Talk:Emergency management/Archive 1

Merge Prevention (hazards)
I stumbled across the article today. It is thin and inaccurate. It can easily be absorbed by the mitigation section. --  rxnd  ( t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 10:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

History and role section added
I added a new section. The article was lacking any historical references to emergency management. The format of the section was designed so that other editors could expand it with information about the history of EM in other countries. The content I've added focuses exclusively on the United States and the article would benefit from expansion to include a more global perspective. -- backburner001 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also done a fair bit of moving things around. Mainly, this involved moving around the footnotes to appropriate places after adding inline citations of my own.  I also moved the "Risk assessment" section, making it a sub-section of "Phases and activities" instead of keeping it seperate from everything else.
 * Could someone please check the footnotes and see if they correspond to their intended citations correctly? I've checked it once (and I think they correspond) but I would like to have a fresh set of eyes take another look. -- backburner001 03:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work! The citation system is becoming a bit tricky to manage now though.  Are there any alternative standard better suited for our purpose?  Our next step should be to expand the sections after mitigation.  I remember Haddow having a good chapter on Recovery.  Do you feel like taking charge of it?  I will go for a conference in the US later this week and will be offline for 7 days starting Thursday.  --  rxnd  (  t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't know of any alternative inline citation system.  I think we just have to make sure we update the footnotes to reflect the correct order of the the citations when we add new content.  I have no problem with taking charge of the Recovery section.  I was hoping to add citations for all of the four phases from Haddow's text.  Have fun at the conference. -- backburner001 11:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did a test using the cite template in the footnotes, and it seem to have worked OK. I also used the ref naming function from WP:FOOTNOTE. That's it for me for some time. --  rxnd  (  t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 21:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

External links cleanup
Recently, a number of additions have been made to the "External links" section of this article. While, based on a very quick check, none appear to qualify as external linkspam (which merits immediate removal), I am going to suggest that we take a more detailed look at trimming this section down a bit. We should probably go ahead and judge the inclusion of these links based on the information provided here. I'd also like to see how some of these links may be used as potential sources for this or other articles. -- backburner001 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Preparedness and specific hazards
I am frustrated each time I read this section and see the itemized list of supplies for hurricane disaster bags. I feel that by including the list of supplies here, we are doing it to encourage the reader to start their own bag - now. Its a good idea to start a bag right now, but its not NPOV, especially when we narrow it to a specific hazard. I move to strike this specific list (since its already on the Hurricane Preparedness page) completely. Thoughts? Parradoxx 07:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Content on volunteers
I made this edit to the content added about volunteers in the recovery phase. My only major concern was that the last sentence did not conform to a NPOV because it suggested what volunteers should do (an opinion). I do, however, want to see that content added back with some reference to what relief organizations suggest about volunteers. (It wouldn't break a NPOV if the article read, "Relief organizations suggest that volunteers affiliate..." or something close to that statement.) -- backburner001 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw the same need, and hope I captured the "volunteer spirit" with this edit. Granted, its not an international relief organization, but it does emphasize the importance of volunteers, and I hope I stayed NPOV. Parradoxx 07:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The screwed up situation: Most emergency plans will not work without volunteers.
 * Not that specialized volunteers do not exist, its an ugly infrastrucure problem.
 * -- Hard Raspy Sci 15:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitigation re-directs here
The former mitigation article now re-directs here. It is unlikely that an article on mitigation alone will yeild anything more than a definition of the term as it is used in the discipline of emergency management. Instead of having a whole article on the concept of mitigation alone, I suggest that we simply cover mitigation in the emergency management article itself. Any objections? -- backburner001 23:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I entered mitigation looking for information about its use in criminal sentencing. I ended up here! Why? It has a much broader significance than emergency management.--Shtove 20:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See also:
Why was the See Also heading removed? Was this for consistency with Wiki style, or vandalism? I had browsed some of the See Also links, and found them informative and relevant. Parradoxx 18:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but I added them again. --  rxnd  ( t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 13:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Content on Response phase and International orgs
I took liberty of adding content to above sections which I think will be particularly relevant to disaster management in developing countries (ie those with greatest human impact). Hope all agree with these - I could add more on international dimensions and on coordination topics if anyone thinks a good idea. -- Magellan762 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of changing out the the Caritas Network link and replaced it with St. John Ambulance and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. I took a good read over the Caritas website (the Canadian one anyways) and it seems like more of a "long term solutions" provider, rather than a provider of assistance to an Immediate Emergency. I hope to still keep a Caritas mention, but in perspective of the immediacy of assistance provided. Feel free to reword my wording. Exit2DOS2000  •T•C• •  02:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've built a little on exit2dos' work, and made a couple of tweaks (such as the ICRC does not usually provide emergency relief - it's the national society, the ICRC tends to be more long term), but the comment about the immediacy is spot on. Owain.davies 17:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Major incident/Disaster
This article seems to be about major incidents in many parts but uses Disaster as the term to describe them - the two are not interchangable. Here's a def from Davies (2005) to help people understand what I'm talking about (of course the picture is confused by where you are in the world - where the terms are used in an interchangable fashion):

