Jump to content

Talk:List of countries by intentional homicide rate/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Luxembourg figures are not correct

Luxembourg has a long history of leaving out those years where the number of victims would make them look bad. Meswiss 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

French figures are not correct

France numbers depend on politics and can not be considered ad valid. Many victims are never being accounted for using methods like Germany. Meswiss 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

German figures are not correct

According to the chief of the Bavarian Police, the German homicide rate is twice as high as published by the German Federal Government. This is made possible by only accounting for those victims who die and are recovered in the same year. Also, ther German police only performs half as many autopsys as it should. So the real rate is above 2 victims per 100'000 citizens. Meswiss 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That only accumulates to heresay, this is just republication of the government statistics. In addition to that there is no differentiation between the GDR and the BRD during the years of seperation.Spacedwarv 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

European Union

Don´t think that the number for the EU is that high. All of the "big" memberstate´s rates are bellow 2.37. So the EU number can not be correct. Perhaps this helps: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb1203.pdf 30.05.2007- 16:34

That Home Office document appears to be better researched than some of the other source documents used in the article. It gives a definition of what is meant by "Homicide" as well as giving caveats around the data. The rates given in the above home office document differ markedly from those in the article. To me it suggests two different sets of data have been used. The original statistics in the article were Murder rates. The Home Office data gives Homicide rates. These are different aggregations of crime, meaning the data in the article is now suspect, and probably inaccurate. -- Cameron Dewe 12:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Factor

Shouldn't another factor for the murder rate listed be the area of the country in addition to how many people there are. Aren't murders more likely to be committed when a large population is squeezed into a smaller aera? Emperor001 01:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Murder is such a rare event. For example Norfolk Island has had ONE murder in one hundred years! A large population, a large area, and a long period of time is needed to determine the murder rate. And it is only an average, with a statistical variation. From a statistical point of view, having a sample size of less than about 30 or so (murders) is pushing the envelope of statistical validity in any case. Murder rate statistics for some cities are published, mostly the capital cities of the countries concerned. However, I think crime rates per population (density) per land area unit is going to be a challenging one to find. Quite simply there is not the research out there on how population density affects crime beyond the observation the bigger the population the more crime. Crime researchers seem to agree that because crime is committed by and upon people, it is the population that affects the numbers of crimes, so compute rates per unit of population, not rates per land area. If population density was a major factor then it would be expressed that way in the first place. I suppose you could correlate population density with the crime rate, but I have not seen any research on the topic. Wikipedia is not about doing original research, but about reporting the findings of researchers. There are other factors that affect the Murder/Homicide/Crime rate that are probably more important - like counting the same crime the same way under different legislation. That is currently the problem with this page - Homicide is not always Murder and every country defines both based on their own legislation and counts the crime according to their own rules, not some standard set of rules somewhere. That is probably a lot bigger factor than close quarters living. It is not even the same in one country - for example Scotland counts the cases that have one or more offences of murder while England and Wales count each victim of murder. Thus the Dunblaine killings were one murder in Scotland, although 17 people were killed; The Lockerbie bombing was also a single murder, with 170 odd victims; While the terrorism of September 11th, 2001 was not even counted as a Homicide but as Terrorism! About the only other factor researchers appear concerned about is whether or not someone was killed (or murdered) by a firearm. -- Cameron Dewe 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

From a new Wikipedian: How the hell do you 'cite' sources??

I've been studying the tutorials for hours and I'm baffled. Basically I'm trying to get my source in the 'references' section so it can be verified, but have no idea how. Sarcastic Sid 04:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Don't worry I've got the hang of it. Sarcastic Sid 09:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Questionable UN report?

I removed the UN crime report on Colombia as I felt it contained erroneous info. It kept talking about most of Colombia's gun homicides being highly orchestrated and professional. It's my understanding the big percentage of both homicides and gun homicides to be poor slum dwellers feuding over the local drug trade, arguments in the street/bar fights, crimes of passion, street robberies etc.

Where I did agree was the ownership of legal arms doesn't seem to equate to a higher homicide rate. Apart from that it wasn't the Colombia I know. They may have lumped the youth gang violence in with organized crime too which would be a little disingenuous.

Colombia isn't a nation of psychos but to claim most of the gun killings are not unorganized, impulsive and/or indiscriminate is just wrong. What do people think? Sarcastic Sid 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this isn't the place to evaluate or discuss every other detail of the UN report or in general to debate the different perceptions about how gun homicides / violence operate in Colombia. It's still a perfectly valid source as far as homicide figures are concerned, as a lot of the figures in the article are also from UN docs. This article is just a list of homicide rates, after all. It's not dealing with the other details you've mentioned. Juancarlos2004 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Homicide or Murder rates?

