Talk:List of natural disasters by death toll/Archive 2

Haiti quake

Is it premature to list these estimates? It seems as if they are not really sure how many died, i.e. it ranges from tens of thousands to 500,000? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, it seems highly premature, especially to list them as 500,000. the main article on the haiti earthquake has a source suggesting that some estimates are as low as 30,000. for now, i opine that 100,000 is a good compromise in tables, as a very fluid estimate. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this. A reasonably accurate figure may be weeks off due to the inadequacies of the current emergency response management. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Haiti quake now has a confirmed death toll of 180,000 and is listed. The question is if it should take the place as the 10th deadliest natural disaster in history, far surpassing the lowest estimates of the current 10th place. Ctolsen (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The death toll seems to be estimated at between 250000 and 300000: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7621756/Haitis-earthquake-death-toll-revised-to-at-least-250000.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.1 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, these death tolls upwards from 200,000 were wildly inflated for political reasons by a (barely functioning) government not capable of accurately estimating casualties. See the Columbia Journalism Review link in the Haiti earthquake article or other sources; the actual total appears to be in the mid 100,000's with a reputable Univ. of Michigan study using 159,000. The USGS source given doesn't really "support" the higher numbers, it mentions them, and then in the next sentence mentions that the higher numbers are contradicted by other sources as low as the 100,000 range. BTW, the Schwartz USAID study that's even lower is not admissable for WP since it is not published in any form; it was "leaked" by someone with an agenda and despite much time passing, has never "passed muster", was declared by USAID to have flaws, and has never been officially published, perhaps for good reason (Schwartz has been charged with being against excessive US aid and thus inclined to "low-ball" casualties) DLinth (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Great Kanto Earthquake

In the "deadliest earthquake" table, why are there two different estimates for the Great Kanto Earthquake, even though both list it as being in Japan in 1923?

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by NuttyJay (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina (Tropical Storm)

[1,836 confirmed, 705 missing] not sure is not reported and the fatalities not even located in different natural disasters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina (21 January 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.62.0 (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

missing out on a few natural disasters from last year and other things

Last year in 2009 i heard on the news about an earthquake striking indonesia and and some island near australia resulting in a a tsunami with a cyclone striking the coastline and i don't think its mentioned. Plus they is no mentioning of other natural disasters like ice storms, sandstorms, dust storms, avalanches, big freezes which are long periods of freezing weather conditions over a large area like what happend in the winter here in europe and killed a few people so i think there worth a mention. stephendwan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.211.45 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think its worth a mention of the british and irish flooding from last year that was actually the worst flooding in ireland that i ever seen as i live there and britian was just as bad so do you think that these events are worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.211.45 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Storms (non-cyclones)

The columbus day storm, 1962, is listed in this list, but it was actually a cyclone (maybe the title for the section shouldn't say "non-cyclone"?) — robbiemuffin ^{page talk}

1730 Hokkaido earthquake

Is there a reliable source for this disaster? The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't seem to even mention anything happening in the Japanese earthquakes or Hokkaido articles. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just been looking at this as I hadn't heard of it. The only reference that I can find for it is in the 'International Dictionary for Geophysics' that I can't get a copy of. It is not mentioned in either the IISEE catalogue or NGDC significant earthquakes database. This is almost certainly a phantom event, although how it made it into an international dictionary I have no idea. I'm checking through some of the other red entries to see if they're real or not. If I find enough about them I'll start articles, if they lack sources, I'll remove them. Mikenorton (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've started articles for most of the redlinks in the list. The remaining two are the probably fictional Hokkaido event and the 1932 Changma earthquake, which probably had a death toll of only 275. I will create an article of the latter and then will be the time to do some sorting out. Most of the death tolls in this list are too high compared with the better sources. Mikenorton (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1932 Changma earthquake article is now complete, with a well-sourced 275 death toll, so now to sort out the best sourced death tolls for all these earthquakes and reorder the list. This will take a while and the work will be done either offline or in one of my sandboxes, so the change here will happen all at once (eventually). Mikenorton (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes

the 1999 İzmit earthquake is listed as having 44 000 deaths which is false. Zaza8675 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

