20 of the World's Most Dangerous Places

[Siam Sam]

See them here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/3533883/20-of-the-worlds-most-dangerous-places.html). Thailand has made the list, Woo Hoo! :cool: :D Mainly because of the recent street protests. Honestly, though, I'd hardly call it "dangerous" ... yet. and the southern provinces mentioned are the deep South and outside the normal tourist route.

[Terrifel]

So... it's not a list of The World's Most Dangerous Places... just a list of 20 Places, in the World, that are Dangerous to an unspecified degree, by certain limited criteria.

A list of 20 Dangerous Places in the World, some of which may or may not be among the Top 20 Actual Most Dangerous Places in the World; readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.

That article has many similarities to useful information.

[Mahaloth]

Why did they list countries? I thought it was going to list specific places.

Weird.

[Terrifel]

The editors probably rejected the article's original title: "20 Countries With The Most Dangerous Citizens."

[Skylark]

Oh neat. I live in one of those places.

[Ranchoth]

What, no love for Pripyat?

[GorillaMan]

So... it's not a list of The World's Most Dangerous Places...
Did anyone say it was?

readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.
It'd be better for readers to be told what conclusions they should come to? :dubious:

[El_Kabong]

Iraq and Afghanistan dangerous? No wonder I was able to get such cheap deals. In fact, I've heard the US Government will fly you there and back for free (for stays of a year or longer).

[Eureka]

So... it's not a list of The World's Most Dangerous Places... just a list of 20 Places, in the World, that are Dangerous to an unspecified degree, by certain limited criteria.

A list of 20 Dangerous Places in the World, some of which may or may not be among the Top 20 Actual Most Dangerous Places in the World; readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.

That article has many similarities to useful information.

On Thanksgiving, someone turned the TV to the National Geographic Channel (may not be the real name). We watched a show called something like "America's Deadliest Dozen". Or rather, it aired a show on America's Deadliest Dozen and we made snarky comments about the effort needed to make a Gila Monster look scary. Some of the animals are scary, and some--especially insects--are potentially fatal but so rare it's hardly worth the effort to know that they are lethal, and some are so non-agressive that a little common sense ought to keep one safe.

That show had many similarities to useful information (or not).

[Terrifel]

Did anyone say it was?


It'd be better for readers to be told what conclusions they should come to? :dubious:Well, you tell me. If someone includes your username on a list entitled "20 of the SDMB's Most Stupid Posters," what are they saying about you?

They're not saying that you're among the SDMB's 20 Most Stupid Posters.

They're not saying that you're an especially stupid person.

Arguably, they're not even claiming you're stupid at all.

So what would be the purpose of such a list title?

[GorillaMan]

Well, you tell me. If someone includes your username on a list entitled "20 of the SDMB's Most Stupid Posters," what are they saying about you?
Errrrrrm....they're saying something different than if the list was called "The 20 most stupid posters"?

[Terrifel]

Errrrrrm....they're saying something different than if the list was called "The 20 most stupid posters"?Why, so they are. Now you tell me: what are they saying?

What meaningful information is conveyed by such a list?

[GorillaMan]

Why, so they are. Now you tell me: what are they saying?

What meaningful information is conveyed by such a list?
What's wrong with simply summarising various conflicts around the world, some ever-present in our media, others often ignored or forgotten?

[Terrifel]

What's wrong with simply summarising various conflicts around the world, some ever-present in our media, others often ignored or forgotten?Because that isn't what they claimed to be doing. That would be a list entitled, "A Summary of 20 Conflicts Around the World."

I take it that you wouldn't object to being on the "20 of the SDMB's Most Stupid Posters" list.

[DanBlather]

What, no love for Pripyat?If your trip there lasts longer than 4 hours you're supposed to call a doctor.

[GorillaMan]

Because that isn't what they claimed to be doing. That would be a list entitled, "A Summary of 20 Conflicts Around the World."
What's incorrect or misleading about the actual headline?

I take it that you wouldn't object to being on the "20 of the SDMB's Most Stupid Posters" list.
I find this objectionable, and ask you to take it back.

[Terrifel]

I find this objectionable, and ask you to take it back.Why? What's incorrect or misleading about it?

[guizot]

Why, so they are. Now you tell me: what are they saying?

What meaningful information is conveyed by such a list?It's probably just the tendency of the U.S. media to sensationalize, like the T.V. shows about poisonous animals. The State Department does the same thing. They say, "Don't go to this country, it's dangerous." But really, they're mostly just playing it safe.

Colombia is on the list, and I lived there for nearly two years, but I lived on the Caribbean coast, where few kidnappings or bombings happen, and the worst thing that happened to me in the city was getting stopped by the National Police late one night while coming home from buying some beer. They pointed their machine guns at me, and searched my bag.

