Talk:List of disasters in Australia by death toll

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

Pacific Highway 1990[edit]

What about the two nasty head on collisions on the Pacific Highway about 1990?

Tabletop 02:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sorry that doesn't really narrow things down when you are talking about one of the most accident prone roads in Australia.Garrie
That would be Grafton bus crash and Kempsey bus crash, bith in late 1989. --Scott Davis Talk 13:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list?[edit]

Would somebody care to check the accuracy of my recent revamp to this article. I did my best to give the article a lift by making use of the pretty table template. Once any errors are removed or corrected I feel this page is worthy for submission to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. -- Longhair | Talk 11:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great list- clearly labelled, easy to read, relevant links, good quality control. Well-done to anyone invovled in creating and maintianing it! (Have been reading lots of Wiki lists and this one rates very highly in terms of contruction) Thanks!!

Massacres[edit]

Are massacres the same things as disasers?--nixie 23:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC) correct. massacres are not considered "disasters" why are they still here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.90.232 (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering that. I think they qualify more than the Snowtown murders, which should probably be removed. A massacre is usually something brief and sudden. Murders are premeditated, and serial killings aren't sudden or brief. In the case of the Bodies in the Barrels, these were brutal murders conducted over a considerable period of time. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to agree with the two previous comments that perhaps there is a problem with murders and massacres being included in this list of 'disasters'. However, a quick look at disaster just now made me think that perhaps it's okay. It includes all sorts of man-made disasters including crime. So it really depends on how you want to define a disaster and whether you include criminal acts like killings under that definition. Perhaps there should be a note to preface the list setting out what the criteria are for inclusion.

For reference, this is the current definition from the disaster article: a natural or man-made event that negatively affects life, property, livelihood or industry often resulting in permanent changes to human societies, ecosystems and environment. So you could certainly make a case that the Snowtown murders have resulted in permanent changes to society in Snowtown. And since we're on the topic, if this list is to include massacres, it currently lacks any reference to massacres of aboriginal people.

Another issue with this list that seems problematic is the inclusion of so-called disasters with death tolls of only 3 or 4. To put it rather bluntly, how many people need to be killed for something to qualify as a disaster rather than an accident or a personal tragedy? Does a line needs to be drawn somewhere or will the list end up including death tolls of 1 and 2 people? --Alexxx1 16:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of massacres of the indigenous peoples of Australia, an Australian editor has just written some terrific articles on a few of the more notorious.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think list is clearly labelled so no-one is confused about what category an event falls in to. That it is ranked by number of deaths means one isn't distracted by lesser events if one wants only the big death disasters. I think it's very helpful that some major events that had impact on Australia are included even if the actual deathtoll is not as great as other events.

I find it odd that there is only 1 massacre of Aborigines in the 100+ section and no mention of the major epidemics which hit the Aborigine's in the 18th century. I have heard figures of up to 300,000 deaths for the epidemics from respected Australian historians and it seems rather odd not to have those included in this list or for that matter the many large massacres of Aborigines.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying such massacres are insignificant but we are talking hundreds and there is the point that many are "alledged" rather than proven historical events. We also have the problem that while Australians know they happened you would be hard pressed to find any who can name one, the word "significant" in the case of this article I assume means incidents that many can name. You can find the article here: List of massacres of Indigenous Australians. I would have no problem with adding the deaths in epidemics as long as it is done carefully to avoid objections. If I get time after the weekend I will look at adding it myself. Wayne (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a bit of a think about it and added mention in the lead. It can probably be improved but see what you think. Wayne (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting point is the bias shown towards Aboriginal Australians by classing individual massacres as unique incidents while classing some events as singular that occured over a year or more across the entire continent, affecting and killing Australians in most corners of the country. If a heat wave across a few states can be classed as a single disaster couldn't a policy of hunting and killing aborigines for theft of cattle also be classed as a single disaster? It certainly would've been for some tribes!--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is another reason inclusion would be difficult. Some were likely exaggerated and some were probably covered up. Documentation is iffy in many cases so we will have disputes. At least mention in the lead indicates importance and interested readers are directed to the relevant pages where they can see for themselves. Wayne (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are right. The closest thing we could get for a 'total' for massacres of Aborigines is estimates from historians who use vague figures like population estimates compared with later population statistics.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers of dead[edit]