See my latest response in the preceding section, I will review this, along with all the others. Mikenorton (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

pandemics by number

Why are pandemics separated in the manner on the page? Smallpox killed more than any other pandemic. Why is it in a separate category than the one that says "pandemics that killed more than x" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.211.59 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I will go ahead and merge the two tables as there has been no comments here. --Farzaneh (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikifying dates

Many of the dates would not sort properly as they were typed instead of coded. For any of the lists that were sorting out of order (by date) I tried to codify (and thus fix) the date. I did not change anything that was sorting fine on its own (eg - Storms (non-cyclone) all occurred AD and list only years, so typing out the year instead of using the dts tags kept the sort proper and, as such, I didn't bother changing them, though technically we should). One other issue was '2nd Millenium BCE (under Tsunamis). There seemed to be no good way to use the BCE dts tags (at least that I could see) AND have it sort properly as the oldest recorded disaster in that category, so I listed it as Year 1, used the dtsh tag to hide it, and typed out '2nd Millenium BCE. If there's a better/proper way to handle this situation, please let me know/.correct it, but I couldn't find anything specific under {{Dts}}. --Stevehim (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

1881 Haiphong Typhoon 300,000 deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1881_Haiphong_Typhoon 184.166.2.234 (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Point? Ckruschke (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

: Well, geez, I don't know, maybe something about it being a very large natural disaster that isn't on the list? Why else would I mention it? 184.166.2.234 (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Dispute of change reversions

My changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll&diff=573585718&oldid=573526934

Changes that were reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll&diff=573659913&oldid=573585718

Some stupid wiki function I wasn't aware of did math on my edits instead of just displaying them.

• 1970 Bhola Cyclone 224,000-500,000
• 1920 Haiyuan Earthquake 200,000-273,400

Both articles mention these lower ranges to be official. 184.166.2.234 (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what are you asking for? The above appears to be just a statement. Ckruschke (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

extraterrestrial sources

What about air bursts, impacts etc.? Haven't there been any that have known to have killed people?64.53.191.77 (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Why is 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the top 10 list? ImTheIP (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've restored a previous version. It looks like someone either confused the event with the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami or it was just vandalism. Dawnseeker2000 18:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC involving this article

Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#A mess of WP:Content Forks

This article is currently being discussed as part of WP:Request for Comment at the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard under the section heading A mess of WP:Content Forks. The discussion is to decide how this and other closely related articles could be systematically organized to avoid redundancy The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

How to handle Tohoku Earthquake/Tsunami

The subject natural disaster is listed under both "Earthquakes" and "Tsunamis" with similar death tolls. As we will probably never be able to assertain the actual death tolls attributed to either occurance separately, I was wondering if there was a similar disaster (recent or otherwise) and how it was handled. I think we can probably agree that the tsunami caused the higher death toll (whole towns washed away), but then again the earthquake CAUSED the tsunami. Just seems odd to list it in both places. Eitherway, I edited the title of the disaster in the Earthquake list to say Tohoku Earthquake/Tsunami so that it would mirror its title in the Tsunami list.

On an unrelated issue, has this page established a death toll limit for having a disaster make one of the lists. Obviously you aren't going to have many Meteorite deaths, but the list for Earthqaukes is at 56 and counting - appears that there is an un/official limit of 10,000 on this one. Or are people just adding as they find documented evidence and the lists will just grow to "whatever"? Ckruschke (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

No death toll limit that I know of, I would be happy to see a shorter list, but where to apply the cut-off? Perhaps we could just use the 'template Deadliest earthquakes', see below. Mikenorton (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency between tables

As no-one has begun the discussion following addition of the 'contradict' tag, I'm starting it here. I've removed the 1730 Hokkaido earthquake as it seems to be a phantom event (discussed further up this page), so the two tables are now in agreement down as far as 12, with the 1703 Genroku earthquake being the next point of difference. This earthquake has a lot of different casualty numbers from a variety of sources, although most are about 10,000, the higher figure of 100,000 seems likely to be a typo that has been copied from source to source. In the NOAA/NGDC database they use 5,233 although they mention one estimate of 200,000. The IISEE database gives 10,000. Other values that I've seen are 'more than 5,000', 37,000, 150,000, 100,000 and so on. My long term plan is to try and reconcile all of this in some logical way, not only for the 1703 event but for others where the death toll varies from source to source (that's just about every earthquake in the list). This is not proving to be easy and I keep dropping it to get on with other more tractable stuff. Mikenorton (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian Heat Wave 50,000 deaths

