Is it premature to list these estimates? It seems as if they are not really sure how many died, i.e. it ranges from tens of thousands to 500,000? Best, -- A Nobody My talk 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The death toll seems to be estimated at between 250000 and 300000: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7621756/Haitis-earthquake-death-toll-revised-to-at-least-250000.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.1 ( talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
In the "deadliest earthquake" table, why are there two different estimates for the Great Kanto Earthquake, even though both list it as being in Japan in 1923?
~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by NuttyJay ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
[1,836 confirmed, 705 missing] not sure is not reported and the fatalities not even located in different natural disasters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina (21 January 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.62.0 ( talk) 18:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Last year in 2009 i heard on the news about an earthquake striking indonesia and and some island near australia resulting in a a tsunami with a cyclone striking the coastline and i don't think its mentioned. Plus they is no mentioning of other natural disasters like ice storms, sandstorms, dust storms, avalanches, big freezes which are long periods of freezing weather conditions over a large area like what happend in the winter here in europe and killed a few people so i think there worth a mention. stephendwan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.211.45 ( talk) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I also think its worth a mention of the british and irish flooding from last year that was actually the worst flooding in ireland that i ever seen as i live there and britian was just as bad so do you think that these events are worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.211.45 ( talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The columbus day storm, 1962, is listed in this list, but it was actually a cyclone (maybe the title for the section shouldn't say "non-cyclone"?) — robbiemuffin page talk
Is there a reliable source for this disaster? The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't seem to even mention anything happening in the Japanese earthquakes or Hokkaido articles. -- Prosperosity ( talk) 01:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
the 1999 İzmit earthquake is listed as having 44 000 deaths which is false. Zaza8675 ( talk) 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are pandemics separated in the manner on the page? Smallpox killed more than any other pandemic. Why is it in a separate category than the one that says "pandemics that killed more than x" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.211.59 ( talk) 18:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Many of the dates would not sort properly as they were typed instead of coded. For any of the lists that were sorting out of order (by date) I tried to codify (and thus fix) the date. I did not change anything that was sorting fine on its own (eg - Storms (non-cyclone) all occurred AD and list only years, so typing out the year instead of using the dts tags kept the sort proper and, as such, I didn't bother changing them, though technically we should). One other issue was '2nd Millenium BCE (under Tsunamis). There seemed to be no good way to use the BCE dts tags (at least that I could see) AND have it sort properly as the oldest recorded disaster in that category, so I listed it as Year 1, used the dtsh tag to hide it, and typed out '2nd Millenium BCE. If there's a better/proper way to handle this situation, please let me know/.correct it, but I couldn't find anything specific under {{
Dts}}
. --
Stevehim (
talk)
04:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1881_Haiphong_Typhoon 184.166.2.234 ( talk) 02:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
My changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll&diff=573585718&oldid=573526934
Changes that were reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll&diff=573659913&oldid=573585718
Some stupid wiki function I wasn't aware of did math on my edits instead of just displaying them.
Both articles mention these lower ranges to be official. 184.166.2.234 ( talk) 09:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
What about air bursts, impacts etc.? Haven't there been any that have known to have killed people? 64.53.191.77 ( talk) 01:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Why is 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the top 10 list? ImTheIP ( talk) 22:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#A mess of WP:Content Forks
This article is currently being discussed as part of WP:Request for Comment at the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard under the section heading A mess of WP:Content Forks. The discussion is to decide how this and other closely related articles could be systematically organized to avoid redundancy The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The subject natural disaster is listed under both "Earthquakes" and "Tsunamis" with similar death tolls. As we will probably never be able to assertain the actual death tolls attributed to either occurance separately, I was wondering if there was a similar disaster (recent or otherwise) and how it was handled. I think we can probably agree that the tsunami caused the higher death toll (whole towns washed away), but then again the earthquake CAUSED the tsunami. Just seems odd to list it in both places. Eitherway, I edited the title of the disaster in the Earthquake list to say Tohoku Earthquake/Tsunami so that it would mirror its title in the Tsunami list.