On the issue of numbers, while 3 or 4 dead is, on a global scale small potatoes, in Australia it is a significant number, especially before, say, 1960. The other thing is, perhaps we should consider similar lists/tables of damage estimates or casualties (dead and injured). As for slaughter of indegenous people, I think a seperate table may be appropriate, with link(s), as the numbers tend to be seriously disputed formost of these events. Alex Law 00:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the heading "10 or fewer deaths" should be "Other notable disasters with 10 or fewer deaths". After all, there are numerous road accidents each year resulting in 3 or 4 deaths. It would become an extraordinarily long list if they were all included. GK1 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree, especially as someone has added a 'disaster' with a death toll of 1. It was a tragic accident, but whether it rates as a 'disaster' is highly debatable. BrianFG 03:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would not be inclined to list disasters with fewer than five fatalities. Maintaining such a list would be a chore.Kransky 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I think particularly newsworthy incidents and accidents like the Burnley tunnel fire and the Sydney Harbour ferry crash of this current week warrant inclusion simply because they are newsworthy. BrianFG 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The risk with this argument is that we would put a greater value on more recent events than earlier events, which may have a greater death-toll but which was without the press coverage.Kransky 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True also, and worthy of consideration. Perhaps we should make a lower limit of 5 fatalities? I think we need some consensus on this as we now have the Melbourne shooting on the list. A tragedy, yes, but a disaster? With all due respect to the victims, that's stretching the definition a little I think. BrianFG 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15 years later nobody remembers the Burnley tunnel fire and the Sydney Harbour ferry crash. Furthermore, why should memorability be a criterion? Make it simple, manageable and equitable by applying a cut off (10 deaths sounds appropriate). Kransky (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Call me morbid, but[edit]

this is a fascinating list! :) pfctdayelise 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Monday 1865[edit]

Can anyone supply information about "Black Monday", noted by Brewer as: "February 27th, 1865, was so called in Melbourne from a terrible sirocco from the N.N.W., which produced dreadful havoc between Sandhurst and Castlemaine." ?? TIA --mervyn 11:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can find at the moment is the below from [http://www2.sebas.vic.edu.au/staff/ndarwin/squatters.htm] which confirms the date but not the extent of the disaster. I reckon this one needs a newspaper check by a Melbournian.- Peripitus (Talk) 09:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the 27th February 1865, the property was destroyed in the "Black Monday" state wide fires. Only the Homestead and a stable were saved. The Campbell's rebuilt the farm and extended the Homestead in the period 1868 -1870.

  • I have as a reference Australians:Events and Places - published 1987. It is pretty reliable and includes a chronlogy which has many events, but not that one for 1865 or anything like it. --A Y Arktos\talk 10:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount kembla Mine Disaster[edit]

Sould the death toll for this diaster be 94 or 96. Although 94 miners died in the explosion, two rescuers perished, taking the total to 96. See Mt Kembla Disaster. If anyone thinks it needs to be changed; that makes two of us. Do it. -- Abishai | Talk 13:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the SIEV-X?[edit]

What about that boat on its way to Australia that sunk off the coast of Western Australia in 2003 in which 450 refugees perished? Does that qualify as an Australian disaster - given that the refugees were on the way to Australia - and also, that Australia was the only country with any possible capability to help these victims? I believe it was the SIEV-X or something like that. jkm 05:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it took place outside Australia. Kransky 13:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Malpractice[edit]

Are you sure that Jayant Patel should be on the list at the moment? I am a little worried that it may cause legal issues if he does come to trial. Bsfairman 11:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Until he's found guilty and sentenced, this should not be included. BrianFG 00:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy-up for consistency[edit]

