Talk:List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll/Archive 1

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

Need to sepperate UK and Ireland (Eire)

Why is The republic of Ireland included and not as its own entity. Either we split according to current statehood or we split into Great Britain and Ireland on a geographic basis.

Record

As far as I can tell, RMS Titanic still holds the "record" for the greatest verifiable British loss of life in a single incident in peacetime -- is this true? --mervyn 15:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Major expansion

Major expansion done, esp of aircrash and mine disasters.

I have noted that: [Temporarily, 19th century mining disasters have been omitted, and 1900-1950 mining disasters have been omitted except where fatalities exceeded 100.] -- this is for sake of clarity while I do further research. There are very many mine disasters, eg:

--mervyn 17:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cause of death per year.

Accidents like road accidents occur in ones and twos and would never appear on this list ... could we have a section for cause of death per year which might list the total number of various kinds of accidents per year to help put things in perspective?

Cause of Death per Year

    • 1234 Road Accident
    • 456 Drownings
    • 30 Slipped on Banana Skin.

Tabletop 09:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You could certainly create a new list on that basis, something like "List of UK fatalities by cause of death". This particular list is quite tightly defined as "a list of major disasters (excluding acts of war) which occurred in the United Kingdom or involved UK citizens, in a definable incident... so I don't think it would be appropriate as a section here. --mervyn 08:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

References

Mining disasters

I've removed the note about mining disasters as we have at least one in the list, and there is no reason for them not to be here unless someone feels that there are so many there should be a separate list? Thryduulf 11:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have completed listing of mining disasters for 20th century -- some bigger 19th c disaasters are listed, but not complete yet for this period mervyn 16:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

table

this page would look better in a table

86.141.159.71 18:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Its certainly worth copying a section of it to a temporary page to see how it will look. If you register as a user then you can do this as a subpage of your userpage. I'm converting List of London Underground stations into table format - User:Thryduulf/List of London Underground stations in table format. I started out doing the A section to get the table right, etc. and see what others thought of it. As it was agreed it looks nice I'm in the process of converting all of it - but its a bigger job than you might think (I've only done A-L so far!). Thryduulf 19:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It may benefit, but am not sure. List of disasters in Australia by death toll works as a table because it is much shorter, and includes primary info and references. This list is much longer, and mainly serves as a link list to lead people to the relevant disaster article, so may be overcomplicating it to change it into a table. But yes, may be worth trying a temp page if someone wants a go??? mervyn 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've set up a page in my userspace where I've put the first section into table format. See User:Thryduulf/List of United Kingdom disasters by death toll (table). I'll not do any more until I've received comments on whether people think the table format is good, and/or if anything should be changed. Also, feel free to experiment there youselves. Thryduulf 16:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work on this. It looks good. Am still not sure, but I think I prefer the existing list. It's purely a personal thing, but for me the linear list seems less "intimidating" than a table. Purely personal, I will look again, and let's see what others think. mervyn 19:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Sweating sickness

I wanted to add sweating sickness to this list, but I'm having problems with its placement. Thousands of britons died in the 1485 outbreak alone, and in 1517 some towns lost a third to a half of their inhabitants to it, etc, etc .... But with quite vague figures like this (and a lot more references simply to "many" and "multitudes" of people dying) I don't know where or how exactly to incorporate it into this list. fabiform 11:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this ... Yes I think a ref should go in -- always difficult to quantify these early historical figures. Let's follow the main article sweating sickness which says "it killed several thousand people" -- detailed discussion and refinement of fataliites can continue there. --mervyn 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Empress of Ireland

Should the Empress of Ireland be on this list? She was owned by the Canadian Pacific, so she was not a British ship. As she was sailing for Liverpool many of her passengers would have been British, but how many? Do we have figures for the no. of British casualties in other major sinkings involving non-British ships? PatGallacher 12:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A good point, am not that familiar with this ship, so could do with further research. However, probably enough Brits to justify it being included here. Like many other entries, probably needs some qualification, but I tend to think that explanations about precise lists of dead etc. are best left to the main disaster article link, with this list serving as a quick pointer with a few notes where needed. mervyn 20:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed. Neither a British ship, nor an event in British waters. Eclecticology 06:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
But Empress of Ireland might still validly be listed based on the large number of British casualties. No figures are available that I can trace, so may be best to leave her out pending clarification. --mervyn 15:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Herald of Free Enterprise