''“a disaster goes beyond the normal coping ability of existing emergency response systems and social structures. A disaster therefore is an event or events that overwhelms the ability to cope and as such requires help from outside the normal response expected from a planned, organized and fully-functional major incident plan”.[pg 868]''

--Fredrick day 22:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the most common definition IMHO. A disaster is an event that exceeds the local capacity to cope (i.e. resilience).  But what is your suggestion to use as an alternative to, for instance, Foshan bridge disaster.  Accident? Incident? --  rxnd  (  t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 03:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested link on water for emergencies
Someone may wish to add this if appropriate. I'm not quite sure if it's suitable, and as I'm closely involved with Appropedia, and wrote the page, it's best I don't rely on my judgement here:
 * * Water supply and purification methods for emergencies - Appropedia, a wiki focused on sustainable development.

--Chriswaterguy talk 18:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Corperate Edit ?
THIS edit seems suspicious when u consider the following : Pictometry International Corp. 100 Town Centre Drive, Suite A Rochester, NY 14623-4260 And the Editors's traceroute follows back to nas2.roch.ny.frontiernet.net. Is this a corperate edit ? I'm not sure what to think of the link so I bring it here for others to consider also. Exit2DOS2000  •T•C•  09:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hexayurt
I think the Hexayurt article should be recreated - it's a very cool project, a well-insulated flat-packed emergency shelter, which is why I'm asking here. Could I ask someone else to start it? I have a minor conflict of interest, being a colleague of the creator.

The project's homepage is Hexayurt project and Hexayurt press has details of press coverage so far. Leave a note if you need help.

It was deleted on the grounds of WP:RS (reliable sources) although it actually meets the requirements, i.e. a NYT article. Apparently it didn't cite the article correctly, put the reference with linked a non-NYT site, and those pushing deletion didn't look further.

A full citation of the NYT article is adequate (i.e. "This Is Only a Drill: In California, Testing Technology in a Disaster Response", John Markoff, New York Times, August 28, 2006.) The NYT article is behind a paywall. ; and the PDF should not be linked due to copyright concerns. - not a link to an unofficial copy of the article. (Not that that was a good reason for deletion anyway, but just to avoid problems.)


 * It seems like it's now not behind a paywall. So the reference is: "This Is Only a Drill: In California, Testing Technology in a Disaster Response", John Markoff, New York Times, August 28, 2006.) --Chriswaterguy talk 19:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also there's a recent article in Wired. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy talk 22:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why grant money AFTER disasters strike, Why not BEFORE???
What I fail to understand is why money is granted after a disaster strikes. I think a far better solution would be to have an organization like a world/regional emergency bank, extend credit just before to poor nations for impending disasters that we can forecast. For example, in Hurricane Felix, 10,000 people could not be evacuated because lack of fuel and/or money for fuel. In this case, fuel could have been bought and brought in anticipation of the storm, from an World Emergency Fund. Besides, there is so much liquidity anyway, especially in Asia, it would help balance the world economy in the long run. But the same could be done for sandbagging, etc. It seems so silly to me to "retroactively" donate, when giving FIRST could have prevented loss of lives and lessened damages in the first place. Prevention costs far less than the damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.93.160 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All very logical, but you overlook the very real human emotional response, which is strong AFTER a disaster. Beforehand, people have other things they want to do with their resources, other than send mony to a place that just might not need it. (Wishful thinking, but human nature.)  It is only after the disaster, when stories and photos of the human impact reach doners that the money really flows.  Pzavon 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And more to the point, Wikipedia is a documentation of what the state of affairs is, not what its editors might like it to be. Owain.davies 06:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is not a place for that discussion. Have a look at the academic publications on the matter instead; we have cited two in the article: Wisner et al 2004 and Alexander 2002. They all agree with your statement in essence and so does the article. It says that mitigation is the most cost-efficient activity, but that it also is the most difficult to implement. --  rxnd  (  t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 07:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's would be a very good discussion to have, but a more suitable place would be Appropedia - perhaps at the new Appropedia forums. It's all GFDL, so if anything encyclopedic develops it can be copied to Wikipedia. --Chriswaterguy talk 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Article move suggestion
Consider merging with emergency preparedness, which has substantial text on management. I feel otherwise. I found this article very useful to understanding the role of risk management in business. I think merging with emergency preparedness would have greatly reduced the utility of the article in understanding business.70.137.141.106 23:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Don