Are these statistics for homicide or murder? This page started of being called List of countries by murder rate then was moved to List of countries by homicide rate. However, in many juridictions these are two distinctly different sets of statistics, some of which indicate that only about a half of homicides are murders. This will account for the differences being reported above. There is a risk that poor definition of which sort of statistics these are will make this information useless as it will be untrustworthy. -- Cameron Dewe 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the blue map show the homicide rate or the murder rate? This article says homicide, but murder says its the murder rate. Emperor001 14:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted original and sourced Jamaican statistic from 1970's list

....a complete accident as I didn't know it was on there before I'd put in all the hard work, but I think my source is a lot more solid and it's every single year from 1970 onwards. It's also not the same stat stretched over two years like the other one, and it's still 10 per 100,000 like the original with 13 for the other year. To the guy or guys who put in Jamaican entries for the late 90's and 00's, I apologize if you had sources but at the time it was unsourced. Jamaica's murder rate in 2005 is also (as far as I know) universally recognized as being around 60 per 100,000 rather than the 45 per 100,000 that was on there. Regardless, I do apologize if you're work wasn't finished. -- Sarcastic Sid (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

More data is good, but Jamaica's 1980s, 1990s (1998 contradicts it's only ref: [14]), and 2001-2005 is now the only information not referenced in the article. Except for Jamaica everything else is either referenced to a cite next to the country name, or below the decade section: [13], [14], [25], [26]. Please add refs as soon as possible per WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t16:30z
I missed that reference. I don't know if people want to keep my data or use those three years in the UN report, with perhaps the stats I provided either side of them. The link I provided for Jamaica is on the 70's list, it goes right up to 2006 and it's meant to cover the 80's, 90's and 00's as well.
I don't know how you get the same reference number on the same page though, as when I try it comes up with a different No. for the same link. Would someone help us out with that? -- Sarcastic Sid (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
To reuse a ref you give it a unique name e.g. "foo2007": <ref name="foo2007">Foo, Bar. "Baz" 2007-12-30.</ref> and then you cite it again with with 1 tag that has a / at the end like <ref name="foo2007" />. I've done this for Jamaica. While I've sometimes used two diferent figures for 1 country with different refs, I've kept this to only the UN Caribbean ref instead of including the different UN year ref as well. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-30t19:02z

Thanks for that. I've filled in a few countries' rates for 2006 too. I keep missing those references next to the years but I'll look out for them in future. Thanks again. Sarcastic Sid (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Albania figures are not correct

Someone has put Albania down as '96.46' in 1995, '87.55' in 1996, and '296.39' in 1997. These are all incorrect. The link provided clearly show that the 'successfully completed homicides per 100,000' was '6.46', '7.55', and '46.39' respectively. You can see someone has been screwing around with the statistics by adding numbers to the front of the old statistics. --Delos (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The sort is broken

the sorting is broken but I don't know how to fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.1.81 (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus

According to the official government police sources which can be found here http://www.police.gov.cy/police/police.nsf/All/72F71BC1A947C666C225741A0041EAFB/$file/Serious%20crime.pdf in 2007 there were 11 cases out of a population of around 790 000 by 2007 (official pop 2006 778 700 X 1.6% official pop increase = 791 000). That means that in 2007 the murder rate 11/790 000 must be 1.39. Will someone add it? I don't know how to reference properly. User:Whitemagick (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Japan listed twice

Japan is listed twice with different numbers. We need to choose the most recent reliable source and base a single listing on that. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:List of countries by intentional homicide rate to 1999. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-29t20:07z

List of countries by intentional homicide rate

This is a far more appropriate title as the description clearly refers to interpersonal confrontation.

Homicides can also include traffic and industrial accidents, hence the change. Power Society (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Historic Data

What has happened to all the data that used to exist on this page regarding historic homicide rates, from previous decades? Has it simply been erased? I can see why the new design is more user friendly for someone looking up a country's present situation, but the previous data should be available somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.196.179 (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

See the link at the top of the article, and in the "see also" section:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate to 1999 --Timeshifter (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan listed twice

Unsure which one is right, but I have trouble believing Pakistan has one of the lowest murder rates in the world. (Burma is the lowest ???) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.160.32.116 (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Iraq added

I've put Iraq in. Apparently these are only civilian deaths directly related to the invasion and don't include security personnel or traditional crime-related deaths, so they're not 100% percent accurate which isn't surprising given the chaotic conditions that pervade in Iraq.

There may be an issue with some people over this addition. Power Society (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Iraq should be included, unless the figure is from a governmental or UN source. Iraq Body Count is neither of these.--93.97.196.179 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You can delete it if you want I only put it in to see how people would react. I think it's valid, though some of the deaths inevitably would be crossfire so they're not really intentional but still a result of original hostile intent. I dunno...I won't mind too much if it's excluded. Power Society (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I updated Iraq with the 2008 numbers, which as one would expect are far lower. Violent deaths are from icasualties.org (5929), population from CIA Factbook (28.2M). This number is probably overstated (the official number from the gov't of Iraq is lower -- 5714) as the icasaulties.org numbers come from IBC, which relies on newspaper reports (Iraq's free press is only a few years old and tends to print wild rumors that turn out to be exaggerated) and includes all violent deaths, but should serve as a reasonable compromise.

67.173.73.156 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela change and explanation

I've subtracted the deaths under investigation. The 2003/04 human rights report on Venezuela's security already includes murders and justifiable homicides combined (excluding 'averiguación' deaths) from 1990 to 2003.

2004 to 2006:

Year Murder Rate Justifiable Homicide Rate Total
2004 37 8.2 45.2
2005 37 5.1 42.1
2006 45 4.4 49.4

--Power Society (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And Iraq? How can the rate in Iraq be 2.0, less than Liechtenstein, USA, Estonia or Luxembourg?

Iraq is not included in many of the lists. I think the ongoing violence and the different reports by different organizations might make it hard to find a reliable source. But still it should be included in the list.

This link might be useful: http://newsbusters.org/node/9932

Rmleon 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm not being funny Rmleon but that NewsBusters article is TERRIBLE. I don't know the site, but unfortunately they gave the game away straight off with the subtitle at the top of the screen. There were more hostile civilian deaths in just Baghdad during 2006 than there were murders in the United States the same year. The guy's using obviously incomplete figures for Iraq (they've got better since but are still WAY incomplete) to suit his own thesis.