To make both tables consist with each other, I edited the main table to match the bottom one by changing the details in the "Disaster" column to reflect the type of disaster, and moving the name and other details into the notes field. Some of the types I've defined might be fairly argued as they are purely subjective but I've tried to differentiate between shipwrecks as ships that run aground or sink close to shore and sinkings where the ship sinks outright or out to sea, plus massacre as more than 5 deaths as opposed to mass murder of 5 or less. Feel free to disagree or discuss! BrianFG 10:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate?[edit]

Are "438" and "437" the same event? DH85868993 14:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks like they could be. I'll fix it by combining them. BrianFG 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BrianFG. How should we handle the fact that one reference says 437 and the other says 438? DH85868993 02:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just followed the reference quoted for that entry and found that the second one mentions a heatwave in Victoria in 1939 that killed the same number as that in 1896. So perhaps whoever compiled that list has the numbers wrong. If the death tolls were so similar, it would be easy enough to make such a mistake. I've decided to add that heatwave as well.BrianFG 04:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I think the original entry was two separate events, but both had been put in with the same date. Whatever, it's fixed now. BrianFG 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well made list, but...[edit]

There's obviously a lot of work been put into this page, but I am wondering about the method of listing. Surely it would make more sense and be more intuitive, rather than listing them by number of victims, ie 100+, 50 to 99 etc., to list them by category instead? ie so you would have one list for shipwrecks, another for cyclones, another for heat waves and so on.

