Talk:Risk

General problems with the risk article
I think most of the problems with definitions have been sorted or at least improved now. It is unlikely everyone will agree on a singe definition but the main authorities have been referenced and different views acknowledged.

The main problem in my opinion is the numerous contributions on diverse topics that would be better addressed in more specialized articles. I think all the "Risk" article really needs (apart from definitions) is acknowledgement of different approaches and some links to the other articles. Moving the existing text and integrating it into other articles is probably unrealistic, given that many of these other articles also have multiple issues.

Therefore I propose to delete the discursive text, where it is obsolete, not suitable as a summary, not referenced, duplicated or paraphrased elsewhere. Comments welcome before I begin.

JRSpouge (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * However, I think that the controversy about definitions should be highlighted. In particular, the ISO group that redefined risk to mean something neutral (or even positive) when the history, etymology and ordinary use of the word risk is clearly something negative. == mitchell360 == 18:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell360 (talk • contribs)


 * We would need reliable sources that specifically support such claims, we cannot simply add our own opinions to Wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Who bears the risk?
This article completely omits a major topic, namely who bears the risk. I'm sure specialists can make important distinctions here. 190.139.120.172 (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

risks
What are the other definiton of risk 122.3.156.184 (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)