How many Christians have been killed in Nigeria by Boko Haram and Fulani militants by year?

1. Why the supplied sources fail the claim test

All three supplied items are programming or forum discussions and contain no content about violence, religious victims, Boko Haram, Fulani militias, or Nigerian fatalities. The first document is a Stack Overflow discussion about processes and lacks relevancy to killings or conflict ^[1]. The second is a Code Golf Meta exchange on program inputs and similarly contains zero material about Nigerian security dynamics ^[2]. The third is a Java/Processing coding thread with no relation to human-rights or security statistics ^[3]. Because the available documents have no applicable data, there is no factual basis in these sources for producing year-by-year casualty numbers or validating any preexisting numeric claim.

2. What a valid verification would require

To verify "how many Christians have been killed in Nigeria by Boko Haram and Fulani militants by year," one must consult primary and reputable secondary datasets that categorize fatalities by year, perpetrator, and—ideally—religious identity. Valid sources would include Nigerian government mortality and security reports, databases maintained by international organizations (UN, ICRC), conflict-tracking NGOs (ACLED, Uppsala Conflict Data Program), and investigative reports by major human-rights groups and reputable press. None of those required categories or datasets appear in the provided materials ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Without those, any numeric statement would be speculative and not supportable by the submitted evidence.

3. Common pitfalls in attributing deaths to actors and identities

Even with appropriate datasets, producing a reliable annual count faces methodological obstacles: attribution of perpetrator, verification of victims’ religious identity, double-counting across reports, and geographic coverage gaps. Conflict databases may record deaths by event and alleged perpetrator but often do not certify victims’ religion; some press reports infer religion from location or community but that introduces classification risk. Reports from advocacy groups may emphasize certain victim identities for advocacy aims, while government tallies may undercount or reclassify incidents. These methodological issues mean that apparent numerical precision can mask deep uncertainties unless sources and methods are explicit—an essential caveat missing from the provided files ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

4. How to assemble a credible year-by-year estimate

A defensible year-by-year estimate requires triangulating multiple sources: event-level conflict datasets for perpetrator attribution, humanitarian reports for victim counts, independent media investigations for context, and transparent coding rules for how religion is assigned. Researchers should document inclusion/exclusion criteria, reconcile overlapping reports to avoid duplication, and provide uncertainty ranges rather than single-point counts. Because the supplied materials contain no such datasets or methodological notes, they cannot support these necessary steps; no reconciliation or uncertainty quantification can be performed from ^[1], ^[2], or ^[3].

5. Practical next steps I can take for you

I can proceed to produce a year-by-year table and methodological note if you provide or authorize retrieval of relevant sources: ACLED or UCDP event data, reports from the Nigerian government or National Bureau of Statistics, UN/OCHA situation reports, and investigations from major media and human-rights NGOs. With those datasets I will attribute each annual figure, document assumptions, and present uncertainty bounds. Absent new sources, the only accurate statement based on your submission is that the provided files do not contain the requested casualty data and thus cannot be used to answer your question ^{[1] [2] [3]}.