Talk:List of countries by intentional homicide rate

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

How about deaths due to war?

Given that many countries are far above the middle east in this list, I can only assume that deaths due to war are not listed as murder, is that so?189.101.124.137 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed Malawi, Uganda and Zambia from list pending validation of data source

I have removed the entries for Malawi, Uganda and Zambia from the list as I was unable to trace their statistics to the supposed source cited by UNODC: they cite the WHO Global Burden of Disease statistics, but the WHO datasets do not contain entries for the aforementioned countries.. I have documented my process here: http://nonparibus.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/can-the-unodcs-murder-statistics-be-trusted/. I do not consider this to be a violation of the prohibition against original research as I simply attempted to verify the source - while I raise questions about all the WHO-attributed data via a Benford's Law test, I have individually checked those three countries and cannot find them in the cited Global Burden of Disease files. This issue may apply to other countries as well - I haven't tried to check all 50-odd countries attributed to that source. Jason Kerwin (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Map

I realize that US MUST BE BLUE regardless. However, is it possible to change the color scheme to standard red-blue where red is high homicide rate and blue is low homicide rate? Yes, US will become orange, but the map will become more readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.176.106 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

SUBNATIONAL RATES

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

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

Shouldn't there be a section on stereotypes?

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

Sub national.

• USA states 1995/2005 [1].
• USA cities 2003 [2]. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-06t21:18z
• Colomboa cities [co-ccr2005] p. 118. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-23t20:47z
• South Africa, per police station and province 2006, 2007. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-21t10:37z

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

Moving article

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

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

In my opinion it was definitely a mistake to move from murder to homicide as the definitions are different, and internationally less comparable. While all murders are homicides, not all homicides are murders. Also different countries include different criminal offences in their homicide data, including both conspiracy and abortion offences in some data sets and may often exclude traffic deaths. Murder is probably the most closely comparable statistic because most jurisdictions will count each person killed, whatever counting method they use. I would suggest having a page for each with notes about how each country's statistics are recorded. -- Cameron Dewe 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And in Islamic countries, the intentional killing of a non-Muslim by a Muslim is not murder, only the killing of an innocent Muslim is defined as murder. The intentional killing of a Muslim (by another Muslim) for honor or blasphemy is also not murder. This will significantly distort the stats from Islamic countries. Santamoly (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Andorra

Not a single homicide? Not one? And sources that carry no obvious relation? Not only does this sound too good to be true but I call bullshit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) — Preceding undated comment added an unspecified datestamp.

Because I fear it might actually be relevant to some other statistic involved here I won't be editting straight out, but those numbers can't be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.168.136 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a math guy, but it looks wrong to me, too. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

85.000 inhabitants, "good" countries have a rate of less than 1 per 100.000... could be legit by the numbers alone. A single murder like 2004 lets the rate jump to 1.30. --89.204.155.64 (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Rmleon 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

German figures are not correct

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

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

Luxembourg figures are not correct

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

French figures are not correct

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

Homicide or Murder rates?

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

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

European Union

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

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

Factor

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable UN report?

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

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

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

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

Venezuela numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did a source check on the Venezuala numbers as they stood out to me. Source 20 lists the homicides for Venezuala as a whole as 10,606 which when calculated against the population of 26 million means a rate of 40.7 not 48. Not going to weigh into the other debate going on here regarding the way this source counts its homicides ... but I imagine a source stating the rate is 40.7 would be considered the maximum while other sources would be considered "including manslaughter" etc.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just did a double take. The figures I looked at were the murder rate for 08 and the population currently listed on Wikipedia for Venezuala. Given these figures exist though, perhaps its worth adding the 08 figure if someone can find the 08 population?--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done it for you but I still don't think thats the real rate. If you go through all the sources for Venezuela you will find different numbers of homicides. According to the last UN report there were 34 deaths per 100,000 pop in 2004 and here it says there were 45. The federal police on a press conference in January said there were 8,400 homicides in 2008 and that would bring the rate down to 32, sadly that wasn't posted on the Internet. Whatsoever, I decided to wait for another UN report to change or keep this numbers. For now let's believe in those numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.69.228 (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Swedish figures are not correct

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

User thinking about getting registerd...

You are right. The pdf says that out of 223 reported murders 2003, only 98 were homicide. (page 9)

I'll quote straight from the pdf with a few comments by me.

