Talk:List of countries by intentional homicide rate

Note: See table updating info: /LibreOffice Calc instructions and /Excel instructions.

map no longer correlates with data in the table

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:a702:13a8:351a:90bc:15e4:a903 (talk • contribs) 29 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 numbers are available. Need full table update

Vgbyp and others. I don't know if I have the energy, health, and time to do this. See the help subpages linked from the top of this talk page.

See the first reference link. From that page there is a dataset link to download all the data.

See the visual editor section of Help:Creating tables#Tables and visual editor for how-to info on creating a wiki table from a spreadsheet. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Just so others know, Vgbyp has updated the numbers to the latest available year. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I updated the link (above) for help. Here is the current link:

Help:Creating tables#Tables and visual editor. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Several countries missing

Data for several countries is missing from both (the current version of) this table and from the UNODC source. This data was previously available in the article's table, but was removed on 2021-11-02. Old tables with the now-missing data can be viewed here. Missing countries include Chad, Comoros, both Republics of the Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, North Korea, Laos, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, F.S.Micronesia, Nauru, Somalia, Togo, Vanuatu, and Zimbabwe. Does anyone know why this data is missing from UNODC? Should we use the pre-2021-11-02 data anyway? Lebonk (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You added Djibouti to the article. I noticed that Djibouti is missing from the main UNODC source page with the tables and menus. But it is found in the UNODC downloadable dataset.

Creating a table with the latest available year from a dataset is not easy. See the talk subpages with instructions. They are linked at the top of the subpages. They need to be updated. I have not had the time, health, or energy to figure it out very far. Feel free to do so. If you do, please overwrite the instructions, or start another instruction subpage. It would help with many list articles. To be useful it has to be detailed without skipping any steps.

Feel free to add countries if you can find the data in one of the UNODC sources. Please mention in your edit summary which UNODC source: Tables or dataset. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Denmark vs Denmark

As a Dane I have to admit I find it a bit misleading that the number of homicides in the row labeled "Denmark" is taken from UNODC, as it only provides the number of homicides in the *kingdom* of Denmark; not the *country* of Denmark.

Just as an example (and to maybe put things in perspective): in 2022 there were 58 homicides in the *kingdom* of Denmark [1], as correctly noted in the table. However, "only" 39 of them were actually committed in the *country* of Denmark [2], which means that *19* (*32.76%*) of them were committed outside the country.

Is this fair? Are homicides committed in Puerto Rico, for example, also included in the row labled "United States"? 194.62.169.4 (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't read Danish. So I couldn't figure out the Danish source. The UNODC source you linked to just says "Denmark". So I am assuming that you are getting your numbers from the Danish source as concerns the kingdom of Denmark.

Greenland is in the table here, and only had 3 homicides for the latest year (2016) that UNODC has.

Faroe Islands is not listed separately at that UNODC link, or in the table here.

Maybe you can dig around the UNODC site to find out if they specifically say whether their numbers cover all of the kingdom or just metropolitan Denmark. Then we can link to that UNODC page, and add a note below the table. With a link from within the table.

I don't have the time. So you or someone else will have to at least do the research. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

2023 data from UNODC has been added to the table

See diff.

Vgbyp. Thanks! Did you use Excel again? If so can you update and clarify the instructions at Talk:List of countries by intentional homicide rate/Excel instructions.

It would be nice to know how to do it simply in LibreOffice Calc too. See:

• Talk:List of countries by intentional homicide rate/LibreOffice Calc instructions

It is currently way too complex. So complex I can't figure it out from the old forum thread. If I could find a simpler way with LibreOffice I could use it on many state and country tables.

I am understanding more and more of what you wrote in the Excel instructions. And I think I can apply them to Calc. I will need to experiment further.

In your Excel instructions you said you manually compared the results to the article table: "It is then trivial to compare the existing Wikipedia table to the UNODC table. It cannot automatically generate the entire table, but when there are just a few changes to the data, it is a simple and rather fast approach."

One thing I have figured out is this:

• Help:Tables and locations#Separate counts and rates to 2 columns.

Does this help you? --Timeshifter (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Djibouti has no data on UNODC site

Its most recent data that I can find is 6.8/100,000 in 2015: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/djibouti/health-statistics/dj-intentional-homicides-per-100000-people

Countries with no data in ODC should be marked as such, not listed as 'zero'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copperknickers (talk • contribs) June 5, 2024 (UTC)

Copperknickers. Djibouti is missing from the main UNODC source page with the tables and menus. But it is found in the UNODC downloadable dataset according to a previous talk section. I don't know the year or rate. Please look it up in the dataset. LibreOffice Calc is free software for spreadsheets. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Table fully updated from dataset retrieved June 24, 2024

Table has been fully updated. Including some country name clarifications, and some manual alphabetizing. See the last sections of the instructions:

• Talk:List of countries by intentional homicide rate/LibreOffice Calc instructions

Instructions are much simpler now. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

United Kingdom Inconsistency

The UNOCD lists the UK as: United Kingdom (England and Wales) United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) United Kingdom (Scotland)

Surely this article should follow that same template, however right now they are listed as: United Kingdom (England and Wales) Northern Ireland Scotland

Either all the nations should be listed with "United Kingdom" before them, or none of them should. Having 1/3 start with "United Kingdom" is confusing, incorrect, and causes the alphabetical order sorting to be inconsistent too.