Considering this incident took place just outside the Port of Zeebruge in Dutch territorial waters, does it really belong in a list of United Kingdom disasters, the only link this disaster has with the UK is that a number of British citizens perished in the disaster and the ship belonged to a British company. I would suggest this entry be removed as it did not take place within the UK and is therefore not a UK disaster in the traditional sense. JonEastham 22:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The List follows the definition given in the intro ... "which occurred in the United Kingdom or involved UK citizens" ... and so, like Titanic, a disaster anywhere involving a British ship with British passengers would be considered relevant. --mervyn 22:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

9/11 and 7/7

I don't think they should be included as they were premeditated attacks and if they are included then surely various IRA and WWI and WWII attacks should be included. --Ebz 11:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The rationale is that "acts of war" are specifically excluded, but acts of terrorism are not acts of war and so are relevant to be included as "disasters". Hope that makes sense. --mervyn 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ordering

I don't think some of the sections are in order. Someone cleverer than me probably knowss how to get their computer to do this. If so please do so. ThanksGeorge bennett 18:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

SS London

The SS London is on the list twice under different numbers. akaDruid 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Added ref re 220. --mervyn 08:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Overenthusiastic editing

Due to overenthusiastic mass editing which has added too much clutter and deleted other info, am proposing a harsh revert back to version as at 15 June [1] then clean up and reinstate where needed from there. Any comments? --mervyn (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As per my message to you. I am currently in the midst of sorting out the page, not all the editing by User:Jeremy Bolwell done in the last few days was bad, if you revert it now a lot of work I have done already will have to be repeated. I will post a message when I have finished in an hour or three. Take a look then and see what you think. It can always be reverted then if still required. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Good, i'll leave it to you. Thanks for taking it on! --mervyn (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Done! Or at least I think so! My head is spinning! Take a gander and see if I missed anything. I think there was a bit too much info attached to some items, or the syntax was iffy. After all its supposed to be a list of articles for people to see, so there is really no need to repeat everything. I was wondering if it may help to have the list with the dates quoted, where available, directly after the number of fatalities to speed up things for those looking for specific dated events! Richard Harvey (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Shipwreck of "William and Mary"

On the Flat Holm article it includes some info on shipwrecks as the rationale for the building of the lighthouse. Specifically

"On October 23, 1817, a British sloop, the William and Mary, foundered after hitting the rock islands near Flat Holm known as The Wolves (Bristol Channel). The ship was en route from Bristol to Waterford and sank within fifteen minutes; the Mate, John Outridge, and two sailors made off in the only boat. Fifteen survivors were later rescued, having clung to the ship's rigging,[1] but fifty-four other passengers were lost.[2][3] Fifty of the bodies were recovered from the ship and buried on Flat Holm.[4]"

however I can't find an article for this one & it doesn't seem to be included in this list - any comment or help with including it (with the right level of detail) would be appreciated.— Rod talk 14:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly worth adding it in - can be an article for future development. --mervyn (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Heineken, Samuel (Tuesday November 4th 1817). "The wreck of the William and Mary". The Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "William and Mary". Pastscape. English Heritage. Retrieved 2008-04-14.
  3. ^ "Shipwreck - Loss of the William and Mary". Naval Chronicle (Vol 38). 1817. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help)
  4. ^ Sanders, Bob. "Some Bristol Channel Shipping Accidents". Family history pages. Retrieved 2008-04-14.

Cut-off point

I may do some more research and lower the cut-off point to 30 deaths. --mervyn 15:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've often heard the Kings Cross fire described as "one of the worst disasters", but at 31 deaths it doesn't make the list. Zoganes 16:28, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
Ah. I've just added a disaster which has always been regarded using that word, and had great impact on the psyche of local people, but had a death toll of "only" 32. Sorry, I hadn't noticed the cut-off. To make matters worse, I see it's in the list of smaller disasters on this page. Specifically, it was a ferry disaster (Torry, Aberdeen), and was bad enough to prompt a bridge to be built. I think King's Cross, mentioned above, is also an obvious case of a disaster (by reason of the impact on people's perceptions of their safety, and by reason of the expenditure across the tube system which resulted.) So, in short, I vote for reducing the limit to 30! Or better still, justifying inclusion by something more sensitive than merely numbers. I'll remove the 32-deaths entry for now, but look forward to a discussion of the number here! :) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a tricky problem -- when I started working on this, I put in a cut off point to make it possible to aim for a completely inclusive list -- mainly because below a certain level, the sheer number of shipwrecks and coal mine disasters becomes unmanageable. But it does lead to some rather odd exclusions, hence the addendum Talk:List_of_United_Kingdom_disasters_by_death_toll#Smaller_disasters. We could include "Other notable disasters" or "Selected smaller disasters" as a subsection on the main page, but then how do we define "notable"? Other options might be (as you say) to reduce the cut-off point slightly, though that still leaves odd omissions, eg Great Fire of London. OR, include only post-19th century smaller disasters ? Any other thoughts? --mervyn 12:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there are too many shipwrecks! Perhaps they should be excluded, or separated into their own section or article. Seperating disasters occuring on UK land from those involving UK citizens at sea or abroad could help. 86.21.227.237 (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Moorgate Tube Crash

