Talk:Bug-out bag

message: I think that this is an important page.  I do not think it is a stub, there is an undeniably large amount of quality information, and it is comprehensive in scope.  I do, however, think that the tone and shifting POV is rather troubling, and indicates a definite lack of compositional quality.  I suggest removing the stub-box and replacing it with a plea for standards. Magicwombat 09:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Stub 

message: The comment that one is more likley to be killed with one's own gun needs to either be linked to the study which derived it or it should be removed.
Paj 11:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   "moronic propaganda of the anti-gun left" Not everyone lives in a country where tools meant to kill people are legal, you know that right? Wikipedia is not only for US residents.190.49.172.235 (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defensive Tools 

message: I rewrote the intro and defensive weapons sections tonight after seeing the article linked from ar15.com.  I tried to cut the fat out of the intro and just give the basic information which could be expanded on later in detail. In the defensive tools section I cut all the specific gun opinions to solve the above complaints about back and forth edits. I was pretty aggressive about removing text, so I guess we'll see what everybody thinks of it. --Askaggs 07:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARFCOM link and subsequent revisions 

message: i think is a good idea, and someone must make a good/complete list of items.
Though the topics are related, they are nonetheless separate and should not be merged. Evacuations from danger zones have a different impetus than survival schemes. Bug-outs are a matter of removing from harm's way with the idea that auxiliary aid or resources will be available. Survival is about maintaining an existence despite hardship, often without the idea of auxiliary assistance or resources. Emergency preparedness needs to be looked at as a two-part program: 1) bug-out AND; 2) bunker down/survival.
As for a good/complete list of items, the American Red Cross has a checkllist of basics on their web-site which serves as a good starting point. From there you can refine your lists to meet you and your family's needs to make your kits complete.
Oppose two  separate things. --Knife Knut 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and remove the merge tags since the discussion both here and on Talk:Survival kit is in favor of keeping them two separate articles. KleenupKrew 03:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes (I am in favor of the merge but this would suffice for now) Bsharkey (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging with survival kit 

message: Blanket, poncho liner and sleeping bag were added to the list.  --21kev 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addded Items to the list

message: While the information in this article is extremely helpful, informative, and valuable; it repeats itself many times ("BOB is not a survival kit"), and at several points is written in the first person.  It sounds as if the individual who (apparently) wrote most of this article thought that Wikipedia was his/her blog or something....
For future reference please write in the third person while contributing to Wikipedia
Thank you.
Mk623SC20K 21:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete revamp

message: This article is really just a lot of advice on how to put together a BOB. I really don't think this is the purpose of an encyclopaedia article, which should be informational rather than instructional.  The article should list the type of items found in a BOB, the rationale for some and then provide links to other websites which can help the reader put together a kit.
Mettw 06:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually better than it used to be. When I came across the article, it was much longer and basically written as exact instructions on what to do when fleeing an emergency. I agree, it still doesn't fit the tone expected of Wikipedia articles. I plan on doing a better rewrite, but the holidays have kept me busy so far. -- Kesh 16:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone leans too far towards instruction 

message: Wikipedia policy 
says that an article should not be a how-to, which this one clearly is.  So I'm going to remove all of the how-to aspects of this article.  If you want to maintain a Bug-Out Bag how-to then wikipedia recommends 
that you move this info to either of the following:
* Wikihow, http://www.wikihow.com/Main-Page Wiki project dedicated to how-to articles
* Wikibooks How-tos bookshelf
--Mettw 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the article needs a total rewrite. I'm having trouble finding good documentation on a bug-out bag vs. a survival kit, though, so it's taking me longer than I expected to actually work this one out. We might have to reduce this one to a stub (basic definition) and then work our way back up from scratch. -- Kesh 20:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that this should be such a long article anyway.  There isn't really much to a BOB once you take out all of the how-to stuff.  A history would be appropriate, if such a thing exists for BOBs.  As to the difference between a BOB and a survival kit, I'm inclined to just say that the difference is one of purpose and let readers see the difference in the items listed in each article - I can't think how else to explain it to people.--Mettw 00:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How-To sections to be removed 