On an unrelated issue, has this page established a death toll limit for having a disaster make one of the lists. Obviously you aren't going to have many Meteorite deaths, but the list for Earthqaukes is at 56 and counting - appears that there is an un/official limit of 10,000 on this one. Or are people just adding as they find documented evidence and the lists will just grow to "whatever"? Ckruschke ( talk) 17:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
As no-one has begun the discussion following addition of the 'contradict' tag, I'm starting it here. I've removed the 1730 Hokkaido earthquake as it seems to be a phantom event (discussed further up this page), so the two tables are now in agreement down as far as 12, with the 1703 Genroku earthquake being the next point of difference. This earthquake has a lot of different casualty numbers from a variety of sources, although most are about 10,000, the higher figure of 100,000 seems likely to be a typo that has been copied from source to source. In the NOAA/NGDC database they use 5,233 although they mention one estimate of 200,000. The IISEE database gives 10,000. Other values that I've seen are 'more than 5,000', 37,000, 150,000, 100,000 and so on. My long term plan is to try and reconcile all of this in some logical way, not only for the 1703 event but for others where the death toll varies from source to source (that's just about every earthquake in the list). This is not proving to be easy and I keep dropping it to get on with other more tractable stuff. Mikenorton ( talk) 11:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It's number 1 on the list yet no reliable source. Most of what I can find indicates around 10-15,000 total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.23.59 ( talk) 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The death toll statistic for the Haiti earthquake on this page is extreme POV. There is no consensus. It would be wise to reflect the debate, but using the lowest possible estimate is no more correct than using the highest. The official UN figure is roughly 230,000. The official Haitian govt figure is 316,000. Those should be reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.160.141 ( talk) 23:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The #6 top disaster actually occurred in Antioch while been part of the Byzantine Empire, currently part of Turkey. I believe that we should add this on the table, in the same way as #4 and #10 locations are listed. Mppf ( talk) 00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The death toll for the earthquake is different in the 2 lists. This has the strange affect that this disaster is ranked higher in the first list... Roland ( talk) 09:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Toba supervolcano eruption be on the list of top 10 deadliest natural disasters? Some estimates say before the eruption, there was a human population of up to 60 million. Afterwards, genetics indicate the human race dropped to as low as 10,000 or even 1,000 breeding pairs. That's at least 59.99 million people killed off! Don't forget the other species that went extinct or were reduced to very low numbers by the eruption. D i n o k i d 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There are 3 different ranges for the 1931 China Floods across the article. Which estimates should be favoured? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.36.36 ( talk) 13:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
In World War one around half of the losses (around 10 million people) died from infuenza. Why is this major epidemic/disease not listed in top 10 Communicable diseases? -- Leonardo Da Vinci ( talk) 07:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I want to congratulate those who put together this article. I just wpuld want to propose a change in terminology. Disasters are "NOT" natural... Even if they derive from the impact of a natural hazard, what makes them become a "disaster" is human vulnerability. To sustain this statement, let me offer you a series of articles I have written about the topic; the links to access the paper online is also provided. Of course, I remain at your disposition for any further discussion. Best regards and thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts. Sergio Mora Castro, sergiomo@geologos.or.cr:
- Disasters are not natural: Risk management, a tool for development. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publication 2009; v.22; p.101-112; doi10.1144/EGSP22.7; http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/reprint/22/1/101.pdf?ijkey=t0zzngz8DHPBz9N&keytype=finite
- Disasters should not be the protagonists of Risk Management. Keynote speech at the 11th International Congress, International Association of Engineering Geologist and the Environment. Auckland, New Zealand. 2010. 18pp. http://www.scribd.com/doc/40784124/Manejo-del-riesgo-Sergio-Mora-geologo
- Mora et al. 2012. Slope instability hazard in Haiti: Emergency assessment for a safe reconstruction. Banff, Alberta, Canada. Keynote speach. Landslides and Engineered Slopes: Protecting Society through Improved Understanding – Eberhardt et al. (eds) © 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-62123-6; https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Haiti/Tropical_Storms_2012; https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_C6dUAEbjPia2dXaFNWRTZqRGc/edit
- Mora, S; Barrios, R; 2001. Conceptualización estratégica para la prevención de desastres en América Latina. Segundo Simposio Panamericano de Deslizamientos. Cartagena, Colombia. 9pp. http://www.cne.go.cr/CEDO-Riesgo/docs/2641/2641.pdf
- El impacto social, político y económico de los desastres. Segundo Simposio Colombiano de Ingeniería Geotécnica y Sismológi-ca. Asociación de Ingenieros Civiles de la Universidad nacional. Santafé de Bogotá. Agosto, 1997. 17pp. http://www.cne.go.cr/CEDO-Riesgo/docs/2675/2675.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.152.162 ( talk) 15:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is the 1770 Bengal Famine included in this? The way I understand and and the way the article for it reads is that the large loss of life was caused not by the drought but by the extensive human error on account of the British East India Company. Enlighten me if I'm wrong. Leonffs ( talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no source that I can find that corroborates this page's death toll of 230 for the 1949 Landes forest fire. On the French-language Wikipedia, the fire has its own page and lists the death toll at 82. The French page for the Landes forest also lists the death toll at 82. These claims have sources, but they're in French. The only sources that list the 230 death toll appear to pull their information from this page.