Have removed the comment 'Possible Driver suicide?' after the entry. Whilst that is one source of opinion it is not Wikipedia's role to speculate, only to report the facts. The question mark implies speculation. The matter is covered fully in the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by From the North (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Name change or cut pre 1707 detail

Hi. I've just come across this article and am amazed to see disasters included that happened hundreds of years before the United Kingdom came into existance! I was going to remove pre-1707 material but realised that some people have put in a lot of effort building this page. Can I suggest instead that the name of the article could be changed to something like 'List of British Isles disasters by death toll'. If people want to have an article about the United Kingdom, then we will need to cut the material that pre-dates the United Kingdom. 86.147.45.207 (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have slightly reworded the article lead, that should suffice. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Please avoid the British Isles naming dispute ClemMcGann (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bibighar Massacre

As there seems to be some confusion I'll give the background, during the India Mutiny (or whatever people want to call it) the British garrison at Cawnpore (present day Kanpur) were besieged by native troops and the forces of a local noble, Nana Sahib, they were offered safe passage out of Cawnpore which they accepted but when they reached the banks of the Ganges the men were massacred. That massacre was an act of war and thus doesn't fit the remit of this article.

The women and children were taken to a building called the Bibighar, and over two weeks later they were massacred by two local butchers, two Hindu peasants and one of Nana's bodyguards.

Massacres are accepted on the list (like 'Black Monday' or Clifford's Tower), and so are non military events during wars (Porto Bello) and ones indirectly caused by military action (Bethnal Green) so I'm not sure why a massacre of non combatants by non combatants is not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


The victims were captured during military action in the Indian Rebellion of 1857 at the Siege of Cawnpore. The article Nana Sahib, one of the rebellion's leaders, gives a more descriptive account of events Here This clearly states that the victims were:-
  • 1. Captives from a battle (an act of war)
  • 2. Intended for use as a bargaining tool against military forces
  • 3. Ordered to be killed by rebel Sepoys, who would be executed if they refused for 'Dereliction of Duty' and therefore a military action.
The Sepoys did start shooting, stopping only at the cries of the captive, before civilian butchers were hired to finish the remainder. Had the same event happened in modern times, the perpetrators, both Sepoys and civilian butchers, would have been tried for war crimes. As this massacre took place directly or indirectly as a result of an act of war the event should not be included in this article. There are incidences of civilians killing civilians during times of war and were possible they have been tried for war crimes. Such examples include recent events in Bosnia and to a greater extent the recent investigations into the murders of 200,000+ Jewish Lithuanian civilians, by other, non Jewish, civilians in the second world war (BBC News 21 July 2008). As you have pointed out Porto Bello and Bethnal Green have been included on the list and as a direct result of an act of war they should be removed. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note that on your [{User talk:Rsloch|Talk]] Page I requested you refrain from re-inserting the item until a consensus by other editors was obtained. You have failed to do this. I have returned the article to its Status-quo and ask that you show Good Faith and abide by this request. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The preface of the list is very clear in excluding 'acts of war'. Whilst the deaths (intentional or otherwise) of civilians during a military operation (like the earlier massacre on the banks of the Ganges) would be fit in that exclusion, but the murdering of civilians at a later stage would not.

Thus Porto Bello, Bethnal Green, and this massacre can be included on the list, as can the Black Monday massacre which involved soldiers murdering civilians.

As for your three points:

1) The original massacre on the Ganges was an act of war, anything that followed was not. 2) Taking hostages and murdering them is a crime against humanity, not an act of war. 3) They did refuse and weren't killed.