message: Since 90% of the contents of this article exists in survival kit, then either the remaining 10% needs to go there, or the BOB contents needs to be removed from the survival kit article.  I propose a merge based on two points:
*A BOB may be the portable part of a survival kit, since there is significant overlap.  Living in tornado alley, you may have a few minutes of warning to evacuate to a shelter, in which case you grab the BOB and run; or you may get NO warning and need to deal with the aftermath in place--a breakdown of infrastructure, such as loss of power, water, etc.
*With BOB and survival kit in separate articles, there is no good place to put a comparison/contrast between the two; it would lead to duplicate and potentially contradictory information in the different articles.  scot 15:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge, take two

message: Just a little reminder - and I edited this in a very old version of this article - we don't all live in the US. The importance and relevance of guns is not straightforward.  In the UK, it is a non-issue. Illegal in many countries apart from here.
User: IanErc
Removing the merge tag as no consensus was reached, and it's April now. Kuroji 20:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun's'n'stuff 

message: Go-Bag and Bug-out bag appear to be the same exact thing. BOB is the more established article and so should stay. --Valley2city₪‽ 03:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergefrom: Go-Bag's 

message: When designing a BOB based on natural disasters basic tools and personal protection articles are a good idea.  Some sort of wrecking bar, basic hand tools, gloves, goggles, dust mask, sturdy shoes, etc. will be extremely helpful.  Hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and tornadoes all test the structural integrity of homes.  Clean up starts right after the initial shock and taking stock.  Hurricane Hugo hit at night and the morning sun was greeted with the sound of chainsaws.  It's that quick.  That's not all.  Sometimes you think you can ride it out or it comes too quick, but now your home is unlivable.  Basic hand tools and protection will come in extremely handy.  CoyoteRed (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A crowbar might be handy to have and is something that should be kep around, I don't believe that most people are going to say you should have one in a BOB. 209.191.208.248 (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would tend to agree that might be handy tool, I believe the genesis of the issue is there is no "official" contents of a BoB.  Beyond food, water, and a medical kit, there will be a lot of variance as to its contents.  Climate, local laws, personal preference and specific needs will all govern what is included. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Crowbar/Hatchet fits better in survival kit then in BOB imo, thinking of weight vs usefulness, unless you just happend to work at Black Mesa. 83.255.125.182 (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crowbar 

message: as a single woman who travels extensively for my job in my personal vehicle, I have learned that a small tool kit is a necessity.  Therefore, it should be included included in the BOB.  Also, I have a 'jumper box' that will start my car if someone else is not available.  These things are not expensive and can be used in everyday life as long as they are put back in the same place as the BOB each time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.255.229 (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  crowbar - plus 

message: In 72 hrs would you not need shelter ?
A tarp ? a bivvy bag ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.211.233 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shelter 

message: This article was flagged for possible deletion.  I took some time to re-work it, and added numerous references.  I then dropped the flag.  I'd appreciate additional edits and references.  Thanks!
Meanwhile, the Bug-Out Vehicle article has also been PRODed.  In that case, I agree that the subject was too obscure to warrant keeping a separate article.  i went ahead and merged the most useful part of that article into a new section of the Retreat (survivalism) article.  Trasel (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but links to random blogs and such do not meet WP:RS policy. IF you want this article to stay, you must find reliable sources that use the term not only in general but in preference to other terms that are more common (Like emergency kit or whatever). I'm going to iv you the chance to go through and do this the right way before I go through and delete them again and nominate the article for deletion. If you can find sources that meet our criteria, then fine. If not, this should be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The links that I added were not "random".  In the next couple of hours, I will be adding at least eight book and magazine references.  I'd appreciate cooperation to improve this article.  It is a worthy topic and well worth salvaging.  Thanks!  Trasel (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As promised, I've added 14 hard copy references. I trust that is sufficient for an article that is so brief. Trasel (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD and De-PROD 

message: I'm thinking of adding the following links to the appropriate sections.  Both are 'How tos' on BoBs.  Any objections?  Thanks.  Surv1v4l1st (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead an added one of them.  The other looked to be part of a commercial site, so should not be added.  While we want to keep external links real trim, I think having a variety of different types is a plus.  Different regions, cultures, survival philosophies, and personal needs will dictate different contents. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to make a 72-hour kit. 

