Talk:List of countries by intentional homicide rate/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Repeated deletion of accessdate parameter in cite web templates

Hi, regarding your deletion of the accessdate parameter in the cite web templates of the citations in the List of countries by intentional homicide rate‎‎ articel. Your change summary says "Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers...". But Template:Cite web#URL says "Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book". Two citations have them (DOI and ISBN, or equivalents ... you can/could potentionally access them somewhere else). But others need an accessdate IMO, especially the XSL file, since they do not have a DOI parameter or an ISBN. And yes, they are from official sites, but these sites can either change their structure, or the link can become dead, which would be irrelevant for a DOI/ISBN document, since available anyhow. But "half-offical" PDF documents without DOI/ISBN, and especially without even an explicit full print/publication date, could potentially be changed in the future or just disappear (though I would not expect this from UNDOC, but who knows how the future looks like :-o ). -- ZH8000 (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I moved this from my talk page. Makes more sense to discuss it here so that others can see the reasoning also. Template:Cite web says:

"Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book, but should be used for links to news articles on commercial web sites (these can change from time to time, even if they are also published in a physical medium). Note that access-date is the date that the URL was checked to not just be working, but to support the assertion being cited (which the current version of the page may not do)."

DOI parameter or an ISBN is not essential to qualify under the main point in Template:Cite web: "Not required for linked documents that do not change."

That part is italicized there. See diff for the references I removed the access date from. All are for specific linked documents that do not change. They are for reports, journal articles, UNODC documents, etc.. They have very specific reference info. Newer versions of the UNODC reports will come out, and they will have new references. But each report stays the same. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

South Korea with or without attempted murders etc.?

UNDOC state a figure of 427 for the year 2011. IP 60.147.118.166 added a note saying that this figure includes "attempted murder, aiding and abetting of murder, murder conspiracy and others." However, if we look up his given link and change to English version, then Korea National Police Agency explicitely says that there were 1,204 murders in 2011! – I think we can easily and reasonably assume that this much higher figure than the according UNDOC figure (of the same year) is the figure about murders "that includes attempted murder, aiding and abetting of murder, murder conspiracy and others". And figure 427 is a correct, already adjusted figure by UNDOC! Therefore I will delete this note again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZH8000 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 15 May 2015

I'm Sorry, You're right, You may delete this talk comment, I completly understood this. :-) 60.147.118.166 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Norway's numbers show a distinct misunderstanding of statistics methodology

Using 2012's numbers for Norway's homicide rate is at best a sign of a failure to understand the basic principles of statistics methodology. According to the UNDOC numbers Norway has a median of 35 and an average of 37 in the period 2003 - 2012. You're supposed to cut out outliers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier

There are two ways of fixing this. Either you add an additional set of numbers with the average of the last, say, 5 years. Or, in the case of Norway, you use the year before, when they had 29 murders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Frey (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The chart here uses 2011 numbers for Norway. The table has a column for year. See the PDF reference listed in the article. The Norway homicide rate and count numbers can also be seen here if you don't want to open up the long PDF: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox44. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Manually desuperscript references

Note: Comment moved here from my talk page to further discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "Undo 178.16.15.100. Your attempt to "Manually desuperscript references" created full URLs that cause the page to reload when they are clicked. Please use a WP:sandbox first.", please note that the HTML on the page matches that output by the replaced template. I kindly suggest that you make use of the sandbox before recommending it to any one else.

Just in case the urge has taken you, I would also like to remind you that the page in question does not belong to you personally, it exists for everyone and you should not be reverting edits simply because you do not like them. 178.16.15.100 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You added some complex wikicode. For example:

<span class="reference plainlinks nourlexpansion">[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}#endnote_{{anchorencode:somalia}}]</span>

When I first looked at it, and clicked a note link it reloaded the page before taking me down to the note. Now it does not reload the page. Weird.

Another editor reverted you first. Citing "error fix #34." I looked it up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/List of errors. Here it is: "Template programming element. Syntax error. A template programming element, such as {{{1}}}, #if or #switch, was found. They are usually not needed or a regular template can be substituted instead."

I don't really see the advantage of your method. It is much more complex. The note link takes one to the same note section. And the old notes section had an alphabetical list of the nations with notes. Your notes section does not have the name of the nations in front of the notes. And even though they look somewhat like references, the up arrow does not work. This will confuse readers. So, complexity plus confusion does not sound like a good idea.

Another problem. Your removal of the sorting icons from being in a separate row increased the width of the table. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed flags for now

I discovered that the flags were also causing the rows to not be aligned. Especially at small font sizes. Look at the bottom of the long country chart to see. Check various versions of the article, and different note styles.

It even affected my notes style ("notes" link in the notes column). I hadn't noticed it before because the row misalignment caused by the flags alone only shows up clearly at smaller font sizes. It is most clear at the bottom of the long country chart.

So for now, please do not return the flags. No matter what notes style you want to try. Right now the rows in the country chart are perfectly aligned. See:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timeshifter/Sandbox54
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate&oldid=678881863

--Timeshifter (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Patch for row numbering is being tested now

Please see Phabricator thread:

jquery.tablesorter: Add support for a "fixed" column.

• https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42618

From that thread there is recent notice of a patch for row numbering that is being tested now as an option for tables in the MediaWiki software. See:

• https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/234473

So we may soon no longer need all the convoluted methods we have been working on to get row numbering that stays aligned. We will also get flags back once the patch discussed in Phabricator is implemented. Then we can even put the notes fully back up in the notes column. And we will be able to put references within the chart itself. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

UNODC data for 2013

UNODC report with the data for the year 2013 is out. Shouldn't we update the article to include the latest data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enivid (talk • contribs) 09:29, 15 November 2015‎

The report you linked to is the one we are using. I clarified the reference some more. The report is titled "Global Study on Homicide 2013". The statistical annex (pages 121ff) at the end of it has detailed charts for homicide counts and rates by country with data from 2000–2012. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That's strange because the data they have in XLS (https://data.unodc.org/#state:0) now has 2013 for some countries. Enivid (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I did not know of that page. See the homicide submenu of the Crime and Criminal Justice menu. It produces some 2013 data for some countries. It is in multiple formats. See:

• Direct link to all of the latest UNODC homicide rate data. It takes awhile to load. Save the page to save time.

At the bottom of the page is this: "Note: data were updated on 13 April 2015 and supersede data published in the Global Study on Homicide 2013".

The latest data is easily accessible here as a sortable wikitable: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox62.

(unindent). Newer UNODC reference has been added to the article. People can feel free to update numbers and years. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Row numbering

The first comment was moved here from my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You are guardian angeling your feature. People have repeatedly tried to remove it, or add standard wikipedia markups to it, which have resulted in your reverting all of their changes. These have very much not been discussed. If you want it back, put it back so that it works, portably, on all browsers with everybody else's contributions. This is not yours alone. 92.39.201.191 (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Row numbers work fine. Click the rate-column sorting icon a few times to see. This has been discussed before. Please discuss your changes. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Outdated stats

At this point the UNODC stats are pretty out of date. For example, El Salvador's murder rate is now 104, while it was only 40 back when the UNODC study was done. There's no indication that the UNODC is going to do another study any time soon, so eventually we're going to have to start using another source (or sources). Any thoughts on this? Kaldari (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

UNODC stats are getting updated almost each year. There is consistency factor that makes UNODC data the optimal source for this table. Enivid (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest reference below. Some links may be offline at the moment.

• UNODC Statistics Online. See the homicide submenu of the Crime and Criminal Justice menu. It produces some 2013 data for some countries. It is in multiple formats. Direct link to all of the latest UNODC homicide rate data. It takes awhile to load. Save the page to save time. At the bottom of the page is this: "Note: data were updated on 13 April 2015 and supersede data published in the Global Study on Homicide 2013".

For much faster access I converted the latest UNODC table to a wikitext table: User:Timeshifter/Sandbox62. It is a sortable wikitable of the very latest homicide rate data (including some 2013 rates for some countries). Use it to update the list here. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150318135625/https://data.unodc.org/ to https://data.unodc.org/

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the archive link. When I go there it says "Authentication required. A username and password are being requested by https://web.archive.org." So one can not view the page. And the original link that was being archived is now working again, and no longer a dead link requiring an archive link. Thanks for trying though with the archive bot. It is a very useful tool. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Notes in the article

Style check: what is the reason of putting a note to editors on the page? I think these kind of notes are better put in the talk page. If you do not agree with someone modifying your precious table then just revert the changes. This way everyone can participate. I think the note is in bad taste and not professional (not that wikipedia has professional edited articles, but hey! that is the goal, isn't it?). Giraldezjota (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, the note implies bias because it asks editors not to include other sources. UNODC might be a good source but it is biased to ask editors to not check other sources.... I am removing the note. Giraldezjota (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. We only use the UNODC source. For detailed info on the reasoning see the talk archives. The notes are left in the article in order to prevent editors from wasting their time adding numbers and references that will be removed by the regular editors of this article. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Style note still valid. The article is not a letter to editors (which are a small part of the people that read the article). The UNODC source does not have to be removed but the addressing directly to the page users... this must be removed.Giraldezjota (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The article without the notes gets too many edits that need to be reverted. It wastes everybody's time, and makes for an unstable, inaccurate article. Notes are allowed in articles. I see that the number of your user contributions is under 100 over the years. So you may not have seen too many notes in articles. But there are plenty of articles that have notes, and need them. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is some 2014 data

See the note at the top of this talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we restrict editing of this page to autoconfirmed users?

I hope this page will restrict editing to autoconfirmed users, as too many people edit without the source by UNODC. The Good Guy (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, so I doubt that the protection will be granted in this case.Enivid (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I wonder is there is some way to add a note to the editing window about only using UNODC numbers. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Coloring the subregion cells

I colored the subregions of Africa. Will do more continents later. Feel free to do more yourself. Method used:

| style="background-color:wheat;" |Western Africa

Used background-color instead of just background. This allows mass changes later just to the table cells containing the subregion names.