Barring any reputable sources for the 230 death toll, the Landes fire should be removed from this list and the next-deadliest fire should be added at the bottom or another deadly fire slotted into the appropriate place based on death toll.
Leavethelighton (
talk)
20:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
shouldn't these two be reversed? The second one is higher at both the lower and upper ends. 4 242,000–779,000 1976 Tangshan earthquake China
5 500,000–1,000,000[1] 1970 Bhola cyclone East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) Kdammers ( talk) 07:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The 1882 Bombay cyclone is ranked 9 among the 10 deadliest tropical cyclones. However, I recently had a conversation with a scientist hailing from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune. He had recently conducted a seminar in which his team concluded that on the basis of their research, the devastating tropical cyclone in question never occurred. His findings are based on the India Meteorological Department's archives dating back to 1882.
Now I do agree that since its an individual's work, it does not have enough notability to be as trustworthy as other official sources. In fact, many books have claimed that the storm occurred in 1882, but no IMD content states about the storm. A newspaper article also dismisses the claim that the storm occurred. The article can be found here, dated December 2, 2015, written by Adam Sobel, a professor at Colombia University/
My question is: Is this reference enough for us to erase the storm away from the list? Rishabh Tatiraju ( talk) 16:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Why separate them? They should be in the same table as earthquakes. http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/tsunami/general/physics/earthquake.html http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/ http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/springle/
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
List of natural disasters by death toll. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The 1976 Tangshan earthquake is listed as the second deadliest natural disaster on the over-all list but is ranked below a 16th-century earthquake in the earthquake list. This desicrepancy needs to be addressed. Kdammers ( talk) 04:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of natural disasters by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://natural-disaster.findthedata.org/l/117/1882-Bombay-cycloneWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of natural disasters by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Totally different events, mostly unrelated to each other. The list entirely fills in floods only as they affect more and occur over a longer period of time. landslides should be given separately to reflect deadly landslides like Khait landslide which killed around 30,000 people, which is a huge figure for landslides and had no relation to any kind of flooding like most landslides. There should be a separate list of deadliest floods List of deadliest floods and deadliest landslides List of landslides... Marked Man 808 ( talk) 19:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but they have little to do with floods. Floods and landslides are totally unrelated, and including them together, obvi floods which occur over a longer time and and over a vaster area will have a higher death toll, and totally undermines the devastating impacts of landslides, which have deadlier effects than some other events you mentioned separately, like "deadliest impact event". I think floods and landslides should be on a separate list.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marked Man 808 ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Someone has already mentioned far above how numbers/orders of events have drifted to where (back in 2011) tables didn't agree with each other. Well, still true.
Doesn't it bother anyone that two different numbers are given for Krakatoa? 36,417-120,000 given under tsunamis (and without a ref), but a 36,000+ under volcanic eruptions with a ref given. And this has been true since at least 2014.
Under the initial "Ten deadliest" we find 1920 Haiyuan earthquake at 7 then 1976 Tangshan at 10 as sorted by lowest limit, but under "Deadliest Earthquakes" they are reversed at 4 and 3, sorted by ???. Hmm, apparently the lower limit for 1976 Tangshan was lowered March 2017 but incorrectly/incompletely repositioned in "Deadliest Earthquakes"? Oh, and the ref causing that lowering change is mentioned in the article but not here. Sigh.
And how is the "2004 Indian Ocean" event sometimes a tsunami, sometimes an earthquake, and sometimes (as for the article) a combined event? Another example is Typhoon Nina.
