Jump to content

Talk:Survival skills/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Category

Someone needs to categorize this!

Yes, survival skills should be broken in categories such as: 1. Survival in nature. 2. Survival at sea. 3. Survival in city. 4. Survival in Communistic or similar countries. etc. one of the more exotic example will be surviving as illegal immigrant. Can't agree more with what Dave B had to say. I did a three day course with these folk and certainly learn't all about what it takes to get back in one piece. Remember, survival is all about getting back not subsisting off the land. I for one don't like the idea of staying out there any longer than I have to. I also realised that my equipment wasn't up to speed. I had purchased a survival kit from the States and quickly realised how useless it was. Psychology is the key to survival. Regardless of training and equipment if you haven't got it up top than you ain't going to make it. Technology will let you down everytime, so be aware. I thoroughly recommend their training to anyone in Australia or for those wishing to visit the last great frontier. Stay Safe.

Peter Felton QLD Australia


This article is quite obviously in need of some serious work. I personally feel that most of the initial work should be focused on the "Basic Necessities" section, as this is the most important. Photos would also be valuable, especially for things like water gathering devices, traps, shelters, and improvised weapons which are hard to describe otherwise.

203.10.231.229 02:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC) Survival is more than just finding a shelter, water and food. It's all in the mind.

Why do the most experienced people find themselves in trouble when others with little or no training or experience live to tell their tale or even write a book.

Alive and Kick'n, Australia's most comprehensive guide to surviving in remote areas gives you all the answers. Written by two chaps who have not on been there but have also done it , and who run their own business provides you with a step by step of what to do from preparation to rescue.

Dave B203.10.231.229 02:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What about survival at sea?

I haven't been able to find any article about the survival of people adrift at sea, yet I can recall hearing about many different people who survived for long periods adrift.

I was trying to find out more about C.O. Jennings who wrote the book An Ocean Without Shores. During WWII he survived 127 days at sea, drinking rainwater and eating raw seagulls. When he eventually got taken prisoner by the Japanese, it seemed to be like a holiday camp to him in comparison. Its an exciting book which I thoroughly recommend. There is nothing on the web about him, which is a shame. I wish I knew more about him.

I think there should be an article about survival at sea, and other types of human endurance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.48.235 (talk) 62.253.48.235 (UTC)

Social survival skills?

I have heard very many people refer to internalization of certain skills that assist in ones ability not to be pushed around, et al, in your society given your race, social class, etc. related factors, as "survival skills." Should a subsection like that be included in this article, or is there already another article that addresses this which this article can link to?

I don't know whether or not there is another article on social skills, but that material definitely doesn't belong here. --Smack (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I removed "cutting tool" after knife and replaced it with "multitool" - a knife is a cutting tool, so the statement "knife and cutting tool" was repetitive. Also added the physical and mental sections under training. --21kev 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Edits

IMVHO this article still needs much work. Aside from a near total lack of sources (except for a how-to which does not belong in a Wikipedia article,) there are inaccuracies as well. I changed "Finding or making shelter is the most important survival priority because it allows a person to stay protected from the elements, and thus, hopefully warm and dry." to "Finding or making [shelter] is important because it allows a person to stay protected from the elements." As FM 21-76 suggests, priorities can and do change based on many factors. Shelter is far less important than water in desert survival, and the last thing you want in the desert is to be warm during summer days, and if you're dry, you've may have a serious lack of water. ;) LaughingVulcan 07:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Bigger than an article

I think it is unfair and Impractical to try and list all survival information possible in a single article. I think this page should simply list the basics of what survival IS. All information for specifics should get directed to a more specialized source such as another wiki.

shameless Plug, I have one of that kind, SurvivalWiki.org. Please feel free to come there and help out ;). But again I don't think an encyclopedia entry is really the greatest place to try and cram all survival information into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.107.55 (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Antivenin

These were recently added to the "See also" section, but I'm not sure how close they are to the topic. Both are normally used only in clinical settings under the supervision of professionals, not in the field. They aren't "first aid]]". From the experts I've spoken to the most important "survival skill" regarding poisonous bites is knowing wh where the best supply of antidote can be found locally. If bitten, one should call ahead to make sure in the intended clinic even has a supply, and allow them to start getting it ready. Administering antivenin is not a survival skill in the ordinary sense of the word. It's a medical procedure, just like setting a bone or removing an appendix. I think that having these entries on the list is misleading and we should leave them off. (A related item that would me more relevant is the "EpiPen" used for anaphylactic shock.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Water

I have to dissagree with one of the articles. The atmoshereic water gathring thing, now first if you are stuck int the wild where would you get this stuff and second if you are going into the wild for a sabbatical or something, why would you carry it.