Color names are from the X11 color names section of web colors page. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain Murder Rate Higher than indicated here

Great Britain's murder rate and violence rate is the highest in the EU and much higher than indicated here due to unusual record keeping practices of the Home Office. They have also seen a dramatic rise compared to 20 years ago despite record arming of police. The violent crime rate is at least 2X the US but maybe even 4X higher again due to differences in record keeping. There needs to be more thorough research here to indicate the real murder rate. Some references to begin with. 1. (states murder rate is higher as is the violent crime rate compared to the US but not 4 or 5X as some claim but likely 2X.) 2. 'The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. Title says it all. 3. Murder rate rises after spate of killings in June 2015 "574 murders and killings in total, 71 more than the previous year" 4. How The UK Covers Up Murder Stats 5. Murder rate in England and Wales rises 11% Hope this helps the usuals here address some deficiencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.13.79 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Latest UNODC number is 602 murders in the UK in 2013. That is 0.9 murders per 100,000 in 2013. That is 9 murders per million. See the top of this talk page for the UNODC source that we use. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Turkey and UNODC murder rates

Where does the number 2,6 rate and the absolut number 1,866 come from? In the UNODC report I see the following:

Year	Rate	Absolute number
2003	4.3	2,837
2004	4.4	2,914
2005	4.9	3,305
2006	4.6	3,168
2007	5.2	3,599
2008	4.6	3,257
2009	5.2	3,692
2010	4.2	3,064
2011	4.2	3,061
2012	4.3	3,216

I neither see the absolute number of 1,866, nor the rate of 2.6. Where can I find those? (I got the report via: https://data.unodc.org/#state:2 -> "Crime and Criminal Justice" -> "Homicide" -> "Homicide counts and rates (2004-2014) -> "All, All, All" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.149.165.63 (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Updated. -- ZH8000 (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

We should add units to the homicide rates

Is it murders per year or murders per 1000 people per year?

The numbers are not very useful without units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.239.78 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It's murders per 100,000 people per year, as stated in the text preceding the table. —Slicing (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I clarified it further. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Order of the countries

Re: The initial order of the countries is alphabetical within subregion. Subregions are initially in alphabetical order within regions. Reload the page to return to that initial subregion order. This doesn't seem very helpful. Readers won't be interested or intuitively comprehend that choice. The default view should either be alphabetical or by rate. I'd suggest the former. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Not really an issue when you can click the top of each column to get any order that you want. Andynct (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a weak response. The way Wikipedia works is to present things in the most sensible and useful and simplest manner for the reader.

That's why we have a policy of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, for example, so that someone searching for information about John Kennedy is taken straight to John F. Kennedy and not to the disambiguation page at John Kennedy (disambiguation), even though so many other notable John Kennedys have lived.

Here, no-one, but no-one will visit this page and want to see the data in its current order. And no-one will intuitively understand why it's in that bonkers order. Arguing that they can reorder it themselves is not therefore not valid.

Furthermore, you're pre-supposing that our readers know how to reorder a wikimarkuped table, which is itself not necessarily given. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The UNODC source has it ordered the way it is ordered here in the Wikipedia article. So it is easier to update the list here if the order here is kept the same way as at UNODC.

I clarified how to get alphabetical or rate order. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I, like many other readers no doubt, skipped all the verbiage and went straight to the table. And then wondered why it was in an absurd order. But thank you for clarifying then it is ordered for the convenience of the editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.212.34 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Mexico not in Central America

Please let's be precise: Mexico is not in Central America but in North America (a full member of NAFTA). Mexico (Spanish: México, pronounced: [ˈme.xi.ko], modern Nahuatl), officially the United Mexican States (Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos), is a federal republic in the southern half of North America. The article should list Mexico as North America, as it is in all good geography books.--Karljoos (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The article uses United Nations geoscheme because the main data source is UNODC. Mexico is a part of Central America according to this geoscheme. Enivid (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

How's that so? It contradicts the CIA World Fact Book [1], the Encyclopædia Britannica [2], the UNESCO [3], The Economist [4], and every geography book I know. Whatever...--Karljoos (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Just now I further emphasized the United Nations geoscheme explanation in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed Nepal flag. Breaks row alignment at smaller text sizes

Someone recently added flags. Seems to be working better than before. At both larger and smaller text sizing.

Nepal

{{flag|Nepal}}

Only the Nepal flag seems to be causing problems (at smaller text sizes). It breaks row alignment. So I removed the Nepal flag. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Then you should remove ALL the flags. Leaving one missing looks unprofessional. Bazonka (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a professional organization. It is a minor inconvenience having one flag missing. If you are interested in fixing the problem with the flag, that would be a great contribution. Anastrophe (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It's fixed. Bazonka (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I use Firefox. Let me explain the situation for those who may not understand the problem. Firefox has zoom control buttons built in. Click the settings button on the right top of the browser window. Click customize. Then drag the zoom control (default is 100%) anywhere. I put it at the top of the browser window, next to the menu bar. It adjusts in 10% increments up or down by clicking the plus or minus buttons. I zoom text only (view menu > zoom > zoom text only).

The flags are not a problem until one gets down to 80%. I assume not too many people use such small text. So I am leaving the flags in for now. At 80% the row alignment is off by one full row by the time one scrolls down to Vietnam. At 90% the rows align perfectly. Whether one zooms text only, or everything. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This is probably because there are two tables. One table for the row numbers, and a separate table containing everything else. This is a very strange way to do it. If the row numbers were in the same table then everything would keep its alignment. Any reason why it's separate? Bazonka (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The developers refuse to continue the work on the option of row numbering. Even though there is already a working option they could implement now in the mediawiki software. See the relevant sections of Help:Sorting. See the Phabricator links in the section currently called "Auto-ranking or adding a row numbering column (1,2,3) next to a table". --Timeshifter (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The map and the table contradict each other

Look at Burkina Faso. The table specifies its murder rate at 0.7 per 100k, yet the map clearly colours it in the range of 5-10. I don't get it.--Adûnâi (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Contact the mapmaker. See here: commons:File:Map of world by intentional homicide rate.svg and commons:User talk:Nikko2013. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the map is correct. The 0.7 number comes from someone who vandalised the table. 2.248.9.59 (talk)

Correct numbers are at the UNODC source:

https://data.unodc.org/sys/rpt?reportfile=crime-statistics-homicide-count-data&REGION=Africa&REGION__label=Africa&SUBREGION=__ALL&SUBREGION__label=All&COUNTRY=__ALL&COUNTRY__label=All+%2856%29&format=html&fullscreen=true&showtoc=true#state:0

0.7 murders per 100,000 population is correct. Latest year available currently is 2012 for Burkina Faso. 117 murders in 2012.

See reference info in the Wikipedia article for how to arrive at that Africa table I linked to above.

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Same for Morocco. Murder rate according to UNODC: 1.00, yet it is shown wrongly in the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.177.152.249 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Contact the map maker. Current map:

commons:File:Map of world by intentional homicide rate-fixplcz.svg

Previous map:

commons:File:Map of world by intentional homicide rate.svg

I haven't been involved in selecting the map for the article.

--Timeshifter (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit notice discussion

There is some discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of countries by intentional homicide rate regarding the edit notice for this article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit notice has been added. Click any edit link in the article to see the edit notice banner. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

UNODC exclusivity

Excuse me if I sound obnoxious or in any way uninformed on the issue, but it seems to me that limiting the source of homicide rates and numbers to just one is rather pointless. I checked a number of countries and there seems to be plenty of data stating specific figures for later years which is supported by various reputable sources. Granted, they are not related to the United Nations, but they are a lot more current and seem more adequate. El Pais is a national Spanish newspaper that also covers Latin/Hispanic America and Brazil. Other sources (NY times incluuded) and InSight Crime, which specifically deals with the investigation and reporting of crimes inthe Americas. I will continue to update the page unless adequate reason not to do so is given by any of you, which is why I am posting this entry. mezil (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The primary reasons for using UNODC data exclusively are consistency and comparability. If we switch to hundreds different sources the data becomes overall less reliable and useful, while the compiled table will be a result of some sort of OR. Whereas by using the UNODC data we let the UNODC do the research for us. Enivid (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

True, but you sacrifice accuracy and currency by not doing the extra effort. Statistics are available for more recent years and there is little reason to simply ignore all other research other than that of the UNODC. mezil (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

We are talking hundreds of countries. UNODC strives for consistency in how the numbers are calculated. That is a lot of work. It would be original research on our part to make claims about which numbers are reliable and which are not.

It might be possible to start a separate article and make no such claims. Just list the latest numbers you can find, and reference them. Let the reader decide. Good luck with that. Anybody who has tried to maintain a country list knows how difficult, and even impossible that can be if no single source is used. I wish you luck. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I can imagine it has to be, I was just stating my thoughts looking at the table. When I have time to commit (and if I have time), I might try that. mezil (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Definition

I don't understand the definition: illegal killing. Does this include normal combat deaths or not? There is a section at the bottom of the article called notes in which countries with wars are listed with a brief indication or name of the war -- but what does this mean? From the news, one would image that the death (murder?) rate in Syria would be very high, and maybe the note listing conflict areas is supposed to hint at that -- but Syria's rate is not extremely high, so maybe the note is just additional information for the reader use to go look for war deaths in those countries. I don't know. 87.247.32.64 (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The info was unclear. I just clarified it better, I hope. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Data discrepancies

According to this article, looking at a few data points for 2012:

• Zimbabwe 2012 rate = 6.74, count = 981
• Tunisia 2012 rate = 3.05, count = 332
• Namibia 2012 rate = 16.93, count = 388
• Burkina Faso 2012 rate = 0.71, count = 117

According to the UNODC Table 8.1, Intentional homicide count and rate per 100,000 population, by country/territory (2000-2012), starting at pg 122 at http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf :

• Zimbabwe 2012 rate = 10.6, count = 1450
• Tunisia 2012 rate = 2.2, count = 235
• Namibia 2012 rate 17.2, count = 388
• Burkina Faso 2012 rate = 8.0, count = 1311

Also, Qatar's 2015 rate is reported in this article as 8.10. According to the article entitled "Qatar 2015 Crime and Safety Report" (https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=17005), "Media reporting indicated that the national murder rate is 0.5 for every 100,000 residents (the global average based on UN data is 4.0 per 100,000)." The UNODC table reports Qatar's rate as 1.1 for 2012.