So, Dawnseeker2000 repeatedly says "use the numbers from the articles", as seen several times in the page history. Sounds right - is that the rule? (I hope so) And sort order is determined by the lesser ref'd range figure? (I hope so) And refs should be kept up to date here, or perhaps better, just kept in the linked articles? Shenme ( talk) 05:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Most of the reports noted here are of questionable validity. I won't question Professor Delong's economics qualifications, but he is not an expert on meteorites. One citation even notes that an entry has been debunked. Delong mentions a study by two undergraduate students in an introductory geology course--not the most credible source. The other main source of information is from International Comet Quarterly and seems more credible; it does not mention all of Delong's deaths, and it cautiously lists Wikipedia as a source. Michael E Nolan ( talk) 17:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks like there are extra 0's added, or not enough. The data on the left is 10 times less than the data on the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.37.136 ( talk) 03:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The 1931 flood is listed thrice. In the first listing, the number given is a single figure, whereas in the other two lists it is given as a range. Let's be consistent. Kdammers ( talk) 09:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Should we add coronavirus? The Channel of Random ( talk) 17:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I think an important and very deadly epedemic is missing in the list of the deadliest pandemics. The Pandemic suffered by the Inca's and Aztec population in Central America after the arrival of Spain is very significant. It killed ten's of millions and would come second to the black death. Could someone with more knowledge about this pandemic list it? 83.160.61.76
On 1780 Tabriz earthquake the number of reported casualties is 40,000–200,000, with 50,000 being a more likely estimate. Shouldn't this be changed to 50,000? Aquatic Ambiance ( talk) 10:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The HIV pandemic uses reported deaths, all others are reported, so why Covid needs to separately include both estimated and reported? Also estimated deaths doesn't have sufficient WP:V,, WP:RS and doesn't seem as WP:Notable as reported deaths. I think this creates confusion for readers, so i recommend only reported deaths be used, as it was until around last week when this change was made. I won't maake any change, just a recommendation, cheers. Dilbaggg ( talk) 20:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The fictional destruction of a planet by a Death Star is included in the list of deadliest natural disasters. What kind of morons run this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:C281:4130:B5B9:5881:3D3B:7906 ( talk) 13:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
If you look at "1931 China Floods", it has 1,000,000–4,000,000 in the "Ten deadliest natural disasters since 1900 excluding epidemics and famines" section, 422,499–4,000,000 in the "Deadliest natural disasters by year excluding epidemics and famines" section and 400,000–4,000,000 in the "Ten deadliest floods" section
Similarly, for the same item, it has date of July 1931 in "Ten deadliest natural disasters by highest estimated death toll excluding epidemics and famines" and "Ten deadliest natural disasters since 1900 excluding epidemics and famines" sections, July – November in "Deadliest natural disasters by year excluding epidemics and famines" and 1931 in "Ten deadliest floods".
Shouldn't at the very least, the different sub-sections on this page all have the same values? Assassin ( talk) 06:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I was curious to know if you could add the disaster tidal wave or tsunami to the list as a natural disaster. I think this qualifies. It can be generated by winds or other natural disasters. 2600:1700:B50:9CF0:25DC:49CF:F18D:1DDC ( talk) 02:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
and driven by a political ideology of climate change hysteria. Why does the article fail to mention cold related deaths? Its way more dangerous for humans than heat. 93.206.56.220 ( talk) 22:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I propose readding the 1556 Chinese Earthquake with 800,000+ death tolls. The top list is absed on "highest estimated deat toll". The lower estimate is 100,000 but top list is only concerned with the highest estimate regardless of the cause or inflated figures, even if 700000 people died of famine opr epidemic but it still gets attributed to the 1556 Earthquake and as 800,000 is the highest estimate it should be added back! Dilbaggg ( talk) 07:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
the state sanctioned it via it's plan Jazi Zilber ( talk) 11:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
On 5 May 2023, more than three years into the pandemic, the WHO Emergency Committee on COVID-19 recommended to the Director-General, who accepted the recommendation, that given the disease was by now well established and ongoing, it no longer fit the definition of a PHEIC. This does not mean the pandemic itself is over, but the global emergency it caused is – for now. A review committee will be established to develop long-term, standing recommendations for countries on how to manage COVID-19 on an ongoing basis.
https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19 Roelgrif ( talk) 12:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
And:
https://themessenger.com/health/covid-pandemic-who-cdc-russia-world-health-organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roelgrif ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Compare this with HIV which is marked as ongoing, I don't think covid is that much different in this respect. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Roelgrif (
talk •
contribs)
12:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't see 2008 Sichuan earthquake in the list "Deadliest natural disasters by year excluding epidemics and famines", even though its death toll has topped 80,000+. How reliable is this list ? Encyclopaedia ( talk) 15:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Is it premature to list these estimates? It seems as if they are not really sure how many died, i.e. it ranges from tens of thousands to 500,000? Best, -- A Nobody My talk 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The death toll seems to be estimated at between 250000 and 300000: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7621756/Haitis-earthquake-death-toll-revised-to-at-least-250000.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.1 ( talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
In the "deadliest earthquake" table, why are there two different estimates for the Great Kanto Earthquake, even though both list it as being in Japan in 1923?