Chuchu Anayo68.39.162.176 (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC) NJ, USA


I've started a new category, Category:Appropriate technology and some of the articles in it may be relevant to Survival skills. I believe that some techniques described in that category, such as the Cloth filter and Sodis or Solar disinfection, would be useful survival skills. --Singkong2005 06:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Urine on the other hand contains salt, which makes it unsuitable to drink." This one-sided view conflicts with the information at Drinking Urine: Survival, which presents a more balanced view: Yes, urine contains salts and other chemicals, and may even speed dehydration, but it may extend your life if no other water is available. Article could also use a link to Drinking Urine.Jedwards05

Urine contains more than just salts, there is also uric acid and other wastes. By drinking it, you will only concentrate the wastes in your body, shut down your kidneys, become lethargic, go to sleep and die. A better use for urine would be to soak your clothing and allow the moisture to evaporate and cool your body, thus conserving moisture in the form of sweat or use it inside a solar still and collect the purified water afterwards.208.242.58.126 (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself

In "Survival priorities" section it says a human can survive for 10 days without water but in the "Water" section it says three days, could someone fix this to the correct amount--217.69.179.16 22:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

10 days? No way. Three days is pushing it, if one just sat still and did nothing, the weather was mild and he/she didn't eat. Just for your own experience, try going one and a half days from 6:00 am until 6:00 pm the next day without drinking. I'm willing to bet that you will be totally focused on water by 6:00 pm the first night and if you manage to sleep, you will have fitful dreams of thirst. By 6:00 am you will be parched and feeling weak. By noon the second day, people who know you will positively state that you have gone insane. If you do make it until 6:00 pm without drinking anything, you'd better start out slow, less you drown yourself. Guaranteed, you will not want to repeat the experience and the thought of one and a half more days would seem like an eternity. By the end of day three, you will be either asleep with kidney failure or so weak that you wouldn't be able to save yourself if a glass of water placed there for you. Just reading this probably made you thirsty. Water has that much pull.208.254.130.235 (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

point of view

I believe the introduction is a bit agressive when it describes our society. Slave labor?

I belive that they are refering to wage slavery.--Knife Knut 02:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed most of that section as it was not relevant to the article. Well actually yes... --Pappa 10:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

>>>>>I'm sorry, but is "outer space" really necessary in the list of survival environments encountered??? >>>>>And why is Outer space capitalized??

Outer space is just another area where people want to survive. Its not a common one, like the bottom of the ocean but they both do deserve a mention

Wanting to survive and the ability to survive are two very real and separate issues. Including oxygen for high mountain and subterranean environments is far fetched. The ability to survive means being able to get by with no outside assistance, whatsoever. Just wanting doesn't cut it and the need for specialized equipment to facilitate survival takes it beyond the ability for improvisation.208.254.130.235 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Equipment

Aside from doing a lot of how-to cleanup on this article tonight, I wanted to note that I deleted a lot of the equipment from the Other Skills section. Initially, I was going to restore the equipment into a "Equipment" section, but we already have a Survival kit article that lists all of this. At some point, someone (myself later, maybe,) may want to work the Kit link directly into the article as well as having it in "See Also." LaughingVulcan 05:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference between a publisher and a copied link...

...is that a link which contains a copy of FM 21-76 (or any other source,) is not published by the United States Army. And while it may be considered helpful to provide an online reference to the same, it is not appropriate citation style to suggest it is, "Da Army," and then link to something not under the Army's editorial or publishing control. Hence removing "helpful links" to online copies of material which are not directly published by the United States Army. LaughingVulcan 02:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The US army does not publish a online copy of this manual and if you would do a little research you would understand this. I never said that the link is the US army it is just a copy of the manual which is a good ref by the ref guide lines. Removing refs from any page like you are doing only hurts the page and makes the content pretty much no good there are very few refs left on this page what is causing it major problems. If you do not lie the wording of a ref change the wording and not by removing the ref when this is the best copy of the manual that is online to ref to. A ref to support facts is is better then having no ref to make the facts unsupported. Who in the word would want to read this page if there are no supporting refs to make it fact rather then just what one person thinks about the page. 02:52, 13 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.80.1 (talk)