I think Iraq could be included on this list. The IBC has it's murder/hostile death rate (just for civilians) at 101 per 100,000 for 2006 and 89 per capita last year. What do people think? Sarcastic Sid (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure these figures are correctly separating intentional homicide rates in Iraq from civilian war-related deaths? 24.16.88.14 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I added 2008 data, which works out to 21. 67.173.73.156 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorting seems broken

When sorting a column with the largest values at top, sorting happens alphabetically, thus leaving both "5" and "55" below "6". How should this be solved? Padding with zeroes? JoaCHIP (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Panama homidide rate

In todays newspaper 'La Prensa' , they indicate that Panama, with a population of around 3500000 people has 135 homicides a DAY. QTE 135 víctimas dejó la delincuencia cada día UQTE for full article see: http://prensa.com/t.asp?d=090406p1746615 ^^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.227.26.149 (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"135 homicides a DAY"

Clearly not correct. Power Society (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It says crimes and not homicides. delincuencia->crime homicidio/asesinato-> homicide. Nando.sm (talk)

Shouldn't there be a section on stereotypes?

Many guidebooks, even these by well known publishers create false stereotypes. People from Western Europe or the USA tend to think that countries like Poland, or even worse Indonesia or Morocco are dangerous, yet they are not when you look at these figures and most others for other crimes. This mainly hits developing countries in Europe mainly Central Europe (for instance the Warsaw chapter about crime in the LP guidebook sounds terrifing and the Madrid chapter sounds a like safe places, yet Warsaw is statistically much safer then Madrid), but it also hits the USA everywhere but in the USA, where people atribute it with guns and large levels of armed robberies and murders, here guidebooks may be more fair, but still the media hype isn't. Shouldn't these stereotypes have a section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.81.66 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

EU members and candidate countries

Eurostat has recently published the latest criminal statistics for the EU member states and candidate countries here [[1]]. Perhaps the numbers can be updates according to that publication.--Avidius (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flag

Please see this diff: [2]

I made a mistake by using this wikicode:

{{flagcountry|Ireland}}, Northern

It produces this:

 Ireland, Northern

Sorry. I was trying to correct the sorting problem. It solved the sorting problem, but I wasn't thinking clearly about Irish flags!

I think I should have used this wikicode:

{{flagcountry|Northern Ireland}}

It produces this:

 Northern Ireland

I hope that is correct. If it is not correct, then we need some kind of placeholder image there in order to allow the table to be sorted alphabetically.

See

Template:Country data Northern Ireland looks like the place to solve the problem.

See also: Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland does not have a flag, it has not had one since 1973. O Fenian (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. If {{flagcountry|Northern Ireland}} is not used in the table, then when the arrow at the top of the country column is clicked then "Northern Ireland" is not sorted alphabetically. Instead, it goes to the top of the table. To see what I mean try clicking the arrow in this version of the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Here is a new blank {{flagcountry}} variant just created:

{{flagcountry|Northern Ireland|blank}}

It produces this:

 Northern Ireland

It allows alphabetical sorting of the list.

Please see Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland#List of countries by intentional homicide rate for more info.

I put it in the list. It shows no flag. Is this acceptable? --Timeshifter (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Andrwsc knew of a better solution, and added it to the article.
See {{noflag}}.
{{noflag|[[Northern Ireland]]}}
produces
 Northern Ireland
This method allows alphabetical sorting to work correctly. It is better than a blank spot with a border that looks like it is missing a flag. That variant has been deleted.
So {{flagcountry|Northern Ireland|blank}} no longer works. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Andrwsc's solution. Good proposal.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Swedish figures are not correct

In sweden there is a big difference between reported killings and actual killings. according to BRÅ (the swedish branch of government that studie crime) the reported number is nowadays almost twice as large as the Actual number of homicides. This is due to some crimes being filed twice, murders abroad being filed in sweden, etc. If there is suspicion of a murder a murder is 'reported', and it stays reported even if it turns out to be suicide or just a mentally ill person who believes people are being murdered all over the place. The report (unfortunately enough in swedish) is here http://www.bra.se/extra/measurepoint/?module_instance=4&name=03061810981.pdf&url=/dynamaster/file_archive/050119/36f538e30fef8246c5215eb566559ca0/03061810981.pdf Since they do not give the numbers for all years I am reluctant to fill in the correct numbers since they only go up to 2002, which will give a hell of a jump in murder rates in 2003 =/

User thinking about getting registerd...

