Jump to content

Talk:Anthropogenic hazard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.204.135.61 (talk) at 01:16, 30 May 2011 (→adding prohibition of drugs to the list?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconDisaster management NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
NAThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Sexist Language

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

Gender-neutral language is not a prejudice. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. You have a lot of work to do, eliminating words from the language. Bye. Tedickey (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:Article Titles

Here is the common names section of the article:

Common names

Policy shortcuts: WP:UCN WP:NCCN WP:COMMONNAME

Not to be confused with Vernacular name.

Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.

Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.

The following are examples of common names that Wikipedia uses as article titles instead of a more elaborate, formal, or scientific alternative,

In determining which of several alternative names is more common, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, and a search engine may help to collect this data. When using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice in the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test.

When there is no single obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the other criteria identified above.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change.

The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate tidal wave.

Veriss (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename this article to the common name

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)[reply]


Anthropogenic hazard → Man-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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Fighting sexism by negatively stereotyping men seems a little counter productive. —what a crazy random happenstance 01:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthropogenic_hazard&oldid=431576224"