Why are many of these numbers significantly different? Shawnc (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The article should reflect UNODC's numbers there is an infinite amount of discussion and warnings about it. If you found discrepancies, please update them to the UNODC's numbers. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Shawnc: See the UNODC reference info at the bottom of the article. I just now tried to clarify it further. It links to the latest UNODC data. That data can be found here:

https://data.unodc.org -

For this Wikipedia article we only accept the latest UNODC data for a country.

data.unodc.org accesses updated UNODC numbers, with some 2013, 2014, and 2015 data for some countries. See the homicide submenu of the Crime and Criminal Justice menu. Click on "Homicide counts and rates (2000-2015)". Choose region or the whole world. Download the PDF or Excel files. Or run the report in your browser. Check the box to open in a new tab so that the table is created without the intrusive sidebar. It takes awhile to load, and there may be no indicator at first. Save the page to save future loading time.

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What I did was I read the first sentence under "By country" which contains a note that begins with a link to "Global Study on Homicide 2013 (2013 PDF full report with data through 2012)" which is the URL http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

Using UNODC Statistics Online at data.unodc.org instead, I see:

• Zimbabwe 2012 rate = 6.74, count = 981
• Tunisia 2012 rate = 3.05, count = 332
• Namibia 2012 rate = 16.93, count = 388
• Burkina Faso 2012 rate = 0.71, count = 117
• Qatar 2015 rate = 8.10, count = 181

The above are consistent with the article's numbers.

That means the referenced "Global Study on Homicide 2013" contains numbers which are different from those listed under data.unodc.org.

Since the article is using the data from UNODC Statistics Online data, let's clarify this in the notes. Shawnc (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks for clarifying the reference. Timeshifter (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Table/map-discrepancies, Norway and Sweden

Obviously these Scandinavians are peaceful people. -- According to the list, the rate of Norway is less than 1, whereas Sweden's rate is above 1; but the map shows the coulors the other way round. How can I correct the map? – Detlef Lindenthal (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I left a note here:

commons:File talk:Map of world by intentional homicide rate-fixplcz.svg

--Timeshifter (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Does self defense count?

There's nothing in the article about self-defense. Does it count as intentional homicide or not? You're killing somebody intentionally but you have justification for doing so and it's generally legal. 72.196.125.111 (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It does not. The UNODC report states:

Within the broad range of violent deaths, the core element of intentional homicide is the complete liability of the direct perpetrator, which thus excludes killings directly related to war or conflicts, self-inflicted death (suicide), killings due to legal interventions or justifiable killings (such as self-defence), and those deaths caused when the perpetrator was reckless or negligent but did not intend to take a human life (non-intentional homicide).

You can mention it in the article if you feel it appropriate. Enivid (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I added the quote to the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Discrete vs continuous statistics

The data set is clearly discrete, so discrete statistics should be used instead of continuous statistics, as is already been used. A good estimation for the rate of homicides would be (the number of homicides + 0.5)/(the population of the country), used for a discrete distribution where the variable can take integer numbers to transform it into a continuous distribution: http://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-the-continuity-correction-factor/. I think that error bars (adding 0 to 1 in the number of homicides) should be used at least for countries with less than 10 homicides, where error bars are larger. The error bars could be reduced if data for more than one year were used for these countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Alto (talk • contribs) 07:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are writing about. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that the correction I proppose is not probably the best one, but some kind of correction should me made (or an interval of probable values should be written) for at least the case of 0 homicides. In medicine, a 0.5 zero-cell correction is useful: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596572. For the case of 0 homicides during certain year in a country, two extreme cases are possible: there could (almost) never be homicides in that country, so that would be a rate close to 0, or there could almost every year a homicide, but that year not, so the rate would be close to 1 over the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Alto (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

If a Poisson distribution is assumed (which is quite a natural assumption taking into account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution) then, according to Wolfram Math World (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PoissonDistribution.html), the Poisson distribution reaches a maximum when ln ν = H_n - γ, where γ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, H_n is the n-th harmonic number and ν is the parameter of the distribution (which is equal to the mean value). When computing ν_max(n) values for different n, we obtain, approximately: ν_max(0)=0.562, ν_max(1)=1.526, ν_max(2)=2.517, ν_max(3)=3.512, ν_max(4)=4.509, ν_max(5)=5.508, ν_max(6)=6.5065=6.5*(1+0.001), so a good estimation of the rate of homicides for a country with n homicides and population N would be ν_max(n)/N. Since, for n>5, the relative difference between ν_max(n) and n+0.5 is less or equal 0.1%, then I think that a new column with this estimation of the rate (using ν_max(n)/N for n<6 and (n+0.5)/N for n>5) should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Alto (talk • contribs) 08:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I have just realized that the formula had to be used to derive the n with the maximum probability, not the ν. When the formula for the ν with the maximum probability is used, the solution is ν = n. However, we can calculate the expected value of ν given n and a Poisson distribution (with limits of the integration 0 and infinite): <ν> = ʃν*P_ν(n) dν = 1/(n!)*ʃν^(n+1)*e^(-ν) dν = n+1, so a good estimation of the rate of homicides for a country with n homicides and population N would be (n+1)/N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Alto (talk • contribs) 11:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Central Europe subregion

Why there is not listed the Central Europe subregion and countries like Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary are in the Eastern Europe whilst for example Austria, geographycally located southward to Czech Republic, is in the Western Europe? The times of the iron curtain ended almost 30 years ago and the division of the world to the East and West is obsolete. Even Austria was not in the Western Europe these times, it was a neutral country. The above countries don't have too much in common with typical Eastern Europe countries like Russia or Ukraine except the Slavic language (even not valid for Hungary) and they are culturally much close to Austria, Germany (Bavaria). Regarding the crime situation topics like this one, the Central Europe region differes significantly from typical Eastern European countries. For example, the Czech Republic belongs to the top ten most peaceful countries in the world (e.g. Global Peace Index, or also according to the list created by Forbes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:83C2:2B2:0:0:0:A09 (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Because the table uses the United Nations geoscheme. Enivid (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Does suicide count?

It is intentional killing of a person, after all... Applejuicefool (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Homicide is the killing of one person by another.

See: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/homicide

And: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+homicide

--Timeshifter (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Refer UNODC in title

UNODC should be referred in title as this article apparently is not intended for up-do-date figures from other sources and thus does not summarize whole available data. Readers should not be mislead in comprehensiveness of this article. Darwwin (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I added this in the lead section:

"UNODC data is used in the main table below. In some cases it is not as up to date as other sources. See farther down as to why its data is used over other sources."

I think this is clearer than putting UNODC in the title. That may just confuse people.

--Timeshifter (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeshifter, that section intro is a mess. All the bolding squarely fails MOS:NOBOLD, while simultaneously being very annoying to read. There are way too many notes and warnings that really shouldn't be necessary. For example, why would you say "For the full table with more info and multiple years see the UNODC source." or "Enlarge the map to the right for more info."? We don't teach readers how to use citations and images. And why is the same citation used 6 times in only 9 sentences? "When using the figures, any cross-national comparison should be conducted with caution" is another bit of advice. This is all a bit overkill. Besides, it wasn't "discussed many times on the talk page", you made it in response to complaints made here. That doesn't mean all of it was done in consensus. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the bolding, and I removed nearly all the bolding in the intro to the main table. The other info is all essential, and really has been discussed many times. It is not "advice". It is info provided after readers complained about this or that on the talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I went through the last couple years of page history just now and yes, I definitely agree that much of it is necessary. I'd still say some of the reader advice is slightly excessive (e.g. telling them to visit the source and to be careful with comparisons) but it's not really a problem. As long as the complaints are valid and not unique, of course Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Needs a colorized map highlighting

Something like this: https://i2.wp.com/media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20111008_WOM936_0.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.20.110.57 (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Germany's number sounds dubious

The thing is called "by intentional homicide rate". The number of murders assumed for Germany is shortly below 700 and looks fascinatingly like the usual number of cases we have in Germany for what happens to be called Mord (murder). However, the crime called killing or deathblow (Totschlag), typically with numbers around 2000, is a full case of intentional homicide (we might debate that in the case of the "lesser cases of Totschlag", which are a tiny minority typically consisting of "in the heat of passion" etc.; but not for the bulk of occurrences of this crime) - just not as heinous as Mord is. Seems like a technical point of German law causes us to have a number roughly a third of what it should be.--131.159.76.171 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is why we only use UNODC numbers. With hundreds of countries there is no way we few editors can make those decisions. You might take your question to UNODC and and ask them. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The UNODC definition includes three elements to define "intentional homicide" in support of their study; the third one is "The intentional killing is against the law, which means that the law considers the perpetrator liable for the unlawful death (legal element)." This implies that the UNODC numbers should match the numbers obtained by the jurisdiction in which the statistics are gathered. Any discrepancy between that jurisdiction and the UNODC (especially one this large) should be very concerning at best, and at worst cast doubt on the usefulness of the UNODC methods altogether. This article needs to, at the very least, identify the discrepancies where they exist, and hopefully explain and account for them. It'd be nice to have a unified study like the UNODC but which actually conforms to its own definitions. In the case of Germany, Totschlag is, indeed, a person killing another with intent as an element, yet it is not counted in the UNDOC study. 216.51.93.155 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: Please do not archive this section until either the UNODC presents us with a correct number, or Wikipedia changes its policy not to include other sources. People should at least know the truth when they scroll the talk page.--2001:A61:260C:C01:D100:4E82:35BA:86 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Puerto Rico and USVI not Countries

Subject is list of countries by intentional homicide. Neither PR nor USVI are countries. --63.243.196.34 (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

They are according to the definition at Country, which could be taken to include semi-self-governing places such as these. --Jayron32 14:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Disclaimers in the article

Regarding this edit, can you point me to the discussion where consensus to include that thing was established? The use of a bolded, highlighted box seems like a straightforward violation of WP:NDA.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I moved the above post from my talk page to here so others can read and/or participate also.