I know I would much prefer to read lists organized in such a way - and be able to make more sense of the information therein. Any comments? Gatoclass 19:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the List of United Kingdom disasters by death toll is any indication, it would seem to be standard to list according to number of fatalities rather than incident type. I can see the argument for listing by event as it would make it easier for people to find, say, the worst train crash or the worst earthquake, but this list is by definition ordered by death toll rather than by event type. BrianFG 06:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianFG (talk • contribs)
Further to my comment above, the List of natural disasters by death toll is well set out along the lines you suggest, but in the case of Australia, some categories (like earthquakes and landslides) would be pretty thinly populated while others like shipwrecks and cyclones would be quite expansive. It's worth a discussion though. --BrianFG 06:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianFG (talk • contribs)
Well some of the smaller categories you could probably put together under a larger heading. But it also occurred to me after I posted that yesterday that another alternative would be to simply create a page listing the same events by category without altering this one at all. That way one would have the best of both worlds. Wiki isn't paper, after all :) Gatoclass 08:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly feel that lists like this and List of United Kingdom disasters by death toll should be kept as is, ordered by fatalities - aim is to answer question "what is the worst disaster in the history of x", which would become very unclear if sectioned into categories.--mervyn 10:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that question is surely easily answered just by having a list of top ten worst disasters at the top of the page, or top twenty or whatever.
And then, what if the question someone wants to know is, what is the worst shipping disaster, or the worst bushfire, or the worst cyclone? All these questions are more effectively answered by having the events sorted by category. Gatoclass 14:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the list stands you can find those answers by scrolling down the left hand column until you get to the first of that type of disaster. Creating separate lists, whether in boxes on the same page or on different pages will just lead to duplication of data and increase the likelihood of errors. --AussieLegend 14:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, but what I'm saying is that you are making people work very hard for their informaton. Info should be more accessible than that. What if someone is looking for a particular event to check on how many died in that event? He is essentially stuck with going through the whole page looking for that event. But if the events are sorted by type, he can go straight to that section and find the entry he's looking for.
I don't find the assertion that duplicating the data in a different format "will increase the likelihood of errors" to be at all persuasive. There's no reason whatever why two pages cannot be maintained instead of one, and the likelihood is that people with an interest in the one page will be interested in maintaining them both. In fact if anything I'd argue the opposite, you'd be likely to get more people interested because you will get crossover from one page to another.
Anyhow, I've already gone ahead and rearranged the data :) I just need to refine it a bit, and it will be ready. Gatoclass 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how scrolling down a list that you already have to scroll down through anyway in order to find what you're looking for is making people work hard. That argument isn't persuasive. If you are looking for the worst disaster of all it's just a matter of scrolling down through the totals. If you want to find out the worst disaster in a category then you scroll down the first column. I do think that expanding the catehories along the lines of your proposed page would be a good idea though. For example, "Batavia" should be "Shipwreck/Massacre", not just "Shipwreck", since the death toll is a combination of both.