It's number 1 on the list yet no reliable source. Most of what I can find indicates around 10-15,000 total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.23.59 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Haiti death toll

The death toll statistic for the Haiti earthquake on this page is extreme POV. There is no consensus. It would be wise to reflect the debate, but using the lowest possible estimate is no more correct than using the highest. The official UN figure is roughly 230,000. The official Haitian govt figure is 316,000. Those should be reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.160.141 (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the figure is open to debate. However, my research showed that all non-UN/Haitian sources agreed on a death toll of 25K-55K or so (so I linked one article that showed all the numbers AS WELL AS the argument for/against them). My argument is that if we choose to show the "inflated number", then we are running a POV risk from the opposite side. However, I'm certainly open to debate a better solution. Ckruschke (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

526 Antioch Earthquake

The #6 top disaster actually occurred in Antioch while been part of the Byzantine Empire, currently part of Turkey. I believe that we should add this on the table, in the same way as #4 and #10 locations are listed. Mppf (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed DLinth (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Haiti earthquake

The death toll for the earthquake is different in the 2 lists. This has the strange affect that this disaster is ranked higher in the first list... Roland (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed: Although both were citing the same source, one listed a 225,570 death toll and the other a 316,000 death toll. After checking the source in question, the lower figure was changed and both are now at 316,000. Mauri96 22:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauri96 (talk • contribs)

I'm confused about 'ranking' the Haiti earthquake: writing in Dec. 2012, a quick internet search offers a death toll of 230k (rescue.org--no ref.) and Wikipedia's referenced estimate of 316k; it appears that we're assuming Wikipedia's numbers are accurate--but why has't it been added to the "top 10 by death toll" chart at the top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curranb79 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been added to the list because it appears that no one has done it. However, if you really want to make the list correct, it needs to be filled with "Famines" and "Communicable Diseases" as there are many in these categories that are well over a million deaths. I'm not sure who came up with the original "Top 10" list or decided that it would not include items from either of the noted categories, so I've just left it alone.

Also as far as the Haiti Earthquake, I've seen death tolls as low as 25K (see thread all the way at the bottom) so 316K should just be seen as a guess and nothing concrete

Ckruschke (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

The toll for the Haiti earthquake is extremely dubious and likely driven by political motivations for pity or monetary assistance - in either case, they are not to be taken seriously at any level greater than 80,000 dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.4.113 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree in principle, but as you see above (and in at least one other Talk topic on the Haiti earthquake) the current number is supported by reference from the USGS. If you have a credible reference for "<80K", please supply it for review by the group, but I've looked at this issue on two different occassions and I can't find one eventhough I've found "ANECDOTAL" numbers that are in the 25K-55K range. Ckruschke (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Agree with the comment two above. BTW, As mentioned elsewhere by Ckruschke who does a thorough job caretaking this page, there are even lower numbers, but they all seem to originate with the Schwartz USAID study that's not admissable for WP since it is not published in any form; it was "leaked" by someone with an agenda and despite much time passing, has never "passed muster", was declared by USAID to have flaws, and has never been officially published, perhaps for good reason (Schwartz has been charged with being against excessive US aid and thus inclined to "low-ball" casualties) DLinth (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Toba Eruption

Shouldn't the Toba supervolcano eruption be on the list of top 10 deadliest natural disasters? Some estimates say before the eruption, there was a human population of up to 60 million. Afterwards, genetics indicate the human race dropped to as low as 10,000 or even 1,000 breeding pairs. That's at least 59.99 million people killed off! Don't forget the other species that went extinct or were reduced to very low numbers by the eruption. Dinokid 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

what reputable source gives a human population in the tens of millions at that time?Kdammers (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