Korrekt registrerade brott (enligt anvisningar) [correctly registered] 124

Dödligt våld i Sverige 91

Dödligt våld utomlands [committed abroad] 24*

Stämpling till mord (ej fullbordat) [not completed] 9

Felaktigt registrerade brott [incorrectly registered crimes] 89

Försök eller förberedelse [attempt or preperation] 11

Alkohol/narkotikarelaterad förgiftning, självmord, olycka eller naturlig död [poisoning, suicide, accident] 28

Dubblettanmälan 25

Övrigt eller okänd ej brottslig orsak [other /unknonwn non-criminal cause] 25

Oklart om brott föreligger 10

Brott ej styrkt 2

Samtliga [Total] 223

Dödligt våld som anmälts i Sverige år 2002 (se ovan) [Correctly reported homicides for 2002] 91

Dödligt våld som rubricerats som vållande till annans död [Homicides reported as manslaughter] 7

Summa anmält dödligt våld i Sverige år 2002 [Actual total homicides for 2002] 98

*[Examples of crimes committed abroad were 15 murders in former Yugoslavia. - page 8-9]

But since the English-language sources mention the higher number I think it is hard to change.

Fred-J 15:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I found a text of it in English: http://www.bra.se/extra/pod/?action=pod_show&id=39&module_instance=11 . Quote: [S]pecial studies show that over the past 30 years in Sweden, there have been on average around 100 cases annually of lethal violence in the form of murder, manslaughter and assault with lethal results. There has consequently been no increased in lethal violence since 1975

Around 100 homicides would mean around 1 homicide per 100,000 instead of the higher figure given in the article of 2 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.

But having "special studies" makes it hard to compare statistics.

Fred-J 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan ???

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

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

From [3], according to INTERPOL data, the rate of murder in Pakistan was 6.86 (per 100,000 population) in 2000. Not sure why the large discrepancy with the UN data. --Vsion (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Deleted original and sourced Jamaican statistic from 1970's list

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

More data is good, but Jamaica's 1980s, 1990s (1998 contradicts it's only ref: [14]), and 2001-2005 is now the only information not referenced in the article. Except for Jamaica everything else is either referenced to a cite next to the country name, or below the decade section: [13], [14], [25], [26]. Please add refs as soon as possible per WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t16:30z

I missed that reference. I don't know if people want to keep my data or use those three years in the UN report, with perhaps the stats I provided either side of them. The link I provided for Jamaica is on the 70's list, it goes right up to 2006 and it's meant to cover the 80's, 90's and 00's as well.

I don't know how you get the same reference number on the same page though, as when I try it comes up with a different No. for the same link. Would someone help us out with that? -- Sarcastic Sid (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To reuse a ref you give it a unique name e.g. "foo2007": <ref name="foo2007">Foo, Bar. "Baz" 2007-12-30.</ref> and then you cite it again with with 1 tag that has a / at the end like <ref name="foo2007" />. I've done this for Jamaica. While I've sometimes used two diferent figures for 1 country with different refs, I've kept this to only the UN Caribbean ref instead of including the different UN year ref as well. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-30t19:02z

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

Albania figures are not correct

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

Sorting seems broken

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

• This is a problem stemming from the change in Wikimedia script. Right now, the best way to deal would probably be padding. CB...(ö) 01:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus

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

Iraq added

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan listed twice

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

List of countries by intentional homicide rate

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

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

Alphabetical order?

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

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

Copy/paste copyright violation.

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

Historic Data

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

See the link at the top of the article, and in the "see also" section:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate to 1999 --Timeshifter (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan listed twice

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

Venezuela change and explanation

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

2004 to 2006:

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

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

New Discussion

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

Spain's figures must be mistaken

The rate for 2000 shown here is 1.25 per 100 000, but then it jumps to an annual rate of 3.35 in 2006. This looks suspect. The 2006 figure is taken from Spain's Ministry of Interior website. But the Eurostat website shows that Spain's average annual homicide rate between 2004 and 2006 was 1.14 per 100 000. The interior ministry website is wrong. Please correct the map.

Panama homidide rate

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

"135 homicides a DAY"

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

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

Northern Ireland flag

Please see this diff: [4]

I made a mistake by using this wikicode:

{{flagcountry|Ireland}}, Northern

It produces this:

Ireland, Northern

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

I think I should have used this wikicode:

{{flagcountry|Northern Ireland}}

It produces this:

Northern Ireland

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

See

• Template:Flagcountry

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

See also: Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland

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

Northern Ireland does not have a flag, it has not had one since 1973. O Fenian (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

{{flagcountry|Northern Ireland|blank}}

It produces this:

Northern Ireland

It allows alphabetical sorting of the list.