As for errors resulting from duplication of data the reason is simple: humans edit wikipedia. There are numerous pages on Wikipedia where duplicated data exists and where errors have occurred even though people are watching. There's no guarantee that edits on one page will be reflected on another, or even that they'll appear on the right page, even with 100 people watching the page. Check out City of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales and the recent discussion at Talk:Newcastle, New South Wales#18 August 2007 - reversions by JRG for an example of this. --AussieLegend 23:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a draft of the proposed page at User:Gatoclass/Sandbox. Take a look and let me know what you think. Gatoclass 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not bad actually, but what if you just wanted to know which disaster claimed the most lives? You end up with the same problem, essentially. BrianFG 23:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That's easily fixed just by having a list of the 10 or 20 worst disasters at the top of the page, same as they have at the List of natural disasters by death toll page. I was going to add one last night but I couldn't be bothered :) Update: Okay, I've done that, have another look and see what you think. Gatoclass 05:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has certainly resolved the issue of finding which is the worst disaster in each category but if you want to find out the worst disaster overall you have to scroll down checking the first entry in each of the eleven categories. Also, if you want to compare disasters you have to really work hard. For example, what was the worst disaster in the Newcastle area? I really think expanding the categories for each entry where necessary on the original page, as I've mentioned further up in this discussion, is really all that is needed. Breaking the page into separate categories and duplicating data just complicates matters. --AussieLegend 00:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what was the worst disaster in the Newcastle area?
I don't think either page answers very specific questions like that readily, but IMO the best way to fix that is to format the location entries a little more carefully, and then make the tables sortable. With a sortable table you can search any column alphabetically or numerically, which in general makes it a heck of a lot quicker to find specific info like that. Gatoclass 04:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the list was populated correctly I think you have a much better chance with the list the way it stands. For example, you might notice that I added a separate entry for the SS Cawarra even though it is included in the entry on the 1866 storms that took 77 lives. While the Cawarra sinking occurred during the storms it was a single event with a large loss of life (78% of the total death toll) so it really does deserve its own entry, especially since it is, at least regarding the loss of life, the worst disaster to hit Newcastle. With the entries now corrected it took my daugher, who I hadn't previously prepared, less than 30 seconds to answer the question of what was the worst disaster in the Newcastle area? On your page it took a LOT longer because the Cawarra isn't separated and the entry has been placed in the maritime section. Not all of the lives lost in those storms were at sea so placing the event under the "Maritime" category is an error which I think demonstrates what I said earlier. With the list as it stands that error would not have occurred. I note also that for some reason you've changed the death toll for the event to 76 from 77. I assume it was a typo.
I think your page also needs to be sorted differently. I don't see any real order in the categories. Alphabetical is probably the simplest but I think the best thing at this point would be to stick with the original article and make corrections. I've discovered several today and I don't think I found them all. Nice effort though. --AussieLegend 11:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the new list you've done I have to say I'm a fan of it, but we need consensus before we adopt it. No method is going to solve every problem. Can we actually build a sortable table? Anyway, there's really no magic bullet here. Either method is going to require people to do a bit more than just click open the page to find what they want. --BrianFG 08:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, all you have to do is define it as a "wikitable sortable" and the columns will automatically include sort buttons. Of course, then you might want to format your entries a little more carefully to take maximum advantage of the sort function. For example, you might want, say, a separate column for "state" so you could sort events by the state in which they occurred. That sort of thing. Gatoclass 12:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the entries now corrected it took my daugher, who I hadn't previously prepared, less than 30 seconds to answer the question of what was the worst disaster in the Newcastle area? On your page it took a LOT longer because the Cawarra isn't separated and the entry has been placed in the maritime section - AussieLegend

Yes, but the operative phrase there is "with the entries now corrected". Your daughter found it much faster on this page because you have added the word "Newcastle" in the location field. If the word "Newcastle" had been inserted at my proposed page, she could still have found the entry reasonably quickly.