CO: Que hay?
Subordinate: Cerveza.....

.....Fria.

Then they drove off.

I did get interrogated at gunpoint by guerrillas while camping in the mountains near Santa Marta, but after an hour or so of discussion, they let us go on good terms.

[GorillaMan]

It's probably just the tendency of the U.S. media to sensationalize
British media, too ;)
The State Department does the same thing. They say, "Don't go to this country, it's dangerous." But really, they're mostly just playing it safe.
It's clear just how silly it is to get a travel journalist to write an article such as this if you compare it to the Foreign Office travel advice for the places listed - there's a *ahem* remarkable similarity in places.

[KGS]

I wonder if India would've made the list before this week.

[Terrifel]

I wonder if India would've made the list before this week.Exactly. The article even comes right out and says that, aside from Mumbai, "most of the rest of the country is considered safe." So by their own admission, most of India is actually a "Considered Safe Place." So what the hell is it doing on the list?

And does it really make any sense to list "India" in a list of "20 Dangerous Places," regardless of how dangerous it is? It's not just a nation; it's a subcontinent containing 1/6 of the world's population. This is not all that different from categorizing "the Southern Hemisphere" as one of the World's 20 Most Dangerous Places.

Meanwhile, other "Dangerous Places" include Iraq and Mexico, Eritrea and Jamaica. Eritrea is a tiny sliver of land in east Africa. Burundi is also on the list, and it's even smaller. In fact almost half the list is African countries, yet the entire population of Africa is less than the population of India alone. Why not just list "Africa" as a single Dangerous Place? It would make exactly as much sense as "India."

Oh my god, did you READ the entry on Mexico? There have been three shark attacks on surfers this year! I can certainly see why it's on the same list as Iraq.

Telegraph travel editor Francesca Kellett was a lazy, lazy woman this week.

[GorillaMan]

Exactly. The article even comes right out and says that, aside from Mumbai, "most of the rest of the country is considered safe." So by their own admission, most of India is actually a "Considered Safe Place." So what the hell is it doing on the list?
Fancy a trip to Kashmir?

Meanwhile, other "Dangerous Places" include Iraq and Mexico, Eritrea and Jamaica. Eritrea is a tiny sliver of land in east Africa. Burundi is also on the list, and it's even smaller. In fact almost half the list is African countries, yet the entire population of Africa is less than the population of India alone. Why not just list "Africa" as a single Dangerous Place? It would make exactly as much sense as "India."
Does this mean that no place on the list should be geographically larger than any other?

Telegraph travel editor Francesca Kellett was a lazy, lazy woman this week.
Agreed!

[Terrifel]

Fancy a trip to Kashmir?Are you buying? According to Ms. Kellett, Ladakh is supposedly fairly safe... compared to the rest of Kashmir, which is dangerous... compared to the rest of India, which is mostly considered safe... despite its presence on her "World's Most Dangerous Places" list.

The list really isn't very informative in this regard, is what I'm trying to say.

Does this mean that no place on the list should be geographically larger than any other?It means that, ideally, it would help if there were any clear criteria to justify these particular "places" being on the list, given that they appear to have no commonalities in size, population, or relative danger.

She doesn't even mention whether the shark attacks were all fatal or not. That's not just a cry for help from an insane British travel editor; that's pure shoddy journalism.Agreed!Cool. :cool:

I should probably also apologize and clarify that I wasn't actively trying to insult you earlier. Rather, I was attempting to craft an illustrative analogy. I guess I failed at that. Sorry.

[Siam Sam]

I find it rather odd, too, that entire countries are listed, as Thailand remains very safe. The trouble in Bangkok threatens to blow up, but the vast majority of the country remains safe. IF you can actually fly here now, with both Bangkok airports shut. :(

[GorillaMan]

It means that, ideally, it would help if there were any clear criteria to justify these particular "places" being on the list, given that they appear to have no commonalities in size, population, or relative danger.

She doesn't even mention whether the shark attacks were all fatal or not. That's not just a cry for help from an insane British travel editor; that's pure shoddy journalism.
In fairness to the journalist in question, it was probably a piece rushed out to go in the weekend 'Travel' supplement, and we're taking it way out of context here simply by applying standards we expect of the news reportage rather than of the more lightweight parts of a newspaper. (It possibly was even to replace at the last minute a report on a trip to Mumbai...or Thailand...)

I should probably also apologize and clarify that I wasn't actively trying to insult you earlier. Rather, I was attempting to craft an illustrative analogy. I guess I failed at that. Sorry.
No problem :)

[Lust4Life]

I'm surprised that Algeria isn't on the list.

[Kuboydal]

Hrrumph,
Detroit gets overlooked again.