Agreed with Don. From a business standpoint, emergency preparedness is part of sound risk management planning the two are not the same, but part and parcel. Risk management should remain a separate category. Good stuff! Thanks for all this info.

I also agree with Don. I am currently in the process of discussing risk management as it pertains to business. I do not feel this subtopic of risk management is tied into emergency preparedness. Great info.

I strongly disagree. Emergency Management is a profession, and an area of academic study. Emergency preparedness is one of the goals of effective Emergency Management, but only one! The two concepts are quite separate and distinct, and should remain that way. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tools
This section has been completely re-edited in order to eliminate its advertising-like style. It has been considerably shortened, and the links that were previously included have been added to the External Links section. The descriptions of the products provided by the links are available by following the link, in order to avoid the appearance of advertising the product. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Further Reading??
Shouldn't the Further Reading subsection be part of a References Section at the end of this article? Pzavon (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

earthquake
rth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.114.251 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction Re-Write
I re-wrote the introduction to show that Emergency Management is the name of the entire field, with other items (like Preparedness, Business Continuity, Homeland Security) are the subsets. I think this is clearer, that the subfields share a lot of the same goals and processes, with just small differences. Mcmillen76 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Disaster preparedness vs. Emergency (Disaster) management
I find it disappointing that "Disaster preparedness" redirects to "Emergency management"; surely these are distinct topics. I added the "Disaster preparedness" category tag to the bottom of the page, added a link to the "Disaster preparedness" *category* page from Preparedness in the "Emergency management" page, and also added a "Disaster/Emergency preparedness" Hatnote -- because otherwise there's surely no way that most people would find all the articles that are in the "Disaster preparedness" category -- but feel that this is a suboptimal solution. My idea of a better solution would be a disambiguation page (rather than a redirect) for "Disaster preparedness", which would allow you to select whether you want to look at the "Disaster preparedness" *category* page or the "Disaster Risk Reduction Page" or the "Emergency management" page etc. Likewise, "Accident prevention" is related to safety (education) -- but Accident prevention also redirects to Emergency management, which has no links to Safety. LittleBen (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with you. Emergency management tends to refer to accidents, fires and other localized, short-term events that professionals respond to.  Disasters are large-scale events that grab the public attention, use volunteers for much of the response labor, and take weeks or months to recover from.  They are related in that both are headed by governmental personnel and use similar procedures (NIMS, etc), but timescale varies greatly.--DeknMike (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added a related RFC here. LittleBen (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Emergency preparedness content merged here
I took the liberty of merging the content of the former emergency preparedness article into this article. The emergency preparedness article was better written and more detailed, thus all of its content was preserved. Some of the content that appeared in earlier versions of this article was deleted because it was already referenced in the emergency preparedness article. (For example, the four phases of dealing with disasters appeared in both articles.)

Emergency preparedness now redirects to emergency management. The clean-up tag remained as this article is still in need of much revision and improvement.