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

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

User:Andrwsc knew of a better solution, and added it to the article.

See {{noflag}}.

{{noflag|[[Northern Ireland]]}}

produces

Northern Ireland

This method allows alphabetical sorting to work correctly. It is better than a blank spot with a border that looks like it is missing a flag. That variant has been deleted.

So {{flagcountry|Northern Ireland|blank}} no longer works. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrwsc's solution. Good proposal.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

England/NI/Scotland/Wales

Why are those here? They are not in any other lists. They are not at List of countries. The United Kingdom is the internationally accepted country and is already in the list. Having all five is very misleading and POV. At the very minimum I suggest that the four constituent parts of the UK be moved underneath the UK heading as a sub section such as the special territories part of the table on theMember State of the European Union page. If that can't be done I suggest their removal in order for the article to be NPOV. Otherwise there'll be no reason not to include US States and German Bundesländer.MITH 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see List of countries by incarceration rate. That list was copied from the reference article, and changed to the wiki format. It also contains England/Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Also please see: File:Homicide-world.png.

It might be a good idea to start an article listing the US incarceration rates by state. The above map could be cropped to pull out only the USA map. It lists the source for the states. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you respond to at least one of my comments? The source for that completely makes my point. It doesn't include the four in the main list. It's

United Kingdom: England & Wales

United Kingdom: Northern Ireland

United Kingdom: Scotland

The article needs to reflect real world NPOV.MITH 07:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

On the vast majority of international lists the United Kingdom should be the ONLY country listed along side other sovereign states. However when it comes to crime we do have a very different system between England+Wales and Scotland. International organisations sometimes do record them separately as the source for this list does. I dont think England/Wales / Northern Ireland need to be removed however (UK) should be added after each of them or at the very least a note explaining above or below the table that they are listed separately because of the different systems. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I added "(UK)" after each region. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If one should complicate even more, why is EU (not a Federal State)listed as a State? Besides, England is singlehandedly nine statistical regions, not one. Australia does also consist of (large) states. The US does also consist of regions, like when they show basketball on TV. Maybe it's a good idea not to question how soon, or how late we are to stop disecting for more statistics.

Back to the UK question. I too would agree that it makes no sense to divide the UK into regions. No other country in the list is so divided. And if you compare the size of the populations of the British regions to, say the populations of the US states, it becomes even more non-sensical. As for "Scotland has a very different legal system..." Well, it used to, before the EU took over. But even if the EU hadn't superceded Scottish law, a murder is a murder is a murder.

Unless anyone can come up with good reason to the contrary, I'd say we should end the anomaly and combine the regional figures into a national figure. Like for every other country in the world....92.235.157.3 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries. So is the UK. It's an unusual circumstance, but it doesn't mean it's invalid just because you don't seem to like it. Can you name another metastate in the world that is a group of countries held tightly within a supra-state? When the old USSR was around, it would have been fine to include it and it's member countries. Similarly, just because you say the EU supercedes Scottish law doesn't mean that their parliament has suddenly dissolved - and if your argument is that the EU supercedes everyone's law and that's enough, then there should just be one entry for the vast bulk of Europe. It sounds to me that you want the change more for personal reasons than informational ones. 59.167.194.48 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, this has been a very slow moving edit war, and perhaps I haven't explained it clearly enough. I added the subdivisions because they're the only ones I could find (see #The map). I am a big fan of "the more information you can communicate with one image, the better." I'm going to readd the map; if anybody can find appropriate figures for other countries, I will gladly add their subdivisions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Try looking at http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicide_data_series.xls This lists N Ireland and Scotland as part of the UK. Compare that to the statistics at http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicide_level.xlsx The latter are the statistics that are used in the wiki article. The former article clearly lists N. Ireland and Scotland as a part of the UK, and the latter references the UK but doesn't include N. Ireland or Scotland. The lowest possible murder rate, however, is what is included in the article, not the one that would put it on par with the United States. N.Ireland and Scotland aren't even in the article alone, leaving an ignorant reader with the impression the UK column combines all three statistics. This is blatantly deceptive. N.Ireland and Scotland must be included, either in the UK or separately. With the murder rate being a sensitive Nationalist issue, I humbly suggest this be fixed one way or another and subsequently locked by a mod. - Shane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.93.240 (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This picture represents Africa improperly. Let's find a better one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.81.252 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