message: The current version of the bugout article (april 11, 2009) is ridiculously specific.  Can someone repost the article that existed before.
This current article reads more like the contents of one specific person's kit, not a general list of items that could be included. I found the original article very informative, and especially liked the fact that it listed many redundant items or methods of solving a problem.  
They don't even list "water filter", which I assure you, many people have in a bugout bag. Water purification tablets are a very short term solution, and only one of many methods.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.47.197 (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the contents section with the 28th March version. It covers everything in more general terms and avoids turning the article into one long list. 62.189.44.102 (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone repost the bugout article from february 2009. 

message: I don't think it's appropriate to link to James Wesley Rawles in the See Also: section- he is just one of many authors in this area. The whole article is probably overusing him as a source. I propose removing him from the See also: section. 173.77.120.179 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I don't believe that he belongs in the article, therefore I will remove his link.  Unless someone has good reason to put him back, I don't think it should be there. Halofanatic333 (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: See also: one single author

message: I must take issue with two of the "typical contents", to wit:
    - Slingshot, pellet gun, blowgun or other small game hunting equipment
    - Wire for binding and animal traps
The article states that a bug-out bag contains "items one would require to survive for seventy-two hours" and then suggests that it include "(e)nough food and water to last for 72 hours". If you have packed enough food for the stated time period, it is unnecessary to carry equipment to hunt for more. If the purpose of the bag is to provide for long-term survival, I would understand including these items. Cwelgo (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Items unlikely to be used in 72 hours 

message: The article defines a Bug Out Bag as "focus[ed] .. on evacuation, rather than long-term survival". Meanwhile, as mentioned in the acronym itself and in usage http://urbansurvivalsite.com/glossary/, an INCH bag is used when you're never coming home i.e. not short term survival, but continued survival with a focus on restablishing yourself. If you differentiate a BOB from a survival kit on that concept, then an INCHbag would be a survival kit, not a bug out bag. 
However both BOB and INCH have a focus on a portable kit you take with you when you leave and making use of things in the field, which doesn't quite fit the criteria of a survival kit. I propose we change it from being listed as synonymous, to something along the lines of "A similar concept is that of the INCH bag or (I'm Never Coming Home) Bag. While maintaining the same focus on portability and mobility as the BOB, its completeness and long term focus results in it occupying a position half way between a Bug-Out Bag and Survival Kit"
58.174.115.71 (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  INCHbag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bug-out bag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100904185852/http://www.redcross.ca:80/article.asp?id=33847&tid=001 to http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=33847&tid=001
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150810150124/http://lacoa.org/PDF/EmergencySurvivalGuide-LowRes.pdf to http://lacoa.org/pdf/emergencysurvivalguide-lowres.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bug-out bag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.redcross.ca/main.asp?id=000289
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120412024729/http://www.ready.gov/basic-disaster-supplies-kit to http://www.ready.gov/basic-disaster-supplies-kit
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=33847&tid=001
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bug-out bag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091117235247/http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=35169 to http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=35169
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm curious why one would need multivitamins, fishing gear or animal traps in a bag designed to sustain ones self for 72 hours?  139.138.69.196 (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  72-hour bag 

message: Having read a few organisation's lists on these escape/ emergency bags, the name "Bug-out bag" seems to be a colloquial term, not an official or academic one. 
The more used term seems to be "emergency kit". I feel like changing the page to this name would help readers who are unfamiliar with "bug-out bag" which is also a potential US-ism (maybe UK as well) that has limited use elsewhere. 
Additionally, this would help further distinquish it away from survival kit as a kit that is meant for long-term survival vs. an emergency kit that has items ready to be used for a short period of time. 
Please let me know your thoughts and I will monitor this page for a while to see if discussion takes place. Jamzze (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change to: "Emergency kit"