Talk:List of accidents and disasters by death toll/Archive 1

Pre-1900 explosions
I notice there are only 2 pre-1900 disasters in the explosions list, and both took place in the Netherlands. Is this a coincidence? On a worldwide scale, the Netherlands is a tiny region, even by population. And both were explosions of gunpowder stores (one on land and one on a ship). Did this maybe have to do with the Dutch being traders, which would include gunpowder trade? Or is the list incomplete and do the Dutch like to boast about their mishaps more than other nationalities? :) Also striking is that the only other mention of a disaster in the Netherlands in the whole article (so including other causes) is also in the explosion-list, namely the fireworks factory in Enschede. DirkvdM (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And while talking about explosions, the gun power explosion of 12 July 1646 is mentioned twice. Which is the correct number of casualties, 40 or 49? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.108.9.46 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Locations and missing article
I noticed that many of these disasters don't have articles about them. This is fine. However, some of these link to the place or time it happened. These articles typically only have a passing mention of the disaster, if it even mentions them at all.

I would rather see a red link than an irrelevent one. Maybe it should be Wikipedia policy that on any list of events, you only link the event's article, and never to the place's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.9.95 (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this is the way it should be approached TheHammer24 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the reversale: an article not listed in rail accident

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Sri_Lanka_tsunami_train_wreck Marcoberi (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Classification
The Other Accidents section contains quite a few fires and collapses, as well as some that fall into other categories. -Should fires and collapses be separated out? -Why aren't the explosions (and others) categorized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.74.154 (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Biblical Flood?
It's quite heavily referenced, shouldn't it be on there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.120 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Biblical Flood has too little factual references to be classified here 66.65.45.81 (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Flood in Netherlands
Shouldn't this one be added? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Flood_of_1953 Killed around 1500 people in a flood. I'm to shy to try it myself ._. 84.105.203.46 (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the flood section excludes natural disasters TheHammer24 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

9/11 not deliberate violence?
If no-one objects I'm going to take 9/11 off this list. It says at the very top that deaths caused by deliberate violence would not be included, and 9/11 was a highly deliberate act of terrorism, not an accident. Gorman (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually like to differ. It says accidents _and disasters_. If 9/11 wasn't a major tragedy and disaster, I don't know what is. --92.194.142.16 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

9/11 was a disaster, but it was a deliberate attack, similar to a bombing. This is not the list for attacks, and you'll note that Nagasaki, Dresden, and other deadly incidents are not listed here because they were deliberate violence. Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Pan Am Flight 103 was not an accident, it was destroyed by a deliberately placed bomb. - cyclosarin (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As such Pan Am Flight 103 should not be listed here. Mrschwen (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

How can 9/11, if it even belongs on this page at all, be reasonably described as an elevator incident? 2600:1009:B045:9F64:F902:3283:D96D:6ED (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Fires
Great fire of london? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.200.182 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Only five deaths. Kostja (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Animal attacks
To my mind, these don't fit here. They are essentially both 'natural' (apart from being related to human population density, which is linked to all natural disasters) and 'deliberate' (they don't just sort of happen from freak causes). Salopian (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
Has anyone given any thought to the creation of some kind of rigorous inclusion criteria for this list? As it stands it is literally a dumping ground for accidents both major and minor. I hate to say it but some accidents are routine and non-notable. I mean, is an accident at a fireworks factory that killed 1 person worth including here? A whaleship that lost 13 crewmembers? An accident during a yacht race that killed 6? Perhaps it is just me, but currently the list is so long as to be practically useless. Shereth 15:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Aberfan landslide disaster was an industrial disaster
Item listed under "Other": 144 – Aberfan landslide disaster (Wales, 1966)