EU members and candidate countries

Eurostat has recently published the latest criminal statistics for the EU member states and candidate countries here [[5]]. Perhaps the numbers can be updates according to that publication.--Avidius (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers for the Netherlands

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

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

Best regards,

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

The map

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

No it wasn't; with all due respect, I'm unreplacing it. I didn't add other regions because I couldn't find any data on them. If you can find them, by all means add them. Since when is more precise a worse thing? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed your comments. I didn't accuse you of Americocentrism, I only said that it creates that appearance. And I still believe it does. It puts individual American states and provinces on a level with sovereign nations. Also, more precision can be a worse thing. I actually came to this article wishing to compare the murder rates of the UK and the USA. This was made more difficult than it should have been. A map of North America that compares the murder rates of individual states is a useful thing and I'm happy to produce a separate map if you don't want to, which could sit alongside this one. However, very few people will ever wish to know if the murder rate in a particular country is higher or lower than that of an individual American state. They are far more likely to want to compare the USA as a whole. I understand the reason for indicating the individual states, ideally the map would be as precise as the one to the right. But that is a different sort of map. A map that showed murder rates with the closest available precision would not show any borders. Also, the title of this article is "List of countries by intentional homicide rate" --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Population density

Rounding up or down?

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

India in the Records book

According to Guinness Records Book, India has most homicides in the world by having 38.000 cases. If Brazil has 50.000 cases, does that not make a world record too?

U.S. Virgin Islands

The United States Virgin Islands, a US territory consisting of St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John, and outlying cays, has a population of around 110,000, with a record 47 (http://www.caribdaily.com/article/198454/v-i-homicides-near-record/) homicides thus far in 2009, and 34 (http://stthomassource.com/content/community/data/2008/01/05/homicides-2008#skip) in 2008. While it is not a "country" per se, a murder rate that rivals Kingston deserves it's own entry, yeah?

Guatemala source

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

Vatican City

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

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

Kenya Death rates 2007 &2008

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

Mathematically, the UK figures must be wrong

On the table, the latest per capita murder rates for the UK as a whole (2.03) are not equal to the population weighted mean of the rates for Northern Ireland (2.48), Scotland (2.13) and England and Wales (1.37). It's not even close. So at least one of these figures must be wrong.--Mongreilf (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The numbers for the UK are wrong because they do not account for Scotland and Ireland. Using 2002 as a baseline, the article states that the UK had 2.0% murder rate and the UNODC documents confirm this at 2.1, but ONLY for England and Wales. http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicide_data_series.xls Notice that they count N. Ireland and Scotland separately as 2.7 and 2.5 respectively. This raises the murder rate dramatically, to 7.2. The entire UK column should be updated.

While the UNODC itself seems to have made a mistake, and likely an honest one, I would also like to voice a concern. Murder rates can be sensitive in international politics, and nationalism might play a future role in altered statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.93.240 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The figures are probably wrong because the British really, really fudge their reported crime rate (lie?). Check this by going to John Lott's blog and go down 8 or so to the posting about British crime reporting and a whole bunch of other Britishisms that are so bad even the British people are getting disgusted w their "low" crime rate. My amateur reading of the post would be to compare US and British crime figures, take the US figures and divide by 3. SOMETHING GOTTA BE inconsistent here.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what the source is...

There is no way that Indonesia is safer than Canada. I have been to Indonesia extensively and the place is extremely dangerous and ridden with crime & severe poverty. Muggings are routine and the waterways are filled with pirates. This is just a ridiculous claim and this list has absolutely no bearing on reality whatsoever. I mean come-on, Madagascar is safer than Canada? You have to be kidding me.

Obviously whoever put this list together has never been to any of these places. This list should be revised so that you can provide some insight into which countries have decent reporting and which do not. This list may even inadvertently be putting people at risk who decide to travel to some of these destinations using research they find on this page.Yogiudo (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So find a source and fix it. 59.167.194.48 (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