See: Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles#What are disclaimers?. The info banner is not one of those 5 items.

Look at the talk page and archives for past discussion. See also the edit history comments. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence of consensus to keep that thing whatsoever, if I missed something you're welcome to provide a proper link. And yes, it is absolutely a disclaimer and should be removed. If you look at the exceptions to WP:NDA you will see that it mentions current event and cleanup templates, so clearly they're not limited to a closed list as you seem to suggest. Plus, those templates are permitted because they're temporary in nature, while the pseudotemplate in the current version of the article is presumably meant to stay there for good.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We have had many problems with people entering non-UNODC data in the main chart. We have continuously added more warnings, and they have worked in lowering the amount of work and reversions necessary. This is not controversial to any longterm editors here. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, can you link me to a discussion where consensus was established to keep two edit disclaimers in mainspace, in addition to the page notice in the edit page (to which I don't object)? This is a highly unusual arrangement so it needs to be supported by something tangible if it is to remain in the current revision.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• These are far from "reader friendly" can they be converted to HTML comments so that only EDITORS will see them? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I've done that; at the same time I've made the editnotice more visible to combat the problem that Timeshifter states. If necessary making the editnotice even more visible/larger seems better than a notice on the article Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: The graphic of the stop sign with the hand is a definite improvement in the edit notice. If it doesn't work consistently (since some editors still miss edit notices) then making that stop sign 2 or 3 times bigger should help. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(unindent). @Galobtter: You are a template editor. Could you add something about only using United Nations geoscheme region names in that edit notice:

• Template:Editnotices/Page/List of countries by intentional homicide rate

We have continuing problems with new editors changing the subregion names away from the UN geoscheme names used by the UNODC source of the main table. See article history for a recent example. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Added, if you have a better wording etc you can ask me to change it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Thanks! It looks good to me. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file UNODC definition of homicide.png on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Original notes section

See this edit that removed the original notes section. With this comment: "OR: the source does not mention individual conflicts"

Please do not make such a major change without discussion. It was difficult to return it. I had to revert many edits in order to be able to return that notes section.

It is not original research. It links to Wikipedia articles for additional info. Standard practice in Wikipedia articles.

These notes have long been in the article with this description:

"Notes" column links to notes section just below the chart. It links to additional info about wars, etc.. UNODC does not count war deaths in its data. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a blatant case of original research, it tries to establish a causal link that is not supported by any of the sources provided. If you think it should be there, try to come up with a better argument than just "it's been there for ages".--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. There is no original research. They are simple links to more information on Wikipedia. Same as the many "see also" links in various sections of Wikipedia articles. Please stop blowing a gasket. --User:TimeshiftTimeshifter''' (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's impossible to have a discussion when 'there is no original research' is the extent of the argument. The article attempts to establish a causal link between the data in the table (which is supported by sources) and the content of the notes column (which is not). 'See also' sections do not appear in the middle of articles: this is just OR and should be removed.

And please, stop edit warring yourself. I let your reverts stand for the disclaimer but you seem unwilling to compromise on anything.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Many charts have a "notes" column. Many notes in "Notes" columns link to more info. I know what I am talking about. I help edit Help:Sorting.

Please return the notes to the table. I don't want to have to do a revert, because intermediate edits of yours are involved.

You are still edit warring. You immediately removed the notes column after I put it back. Common courtesy is to come to consensus on the talk page before such a major change.

The notes column was set up the way it was in order to keep the table narrow. Otherwise the row number column will not align with the rest of the table when viewed on narrower screens.

Currently, the United Nations geoscheme map is messing up that alignment on narrower screens. You can see this by making your browser window continuously narrower. There is more info on row number columns at Help:Sorting. The lack of alignment increases the farther down the table you go.

So, that map needs to be moved up a section. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and returned the notes section. I figured out a way to do it quickly without losing any of your intermediate edits. For example: I kept the "x" notes. Here is the page revision with the notes section and column returned. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a single policy-based argument to keep the notes. They're unsourced and there's a very clear and very established policy allowing anyone to remove unsourced content. The notes are being used to implicitly connect the data in the table with a number of possibly related conflicts; that counts as OR and is frowned upon.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You are ignoring what I am saying, and are edit warring. Please see my previous comments. I see no one agreeing with you. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to make an argument as to why we should keep those unsourced notes? For instance, how is adding a link to the Somali Civil War next to the figures for Somalia not OR? How is it not a blatant attempt to draw conclusions that are not in any way grounded in the data source?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You are making yourself look ridiculous. See my previous comments. As I said in my original post in this thread, there is a description of the notes column at the top:

"Notes" column links to notes section just below the chart. It links to additional info about wars, etc.. UNODC does not count war deaths in its data.

See Help:Table. And: Help:Sorting. So, in many tables there are links to such additional related info. It is not rocket science, and if you would come off of your angry tower, you would acknowledge it. Stop edit warring, and reach consensus first before such a major change. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not see a response to the concerns I raised, and the tone of the discussion is kind of degenerating. I suggest letting a uninvolved editor decide which course of action is more appropriate. Otherwise, unsourced content should not appear in the live version of the article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the Notes column with the necessary description at the top of the table. I have also added additional disclaimer at the head of the Notes subsection. The column does not constitute an OR and the notes themselves do not imply any casual link between the numbers in the table and the mentioned conflicts. Enivid (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Enivid: Part of the note you added is both misleading and wrong. Wartime deaths are always excluded only for international conflicts (ie, involving two opposing armies from different countries). Deaths caused by nearly all of the conflicts mentioned in the notes section (War in Afghanistan, Central African Republic conflict, etc) may or may not be included in the homicide count; we simply do not know as the UNODC tables don't get into that detail.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The source clearly states that intentional homicides are a subgroup of non-conflict deaths - please see figure 6.6. on page 102 of the source document. Killings in wars/conflicts (both internal and international) and civil unrest are grouped separately. Enivid (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

From pages 104-105:

While international armed conflicts are, in principle, more easily determined, in many situations of protracted disorder within countries it can be difficult to establish clear borders between non-international armed conflicts and “civil unrest”. [...] Violent deaths in the context of civil unrest, i.e. during a situation of confrontation between two or more parties that does not amount to an internal conflict, also pose specific statistical challenges, as no international statistical standard is currently addressing this issue.

We don't know which ones of those conflicts, if any, are considered 'civil unrest' rather than 'internal conflicts'. The source doesn't provide this kind of information.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not really matter because UNODC counts neither civil unrest killings nor internal conflict killings in its intentional homicide statistics according to the scheme on p. 102. Enivid (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't say it anywhere that they're not included. It does say very clearly that there's no uniform accepted standard on how to classify them, and goes on to suggest possible solutions (page 105).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The scheme clearly suggests that the intentional homicides are a subset of non-conflict deaths. The discussion on the ways to improve the statistics has little to do with the actual data in the current report. Enivid (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The title of the section that I cited is 'Data Quality Issues', how can you possibly think it's not related to the data?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Another complicating factor is that it's not clear what counts as a non-conflict death. Every country defines it differently, but I don't see where each country defines it. If a country determines that "terrorism" is the cause of the deaths, then it's intentional homicide, but if the country instead says that it's "internal conflict", then those deaths don't count. But what counts as terrorism vs internal conflict is up for debate. Take Colombia, for example. The government has maintained for years that it isn't fighting a civil war but rather is combating terrorism. Do we know if the sources of the Colombian statistics consider it a conflict or terrorism? I'm not seeing that addressed anywhere, but the Colombian conflict is included in the note. -- irn (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't, and the report points out as much. The source only tells us that terrorism-related deaths are excluded from the count in Iraq. For any other country, the inclusion of notes pointing to this or that conflict is speculative and misleading.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Underlying lk and Irn: OK, I have re-read the source carefully and it really looks like the data on a range of conflicts may or may not get included into the report numbers. I have now removed the notes altogether. Thank you for pointing that out. Enivid (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment. The notes are still relevant additional info. Whether or not there is consistency among nations as to what deaths are, or are not, included in the UNODC numbers.

As I said previously it is common to have note columns in tables. In tables without a fixed row number column the notes column would be much wider, and the notes would be there in the table itself. Sometimes the notes can be voluminous, long, and detailed, with many links. But we can not do that here due to the limitations of a fixed row number column. See Help:Sorting on row numbers. So we link to the notes below the table. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I returned the notes section. I removed the claims concerning UNODC in the notes description. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

What is relevant about the notes? The note currently reads The links below offer additional information. Additional information about what? And why should that information be linked in a note here? The totals are supposed to exclude armed conflict, but we don't know which ones are included and which ones aren't, so how does linking to some armed conflicts that may or may not be included benefit the reader? The totals also exclude suicide, manslaughter, legal executions, and justifiable homicide in self-defence. Should we have notes with links for all of that, too? What makes these particular articles so much more relevant? -- irn (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(unindent). It elucidates and enlarges the info we have been discussing. And that info is discussed in the Wikipedia article. From the article:

UNODC statistics only include the intentional killing of others outside of war. Deaths occurring during situations of civil unrest are a grey area.

Deaths resulting from an armed conflict between states are never included in the count. Killings caused by a non-international armed conflict may or may not be included, depending on the intensity of hostilities and whether it is classified as 'civil unrest' or a clash between organized armed groups.

Suicide, manslaughter, legal executions, and justifiable homicide in self-defence, are not complicated. But the breakdown of conflicts into wars, terrorism, unrest, riots, etc. is difficult, and they overlap. So some readers want this significant info. It fills out WP:NPOV, and lets readers make up their own mind about the definitions of intentional homicide, who defines it, etc.. See also: WP:NOTPAPER.