This was a man-made catastrophe caused by an irresponsible coal mining operation. They kept adding and adding to their man-made mountain of rocks and slag long after there were signs of its instability. After several days of rain, and hours after mineworkers realized the mound had sunk several feet yet were ordered to continue piling more on top, the mound gave way, smothering children at school first, and then many others. This should be moved to "Industrial" or "Coal mining" accidents. I prefer industrial because the deaths happened away from the mines. The negligence killed only people who weren't involved in the mining operation. They just lived downhill from it. Dcs002 (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there hasn't been discussion here for nearly a month, I just took it upon myself to move Aberfan to "Industrial accidents" for the reasons stated above. Didn't think there could be further consensus building if no one's talking. Any objections? I'm open to discussion if anyone disagrees. Dcs002 (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Terror attacks?
I think this page needs a section for terror attacks, such as 9/11, 7/7, the Tokyo subway gassing, Pan Am 103, Madrid and Bali bombings, Munich Olympic abduction & murder of Israeli athletes, the Khobar Towers bombing, all the suicide attacks in the Middle East, etc. They certainly were not accidents, but weren't they disasters? Dcs002 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a list here. Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear accidents - problems
There are several problems with the nuclear disasters section --Tweenk (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the sources is an anti-nuclear publication.
 * It lumps together the postulated increases in cancer mortality with actual casualties. The cancer estimates are significantly less reliable because they cannot be verified statistically and are based on the LNT hypothesis which has dubious scientific basis below 100 mSv.
 * Windscale caused 0 direct casualties and yet it is listed as responsible for 33 deaths. Additionally it didn't "destroy dairy farms", only the milk was disposed for 2 weeks.

Queen of the Sea 'rail' disaster
It states at the top of the page that natural disasters should not be included. As the train was derailed due to a) No fault of the train design b) No fault of the tracks and c) No fault of the driver then surely this is not a rail disaster? See Classification of railway accidents which I think backs up my point. Cls14 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've put this back in. A number of sources refer to it as a rail disaster, and it is listed (here, at least) as the worst rail disaster in history, so not having it in looks like an oversight. I've added a footnote to take account of the point made here, but I'd say the burden of proof is on the contention for it not being a rail disaster. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

USS Mississippi (BB-41)
The article on the USS Mississippi (BB-41) mentions turret explosions in 1924 and 1943 that killed 48 and 43 men respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.243.15 (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Novorossiysk
I think that the sinking of this ship should be moved from the 'Maritime' category over to the 'Explosions' category. The ship was a battleship, and the disaster had nothing to do with shipping. The same comment applies to the sinking of the USS Maine and that of any other warships.

It is a maritime disaster because it occurred on a ship. The disaster fits both categories, but any disaster that occurs on a boat or ship is a maritime disaster. Mrschwen (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian Cruiser Bahia
Should the sinking of this cruiser be included on this page? I think that it should be, given that the sinking of the Mutsu, Bulwark and Vanguard are included here.

Japanese Dreadnought Kawachi
This ship exploded in 1918, with the loss of 621 officers and crew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.243.15 (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Mt Kembla Mine Disaster
http://www.illawarracoal.com/mtkembladisaster.htm

96 were killed in a Coal Mine explosion at Mt Kembla, NSW, Australia July 31, 1902.

This is not currently listed in the coal mine disasters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.62.214 (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC involving this article
Content noticeboard

This article is currently being discussed as part of WP:Request for Comment at the 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)

9/11 attacks keep getting added
The plane crashes and other events during the 9/11 attacks were examples of deliberate violence and thus do not belong in this list.--GoldenMew (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm going to be bold and remove it, again..... NickCT (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Bus accidents
There should probably be a separate section for bus accidents. I know that the Carrollton, Kentucky bus collision was the worst in the U.S., but there have been others elsewhere with a much higher death toll. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 09:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria need clarification
The article badly needs some more explicit statements of what is and isn't to be included. For example, the lead now reads in full: "This is a list of accidents and disasters by death toll. It shows the number of fatalities associated with various explosions, structural fires, flood disasters, coal mine disasters, and other notable accidents." No wonder people keep adding and deleting 9/11 -- it was not an accident, but it was a disaster. Someone please decide which way it should be and then maybe contributors can conform.

By the way, if deliberately destroyed airplanes don't count under aviation, then two others (with 382 and 270 deaths respectively) need to be removed from that list.

Another point: why are floods listed but not other sorts of natural disasters such as volcanoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes?

The list of shipping disasters says that for "wartime" accidents we should see "List of battles and other violent events by death toll", but in that case there is no place for shipping disasters that occurred during wartime but not as part of an attack.

And is there a rule that a disaster can be listed in only one category? If so, it should be stated. This affects things like the Queen of the Sea (train disaster, but part of tsunami natural disaster caused by earthquake), Halifax Explosion (explosion, but caused by shipping accident), and of course 9/11 (structural collapse, but caused by airplane crash).

I make no suggestion as to what is best: I merely call for clarity.