Edit: Please refer to the emergency preparedness talk page for additional commentary on the content of the current article. -- backburner001 00:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There are loads and loads of terms in use which are relevant to this article, the discussion above bears witness to this. I inserted a reference to Civil Defence because reviewing the rather confused civil defence article I can see that people need the term to be explained so they can see the difference between this and emergency management. Kevin Probert-Ehaver 194.126.101.134 09:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at the confusion. Modern Emergency Management evolved directly out of the old civil defence concept. In fact, the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Administration was originally called the Federal Civil Defence Administration! Perhaps what is needed here is a good section on the history of Emergency Management which ties the whole thing together. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite right about Emergency Management being an evolution of Civil Defence, here in Australia as well. NZ emergency management is still called Civil Defence at the peak level. Also within Australian federal legislation, with respect to Military defence legislation, there are roles outlined for State emergency management volunteers, should the need arise. Any expanded history on the concept of Emergency Management would be good. Concievably, throughout the millenia's of human civilisation, some people have had to help the community recover from disaster, anthropogenic or natural. Usually the role fell to soldiers, I hypothesise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1 arm digger (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand section updated
Hi all. Please review the NZ section. Hopefully it is pitched at an appropriate level for those outside of our country. Thanks! --TimClicks (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

hi timclicks thanks for the NZ section, from my perspective very useful. Would it be any use talking about Australian NZ intergovernmental relationships/coordination at any point? I'd like to see something about earthquake and volcano hazard for NZ. Perhaps some hyperlink to Aus/NZ arrangements? Further, if anything goes wrong in the pacific/east asia? 1 arm digger (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Category National, Sub Category Australia
The work here with regard to the SES is pretty good, but a glaring ommission is the Country Fire Services, like CFA(vic) or RFS (NSW) or CFS(SA) and their important role. Not much about metro fire services, or Police roles either, is it worth talking about State arrangements?

In SA SA Police have a coord role under law, and in NSW Police also have a strong role. I would be qualified to make some addition about these states.

Any thoughts? 1 arm digger (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

where is the link?
Where is the link to the national US recommendations for people to prepare their homes ahead of a disaster? I've heard tips on a Washington DC radio station since 911 and used them to get through hurricanes and blizzards. Are you saying that FEMA and HS don't post these on their sites and that's why there are no links to them on this article? 4.249.63.35 (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe somewhere in Category:Disaster preparedness in the United States ? I agree, this is a mess. LittleBen (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ready.gov? There should definitely be scope to use it in the article if it is not already there. What really needs to happen is an overhaul of the whole article where large chunks are moved out into separate articles, eg those on national EM 194.209.10.169 (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> Preparing for disaster in Southeast Asia(Lihaas (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)).

>> Preparing for 'The Big One' earthquake in So.Calif. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What a mess
This is one of the more disorganized hodgepodge messes I've seen on Wikipedia. I am going to try to improve it with some copyediting and reorganizing. There is also a complete lack of inline citations. I will add what I can, but I am not an disaster management expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleMonarch (talk • contribs) 15:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, couldn't agree more, PurpleMonarch. What a morass.  The admonitions at the top of the article were incredibly well earned.  Have just finished a pass through the whole article, mainly doing c/e work, but also attempted to bring the article into a more encyclopedic style, and to definitely get rid of most opinion-based comments.  The article is incredibly unsourced for an article of this size. Onel5969 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting, NPOV, and clarity improvements
After reading through the talk page and noticing the many content/information-based changes made, I will be creating a sandbox addressing the following issues: 1) NPOV - this requires most attention. Many statements are made that sound more opinionated (i.e. use of 'should', shying away from facts and more towards opinions).  In addition to word fixes, many statements that come across opinionated, I will reference with external sources and perhaps reword to sound more factual. 2) Copyediting in compliance with Wikipedia style - many sentences are run-on with embedded clauses. Many will be split up, turning complex sentences to simple sentences. The content/information will remain the same. 3) Clarity - a minor issue of pronoun-use and unclear referents. This article uses many new terms most may not be familiar with.

The content and information in this article will remain largely intact with these edits I will propose. These proposed changes are more technical than informational/content-based. As proposed initially in the talk page, the article needs some technical and organization improvements.