~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by NuttyJay ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
[1,836 confirmed, 705 missing] not sure is not reported and the fatalities not even located in different natural disasters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina (21 January 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.62.0 ( talk) 18:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Last year in 2009 i heard on the news about an earthquake striking indonesia and and some island near australia resulting in a a tsunami with a cyclone striking the coastline and i don't think its mentioned. Plus they is no mentioning of other natural disasters like ice storms, sandstorms, dust storms, avalanches, big freezes which are long periods of freezing weather conditions over a large area like what happend in the winter here in europe and killed a few people so i think there worth a mention. stephendwan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.211.45 ( talk) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I also think its worth a mention of the british and irish flooding from last year that was actually the worst flooding in ireland that i ever seen as i live there and britian was just as bad so do you think that these events are worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.211.45 ( talk) 20:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The columbus day storm, 1962, is listed in this list, but it was actually a cyclone (maybe the title for the section shouldn't say "non-cyclone"?) — robbiemuffin page talk
Is there a reliable source for this disaster? The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't seem to even mention anything happening in the Japanese earthquakes or Hokkaido articles. -- Prosperosity ( talk) 01:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
the 1999 İzmit earthquake is listed as having 44 000 deaths which is false. Zaza8675 ( talk) 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are pandemics separated in the manner on the page? Smallpox killed more than any other pandemic. Why is it in a separate category than the one that says "pandemics that killed more than x" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.211.59 ( talk) 18:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Many of the dates would not sort properly as they were typed instead of coded. For any of the lists that were sorting out of order (by date) I tried to codify (and thus fix) the date. I did not change anything that was sorting fine on its own (eg - Storms (non-cyclone) all occurred AD and list only years, so typing out the year instead of using the dts tags kept the sort proper and, as such, I didn't bother changing them, though technically we should). One other issue was '2nd Millenium BCE (under Tsunamis). There seemed to be no good way to use the BCE dts tags (at least that I could see) AND have it sort properly as the oldest recorded disaster in that category, so I listed it as Year 1, used the dtsh tag to hide it, and typed out '2nd Millenium BCE. If there's a better/proper way to handle this situation, please let me know/.correct it, but I couldn't find anything specific under {{
Dts}}
. --
Stevehim (
talk)
04:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1881_Haiphong_Typhoon 184.166.2.234 ( talk) 02:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
My changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll&diff=573585718&oldid=573526934
Changes that were reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll&diff=573659913&oldid=573585718
Some stupid wiki function I wasn't aware of did math on my edits instead of just displaying them.
Both articles mention these lower ranges to be official. 184.166.2.234 ( talk) 09:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
What about air bursts, impacts etc.? Haven't there been any that have known to have killed people? 64.53.191.77 ( talk) 01:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Why is 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the top 10 list? ImTheIP ( talk) 22:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#A mess of WP:Content Forks
This article is currently being discussed as part of WP:Request for Comment at the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard under the section heading A mess of WP:Content Forks. The discussion is to decide how this and other closely related articles could be systematically organized to avoid redundancy The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The subject natural disaster is listed under both "Earthquakes" and "Tsunamis" with similar death tolls. As we will probably never be able to assertain the actual death tolls attributed to either occurance separately, I was wondering if there was a similar disaster (recent or otherwise) and how it was handled. I think we can probably agree that the tsunami caused the higher death toll (whole towns washed away), but then again the earthquake CAUSED the tsunami. Just seems odd to list it in both places. Eitherway, I edited the title of the disaster in the Earthquake list to say Tohoku Earthquake/Tsunami so that it would mirror its title in the Tsunami list.