ElleBlair (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd argue for changing them to the following:

• England and Wales (United Kingdom)
• Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)
• Scotland (United Kingdom)

This would make finding the right country easier, yet it will mention that all are parts of the UK. Vgbyp (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I also agree. I tried to make the change but it was reversed.

• England and Wales (United Kingdom) England/Wales flag (their flag is not the Union Jack)
• Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) NI flag
• Scotland (United Kingdom) Scotland flag

153.98.68.206 (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

New graph

(File A) 2021 Homicide rates in high-income countries - variable-width bar chart.svg

@RCraig09: I'm completely baffled by this new graph: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2021_Homicide_rates_in_high-income_countries_-_variable-width_bar_chart.svg Can you explain how "Areas of rectangles show total homicides for each country"? How is the formula for the area derived from the rate and the total population? If you want the area to show rate against total count, you need rate on the y-axis, and the total count of homicides on the x-axis. All this graph demonstrates is the rates of homicide plus the total population, not the count of homicides. It seems intended to grossly exaggerate the US rate. I guess homicides in poor nations aren't important. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: It's actually simple: The area of a rectangle is its height times its width (7th grade geometry).

• Here, rectangle height=homicides/person and rectangle width=population=persons.
• Therefore, area = (homicides/person) * persons = homicides

For general descriptions: see the description of variable-width bar charts, either at Commons or on Wikipedia at Data_and_information_visualization#Techniques. They're actually a brilliant idea, illustrating three quantities on a two-dimensional screen.

You are correct, some poor countries have several times the homicide rate as the U.S. (see source) but comparing homicide rates of developed nations and developing nations is comparing apples to oranges. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The "(7th grade geometry)" parenthetical comes across as condescending. I understand the formula, my problem is with the construction: both in the selection of parameters and the presentation. I've little skills in generating my own graphs and charts, maybe I'll devote some time to it but not likely. I do not believe it is "apples and oranges". Homicide disproportionally occurs among the poor in the US; the affluence of one cohort doesn't cancel out the abjectness of the other. The fact that the US is the third most populous nation on earth, with an exceptionally diverse population, also plays a role in both dilution and amplification of values: 38 million people in the US live below the poverty line; that's more than the entire population of each of the UK, Canada, Poland, etc.. Split out the rate for those who live in poverty - like the unmentionables we exclude from counting in such comparisons - and the US homicide rate isn't much different from the rest of the "civilized" world.

I could also argue that there's some serious cherry-picking at work here. The list of "High Income Countries" that the data is derived from shows that Trinidad and Tobago is a high income country, along with Antigua and Barbuda, Curaçao, and others, with higher GNI/Capita than Chile. Why are those excluded? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: (Sorry about the "7th grade geometry" comment; it was tongue-in-cheek, to encourage that it wouldn't take "study" to understand the graphic.) I chose the fifteen highest-income countries from the "80 countries" box in the WPR source (to sort, click on the column title twice). There was no cherry-picking on my part, though it appears WPR simultaneously favored ~developed or ~major countries. I limited to fifteen countries to make the chart's text readable in thumbnail view, per Wikipedia guideline. FYI: I was inspired to select countries based income because of charts I've previously created that were based on this reference which chose high-income countries so I didn't have to decide. Sources for other charts I've done, have specifically distinguished developing versus developed countries. In principle there are many ways to select countries—you've suggested a complex finagling of populations based on social class—but a straightforward GNI approach seemed to be what readers would be most interested in, for a basic overview graphic. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm still confused. When I open the WPR page, the list of countries is already sorted by highest to lowest. Clicking the column then sorts lowest to highest, and a third click puts them in an order that doesn't make a lot of sense - Chile, $15,360 immediately below Australia at $60,840, which is immediately below Saudi Arabia at $27,680. No comprehensible sorting I can discern.