References

--Timeshifter (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

lets readers make up their own mind about the definitions of intentional homicide The definition is already clear. We just don't know - because the sources don't tell us - what counts as "armed conflict" and what counts as "terrorism" or anything else that would allow it to be included. This list doesn't elucidate anything. It doesn't make it clear if these conflicts are included or not because we simply don't know. I just don't see how the article is improved by including a list of some conflicts (or organ-harvesting operations) that may or may not be included in these totals. -- irn (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Enivid and Irn: I removed the notes from the article (again!) as we seem to have established a pretty firm consensus that they're misleading, and there is only one editor who insists on sneaking them back.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for removing the notes. It is 2 versus 2. Consensus is that the definition of intentional homicide by UNODC is complicated.

I copied the diagram to that notes section. There is consensus on that diagram. And it allows people to look at how all those conflicts fit in with the table info and the various definitions of intentional homicide by the UN and individual countries. It is OK to have 2 copies of the diagram in the article. See WP:NOTPAPER. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You keep citing help pages and NOTPAPER, but none of that is relevant. The problem here is that the list is misleading. The article says that armed conflicts are not included in the data, and then we present this list of armed conflicts as supplemental to the data. The implication is that these armed conflicts are not included in the data, but we don't know if they are included or not. -- irn (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Who's the second user supporting the inclusion of notes? You're the only one who keeps adding them back.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that you and Irn can not handle ambiguity. All the more reason to leave the notes so that the readers see what UNODC is talking about on page 102 of the 2014 doc:

"According to UN-CTS (2012), 69 countries report that their definition for statistical purposes correspond to the standard indicated by UNODC in 2011, while 17 report that their definition is not fully compliant with this standard definition."

Wars are intentional homicide too. No matter what narrow definition is used by UNODC. The article is List of countries by intentional homicide rate. Not "List of countries by intentional homicide rate according to UNODC." There are separate charts for Australia, Canada, and the US. They are not UNODC charts.

You started editing this article on May 11, 2018. Only around 2 weeks ago. It is common courtesy to leave complicated stuff in tables, until discussion ends. Because table formatting is difficult. There is no rush to remove it. It is not original research since it is just additional info from Wikipedia. The question is whether or not it is useful info for this article.

The relevant point you all make is that there may be implications occurring that are untrue. We can clarify that by including info like the quote I just gave. Plus the diagram. Then there is no accidental misleading going on.

And people still want to know about all the intentional homicide, not just the UNODC-defined intentional homicide. I put the notes back in the table until further discussion.

By the way, it is Memorial Day where I am (in the USA). Many people would find it galling not to include this info about wars, conflicts, civil unrest in an article on intentional homicides by country. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You're evading the question, who is the second user supporting the inclusion of the notes? You seem to be the only one in favor of adding them back.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it is 1 versus 1. Irn seems to only echo what you say, and is also a recent editor of this article.

Neither of you address my points. Typical tag team. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not steamrolling.

By the way, the image you uploaded is a copyright violation:

File:UNODC definition of homicide.png

Image is directly copied from page 102 of a copyrighted UN document: Global Study on Homicide 2013: Trends, Contexts, Data (PDF). Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. March 2014. ISBN 9789210542050. Copyright info is on page 4: "© United Nations, March 2014. All rights reserved, worldwide." In addition it says "This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made." That non-commercial exception is not acceptable for the Commons.

The tag you put on it does not override the copyright. commons:Template:PD-shape

--Timeshifter (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is about the notes, if you want the file deleted as a copyvio take it to commons.

Pinging other recent contributors to the talk page, because obviously the situation has stalled: @Galobtter, Irn, Enivid, and Xaosflux:.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Irn [...] is also a recent editor of this article. How is that in any way relevant? You are currently the only person arguing for inclusion. Instead of gratuitous personal attacks, irrelevant help pages, and totally unrelated American holidays, you'd do well to respond to the substance of the critique: the inclusion of the notes is misleading. -- irn (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Underlying lk: the only part I had an opinion on was form: in that directions/notations intended only for editors (such as specifying that a consensus has previously formed for using/not using certain sources for certain tables) should not be visible to general readers. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

As I have already stated, after carefully reading the source, it really might be that the Notes section adds bias to the article (not necessarily intentional) as neither we, nor readers, nor even UNODC researchers can be reliably sure which of those conflicts are counted in the numbers or not. I guess we can do without such a section until a new UNODC report comes out and, perhaps, clears the issue. Enivid (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(unindent). Comment. I am removing this article from my watchlist for now. I may or may not come back depending on the quality and cooperativeness of the editors. I have come back to articles years later after most of the uncooperative negative editors have gone elsewhere, or been run off by more progressive positive cooperative editors. It is a more pleasant and efficient use of my time and long experience. These types of negative interactions are why so many people stop editing Wikipedia, and the number of active editors has remained stagnant for so long. It is also why there are so few women editing Wikipedia. Here is a good summary chart below. It says the maximum number of active editors (5 or more article edits in the last month) peaked at around 53,000 in March 2007.

See also: commons:Category:English Wikipedia active editor statistics for more stats and charts.

There is really no reason to wait until a new UNODC report comes out to have the notes section. There will probably still be countries that count deaths differently. And so there will still be a need to show what it is all about. By having a notes section. By quoting from the UNODC report about all the fine points on counting. As I said, months or years from now people may agree with me, or come up with something similar, and they will outnumber the tag teams. They may read this and be encouraged. They can ask me to participate. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Table contains information not verified by source

I was double checking the information regarding Palestine, which in the table gave an intentional homicide rate of 0.69 in 2016 but in the referenced source was 3.2 in 2005 without information in more recent years. Thinker78 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the problem was that two refs are used, one older and a newer one but the last one was not cited. I corrected the problem by adding the updated ref. Thinker78 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Mexico is not in Central America

The term "Northern America" is vague and rarely used outside this context but "Central America" is a specific term applied to specific countries and Mexico is not one of them! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 21:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It says on this page that "the assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience". The fact is, different people and organisations do things differently; there isn't one right way for something like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_geoscheme

Kookiethebird (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Also though, at least for this region it makes sense, as Mexico's murder rate is 3 times the US's and 10 times Canada's. Kookiethebird (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The UNODC source pages and charts use the United Nations geoscheme.

Northern America Wikipedia page: Geopolitically, according to the United Nations' scheme of geographic regions and subregions, Northern America consists of Bermuda, Canada, Greenland, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and the United States of America (excluding Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands and other minor US territories).

Central America Wikipedia page: The United Nations geoscheme for the Americas defines the region as all states of mainland North America south of the United States and specifically includes all of Mexico.

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Mexico is geographically in North America regardless of how any single organisation decides to reposition it. See also [5] TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please write to the UN and try to convince them to change the scheme.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Something's up in Burkina Faso

Recently a friend told me that not all African counties have high rates of crime. He said that Burkina Faso has one of the lowest rates in the world. Low and behold it was less than 0.5, a rate that puts its neighbors to shame. But I did some digging and things don't add up. Going back to Y2K its homicde rates is constantly below 1. But this website has a murder rate for 2012 of 0.51 which disagrees with our other major UNODC data source which says the 2012 murder rate was 8. For 2015 the UN said the homicide rate was .37. The WHO says its 9.8.

I googled "burkina faso homicide" and most of the first links all claimed a homicide rate less than 1. But a few older data sets compiled by The Guardian disagreed. In both 2004 and 2008 Burkina Faso had a homicide rate of about 18, which was much higher then the UNODC. The data from 2008 comes from the WHO. Trading economics claims a murder rate of 54 in 2004. I noticed a few other countries in Africa have big disparities between the UNODC website and PDF as well as the Guardians information. I'm not sure what to make of all this and I've only looked at a few countries in Africa so far. Any possible explanations? EconomicHisorianinTraining (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Trauma care and emphatic use of "are"

I'm not understanding where the disconnect is on this matter (see most recent edits). The paper cited, and the quote, do not emphatically state that changes in trauma care have affected rates - nor could it, since this can only be shown as a demonstrable correlation, not causation. The paper says "we have garnered considerable support for the hypothesis". A support for a hypothesis is not an emphatic. Better trauma care *may* affect the rates. It cannot be shown as an empirical proof. The article should not misrepresent the study's findings, which it does by stating so emphatically. Anastrophe (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, when a research article states that it has "garnered considerable support for the hypothesis", it permits us to write the hypothesis as a statement in a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, we would have to precede all claims with "maybe", "can", or "might be" as the scientific papers can at best only reject null-hypothesis at a some high probability level. Alternatively, we could agree to modify the sentence to something like this: "Researchers state that intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults..." Enivid (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

"Research suggests that [...]" would be an acceptable construct. Simply saying that "researchers say" something isn't acceptable. Recently it garnered published news that a Harvard professors "says that coconut oil is pure poison". A clearer case of Appeal to Authority can rarely be found. The professor is an epidemiologist - no research behind her statement, no subject-matter expertise. It's way too easy to present claims misleadingly. Scientific papers *can* say things emphatically, and they do all the time. The paper in question does not, because there are too many confounding factors to make an absolute claim. The paper's wording is clear - their research found support for their theory. Trauma care may contribute to lower homicide rates. You cannot phrase it as if there is no doubt - that's why the paper doesn't. Anastrophe (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So, moving forward on this, I'd propose this: "Research suggests that intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence.They may also be under-reported for political reasons." I would argue, pedantically of course, that there are a multitude of factors that affect intentional homicide rates; I question why this single factor even warrants mention in the lede, since there is no expansion on this - or any other factors - in the article. Be that as it may, this particular factor needs to be worded properly if it is to remain in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Absent any dissent, I'm going to go ahead and change this. Anastrophe (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

