaster and hazard. Disasters (e.g. the 1906 San Francisco earthquake) are the result of hazards (e.g. earthquakes). The referencing is chaotic and needs reworking as well. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 17:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Big job though... Carcharoth 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rogue Waves, Disasters or Not?
I propose an addition to the natural disasters category. Rogue Waves are notable for their damage potential and mythical attributes. They were long thought to be once in a millenia occurrences, but they are indeed a real threat to shipping and maritime ventures. In fact, several are notable for causing ships to be damaged or destroyed (MS München and Norwegian Dawn). The great kawa 20:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hypernovas should be removed
First, the article on Hypernovas says that they are part of an older theory, and current astronomy no longer believes they are the cause of gamma ray bursts. Further, gamma rays would not pass through the earth - even the atmosphere reduces the strength of gamma rays considerably - so only one side of the Earth would get fried. For example, the gamma ray article says: "Gamma-ray astronomy did not develop until it was possible to get our detectors above all or most of the atmosphere, using balloons or spacecraft." This is not consistent with a global extinction event, as this entry suggests.
[edit] List of doomsday scenarios
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Should there be a section on fictional disasters?
I don't nessicerily mean a list but would it be worth adding a section which talks about the portrayal of disasters in movies and such? - Bisected8 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's an interesting idea, but I don't believe it a wise idea. I can see the benefit of using Deep Impact as a reference for an ELE, for example. But I think trying to discuss portrayal of disaster in fiction is a subject for the appropriate media group. As for even listing disaster movies... most action movies and many movies as a whole focus on disaster, whether it be on a personal or galactic scale (war is considered disaster), and there is enough debate on the classification of currently identified actual disasters... I think it would be a can of worms. Parradoxx 21:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More disaster types needed
I have added bridge collapses and given an example of a dam disasterPeterrhyslewis 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Just Curious
But where would PR disasters fall under? Zidel333 06:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleaning it all up
I am going to make what might be seen as a drastic edit. Currently this article is partly a duplicate of Natural hazard. The terms disaster (the result of a hazard's impact) and hazard (the cause of the disaster) are constantly mixed up. My solution is to cut down this article down to two small sections describing (1) natural hazards and (2) human-made hazards. Disasters are adequately dealt with on the List of disasters. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 12:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