None. The "60 million" for then is a bit off to say the least. See [1] where 37,000 years ago we had 3 million; in Toba's time (~73,000 years ago) perhaps 2.5 million at most.DLinth (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

1931 Chinese Floods

There are 3 different ranges for the 1931 China Floods across the article. Which estimates should be favoured? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.36.36 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

See article. Chinese govt. deliberately stated the death toll as less than half of actual.DLinth (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing disease in Communicable diseases

In World War one around half of the losses (around 10 million people) died from infuenza. Why is this major epidemic/disease not listed in top 10 Communicable diseases? --Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The methodology/definition in the lede for this article limits this page (I agree) to natural disasters (at least mostly, it goes on to say further down) and that only "sudden events" are included (I agree). The latter eliminates famines, epidemics, droughts, etc. DLinth (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Disasters are NOT natural...!

I want to congratulate those who put together this article. I just wpuld want to propose a change in terminology. Disasters are "NOT" natural... Even if they derive from the impact of a natural hazard, what makes them become a "disaster" is human vulnerability. To sustain this statement, let me offer you a series of articles I have written about the topic; the links to access the paper online is also provided. Of course, I remain at your disposition for any further discussion. Best regards and thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts. Sergio Mora Castro, sergiomo@geologos.or.cr:

- Disasters are not natural: Risk management, a tool for development. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publication 2009; v.22; p.101-112; doi10.1144/EGSP22.7; http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/reprint/22/1/101.pdf?ijkey=t0zzngz8DHPBz9N&keytype=finite

- Disasters should not be the protagonists of Risk Management. Keynote speech at the 11th International Congress, International Association of Engineering Geologist and the Environment. Auckland, New Zealand. 2010. 18pp. http://www.scribd.com/doc/40784124/Manejo-del-riesgo-Sergio-Mora-geologo

- Mora et al. 2012. Slope instability hazard in Haiti: Emergency assessment for a safe reconstruction. Banff, Alberta, Canada. Keynote speach. Landslides and Engineered Slopes: Protecting Society through Improved Understanding – Eberhardt et al. (eds) © 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-62123-6; https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Haiti/Tropical_Storms_2012; https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_C6dUAEbjPia2dXaFNWRTZqRGc/edit

- Mora, S; Barrios, R; 2001. Conceptualización estratégica para la prevención de desastres en América Latina. Segundo Simposio Panamericano de Deslizamientos. Cartagena, Colombia. 9pp. http://www.cne.go.cr/CEDO-Riesgo/docs/2641/2641.pdf

- El impacto social, político y económico de los desastres. Segundo Simposio Colombiano de Ingeniería Geotécnica y Sismológi-ca. Asociación de Ingenieros Civiles de la Universidad nacional. Santafé de Bogotá. Agosto, 1997. 17pp. http://www.cne.go.cr/CEDO-Riesgo/docs/2675/2675.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.152.162 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Matter of degree and a matter of semantics. Humans are "natural" inhabitants of the planet (a few species have popped up since homo sapiens.) However, the normal meaning of "natural" opposes the definition of "man-made" in common usage, so you raise a good point. This article does, in a place or two, point out that while events are listed here as "natural", there were other (though rarely the primary) cause of the "sudden event disasters" to which this page limits itself. So these lists are "mostly natural-triggered" though certainly would be far, far less in scope if not for man-made factors. Haiti (and the recent flooding in India) have been (correctly IMHO) attributed largely to man-made denuding of steep slopes and to climate-change exacerbated warmer oceans and thus more severe single-event storms in places. A slippery slope indeed...mostly man-made, mostly natural?DLinth (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

1770 Bengal Famine - Not a natural disaster

Why is the 1770 Bengal Famine included in this? The way I understand and and the way the article for it reads is that the large loss of life was caused not by the drought but by the extensive human error on account of the British East India Company. Enlighten me if I'm wrong. Leonffs (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Same could be said of the Ukraine famine which was basically brought about by Stalin forcing them into collectivism (which provides less food) and witholding food aid from them. So I guess someone needs to go through the list and decide which of the Famines are "natural" and which are man-made. I only do cartaker duty on this page. It has way too many issues and I'm way too busy with other stuff to rollup my sleeves and do more than that... Ckruschke (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Agree with Ckruschke.