--142.205.241.254 (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and one more point: I think there should be an explicit cutoff in each section as to how bad a disaster must be to be included. The railways section, for example, includes a whole bunch of accidents with just over 100 deaths, then a few with fewer -- that suggests that at some time someone informally cut it off at 100, which I think it would be reasonable to do explicitly here. Oh, in fact, looking again, that section does have a cutoff at 90; but most of the other sections don't do that, and just from the distribution of numbers I suspect that some rail disasters in the 90-99 range are missing.

--142.205.241.254 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough there seems to have never been a true attempt to create inclusion criteria for the page, other than agreeing that 9/11 (and by extension all other terrorist acts) should not be included. I added a note to the top, plus removed the Air India and Pan Am bombings (I'm not sure which one you're referring to with 382 deaths).  I would suggest a cutoff of number of accidents, not by death toll.  That said I think a cut off of only the top 50 accidents (with ties) is appropriate, as anymore than that and a separate page for that type of accident is probably warranted.  Ravendrop 00:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this thread and you are right. What about one page for Industrial Accidents, one for terrorist attacks, and one for natural disasters?  Let's hear all your thoughts, like a brainstorming session.  You can't have attacks, except animal attacks, on a list of "accidents"...., so.....

This page is enough of a mess that it needs a lot of work. It is multiple lists/articles rolled into one article. It really needs to be completely redone. Mrschwen (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Link or Cite!
What do you all think of this New Rule:

Link it or cite it!

Each item should either be linked to a Wikipedia article, (which will probably be cited) or cited here. So if an item has a red link or is black, it can still be on the list if you cite that item. If it doesn't have an article we can read or a citation we can check, then anyone can delete it and no one can object, unless you provide a link or a citation. Otherwise, what proof do we have that the item is even real? Or the numbers aren't totally phoney? For this list to be a good list, every item should be linked or cited. Whaddaya say? Chrisrus (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelm Gustloff
Should that one really be in this list? The sinking was clearly a result of war and most certainly a violent act, so I would say it doesn't qualify for this list --78.54.3.165 (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Maritime check
I was wondering about certain things in the maritime section such as where it says "<-- Peacetime only, eh?" at the end of the first maritime listing about the MV Wilhelm Gustloff being torpedoed. would also like to know if really long links such as the one on maritime accident 133 about the SS Hankow fire are necessary or if they should be shortened. --Lunashy (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-assessing the inclusion criteria
I think that excluding acts of violence is not particularly helpful, especially for categories like aviation. The Aviation accidents and incidents page (linked from this page) has lists sorted by year, location, causal factor, and carrier. However, only this page provides a list sorted by death toll, which is a particularly useful and intuitive criterion. Many people seeking plane crash lists would likely wonder, "What are the worst 10 air crashes in history?" This page could tell them, but it would not be at all accurate without including deliberate acts.

Moreover, as it stands, some deliberate attacks are included. While the New York/Washington aviation attacks are excluded, the current list includes: 5. Air India 182. Bombed by Sikh extremists. 9. Iran Air 655. Shot down by the US Navy. Whether the Vincennes knew its target or not, it was a deliberate act of violence; the cruiser meant to shoot down an aircraft, it just misidentified its target. As the list is current constructed, the inclusion of this incident is dubious. 11. Pan Am 103. Bombed by Libyan intelligence. 12. Korean Air 007. Shot down by the Soviet Air Force. The plane was approached visually by Soviet pilots before they fired upon it, and at least one pilot recognized it as a Boeing 747. Again, including it on a list that excludes deliberate acts of violence is dubious. 25. EgyptAir 990. According to the NTSB, deliberately crashed by the relief first officer. It would hard to argue for the inclusion of this crash while objecting to the inclusion of American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175. The exact motives were different, but the methodology of a suicide crash is functionally similar. 45. UTA 772. Bombed by Libya.

This is hardly an exhaustive examination of the list, but rather only incidents whose details I can immediately recall. Either the list must be exhaustively purged of violent acts (including deliberate CFIT incidents) and rigorously policed against the re-inclusion of same, or -- as I believe is more informative -- the inclusion criteria must be altered such that acts of violence are present within categories like aviation and maritime disasters. Sacxpert (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Aviation accidents by death toll
Reading through many interesting recent ones on this list I think I came across where a death toll of 50 was higher than some in the 60s and 70s (this should be re-ordered though it is far too late for me to be able to go over every single one right now).