You are right. The pdf says that out of 223 reported murders 2003, only 98 were homicide. (page 9)
I'll quote straight from the pdf with a few comments by me.
Korrekt registrerade brott (enligt anvisningar) [correctly registered] 124
Dödligt våld i Sverige 91
Dödligt våld utomlands [committed abroad] 24*
Stämpling till mord (ej fullbordat) [not completed] 9
Felaktigt registrerade brott [incorrectly registered crimes] 89
Försök eller förberedelse [attempt or preperation] 11
Alkohol/narkotikarelaterad förgiftning, självmord, olycka eller naturlig död [poisoning, suicide, accident] 28
Dubblettanmälan 25
Övrigt eller okänd ej brottslig orsak [other /unknonwn non-criminal cause] 25
Oklart om brott föreligger 10
Brott ej styrkt 2
Samtliga [Total] 223
Dödligt våld som anmälts i Sverige år 2002 (se ovan) [Correctly reported homicides for 2002] 91
Dödligt våld som rubricerats som vållande till annans död [Homicides reported as manslaughter] 7
Summa anmält dödligt våld i Sverige år 2002 [Actual total homicides for 2002] 98
*[Examples of crimes committed abroad were 15 murders in former Yugoslavia. - page 8-9]
But since the English-language sources mention the higher number I think it is hard to change.
Fred-J 15:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I found a text of it in English: http://www.bra.se/extra/pod/?action=pod_show&id=39&module_instance=11 . Quote: [S]pecial studies show that over the past 30 years in Sweden, there have been on average around 100 cases annually of lethal violence in the form of murder, manslaughter and assault with lethal results. There has consequently been no increased in lethal violence since 1975
Around 100 homicides would mean around 1 homicide per 100,000 instead of the higher figure given in the article of 2 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.
But having "special studies" makes it hard to compare statistics.
Fred-J 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Numbers for the Netherlands

I have updated the numbers for the Netherlands using the statistics from the Dutch CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics, http://www.cbs.nl). The numbers:

YEAR MURDERS POPULATION PER 100.000
2000 180 15863950 1.13
2001 202 15987075 1.26
2002 195 16105285 1.21
2003 202 16192572 1.25
2004 191 16258032 1.17
2005 174 16305526 1.07
2006 128 16334210 0.78
2007 143 16357992 0.87
2008 150 16405399 0.91

Best regards,

24.132.243.197 (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rounding up or down?

Would it look better if we rounded the numbers instead of having a cluttered list with some countries having one or more fractions and others not? Unless (for example) the figures are the same or one country's rate is given without the fraction so we don't know for sure where it lies in the actual number, give the bias to the country with more murders. I've just done/cleaned up Honduras which somehow had been given Guatemala's murder rates. I may do more if I have time. Any objections? Power Society (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela numbers

Most of the really violent countries I'm fairly certain include legal/police killings in their homicides - so I've done the same for Venezuela as they were seperate for that nation.

I don't know if anyone has seperated figures for all the worst countries but we are talking homicides (obviously not in the culpable or negligent sense) rather than murder rate. South Africa I believe also includes legal homicides in their official statistics, even though it's classed as the 'murder rate' rather than 'homicides' like Latin American countries. I'm pretty sure I read that on a reputable website a while back but if anyone knows for sure let us know.

Thanks. Sarcastic Sid 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


A lot of unclear assumptions here. The direct source cited in the article: http://www.chacao.gov.ve/plan180/anodespues.pdf, lists total homicides as 12,257 for 2006. This works out to a rate of 45, not 65. The above starts doing its own calculations and leaves things entirely unclear as to the veracity of the figures or rates put on the page. Where does it give a figure for "legal/police killings" and where does it say these are not included in the 12,257 figure? Until there are clear answers to these questions, the correct number and rate is 12,257 and 45 as given in the cited source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.107.18 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


I haven't done my own calculations at all. The Colombian murder stats for '04 and '05 at least include legal intervention - the Venezuelan figures will stay as they are unless someone who's worked extensively on this list tells me otherwise. 65 per 100,000 unfortunately (for Venezuela) is the true level of interpersonal violence in that country. We often don't know what countries include legal and illegal homicides together or seperately so adding all 'intentional' deaths as one is perfectly valid. Power Society (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


I've just read your comment again and, with respect, you have poor understanding of Spanish or you haven't read the source properly. I put the page number on the footnote and it clearly states there were over 17,000 intentional homicides in Venezuela in 2006 (65 per 100,000). Power Society (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Okay, here's the breakdown of what the Spanish descriptions mean in the source provided:

Homicidios (murders), resistencia (self defence killings) and averiguación (either murder or self defence but unconfirmed). Power Society (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that averiguacion refers to deaths under some kind of investigation. Can you show where it says these are "either murder or self defense (killings)"? 74.73.107.18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.107.18 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at these sources more closely and I really think this is questionable. I can understand the inclusion of the "legal" killings, but it's this third category that isn't credible. I don't believe this source has any idea at all what might have been the cause of the deaths in the 'averiguacion' category. They are just deaths that triggered some kind of investigation. This particular source seems to just choose to assume they're all homicides of some sort, but this just seems like a fanciful assumption on the part of this particular source. The most recent edit on this page noted that the title of this page was changed to make clear that it did not include traffic accidents, which are sometimes classed as 'culpable homicides'. How do we know deaths from traffic accidents are not among those being investigated in these numbers (averiguacion)? It would make sense that such deaths would be in those numbers (that's how you determine which ones are or aren't culpable homicides). Or what about suicides or any other types of somehow suspicious or sudden deaths that might trigger investigations? There might be some (unknown) number of homicides within those numbers, but that doesn't make these homicide numbers. What struck me when i saw this list is how much Venezuela stuck out from the others. But this seems to be due solely to the dubious inclusion of these numbers that aren't homicide numbers, where otherwise it would be in the top 10 and more similar to the others in the top 10. Are the other countries including figures of "homicides" where you don't know if they were homicides or not, but just that they were investigated for some reason or other? I think the Venezuela numbers need to be changed. The current ones aren't credible.74.73.107.18 (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've apologized to the above on their talk page, I'm embarrassed it was out order. I'll change the figures to proven murders and self defence killings when I have the time unless someone beats me to it. Figures from the last few years tabulate legal homicides seperately from murders so I'll do a table here explaining the calculations with both combined or something (excluding averiguación unless someone can prove their inclusion). I expect that'll be okay. Power Society (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 2007 numbers are given in this report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/11/18/ST2008111801141.html 74.73.107.18 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Did a source check on the Venezuala numbers as they stood out to me. Source 20 lists the homicides for Venezuala as a whole as 10,606 which when calculated against the population of 26 million means a rate of 40.7 not 48. Not going to weigh into the other debate going on here regarding the way this source counts its homicides ... but I imagine a source stating the rate is 40.7 would be considered the maximum while other sources would be considered "including manslaughter" etc.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, just did a double take. The figures I looked at were the murder rate for 08 and the population currently listed on Wikipedia for Venezuala. Given these figures exist though, perhaps its worth adding the 08 figure if someone can find the 08 population?--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've done it for you but I still don't think thats the real rate. If you go through all the sources for Venezuela you will find different numbers of homicides. According to the last UN report there were 34 deaths per 100,000 pop in 2004 and here it says there were 45. The federal police on a press conference in January said there were 8,400 homicides in 2008 and that would bring the rate down to 32, sadly that wasn't posted on the Internet. Whatsoever, I decided to wait for another UN report to change or keep this numbers. For now let's believe in those numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.69.228 (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I reinstated the elevated figures up to 2003 - remember they've added killings by police in self-defence on top of pure murders in the first Venezuelan document from 1990 to that year apart from 1997. I agree that someone changed my adding of legal killings with murders 2004 onwards as it doesn't combine the two in the sources apart from having undetermined deaths totalled with them. I thought I read somewhere on Wiki the 'data has to fit the source'. Power Society (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The map