A large plurality of topics/complaints on this talk page deal with famines/plagues which, by the methodology/definition in the lede for this article limits this page (I agree) to only "sudden events" (I agree). The latter eliminates famines, epidemics, plagues, etc. And WP already has an excellent List of famines and List of epidemics not necessary, IMHO, to duplicate here on the natural disasters list page. I will delete those two here; please WP:BRD if you feel otherwise and discuss here. DLinth (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

From the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health: "Despite the role of natural causes, the conclusion is inescapable that modern famines, like most of those in history, are man-made."

Deadliest wildfires and Landes fire death toll

There is no source that I can find that corroborates this page's death toll of 230 for the 1949 Landes forest fire. On the French-language Wikipedia, the fire has its own page and lists the death toll at 82. The French page for the Landes forest also lists the death toll at 82. These claims have sources, but they're in French. The only sources that list the 230 death toll appear to pull their information from this page.

Barring any reputable sources for the 230 death toll, the Landes fire should be removed from this list and the next-deadliest fire should be added at the bottom or another deadly fire slotted into the appropriate place based on death toll.

Leavethelighton (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

order

shouldn't these two be reversed? The second one is higher at both the lower and upper ends. 4 242,000–779,000 1976 Tangshan earthquake China

5 500,000–1,000,000[1] 1970 Bhola cyclone East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)Kdammers (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

1882 Bombay Cyclone

The 1882 Bombay cyclone is ranked 9 among the 10 deadliest tropical cyclones. However, I recently had a conversation with a scientist hailing from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune. He had recently conducted a seminar in which his team concluded that on the basis of their research, the devastating tropical cyclone in question never occurred. His findings are based on the India Meteorological Department's archives dating back to 1882.

Now I do agree that since its an individual's work, it does not have enough notability to be as trustworthy as other official sources. In fact, many books have claimed that the storm occurred in 1882, but no IMD content states about the storm. A newspaper article also dismisses the claim that the storm occurred. The article can be found here, dated December 2, 2015, written by Adam Sobel, a professor at Colombia University/

My question is: Is this reference enough for us to erase the storm away from the list? Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

tsunamis are earthquakes

Why separate them? They should be in the same table as earthquakes. http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/tsunami/general/physics/earthquake.html http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/ http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/springle/

Because they aren't the same. Yes, Tsunamis are GENERATED by earthquakes and there have been times where an earthquake hits a region and you have tsunami damage in the same region, but you can have tsunami damage where the affected area barely feels an earthquake AND you can have earthquake damage to an area that is nowhere near water. Ckruschke (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Ckruschke

Also, tsunamis can be triggered by any displacement of the seafloor, including volcanic explosions (e.g. 1883 eruption of Krakatoa) and submarine landslides (e.g. the Storegga Slide). Mikenorton (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of natural disasters by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509011227/http://www.newsweek.com:80/id/135814 to http://www.newsweek.com/id/135814

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Earthquakes

The 1976 Tangshan earthquake is listed as the second deadliest natural disaster on the over-all list but is ranked below a 16th-century earthquake in the earthquake list.  This desicrepancy needs to be addressed.Kdammers (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of natural disasters by death toll. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://natural-disaster.findthedata.org/l/117/1882-Bombay-cyclone
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020031356/http://earthquake.usgs.gov:80/earthquakes/world/most_destructive.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/most_destructive.php#summary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013032541/http://www.ema.gov.au:80/ema/emaDisasters.nsf to http://www.ema.gov.au/EMA%5CemaDisasters.nsf/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of natural disasters by death toll. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730173219/http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/hurricanes/casestudies.shtml to http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/hurricanes/casestudies.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/most_destructive.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151003064028/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/2008/2008_deaths.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/2008/2008_deaths.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421043514/http://www.nbc10.com/news/4030540/detail.html to http://www.nbc10.com/news/4030540/detail.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ema.gov.au/ema/emaDisasters.nsf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge with List of natural disasters by death toll#Deadliest_earthquakes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge, but implement editing suggestions of User:Klbrain below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