Nowhere did I differentiate populations based on "social class". I based it on poverty. I'm not suggesting changes to your graph based on my commentary, as there's no real way to do so. I'm just saying that crime and homicide in the US is a lot more nuanced than a simplistic graph can demonstrate. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I should note that while I don't expect changes to the graph based on my discussions around poverty, I would like to at least better understand how you came to view the sorting you chose as being the 'highest-income countries', as the only sort result that matches what you used for the graph isn't highest to lowest regardless of whether it's the 'Atlas' or 'PPP' columns. Chile is near the bottom on both, along with Romania and Poland. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Sorry I don't have a better explanation than my above 21:09 post. I basically relied on the source's sorting, which seemed credible but which (you are making me realize) was not explained in the source. In a while, I'll be responding to the "country choice" issue at User:Timeshifter's post, below. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The countries in the chart are the 15 countries with the highest homicide rate among the 80 high-income countries. Vgbyp (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the World Population Review (WPR) source was used for finding high-income countries. WPR wasn't used for homicide rates. User:Anastrophe and I haven't figured out exactly how WPR chose the countries I used. Choice of countries is in discussion below, especially with User:Timeshifter. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Tangential to this entire discussion, but the UK has a population much greater than 38 million. Vgbyp (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The UK number used to form the chart is 67.1 million. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, Vgbyp was referring to my misstatement. I'm not sure where I got that value stuck in my head. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Nice chart! I think it would be even better if it stated somewhere, in a visible manner, that the rates and the population data are for 2021. Because otherwise, it might cause confusion for the readers. The data in the article's main table is mostly 2022-2023 for those countries and it doesn't always correspond to that in this new chart. Vgbyp (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Vgbyp. I've just added "UNODC data for most countries is for 2021" to the citation footnote, based on UNODC's huge 4200-row downloaded spreadsheet file. (The footnote here already reflected years for population data, and for the fifteen countries with the highest income.) I think putting all that detail in the chart itself would have been too much distracting detail for a graphic for a layman's encyclopedia, considering that the data probably doesn't change that much annually, especially for large countries. I wish datasets like the UNODC came out more often, but data for various countries must be harder to collect. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding '(2021 data)' to the image heading would suffice I believe. Currently, one has to read the footnote to find out that the data is for 2021. The problem is that one has to know that that info is in the footnote. Looking at the chart and the caption doesn't suggest that the data wouldn't match that in the main table. Vgbyp (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vgbyp: I've just added "(2021 data for most countries)" to the caption. Images (which are graphic) are different from lists (which are textual): usually, images visually convey ideas rapidly at a high conceptual level for immediate human perception, rather than present lower-level raw data for laborious analysis. Sometimes I do include details in graphics, but in very small font size, which would not deal with your concern. I think that the edit to the caption is a good solution. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Choice of countries used in chart

(subsection is discussion broken out from preceding section on 7 Nov 2024)

(File A) 2021 Homicide rates in high-income countries - variable-width bar chart.svg

RCraig09. I didn't like the bar chart at first, but it grows on you. It will grow on more people if it is clearer. Need to fill in more rates: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.

And population on the x-axis is totally confusing at first. There are actually 2 things happening on the x-axis. Total population of each country is added as you go right. That needs more numbers too: 100M, 200M, 300M, 400M, 500M, 600m, etc.. Label it something like: "Cumulative total population of these countries". And then a note under that saying something like: "Population of a specific country is shown by its width".

Annual median equivalised disposable income per person, by OECD country.

I note also that you are using high income countries by mean income (average). I suggest using high median disposable income countries. I found this country table on Wikipedia:

• Median income#Median equivalised disposable income

Its source has this public domain chart (since nearly all charts are in the public domain):

• https://www.oecd.org/adobe/dynamicmedia/deliver/dm-aid--7d9291f5-f81d-4b58-8f3a-8598d779f3ef/image2.png?quality=80&width=1886&preferwebp=true

It has a caption here (scroll down to Figure 4.1):

• https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2024/06/society-at-a-glance-2024_08001b73/full-report/component-12.html

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: I think my reaction to variable-width bar charts is like that of many people: resistance to novelty at first, but a realization that it is actually brilliant to intuitively interrelate three variables in a two-dimensional diagram. I'll reconsider axis labeling, though I perceive charts to be trending towards minimal indicia, especially for a layperson's encyclopedia.

Re choosing which countries to include: there are countless options. (I did a trial run on highest-population countries, but the chart squished some countries into very thin vertical bars and others into very thin horizontal bars, which wasn't an illuminating comparison.) There are numerous other options at Lists_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories#Economy and Lists_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories#Gross_domestic_product! As I understand it, you propose I use the ~15 highest-income countries from Fig. 4.1. I'm not opposed, and I'm not sure which country choice is most meaningful vis-a-vis homicide rates, but I'd like to hear the opinion of User:Anastrophe and others before I embark on a time-consuming new chart. I tend to favor a result showing "important" countries—countries of concern to our readers. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Thanks for the links. I don't think these type of bar charts are intuitive. So I think that inadequate axis labeling is a bad thing. Maybe minimal labeling is a trend in some places, but I don't think that is on Wikipedia where we try to make things comprehensible to the widest possible audience. I think it is another example of the curse of knowledge among us map, chart, and table creators. We understand more of this stuff, and we assume others do too. And it takes more work to add more info to these images. :)

I think median discretionary income by country would be most interesting to me. See:

Disposable income#Discretionary income

As in how do the 15 highest quality-of-life countries fare concerning murder rates. I haven't found any country tables for discretionary income yet.