I have replaced the map. The arbitrary division of separate Canadian provinces and American States, not shown for any other country, is a clear example of WP:Systematic bias. It also makes it more difficult to compare like data, to see for example, whether the murder rate in USA is higher or lower than that of the UK. Either we should divide every country into administrative regions or we should not divide any. Anything else looks North American-centric. --Lo2u (T • C) 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't; with all due respect, I'm unreplacing it. I didn't add other regions because I couldn't find any data on them. If you can find them, by all means add them. Since when is more precise a worse thing? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, I missed your comments. I didn't accuse you of Americocentrism, I only said that it creates that appearance. And I still believe it does. It puts individual American states and provinces on a level with sovereign nations. Also, more precision can be a worse thing. I actually came to this article wishing to compare the murder rates of the UK and the USA. This was made more difficult than it should have been. A map of North America that compares the murder rates of individual states is a useful thing and I'm happy to produce a separate map if you don't want to, which could sit alongside this one. However, very few people will ever wish to know if the murder rate in a particular country is higher or lower than that of an individual American state. They are far more likely to want to compare the USA as a whole. I understand the reason for indicating the individual states, ideally the map would be as precise as the one to the right. But that is a different sort of map. A map that showed murder rates with the closest available precision would not show any borders. Also, the title of this article is "List of countries by intentional homicide rate" --Lo2u (T • C) 16:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Population density

Guatemala source

The source for guatemala homicide rate for the 2008 is actually for Honduras. And it clashes with the value for that same year in Honduras. Nando.sm (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Vatican City

They had 821 people in 2007 and 1 homicide. 100000/821 gives 122 for the homicide rate. I think it was zero for the other years, but I can't verify that.

Thus the rate for the most recently available year (2007) is 122 per 100000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.152.209 (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Kenya Death rates 2007 &2008

The deaths during the election period of 2007/2008 would have been huge since there was a big revolt led by Odinga. Convenient to leave that OUT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.121.0 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Swedish statistics

I removed the statistics for Sweden. First: Sweden has no statistics on intentional homicide. There is only statistics on the rate of lethal violence (murder, manslaughter and assault with lethal results put together). Secondly, the table mixed numbers of crimes originally reported as suspected lethal violence (most of the figures) and the number of actual deaths by lethal violence. The discrepancy between these numbers, as could clearly be seen in the table, is over 100%. As can be seen on page 60 in Brottsutvecklingen i Sverige fram till år 2007, the cases of actual deaths resulting from lethal violence in Sweden has hovered around 100 for decades, and the trend has been a downwards one since cirka 1990. As can also be see, the number of cases where the initial suspicion is lethal violence has gone up radically, and is much higher. --Reign of Toads  11:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I added statistics from Sweden. As you are pointing out, there is no statistics on intentional homicide. However it is pointed out in the article that comparative analysis should be done carefully. The two best sources are SCB's death register [3] and the reported number of crimes from BRÅ [4]. I think that it's good to show an approximation even if it is an overestimation. /Eribro (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Frustrated

I spent an age carefully creating a 2009 column last week with data for several countries and someone's gone and removed it. Undo's are blocked it's confusing to edit manually. Power Society (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Where's Sweden on the list?

Is Sweden intentionally deleted from the list of whát? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.43.147 (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the list underneath Northern Ireland. Sweden must be in the +5 category. Lets hope its not 10.(83.108.31.145 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Pakistan ???