If you read the direct text from the section the ref is behind "Secondary sources of survival skills, including those produced by the United States Army" the wording says it was produced by the US army and the manual is there work and it was just put online by a private party. As we can all see from the manual they have not taken anything out of the manual. And if you rad the manual you would also understand that anyone can publish this manual and be considered the publisher of it since the US army has no copyright over the information. Amazon to many private publishers publish this same manual adn no changes are made either, but the only difference between then and the website that is linked in the ref is that they are giving it away for free when all the publishers are selling it to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.80.1 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, where do I start... First off, I hope you can recognize that like you, I am doing my best to ensure that this article is the best article it can be. As I believe you are also trying to do. With that in mind:
  • Firstly, it doesn't matter in the slightest if the reference is published online, or on paper. I think you're confusing convenience with correctness, here. A reference can be to something online, something on paper, a personal interview (though that doesn't qualify as a Verifiable Reliable Source on Wikipedia,) or several other forms of information which has a referent.
  • What matters is that it is cited correctly, and that it is something that someone checking the Verifiability of the article can find and agree it is a reliable source. It doesn't matter if the person has to go to a library, hit Barnes & Noble, or go to a website. But what does matter, from that standpoint, is that the link is what it says it is.
  • I am well aware the Army doesn't directly publish FM 21-76, or its successor, online. From the standpoint of citation, though, what matters is that the work is Verifiable and correctly cited. This wasn't. I have used one of the websites you listed, and found it informative and entertaining. That does not make linking to it a proper reference.
  • The publisher of the website you listed is NOT the United States Army. It is incorrect to state in the reference that it is Field Manual 21-76 published by the U.S. Army when the publication is actually made by someone else. If you don't specify otherwise, that is what you imply when you say the source is the, "United States Army." Even if the Army authored the material.
  • I am not questioning that the website publisher can't use the material. FM 21-76 is unclassified material produced by the Government, and therefore public domain. That is not an argument here. What is an argument here is that there is *nobody* to independently say that the website publisher got something wrong, dropped something out, etc. You and I may know it's a perfect copy of 21-76, but that is irrelevant. Also, that the website is not the Army, and is therefore a different publisher of the same material.
  • I have read 21-76. I currently own a third-party published copy of it. I have several electronic copies of it.
If I were to cite my own personal third-party published copy, I would do the following:
Department of the Army (2002). "U.S. Army Survival Handbook" ISBN 1585745561. Guildford, CT: The Lyons Press, (Page.)
I'd do it that way because: A) The "author," as listed on the cover is, "Department of the Army." (Which shows it's a pretty old copy of it...) B) That is the exact title of the work as my copy is published. C) There is a Verifiable ISBN number now attached to it. D) It shows what particular publisher published the copy of it (though anyone looking up the ISBN would see the same.)
Now, if I were to list the online source, I'd do it something like this:
United States Army. Field Manual 21-76 (Survival). Online copy retrieved from [1] on 12 September 2008.
I'd do it that way because it shows: The publisher asserts it's the United States Army who wrote the material. The publisher asserts that it is a copy of FM 21-76. It shows that this is a copy of it, NOT published by the Army. And it shows where someone can find both the publisher and the article. Finally, it shows the date it was retrieved on.
I'd still leave the first reference in the article as it is. Because it shows that if anyone wants to genuinely verify the material as published by the Army, they should find someone with a copy of the actual Army-published manual.
But, I keep seeing this link posted again and again and again, without any recognition that this is a third-party website version. That is what I feel must change to make the article better and to comply with WP:V and WP:N. The article also constantly pushes the edge on becoming a survival how-to, which is one way that the article can get nommed at AfD. Violating WP:NOT#HOWTO can be a case that this material is not encyclopedic, a valid delete rationale.
So I think we're both trying to make this article avoid that. Can we work together to make the article correctly referenced, include online references, and include print references? I will wait a day or two for your response before editing references again. LaughingVulcan 11:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

north/south

To Cgoodwin:

"Wherever the shadow is the shortest during a daylight period, that direction is South if you are in the Northern Hemisphere and that direction is North if you are in the Southern Hemisphere."

