Talk:Natural disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management. |
 |
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration. |
| B | Natural disaster has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
Natural disaster was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}} |
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. |
"Very deadly, kills trillions of people every year" seems to be a mistyping.... -- Hendrick
I think it's a good idea to compile a list of natural disaster. --Lorenzarius
I am feeling generous today, so I am going to write a small description of each disaster, including an example (hopefully one that exists in Wikipedia) to illustrate better. I have a background in weather, and several books on disasters lying on my floor, could be a bit of work. RyanGerbil10 23:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removal
I removed the following text:
- Phase one. Favorable conditions. At this level a collection of natural events which are normally too diparate for the non-specialist to notice begins to form a system that can threaten property and life.
- Phase two. Anticipation and prediction. This is when all possible directions and developments are mentioned and explored. Preparedness of local governments and agencies are emphasized and catalogued. The instructional mode begins in media outlets.
- Phase three. Prediction and preparedness. Authority presents a clear picture of what is expected, also re-states the fact that these systems are unpredictable. Instructional mode is shifted into high gear and detailed lists are generated along with advice given by official organizations via news personalities. This phase is also marked by the relational contact phenomenon in which family and friends outside of the predicted zone make contact with those within the area to be affected. Concern is expressed.
- Phase four. Disruption of civilized activity, hoarding of resources. Commercial activity increases to a fever pitch. Much news is made about the scarcity of supplies, which in turn, increases commercial activity. Announcements are made regarding the interruption of normal government services. Most individuals are now staying at home or other places of refuge.
- Phase five. The event. The natural disaster occurs. (Note. this is "Phase one" for sudden disasters such as earthquakes and some volcanoes) This is generally marked by some loss of communication between individual groups. It is common for groups to periodically or continually use municipal resources like telephone, electricity and water to check for continued availability.
- Phase six. Aftermath. Quantification, explanation. One of the first ways the disaster is measured is in loss of life, soon followed by the financial tally. Insurance companies usually fold or limit liability. Stories are told and begin to circulate. Data is compiled and evaluated to help in the preparation for the next occurrence. Relational contact is highly active as facilities permit. Reconstruction begins.
It didn't seem to make a lot of sense, or flow with the article--it had non-encyclopedic writing. I'll rewrite a stub quickly, but this article needs expansion
[edit] Worst Natural Disasters
Is there a list of the world's worst natural disasters here ?
If not , there should be
I have created one, at Worst Natural Disasters
[edit] Merge
You shoul merge the landslide which is a major disaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.54.108.69 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) .
Severe weather should probably be merged here, then perhaps divide this article into sections like "Severe weather", "Geologic hazards", etc. —jiy (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Whatever is done with respect to the contents of these articles, there should continue to be two separate articles. The concepts are completely different - it is not even the case that all severe weather causes natural disasters. Peak 22:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- agree with Peak. Do not merge. If there had to be an umbrella title to merge content into, it should be Natural hazards.166.20.114.10 19:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- oops... sorry. Above comment is mine and needs clarification. I would agree with the proposal if everything were being merged with Natural hazards which redirects to Natural disaster. In other words, I disagree with the merge because of the primary title of this article. Its like the thee falling in the woods making a sound with noone around... if a tornado occurs on the Great Plains, and there is no trailer park in the way, is it a natural disaster? I would say not, but it is a natural hazard. :) Roodog2k (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I can agree that merging Severe weather into Natural disaster is inappropriate and am removing the merge notices. However, some issues need to be addressed: (1) As per Roodog2k's comments, Natural disaster should probably be renamed to Natural hazard (currently a redirect). This article only describes the hazards themselves, which may or may not result in a natural disaster. (2) Another article called Extreme weather exists, which lists historical natural disasters. This is the kind of information that would ideally belong in Natural disaster, so it should be moved here. (3) Severe weather is simply a list of links and is largely redundant with this article. I suggest converting it into a category instead. —jiy (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article assessment
Wikipedia:Article assessment has just started, and the topic under assessment is natural disasters. Please take a look. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- There are 28 articles submitted for assessment. If you want to help out come on over - you only have to assess one to help! violet/riga (t) 15:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Failed GA
I failed this article because it does not cite its sources. To be honest, this looks more like a portal than an article as such, but if we are going to treat it as an article, it doesn't meet the GA criteria. Fieari 17:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed the references formatting (I believe someone had added in the sources). I think myself that the "portal" type is appropriate for this topic, because I think it's hard to write a coherent article on such a diverse subject. Walkerma 08:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A type of natural disaster not yet listed in the article
What about the type of plague that isn't a disease epidemic, but a swarm of locusts, ants, mice, etc. The term plague is used to refer to these, but this overlaps heavily with "epidemic". Is there a name or category by which these swarming events are referred to which does not include disease-based plagues? --Go for it! 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bibliography and misued terminology
There are references in the text, but I cannot find the actual bibliography. The list of hazards isn't complete, it lacks seiches and deep lake gas releases [1]. More importantly, there is a definite confusion of terminology here. This is a list of natural hazards. Natural hazards can result natural disasters. E.g. s tsunami is a natural hazard, the boxing day tsunami was a natural disaster. --Drdan 09:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Demotion of Class
I have demoted the assesment of this article from Class = A (date June 22, 2006) to Class = B (status September 5, 2006). Some topics have been added, but are not (shortly) explained. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of doomsday scenarios
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] review question (up to A again?)
Waitak asked for my opinion on this article, and if it was up to A again. My conclusion would be .. not yet, but getting there (though I realise that it is in a similar state as when it acquired A-status the previous time; I have also asked Martin Walker to have a look at it as well).
When going through the article it occurs to me, that it could as well be called natural hazard, which is not the same. I am working in a chemical lab, and there the chance on a 'disaster' is defined as the product of 'the hazard of a project' and 'the chance of it happening' (the chance I cut myself on a piece of glass is big, but the hazard can be considered low (as long as cuts are not in arteries), the chance of me blowing up a reaction with sodium azide is small (I hardly use it, try to avoid it, and using my knowledge I apply extra safety measures, take more care and avoid dangerous situations), but the hazard is huge (explosions cause a lot of damage, even on laboratory scale)) .. to me that is not yet clear from the article. The intro sentence would not be correct, technically, both the hazard as the chance can be influenced by people, so there may be a third factor there, and a disaster taking place in a place where no people live is still a disaster for wildlife (but it may be that the definition is different). As an example: another ice-age would be a big hazard (I would give it a 8 or 9 on a scale of 1-10), but the chance of happening tomorrow is quite small (between 0-1) .. Hence, not really something to worry about. Also things to consider in the article may be the predictability of hazards &c. I think it would be good if the article would elaborate on this a bit more (though I already see it is going to be controversial). (copied from user talk:Waitak and slightly adapted) I hope this helps improving the article, but feel free to ignore me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adding news and information links
A good page and I am sure that there are good reasons for disabling it. However, I think that it might be useful to add a couple of emergency news and information links like: AlertNet ReliefWeb which give reports of breaking and ongoing natural disasters.Joel Mc 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What Is Your Story?
Natural Disasters
Have you ever been involved in a natural disaster? Type it in and share your story with many other people!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.204.18.17 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