0,05 for the Pakistan ? Is a joke ? fr:Utilisateur:L'amateur d'aéroplanes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.0.204.114 (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. An unstable country (in a general sense) does not always have a high homicide rate. Pakistan has a large population, so even with sensational homicide cases (such as terrorist acts in the case of Pakistan), the overall homicide rate could be quite low. A smaller country can see its homicide rate skyrocket with just one person murdered while it takes hundreds of homicides for a large country to see any effect. Note that Pakistan's population is about 40 times that of Singapore's. Combining those information with this rate, it means that Pakistan has 4x case of homicides compared to Singapore, but because of larger population, Pakistan ends up with significantly smaller homicide rate. This obviously doesn't mean it's safer to live in Pakistan because other crimes are not taken into account. It just means that you are unlikely to be murdered in Pakistan. --Revth (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

From [5], according to INTERPOL data, the rate of murder in Pakistan was 6.86 (per 100,000 population) in 2000. Not sure why the large discrepancy with the UN data. --Vsion (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There are now two Pakistan entries in the table —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.147.226 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember when Bhutto got killed. I said to myself: "6 months of homicide cases within one hour! ". Then you know Pakistan does not have a homicide rate of 0.02.

I too said the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.31.145 (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel 2009 the rate should be 1.81 to 1.83 not 1.87

128 people were murdered in Israel in 2008

135 people were murdered in Israel in 2009

Look here (its in Hebrew) for the word רצח http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/045/308.html

The population in Israel was 7373000 on January 2009 http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3647231,00.html and 7465500 on September 2009 http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C

This leads to a murder rate of 1.81 or 1.83 on 2009, I think. 85.64.226.179 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Americas versus South, Central, North America Statistics

I am confused about the statistics for "The Americas" versus South America, Central America, and North America. One would think that the stat for the Americas would be the average of South, Central and North America, but it is not. What are the mathematics behind those numbers?

24.255.137.23 (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


- This is not surprising since there are more people in North America, that in South America and Central America together.

North A - about 530,000,000

Central - about 40,000,000

South - about 330,000,000

85.64.226.179 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 national U.S. Homicide Rate %

Do we have a murder rate national average for 1/2010 to 8/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.21 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical order?

Wouldn't putting this list in A-Z be better? It would make the article look more substantial. I also suggest removing the color coding and aligning the numbers centrally to neaten things up. Power Society (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think A-Z is not so useful because anyone can search for a country with Ctrl + F and instead a top-down ranking is better. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Guatemala data for 2007-2008 - not 2008-2009 like I stated in summary

Also thanks for restoring the 2009 column (see my 'frustrated' section above). Power Society (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Spain on the map

The homicide rate shown for Spain on the map is wrong. According to the table, the most recent (2008) HR is 1.2, but on the map Spain is colored in the 2-5 range. Frimmin (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sub national.

  • USA states 1995/2005 [6].
  • USA cities 2003 [7]. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-06t21:18z
  • Colomboa cities [co-ccr2005] p. 118. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-23t20:47z
  • South Africa, per police station and province 2006, 2007. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-21t10:37z

There must be links to special articles about subnational rates. kardrak —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC).

SUBNATIONAL RATES

Tables corresponding to particular administrative regions inside every country must not to be added to this article but to have an special one for each country's states/provinces.

kardrak —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC).


Listing second level divisions

I'd like to add some second level divisions to this table. I currently have sourcing for US, Mexico, UK, Australia, and Canada. I do have the sourcing, although I'd be glad to add more. What I would do is underneath each country, put an indent with the second level subdivisions. For example (The data is in this table is totally made up):

 Canada [1] 1.59 1.67 1.67 1.74 1.95 2.05 1.86 1.80 1.83 1.83
   Northwest Territories [2] 1.59 1.67 1.67 1.74 1.95 2.05 1.86 1.80 1.83 1.83
   Ontario [3] 1.59 1.67 1.67 1.74 1.95 2.05 1.86 1.80 1.83 1.83

While I realize that the title of this page is by country, I think more information is always better. What do you think? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I will take the lack of response as a lack of opposition and I'm going to add the subdivisions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the user who keeps reverting my additions going to talk about this here or just keep reverting me? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ive been telling you here that it is better to creat special separate articles for every country, since the table gets uncomprehensible and extremely long if we put every province of every country.
Kardrak (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Im not against this kind of information, in fact i believe is a great aportation, but in a separate place, thats why i created the Mexico's states murder rate article Homicide rates in Mexico by state. Even your original table was incomplete, since the state of Chihuahua was missing.
Kardrak (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that for some countries (e.g., Australia), there just aren't enough states for this to be relevant. Maybe we could put the information below the main table, and even make it a collapsible table? Or create just one separate article List of countries by intentional homicide rate/subdivisions? And I'll update Chihuahua, not sure how I missed it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


If yo can make it collapsible im agree keeping the tables here, but if its not possible, then you should create one single article for all subdivisions.

Kardrak (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

USA MAJOR MISTAKE: GIORGIA

Hello,

I just want to point out that under the USA, the state of Giorgia is messed up, as it gives the country of Giorgia instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinelli95 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I've fixed it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bogus election year Venezuela numbers

A claim of 19,133 murders in Venezuela is being used to claim a current "murder rate" of 75 per 100,000 in Venezuela. This originates from an El Nacional story claiming to have obtained a "secret survey" that supports such a number: http://www.el-nacional.com/www/site/p_contenido.php?q=nodo/150260/Sucesos/19.133-personas-fueron-asesinadas-en-Venezuela-en-2009

This alleged survey (the government has never published it or any number from it, despite LAHT's absurdly misleading headline) is a sample survey in which 20,055 houses were allegedly surveyed. This number of 19,133 then is apparently the central estimate derived by extrapolating that sample somehow to the entire nation. Anyone who understands statistics or sampling knows that such a procedure requires there to be an error margin. Since this is a "secret survey", nobody knows its methodology, distribution of deaths in the sample, or anything else that would enable the calculation of appropriate error bounds. An appropriate estimate could be 5,000 - 29,000, with "19,133" merely being the central estimate in the range. In fact, there's no way to know if this was even a random sample in the first place, and so no way to know whether any kind of extrapolation is appropriate AT ALL.