On an unrelated issue, has this page established a death toll limit for having a disaster make one of the lists. Obviously you aren't going to have many Meteorite deaths, but the list for Earthqaukes is at 56 and counting - appears that there is an un/official limit of 10,000 on this one. Or are people just adding as they find documented evidence and the lists will just grow to "whatever"? Ckruschke ( talk) 17:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
As no-one has begun the discussion following addition of the 'contradict' tag, I'm starting it here. I've removed the 1730 Hokkaido earthquake as it seems to be a phantom event (discussed further up this page), so the two tables are now in agreement down as far as 12, with the 1703 Genroku earthquake being the next point of difference. This earthquake has a lot of different casualty numbers from a variety of sources, although most are about 10,000, the higher figure of 100,000 seems likely to be a typo that has been copied from source to source. In the NOAA/NGDC database they use 5,233 although they mention one estimate of 200,000. The IISEE database gives 10,000. Other values that I've seen are 'more than 5,000', 37,000, 150,000, 100,000 and so on. My long term plan is to try and reconcile all of this in some logical way, not only for the 1703 event but for others where the death toll varies from source to source (that's just about every earthquake in the list). This is not proving to be easy and I keep dropping it to get on with other more tractable stuff. Mikenorton ( talk) 11:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It's number 1 on the list yet no reliable source. Most of what I can find indicates around 10-15,000 total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.23.59 ( talk) 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The death toll statistic for the Haiti earthquake on this page is extreme POV. There is no consensus. It would be wise to reflect the debate, but using the lowest possible estimate is no more correct than using the highest. The official UN figure is roughly 230,000. The official Haitian govt figure is 316,000. Those should be reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.160.141 ( talk) 23:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The #6 top disaster actually occurred in Antioch while been part of the Byzantine Empire, currently part of Turkey. I believe that we should add this on the table, in the same way as #4 and #10 locations are listed. Mppf ( talk) 00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The death toll for the earthquake is different in the 2 lists. This has the strange affect that this disaster is ranked higher in the first list... Roland ( talk) 09:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Toba supervolcano eruption be on the list of top 10 deadliest natural disasters? Some estimates say before the eruption, there was a human population of up to 60 million. Afterwards, genetics indicate the human race dropped to as low as 10,000 or even 1,000 breeding pairs. That's at least 59.99 million people killed off! Don't forget the other species that went extinct or were reduced to very low numbers by the eruption. D i n o k i d 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
There are 3 different ranges for the 1931 China Floods across the article. Which estimates should be favoured? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.36.36 ( talk) 13:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
In World War one around half of the losses (around 10 million people) died from infuenza. Why is this major epidemic/disease not listed in top 10 Communicable diseases? -- Leonardo Da Vinci ( talk) 07:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I want to congratulate those who put together this article. I just wpuld want to propose a change in terminology. Disasters are "NOT" natural... Even if they derive from the impact of a natural hazard, what makes them become a "disaster" is human vulnerability. To sustain this statement, let me offer you a series of articles I have written about the topic; the links to access the paper online is also provided. Of course, I remain at your disposition for any further discussion. Best regards and thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts. Sergio Mora Castro, sergiomo@geologos.or.cr:
- Disasters are not natural: Risk management, a tool for development. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publication 2009; v.22; p.101-112; doi10.1144/EGSP22.7; http://egsp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/reprint/22/1/101.pdf?ijkey=t0zzngz8DHPBz9N&keytype=finite
- Disasters should not be the protagonists of Risk Management. Keynote speech at the 11th International Congress, International Association of Engineering Geologist and the Environment. Auckland, New Zealand. 2010. 18pp. http://www.scribd.com/doc/40784124/Manejo-del-riesgo-Sergio-Mora-geologo
- Mora et al. 2012. Slope instability hazard in Haiti: Emergency assessment for a safe reconstruction. Banff, Alberta, Canada. Keynote speach. Landslides and Engineered Slopes: Protecting Society through Improved Understanding – Eberhardt et al. (eds) © 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-62123-6; https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Haiti/Tropical_Storms_2012; https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_C6dUAEbjPia2dXaFNWRTZqRGc/edit
- Mora, S; Barrios, R; 2001. Conceptualización estratégica para la prevención de desastres en América Latina. Segundo Simposio Panamericano de Deslizamientos. Cartagena, Colombia. 9pp. http://www.cne.go.cr/CEDO-Riesgo/docs/2641/2641.pdf
- El impacto social, político y económico de los desastres. Segundo Simposio Colombiano de Ingeniería Geotécnica y Sismológi-ca. Asociación de Ingenieros Civiles de la Universidad nacional. Santafé de Bogotá. Agosto, 1997. 17pp. http://www.cne.go.cr/CEDO-Riesgo/docs/2675/2675.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.152.162 ( talk) 15:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is the 1770 Bengal Famine included in this? The way I understand and and the way the article for it reads is that the large loss of life was caused not by the drought but by the extensive human error on account of the British East India Company. Enlighten me if I'm wrong. Leonffs ( talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no source that I can find that corroborates this page's death toll of 230 for the 1949 Landes forest fire. On the French-language Wikipedia, the fire has its own page and lists the death toll at 82. The French page for the Landes forest also lists the death toll at 82. These claims have sources, but they're in French. The only sources that list the 230 death toll appear to pull their information from this page.