Highest quality of life at the median level. Average discretionary income is almost meaningless since it could be skewed totally towards the rich. But the average person in that same country has far less. Median discretionary income is much more meaningful as how that country is really doing as concerns most people in that country.

Median disposable income minus healthcare costs, debts, and other debt payments might be more meaningful. Not subtract rent, etc. since that is part of the quality of life. In that people choose the quality of their house or apartment.

US has high debt levels even though it has high income. Which is why US median wealth is not that great compared to other rich countries.

Here is an interesting country list I found on one of your linked pages:

List of countries by household final consumption expenditure per capita. but it is mean, not median.

Instead of income, I think this median wealth table is most representative of quality of life. Pick the highest 10 to 15 countries:

List of countries by wealth per adult

In that table the US is number 15. Whereas in the median disposable income table, the US is number 2.

Even though they have a high median income people in the US regularly lose the bulk of their wealth (their housing, especially) due to medical debt, student loans, other debt, gentrification, great recessions, housing bubbles and ensuing high property taxes.

--Timeshifter (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Wowzerz, User:Timeshifter, thanks for your analysis. I've uploaded Version 2 of the chart with expanded axis tick labels, and a new horizontal axis label. (You may need to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache for the changes to appear.) I think the chart is a bit "busier", and the population tick mark labels are not really relevant to what the chart teaches, but I can certainly live with these changes. I think your suggestions are interesting (I'm getting your bottom line favorite is on pages 123-126 of this reference cited in List of countries by wealth per adult), and I'll await comment from other editors before leaping into action. — 17:53, 7 Nov. As I understand it, from List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult#By_country you'd choose Iceland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Denmark, Switzerland, UK, Norway, Canada, France, Netherlands, Taiwan, US. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

RCraig09 Yes, the first 15 countries (in descending median wealth order) in List of countries by wealth per adult. Most of those countries now have 2022 data for homicide rates at the UNODC source for List of countries by intentional homicide rate. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Include or exclude chart

(File A) 2021 Homicide rates in high-income countries - variable-width bar chart.svg

I'm going to make the argument that the graph is WP:UNDUE. This article, "List of countries by intentional homicide rate", provides exactly and only that, along with one map displaying the rates by country, and one map that displays the UNODC sources of the data. It does not delve into the possible reasons or factors that may determine why one or another country has the rate it has. Parsing the list, and providing a graph of only carefully crafted subsets of the data, falls into the realm of editorializing, since the factors that may or may not be responsible for homicide rates are not discussed-at all-in the body of article. There are other articles where the graph may be appropriate. There should be no artificial distinctions used that are not discussed in the article. That's how it is with virtually all 'list of' articles. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Anastrophe. I beg to differ. This is not a minor viewpoint. It is common in other media and reliable sources to look at what is happening in the most developed countries. Concerning many issues including murder rates. We can "see all" the reader to other articles for more info. If other articles exist. And an image is a good summary before sending readers off to more info. If there are no other articles yet, it doesn't mean we can't bring up such info. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"This is not a minor viewpoint". That's completely irrelevant. It's self-evident by even a cursory examination of "list of" articles that by convention they don't include factors that aren't directly part of, or discussed in, the "list of" article. You've got several examples immediately above in this discussion to review. There is zero discussion of wealth/western/industrialized/GDP/GINI/whatever in this "list of" article, nor should there be. Again, view the wikilinks you posted yourself above. This article has one topic. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Note also that there's a substantial "See also" already in this article to other related articles, and more could be added that cover these secondary characteristics - there's no shortage of them. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: We're not actually "including factors that aren't part of discussed in the 'list of' article'. Wealth etc was merely a background category for choosing which elements to display; not to discuss wealth per se. The chart is about homicide rates. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

True. But it relies on third party sources not enumerated in the list to make a point. From the preceding discussion, it revolves/devolves around editor choices about what, exactly, the parameters are that are to be juxtaposed, even though those parameters aren't part of the "list of". GNI? GDP nominal per capita? GDP PPP per capita? Wealth per adult? Household final consumption expenditures per capita ? OECD nations? "Western" nations? Population? Population density? How many of each to display? For OECD for example, do we truncate it to leave out Mexico, because then the US wouldn't stand out like a sore thumb, invariably the desired effect?

