Talk:List of man-made disasters in South Korea

Name change and move

Why the heck did we do that? --PaulinSaudi (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Because "mad-made" excludes women. Tony (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not see that in the style guide. Do you have a cite?--PaulinSaudi (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am OK with man-caused, as man in this context is short for mankind which means all humans. But in this PC age, I wouldn't expect too much suport for reverting the move. There are more important things to worry about. MB 01:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't "make" a disaster, you "cause" a disaster, so some move was definitely warranted. "Man-caused", at least to my ear, is not an "in the language" phrase, and "human-caused" sounds better. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Man-made, believe it or not is gender neutral. It means all people. It is still the most common usage in English, and as far as I know, that's still important on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a follower, not a leader. Masterhatch (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Anthropogenic? That's the word that was most regularly attached to 'climate change' when I was studying it university ~25 years ago. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be moved back, btw. And i think in future, moves like this should be brought up on talk page. The MOS on retaining existing styles is clear. Masterhatch (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Per [1] man made: "manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings", not sure how that excludes women. "Man-made" is short for mankind, i.e. humans as a whole for just "men".  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"Human caused" is fine. "Human provoked" seems to have some currency in Environmental Science, Natural History, and the like. ("Possible applications are handling of military materials in narrow spaces, rescuing of victims in natural and human provoked disasters and handling of heavy ... (see abstract)). There is also the good old "anthropogenic," ('Originating in or caused by human activities." OED). A thing to remember though is that a large proportion of the anthropogenic disasters have been caused by males or by a formal or informal confederacy of males. The Bengal famine of 1943 is considered to be man-made. Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper have written somewhere:

Inequalities within the family as well as between social groups were brutally exaggerated. Many starving families tried to preserve young males, sacrificing their daughters and grandmothers. Hundreds of thousands died in their own homes, too proud to embarrass others with their fate. People lay down in the street and died, rather than resisting or looting the grain stores in the way the radicals wanted. This was not because they were ‘fatalistic’, as the British and high castes asserted. It was because they were good subjects, good parents, good children. Their rulers, elders and betters, husbands and fathers had cut them adrift.

It can often be that kind of cause or provocation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Also, on that list, seeing things like "mass murder sprees" being labeled as "disasters" seems really really odd. There's some questionable choices of inclusion on that list. --Masem (t) 14:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Is there any indication that any of these disasters were caused by a woman? Perhaps they ARE all man made. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Let's focus this discussion on the title of this article, not on genericities about how people feel about gender-neutral language (for which there is a discussion at WT:MOS at the moment). Man-made refers to objects (which are made), not disasters (which are caused or perpetrated or provoked or something). CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There are two discussions going on. About the "man" and the "made".
    • about some disaster being human-made, while technically it can be argued that it was caused and not made, it is actually a very common way to talk about disasters that humans brought upon themselves. Since neutrality means we apply language as it is used, and not as we would like it to re-define it, I think "made" is a valid word for the title.
    • as for the "man" side of it. That is a very tricky problem. man-made has two things going for it: it is pithy (two syllables), and it is an alliteration which humans tend to like the ring of it (and hence make it more common usage). On the other hand, indeed it is a gendered word. I can see it in both ways: keeping it or changing it. The simplest alternative would be to add hu to man: human-made disasters. Al83tito (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Consensus to revert to "manmade?"

Thank you all for your comments. I think I see a general consensus to revert to the more common term. But, I will wait 24 hours before doing it, just in case anyone else wants to contribute. PaulinSaudi (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

What? The only explicit !vote in favor of reverting is from MasterHatch (EDIT: and from you, my apologies). MB suggested "man-caused," GirthSummit suggested "anthropogenic," Spy-Cicle countered Tony1's assertion that man-made is not gender-neutral but didn't discuss reverting the move. Fowler&fowler, Tony, and I spoke in favor of "human-caused" at some level. It's not a matter of vote-counting but I do not see any sort of consensus to revert the move here. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There is certainly no consensus to revert to "man-made". "Anthropogenic" seems to me a good choice. We still need to work through the scope of "disaster" (see thread above). Tony (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. Standing by for more discussion. --PaulinSaudi (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)--PaulinSaudi (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I continue to stand by for more discussion.PaulinSaudi (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we should just revert to stautus quo ("man-made") then go from there. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

How about "non-natural" disasters? For some of these, the "human cause" is a bit of a stretch, e.g. in Daeyeonggak Hotel fire several people were arrested for negligence, but the article doesn't cite a specific "cause." CapitalSasha ~ talk 00:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

My two bits. For now revert back. The MOS uses the word "substantial" when changing from one style to another. And while there's lots of good ideas thrown around, I haven't read one "substantial" reason to change. Masterhatch (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"...change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Masterhatch (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the fact that you don't "make" a disaster is pretty substantial. Do you find that a natural construction? CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Non-natural would certainly be better than the original. Tony (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Per above, how about human-made? I support that, or reverting to man-made as the most common expression. Al83tito (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • And respectfully oppose "non-natural", for being an unnecessary indirect and potentially confusing. We should be writing titles based on how they are most clear. Titling something for what it is not, may be applicable in some cases but not here. Al83tito (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
    • As pointed out above, one doesn't "make" a disaster. Tony (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Famines are supposedly always manmade. They are also commonly called disasters. I see no reason to overthink this. We are making an encyclopedia. We are not fixing supposed sexism in the English language. PaulinSaudi (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Now two days since the last comment. How do you guys feel about List of Korean Disasters? --PaulinSaudi (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That would be a great title if things like earthquakes were on the list. But this list seems to only include disasters that were ultimately and directly caused by a single person or group of people. Masterhatch (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I could crib stuff from the category Natural disasters in South Korea, although I was rather trying not to repeat the work of others. Your thoughts? PaulinSaudi (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Does the list become too long if we include earthquakes etc? If not, maybe it makes sense to include them and move the article as you say. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of adding all types of disasters, not just man-made ones, and having the article's name reflect that. Masterhatch (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be about 47 natural disasters in South Korea that would have to be moved here, lots of earthquakes and stuff. I also note somehow this became a list of misfortune in **South** Korea only for some reason.PaulinSaudi (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

List of Korean disasters

List of Korean disasters (if we include both North and South) OR List of South Korean disasters (if we stick to just the South). Those are my top 2 picks for a new name for this article if natural disasters are ever added, which I think they should be btw. Thoughts? Masterhatch (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I would prefer "List of disasters in South Korea" though, sounds strange to my ear to attribute a nationality to a disaster. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. List of disasters in South Korea.Masterhatch (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)