Barring any reputable sources for the 230 death toll, the Landes fire should be removed from this list and the next-deadliest fire should be added at the bottom or another deadly fire slotted into the appropriate place based on death toll.
Leavethelighton (
talk)
20:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
shouldn't these two be reversed? The second one is higher at both the lower and upper ends. 4 242,000–779,000 1976 Tangshan earthquake China
5 500,000–1,000,000[1] 1970 Bhola cyclone East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) Kdammers ( talk) 07:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The 1882 Bombay cyclone is ranked 9 among the 10 deadliest tropical cyclones. However, I recently had a conversation with a scientist hailing from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune. He had recently conducted a seminar in which his team concluded that on the basis of their research, the devastating tropical cyclone in question never occurred. His findings are based on the India Meteorological Department's archives dating back to 1882.
Now I do agree that since its an individual's work, it does not have enough notability to be as trustworthy as other official sources. In fact, many books have claimed that the storm occurred in 1882, but no IMD content states about the storm. A newspaper article also dismisses the claim that the storm occurred. The article can be found here, dated December 2, 2015, written by Adam Sobel, a professor at Colombia University/
My question is: Is this reference enough for us to erase the storm away from the list? Rishabh Tatiraju ( talk) 16:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Why separate them? They should be in the same table as earthquakes. http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/tsunami/general/physics/earthquake.html http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/ http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/springle/
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
List of natural disasters by death toll. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The 1976 Tangshan earthquake is listed as the second deadliest natural disaster on the over-all list but is ranked below a 16th-century earthquake in the earthquake list. This desicrepancy needs to be addressed. Kdammers ( talk) 04:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of natural disasters by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://natural-disaster.findthedata.org/l/117/1882-Bombay-cycloneWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of natural disasters by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Totally different events, mostly unrelated to each other. The list entirely fills in floods only as they affect more and occur over a longer period of time. landslides should be given separately to reflect deadly landslides like Khait landslide which killed around 30,000 people, which is a huge figure for landslides and had no relation to any kind of flooding like most landslides. There should be a separate list of deadliest floods List of deadliest floods and deadliest landslides List of landslides... Marked Man 808 ( talk) 19:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but they have little to do with floods. Floods and landslides are totally unrelated, and including them together, obvi floods which occur over a longer time and and over a vaster area will have a higher death toll, and totally undermines the devastating impacts of landslides, which have deadlier effects than some other events you mentioned separately, like "deadliest impact event". I think floods and landslides should be on a separate list.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marked Man 808 ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Someone has already mentioned far above how numbers/orders of events have drifted to where (back in 2011) tables didn't agree with each other. Well, still true.
Doesn't it bother anyone that two different numbers are given for Krakatoa? 36,417-120,000 given under tsunamis (and without a ref), but a 36,000+ under volcanic eruptions with a ref given. And this has been true since at least 2014.
Under the initial "Ten deadliest" we find 1920 Haiyuan earthquake at 7 then 1976 Tangshan at 10 as sorted by lowest limit, but under "Deadliest Earthquakes" they are reversed at 4 and 3, sorted by ???. Hmm, apparently the lower limit for 1976 Tangshan was lowered March 2017 but incorrectly/incompletely repositioned in "Deadliest Earthquakes"? Oh, and the ref causing that lowering change is mentioned in the article but not here. Sigh.
And how is the "2004 Indian Ocean" event sometimes a tsunami, sometimes an earthquake, and sometimes (as for the article) a combined event? Another example is Typhoon Nina.