If one takes the direction to begin at the stick, then this is, of course, nonsense. But if you'd like to label my correction as spam (!) and undo it, as you've done, then you're welcome to get out to the wilderness and knock yourself out. If, however, you recognize how poorly written it is, then you might think about switching the directions, or improving the description, instead of mindlessly reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.202.168 (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Tree moss photograph is misleading

The old wive's tale about moss tending to favor the north side of the tree is exactly that, an old wive's tale. As someone who grew up in the rural midwest, I maintain that moss placement is determined by the geographical location of the tree rather than by the compass direction. Much depends on whether the tree is growing in a low valley, beside a swamp, or on a ridge; in a heavily shaded area or near an open meadow, etc.

Posting such a picture might erroneously lead a city person into thinking that they could use tree moss as a directional guide in the woods and get somebody into real danger. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.233.229 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Title Change

I suggest this article be changed to "Wilderness Survival". It fits better with wikipedia's structure (we don't call "computer science" "computer skills"... Xurtio (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Seven steps to survival

The Alaska Marine Safety Education Association is an appropriate US source for wilderness survival as Alaska is the largest land mass with the lowest population density in the US. It also supports a high volume of fishing vessels per capita, making it common to get stranded. The seven steps (in the order you should do them) are:

  1. Recognition
  2. Inventory
  3. Shelter
  4. Signals
  5. Water
  6. Food
  7. Play

thanks, Xurtio (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

MISSING: Survival in/against Water, Human Swimming, Travel swimming

This is a multiple post to Human swimming, Travel, Survival skills.

- Water kills. The human being who can't can't get out of the water eventually and certainly dies from in it. Depending on circumstances, death occurs due to drowning asphyxiation, hypothermia, impact trauma (in fast moving flood or river water), and occurs long before any serious risk of dehydration, starvation, exhaustion, and with enormously higher probability than due to predation.

- Swimming is a key survival skill in almost all incidents involving people entering water while alighting a disabled vessel or aircraft or falling accidentally in it from land, especially while in motor vehicles. It is also an essential rescue skill, and as such a prerequisite for several rescue-related professions.

- Travel is done by swimming with perhaps surprising frequency. Consider J.F. Kennedy and his sailors swimming island to island (not to mention his brother's claim of leaving Chappaquiddick by swimming), innumerable migrants swimming across rivers and straits, cases of political refugees swimming in the Baltic Sea, and many instances of people jumping in the water and swimming ashore from vessels not intended to reach land where they planned to go. Swimming travel is even featured in a recent motion picture "Welcome". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1314280/

Spamhog (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Rule of Three"

That is not the "Rule of Three" that I have always been taught. That is listed as this:

  • 3 Minutes without air;
  • 3 Days without water;
  • 3 Weeks without food.

If you are going to list a "Rule of Three", then it should include the 3 minutes....a "Rule of Three" doesn't mean that it has to have 3 rules, just 3 what ever in the rule....though it may help some understand if there is only 3 rules.

There should be a note in the text as to this. Can someone do that in some way that would make more sense than the way I would do it??

thank you for your time;

bdraft

Bdraft (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the air refers to, ie in some situations as haboobs, an air filter (ie t-shirt placed over mouth/nose) can make sure the air you inhale is (relatively) clean; not sure about any other situations though~

91.182.192.103 (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

Following images can be added, or can be reinstated to appropriate articles and linked:

  • Condensationpit.jpg
  • Condensationbag.jpg
  • Homemade waterfilter.jpg

91.182.192.103 (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is ripe with misspellings and typos

articles like these are the reason why Wikipedia isn't taken as a serious source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.63.112 (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

  • The article seems to use mainly one web site as a source - For a start.
    • Half of the citations are not from reliable sources.
  • If the name were to be changed to 'Wilderness survival' per this, these hyperlinks plus this would need to be updated.
  • The article isn't linked to enough related articles.
  • Bushcraft, Wilderness survival, and Primitive living are placed in one category. The article (currently 'Survival skills') should be about the first, yet mention bushcraft and primitive living (I've heard the term 'paleocraft').
  • Important survival items section is terrible
  • Water and food need a main article (hunting-gathering and wilderness water sources).
  • Under Natural Navigation, add [www.naturalnavigator.com this] source. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 13:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

EB Motley

Can't get reference 22 to work. Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.210.65 (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither can I. The broader issue is: "Who is E.B. Motley?" Google search results linked entirely to the wiki article. I found a small reference in a 1913 Illinois medical journal to an EB Motley, perhaps that's he. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can wayback it. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 13:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Steps

  • Phase 1 - Reduction: remove improper material. = COMPLETE
  • Phase 2 - Wikification: fit to format and find proper sources.
  • Phase 3 - Expansion: from better sources, expand the article. Technically, none of these phases ever end.
  • Phase 4 - Rename the article to "Wilderness survival" to better match format.

Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Title proposal

Reasons that have been given for renaming article to "Wilderness survival":

  • Too close to violating WP:NOTHOWTO. 'Skills' would be the language of an instruction manual.
  • In concordance with WP:CRITERIA:
    • Naturalness - "Survival skills" has a possible connection with survivalism, which may confuse the reader. Likewise a user searching for this topic who has prior knowledge of survivalism may avoid this page because of ambiguity.
    • Precision - "Wilderness survival" includes the importance of "wilderness". The article is intended for wilderness, and not for example city survival skills.
    • Consistency - "I suggest this article be changed to "Wilderness Survival [sic]". It fits better with wikipedia's structure (we don't call "computer science" "computer skills"..." - Xurtio (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A more natural title would be "survival techniques" rather than limiting the scope to just the wilderness which is a very imprecise term.Theroadislong (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
For the most part, the article did focus on Wilderness survival. City? That's already covered in other articles. The range of the article has no need to be broader. "Survival techniques" merges Survivalism and Wilderness survival. Limiting the scope to just wilderness is being precise. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 22:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Survival skills → Wilderness survival –

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merged Debris shelter into this article

As per Not a Guide, I merged the description of a debris shelter into the appropriate section in Survival skills and redirected from here to there. The details of construction are not relevant to its encyclopedic mention. It still needs a verifiable source, and possibly an image to enhance the description. -- mordel (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it anymore. Should be under bivouac shelter. Kortoso (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

water

Since when are nuts high in water content? Many of the listed water-filled foods don't have much water. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, you're right. The only nuts out there with high water content usually contain a level of tannic acid that can be reduced solely through leeching (soaking in water), for which you need water in the first place, making that idea useless! I sure hope no one tries to use this page as a survival guide. It isn't meant to be one, but it should at least be a good starting point for research (finding primary and secondary sources that would be of use to the reader). It isn't. Not in the least. Even the title is somewhat misleading. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 13:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Solar Water Disinfection

This should be included at some point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_disinfection Kortoso (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Rule of Fours

I had an "outdoor education" teacher years ago tell me this, and recently heard it repeated on "Survivorman". It's called "The Rule of Fours". It's not strictly correct, more of a mnemonic for remembering your priorities.

  • Four minutes to get air
  • Four hours to get shelter
  • Four days to get water
  • Four weeks to get food

I was also told another non-obvious (to me) rule: if you have access to food but not water, don't eat the food. You won't starve, and digesting the food will use water your body cannot afford to waste. Fracture98 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this "rule" is more misleading than useful.
  1. "Four minutes to get air" just baffles me. If you're under water (no air at all), you'll drown in four minutes, unless you're a highly conditioned diver. If you're at high elevation (thin air), your need for air depends on just how high you are.
  2. The time you can spend getting shelter depends on conditions. In clear weather at noon, you can probably afford six hours or so. If cumulus clouds are gathering and it's already two hours before sundown, you can barely afford two, if that.
  3. You'll die of dehydration in four days, maybe unless you can soak in rainwater or a lake. "Soak in a lake" is not a good idea. Dehydration is sped up by immersion in water. So soaking in a lake may infer to someone the concept of immersing in water to slow dehydration, when just the opposite is true.
  4. You'll die of hunger in four weeks. Moreover, for the last three weeks or so, you'll probably be weak, stupid and miserable.
You do have a point about eating when you have no water. However, in order to write about this in the article, we need to analyze it some more. For instance, I doubt it applies equally to moist foods (berries) and dry foods (trail mix). Furthermore, it's not immediately clear whether food takes up water temporarily (until your intestines reclaim it) or permanently. --Smack (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I should have said something like "It's not strictly correct, more of a mnemonic for remembering your priorities.". Oh, wait. I did. Fracture98 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As a mnemonic, it doesn't need to include specific details – especially when they're wrong. --Smack (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
While this is an older comment I'm making others above. Even though I didn't see the rule of 4's in the article (must reread,) Air isn't so baffling. If you're buried alive by snow or earth, you also have four minutes or so to get out. LaughingVulcan 07:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
IT is supposed to be the rule of 3s.

I used to teach survival for the US Navy's SERE school. Based upon the study of numerous survival situations that ended in a successful recovery, we teach five elements for successful survival, they can easily be remembered as, "Few Survivors Find Fast Solutions."