In summary, the issue is whether this massacre was an 'act of war' or not. I suggest that although it occurred during a military conflict, and troops were indirectly involved, the massacring of civilians separate from military action is not an act of war. I do think that the terms used are a bit vague.

I am reinstating my contribution for three reasons:

One, your deletions were on erroneous grounds. You deleted my contribution for reasons that were factually incorrect, and because the 'remit of this article [is limited to] accident[s] or natural disaster[s]' when it isn't. I've treated these as errors made in good faith.

Two, your opinion has no more weight than mine does and until a consensus is reached otherwise the massacre should stay on the list. It's better to err on the side on inclusion.

Three, the massacre is similar to a number of other events already on the list.

rsloch (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Article should keep to the rationale of "excluding acts of war". The problem here seems to be in deciding upon acts which are incidental to a larger act of war. Let's have further calm debate about this question. --mervyn (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

At present the definition of 'act of war' is quite tight, only military action, or it would exclude a number of entries including the ones I have highlighted. I think it should stay that way.

rsloch (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Article name change

Some more discussion before page move would have been helpful.

Unfortunately "List of disasters in the United Kingdom and preceding states by death toll" now has the problem that "in the United Kingdom" is inaccurate. "United Kingdom disasters" was the wording chosen to explain the fact that the list should cover disasters wherever they happen - otherwise e.g. Titanic would be excluded.

I suggest use the previous title - List of United Kingdom disasters by death toll - and leave it to the article intro to explain any qualifications or exceptions (as already happens). --mervyn (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The title 'List of United Kingdom disasters' was misleading because it then goes on to include disasters that happened centuries (and more) before the United Kingdom came into existence. When the name was changed to 'List of disasters in the United Kingdom by death toll', I took the chance to make it 'List of disasters in the United Kingdom and preceding states by death toll' which at least dealt with my concern. However, in light of your comments, maybe a move to 'List of disasters of the United Kingdom and preceding states by death toll' would be better. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes that would be better. I still wonder whether the "and preceding states" is really necessary. I understand your point, but not sure the qualification needs to be in the title as it is so long winded. Most countries have complex histories but we accept the shorthand of "History of Germany" or "History of Canada" and the article then explains it. What do you think? --mervyn (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
My view is that it is important readers are not given false impressions - the United Kingdom was created as a result of a negotiated Treaty of Union between sovereign states which makes it different to most other countries. An easy solution (though it would involve a lot of work) would be to have other articles called 'List of disasters in England by death toll', 'List of disasters in Scotland by death toll' etc and then move pre1707 disasters out of 'List of disasters in the United Kingdom by death toll' and into the appropriate article. Links could then be provided in the lead of the UK article after something like "For details of disasters of the states that preceded the United kingdom, see: .." Any thoughts? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep everything together please! I am still not convinced that "and preceding states" is really necessary, but not strongly opposed. One thing could help make the article title less unwieldy: there are no other articles on UK disasters ranked in any other way, so we could drop the "by death toll" bit - this would leave List of disasters of the United Kingdom and preceding states which might work ??? --mervyn (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds smart. I'd prefer everything in one article as well and your proposal is the best of all worlds: a title that keeps everything together but is also less unwieldy than the move I made. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks - I'll move it. --mervyn (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Deaths from heat and cold

I notice that there is mentioned the summer 2003 2300 estimated deaths due to heat. If this is considered a disaster, then clearly the Age concern figure of 23,000 deaths from cold in 2004/5 is also a disaster of considerable more importance. So I have added this88.109.22.106 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Smaller disasters

The cut off point (arbitrarily set at 40 fatalities) is designed to ensure that it is possible to be comprehensive above a particular point where it would be too unwieldy to list every disaster.

The current artificial cut-off point of 40 excludes a number of significant disasters, a rough list might be as follows:

Other notable disasters

--mervyn 12:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC) // updated --mervyn (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Also 2002 Bali bombings, 24 British fatalities, unless there's a reason for excluding. PamD (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Expanded --mervyn (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC) // updated --mervyn (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Darien scheme

At the time, Scotland was not part of the UK and therefore this should not be included. I will remove it. Markb (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the term "and preceding states" is designed to cover this, hence Scotland is included. Will reinstate. --Mervyn (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I had assumed that your reason for removal had been that the events took place outside the UK (or a preceding state). So the title of this article now seems to me to be somewhat misleading - should it rather be "List of disasters suffered by people from the United Kingdom and preceding states"? Nothing to do with the actual location of that disaster in the world, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Re the article name, it is quite carefully phrased to be disasters of the United Kingdom rather than disasters in the United Kingdom - so that key events such as "Titanic" aren't excluded by geography. --Mervyn (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary accounting ruins this article... i.e.how do you define a disaster?