EU Data

I have calculated it myself. Here are the murder rates of EU countries and the European Union as a supranational union:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Country (or dependent territory, subnational area, etc.) Region Subregion Rate Count Year listed Source European Union Europe - 1.05 5,367 2014-2016 EUR/CTS/UNSDC/SDG/NSO/UNECE/MOI Austria Europe Western Europe 0.66 57 2016 EUR/UNSDC/CTS Belgium Europe Western Europe 1.95 220 2015 EUR/CTS Bulgaria Europe Eastern Europe 1.14 81 2016 UNSDC/EUR/CTS Croatia Europe Southern Europe 1.04 44 2016 MOI/CTS Cyprus Asia Western Asia 1.11 13 2016 EUR/UNSCDC/CTS Czech Republic Europe Eastern Europe 0.61 65 2016 UNSDC/CTS Denmark Europe Northern Europe 0.98 56 2016 UNSDC/CTS Estonia Europe Northern Europe 3.19 42 2015 UNSDC/EUR/CTS Finland Europe Northern Europe 1.42 78 2016 UNSDC/CTS France Europe Western Europe 1.35 875 2016 UNSDC/EUR/CTS Germany Europe Western Europe 1.18 963 2016 UNSDC/CTS Greece Europe Southern Europe 0.75 84 2016 EUR/CTS Hungary Europe Eastern Europe 2.07 202 2016 UNSDC/CTS Ireland Europe Northern Europe 0.80 38 2016 NP/NSO/CTS Italy Europe Southern Europe 0.67 400 2016 UNSDC/CTS Latvia Europe Northern Europe 3.36 67 2015 UNSDC/CTS Lithuania Europe Northern Europe 5.25 153 2016 UNSDC/CTS Luxembourg Europe Western Europe 0.72 4 2014 EUR/UNECE/CTS Malta Europe Southern Europe 0.94 4 2015 EUR/UNSDC/CTS Netherlands Europe Western Europe 0.55 94 2016 NSO/CTS Poland Europe Eastern Europe 0.67 256 2016 EUR/UNSDC/CTS Portugal Europe Southern Europe 0.64 66 2016 EUR/CTS/SDG Romania Europe Eastern Europe 1.25 247 2016 SDG/UNSDC/CTS Slovakia Europe Eastern Europe 1.05 57 2016 SDG Slovenia Europe Southern Europe 0.48 10 2016 UNSDC/CTS/SDG Spain Europe Southern Europe 0.63 294 2016 EUR/CTS Sweden Europe Northern Europe 1.08 106 2016 NCCP/CTS United Kingdom Europe Northern Europe 1.20 791 2016 CTS

57+220+81+44+13+65+56+42+78+875+963+84+202+38+400+67+153+4+4+94+256+66+247+57+10+294+106+791 = 5,367 total murders

The EU population in 2016 was approximately 510,278,700

5,367 ÷ 510,278,700 = 0.00001051778

Or a murder rate of 1.05 per 100,000. So is there anywhere we can include this? Maybe not on the table but somewhere else? It might be helpful information for readers. --Markusw0207 (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that it's directly relevant to this article. Anastrophe (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Why? Markusw0207 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This list covers UNODC regions. The list doesn't cover other socio/geo/political/economic subdivisions.Anastrophe (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Country Subdivisions" Markusw0207 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The EU is not a country. I'm unclear what useful information that particular subdivision yields, other than curiousity value. Many European countries are not within the EU. Anastrophe (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the EU is not a country. Evidently, not only countries are shown on this list already (continents and subdivisions of countries too), so the EU would also be useful to include as a prominent region and supranational union of collective countries (it also has many attributes of independent nations). 28 countries are in the EU, and obviously many European countries are not in the EU. I have already calculated data for just those 28 countries. The EU appears across numerous similar tables/ lists in WP [1][2] (and may be be included in this case according to WP:CALC). Markusw0207 (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I still see no compelling reason to add this. Why not OECD countries? Why not OPEC? There's a good reason - dilution of information. This article is based upon UNODC data. There are a few separate lists for country subdivisions - and frankly, I don't see the point for those in the article either. The EU is not a country; this article is based upon the UNODC homicide rates by country. You are asking for a third category: we have a list of countries by homicide rate (the topic of this article), a section listing a random selection of countries by subdivisions within them, and now you want to add the EU as...well, I don't know what. There are countless 'supranational' organizations, why don't we include those? Why not a list for the Pacific Islands Forum, or NAFTA (I know, that's been superceded), or Mercosur? I don't see how paying the fees to be a member of the EU somehow makes homicide rate data meaningfully different. I'm strongly against inclusion of this special section calling out the EU, which leaves out European countries: Switzerland, Norway, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Ukraine, Belarus, Iceland, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and of course Russia. It seems like a point is trying to be made by exclusion of those European countries. Nope, strong no on this. Sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The EU has many attributes of independent nations, being much more than a free-trade association or mere group of countries. As for not including the other European countries you listed, we already have Europe listed by itself. The EU bloc is vastly different than Europe. Clearly the article is not just based upon just homicide rates by country (despite the title), as states/provinces and continents are listed as well. The article is based on UNODC data; and so are my calculations. Markusw0207 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree. Barring something resembling consensus, which requires other editors to chime in, it should not be included. I'd also argue that the separate callout of a few other countries should instead be branched off into their own articles, with wikilinks to them. All this setup does is dilute what should be a simple list of countries by intentional homicide rates. However, that's a different discussion. You are welcome to create your own article listing intentional homicide rates of EU countries. Hopefully you will then move on to creating articles for intentional homicide rates for Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries, intentional homicide rates of North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries, intentional homicide rates of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, intentional homicide rates of Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development countries, intentional homicide rates of West African Development Bank countries, intentional homicide rates of World Trade Organization countries. Anastrophe (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's no need to be passive aggressive about it. As I already stated, the EU is vastly more connected than any bloc of countries, but you seem to be asserting that the EU, which is often seen as a single unit and having many similarities to an independent nation (as I previously stated), is comparable to the completely different OPEC or WTO. Which is a fairly absurd comparison. You disagree with that EU data could be included in this (without further defense), and that's fine. I guess my efforts were fruitless. End.

Yours, Markusw0207 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC).

I'm sorry you took that as passive aggressive. I assure you that was not my intent. I was demonstrating other intergovernmental organizations, which are not directly similar to the EU, but that's inherent in being intergovermental. You haven't provided a rationale for why homicide rates within this particular economic/political organization should necessarily be separated out from Europe itself. Is there something in EU bylaws that would affect homicide rates? Agreements between EU nations regarding uniform application of law enforcement methods, as well as - and more importantly - uniform research, accounting, laws, and adjudication processes regarding criminal violence? I'm not aware of same. All I see is that they are a subset of some wealthy nations in Europe. As we know, there is no clear correlation between a nation's wealth and rates of criminal violence. Wealthier countries _tend_ to be less violent; that is not always the case, and as well, there are many nations that are not wealthy that also have low rates of criminal violence. I would encourage you to take the information you've gathered and create a new wikipedia page for it. A wikilink can then be added similar to others in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

graph of high-income OECD countries

It's a nice graph, but similar to the argument above, it's not really appropriate to this article. This is a list of all countries, divided only at the country and geographic region level. There are no political, cultural, economic or other subdivisions represented - basically, it's just the facts as described by the title of the article. There are non-high-income non-OECD-nations with both higher and lower homicide rates than this small subset. The graph might be appropriate on a different article; it's not appropriate for this one. Anastrophe (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I understand that this "list" article lists 230 countries. I added the graph of high-income countries because most Wikipedia readers are probably from such high-income countries and would be most interested in a quick visual appreciation of that subset. (Also, I didn't have the fortitude to graph 230 countries, having ever-changing data from various sources. :-) ) I do see the point, mainly that a "List" article "should" consist of only a list, however. If you & others believe the graph is inappropriate, I won't argue with its deletion. Thanks for the notice (Anastrophe), and Happy editing to all! —RCraig09 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a graph of 230 countries would be....unwieldy to say the least. My concern is all the political justifications for such specific subsets. A graph of all of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development members is only 36 countries. However, that is yet another artificial construct, even if subsets of that organization are frequently used for such purposes. Other such subsets are "Western countries", "Industrialized countries", "First-world countries", "Developed countries". It becomes a game of slicing and dicing subsets to generate statistics that aren't necessarily meaningful, particularly to the purpose of this article. As it exists, it's a pretty uniform descriptive - UNODC data, country designations, region designations. Particularly since the columns are sortable, the reader can slice and dice on their own, rather than the article imposing meaning on specific subsets. I'm just one editor here however. I'll wait for others to weigh in. Anastrophe (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No additional input so far. I'll reiterate, I don't think it's appropriate to this article. It's the only data sourced to OECD, rather than UNODC. If there's no objections, I'll remove in a few days. Anastrophe (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

(Separately, could an editor with better skills than I either collapse the chart of EU countries at the bottom of the page, or force it to exist within the section that discusses it? And then delete this parenthetical comment after doing so? Thanks.) Anastrophe (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Help:Table and row numbers

I noticed that the current version of the table is wider than the last time I checked months ago:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate&oldid=858063940

A separate column of row numbers (something I added to a few charts) does not work correctly with wider tables and narrow screens. The rows do not align.

I suggest adding an integrated rank order column instead.

There is new info in Help:Table in the Visual Editor section at the end.

It makes editing of tables much easier and faster. It makes adding an integrated rank order column very easy too. Just copy and paste from another table.

Of course when the table is put in rank order, it is not sorted by region or subregion.

That is why there is a Phabricator thread asking for an integrated row number column that remains static when the rest of the table is sorted. Then we could have wide tables that are initially sorted in any way we please.

