Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management/Structure

message: :#Threats, read here natural disaster or disaster.
:#Disaster managmenet
:#Emergency management
:#Emergency preparedness
:#Disaster recovery
:#Business continuity planning (noticed this was outside your stated scope however worth at least a mention as a 'See Also')Revmachine21 13:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1

message: :I almost agree.  I still see that structure lacking in intuitivity.  I would prefer:
::#Diaster management (i.e. policy/theory, as well as business continuity?)
::##Mitigation, 
::##Preparedness, 
::##Response, 
::##Recovery 
::#Emergency services
::##Emergency management (of emergency services?)
::##Civil defence
::##Police etc.
::#Hazards
::##Tropical cyclones
::##Dirty bombs
::##etc.
::#Disasters
::##Hurricane katrina
::##Bali bombing
::##etc.
::--Drdan 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2

message: ::The second framework is better, I think, but there are some modifications I would make to it.  I propose the following:
:::#Emergency/Diaster management (i.e. the four phases and their descriptions)
:::##Mitigation, 
:::###Risk Assessment
:::##Preparedness, 
:::##Response,
:::###Local Emergency Services (EMS, Fire, Police)
:::###State and Federal Response (State EM Agencies, Dept. of Homeland Security, FEMA)
:::##Recovery 
:::#Natural Disasters (What was identified above as "Hazards")
:::##Tropical cyclones
:::#Technilogical Disasters (Another division of the above "Hazards")
:::##Dirty bombs
:::#Past Disasters
:::##Hurricane katrina
:::##Bali bombing
:::##Jackie Marquardt  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.64.129 (talk) 20:38, August 27, 2007 (UTC) 
:::##etc.
::I put the above comments under a new heading to seperate discussion of the framework from other issues mentioned above.  Developing a framework is, I think, a discussion that merits its own heading.  Anyone disagree? -- backburner001 05:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 3

message: :::I am mulling over the difference between public (i.e. government) versus private (i.e. company) disaster management... please tweak to improve, me so tired I can't think straight:
:::#Emergency/Diaster management (I see this as a public function)
:::##Mitigation, 
:::###Risk Assessment
:::##Preparedness, 
:::##Response,
:::###Local (i.e. emergency services)
:::###National (Provincial and federal agencies, Dept. of Homeland Security, FEMA)
:::###International
:::##Recovery 
:::#Operational risk management under which Business Continuity Planning falls (I see this as a private function)
:::##Threats and vulnerabilities
:::##Impact assessments
:::##Recovery preparation
:::##Crisis Management
:::##Recovery
:::##Resumption of business as usual
:::#Natural Hazards (The hazard is the phenomenon, the disaster its consequence)
:::##Tropical cyclones
:::#Man-made Hazards 
:::##Dirty bombs
:::#Disasters  (Probably also divided into man-made and natural)
:::##Hurricane katrina
:::##Bali bombing
:::##Public relations disaster (Tylenol poisioning incident in the 80's, could have been a PR disaster but because managed well by company, a corporate disaster was averted.  This example included for thought provoking.)
:::##etc.
::::Let's take Section 3 and include it in Section 1.  The sub-points you identified for BCP will fall nicely under the four phases of emergency management (perhaps with different names, since business continuity addresses things from a different perspective).  Then, in the (Disaster/Emergency) management article (depending on what final title we choose) can focus on the public aspects, but make mention of the private (read: business) aspects.  We can add a reference to the top of Section 1 in the article that refers readers to the main article on BCP (since a larger discussion of BCP merits another article altogether) and apply this same framework to the BCP article with modifications made for emphasis on emergency management as it is applied to business continuity.  How does that sound? -- backburner001 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 5

message: Though I feel very confident in my knowledge of policy/political side of disater management, I am not at all familiar with BCP (probably should be) - this is influencing my opinion.  Furthermore, we are really only discussing a conceptual outline.  We only have to agree upon the top two layers.  If this will be our main article it will still be short with links to the main articles.  I hence take the same stance as backburner001 and support Option 4 with the modifications. Though I do like the idea in Option 6 of only having three top headings: Mgmt Theory, Emergency services/professionals, Hazards/Disasters
Re: Hazard and Impact.  The references on our main page support the model that Hazard * Vulnerability = Risk.  Where 'Risk' is (depending who you ask) a likelihood of the occurance of a disaster with a given impact/size/consequence.  Please add your central references to the Bibliography list (I am particularly interested in BCP). 
Last, I am afraid that I will only be able to log on a few times the next two weeks.  So please be bold and so forth, i.e. don't wait for me! --Drdan 15:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My comment

message: Sign your name against the option you prefer. Revmachine21 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting for best option