One:the list is only for homocide/murder, not for general safeness, muggings or piracy and certainly not for poverty (which isn't even a crime). Two:the list is sourced mostly to UN government crime statistics. It would be better if the list were sourced mostly to government crime statistics. These would be people who not just have been to the country but live there. Three:There is actually a problem with the countries' data you mentioned:they are not uptodate. Madagascars' is from 1995 and Indonesia's is from 2000. Curious:Were you mugged often in Indonesia? How about your Indonesian friends? Munci (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Uniform standards of reporting do not exist. Sometimes due to weak government abilities. But more often due to cultural taboo. Norway is just coming in to the modern age on domestic violence and murder-suicide as noted by their own internal Amnesty international and national mental health organizations. Japan is noted for a culture which reflects shame and suspicion on the victim's family and community such that reporting deaths as accident or suicide is usually preferred over investigation as murder or for this article double suicide. I suppose culturally and for many purposes dead is simply dead and no need to dig up embarrassing or uncomfortable circumstances. But to use and compare statistics with so many known defects and then rank cultures without comment is a bit disingenuous. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Swedish statistics

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

I added statistics from Sweden. As you are pointing out, there is no statistics on intentional homicide. However it is pointed out in the article that comparative analysis should be done carefully. The two best sources are SCB's death register [6] and the reported number of crimes from BRÅ [7]. I think that it's good to show an approximation even if it is an overestimation. /Eribro (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Frustrated

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

Where's Sweden on the list?

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

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

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

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

Americas versus South, Central, North America Statistics

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

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

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

North A - about 530,000,000

Central - about 40,000,000

South - about 330,000,000

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

Israel 2009 the rate should be 1.81 to 1.83 not 1.87

128 people were murdered in Israel in 2008

135 people were murdered in Israel in 2009

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

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

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

2010 national U.S. Homicide Rate %

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

Russia 2009

The source for Russian homicide statistics (http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/2009/demo/edn12-09.htm) shows 14.9 per 100,000 in 2009. Why is it shown as 15.6 in the article? If some other source was used then why the reference isn't listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enivid (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Changed to 14.9 since no one gave a reason for the 15.6 number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enivid (talk • contribs) 07:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

upd: Stats taken from gov. website. According to stats murder rate fell 50% in the past ten years, while corruption increased ten-fold accompanied by disintegration of social institutions in Russia. All gov. media in Russia is strictly censored to present power structures in favorable light. Some would argue that Russia has de facto collapsed between 2002 and 2007. Numbers are obviously fixed, other sources needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.215.25 (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Statistics of 2012 year: On official site MVD Russian Federation written 'As a result of criminal offenses 38.7 thousand people were killed (on russian "В результате преступных посягательств погибло 38,7 тыс. человек") Source:http://mvd.ru/presscenter/statistics/reports/item/804701/ Murder rate in Russia 27.2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.8.12 (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Bogus election year Venezuela numbers

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

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

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

Are there any other studies? I've heard many others stories doing statistics on the murder rate in Venezuela that also gave incredibly high numbers. For the time being, I support your removal, but perhaps we can have official and unofficial statistics in the form of a range? Additionally, there are many countries around the world whose government I would trust to be honest with such information - Venezuela is near the bottom of those at the moment (with all due respect to Mr. Chavez, dissent in his country can often mean losing one's economic status or jail). I would support adding two figures for many countries (e.g., China, Zimbabwe). Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The official government publication by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística is available at [[8]]. The chapters that precede the survey results clearly spell out the methodology (complete with error margins) employed by the statisticians for the 2009 data. The 75 per 100,000 rate is not "unfounded and unsupported," as is claimed. Nor is it "coincidentally appearing in the run up to elections." Why would a body controlled by Chávez Frías (the INE) want to undermine his regime? 70.185.101.150 (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not an "official government publication". "infovenezuela.org" is an opposition blog of some sort, and its publications are not "official government" ones. It is a report of some sort about a sample survey that appears, at least, to have been done by a part of the government, but it has never been published or endorsed by any part of the government. The "75 per 100,000 rate" does not appear anywhere in this report, and it does not give "error margins" for any such rate either. Even if it did it would be irrelevant to this page because it would only be a point estimate derived from a sample of 6,000 houses in Venezuela. That is not how the murder rates in this table are derived for the other countries in the table. There should be a close eye kept on any attempted changes to the table until after the elections in Venezuela in September, as there is a concerted propaganda campaign going on with regard to real or imagined murder rates in Venezuela and so many editors will appear who wish to move Venezuela to the top spot on the list by dubious means, such as here converting some unpublished sample survey into an estimated rate and pretending this is somehow official or a legitimate number to use in this table.78.109.180.8 (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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

Spain on the map

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

Listing second level divisions

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

Canada		1.59	1.67	1.67	1.74	1.95	2.05	1.86	1.80	1.83		1.83
Northwest Territories		1.59	1.67	1.67	1.74	1.95	2.05	1.86	1.80	1.83		1.83
Ontario		1.59	1.67	1.67	1.74	1.95	2.05	1.86	1.80	1.83		1.83

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

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

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

Ive been telling you here that it is better to creat special separate articles for every country, since the table gets uncomprehensible and extremely long if we put every province of every country.