See Help:Sorting and the section called something like: "Auto-ranking or adding a row numbering column (1,2,3) next to a table". See phab:T42618. -- Timeshifter (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

European Union

Can we get from this data information about rate in EU, not only for whole Europe? EU is separate entity, with it's own, additional laws, would be interesting to see the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvenil (talk • contribs) 16:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You can calculate it using the data from this table. It will be the sum(number) / sum(number/rate * 100,0000). Just make sure, you are using the same year data for all the EU countries. Enivid (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I know I can calculate it by hand, was more interested if such entry in this wikipedia page would be useful for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvenil (talk • contribs) 20:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If you can find a reference with that EU number we could list it separately from the UNODC tables. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Eurostat is as official as it gets. And it's quite different from the data that currently here for the EU countries: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=crim_off_cat&lang=en Tauno.talimaa (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid that making such an entry based on our own calculations would not fit the Wikipedia page due to it being an original research. Enivid (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Original Research covers original thoughts, no? Adding EU countries' murders together would simply be using basic math with the sources already listed; just adding the murders together, as the information is already given. See the Routine Calculations section. If anybody wants to know, I just calculated it myself; 5,305 combined murders in the EU with a homicide rate of 1.04. I added EU28 countries total murders together and then divided it by the EU population to get the homicide rate average (5,305/508,000,000*100,000 = 1.04 homicides per 100k people). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusw0207 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous homicide rates

E.g. Anguilla gets 27.66 out of 4 killings - in one single event (2014). That's crazy. Very small countries should be spared or the calculation has to be adapted. --Ghettobuoy (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? The absolute number is also shown by default. Enivid (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem with statistics eh? This is the same argument as claiming that Iceland has the largest number of Nobel Peace Prize winners per capita of any country on earth. Though true, they have only actually won one Nobel Peace Prize ever. But one prize in every 350,710 inhabitants (its total population) is still the largest! TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You could prompt for a limitation to e.g. at least 10 kills. I personally would object; as a reader, I find the figures for small countries interesting, and I think I'm not alone there. Kind regards, Grueslayer 14:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: The most important thing is when 0 murders in a specific year in a micronation is implied as a 0 murder rate. 0 murders in Vatican is something between a 0 and a 50 murder rate per 100 000 people. Or would we change it to 100 when someone finally gets killed in Vatican? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. But as a factual matter, zero homicides equals zero/100,000 rate. It merely highlights the problem with the standard representation when countries have lower populations, but it's still zero. If there's ever a homicide in Vatican city, we'll just have to deal with it. Otherwise, caveats need to be added to virtually every figure in the table. Anastrophe (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: No, with 0 murders in a specific year in a micronation we should probably not use any rate at all. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I've no objection to this, but it'll require some work - caveats will have to be included, and do we just use a hard threshold of 99,999 population or less? Anastrophe (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't this qualify as an OR? Discretely picking/editing data from the source does not seem the right thing to deal with the issue. I would consider adding a disclaimer that would inform the readers of the issue with the micronations instead. Enivid (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This may not be possible, but how about add up all the murders in the last 10 years and then divide by 10? This would be extremely useful for not making rare events look like the normal. Alex of Canada (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Such a 10-year moving average of the homicide rate would be interesting, but unfortunately, the uninterrupted data for the last 10 years is available only for few countries. Enivid (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove subsections for random selection of other countries

This article is _very_ clear that the data used is UNODC, in order to maintain consistency across all countries represented. It's a regular task for editors to revert random changes to individual countries with new values, derived from other sources. As we know, the main reason is the near impossibility of us mere mortals keeping track of all the hundreds of different sources while keeping vandals - as well as the good intentioned - from muddying things up with inaccurate/inconsistent data.

However, at the bottom of the article, we have Australia, the US, Canada, Brazil, and Mexico also called out with data for their respective subdivisions, and all of the data is from sources other than UNODC.

This inconsistency does not improve the article. The individual countries should either all be within an umbrella article that contains these - and any other countries - for which data has been collated, or, each should be their own separate article, and we link to them under 'See also' (though probably a category would be appropriate rather than listing the potentially hundreds of countries for which data is available).

I can't think of any consistent reasoning for including those five random countries, with data from non-UNODC sources, in this article.

Thoughts? Anastrophe (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have an issue moving them to another article, but removing quite valuable information in total I would strongly oppose. Alex of Canada (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"List of countries by intentional homicide rate"

This article is a list of countries by UNODC homicide rate. I propose moving this page to "List of countries by UNODC homicide rate" 122.57.51.115 (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete Puerto Rico

This is a list of countries. Puerto Rico isn’t a country. --63.243.196.34 (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As the table's heading says, it also includes dependent territories and subnational areas studied by the UNODC. Enivid (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of figures with the definition

The definition section uses a graphic which lists Intentional Homicide as one of a large number of categories of violent deaths, and uses the word 'only' to describe this. I believe that this gives undue implied weight to the idea that Intentional Homicide is only a minor part of total violent deaths, when I suspect that it is the second largest category after suicides. I also find it strange that killing in self defence is not categorised as a form of Intentional Homicide in this graph.

From other Wiki articles I found the following figures; 10.7 per 100,000 in 2015 due to self-inflicted deaths (though it's not clear why this category doesn't include accidents). Deaths from armed conflict including civil unrest appear to be around 2 per 100,000. Deaths in acts of self defence and legal interventions appear to be effectively negligible. And even in jurisdictions like Australia, where law enforcement is effective, and a large amount of definitions for non-intentional homicide exist, this is still a tiny proportion of total homicides.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand the function of the word "only" in this context. It does not imply that Intentional Homicide is only a minor part of total violent deaths, it is simply informing the reader that these figures are the only figures used. Intentional Homicide could be the smallest category, it could be overwhelmingly the largest - it doesn't matter, the caption has nothing to say on that. The caption is simply saying "these are the only figures that are included". By removing the word "only" you have subtly changed the meaning to "these figures are included, other figures may or may not be included”.

I’m afraid I take exception to your second edit summary removing this pertinent word, when you say "As very explicitly requested, this is to be discussed on the talk page, in detail." With respect, your prior edit summary made no such request, explicit or otherwise. You can only then be referring to your (6-week old) opaque statement of (mistaken) belief above, which is far from a very explicit request for detailed discussion. A simple “see talk page” in the summary would have been an adequate minimum.

I will restore the established version. Captainllama (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Strong disagree. It is giving undue weight, and your unilateral decision making on this is giving me the impression that you're aware of that, but would prefer that implication remain. Please leave the edit in place, and see Wikipedia's rules on undue weight and NPOV before responding again.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Further; this article seems to give enormous undue weight to the alleged unreliability of the source, when similar articles that only use one collated source do not. The lede should not start with descriptions of how specific this data is, but a general description of what the encyclopedic article is about, followed, if necessary by caveats about the data. I strongly suspect that this article has been modified by someone, who has their own personal misgivings about what this information represents.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

​​​​It seems clear to me that the text in question is saying (by paraphrase): “this is the data used, and only this data”.

User Senor Freebie apparently thinks the text is saying: “the data is only this size” i.e. a npov remark that it is is smaller than might be expected. As Senor Freebie has rejected my reasoning and made accusations of bad faith, ulterior motives, and wilful deception, can another editor please take a look? Thanks, Captainllama (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User Senor Freebie wrote "I believe that this gives undue implied weight to the idea that Intentional Homicide is only a minor part of total violent deaths, when I suspect that it is the second largest category after suicides." to support removing the word "only". The problem is, by User's own words, this is not supported by any objective third-party reference. User is inferring a meaning which is not present. There's nothing implied by the wording. The statement is clear that UNODC data only includes one specific sub-definition, it makes no implication; it only defines the scope of the data. I've restored the correct wording, which is supported by the text immediately to the right of the graphic, from the UNODC report. Anastrophe (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You have not restored the correct wording. Reverting the edit, without waiting for further discussion to occur appears like bad faith editing. Are you willing to have a discussion about this edit, without edit warring?--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding how discussion works. I stated my rationale. You have come back merely to argue about bad faith and edit warring, rather than countering what I wrote. Do you have a rational response to my comments, which I posted before I changed the text? If not, it's time to get some administrative help here. Unless you can provide an explanation why your inference of what the word 'only' represents should trump the actual meaning of the text, then there is no discussion necessary. An editor's inference never supercedes the plain meaning of the text. Anastrophe (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This needs to be called out explicitly: The edit I made to the article is the first I've made since a data correction unrelated to this matter, back on June 19. Making accusations of "edit warring" and "bad faith" due to ONE edit is pugnacious, unnecessary, and hardly civil or collegial. Please attenuate your tone. Anastrophe (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I asked a simple question; are you willing to have a discussion on this topic, and instead of answering that simple question, you have tried to tone police me, and in my view, verge very heavily from the topic. Are you willing to have a discussion on this topic, or are you going to continue to revert the edits without showing any willingness to actually discuss?--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

QED. Peace be upon you, I'm not interested in playing this sort of game with you. Anastrophe (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The image caption has been modified to convey its intended message more clearly. Enivid (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

write UNODC's global study per order or rate value

You've messed it. Wikipedia isn't UNODC. People study in order and according to neuroscientific data that's how we remember information. You're trying to hide the crime rates of your country, by repeating a non-memorable order, but people will remember your manipulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:C000:EC01:A3EC:FA85:5516 (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

More data

This page has a ton of historical data, charts, and maps, much of which is licensed CC-BY. -- Beland (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Why are there no updated homicide counts for the US's and Australia's states/territories/provinces?

Is it because there are no official statistics? I find that hard to believe. 190.218.1.153 (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Map requested

I have added a {{Map requested}} request. Suggested ranges: <1, 1–2, 2–5, 5–10, 10–20, >20. I also suggest changing the background colors in the table accordingly (and split the range 1–5 into 1–2 and 2–5). (I could try to do it myself over the weekend if I have time.) —Cousteau (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Turns out this map existed (for 2012), but was removed in late 2017 for being outdated. [6] This file could be used as a template (preferably for a new file and not a file edit, to avoid conflicts in other wikis), although I suggest changing the color scheme to a more classic green-yellow-red one. —Cousteau (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Brazil

Since it has been said in sources that Brazil's homicide rate has greatly decreased in 2019. Does any report of its homicide rate of that year (or this year) exist? --00:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)19Joshua (talk)

"Source"

There is a column in the chart labeled "Source". In it, quite a few different "Sources" are listed - OAS/CTS, PAHO/MD, NP, WHO, MOI, and on.

Now, I am not uncommonly guilty of skimming, so it's possible I'm missing something, but nowhere in the article do I see a table of what each of these different "Sources" are.