For instance in 2007, someone decided that by their reckoning 40 was pretty much a good disaster and anything less is not! How utterly undefendable is that? It's like the old saying, one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic.

The removal of the lesser numbers, also denigrates the losses concerned, however small. For example, the 1951 Gillingham bus disaster resulted in the death, almost in an instant, of 24 young 13-14 year old boys. If that is not a disaster, I don't know what is? Likewise 2004 Morecambe Bay cockling disaster "only" resulted in the demise of 21 adults. In both cases note the name of the articles, they both use disaster in their titles. But they are not listed here because they fall short of the "magic number" of 40. Therefore forgive me if I am wrong, but that suggests a particular callous indifference to human suffering and loss. Just for the purposes of and editor's personal aesthetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.32.156 (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Including acts of terrorism is illogical

Hello. I find it quite bizarre that acts of war are excluded but acts on terrorism are included. War and acts of terrorism are both deliberate actions that can lead to death, and indeed it is difficult to distinguish what is war and what is terrorism the further back in history you go. The only logical way forward is to exclude all acts that may be viewed as terrorism along with all acts that are viwed as acts of war. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I regard war and terrorism as clearly belonging in completely different categories. Your "deliberate action" comment would then require us to leave out acts of sabotage, arson etc. which wouldn't be right. Mervyn (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, in that case how about we exclude only acts of war against military targets? I find it difficult to see any logic in including civilian victims of a terrorist bomb while excluding civilian victims of of a bomb dropped during an 'official' war. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The main reason for excluding acts of war is that war is normally regarded as falling in a completely distinct category of event from "disaster". War deaths are listed separately at United Kingdom casualties of war. Mervyn (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

2009 heatwave

Major heatwave, should be included. Definetly a natrual disaster, should be included, temperatures of up to 32 degrees in London, deaths from heat 78.148.103.148 (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

23,000 deaths due to cold each year according to age concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.91.97 (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

BSE?

According to the article, BSE has killed 166 British citizens, is there any reason this couldn't be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.232.42 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Irish famine death toll figure

Where does the range of figure come from for this? The linked Wikipedia page has estimates of around 1 to 1.5 million. The BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml) has an estimate of 1 million, another site list as high as 1.5 million. The current lower estimate here of 1.75 million is higher than the highest estimate for the death toll I came across. Perhaps the number emigrating has been added in? This is not an attempt to diminish this event, only to have a better and referenced estimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.163.15 (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this ref. Have also added note re discussion of estimates at Great Famine (Ireland)#Death toll. --Mervyn (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

HMS Hampshire

HMS Hampshire was sunk by a German mine, in 1916 while the UK was at war with Germany. Surely this constitutes an "act of war"? I will removed HMS Hampshire from the list, unless anyone objects. Maproom (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Since no-one has explained why it should stay (I was going to suggest this removal myself) I've removed the entry. FLHerne (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

>230,000 deaths missing

According to age concern there are some 23,000 deaths due to cold each winter. I see some global warming nutter has referred to the 2,300 deaths in the only year there was enough heat to even warrant estimate excess summer deaths ... afterall howmany people died in the BBQ summer due to excessive heat? So, even at a conservative estimate there are some 230,000 deaths in the last decade, over the last century, given that we didn't have the beneficial warming of late, that figure must have been larger. So perhaps there are some 2million excessive winter deaths that should be listed if you are going to be so POV as to list the "deaths" associated with the only notable hot summer on record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.91.97 (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to refer to other editors as 'nutters' simply because you don't agree with their contribution. Particularly hot summers and particularly cold winters do contribute to excess deaths in those seasons. As to the reason for the extremes of temperature - that's for other articles to attend to but I'd suggest that global warming (or more accurately climate change) seems likely to be a increasingly significant factor. Geopersona (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Percentage of population

As the populations of Great Britain and Ireland has changed from approx 5 million to 70 million from 1350 to today it would be helpful in knowing what percentage of the population at the time of each disaster died as well as the absolute numbers. I think the black death would still be first killing about 50% of the population but some other disasters would move around. It would give a better idea of the wider effect of each disaster. Michael614 (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Fewer than 100 fatalities - convert list to table

