Talk:Anthropogenic hazard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disaster management  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

"Man-made" is sexist[edit]

Move to List of human-made hazards[edit]

Shouldn't this be human-made hazards? JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[Oppose]. Hm. That's not really the common nomenclature for it, as it's "man" being used in the sense of "the human race", not man as in a singular male (like in "mailman"). But I'm of mixed feelings on it. - Vianello (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[Oppose]. Wikipedia topics should reflect the most common usage, rather than the prejudices of its editors. Tedickey (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Gender-neutral language is not a prejudice. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine. You have a lot of work to do, eliminating words from the language. Bye. Tedickey (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, it is. And just from the standpoint of wikipedia, it would be a WP:POINTY and non-WP:NPOV way to ignore WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME. — LlywelynII 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
[Support]. Hiya - thanks for all the hard work on the article. I'd like to suggest moving it to Human-made hazard due to Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language: "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision". All the best, Fifth Fish Finger (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
[Oppose]. Let's not. That's not gender-neutral language, it's contrived, invented language, and sounds bizarre. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
[Oppose]. Per above. Besides, ignoring their POINTy, POVy ways and disregard for the standard English definition of man-made, surely such enlightened folk as 5thFish & JC realize men have induced most of these disasters. (Although I am quite curious what their list of "womyn"-induced disasters would consist of...) — LlywelynII 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Move back to List of man-made disasters[edit]

The latest edit, renaming to "Anthropogenic hazard" appears to be another example of editor's WP:OR TEDickey (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be technically correct bit it is certainly not the most common usage. I think the current title is really misguided. Veriss (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
[See: WP:Article Titles#Common names] Veriss (talk) made on 02:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC) [Removed long repaste of entire section. - LlywelynII]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Anthropogenic hazardMan-made disasters — Here are some examples of which organizations use the term "man-made", "man made" and "anthropogenic" disasters

  • United Nations: Search for man-made resulted in 1,200 articles including press releases, consensus papers, articles for the general public, etc. Anthropogenic resulted in 1,030 documents nearly all of a scientific nature. Not common usage. Much like the term 'water' compared to 'H2O'.
  • US FBI: man-made=10 and "man made"=11 documents vs anthropogenic=1
  • UK Parliament: man-made=653, "man made"=383,739 vs anthropogenic=1
  • Google (US): man-made=530,000,000, "man made"=13,600,000 vs anthropogenic=20,800,000
  • Yahoo! (US): man-made=1,480,000,000, "man made"=1,850,000,000 vs 362,000

(was curious about the Australian numbers so visited some more Australian sites)

  • Australian Department of Defense: 243/225/3
  • Australian Department of Justice: 0/0/0
  • Australian Parliament: 6,358/6,358/1,855
  • Google (AU) with: "man-made disaster"=329,000 and "man made disaster"=329,000 vs 307,000
  • Google (US) with: "man-made disaster"=1,090,000 and "man made disaster"=1,090,000 vs 2,170
  • Google (UK) with: "man-made disaster"=1,120,000 and "man made disaster"=1,110,000 vs 214,000
  • Google (CA) with: "man-made disaster"=14,000,000 and "man made disaster"=1,110,000 vs 2,160

I think it is safe to assume that "man-made disaster" is the most common word used by both by experts in the field and by the general public.

I would like to propose that we rename this article to "man-made disasters" with redirects from "man made disasters" and "anthropogenic disasters".

Regards, Veriss (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Having come on this article via 'recent changes' and having not immediately understood the title, I'm inclined to agree that it needs revising. As for whether renaming it 'man-made disasters' is sexist, I'd suggest that it may very well be the male of the species that is responsible for the majority of such cock-ups incidents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Fighting sexism by negatively stereotyping men seems a little counter productive. —what a crazy random happenstance 01:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

After three days without much discussion I asked an uninvolved admin for guidance. The discussion for rename to the common usage is now open for community-wide comment. Veriss (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Move to List of human-made disasters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


– Per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming, "While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity". I do not think substituting "human-made" for "man-made" compromises clarity, even though the latter is more commonly used. InverseHypercube 01:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

- Everyone knows that "man-made" means "made by human beings". Let's not take this politically correct thing too far. It's awkward, and no one else uses it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

adding prohibition of drugs to the list?[edit]

Milton Friedman estimated that there are 10,000 GUN deaths per year that are attributable to the prohibition of drugs in the United States alone.

I don't know of any solid statistic but the amount of deaths directly attributed to the prohibition of drugs, in criminal violence, drug money seeking, the spread of AIDS, increased overdose rates, reduced unbiased education, prison violence caused by and committed upon previously nonviolent detainees has got to be in the millions.

The number of dead must dwarf many other horrible genocides or disasters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.135.61 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Financial Disaster[edit]

You have forgotten financial disasters such as the 2009 event.74.15.95.152 (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Article needs more flooding[edit]

See 1642 Kaifeng flood and 1938 Yellow River flood for just two of the ways that "burst the dikes" needs to be on this list. Another example would be Dutch tactics during their war of independence against Habsburg Spain, but not sure on the death count there. — LlywelynII 00:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the flooding of New Orleans after Katrina. David Simon and Harry Shearer have done work on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.12.126 (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

The title of this article Anthropogenic hazard does not reflect its contents. The contents are all about disasters. Whilst hazards can lead to disasters, it is much more common that hazards lead to accidents and mostly small or minor accidents at that. I am concious that there seems to have been a discussion above in which it was agreed to move the article to Man-made Disasters. So why do we have this article remaining here under its current name. Anybody care to explain ?  Velella  Velella Talk   22:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It was moved from Man-made Disasters, for the usual reasons (none worth mentioning in polite company) TEDickey (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Ahh....... So misapplied political correctness triumphs over meaning and sense. (Sigh).  Velella  Velella Talk   08:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)