Link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fgranata/sandbox Fgranata (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Emergency Planning Ideals section removal
In my sandbox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fgranata/sandbox, I decided to remove the section headed "Emergency Planning Ideals". I did not feel this followed NPOV, written with an essay tone as opposed to a neutral tone. The opening sentence: "If possible, emergency planning should aim to prevent emergencies from occurring, and following that, should develop a good action plan to mitigate the results and effects of any emergencies." sounds more like a thesis, with the following sentences used as backup. Further, an "ideal" is more of a subjective concept - some may feel one aspect should be included while others may not. Fgranata (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Ring of Fire" earthquakes in the news
Headine-1: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/04/earthquakes-in-chile-and-l-a-raise-fears-about-ring-of-fire/ QUOTE: “The 8.2 earthquake that shook northern Chile and surrounding countries late Tuesday night was one of a string of recent earthquakes along what is known as the “Ring of Fire,” a circle of quake-prone areas on the Pacific Rim. A magnitude 5.1 quake hit Los Angeles last week, followed by aftershocks along the California coast. And South America will be on the lookout in coming days for aftershocks that have already started following Tuesday night’s temblor. Both cities lie along the so-called Ring of Fire, where two plates underneath the earth’s surface occasionally bump up against other plates, according to Kate Hutton, staff seismologist at California Institute of Technology.” [Good graphic, surrounding the Pacific Ocean; good video on preparedness, also.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/04/earthquakes-in-chile-and-l-a-raise-fears-about-ring-of-fire/

Personal Resilience
Folks: I want to put together an entry on personal, low-level, hyper-local resilience, partly for a class I'm taking and partly because I think there is a need to reframe that part of the emergency planning discussion to start viewing communities and the people who make them up more as resources than is currently the case. I'm at Ckelley@Cambridge.com and my personal website is www.CraigKelley.org if anyone wants to follow up on this thought. Thanks.

Craig CraigKelley62 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Folks: I will soon start making edits to section 3.3 Preparedness in my Sandbox. My point is to help people prepare for local, small problems so that they'll be better able to handle big stuff that comes their way. Lots of research says that what we're doing from an Emergency Preparedness standpoint is simply not grabbing people's attention or getting results and we lurch from emergency to emergency instead of prepping for little things that help us smooth the bumps from normal daily life to an emergency of whatever sort.

Here's my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CraigKelley62/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template%3AUser_sandbox%2Fpreload&editintro=Template%3AUser_sandbox&redlink=1 CraigKelley62 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What level of emergency management are we talking about?
From my point of view, one of the issues with this article is that it mixes two many elements from too many levels. Specifically we see content related to risk reduction and preparedness activities That is very confusing. I would suggest focusing the article on the first two elements for the time being. Once those elements are well written and coherent we can think about adding the other elements back in, but I think we need to cut down on the scope of the article if we want to rescue it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timoluege (talk • contribs) 10:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * at the system level
 * at the national and international level
 * at the business level
 * at the household level

On Prevention and Mitigation
The content of this article is very important however the way it is articulated, especially the sections on Prevention ad Mitigation, can be confusing to he reader. Further, some of the claims rely on previous sections instead of explicitly stating everything. This can be problematic for readers who use the table of content link to go straight to a particular subtopic and find themselves needed context because of the way things have been worded. Finally, a lot of information has been provided in these sections but not of enough sources to back it up. I've indicated some of the places that need citations. The last segment in the mitigation section had numbers but no source to back them up. I've found a source with university backing and includes more specific stats. So I will update this section and cite the relevant source. Yfamiloni (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Overhaul + Image
Aaargh, I found an image of the disaster cycle that was half decent and now after I uploaded it I see that it has a typo. Anyway, I have done some major changes. I think that the personal stuff could go on a separate article if it is going to be so much of it. --  rxnd  ( t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 00:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have now gone through the complete article. I added some references removed quite a lot that seemed untrue or not directly relevant, i.e. there was a bit too much on the EOC and CERT in the article.  I have removed the 'tone' template as well as the 'cleanup' template.  There are however plenty more to be done, particularly in the personal preparedness section. Have a look at the discussion on the Disaster Management Wikiproject for some views on how this subject can be structured for the future.   rxnd  (  t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The article looks better. However, it only loosely follows the framework you and I have been working on at the Disaster Management WikiProject.  I would consider placing the risk assessment information in the first mitigation section (as was suggested in our collaborative framework).  Furthermore, I think we need to consider how we might best present the personal measures taken by inidividuals with respect to emergency management. -- backburner001 23:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Should do that Dev thakran (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

one of or the most important aspect missing: warning systems
No explanation of warning systems, no mention of emergency_population_warning, no mention of text messages / SMS! In fact, there seems to be no WP article that deals with that. --Espoo (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hinduja Hospital's Relief Camp at Bhuj after 2001 Gujarat Earthquake.jpg

geography
Emergency Colloo kipx (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

National Organizations - U.S.
The United States section feels a bit long. Should we shorten it and replace it with a main article link? --2edits4me (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pn612.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)