  • 1- First Aid, "are you physically capable of survival?"
  • 2- Signal "what are you doing to draw aid to you?"
  • 3- Fire "The very basic survival need"
  • 4- Food and Water "is there enough or do you need to find a better location?"
  • 5- Shelter, may come before or along with #3 dependent upon the climate, weather, and location; but may follow once the first four are met.208.242.58.126 (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? My teacher goes by the rule of threes: 3 Minutes without air, 3 Weeks without food, 3 Days without water —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinsfan368 (talk • contribs)

On some levels, the differences aren't all that extreme. (Yes, 3 days without water is a lot different from 4 days... 3 hours of exposure is different from 4 hours of exposure - especially at low or high temperatures.) However, what all of these priorities emphasize are the risks (in order of general surival threat) of: suffocation or injury, shelter (in some circumstances,) fire (in some,) water (sometimes #2,) and food. 3, 4, or 5 priorities over different scales of time.
However, the point of the encyclopedia article is to record that which can be documented in reliable secondary sources. So if Survivorman lists a Rule of 4s, that can be written up in the article. If Reliable Source X lists a rule of 3s, fine. If the SERE information can be cited, be my guest. If someone combines these into the different concepts: some list 3(Source X), some list 4(Source Y), some list 5(Source Z) - even better.
And I'd also note at this time that the point of Wikipedia articles is not to create a how-to of Survival Skills. Wikipedia should NOT be relied on for information on *how* to survive: That is what primary and secondary sources do. The point here is to document and cite that which has been said - 100% accurate info, or not. LaughingVulcan 03:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the numbers don't matter that much. It's a mnemonic to help in sorting priorities. Kortoso (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I added a link to survivalistboards.com - its a survival website and discussion board. The link has been removed, it was citied as a "commercial site" or was it because the site belongs to me, I dont know the exact reason. In the external links section, 4 of the 6 links are commercial. Please allow me to re-add my site, or please remove the 4 commercial links from the external links section. There is nothing for sale on my sites, just a couple of google banners. As survivalistboards.com deals with survival skils, it is related to this topic. - --21kev 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The internet abounds in dicussion forums. They should not be regarded as authorities. Kortoso (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Humans cannot survive more than three weeks without food??

This needs to be reworded. Hunger strikers normally go to a month without any problem. 50 to 70 days that most normally last. Given that a survival situation is much more stressful it may well be that those limits aren't applicable. Nonetheless the claim as written is simply false.Dejvid (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you must understand that hunger strikers use very little energy, those on a hunger strike are not building shelters, maintaining fire, trying to navigate etc etc. all of which take energy, lots of it! that is why the three week mark is used. this is a wilderness emergency situation, not some activists on a collage campus in a heated/air conditioned room with all the comforts. The Rule of Threes is an instruction tool intended to illistrate the priorities in a survival situation and while somewhat generalized, it pretty much hold to what experienced search and rescue people have observed in the survivors or victims of a survival situation. Survival instructors use this information to ensure that those who they are teaching are well aware of what comes first. That being shelter by the way. .User:Theridgerunner (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2007 (EST) ~

I heard that starvation can last up to 1 to 2 months before death occurs, so 3 weeks is definitly too little. It would probably also vary on the location (ie colder environments make you lose weight allot more quicker since extra heat needs to be generated to keep warm

91.182.192.103 (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to have a link to some authorative information. Kortoso (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Similar Page

I found this page similiarly worded:

http://www.answers.com/topic/survival-skills


--a 9-1-06

Note that it clearly cites Wikipedia. --Smack (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
So let's use it as a source! (jk) Kortoso (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a 'how-to' manual

I hate Wikipedia and endless discussions on policy & won't participate here. But somewhere or other there's a guideline, or policy or something, that says Wikipedia articles are not "how-to" or instruction treatises. I think that's a very good idea, and most of this article is a bad idea. 32.214.171.44 (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The policy concerns very nit-picky detailed instructions, like every single little step to install a new hard drive and install windows is a good example where there are many detailed steps to example how to do it. This article has very high-level broad descriptions, which is different. If you disagree, then point out which part of this article doesn't meet an exact section of the guideline. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

More authoritative resource

I'd presume that the Forest Service is a little more authoritative than various survival blogs: If you get lost

Kortoso (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Survival skills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Survival_skills/Archive_1&oldid=1136383201"