It would have taken less time than it does now but still a lot more than the current page because, as I said earlier, you have to search through each individiual category and in some cases, almost the entire list. Knowing the error, it still took me nearly 90 seconds to find the answer on your page because, even though I found the Cawarra entry, I still had to make sure there was no worse disaster in the remaining 3 categories. --AussieLegend 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if this page works best for finding the worst event at a particular location, what other search does it work best for? The page I've proposed would work best for anyone looking for the worst shipwreck/heatwave/bushfire/cyclone/epidemic etc etc, so it works for a whole bunch of different searches, whereas this page works better for only one.

No, this page works for a number of searches, worst disaster overall, worst in a category and worst by location for a start. Yours works for worst disaster and worst in a category. Two is hardly a bunch. --AussieLegend 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the lives lost in those storms were at sea so placing the event under the "Maritime" category is an error which I think demonstrates what I said earlier - AussieLegend

It's a ship sinking, so it's maritime. Where else are people going to look when they want to find a sunk ship? It's the obvious place, surely. Gatoclass 12:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I thought I had explained it better. As I said, not all lives lost as a result of the storms were lost at sea. Nor were they all lost in the Cawarra sinking. Fourteen other vessels were lost but not all lives were lost in relation to those sinkings either. Some lives were lost away from ships on land. The victims had nothing to do with the ships that were lost and and may not have ever been near a ship. Those can hardly be called maritime. I think that demonstrates another problem, ie that of misinterpretation of data. To be fair though, the current list did have the wreck of the Maitland occuring in Newcastle when it actually happened near Gosford, probably because somebody assumed that since Maitland is close to Newcastle and the ship's name was Maitland that it must have been wrecked near Maitland. --AussieLegend 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be hard to sink a ship near Maitland. :-). BrianFG 15:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Hardie[edit]

BTW, what about the James Hardie fiasco? Are there figures available for that? That would count as one of Australia's worst industrial disasters wouldn't it? Gatoclass 05:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree there, especially with regard to how this list is defined. If someone could dig up some figures I'd agree to its inclusion. --BrianFG 08:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shipwreck[edit]

A shipwreck isn't a disaster - a shipwreck is the remains of a ship. I suggest all disasters classified as "shipwrecks" be reclassified as "maritime accident" or something similar. Kransky (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to shipwreck, "A shipwreck or sunken ship can refer to the remains of a wrecked ship or to the event that caused the wreck, such as the striking of something that causes the ship to sink, the stranding of the ship on rocks, land or shoal, or the destruction of the ship at sea by violent weather". I checked that before I came up with the category, but I'm willing to discuss further. --BrianFG (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move the photos[edit]

We are wasting a lot of space to accomodate a few photos. Can we insert them within the respective cells, or move them to the bottom perhaps ?Kransky (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It looks awful being squished up because of the pics. I'll have a go at moving them to the bottom of each section. –Moondyne 13:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birnie - serial killers[edit]

Hi,

Just letting you know you've missed serial killers David and Catherine Birnie and their victims (4+) 58.109.27.212 (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brownout Murders[edit]

As other serial killings are included here, the murder of three women by Eddie Leonski AKA "The Brownout Strangler", in Melbourne, 1942, should also be cited. redcountess (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't include all serial killings. The list is limited to those of "special" Australia wide significance. Personally I feel those murders in the article with less than 5 deaths is pushing it a bit in regards to significance. Wayne (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. BrianFG (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 heatwave?[edit]