• Support - Having the same list essentially twice serves no good purpose. Conciseness is desirable... Veryproicelandic (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - They are not the same list as the list on this page contains over 50 quakes, whereas the other list has 16. --Undescribed (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral on merge. The simplest solution might to consider the list at Lists of earthquakes#Deadliest earthquakes as a summary, and then link it to List of natural disasters by death toll#Deadliest earthquakes with a main template, removing the redundant see also template in the List of natural disasters by death toll#Deadliest earthquakes section. Klbrain (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Klbrain. Ckruschke (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke

Agree with Klbrain on this one. Also, in that case, the Lists of earthquakes#Deadliest earthquakes should be treated as a summary, with shorter notes and less detail in individual entries, and a cap on the number of entries included. These events all have their own articles, so I summary in the notes section is unnecessary. The inclusion criteria for this page should be explicitly defined (47 is an odd number of entries, and 40,000 a fairly arbitrary cutoff).Elriana (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why have list of deadliest floods and deadliest land slides been included together

Totally different events, mostly unrelated to each other. The list entirely fills in floods only as they affect more and occur over a longer period of time. landslides should be given separately to reflect deadly landslides like Khait landslide which killed around 30,000 people, which is a huge figure for landslides and had no relation to any kind of flooding like most landslides. There should be a separate list of deadliest floods List of deadliest floods and deadliest landslides List of landslides...Marked Man 808 (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that most recent estimate of the total death toll from landslides associated with the 1949 Khait earthquake is 7,200 - see the earthquake article for the source. Mikenorton (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but they have little to do with floods. Floods and landslides are totally unrelated, and including them together, obvi floods which occur over a longer time and and over a vaster area will have a higher death toll, and totally undermines the devastating impacts of landslides, which have deadlier effects than some other events you mentioned separately, like "deadliest impact event". I think floods and landslides should be on a separate list.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marked Man 808 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Consistency?

Someone has already mentioned far above how numbers/orders of events have drifted to where (back in 2011) tables didn't agree with each other. Well, still true.

Doesn't it bother anyone that two different numbers are given for Krakatoa? 36,417-120,000 given under tsunamis (and without a ref), but a 36,000+ under volcanic eruptions with a ref given. And this has been true since at least 2014.

Under the initial "Ten deadliest" we find 1920 Haiyuan earthquake at 7 then 1976 Tangshan at 10 as sorted by lowest limit, but under "Deadliest Earthquakes" they are reversed at 4 and 3, sorted by ???. Hmm, apparently the lower limit for 1976 Tangshan was lowered March 2017 but incorrectly/incompletely repositioned in "Deadliest Earthquakes"? Oh, and the ref causing that lowering change is mentioned in the article but not here. Sigh.

And how is the "2004 Indian Ocean" event sometimes a tsunami, sometimes an earthquake, and sometimes (as for the article) a combined event? Another example is Typhoon Nina.

So, Dawnseeker2000 repeatedly says "use the numbers from the articles", as seen several times in the page history. Sounds right - is that the rule? (I hope so) And sort order is determined by the lesser ref'd range figure? (I hope so) And refs should be kept up to date here, or perhaps better, just kept in the linked articles? Shenme (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course there are no rules but, there are if we want them to be. I agree that we should have complete consistency between the list and the articles themselves. It probably helps to repeat the same key citations that are used in the articles to reduce the tinkering that all such list articles are prone to. Keeping these consistent is not any easy task, however. I still need to sort out the death toll for the 2004 earthquake and tsunami, so I'll do that before I do anything else - I've just been putting it off because of the knock-on effect on other articles such as this one. Mikenorton (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the death toll for the 2004 event and adjusted the lists accordingly. I've also made the quoted numbers for the 1976 Tangshan event consistent throughout and removed citations to parts of the en and ja wikipedias and mentioned the 'phantom' nature of the 893 Ardabil earthquake. There's still more to do here, but I'm leaving it for now. Mikenorton (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Deadliest impact events

Most of the reports noted here are of questionable validity. I won't question Professor Delong's economics qualifications, but he is not an expert on meteorites. One citation even notes that an entry has been debunked. Delong mentions a study by two undergraduate students in an introductory geology course--not the most credible source. The other main source of information is from International Comet Quarterly and seems more credible; it does not mention all of Delong's deaths, and it cautiously lists Wikipedia as a source. Michael E Nolan (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Tuberculosis statistics seem off