Kardrak (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Kardrak (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

USA MAJOR MISTAKE: GIORGIA

Hello,

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

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

Mexico violent death ONLY 10.6 IN 2009, new study

On: http://www.alianzacivica.org.mx/guia_transparencia/Files/pdf/seguridad/2_INFORMACIONSOBREINCIDENCIADELICTIVA/incidenciadelictivaviolencia2009CIDAC.pdf

Found very different information for Mexico, actually the Violent death Rate in 2009 is 10.6 according to these source.

It is a reliable study made by CIDAC.ORG based on SNSP (Mexico's National system for public security)

This study is also backed by "consulta Mitofski" a internationally known and very trusted statistical source:

http://72.52.156.225/Estudio.aspx?Estudio=indice-delictivo-cidac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.118.4 (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the rate is 10.6 in 2009 and this is the correct link to the information:

http://www.cidac.org/vnm/pdf/pdf/IncidenciaDelictivaViolencia2009.pdf

The data table that was used to rank Mexico is very poor of information. This is much more complete. Please edit the article.--oyashirosama (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are for they year 2008, not 2009. The study was only released in August 2009. Enivid (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're talking about 2008. 10.6 per 100,000 would be 11 per 100,000 if rounded. Basically, 1 per 100,000 lower than the 12 per 100,000 which I believe in another ICESI document available on site was 11.6 - rounded to 12 in the document here. Hardly any difference. Unfortunately, the murder rate increased 25% to 15 per 100,000 in 2009 and again increased significantly in 2010.

ICESI are hardly a poor source. Power Society (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Mexico

The way the press is sounding statistics I have to wonder where Mexico falls in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.12.46 (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont speak english very well and i dont exactly understand what is the correct sense/direction of that question, but i interpretate that you are questioning the information, basing you on your own perception.--oyashirosama (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue with Mexico is the majority of homicides occur in a few high crime areas (Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Guerrero, Michoacan). 20% of Mexico's homicides in 2010 occurred in Ciudad Juarez! Overall, Mexico's murder rate is moderately high by world standards (close to Russia), but in a few zones, it is much higher. Still, Venezuela and Colombia have much higher national rates. 64.134.148.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Updated data about Mexico's Homicide Rate point it in 18,1/100.000 not 18,0. 0,1 in a great number of homicides like mexico's make a great difference. The source is the 2011 Global Homicide Report of UN:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexcetera (talk • contribs) 01:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The "by subregion" section lists Northern America ("not North America.) and Central America. Mexico is in neither, so which subregion does Mexico belong to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.193.181 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the fact that Mexico is described as "Central America" subregion in "By Country" listing, which makes me wonder if "Central America" and "Northern America" total statistics whould/could be totally wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.47.129 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be.Enivid (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Peru and Costa Rica

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

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

"Intentional"?

Is there such a thing as an "accidental homicide"? Corvus cornix_talk 21:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, why not? Some countries have "murders by accident" in their reports. Enivid (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Many homicides are unintentional. The title is aimed at cutting out countries that may include a kind of culpable homicide that isn't intentional such as motor vehicle or workplace accidents. In terms of intentional deaths, some countries include killings in self-defense while others don't, though I suspect the order would be very similar if all countries added them together. Intentional homicide, rather than just murder or homicide, is the most fitting description. Power Society (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Indonesia

Indonesia has a high Murderrate..

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

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

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

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

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

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

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data
• http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014746.html

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

East and South-East Asia

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

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

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

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

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data
• http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014746.html

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

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

Edit War

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

Countries including attempts?

I'm a little bewildered as to why countries whose digits include murder attempts are listed. Power Society (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you propose? If it's not possible to find the data excluding attempts, it's better to at least provide data that includes attempts rather than not to provide any data at all. Enivid (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The chart must have sub-province stats. For example Russia has VERY different statistics for regions. 195.218.231.67 (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the official German numbers it seems clear to me that they specifically include attempts (in 2009 there were 703) of which only a subset were successful (365 in 2009) [9]. Dividing by 80,000,000 people that would imply a intentional homicide rate of ~0.45 per 100,000 which is a factor two lower than the one in the list! Can anyone corroborate my reading of the German statistics?? (In contrast the USA/FBI statistics specifically state that unsuccessful attempts are listed as aggravated assault [10].) I think the difference between attempts versus successes is such a huge deal it really needs to be 1) pointed out in the very beginning of the article while 2) researched for each of the numbers in the list! For those numbers for which it is not clear whether the attempts are included or not I suggest putting an asterisk next to it and denote that very fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.117.133 (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian Homicide Rate Updated to 2009 data

I updated brazilian homicide rate data to the last research disclosed in 2009 by UN as you guys can see here:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf

I dropped from 25/100.000 to 22,7/100.00. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexcetera (talk • contribs) 01:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Methodological problem.