Is there a consensus yet on if we include a heat wave with resulting bushfires because if so I think the casualties are now above 180.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it gets needlessly complicated if you list them separately. I believe they should be considered a single disaster.Mr Pillows (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The media is reporting that the bushfires were the result of possible arson and as such not caused by the heatwave [1] for this reason I think they should be seperate. 87.198.21.222 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arson is only speculated, and only in some of the fires. Arson alone would not have caused this disaster if it weren't for the drying effects and high temperatures of the preceeding heatwave, so even if charges were laid, it would be very difficult to determine which aspects were attributed to arsonists and which were part of the heatwave. If we really wanted to get specific, each fire front could be listed as a seperate disaster but I think it would be counter productive to the article. A similar argument could be mounted to suggest that any rescue workers killed in 9/11 were not part of the disaster because they only entered the building after it occurred, but I don't think that's a very strong point. The Batavia disaster on this page combines the sinking and massacre as one disaster in accordance with my stance on simplicity.Mr Pillows (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The heatwave contributed to the fires, but I think we should list the deaths attributed to the heatwave itself (20+ in Adelaide) as a separate event from the bushfires. BrianFG (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The heatwave and the Black Friday bushfires in 1939 are listed separately, so I believe these should be listed separately. Scleaver (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Let's keep them separate please!!! Unlike September 11, these are clearly separate although obviously related events. However, I do agree that listing tolls for each fire front separately would be a poor idea. The fire tolls are not reported in this way in the media. Media reporting treats the bushfire toll as a distinct toll and this list should be consistent with how the events are commonly treated. It's true that the heatwave has contributed to the weather conditions that made the bushfires so deadly. But there is nothing complicated about treating them separately. In fact, it becomes much more complicated when you try to add the figures together. For one thing, death tolls from heatwaves are notoriously inaccurate. I'm sure there are official statistics kept on such things but even official numbers can be pretty unreliable. They typically tend to underreport the actual figures. For example, if an elderly person dies during an extended period of hot weather and there is no obvious cause of death, it can be pretty hard to say conclusively whether the death was linked to the heatwave or not. It's really up to an individual doctor to make an individual judgement and that can be a subjective matter sometimes. And then there are probably other deaths that simply don't get reported. So it makes sense to me that something that should ultimately have a pretty clear toll (the fires) should be kept separate from a weather event that has taken place over many days over different (although overlapping) geographic areas where the ultimate toll is really just a best estimate. With regards to the Batavia toll, I'm open to further argument about separating it out but I think there is a clear connection there in that all of the dead came from the same ship. There's a clear geographical commonality in that and with September 11 that is just a lot murkier with the heatwave and the fires. --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate. There is significant distinction between the two. Kransky (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you on your references to Sept 11. Do you mean Pinochet's coup detat, the more relevant Melbourne protests or the terrorist attacks in the USA and what relevance does it have to this discussion? I also think the fire tolls should be kept as one. As for the heat-wave. A simpler way to measure the death toll might be to determine how much higher the daily death rates were in affected areas then the average. Perhaps this is the way earlier tolls were calculated? I doubt very much that doctors 100 years ago had reliable understanding of who was killed by heat exhaustion and who was just in poor health. Now-a-days its possible to determine exactly how poor their health was but that can be costly and not always conclusive. I heard there was coroners reports coming on the suspected heat wave victims but that might get canned given the bush fires. The coroners must be under quite a strain right now. Furthermore. I'm not sure the heat-waves don't count the resulting toll from fires. The source for the 1939 heat wave for example is now a dead link and perhaps it explained the sources of deaths there but I just don't know. Does someone here? It might be useful to know for clarifications sake.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, well I really only made reference to Sept 11 in response to an earlier mention above, which you would see if you read back in the thread. Specifically I was addressing a comment by Mr Pillows: A similar argument could be mounted to suggest that any rescue workers killed in 9/11 were not part of the disaster because they only entered the building after it occurred, but I don't think that's a very strong point. I don't care to speculate further about whether he was referring to the Chilean coup d'état of 1973. I think it's highly unlikely that the reference was to protests in Melbourne, (which by the way I fail to see why you would think would be more relevant to what Mr Pillows was saying). In any case, if you think it's unclear, perhaps you should address this query to Mr Pillows. The point I was trying to make is that I think any discussion of that date is tangential to the issue at hand of the connection between these bushfires and the heatwave. --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 23:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the calls that Heatwave and Victorian bushfires toll should be seperate, because Victorian toll affects only Victorian area, while the heatwaves covers South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania. The bushfires mentioned does not occur in South Australia or Tasmania. Batavia argument by Mr Pillow is not relative because it is matter of two incidents (massacre and shipwreck) occuring to same group of people in same area, that cannot be said for the heatwave and bushfire beacuse the latter is not affecting every victims of the heatwave. Duvelon
The link for the source of information for the 1939 heatwave can now be found here:
http://www.ema.gov.au/ema/emadisasters.nsf/6a1bf6b4b60f6f05ca256d1200179a5b/34f87409ebfb4297ca256d3300057c35?OpenDocument
It indicates that the information was sourced from Daily Newspapers, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Natural Hazards Research Centre at Macquarie University. So unfortunately, I don't think we can really speculate as to what methodology the journalists, BOM and academics may have employed in order for EMA to arrive at the final figure of 438. There is a general note about the EMA database that states: every effort is made to ensure that the information is accurate and valid. However many of the early records are understandably incomplete and determining loss assessment data is a protracted process which means that some fields in the database are continuously being updated. In other words, some of the figures are best estimates drawn from a range of different sources. Do the heatwave tolls really include bushfire deaths? I would be surprised if that was the case but I'm prepared to stand corrected on that point. --Alexxx1 (talk/contribs) 23:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they need to be separated. The intensity of the Victorian fires isn't so much the result of the heatwave, but of the drought. BrianFG (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the authors of this article to JUSTIFY their claim of 126+ deaths for the heatwave. This figure is speculative, unsupported by references, and its originating article fails to justify it. The standards of referencing here are at best poor, and one could be tempted to think it is evidence of someone taking a figure they thought sounded "about right". I will take up the bulk of my argument on the 2009_Southeastern_Australia_heat_wave page, but I urge editors here to follow me. 220.238.18.235 (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC) user:Aragond[reply]
South Australian newspapers still report 75 deaths from suspected heat stress based on excess deaths above normal summer averages. Victoria reports around 50 using the same criteria. However the newspapers also treat around 80 in total as "confirmed" although they are not and it is unclear how they get that number from the number of excess, perhaps they are allowing for a flucuation in the average. It will be months before the cononer can confirm the real total and the entry states this. A better option may be to use a range of deaths (ie: between 80-120 subject to confirmation) for now. Wayne (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bathurst Bay Cyclone[edit]