Also, the last addition especially, but all of those below a certain death toll, I believe, should be removed. There are many, many, more incidents, attacks, and accidents (only one of four 9/11 planes were mentioned, and not United Airlines 93 which a commercial airline pilot within the passengers had just taken control of as it crashed rather than the other three which were, for the duration, in full charge of the hijackers, for example) with death tolls. They could all be scouted out, leaving us with a list of thousands, or we could remove some. Or, at least, the singular death toll. I presume that there are other aviation accidents in which a sole person has died, as many (or more than) as there are with a sole survivor would be about right. I, for one, would not like to waste time searching for every aviation accident since before America (in all of flying history, dating back to Leonardo da Vinci and possibly before) and listing the thousands upon thousands on which someone has died (as a direct result of this accident, of course).

This also leads to the problem of how we count survivors: on one of them I'm sure the total death count includes survivors that later died in hospital, whereas one counts those who survived til the next day as survivors, and another does not include those that survived at a shocking altitude in winter in the Andes for weeks before dying as survivors, rather that they were part of the initial death toll; only those that survived over two months without any form of nutrition or heat in those conditions, and after hearing that the search for survivors from the crash had been called off on a radio, were classed as survivors - there really does need to be clarification. I mean, those people had to resort to cannibalism and a pair of them walked for 10 days without food or water before they stumbled upon a Chilean who alerted the appropriate authorities to their existence. I'd say that if they died as a result of the incident, whether an hour or a week later, they should be included in the death toll whereas if they die for an unrelated reason (in the case of the Andes disaster, starvation and hypothermia etc. amongst the survivors stranded in the mountains) they should be counted as surviving it.

It would, as I mentioned before, be an idea to have included either all four aeroplanes involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack, or none at all.

Hannahlouise mickleburgh (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Toying with the idea of putting this list into tables...
Especially the aviation list, which is nigh on unreadable, IMHO, with multiple disasters on each line where the death toll was the same. Would it be appropriate to put this into a table format to make it clearer? I'm prepared to give this a go if it's appropriate to do so. Thought I'd be better tout for other opinions first though rather than risk wasting my time as it's such an epic list. If a table isn't appropriate then I might just split the offending lines up. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with a table would be that it's heavy. And this article is already quite long, so a table might not be really good. On the other hand, a table is very good to allow one to see the most important things on the accidents and quickly compare some aspects between flights. But, if we do that for aviation, let's say it'd be "unfair" not to make tables also for other disasters. And if we were "fair" and did so, that would really increase the article's length and weight, and it wouldn't be good. Maybe the best would be splitting all disasters, no matter if they have the same death toll. Notwithstanding, that table idea might not be bad at all... I don't know. Let's wait for more opinions. -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  19:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I do intend to do it to all of the sections, just starting with the aviation one, since that's the one I use the most. :-) Jinnythesquinny (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but my point is that - correct me if I'm wrong - with everything in tables, the page will grow very heavy. Just check this out. There, it says an article should be divided into others if its readable prose size prose size overpasses 100 kB. This page has currently 130 kB, or so. But, as this is basically, "a bunch of lists", the rule isn't applied that much. Yet, if the lists are put into tables, I believe page will grow too big, and it might create another problem: many browsers or Internet connections might take long to load the page. At least, I think it's better to stop grouping disasters with the same death toll, because it would lead to misinterpretations. Don't you think so? -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  18:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Numbering
"... At least, I think it's better to stop grouping disasters with the same death toll, because it would lead to misinterpretations. Don't you think so?" I sure do.

I happened to come across this list and just couldn't help noticing the way incidents with same death toll were treated. Not only is the current format difficult to read, but it makes the position numbers appearing on the actual article incorrect. The numbering of the positions on an ordered list should be done in such a way that if position number x is split between y incidents, then the next position on the list would be number x+y instead of x+1.