message: I have seen the term Disaster preparation being used in the categorisation. It is obviously totally wrong.  The only situation where disasters are prepared are when terrorists and invading armies plot their dirty deeds.  I should put up on the to-do list to exterminate the expression from wikipedia.  Though the expression could be replaced by preparedness, it would be more correct to use disaster management or something similar.
* :Category:Disaster preparation
In fact, the categorisation hierarchy needs to be looked over in accordance with the final result of our vote above.
--Drdan 08:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disaster ''Preparation'' nonsense 

message: I laugh at myself when I keep returning to wiki.  I should be working :)  
Anyway, a couple of comments:
The use of the word 'disaster'
:There are several articles (e.g. Sago mine disaster) where the word 'disaster' in the title has been discussed as being a weasel-word.  The argument raised is that one should use a gradual (subjective!) range of 'incident', 'accident', and 'disaster'.  I find the discussion and choice of word irrelevant, but we should create a standard.
Classification of hazards
:The hazards category is messy and missing a lot of articles. The structure that I would like to use, which could affect our discussion above as well, is: Social hazards (war, riot, stampede, shooting), Technological hazards (Meltdown, transportation, dam failure), and natural hazards.  This gets us around the use of the gender-charged man-made as well. Any comments?
Changed signature
:FYI, to make my signature fit better with my username I decided to make some changes (former Drdan) 
--rxnd ( t | € | c ) 09:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assorted news 

message: I have now redirected disaster management to emergency management.  To reflect this change in the categorisation I think that Category:Disaster should be renamed to Category:Emergency management.  Any comment?
--rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect + Category:Disaster 

message: I have now entered :Category:Disaster and the tree starting with :Category:Disaster preparation for renaming to 'Emergency management' and 'Disaster preparedness'.
Follow this link to join the discussion.
--rxnd ( t | € | c ) 21:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- backburner001 02:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category renaming 

message: Hi there. I'm quite excited to discover this project, but wanted to check that there isn't another one covering the same area. My background is really in categorisation - back in September 2005 I did a big overhaul of the Disasters and Natural disasters categories, and today I created :Category:Disasters by year, which is now a subcategory of :Category:Events by year and :Category:Disasters and has now subsumed all the "<YEAR> disasters" categories.
But I'm not entirely clear if I'm in the right place. I might be looking for something like "WikiProjects:Disasters", but this is the closest I've found. The name and much of the discussion seems to be focussed on disaster management and the jobs and theory behind preparing for and dealing with disasters, but the scope of the project also says it includes: "...the phenomenological description of natural and man-made hazards. It also include individual disastrous events, e.g. hurricane Katrina and the Ethiopian famine in the 1980s."
Would I be right to say that "the phenomenological description of natural and man-made hazards" is covered in :Category:Natural hazards and :Category:Hazards? And that "individual disastrous events" is covered by :Category:Disasters? These areas would seem to overlap with history wikiprojects and wikiprojects on natural phenomena, but if this wikiproject is the right place to work on them, that would be great. So is this the right place? Carcharoth 09:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disasters and name and scope of project 

message: Haditha killings was added as under this wikiproject by Blood red sandman (here) who I see is an active member per above. I'm a bit confused as to why this would be considered in scope. I guess the massacare/killings  is a PR disaster for the US but is that the intention of the project? The article is largely about the incident (including evidence suggesting this was a massacare by US troops rather then one by a IED) and the purported coverup and reactions to the incident, not about the management of the lives of those affliated with those who were killed or injured Nil Einne 14:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There would have been some management, from local emergency services etc. The fact that that aspect is not currently covered makes it all the more important that it is included in this project, as it requires us to track down info and sources relating to the management side, and add them to the article. Blood red sandman 15:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree that the disaster management aspects (local emergency services) are major enough parts of the incident to warrant labelling the article as something this WikiProject should be concerned with. I also think the confusion arises because wars and massacres appear under :Category:Disasters in the category structure (under the man-made disasters bit, obviously), but many of these articles are more concerned with the historical aspect, rather than the disaster management aspect. We really need to distinguish properly between the "historical" and "management" aspects of disasters. Have a look at Portal:Disaster for examples of this. Carcharoth 16:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In scope? 

message: ===Option 1.2===
We have a concept abbreviated to KISS ;o)
Disaster management process
:1. Disaster identification -                   local agents   -      (reaction time - minutes)
:2. Disaster warning -                          regional agents -     (reaction time - hours)
:3. Effects reduction (personnel and assets) -   national agents -     (reaction time - days)
:4. Disaster recovery -                        multinational agents - (reaction time - weeks)
:5. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (R&R) -   all agents         -  (duration - months/years)
--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 1.2 

message: We have a concept abbreviated to KISS ;o)
Disaster management process
:1. Disaster identification -                   local agents   -      (reaction time - minutes)
:2. Disaster warning -                          regional agents -     (reaction time - hours)
:3. Effects reduction (personnel and assets) -   national agents -     (reaction time - days)
:4. Disaster recovery -                        multinational agents - (reaction time - weeks)
:5. Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (R&R) -   all agents         -  (duration - months/years)
--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1.2