Does the "List of countries by intentional homicide rate" include assasinations? In such a case, a foreign entity does engorge another country's homicide rate by doing hostile assasinations. For example I notice Iran is present in one of the stat lists in the article. USA and Mossad (and/or their ethnic kurdish rebel proxies) do over a hundred assasinations within iranian territory per year. Scientists are car bombed, while revolutionary guard officers and public officials are shot with silencers by scooter-riders. That way, if assasinations are counted in to the iranian homicide rate, it will appear higher than justified by the civilized, peaceful and well-educated nature of the persian people!

Similarly, if the large-scale american UAV drone missile cullings are counted in to the stats, then afghani and pakistani homicide rates will be represented by much-inflated numbers, even though it is a foreign entity that willfully engorges such stats in those countries. That is unfair statistics and paints certain nations more violent then they are! 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Most Recent" heading is not most recent.

The column heading "Most Recent" in the 2000's table is highly ambiguous and does not mean "most recent" literally as would be commonly understood by most readers. It means here the most recent figure of the prior columns and in most cases just copies the 2009 column. As such it is different from the "Most Recent" column in the 2010's table. This heading will just confuse readers and does not add anything in any case. I suggest the column should be removed since the year headings are sufficient. Why add confusion?

Some of these stats must be REALLY wrong.

For example: The United States of America crime figures list homicides as all confirmed events of criminally intentional deadly violence.

There are countries (and I know of several, but won't list them here, 'cause someone would just fix the figures and leave the problem) that list "convictions" under their homicide rate. A completely different number, and radically lower by definition.

Also, some of the countries w a political chip on their shoulder fudge the statistics - A LOT. Non homicide example: Cuba does not include an infant death in their statistics until the child has been registered w the party. Usually about two months. Completely skews any listing even if the original raw numbers were confirmable.67.182.175.134 (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in:Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How is Somalia low on crime? It's not like there one of the most dangerous most corrupt country in the world, Luxembourg? WTF? How would it have high crime? Greenland... WTF??? Change it! --Ty Rezac (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

UN data outdated for Japan

Since we should like to have the most up to date data...I took a look at the UN's numbers and what their source is page 54 of Japan's official national police agency crime data: http://www.npa.go.jp/toukei/seianki/h23hanzaizyousei.pdf

They correspond perfectly and the numbers are identical 2006: 619 murders, 2007: 574, 2008: 646, 2009: 506

And there is the problem, the UN data stops at 2009..while the NPA has clearly released data up to 2011. 2010: 465, 2011: 442 (a rate of .3).

I didn't see any discussion on this but I imagine this is true for other countries as well, if we use the exact same source that the UN used with the exact same data shall we update the wikipedia list to the most recent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyTree90 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes: there is new data on the source not only for Costa Rica. I do not know how to upload the whole table though... Maybe somebody else, more versed in the art of Wiki editing should update the whole table with the latest info.--Crio (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Costa Rica

I updated the data on Costa Rica for 2011 (latest info) according to http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html --186.32.17.47 (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup: the data on the link "http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls" is more current than the data on the Wikipedia's table. --Crio (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be updated

The data on the link: "http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls"

has more recent data.

I do not know how to go around updating the whole table myself, sorry!

--Crio de la Paz (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats lie

The Turkey and USA cannot be on the same rank, since i lived in both long years and following news, ridiculus.

Vatican City, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands and San Marino

Is there a specific reason for not listing Vatican City, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands and San Marino? I understand from earlier talk entries that Vatican City was listed at some point. PinkShinyRose (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau are listed separately.

Considering the earlier discussion about the UK, where the countries are now listed together, should China also be listed as one country? At least Hong Kong and Macau are not souvereign, neither de facto nor de jure. Taiwan is separate in practice, and can therefore be listed separately, although when we use data supplied by the governments we could also consider using their definition (which is that China also comprises Taiwan). PinkShinyRose (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OECD?

