Talk:catastrophe
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Sense #4: "A social change of an outstanding radical and rapid character, with highly magical explanations by victims and others"? Hekaheka 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Added in this edit. DAVilla 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- No defenders, deleted sense. Hekaheka 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
French catastrophe not as catastrophic as English[edit]
This is my opinion through colloquial use of the word. However this opinion can be backed up by pointing out that within the Wikitionary entry, "desastre" is listed as a synonym -- and within a yellow pages there is a heading called "Apres Desastre" -- and these are adverts for contractors' services to come and pump out your basement when it's flooded or remove the tree that collapsed into your garage after the thunderstorm. And these things are not, in the English sense, thought of as "catastrophes," whereas in French, they may be.
What do you think? --174.94.42.200 06:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
The sociology definition needs rewriting, I'm not entirely sure what its trying to say. Thryduulf 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It might just be tosh. We inherited it from the original version of wikipedia:Catastrophe, which is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe?oldid=4963215 and doesn't exactly fill me with confidence: the contributor didn't even spell the word correctly. However, it does clarify one thing that our entry doesn't, which is that this sense (if it exists) is just a more-precise definition that sociologists use for the same general sense. —RuakhTALK 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tosh. A layman's catastrophe without "magical explanations" wouldn't be a sociologist's catastrophe? DCDuring TALK 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Has since been dealt with. — Beobach 06:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)