Some TLA's I'm familiar with, most in the column I'm not. Am I, in this case, missing something? If so - I beg pardon. If not - shouldn't we be wikilinking to what these organizations are, or at least have a small table spelling out who they are? The article is quite emphatic that UNODC is where all the numbers come from, so a column of "Sources" is confusing. Are these where UNODC acquired the data? Or are they sources separate from UNODC? Reading the article, I have little idea, other than that in the 'Definitions' section, it says that "For the 70 countries in which neither source was made available, figures were derived from WHO statistical models.". Okay - but the table section itself makes no mention of this.

So, in short, TL;DR: I'm confused. Anastrophe (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually Russian data seems to be wrong, too https://мвд.рф/upload/site1/document_news/009/338/947/sb_1612.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.144.69 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Since there's no explanation of what 'source' is, and all data is supposed to come from the UNODC Global Study on Homicide according to the earlier reference, will remove source from rows that I update. Greenman (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I have tracked down the sources, from the raw data spreadsheet, will add a key to the article. Greenman (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

List of federal subjects of Russia by murder rate gives 6 homicide rate for Russia in 2017, citing https://fedstat.ru as source 151.74.58.85 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of sources, would adding a nation's own statics be accepted? I noticed Botswana's statics are very outdated. Their homicide rate as of 2017 is roughly 13.5 with 310 murders, while the article lists it as 15.93 with 303 murders. Their population has increased by over 20% since 2010, if anybody is wondering how they have a lower homicide rate with more deaths. 93.107.157.62 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

UNODC is not the only organization that researches data on intentional violence; all listed organizations are a valid source, as they demonstrate the method used to measure intentional homicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesteriana (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, still baffled

I studied this page at length at still don't get it, even after looking for and finding this section on Talk. Maybe somebody can explain things more clearly so that even I understand the page.

First (after the regional table) there's a skinny, separate "table" of one column and 230 rows which consists of nothing but the numbers 1 to 230. This makes no sense semantically. If it's supposed to relate to the contents of the table next to it, then they should be in the same table. Otherwise the useless "Row" table should be deleted. It's confusing at best. Also, it's under the heading "Table", which I think helps no one. It doesn't help me any.

Then, we have a table of countries (and similar), with some promising-looking content, and the table caption says, Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants. From UNODC. Those two references point to UNODC Web pages with, um, a bunch of data on them (nothing newer than 2018, but that's not my point here). What's confusing is the column labeled "Sources", as if the two UNODC refs mean nothing. Within the "Sources" column are a bunch of acronyms, with no hint what they are, or links, or anything.

Then there's the completely separate table under the heading "Sources", which purports to connect some kind of "Code" to some "Source", without providing any actual sources. Where are the reference citations? Only the FBI row has a link on it (to some 2018 figures); everything else is some useless string of words.

• How do we verify the data for "World Health Organization (WHO)". It's not like they have one single page on one single Web site.
• What does "Validated" mean? By whom? Where?
• To what extent can I trust "User Generated"?
• The sources for Ukraine are apparently "UNSDC/TSMNEE/CTS/DMDB". Does that mean not the UNODC refs in the table caption? Only one of them? Which? Both? How do I know?
• A large percentage of the "Sources" in the "Table" are listed as "CTS", but "CTS" is not listed as a "Code" under "Sources". So now what do I do?

Finally, we have a section with 6 apparently random countries, 5 of which have collapsed tables ("Russia" just points to our article), these tables have dubious references. I see the table for Canada, which purports to show figures for 2004–2018, but the ref there points to "Homicide in Canada, 2018", which makes several comparisons with 2017, but absolutely no mention of anything before 2009, and no explicit figures that I can see before 2017. The table for Brazil has a ref link, but it points to the Portuguese Wikipedia, a page with big tables holding many numbers, but only one functioning link (2006–2016). The Australian table (2002–2011) has one ref for 2009 (which covers 2000 to 2009) and one for 2010, but these a long reports (>100 pages) and our cites include no page numbers.

So the sourcing could use improvement. But mostly, this page is just confusing. If the UNODC is the source for everything, as suggested by the table caption, then the "Sources" column and the lower table should be deleted. If there are other sources, then we should have links from the "Sources" cell to the actual source. Otherwise this page fails WP:V really badly, which is even worse on such a controversial topic.

If someone who knows this page could check in and provide some clues, it'd be nice. The separation of, uh, stuff, and the unclarity of sourcing has me really unsure of how I can help improve this page. Thanks,— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

JohnFromPinckney. I used to edit this page a lot. I agree with you that the sources column, and the sources table should be deleted. They only confuse things. And sources that UNODC uses may be constantly changing. The whole point of only using UNODC as the source for the main table is to avoid having to independently source data for hundreds of countries.

Row numbers are helpful for people who want to see rank order by homicide count, and also rank order by homicide rate. It can't currently be put in the table, and be able to do both rank orders. There is a phabricator task about putting fixed row numbers in tables. For more info on the row numbers column see Help:Sorting.

As for the separate country tables, I think any unsourced data should be removed. I have never really cared whether those tables remained or not. So I ignored them. I figured those people that wanted them would have to maintain them, and use reliable sources. When reliable sources are not used, I figured someone like you would flag the issue, or delete the unsourced info. Feel free to do so. I will not oppose it.

And country tables that have separate articles with the same info should definitely be removed, and a link put in the "See also" section. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, Timeshifter. One of the things about the row numbering is that, as it is now, the rows are misaligned (and therefore unusable) by the 7th row (at least in my current skin/browser combo).

I'd be glad to hear input from other editors, too. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

JohnFromPinckney. When the sources column is deleted then the rows may line up for you. It depends on whether the table fits in the screen it is showing in. See phab:T42618. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The Sources column in the table lists the sources that UNODC has used to compile its data. It might be of minor interest to some readers who would like to know where UNODC took their data for a particular country. Enivid (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it being kept up to date for each country as new reports come out? If not, then maybe remove the column, and just keep the separate sources table. Plus a note to look at the PDF report to see which sources are used for each country.

If it is being kept up to date for for each country as new reports come out, then maybe create a separate country table just for sources. This would help row alignment of the main table.

I did a similar thing at List of countries by incarceration rate. In order to keep row alignment of the main table. I needed row numbers for the main table since rank order may have been desired for either the total inmate population, or the incarceration rates.

--Timeshifter (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Whenever I update the table, I make sure to update the sources as well. Separating the sources would improve the main table's "viewability", but it will make the updating process quite more tedious. Enivid (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You might want to check out the Visual Editor sections at the end of Help:Table. It is easy now to copy a column, and then paste it in another table. Or to remove columns from tables. Many other things are easier too. With tab2wiki, LibreOffice Calc. They are explained there.

I copied the main table and used Visual Editor to remove all the columns except the country column and the sources column. See the result here:

• User:Timeshifter/Sandbox116

So there would be this new table just for sources by country. We would keep the explanatory table for sources as is.

It would be easy to put that sources by country table in initial alphabetical order with LibreOffice Calc. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. It looks good. Enivid (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the sources table in alphabetical order:

User:Timeshifter/Sandbox117

Freeware LibreOffice Calc stripped the flag styling out though when I used it to alphabetize the table. No great loss in my opinion since the flags are already in the main table.

I prefer alphabetical order in the sources table. Can we put that table in the article? If someone else wants to add flags back later that is fine too.

--Timeshifter (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I just thought, would it be best to display it in a collapsed form by default? Enivid (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess it could be put inside a show/hide table. Or inside a partially open scrolling table (or div) that can be expanded or collapsed. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced that these sources for the UNODC sources are terribly useful. Can't we just trust the UN's agencies to reliably report the best info they can get? Don't we do that with all other UN sources (UNICEF reports, UNHRC reports, etc.)?

And I'm afraid the sandbox thing from Timeshifter doesn't look useful to me. It brings me no closer to verifiable info or accessible links. And it looks like you're proposing that we have three tables. That doesn't sound good at all (more like a step backwards). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTPAPER. There are many table articles with many tables.

The sources are verified. They are listed in the UNODC references.

I find it to be useful info to know where UNODC is getting its data.

Some of those UNODC sources may have Wikipedia articles about them. We can link to those Wikipedia articles. I don't think we should be using those sources to link to external links. External links do not belong within Wikipedia articles. They go in the external links section.

I have edited many table articles. I add lots of references and source info.

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why you mention WP:NOTPAPER (which I have, in fact, already seen). And anyway, I already know there are many table articles with many tables. That's not my point. My point is that meaningless or confusing tables don't help us. Three tables which only confuse the reader (and as an longish-time editor, I consider myself a reasonably experienced reader of WP) are a net negative, so we should back away from adding more when they don't help clarify what's already unclear.

I'm not sure we should link to WP articles, especially. I'd rather delete them as a huge dump of I-don't-know-what.

You say The sources are verified. They are listed in the UNODC references. I have looked at both UNODC sources cited and they do not indicate anything about this long, long list of "sources", at least, not where I can find them. Can you state for me exactly where, for example, I can verify that the figures for Mozambique are from "WHO/SDG"?

Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Enivid will have to provide the specific article link, or page number of the appropriate PDF, for the sources by country. We can put that in the article references.

I removed the sources column from the main table, and put it in a collapsed table as suggested by Enivid.

The table that explains the source abbreviations is also now collapsed.

So the sources info no longer takes up a lot of space in the article, and readers can scroll quickly past it if they are not interested in it.

I noted that captions mess up collapsible tables. So I removed them. The collapsed table problem is also mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Caption.

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

JohnFromPinckney I have no idea how to address your other concerns, but the UNODC's list of sources for each country is available via the second reference link for the table (https://dataunodc.un.org/content/data/homicide/homicide-rate). Click on the small Excel icon in top-right part of the page (it is labeled "Bulk data download") and you will get a spreadsheet with one of the columns being "Source". Enivid (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

(unindent). See continuation of discussion below: #Silly table, again: "Row" --Timeshifter (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)