Looks like there are extra 0's added, or not enough. The data on the left is 10 times less than the data on the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.37.136 (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

1931 flood in Chian

The 1931 flood is listed thrice. In the first listing, the number given is a single figure, whereas in the other two lists it is given as a range. Let's be consistent. Kdammers (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Kdammers The first list takes into account "the highest estimated death toll". Dilbaggg (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

Should we add coronavirus? The Channel of Random (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would we? You planning on having more than 5 million worldwide deaths? Ckruschke (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

I meant, should we mention coronavirus in this article? Because it's actually one of the deadliest natural disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Channel of Random (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Only the top ten epidemics are up there, the smallest of which caused 5,000,000 deaths, so coronavirus isn't bad enough to fit there yet. The section that describes the worst natural disaster for every year excludes epidemics, so it wouldn't show up there. So far there's been around 500,000 deaths from corona. 2610:130:110:1504:E05E:4108:814B:8C72 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Epedemic in central America left out

I think an important and very deadly epedemic is missing in the list of the deadliest pandemics. The Pandemic suffered by the Inca's and Aztec population in Central America after the arrival of Spain is very significant. It killed ten's of millions and would come second to the black death. Could someone with more knowledge about this pandemic list it? 83.160.61.76

The methodology/definition in the lede for this article limits this page (I agree) to natural disasters (at least mostly, it goes on to say further down) and that only "sudden events" are included (I agree). The latter eliminates famines, epidemics, droughts, etc. DLinth (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I know your response is 7 years old at this point, and the page may have changed to include epidemics since then, but it's a bit strange now not to include this epidemic since things like the running total of deaths to various infectious diseases are included. Someone should definitely add this epidemic at this point. 2610:130:110:1504:E05E:4108:814B:8C72 (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If so, in the first two lists, there would be only epidemics, so it would be the same list as the list of epidemics which already exist on the page. Wykx (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

1780 Tabriz earthquake

On 1780 Tabriz earthquake the number of reported casualties is 40,000–200,000, with 50,000 being a more likely estimate. Shouldn't this be changed to 50,000? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

My opinion, but it appears that the references point to one conclusion of 50K. Since estimates still vary, one conclusion even if its quasi "definitive" doesn't end the discussion.Ckruschke (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

Why use estimated deaths for covid?

The HIV pandemic uses reported deaths, all others are reported, so why Covid needs to separately include both estimated and reported? Also estimated deaths doesn't have sufficient WP:V,, WP:RS and doesn't seem as WP:Notable as reported deaths. I think this creates confusion for readers, so i recommend only reported deaths be used, as it was until around last week when this change was made. I won't maake any change, just a recommendation, cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No wonder no one takes Wikipedia seriously

The fictional destruction of a planet by a Death Star is included in the list of deadliest natural disasters. What kind of morons run this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:C281:4130:B5B9:5881:3D3B:7906 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That piece of vandalism has now been reverted. Being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit has its downsides. Mikenorton (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do different sections have different values for Death toll and Date

If you look at "1931 China Floods", it has 1,000,000–4,000,000 in the "Ten deadliest natural disasters since 1900 excluding epidemics and famines" section, 422,499–4,000,000 in the "Deadliest natural disasters by year excluding epidemics and famines" section and 400,000–4,000,000 in the "Ten deadliest floods" section

Similarly, for the same item, it has date of July 1931 in "Ten deadliest natural disasters by highest estimated death toll excluding epidemics and famines" and "Ten deadliest natural disasters since 1900 excluding epidemics and famines" sections, July – November in "Deadliest natural disasters by year excluding epidemics and famines" and 1931 in "Ten deadliest floods".