None of the other murder rates listed on the page are derived (i.e., concocted, fabricated) in this way. This is not an actual murder rate. It is someone's back of napkin extrapolation of some alleged sample survey which used an unknown methodology.... just coincidentally appearing in the run up to elections in Venezuela... surprise. This ridiculous figure is not a legitimate murder rate, it is unfounded and unsupported, and is completely inconsistent with the way all other countries' figures are derived in the table. In sum, it does not belong in this table.78.109.180.8 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other studies? I've heard many others stories doing statistics on the murder rate in Venezuela that also gave incredibly high numbers. For the time being, I support your removal, but perhaps we can have official and unofficial statistics in the form of a range? Additionally, there are many countries around the world whose government I would trust to be honest with such information - Venezuela is near the bottom of those at the moment (with all due respect to Mr. Chavez, dissent in his country can often mean losing one's economic status or jail). I would support adding two figures for many countries (e.g., China, Zimbabwe). Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The official government publication by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística is available at [[8]]. The chapters that precede the survey results clearly spell out the methodology (complete with error margins) employed by the statisticians for the 2009 data. The 75 per 100,000 rate is not "unfounded and unsupported," as is claimed. Nor is it "coincidentally appearing in the run up to elections." Why would a body controlled by Chávez Frías (the INE) want to undermine his regime? 70.185.101.150 (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That is not an "official government publication". "infovenezuela.org" is an opposition blog of some sort, and its publications are not "official government" ones. It is a report of some sort about a sample survey that appears, at least, to have been done by a part of the government, but it has never been published or endorsed by any part of the government. The "75 per 100,000 rate" does not appear anywhere in this report, and it does not give "error margins" for any such rate either. Even if it did it would be irrelevant to this page because it would only be a point estimate derived from a sample of 6,000 houses in Venezuela. That is not how the murder rates in this table are derived for the other countries in the table. There should be a close eye kept on any attempted changes to the table until after the elections in Venezuela in September, as there is a concerted propaganda campaign going on with regard to real or imagined murder rates in Venezuela and so many editors will appear who wish to move Venezuela to the top spot on the list by dubious means, such as here converting some unpublished sample survey into an estimated rate and pretending this is somehow official or a legitimate number to use in this table.78.109.180.8 (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't start putting small samples over actual body counts across entire countries - however imperfect those body counts may be. For whatever reason, Venezuela is indeed missing some intentional homicides as the 49 per 100,000 source indicates e.g. prison killings, justifiable homicides by police and crimes of passion. I'm not sure why that is and I have no idea whether that would add 25 per 100,000 on but it still says 49 per 100,000 and that's the figure we should stick with. Power Society (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems like such exclusions are common among official murder statistics, not just Venezuela. Here is a quote from the webpage of the FBI on the US murder statistics: "Justifiable homicide ... Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from murder and nonnegligent manslaughter." (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html) I'm not sure whether US statistics exclude prison killings, which would probably not be very significant in a statistical sense, and i'm not sure what would qualify as "crimes of passion" in this context, but it does not seem like such qualifications are unique to crime statistics for Venezuela. This would need to be compared to other countries in some detail. How sample surveys measure such things may be different from one survey to the next, depending on their definitions and the particular wordings of the questions. And we can see from polls that different central figures from these can vary widely from one poll to the next, and from one polling firm to the next. Such results must always be seen as estimates, which at best give a range of probable numbers, not any single true number or rate.78.109.180.8 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree.

Just to extend on some intentional homicides not being included in Venezuela's numbers, I don't know why I mentioned justifiable homicides should be included as some countries include them - others don't. Honduras, South Africa and Colombia put them in with murders while Jamaica, Venezuela (apart from an excellent PROVEA link which unfortunately is now dead) and, indeed, the US tabulate them seperately. This makes the list slightly uneven but not so much that one can completely dismiss the order of countries. Power Society (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a problem indeed but I believe that INCOSEC numbers shouldn't be taken in count because (i) they're based on a 1,500 households survey and (ii) INCOSEC took them out of their listing in their website. On the other hand, I don't understand why the INE report provided by Infovenezuela should be discredited since it's a reproduction of a INE report (National Stats Institute) which may not be online in the INE's webpage, but still is a document from an official institute. I believe that INE (even reported by Infovenezuela and the main newspaper in the country (El Universal)) is a more trustable source than INCOSEC which examines 30 times less households for its survey. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baclavah13 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

INCOSEC numbers for Venezuelan murder rates haven't been endorsed by any official institution in Venezuela. Moreover, this is a completely unofficial association which bases its numbers on a 1,500 household survey. On the other hand, the INE numbers published in the site Infovenezuela and in two of the main newspapers of the country are a lot more reliable. It's not because the government hasn't put its last report online that the report doesn't exist. The report comes from the National Statistics Institute of the country. If this report is not acceptable, there's no way INCOSEC's report is acceptable Baclavah13 (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Baclavah13

