Talk:Risk

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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Therefore I propose to delete the discursive text, where it is obsolete, not suitable as a summary, not referenced, duplicated or paraphrased elsewhere.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

This is already discussed in a fair bit of depth at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_31000#Definitions - perhaps just a link to that section? -- naught101 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

ISO 31073 vs 31000

In most places the article talks about ISO 31000. The section that quotes the definition from ISO 31073 (risk management) should probably reflect ISO 31000 instead. Is there a reason to include both?

Could someone with access to the ISO 31000 text check it for consistency and update the reference? Oblivy (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The text is identical in both, except that in ISO 31073 there are parenthetical links to the definitions of more terms (uncertainties, objectives, opportunities and threats). I think it's safe to update the reference. -- naught101 (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

"Environmental risk" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Environmental risk has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 9 § Environmental risk until a consensus is reached. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)