Talk:Natural disaster

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Natural disaster article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Natural disaster was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 13, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

Disaster management Top‑importance

	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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Section sizes

Section size for Natural disaster (47 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	8,121	8,121
Terminology	3,262	5,645
Critique	2,383	2,383
Scale	231	4,625
By region and country	3,573	3,573
Slow and rapid onset events	821	821
Impacts	198	16,678
On death rates	1,150	1,150
On the economy	2,980	2,980
On the environment	3,401	3,401
On women and vulnerable populations	5,943	5,943
On governments and voting processes	3,006	3,006
Disasters caused by geological hazards	45	6,761
Landslides	190	190
Avalanches	190	190
Earthquakes	1,169	1,169
Sinkholes	347	347
Coastal erosion	905	905
Volcanic eruptions	2,873	2,873
Tsunami	1,042	1,042
Disasters caused by extreme weather hazards	1,104	14,866
Hot and dry conditions	32	4,761
Heat waves	626	626
Droughts	1,004	1,004
Duststorms	65	65
Firestorms	65	65
Wildfires	2,969	2,969
Storms and heavy rain	31	7,056
Floods	1,842	1,842
Thunderstorms	1,052	1,052
Tropical cyclone	1,135	1,135
Tornadoes	2,996	2,996
Cold-weather events	62	1,945
Blizzards	1,203	1,203
Hailstorms	680	680
Multi-hazard analysis	3,936	3,936
Responses	425	948
Mitigation and prevention	108	179
Disaster risk reduction	71	71
Response	66	66
Recovery	190	190
Preparedness	88	88
Society and culture	27	1,018
International law	991	991
See also	343	343
References	28	28
External links	985	985
Total	63,954	63,954

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 0

Moving away from the term "natural disaster"

I would like to come back to the naming issue that has been raised here on the talk page time and time again, and has also been discussed on the talk page of natural hazard. We really ought to move away from the term "natural disaster" altogether. I'll copy here something that had been added to this talk page on 26 August 2020 by User:NoNaturalDisasters, and which describes the issue quite well:

++++++++

"Several academics, practitioners, policymakers and community groups have used the #NoNaturalDisasters Twitter account, hashtag and consolidated online campaign (launched in June 2018) to inform and educate people and/ or organisations within the disaster risk sector that using ‘natural’ to describe disasters was incorrect. Since its launch, the campaign has grown to include a dedicated website, thousands of followers on multiple platforms and citations in mainstream media articles.

The advocates of this campaign use social media platforms to share the position: If we recognise and accept the standard definition of disaster as a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability and capacity, then we must consider human involvement at the core of that process.

A hazard will only become a disaster should it impact the workings of a society or community. As such, a disaster can only happen where a society or community exists. When a hazard reaches an area of human habitation, policies including decisions around the built environment and social welfare can increase the impacts of that hazard. What’s worse, using ‘natural’ to describe disasters misleads people to think the devastating results are inevitable, out of our control, and are simply part of a natural process. Hazards (earthquakes, hurricanes, pandemics, drought etc) are inevitable but the impact they have on society is not. This campaign aims to halt decades of using incorrect terminology and to highlight the implications of using such terminology."

++++++++

I've also been talking with Kevin Blanchard about it and he said: "Instead of "natural disaster", we recommend simply "disaster". We (the campaign) argues that the context of the piece should clarify whether the author is referring to a natural hazard or a technological/ anthropomorphic hazard linked disaster. Our view is that there is no need for a clarification before and we try to state that it simplifies the discussion." And "My slight issue with a title like “Disasters caused by natural hazards” is that the hazard didn't really cause the disaster. It was society's failure to adequately respond to the risk.".

So I would like to propose this as the way forward:

Option 1: The articles "natural disaster" and "disaster" are merged together and the new title is "disaster".
Option 2: The content of natural disaster is merged into natural hazard, and a redirect is placed accordingly.
Option 3: The three pages remain but the articles are reworked to explain why "natural disaster" is a misnomer and the articles itself are edited to actively avoid using that term.

This page shows the pageviews on Wikipedia for the three articles: natural disaster, disaster and natural hazard. The article on natural disasters has very high pageviews – about 3000 views per day which is high compared to other climate change articles.

I notice that the glossary of the IPCC AR 6 report does not include the term “natural disaster”, only “disaster” so that is interesting. However, the WG 2 report does use the term “natural disasters” quite often (I searched for that term and found 134 hits; many of them come from the reference lists though). EMsmile (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I asked Kevin Blanchard for reliable sources and he sent me these:

There is a considerable (and growing) body of work on the topic... some selected publications here:

Peer reviewed:

Ball, N., 1975. The myth of natural disasters. The Ecologist, Vol.5, Issue 10: 368-369.
O'Keefe, P., 1976. Taking the" Naturalness" out of" Natural Disaster". Nature (London), 260, pp.566-567.
Cannon, T., 1994. Vulnerability analysis and explanation of ‘natural’ disasters. Chapter 1. In: Disaster: Development and Environment. Varley, A. (ed.). London, UK. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Gaillard, J.C., C.C. Liamzon and J.D. Villanueva. 2007. ‘Natural’ disaster? A retrospect into the causes of the late-2004 typhoon disaster in Eastern Luzon, Philippines. Environmental Hazards, Vol. 7, Issue 4: 257-270.
Gizzi F.T. (2023). “Natural Disaster(s)”: Going Back to the Roots of Misleading Terminology. Insights from Culturomics GSA Today, Geological Society of America, 33 (3-4), 26-27 https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG532GW.1
Aragon-Durand, F.J.. 2009. Unpacking the social construction of ́natural ́ disaster through policy discourses and institutional responses in Mexico: The case of Chalco Valley’s floods, state of Mexico. PhD Thesis, Development Planning Unit, The Bartlett, University College London. Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/18983/1/18983.pdf
Gould, K.A., M.M. Garcia and J.A.C. Remes. 2016. Beyond "natural-disasters-are-not-natural": the work of state and nature after the 2010 earthquake in Chile. Journal of Political Ecology, Vol. 23: 93-114.
Kelman, I., 2020. Disaster by choice: How our actions turn natural hazards into catastrophes. Oxford University Press.

Question about climate change sentence

I've added this sentence today with a ref to the IPCC AR 6 WG 2 report (it follows a sentence that talks about natural hazards): Some of these now have a higher probability of occurring, and a higher intensity due to the effects of climate change, for example heat waves, droughts, wildfire and coastal flooding.^[1]. I didn't give a page number as I don't have a specific sentence in mind but I think my sentence is backed up by that publication in general. Do folks agree? Have I worded it correctly? Pinging User:FeydHuxtable for advice. EMsmile (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–33, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.001.

EMsmile (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor wording tweak, but looks a good & useful addition to me. (Not that my opinion should count for much, as someone who had not prevoiusly worked on the page.) You could specify p9 of the exec summary if you wanted, though I also agree it's fine to laeave the page out in this instance. You might want to consider moving the addition to the "Scale" section, as it perhaps fits in better there than in "Definition". PS - Just so you dont think I'm ignoring if you send any further pings, I'm not likely to be about much for the next few weeks, just randomly saw this one while looking up Beatrice. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've implemented both of your suggestions. Looking forward to seeing more of you on Wikipedia again when you have more time. :-) EMsmile (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is correct. One hazard that seems to be not universally increasing in frequency is hurricanes and tropical storms Richarit (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger completed

The merger of the content of the former "natural hazard" article has now been completed. A redirect has been placed. Now we probably need a bit more work to explain to people how the two terms are connected and to weed out any repetition. If we created a section called "natural hazard" then we could place the redirect directly to that section but I think this is probably not needed. We can explain it directly in the lead and in the terminology section. EMsmile (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree we should put some explanation at the top of the article on the two terms. Natural hazard might be best understood by giving examples such as the ones that are already listed. For the definition of natural disaster we could have: A natural disaster is the harmful (or serious harmful?) impact on a society or community following a natural hazard event. citing FEMA. This is simple enough and sidesteps the issue of root causes Richarit (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. I have changed the first para of the lead and of the terminology section accordingly (please feel free to improve on my edits further). For the lead, I shortened the list of natural hazards to those that are perhaps most universally applicable (a lot of the ones regarding winter weather don't really apply to the Global South), so the shorter list for the lead is now: flooding, drought, earthquake, tropical cyclone, lightning, tsunami, volcanic activity, wildfire. Also I am wondering if we should consistently talk of "natural hazard events" rather than "natural hazards"? I see we sometimes use it like that but not always. EMsmile (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence under the heading "Impacts"

the word "other" is garbled with a probable typo.

because the page is edit disabled I thought I'd mention this so someone with the proper permissions could change it. Thanks. Borneo Holmes (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I've changed it. Hope you stick around and make some edits, then you'll become autoconfirmed and can edit protected pages as well. Welcome to Wikipedia! EMsmile (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dw2240 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diseases like infection pandemics pandemic are classified as natural disaster

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dawnseeker2000 00:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Text removed from the "on women" section

I've removed this textblock from the section "impacts on women" as I felt it was not WP:DUE for this high level overview article. Too much detail, too much newsy / trivia. EMsmile (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In response to Iranian Islamic cleric Kazem Seddiqi's accusation of women dressing immodestly and spreading promiscuity being the cause of earthquakes, American student Jennifer McCreight organized the Boobquake event on 26 April 2010: she encouraged women around the world to participate in dressing immodestly all at the same time while performing regular seismographic checks to prove that such behaviour in women causes no significant increase in earthquake activity.^[1]" EMsmile (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pat Pilcher (26 April 2010). "Islamic cleric causes Boobquake". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 15 February 2020. Retrieved 28 September 2019.

EMsmile (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limnic eruptions are Geologic hazards

Is there a reason limnic eruptions are not in the section on Geologic hazards? Elriana (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think we don't need this section at all, it's not WP:DUE. The FEMA source also doesn't mention it. Also it was entirely unsourced. So I've deleted it. I guess we could start a section that we call "Disasters caused by other natural hazards" where we have just a short bullet point list with those natural hazards that are beyond the FEMA list. But I wouldn't give them a whole section each, just a bullet point list with links to the respective other Wikipedia articles. EMsmile (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–33, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.001.

[2] Pat Pilcher (26 April 2010). "Islamic cleric causes Boobquake". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 15 February 2020. Retrieved 28 September 2019.

[1]

[1]