So, Dawnseeker2000 repeatedly says "use the numbers from the articles", as seen several times in the page history. Sounds right - is that the rule? (I hope so) And sort order is determined by the lesser ref'd range figure? (I hope so) And refs should be kept up to date here, or perhaps better, just kept in the linked articles? Shenme ( talk) 05:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Most of the reports noted here are of questionable validity. I won't question Professor Delong's economics qualifications, but he is not an expert on meteorites. One citation even notes that an entry has been debunked. Delong mentions a study by two undergraduate students in an introductory geology course--not the most credible source. The other main source of information is from International Comet Quarterly and seems more credible; it does not mention all of Delong's deaths, and it cautiously lists Wikipedia as a source. Michael E Nolan ( talk) 17:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks like there are extra 0's added, or not enough. The data on the left is 10 times less than the data on the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.37.136 ( talk) 03:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The 1931 flood is listed thrice. In the first listing, the number given is a single figure, whereas in the other two lists it is given as a range. Let's be consistent. Kdammers ( talk) 09:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Should we add coronavirus? The Channel of Random ( talk) 17:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I think an important and very deadly epedemic is missing in the list of the deadliest pandemics. The Pandemic suffered by the Inca's and Aztec population in Central America after the arrival of Spain is very significant. It killed ten's of millions and would come second to the black death. Could someone with more knowledge about this pandemic list it? 83.160.61.76
On 1780 Tabriz earthquake the number of reported casualties is 40,000–200,000, with 50,000 being a more likely estimate. Shouldn't this be changed to 50,000? Aquatic Ambiance ( talk) 10:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The HIV pandemic uses reported deaths, all others are reported, so why Covid needs to separately include both estimated and reported? Also estimated deaths doesn't have sufficient WP:V,, WP:RS and doesn't seem as WP:Notable as reported deaths. I think this creates confusion for readers, so i recommend only reported deaths be used, as it was until around last week when this change was made. I won't maake any change, just a recommendation, cheers. Dilbaggg ( talk) 20:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The fictional destruction of a planet by a Death Star is included in the list of deadliest natural disasters. What kind of morons run this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:C281:4130:B5B9:5881:3D3B:7906 ( talk) 13:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
If you look at "1931 China Floods", it has 1,000,000–4,000,000 in the "Ten deadliest natural disasters since 1900 excluding epidemics and famines" section, 422,499–4,000,000 in the "Deadliest natural disasters by year excluding epidemics and famines" section and 400,000–4,000,000 in the "Ten deadliest floods" section
Similarly, for the same item, it has date of July 1931 in "Ten deadliest natural disasters by highest estimated death toll excluding epidemics and famines" and "Ten deadliest natural disasters since 1900 excluding epidemics and famines" sections, July – November in "Deadliest natural disasters by year excluding epidemics and famines" and 1931 in "Ten deadliest floods".
Shouldn't at the very least, the different sub-sections on this page all have the same values? Assassin ( talk) 06:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I was curious to know if you could add the disaster tidal wave or tsunami to the list as a natural disaster. I think this qualifies. It can be generated by winds or other natural disasters. 2600:1700:B50:9CF0:25DC:49CF:F18D:1DDC ( talk) 02:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
and driven by a political ideology of climate change hysteria. Why does the article fail to mention cold related deaths? Its way more dangerous for humans than heat. 93.206.56.220 ( talk) 22:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I propose readding the 1556 Chinese Earthquake with 800,000+ death tolls. The top list is absed on "highest estimated deat toll". The lower estimate is 100,000 but top list is only concerned with the highest estimate regardless of the cause or inflated figures, even if 700000 people died of famine opr epidemic but it still gets attributed to the 1556 Earthquake and as 800,000 is the highest estimate it should be added back! Dilbaggg ( talk) 07:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
the state sanctioned it via it's plan Jazi Zilber ( talk) 11:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
On 5 May 2023, more than three years into the pandemic, the WHO Emergency Committee on COVID-19 recommended to the Director-General, who accepted the recommendation, that given the disease was by now well established and ongoing, it no longer fit the definition of a PHEIC. This does not mean the pandemic itself is over, but the global emergency it caused is – for now. A review committee will be established to develop long-term, standing recommendations for countries on how to manage COVID-19 on an ongoing basis.
https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19 Roelgrif ( talk) 12:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
And:
https://themessenger.com/health/covid-pandemic-who-cdc-russia-world-health-organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roelgrif ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Compare this with HIV which is marked as ongoing, I don't think covid is that much different in this respect. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Roelgrif (
talk •
contribs)
12:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't see 2008 Sichuan earthquake in the list "Deadliest natural disasters by year excluding epidemics and famines", even though its death toll has topped 80,000+. How reliable is this list ? Encyclopaedia ( talk) 15:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)