Too much room for particular interpretations to muddy reader perceptions based on narrative choices that aren't discussed in the article, because it is a "list of" - see above List of countries by household final consumption expenditure per capita or List of countries by wealth per adult for example, which have entirely and only 1. a description of what data is presented in the list, 2. the list, and 3. for the second example, graphs of precisely and only the data that's presented in the list. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

(File B) 20201023 UNODC Intentional homicides by country - highest rates and most populous countries.png

— @Anastrophe: Perceptive! I appreciate the issue and agree that it's hard to summarize a list of 204 countries, and the map does cover more than fifteen countries though without as much precision as the variable-width bar chart. My goal was to present an illuminating summary of what readers would consider the countries most of interest/concern to them—which would be the generally higher-income countries. I don't think it's editorializing to compare high-income countries (or wealth-per-adult as Timeshifter suggests); unlike a comparison of wealthy-versus-poor countries which might be considered editorializing or causation-blaming.

— As a new idea, would a choice of the ~15 highest-homicide-rate countries be acceptable to you? That chart would have generally poorer countries in it as shown in the chart at right (2010 data). (I haven't undertaken the time-consuming task of seeing exactly which countries would be included in the new chart.) —RCraig09 (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for more charts - and I'm not saying that from any position of disliking charts or finding them uninteresting; quite the contrary. But any chart has to cleave precisely (and only) to the data presented in the list. A chart of all countries listed would be utterly unwieldy - 204 bars! The chart you presented isn't bad, and at least it is strictly coherent to (a subset of) the list. I don't see the effort to bring that chart more current is worth the time, but that's entirely up to you. As I said, I don't think more charts are any more illuminative than simply sorting the columns in the list as desired. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why my reply immediately above didn't indent, but no matter. I did want to mention that, when one uses the "Reply" link/button on a comment, the person you're replying to is automatically pinged, so it isn't strictly necessary to manually ping. Thankfully, they've crafted the code well enough that if you do ping in a reply, the receiver doesn't get doubled pings. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: On the principle that A picture is worth a thousand words, I think that charts are almost always more immediately illustrative of a point than text, especially 204-number columns of text; otherwise there would be no need for charts and all human communication would be by abstract textual symbols. I'm not sure which chart you were referring to with "the chart you presented"; is that a note of approval, or at least neutral opinion? —RCraig09 (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of clarity. I love charts and graphs, endlessly. My only interest here is in not including a graph that imposes outside factors where they aren't enumerated in this list. Heck, if someone has the wherewithall and free time (!), add GINI GPP columns! Then the graph would pass muster, assuming those were the values used. But that implies a lot of work just to start. 'The chart you presented', I was referring to file "20201023 UNODC Intentional homicides by country - highest rates and most populous countries.png", immediately adjacent (I hope, depending on browser) to your 'As a new idea' post. In retrospect, even that jumps out of bounds, as this list doesn't include any population data. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Because homicide rate inherently involves population (killings per unit of population), I pursued my 22:46 suggestion by isolating the countries whose most recent reporting years show the 15 highest homicide rates in the entire list of >200 countries. They are:
2021 Jamaica 52.1 — 2012 United States Virgin Islands 49.6 — 2021 South Africa 41.9 — 2021 Saint Lucia 39.0 — 2021 Honduras 38.2 — 2008 Lesotho 37.7 — 2021 Belize 31.2 — 2021 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 30.7 — 2021 Saint Kitts and Nevis 29.4 — 2021 Trinidad and Tobago 29.4 — 2021 Bahamas 29.2 — 2016 Saint Martin (French part) 28.7 — 2021 Myanmar 28.4 — 2014 Anguilla 28.3 — 2021 Mexico 28.2 —
Since this data doesn't depend on income etc., would that be acceptable to everyone as completely new, separate chart? —RCraig09 (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. X/100k is really the gold standard in criminology, since raw numbers can be highly misleading, particularly at the edges. If you're willing to put the time in, by all means, and thank you for your efforts. I made a graph of suicide rates among OECD nations something like a decade ago, and it took me half an afternoon, and that's only 38 countries! This is where skill and experience are also the gold standard. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Totally excellent. I intend to start on the new chart today. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Great. A chart with high-income or high-wealth countries can go in the article too. Or both. They are notable topics. See:

https://www.google.com/search?q=homicide+rates+in+high+income+countries

https://www.google.com/search?q=homicide+rates+in+high+wealth+countries

You might even find some already created in articles on the web. Can put them under Commons:Template:PD-chart.

Can look in Google image search too.

https://www.google.com/search?q=homicide+rates+in+high+income+countries&udm=2

https://www.google.com/search?q=homicide+rates+in+high+wealth+countries&udm=2

Look at the first 2 charts on this page:

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

There are also links to the data. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

And I will repeat my protest: WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR (this article contains a strict set of data, graphs including other data belong in other articles where that data is presented/discussed/analyzed [by reliable sources naturally]), and WP:UNDUE in that focus is being generated on factors outside of this article's purpose. Why don't we add a graph that presents what proportion of homicides are committed by repeat offenders? Or a graph that shows the proportion of intentional homicides where the perpetrator knew the victim? What about a graph showing the proportion of murders committed by different races, along with the race of the victim?