I intend to convert the last part of this list to a table to match the other two sections. Have copied to user space and will paste it back when its ready - after checking for any updates. David Crayford ☎ 02:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Liverpool shelter bombing

Why is "Bombing of underground shelter at Edge Hill, Liverpool" listed? Sounds like an act of war from the description. 139.80.40.239 (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

The lead defines the scope of this list thus:

major disasters which relate to the United Kingdom since 1801, or the states that preceded it (England and Wales and Scotland before 1707, Ireland and Great Britain from 1707 to 1800), or involved their citizens.

That, as far as I understand, should exclude disasters happening in the Republic of Ireland after 1937 (or perhaps 1922), but, as far as I can tell, such disasters are in fact included (and the title of the articvle implies they should be included). So, should the definition be, e.g.

major disasters which relate to the territory covered by modern United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland, or involved their citizens.

?--Nø (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Ferndale Colliery disaster/explosions listed twice

The "100–199 fatalities" table has conflicting entries:

178 | Ferndale Colliery disaster | 1867 (8 November)

159 | Ferndale Colliery explosions | 1867 (8 November)

What reputable source gives the correct number of deaths please? ~ RLO1729💬 02:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

After checking the article's sources and other contemporary accounts I have deleted the second of the conflicting rows shown above. ~ RLO1729💬 06:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Scope of the list

It seems that we may need to look at the scope of this list. The addition of Turkish Airlines Flight 981 and British Airways Flight 476 by AmSam13 have been the subject of an edit war. AmSam13 states in the edit summary for his latest reversion [personal attack redacted] The intro states clearly that the list includes disasters "which relate to the United Kingdom or Ireland, or to the states that preceded them, or that involved their citizens, in a definable incident or accident such as a shipwreck". Are you saying that (using your logic) we should remove many of the listed shipwrecks, simply because they didn't occur in the UK?

He may have a point. My personal feeling is that accidents which happened on British and Irish soil should be includable. By law, British or Irish registered ships and aircraft are technically British or Irish soil. On that basis, British Airways Flight 476 would be includable as the aircraft involved was British registered, whilst Turkish Airlines Flight 981 would not be, as the aircraft was Turkish registered and the crash happened in France. Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that proposal, which I partly agree with. However, just to add, I am not convinced it quite goes far enough. Some of the disasters already present on the list did not occur on British or Irish soil or on British or Irish registered ships and aircraft. The UK victims of 9/11, for example, (67) are included. Similarly, I would note that the UK victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (140) are also included. In my personal opinion, these entries should still be included as, despite the fact that they occurred abroad, they were notable events that involved UK citizens, and our current intro states that the list includes disasters "which relate to the United Kingdom or Ireland, or to the states that preceded them, or that involved their citizens". If they were to remain included, then I feel that Turkish Airlines Flight 981 should also warrant inclusion, since it killed 176 UK citizens. That figure is notably higher than the UK death toll in the 2004 Tsunami and in 9/11. Its also important to note that the aircraft was headed to London Heathrow at the time of its crash, and that most of the British citizens who were onboard were on the plane because of the cancellation of a British European Airways flight (a British registered aircraft).
@AmSam13: - please feel free to add "Proposal II" below, so that it can be discussed. Would suggest that other disasters which killed 100 or more British/Irish citizens are includable. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

The scope of the list includes disasters involving British and Irish registered ships and aircraft, wherever they occurred worldwide.

Support
  1. Support as proposer. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support AmSam13 (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose

Proposal II

The scope of the list includes disasters which occurred outside of Britian and Ireland but that killed 100 or more British/Irish citizens.

Support
  1. Support as proposer. AmSam13 (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose

Harold Shipman

Just wondering, would it be worth adding the infamous murders of Dr Harold Shipman to the list? Estimated he killed approximately 215–265+ of his patients between 1975 and 1998, and he is thought to be the most prolific serial killer in modern history.

While I'm at it, is it right to have the Blockade of Porto Bello on the list? I know that most of the deaths came from yellow fever, but it was an act of war against Spain and was part of the Anglo-Spanish War. The casualties occurred during the blockade, so does this event not warrant removal as the list excludes "acts of war"?AmSam13 (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_disasters_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_by_death_toll/Archive_1&oldid=1136938311"