I'm not much of a hacker and even less of an editor, so I don't know the possible formats for making Wikipedia lists. I'm also too busy or lazy to manually change every single "hash toll - disaster a triplequote/triplequote disaster b" to "hash toll - disaster a -ENTER- hash toll - disaster b". I tried a few just to make sure it can be done. It can, but the job might be too tedious for anyone; in that case I suggest that only the first z positions are numbered, where z is a nice and round figure a lot lower than the highest split position, and cutting the hash off the entries not making the top z. Rantalaiho74 (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I also would like to see each event on a separate line, but there are other editors who seem to think differently. One benefit is that you can clearly see separate disasters and not clump disparate events together as if the words all belonged together. Chris857 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think I could do that job, and maybe within some weeks everything would be done. I will start it soon. -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  16:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm now using my sandbox to do this. If you want to help doing this, so it can be finished earlier, go to this page, and read the rules I've written at the beginning of the page. Thank you. -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  17:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, it's done, mainly thanks to the contribution of Godot13. They did a great job, and I'm very thankful to them for it. Hadn't it been for them, this job would have taken much more time. It will soon be done also with other lists. You can follow our conversation here. -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  18:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will have some downtime (long flight) on Sunday where I could knock off another section or two. I can paste the results onto Sim(ã)o(n)'s sandbox, or if there is no objection directly into the article.--Godot13 (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oooooh! This is so much better! Thank you. Jinnythesquinny (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove the less notable disasters
While I'm sure every disaster was horrific to those involved, the obvious purpose of this kind of article is to showcase the worst for quick referencing purposes...and the article becomes unmanageable if it exhaustive. So, recommend only the top thirty events in each category, and no more than one line per event. (In fact, the entire article could be reduced to a series of tables.)--Froglich (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, but not with the top 30. I agree about setting a minimum limit for the casualty number, especially for categories with many disasters. That happens already with the rail disasters category, but it's not being respected (check it out here). But I have to say that I also don't see much of a problem by leaving the page with this structure, because I think it isn't yet really hard to manage... -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  15:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Circus Maximus
I'm removing the Circus Maximus entry from the Sporting events and Structural collapses categories. The cited source is Guinness World Records: Worst Sport Disaster however there is no link and I am unable to find one. Mention of this disaster on the Circus Maximus page has been challenged and was eventually removed. Here's the link to that discussion. Robo042 (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sporting Events
Do ancient Roman gladiatorial games count as "sporting events"? If so we should definitely add the Fidenae stadium disaster which is already mentioned in the Structural collapses section.Robo042 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Section Reformatting
Per discussions above, all sections have been reformatted to reflect a single incident per line of text. This could all be put into several tabular lists, or even a single list sortable by any number of existing columns or by additional information that could be parsed out... Best--Godot13 (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been trying my hand at creating a sortable list based on the aviation section of the article. A very rough draft can be seen at User:Godot13/sandbox/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_deathtoll which includes the top of the list down to the 100 fatality mark. The more complex sort functions have not yet been written as they are very time consuming and I wanted to see if there was a consensus to adopt such a table. This table could be sorted by date of incident, type of aircraft, and location, in addition to number of fatalities. Other sortable columns could also be added. I welcome any comments or feedback. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The table is quite good, and I think it could be used in the page, yet I'd like to hear more comments. -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  14:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The date is sortable by YEAR-MONTH-DAY, location is sortable in descending order (i.e., United Kingdom-Scotland-Glasgow) and for crashes into bodies of water, it is sorted by the body of water, nearest country, nearest city. There are a few incidents that probably don't belong on the list and they are noted in the comments column. The way I've reorganized some of the data allows for sorting by plane manufacturer and type. Some titles have been altered to allow for a sort by air carrier. No incident has been omitted, but significant information has been added or changed based on a reading of each WP entry and some of the accompanying incident reports (e.g., location of crash). I have not changed any of the fatality numbers, even though some do not add up. That kind of a change I think requires some direction as to which sources are more reliable than others. I will now update the file as I am close to being finished. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the table is pretty good, except maybe for a few things that still need to be reviewed, like those fatality numbers that, as you say, make no sense. Perhaps we should also delete the confirmed deliberate crashes and put them into a new section which would be something like "Deliberate disasters" or "Terrorism" or something similar... Besides that, if no one has any objections, I guess we could really use that table. It's really pretty good! Thanks! -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  21:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Savar building collapse
The Savar (Rana Plaza) disaster was listed under building collapse but not industrial accidents. As the collapse was caused by the use of vibrating machinery in illegally constructed floors of a garment factory and is clearly an industrial accident, I have added it to the industrial accident section. -Sarah