Moving article

Heya gang. I propose that we rename this article to "List of countries by homicide rate", and replace all instances of "murder" with "homicide" in the article. This is because "murder" is a very specific kind of homicide, and by definition would exclude manslaughter or unsolved killings. I'll do this in a couple hours unless somebody has objections. As I understand it, this article is meant to cover "killings", right? Please let me know if I am mistaken. -Taco325i 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is correct. Possibly the reported rates are sometimes for all homicides and sometimes for just murder. For example, the latest figures for South Africa from the South African police (http://www.saps.gov.za/statistics/reports/crimestats/2006/categories.htm) give a murder rate of 39.5 per 100 000 for April 2005 to April 2006. Total murders pluse culpable homicides (the two catagories of homicide in SA law) are 66 per 100 000 for the same period. Since the murder rate has been declining in SA for the last few years, I assume that it is this rate that is reported in the figures, not the total homicide rate. Whether the article is headed murder or homicide, the figures probably need to be cleaned up. Brutus42 13:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it was definitely a mistake to move from murder to homicide as the definitions are different, and internationally less comparable. While all murders are homicides, not all homicides are murders. Also different countries include different criminal offences in their homicide data, including both conspiracy and abortion offences in some data sets and may often exclude traffic deaths. Murder is probably the most closely comparable statistic because most jurisdictions will count each person killed, whatever counting method they use. I would suggest having a page for each with notes about how each country's statistics are recorded. -- Cameron Dewe 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And in Islamic countries, the intentional killing of a non-Muslim by a Muslim is not murder, only the killing of an innocent Muslim is defined as murder. The intentional killing of a Muslim (by another Muslim) for honor or blasphemy is also not murder. This will significantly distort the stats from Islamic countries. Santamoly (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Peru and Costa Rica

It looks like the source for Peru's 2009 data is missing. While Costa Rica has a source for its 2009 data, it looks to be 11.3, not 11. Or am I missing something? Enivid (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no one offered an alternative solution, I've updated both data. Enivid (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Indonesia

Indonesia has a high Murderrate..

I was born there and have been on vacation there. And trust me, there are more then 5 murders a day...

There is a 2 hour crime news program about all the crime that have occured that day, every day. Ive seen multiple assasination, shoot out with drug dealers and Police and rape cases.. You see the bodies nd everything.

And since I'm an Indonesian immigrant livin in the Netherlands, its hard to believe its saver there then here.. The most famous hitman here is Indonesian.. Jesse Remmers ... Ive been incarcerated in the Bijlmer Bajes, wich is the most famous prison located in the most impoverished place in Holland, And I was the only Indonesian who havnt murdered someone.. My fathers criminal organisation is well known for murders, drug trafficking and trafficking/smuggling of persons.. Ive done all kinds of things varying from stabbing and armed robberies with pistols.. dealing drugs etc.. Indonesians are a pretty bad ass folk.. Javanese, were even prohibited to be enslaved because we were causing trouble all the time...

And a lot of sites say Indonesia's Murderrate is 8.9 Its not something to be proud of, but 0.7 ??? thats like imposible.. The World Health Organisation says its 8.9..

It is plausible to hear that Indonesia has more then 20.000 murders, That means it has more murders then lets say, Mexico.. for me its a good thing, because I like Mexicans.. I had sex with a Mexican gall, And dont like the fact they r banging on another.. Indonesia is infact more dangerous then the US.. Because in Indonesia they r mobbing and burning and looting pillaging and murdering eachother every day round there.. where in America its called a Riot.. In Indonesia its called daily upheavel or unrest, even civil war.. or war for independence is ocuring daily in Indonesia..

Conclusion is, there is a lot of headhunting in the outer provinces.. Like in Aceh, Borneo, North-Central Sulawesi, Southern Maluku Islands, and Western Papua.. But there is a also a lot of gangster shit going on in Greater Jakarta Region and East Java.. Ever seen the program Locked Up Abroad in Indonesia ?? That shit is wild.. Lots of Violent Deaths...

Please, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes. As to the argument. You'll need to provide a direct link to the WHO data showing 8.9 murder rate for 2004, not via Guardian. The link should be referenced in the article itself and not the talk page or the comment to your edit. You should read how to edit Wikipedia correctly before doing new edits. Enivid (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

East and South-East Asia

According to the WHO, East and South-East Asia has a Higher Murderrate then its stated before.. Look... These r the rates from the year 2004..

  1. Philippines - 21
  2. North Korea - 18.9
  3. Cambodia - 18.5
  4. Burma - 15.7
  5. Mongolia - 13.1
  6. East Timor - 11.7
  7. Indonesia - 8.9
  8. Thailand - 8.2
  9. Laos - 5.4
  10. VietNam - 3.8
  11. China - 2.2
  12. South Korea - 2.2
  13. Malaysia - 2
  14. Brunei Darussalam - 1.4
  15. Singapore - 0.5
  16. Japan - 0.5

If you add all up and devide you come to 8.4 per 100.000

Only countries missing are Taiwan and Tibet.. Nepal and Bhutan are considerd to be South Asian Countries..

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.99.130 (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You have your math wrong. You can't just add the average values and divide them by the amount of values. Each country has a different population size, so its rate should be weighted accordingly in the total average. The data has also a separate reference, so there is no need to provide any calculations at all. Enivid (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

I don't want to get in edit war but do we do with 212.187.99.130 constantly spoiling Indonesia and overall regional/subregional data? Enivid (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ empty
  2. ^ empty
  3. ^ empty
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate/Archive_1&oldid=1142342678"