Shouldn't at the very least, the different sub-sections on this page all have the same values? Assassin (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

They should and the numbers/dates should also match those in the individual linked articles. I have attempted to ensure that this is true for all the earthquake articles, although it's a while since I checked thoroughly. Perhaps try engaging with the WikiProjects that cover the other types of disaster to see if they could assists in keeping everything consistent? Mikenorton (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I tried to change the 1931 China Floods death toll to 422,499-4,000,000 to match the source article. Also copied over the citation from the source article. Didn't change the dates because each table seems to have consistently different formatting, so i would have to change all, which i am not sure i can right now

I have never done this before(add citations). Would you mind check if i did this correctly? If i did, i will try sync some more Assassin (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That worked fine :), thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing disaster?

I was curious to know if you could add the disaster tidal wave or tsunami to the list as a natural disaster. I think this qualifies. It can be generated by winds or other natural disasters. 2600:1700:B50:9CF0:25DC:49CF:F18D:1DDC (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

heat waves are very controversial, difficult to count its victims...

and driven by a political ideology of climate change hysteria. Why does the article fail to mention cold related deaths? Its way more dangerous for humans than heat. 93.206.56.220 (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

1556 Earthquake

I propose readding the 1556 Chinese Earthquake with 800,000+ death tolls. The top list is absed on "highest estimated deat toll". The lower estimate is 100,000 but top list is only concerned with the highest estimate regardless of the cause or inflated figures, even if 700000 people died of famine opr epidemic but it still gets attributed to the 1556 Earthquake and as 800,000 is the highest estimate it should be added back! Dilbaggg (talk) 07:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Even WP:RS like New York Times accept its 800,000+ death toll and acknowledges it as the deadliest earhquake ever. De3bnying it is like denying WW2 didn't happen in 2223 because people then didn't see it and relied too much on modern sources that forgot to mention it. This 1977 source is sufficient [2]. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Just because a New York Times journalist in 1977 concluded that there were 800,000 deaths that doesn't mean that we should ignore later publications, especially scientific ones that question that figure and propose lower numbers, particularly if the higher figure is an example of conflation with other causes of death. I think that the paragraph for that list needs a rewrite as it already specifically excludes death tolls for several volcanic eruptions due to issues with "collateral effects", it should I think be true for earthquakes as well. The 800,000 figure is not included in the relevant article's lede because of the conflation issue. We shouldn't include it here if we don't include it there, or we're not being consistent across the project. Mikenorton (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mikenorton Again this list is based on the highest estimate, yes lower estimates will attribute to different numbers but highest estimate according to WP:RS remains 800,000 + so please do not let your Wp:OR get in the way. And volcanic eruptions are a joke, no volcanic eruption excluding the 1815 one till date even caused 50,000 deaths, even if we exclude that line that the list omits volcanic eruption (which I am going to do), not a single volcanic eruption will be eligible. And once again HIGHEST ESTIMATE for 1556 earthquake remains 800,000+ across all WP:RS platforms. Lets seek WP:TO then we can fix both this and the main article. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg: If later analysis shows that the high number conflates other death causes, then it stops being an estimate and becomes an error, one that we should not repeat. For comparison, the 1202 Syria earthquake still gets quoted in some sources as having 1.1 million deaths, but that only rates a mention in our article as it is now understood that this number is grossly inflated by the inclusion of deaths from famine and disease and that 30,000 is a realistic estimate. I don't see any point in including completely unrealistic estimates in this (or any other) article. I'm not suire I understand what original research you think that I have been involved in and what's with Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto? Mikenorton (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mikenorton I meant Wp:third opinion. Anyway numerous Wp:Rs like the above io gave and this among amny other [3]] cites the highest estimated death toll of 800,000 +, we can't just simply dismise these based on personal views. Their are chances of almost every disaster=s here having been inflated, even the 1976 Earth quake is dubious that 600,000+ people died in it, but still the list is based on HIGHESTED ESTIMATED DEATH TOLL, so why target only the 1556 Earthquake. Seriously we need to seek WP:DR, sadly am so busy these days I hardly have time but we can't negate the highest estimate like this! The matter should be discussed and solved despite the long gaps. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Been a while and I don't know when i will be back after today, but please consider the HIGHEST ESTIMATE that the list is based on and 800,000+ is supported by numerous WP:RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Great Chinese famine isn't a "natural disaster"

the state sanctioned it via it's plan Jazi Zilber (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)