Torre Ejecutiva Pemex explosion
So the Pemex Tower explosion isn't already included here, just adding it later Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding dates on disasters?
Hello! It looks like someone has been adding dates onto some disasters in this article. I personally think we shouldn't do that, because that would be a lot of information conveyed in only one line... But if we move on with the idea of putting the list into tables, maybe there wouldn't be a problem... Check out this discussion, above this section. But what do you guys think? -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  08:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for aviation accidents?
On the top of the table, it is noted that the September 11 attacks are omitted. So, it seems as if indeed only accidents would be included here, not deliberate crashes or criminal acts. On the other hand, the Lockerbie bombing is included, even though it is not an accident, either.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true... And now that you mention it, it actually makes no sense. I really think that should be changed. However, there are other crashes which one can't be sure whether they were criminal acts or not. Take TWA Flight 800, perhaps the best known case. Take EgyptAir Flight 990. Take also SilkAir Flight 185. It just depends on the source on which you're relying: the NTSB or someone else. Of course I'm gonna believe the NTSB, but others may not... -- Sim(ã)o(n)  * Wanna talk? See my  efforts?  18:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Same goes for Iran Air Flight 655 and Malaysia Airlines Flight 17...they were both shot down which basically makes them criminal acts...or do they count as accidents because they were accidentally shot down? Liza 22:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.29.47 (talk)

Date format
I propose that the date format be switched from month–day–year (MDY) to day–month–year (DMY) for the following reasons:


 * In this edit on 14 June 2013, Morriswa changed the date format throughout the article to MDY and added the Use mdy dates template, apparently without prior discussion.


 * The article had not, to that point, "evolved using predominantly [MDY] format" (per WP:DATERET). In fact, this version from 1 May 2013 shows mixed use with DMY apparently predominating.  There was also a strong series of contributions by 69.117.59.46 on 14 June 2013 using DMY format, which further entrenched this as the dominant format, just before Morriswa made the above edit changing them all to MDY.


 * The article does not have strong national ties (WP:STRONGNAT); on the contrary, it is a list of global events.


 * MDY format is mainly favoured in the USA and to some extent in Canada. Elsewhere, the more logical DMY format is preferred.


 * The date format change by Morriswa is still relatively recent, so it is not well settled that MDY should be preferred for any particular reason. That said, the longer this format remains (and the more entries are added), the harder it will be to change, so there is an imperative to make the change sooner rather than later.

This is just one way in which the article seems to have a United States-centred bias. Another is referring to locations in the USA by only city or state name, without identifying the country, whilst naming the country in other cases even where the capital city is specified. The country should be identified consistently in all cases. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 13:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have stopped using that template, as too many people have complained (for whatever reason). Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Aviation accidents
Now that List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities exists can we remove the aviation list from this article,the list is fairly random for accidents under 50 and pretty pointless when it gets down to single figures. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Most definitely. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But the article list is difficult to understand. Roif456 (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities has far more information and a better list then we had here, we should not really duplicate information. If you have a problem with the other list then it may be better to raise it at Talk:List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities. MilborneOne (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How Long Did This Take?
I was just wondering how long it took you to make these lists. Awesome job; thanks!! HttydFan95 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)HttydFan95


 * This list was spun off another list, List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, in September 2007. That page was started in March 2004. Kona1611 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Queen of the Sea 'rail' disaster again
I've thought about this on and off in the years since I first removed this and I still don't see how it is a rail accident. As stated before there was a) No fault of the train design b) No fault of the tracks and c) No fault of the driver then surely this is not a rail disaster? See Classification of railway accidents which I think backs up my point. I've taken it out, happy for someone to start a proper discussion on it on a sub-page with people commenting in necessary though. Cls14 (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC open: consistent use of "stampede" in crowd disasters
An RFC has been opened at Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch to discuss the use of the word "stampede" in article titles and content. This may be of interest to editors interested in human accidents and disasters. Dcs002 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Banqiao
1975 Chinese dam collapse death toll was into hundreds of thousands: http://engineeringfailures.org/?p=723 --68.100.141.9 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * you're correct. odd that the single worst dam failure in history didn't appear on this list.  that's a good call, and I've fixed it.  --Lockley (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Consistency
Can we have some consistency on events in the UK. e.g. England. Some say "England". Others says "United Kingdom" and some others say "England, United Kingdom". I think the last is best as it allows a search for either term. Also the Bradford Stadium fire is listed under Sporting Events. I was expecting to find it under "fires". Perhaps events falling into multiple categories should be in each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.37.64 (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Shipwrecks
As some of you can see, I have been undergoing the tedious task of editing the maritime section of this article. It appears that there are too many shipwrecks on this article for a reader to be able to read it comfortably. I propose that we give the shipwrecks section its own article.Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Removals
Could we get a discussion going about what should or should not be included? Dawnseeker2000 02:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No section for Shipping disasters which are not 'maritime' disasters
I noticed that there is no section relating to disasters to do with boats outside of 'maritime' which does not encompass civilian vessels or commercial boating accidents. Is there any particular reason why such a section does not exist? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sinking of Ertuğrul
The sinking of this ship is listed twice with different death tolls. 79.248.36.15 (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove Air India 182
Can we remove it? It was a terrorist incident, therefore it should not be included. Roif456 (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Boston Molasses Flood
I believe this is mis-categorized as an explosion. I believe from what I have read in the past that this more accurately would be under structural collapse. My prior reads indicate the tank used to hold the molasses was overfilled resulting in the eventual collapse.

