Talk:Human response to disasters

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page just needs a title change

This page is an odd one from the rogue editor's POV (my own), but, I feel like if this page was re-titled "Popular misconceptions surrounding the societal impacts of disasters", or something like-for-like, we could avoid a lot of the editing issues around this article from the outset.

Of course, relevance would be then be the question.

Yet again, we are still living through the late stages of a global plague.

Jondvdsn1 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROD response

None of this article is my original thought. I took all of the information from the cited sources. The only thing I did was combine common themes and ideas into a logical pattern and then write the information into my own words so as to not plagiarize. One only needs to go to the cited sources and page numbers to see the information is there in those sources. All of the sources are scholarly books, journal articles, or magazine articles which should be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjjjej (talk • contribs) 01:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonjjjej, this article still has issues because while you did take the information from cited sources, you still arranged it in a manner that would be considered original research. Original research isn't just content that you came up with on your own. By taking the content and arranging it into a pattern you are still creating original research. For example, saying that X and Y are common and when placed together, display evidence of Z, is considered to be original research.

An example of this can be seen in the section about panic. You mention a disaster myth about panic, then say that the opposite is true. To make this not original research the second source would have to not only very explicitly state that this is not the case, but also refer to this on a global scale. If the source is stating this in regards to a very specific incident, then it would be considered original research to extend this to people in large. In cases like this you should attribute the claims within the article and make sure that you specify what the person is referring to, for example a specific incident.

You also need to be extremely careful of tone. If you are too casual or take too much of an essay-like tone, this can make your work appear to be original research. I'm not sure if you are interested in editing this beyond the class, but this will most likely need a complete re-write in order to meet guidelines or it runs the risk of being deleted via another avenue other than a proposed deletion. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns on tone of page

Hello, I came across this page while browsing for pages to edit, and while I was copyediting this page, I noticed that the tone is, in fact, written in a way to express the personal opinions of the original author. I am concerned that this may violate any regulations or just look "unprofessional" to unsuspecting readers.

P.S: Especially intrigued by the word 'savior' used in several sections (maybe find another word?) Scuffedsherm (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]