This article needs a section with data on the OECD countries' murder-rates, both individually and in the aggregate. This is a standard statistical category used in virtually all international data comparisons, with good analytical reasons. The purely geographic comparisons used here are mystifying -- history does not play out in a context-free orb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benefac (talk • contribs) 03:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is not a country

Sorry, but its not.

Chechnya isn't on here either... For a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.186.150 (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Greenland, Puerto Rico, etc are not countries either but they are separate geographical and/or autonomous zones so they are handled separately. --Andynct (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Argentina

Argentina's statistics are false. Because in Argentina since 2009 that the government began to give false numbers in all statistics. You can see in the source that argentina Argentina went on to have very low murder rates compared to the previous statistics.--200.117.159.132 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to give us a source for that, or are we supposed to believe it because you heard it from some guy in a bar? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I live in argentina but i can get source. http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1505475-alteraron-la-estadistica-de-homicidios. La Nacion is the second most popular newspaper of argentina.--201.253.226.84 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Neo139 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Syria, Iraq, Libya, and other countries at war

How come the numbers for said countries are so low in the list, when it's well known that the casualties by conflict in these countries can be counted by thousands (unfortunately)?. For one, Syria appears only with a few hundred homicides, but the article referenced next to that number ("Syrian Civil War") gives a number of 120.000 people killed during the conflict. JoacoCanal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.147.37.238 (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I will update this for syria, we know that at least 100,000 people have been killing each other in Syria, there is no way it has. As for Iraq it needs to be updated as well, everyday they find mass graves of 100+ people or mass explosions in markets, its utterly ridiculous to say they have low homicide rate. http://newsbusters.org/node/9932 "Iraq's violent death rate in 2006 was 56.49 per 100,000 residents (16,273 deaths

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/9932#ixzz2bdFp5bzu

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Government officials on Monday reported that 16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006, a figure larger than an independent Associated Press count for the year by more than 2,500.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/9932#ixzz2bdFt9Saz

Syria numbers will be updated as well.

"Syria death toll now above 100,000, says UN chief Ban" bbc news.com http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23455760 100,000 for the population of 20,000,000 already listed on wiki means a murder rate of 20,000,000 over 200 = 100,000 100,000 homicides over 200 = 500

I agree the Libya numbers are way off too, we know that in just 1 day in a massacre in surt 200+ people were killed Libya 6.4 million people 25,000 murders all according to wiki So 6,400,000 /64= 100,000 25,000 homicides over 64 = 390 homicides per 100,000

Bahrain 105 killed based of the wiki table of deaths from the uprising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Bahraini_uprising_(2011%E2%80%93present) Population 1.3 million

1,300,000 / 13 = 100,000 105 / 13 = 8.08

Yemen 2000 homicides according to the wiki page 24,800,000 population / 248 = 100,000 2000/ 248 = 8

Tunisia 338 homicides according to wiki page 10.67 million population / 106.7 = 100,000 338/ 106.7 = 3.17

Afghanistan 20,000 homicides according to the wiki page 30,000,000 population / 300= 100,000 20,000 / 300 = 66.67

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernanday (talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC) 

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

2. newsbusters.org is not an authoritative source.

Enivid (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Lists aren't matching sources...

And will stay that way unless this page gets permanent wikislaves or someone takes action on my comment here. Krushia (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia

Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia among the countries with fewest murders by capital. For some reason I find that very hard to believe... --Oddeivind (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect data is corrected for Venezuela. The updated data of homicides per hundred thousand inhabitants is 953/3, 2, according to research results Gis XXI, http://www.gisxxi.org is desirable to avoid treacherous manipulations such as the data provided in the previous versions --Sapientiacr (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Venezuela Statistics

Someone has vandalised statistics from Venezuela, please revert it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.137.196 (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

North America Vs the United States

Northern America lists a count of 13,558 while the United States alone has a count of 14,748 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.141.162 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The United Nations Population Division considers Northern America to consist of the United States (14,612), Canada (554), Bermuda (8), Greenland (11), and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon (A French territory). The total number of murders for Northern America should be 15,185. Blueneondot (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

110% liberal BS

This is so stupid. How can the UK have 1/4 fewer murders when they have an unarmed population? Obviously it's going to be WAY higher there than it is here, since here any bad guy who comes at me is gonna go join his "homies" 2Pack and Biggy in hell. Delete this or fix the blatant liberal bias.76.118.92.242 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)