Lhasadad (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

RMS Lusitania
The loss of the Lusitania (1915) is currently included in peacetime losses on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Maritime Since she was torpedoed by a U-Boat, she is certainly a wartime casualty and should be recorded as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.191.183 (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass removal
I restored some entries that were removed by an anonymous user. The user stated that the entries were "entirely unsourced". Well, I think there could be some intermediate and less drastic steps than immediately removing. One step could be navigating to the one entry that was removed that has an article (Church of the Company Fire), grabbing an appropriate source, and pasting it here. Doesn't that sound like a more constructive approach? Dawnseeker2000 22:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Explosions 26 september 2000 entry
this had no reference so I did a reshearch and found a press release talking about an explosion that did not happen the 26th but the 27th and that killed 162 and not 159. Should the entry be modified ?

Maxime12346 (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

But this article says only 118 died. More articles seems to say that 118 died, but I don't know which one is right or wrong.

Maxime12346 (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Príncipe de Asturias mentioned twice
The sinking of Príncipe de Asturias is mentioned twice under naval incidents, is this an error? 84.250.160.127 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Natural disasters section?
Not sure what's going on with the organization of the page, but seems weird to talk about floods and natural disasters in the header but then only have sections for a few weather-related/caused events. Was hoping to fit in the 1994 events in Durunka with 469 dead from a fire/collapsed railroad/burning oil/lightning strike. I'll leave it to others to figure out where to put it. Oathed (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Structural fires
Can I delete the description if the source is wrong? I am convinced that the listed sources of a fire at a Japanese theater in 1893 are incorrect. I have looked up this theater fire in Japanese before in the library and on the Internet, but I could not find any corresponding description. If there was such a massive fire that killed so many people, it would be very famous in Japan, but nobody knows. I am Japanese, but I have never heard of the fire, and other Japanese people have said on Twitter that they have never heard of it and it must be wrong information. Just to be sure, I asked about 70 people in my office about the theater fire, but no one knew about it, and one of them, who had studied the history of disasters in Japan at university, said he didn't know it, and asserted that it was wrong information. Also, "Kamli" is an unnatural Japanese spelling and there is no such place name in Japan.--Tiretire (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile this says that it was in China. I suggest it gets removed. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Protection Island elevator disaster
An elevator disaster is missing from the list. This disaster occurred on September 10, 1918 on Protection Island in Nanaimo Harbour, British Columbia, Canada. 16 miners were on an elevator being lowered into a mine shaft when the cables snapped, sending them crashing to their deaths. The Nanaimo Museum has a miner's pocket watch that stopped at the moment of impact. 172.218.71.94 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Wilhelm Gustloff
Why is there no reference to this ship in the maritime heading? Mjg27.nl (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the 2008 Burkina-Faso bus crash
So looking through all coverage of the tragedy, I failed to see a single source reporting that there were 90 fatalities. The highest figure is 67 provided by France 24. It seems that the accident should be removed from the list altogether. Gorgedweller (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am removing this entry until someone provides a source indicating that the death toll for the disaster is indeed above 90. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgedweller (talk • contribs) 09:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Section split suggestion - Structural collapses, and dam failures should be separated
There are too many dam collapses in the structural failures sections, and I feel they should have their own category, separate from disasters involving buildings and bridges.

GoatLord234 (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)