I believe the figure of 410 dead given for the Bathurst Bay cyclone of 1899 is too high. It has frequently been inflated in published accounts by excitable journalists. The Register of Deaths at the Cooktown courthouse records 239 people - individually, by name - as having died on 5 March 1899. Most were employees of the pearling fleet, and the deaths were notified by their employers, who knew exactly who was dead and missing. I believe this is likely to be a very accurate figure, and I have seen no comparably accurate source given for any of the higher figures. It's still a very big number. Peter Bell (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Bureau of Meteorology[2], Geoscience Australia[3] and State Library of Queensland[4] give the number of dead as "over 400". Geoscience, citing Emergency Management Australia, says "at least 307" from the pearling fleet and "about 100" Indigenous people. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of 1 Australian aboard Flight 062 of Iberian Airlines, 1967[edit]

The link to the Wikipedia page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberia_Airlines_Flight_062

Someone has listed this accident on the main page as a death of 2 Australians, rather than 1. Could someone please clarify?

Thank you. (Eug.galeotti (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Bali Bombings- not in Australia[edit]

I don't think this should be included in the list. While there were many Australians killed in this event, it wasn't in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.152.215 (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bali bombing is in a separate list - specifically for events including Australians but outside Australia - from what I can tell it was like this when you posted the comment too. -- Chuq (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Massacre[edit]

I just found out about an 1872 massacre of 80ish Pacific Islanders in Australia, yet there's no information about it on this page. Anyone take any interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.220.102 (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WW2[edit]

I think the WW2 attacks on Australia should be mentioned here, something like 3 thousand + people died during the Battle for Australia in air raid bombings and such.--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Island drownings[edit]

13 Cub Scouts drowned returning to Grafton from a Christmas picnic on December 11, 1943. http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/culture/social/display/97855-cub-scout-drowning-memorial-tablet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.162.254 (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MH17[edit]

An 'air accident'? I think i'll go ahead and change that. 124.171.187.110 (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on closer examination it should be removed as deaths due to war a specifically excluded. 124.171.187.110 (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tricky one. Nobody was actually claiming a war was in progress. The Dutch air accident report attributed the downing to a surface to air missile. I believe the downing was accidental, but I do not think the term "air accident" is accurate (the missile hit the plane; the plane did not hit the missile). Shall we call it as it is - "missile strike"? Kransky (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of disasters in Australia 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 23 external links on List of disasters in Australia 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 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:List of disasters in Australia by death toll/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is an omission. In May 1945 an ANA DC3 operated jointly with the RAAF crashed near what is now Bamaga Airfield. Six people died. Details are available at http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ozcrashes/qld198.htm.

210.9.138.217 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wilson

Last edited at 05:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 22:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of disasters in Australia 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, 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: 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) 10:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2009 deaths by heatwave[edit]

An IP has recently tried to remove the entry for the 2009 heatwave that claims to have killed 374 people. While one of the cited links is dead, the other (from The Age) is available. The edit summary was "There is no proof in any citation quoted that there were any deaths associated with the supposed event; and clearly not the level of death espoused."

While I reinstated the entry on the strength of The Age article, the IP has a good point that is worth discussing. Heatwaves (and cold snaps) do kill people, but, unlike a lot of other tragic events, do not do so in a way that results in an unambiguous "death by heat wave" on their death certificates. Generally those who die during times of extreme weather are usually elderly and with serious illnesses already and the extreme weather just pushes them over the edge, "bringing forward" their deaths rather than being the root cause of their death. See Heat wave#Mortality for more on the topic. The Age article explains some of this and that the death toll of 374 is a statistical measure obtained by comparing the death rate during the heatwave with death rates in previous years for the same period.

Are we comfortable with this kind of entry that require a statistical approach to counting the dead, as opposed to being able to list a group of victims? Or should we make it clearer in the entry that this is a statistical estimate and not 374 specific dead people? Kerry (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on List of disasters in Australia 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) 07:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on List of disasters in Australia 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) 00:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 58 external links on List of disasters in Australia 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) 05:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smallpox Outbreak[edit]

I have been struggling to find a singular reference for how many Aboriginals died during the Smallpox Outbreak. If you take into consideration the estimated population of Indigenous People upon Colonisation being anywhere from approximately 318,000–750,000 and the estimated mortality rate during said Outbreak being 50% at the lowest and potentially upwards of 70%. Wouldn't this Outbreak be the largest loss of life in Australian History? 50% of 318,000-750,000 that's anywhere from 159,000 to 375,000 people. Tarkone (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 50% to 70% death toll was for the Sydney area only in 1879, not the continent. Smallpox outbreaks were episodic - the next most significant was 1829-1831, with two further in 1858 and 1869. The figures "159,000 to 375,000" are unsupportable. Hiscock's Archaeology of Ancient Australia is worth a look. John beta (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A logic problem (And a language one)[edit]

How can the section Significant incidents of Australians being killed overseas logically fit into this article, which has the words "in Australia" in the title? Is a separate article needed perhaps?

And the word "overseas" bothers me too. It's a particularly Australian way of looking at the world. Most countries don't refer to the part of the world outside their borders as overseas. This IS meant to be a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

air crash near Brisbane[edit]

I sort of heard it on a radio hourly news break, and there's a pay to view link on the Australian, but all I can find in Trove is an article where bodies and wreckage were found, (post 20th, not early in the month) so needs to be listed ?, and what's in Brisbane today if it's found ? Dave Rave (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_disasters_in_Australia_by_death_toll&oldid=1208229382"