We don't because none of those variables are in the data this article presents, under the generously clear title List of countries by intentional homicide rate. The title is not List of countries by intentional homicide rate and poverty rates, or List of countries by intentional homicide rate and race of perpetrator and of victim. The list can go on and on. But it shouldn't, because we already have a title that matches the data presented. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

(File C) 2021 Homicide rates in countries with highest homicide rates - variable-width bar chart.svg

I've just uploaded a new "File C" showing the 15 countries with the highest homicide rates. As expected, they're mostly low-population countries and therefore have tall, thin rectangles. Still, I trust the chart is readable, and doesn't introduce considerations external to homicide rate itself. If there are no objections in a day or so, I'll replace File A with File C in the article itself. Thanks to all for the civil and thoughtful discussion. :-) —RCraig09 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine, though the multivariate of total population along bottom and area of rectangle the count still flummoxes me (for a bit at least) each time I look at these. It's took bad we can't have another chart that shows the 15 countries with the lowest homicide rates. But I think wikipedia frowns on charts that are entirely blank space, much like the painting "white cows in a blizzard". :) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI: the 15 countries with the lowest homicide rate are Vanuatu 0.3 Hong Kong 0.3 Kuwait 0.3 Oman 0.2 Japan 0.2 Singapore 0.1 Bahrain 0.1 American Samoa 0.0 Isle of Man 0.0 Monaco 0.0 Montserrat 0.0 Saint Helena 0.0 San Marino 0.0 Tuvalu 0.0 Vatican 0.0 . . . So the chart would be rather uninteresting! —RCraig09 (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

... and since it's relative population we're concerned with, and not numerical population per se, that was why I prefer minimal tick mark labels on the horizontal axis. I prefer to de-emphasize them, FYI. —05:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC) +In fact, in some variable-width bar charts, I purposely omit tick marks & labels on the horizontal axis. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Include multiple charts

There is no law restricting list articles to only the major topic, and all else is verboten.

• List of countries by firearm-related homicide rates#Charts and graphs
• List of U.S. states and territories by incarceration and correctional supervision rate#Comparison with other countries
• List of U.S. states and territories by incarceration and correctional supervision rate#U.S. states compared to countries
• List of U.S. states and territories by incarceration and correctional supervision rate#Female incarceration in U.S. states and countries
• United States drug overdose death rates and totals over time#Comparisons to other countries in Europe
• United States drug overdose death rates and totals over time#Rate timeline by race and ethnicity

--Timeshifter (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course there's no "law", nor policy, but there are guidelines that play into this, for example stand alone lists and list selection criteria. Consistency in focus in a "list of" article should be self-evident, because the title is a pretty clear restriction and definition of what exactly it contains, unlike articles that delve into broader topics.

Your own previous example of List of countries by household final consumption expenditure per capita demonstrates this pretty clearly: it has a rigorously defined set of parameters that result in the data the list represents. Those final data are affected by an enormous number of other co-variables (resource availability, political structure, political corruption, societal corruption, population density, countless others) - but those variables aren't presented along with the list for good reason. A 'list of something' should confine itself to something for which a list is presented (yes, I'm intentionally using a tautology).

I would argue that in the selected group of "list of" articles you've presented, some of the graphs there are also inappropriate. For example, "List of countries by firearm-related homicide rates" (my emphasis) contains a circle chart of total firearm death rates combined - homicide, suicide, and other. Suicide and homicide are vastly different phenomenon, and the list contain no data on suicides. Honduras is the biggest circle in the chart - but Honduras has a very low overall suicide rate; South Korea isn't even represented as there are virtually no firearm homicides or suicides there, but it has an enormous overall suicide rate, by far the highest of any 'high income' country. It also has a chart of mass shootings, which are an extremely rare phenomenon (and subject to wildy different base definitions), and which don't easily correlate with firearm-related homicide rates - unless we carefully craft in even more parameters that aren't included in the list in order to present that chart.

The argument has been made in the past that "but people are interested in it" - which is nice but if that were a reasonable rationale, it would encourage a mountain of digressive (but "interesting") information added that is not presented in nor directly relevant to the list. An article entitled "Gun violence" covers the vast motives, cultural influences, confounders, public opinions, political approaches, etc. of a broad topic. It's obviously appropriate there to cover the many possible intersections of data that are relevant to a broad topic, including with graphs and charts. When the very title of an article implies that the content is restricted to a list of X, it's prudent to not digress outside of the data presented, as it's a data-centric article, not analysis-centric. 'See Also' exists for this very reason. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your links that blocks or prohibits any of the notable things I linked to previously.

List of countries by minimum wage#OECD

That is a table using a subset of the country list. The OECD subset. There is no reason the homicide list can't include a highest median wealth subset. In table and/or in image form. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read more carefully, I was quite clear in what I wrote that there isn't anything that blocks or prohibits them, but there are principles of consistency within what an article ostensibly is about. My argument is for content consistent with the data presented. Does the list this article contains have a column for where each country stands in wealth indices? It does not. It's a derivative, and is ultimately WP:SYNTHESIS that just cruds up a very straightforward and unencumbered List of countries by intentional homicide rates with sociological/political factors that aren't present. There are more appropriate articles discussing those topics already in existence, where those graphs would be perfectly appropriate. There are good faith, strong opinions concerning to what degree sociological and political variables affect criminality. They are detailed in articles that exist precisely for that information. I see a political agenda in adding easily manipulated data (via personal choice) that implies - whether intentionally or accidentally - causality or explanation. We should stay far, far away from appearing to endorse factors not present in the list.

As far as the OECD list, what you say can pretty easily characterize what's known as "mission creep". Why complicate this article which has ONE topic with other factors? Create a new article (assuming one doesn't exist) that lists the homicide rates against OECD nations. But no subsets. Absolutely not, as that's cherry-picking and falls right into the problem I'm addressing. Frankly, I've never even heard of anyone suggesting a correlation between minimum wage and homicide rates. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I've avoided the issue by uploading a new chart, affectionately labeled "Chart C", . It's directed to the 15 countries with the highest homicide rates, without depending on selection criteria other than (highest) homicide rate. I lean toward the inclusive side, that important measures such as income can be used as an inclusion criterion, and I think Chart A is more interesting and informative than Chart C, but I can live with either in this article. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I would lean towards the inclusive side too, but the beauty of Wikipedia is that there's no real limit (other than certain policies) on the number or kinds of information that can be presented in individual articles. I'd have zero issue if there were an article List of countries by intentional homicide rates and GINI coefficients (or OECD or whatever strike's one's fancy), and it included the charts/graphs discussed here - though I'm always wary of the use of subsets of datasets. Though that can intrude on readability - e.g. the graphs immediately adjacent to List of U.S. states and territories by incarceration and correctional supervision rate#U.S. states compared to countries lead me to want to buy a 55" ultra-widescreen monitor flipped to 90 degrees. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Anastrophe. About List of countries by minimum wage#OECD. There is no WP:SYNTHESIS happening. It's just a common subset of countries used in many list articles. They are countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

As to charts with homicide rates and totals for high income/wealth countries, that is just another subset. If you feel it slants the article, that is just your interpretation. People can interpret the data any way that they want.

Feel free to add additional subsets. I and others are curious about them all. That is how to meet WP:NPOV. More angles and "sides", not less. Censorship is not a solution to get to WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm being misunderstood and I tire having to re-explain what should be easily understandable. If you add a graph to this article using minimum wage per OECD coupled to the homicide rate data, it absolutely is synthesis, because this article lists only countries and homicide rates, and addresses no other subjects. This article describes no point of view. Introducing metrics that do not exist in this article and conjoining them with the data that this article provides is inherently synthesis. It's not an extension of the data here. It's new data, outside the very direct scope of this article.

Your comment "As to charts with homicide rates and totals for high income/wealth countries, that is just another subset." is specious. It absolutely is not a subset of any data in this list. Again, please show me where this list includes data on high income/wealth countries. Is there a hidden column for it? (I'm being facetious). You can't call a metric that isn't in the dataset a "subset" of the data presented. As for the notion that there are "More angles and sides", no, there are not, actually. This article doesn't engage in any discussion of political, social, wealth, population density, race, shoe color, number of electric cars/100k, or any other coupling. This article is:

1. A list
2. of countries
3. by homicide rates
4. and homicide counts (which are the direct source of the rates)

Show me where in this article a 'Point of View' is described/discussed/presented via reliable sources. Hint: It describes no point of view, the only description is of how the data is defined, without interpretation. You may personally be interpreting the article and data through the lens of a particular point of view (which is rightfully the domain a reader controls) but that POV is absolutely not detailed in this article or the data it presents, because this is a non-POV article consisting of:

1. data
2. a description (not an interpretation) of the data
3. nothing more.

If you wish to create new list articles or other articles that include metrics beyond those in this article, by all means, do so (although almost all of the topics described in this discussion are already present in the many articles on crime, homicide, wealth or lack of same, the delta of all three, and more). Attempting to 'guide' readers to a point of view in an article that is otherwise strictly data with no interpretation or point of view (reliable sources, remember), is not NPOV, it is pushing a POV.

My comment about using subsets of OECD data in graphs/charts has to do with cherry-picking. There are only thirty-eight countries in the OECD. There's no material reason (size, readability, density) to limit the number of countries compared. The only reason to exclude any of the countries would be "guide" the reader, because the OECD itself has no formal subgroups within it. Any subsets are inherently interpreted.

The state of this article before the new graph was added was "pristine". One subject - homicide rates by country - and a list of those data. The other images in the article are not interpretive of the data - no interpretive content of any kind. There are literally dozens of other articles where interpretive graphs and charts are appropriate, and indeed those articles have such graphs and charts already - and can host more of them, for that matter, because those article delve into the topic from the many different directions that this article...does not. Adding a POV to a non-POV article is self-evidently POV pushing. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Anastrophe. You still don't understand what I said concerning an OECD subset. This is the third time I am explaining it. See:

List of countries by minimum wage#OECD

In that country list there is a subset table just for OECD countries.

We could put a subset of OECD homicide rates here in the homicide list article too if we wanted. The homicide list already can be sorted by region and subregion. Are you against that too?

There are lists on Wikipedia and elsewhere broken up by race, gender, income, and much more. See:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=break+up+lists+by+race%2C+gender%2C+income

RCraig09 agrees with me: "I lean toward the inclusive side, that important measures such as income can be used as an inclusion criterion, and I think Chart A is more interesting and informative than Chart C, but I can live with either in this article."

I can live with both being in the article, and more. In that case some charts could be placed in a gallery at the end of the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean re minimum wage and the subset of OECD data. But in that case, the list is about wealth/income/earning data, and the OECD is the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, so the subset truly is a subset of the data presented. There is no column here of GINI/HDI etc. So while it's a subset here, it's a subset based on data that's not present in the list. You could certainly add an OECD homicide rates list, but the article title would need to be updated to show that the content is broader than just homicide rates. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A

B

C

D

The existence of the source for Chart D ("Violent Death Rates: The US Compared with Other High-income OECD Countries, 2010") proves that parsing homicide rates by national income (or "developed nation" status, or "major nation" status) is a rational and meaningful choice for summarizing a list, and is not editorializing on our part. I don't know of a WP policy or guideline requiring list articles to be "pristine". If anything, the text listing's failure to include an "income" category is the shortcoming, not the inclusion of a data-selective graphic. Of course we do have to be careful not to stray into truly irrelevant selection criteria (e.g., selecting countries that have exactly seven letters in their names). However, lead images necessarily cannot convey all the information in a list, so I think that charting a rational, objective selection of a data subset is permissible. Adding Chart C to the article makes the issue somewhat moot here, but I think that going forward, charts including reasonably chosen data subsets should be allowed, and even the norm. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"If anything, the text listing's failure to include an "income" category is the shortcoming, not the inclusion of a data-selective graphic." By that rationale, it is a greater shortcoming that it lacks columns breaking down the homicide rates by race, age, and gender of both victims and perpetrators; type of weapon used; relationship or lack thereof of victim/perpetrator; and more. Wealth/income levels is only one type of(*) correlative parameter, and definitely not as "reliable" a correlation as some of the ones I just listed.

(*) I say 'type', because there are dozens of differing selectors to represent wealth/income. See List of countries by income inequality (with multiple different measures within) List of countries by Human Development Index, List of countries by planetary pressures–adjusted Human Development Index, and on and on. Who chooses which is the 'best' correlate?

This article has existed in this form of simply country/rate/count, for roughly eighteen years. It's a clear and concise set of data and it presents no interpretive data. I strongly object to adding new correlative parameters, when it would be far more appropriate to create a new "list of countries by intentional homicide rate and wealth indices" or some such.

This article is an eminently clear and concise presentation of data, with no POV correlations, as it is now, and as it has been for nearly two decades; I've referred to it countless times over that interval, having a longtime interest in crime/criminology. Make a new article if you want to guide reader's intepretation of the data via a specific correlation. There's no good reason not to, and that way readers can still get the homicide rate information here, unencumbered.

If this is a fait accompli, then I guess after you guys have added what columns you want to the list (and re-titled it, which I believe would be necessary) I'll create a new "List of countries by intentional homicide rate". Kind of a goofy path, to have to recreate an article that already exists, instead of creating a separate (and accurately titled) article with whatever desired correlative data other editors want to add.

But until then, leave out the correlative graph, as it's derived from data that's not an included parameter in the list, and therefore isn't appropriate in its current incarnation; it pushes the notion that wealth is the most meaningful/accurate correlate for homicide rates, which it is not. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Actually, some of the things you list would make for meaningful comparisons, and an array of charts showing such factors would be appropriate in this top-level (least specific) article. If not wealth (or similar measure), what do you think is "the most meaningful/accurate correlate for homicide rates"? —RCraig09 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That falls right into the problem of editors making decisions of which correlates are "important", when correlations inherently can't be nailed down, and are easily abused to insert a POV not supported by the strict, limited data presented. My personal opinion is that age and gender of victim/perpetrator are far and away the more meaningful/likely-predictive correlates. But this isn't a "top-level (least specific)" article - it is very specific in what it presents, unlike homicide, familicide, suicide, which are top-level and under which the many more-specific articles fall (though there's no distinct heirarchy, obviously).

I'll take a snapshot of the wikitext of the article and prepare to make a new article when the time comes. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)