Category talk:Female serial killers

Adding to category

Hey, I'd like to know how to contribute articles to this category. I might contribute short articles on (for instance) Sara Aldrete.

Also there are existing articles (eg. Martha Beck) which could be linked to from this category, but aren't. How can I add a link?

Never mind, got it figured out.  ;-) Thanks msnyder 07:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Added 23 in "Female serial killers" category from Wikipedia

Invaluable help from unknownmisandry blog; have added those that appear in peter vronskys 2007 book AND already have independent Wikipedia entries to category Female Serial Killers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arildnordby (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For those wishing critical reexamination, here's my additions:

Ursinus, Patty Cannon, Catherine Wilson, Margaret Waters, Mary Ann Cotton, Flannagan sisters (Black widows of Liverpool),Sarah Makin, Amelia Dyer, Sach and Walters, Martha Rendell, Enriqueta Martí, Amy Archer-Gilligan, Martha Wise, The Angel Makers Nagyrev, Daisy Louisa C. De Melker, Anna Marie Hahn, Marie Besnard (acquitted), Mary Elizabeth Wilson, Delfina, María, Carmen & Maria Luisa de Jesús González, Charlene Gallego, Suzan Barnes Carson, Cynthia Coffman, Blanche Taylor Moore, Karla Homolka, Betty Neumar Arildnordby (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Executed_English_women

no additions Arildnordby (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

8 new from existing categories

added the 8 following from categories Category:Nurses_convicted_of_killing_patients , Category:Poisoners Elfriede_Blauensteiner Stacey Castor Janie Lou Gibbs Debora Green Masumi Hayashi ? Audrey Marie Hilley Martha Needle Lyda Southard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arildnordby (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed Stacey Castor from the category,[1][2] because, like I stated in my second edit summary, "it is only one forensic psychiatrist defining her as such. [At least in the Stacey Castor article.] That's not enough to warrant placing her in the category." Furthermore, just because a person has murdered two or more people, that does not necessarily make that person a serial killer. And "serial killer" is still often defined by "three or more" murders with a "cooling-off period" between the murders. The Serial killer article goes over the aspects that define serial killers, as well as the fact that female serial killers are rare. So we need to be careful about assigning the term "serial killer" to people, which is something that I see was already discussed with Arildnordby. A different editor also removed Debora Green from the category, soon after she was removed from it before. I have yet to check to see if others need removing. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Removals of Stacey Castor and Debora Green perfectly acceptable, and correct removals to me, although Debora Green IS referenced within a book concerning serial killers (Inside the Minds of Health-Care Serial Killers: Why They Kill She's borderline serial and alive. "Serial killer" is NOT however, some sort of trade mark term that MUST appear in another source (no such policy exists), but either definitions as based on reliable sources makes her and Castor into border lines, but not as "evident" serials. thus, they ought to be excluded. Arildnordby (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The WORKING definition of FBI (a reliable source, I'd say!), has the following definition, chosen for flexibility for law officials:

The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:

one or more offenders

two or more murdered victims

incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times

the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder

In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:

Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate event

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two

Arildnordby (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Arildnordby. About defining serial killers, I can't state too much more than what I already have above and than what was already stated to you in the aforementioned discussion. I feel that we should go by authoritative sources and/or what most sources state when categorizing someone as a serial killer. And I do mean what the sources state about that person or the people in question. I feel that way because we are supposed to go by the WP:Verifiability policy, which states, "[Wikipedia] content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I also feel that way because the term is often thrown around inaccurately, especially in the media. Just because ABC News says that someone is a serial killer, for example, it doesn't mean that we should categorize that person as a serial killer on Wikipedia. ABC News is not a psychology and/or medical source. And as Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations states, "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." And as WP:MEDRS (which covers psychological topics as well) states in its Popular press section, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles."

Yes, going by my initial comment above, noting the Serial killer article, I am aware of the FBI's definition of serial killer, but the FBI is not the only or main definition; like I stated above, "serial killer" is still often defined by "three or more" murders with a "cooling-off period" between the murders. So because the definition of "serial killer" can somewhat vary, this is another reason that it is not easy to define a serial killer, and, on Wikipedia, is better to go by what authoritative and/or most sources state about any one person on the topic of killing and/or serial killing. Most sources -- authoritative, average or below average psychological/medical, criminal and media sources -- define Jeffrey Dahmer as a serial killer, for example; there is nothing to dispute about that. But defining people as serial killers based on our own beliefs that they are serial killers because they fit any one definition is trickier. This is what others were telling you about not defining people as serial killers unless there are reliable sources in that person's article defining that person as a serial killer. This is covered by the WP:Verifiability policy. Even then, it may be debatable because the sources could simply be media sources and/or there could be conflicting sources (sources that state the opposite) available. And this is why WP:Verifiability also states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."

I also removed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force's definition of serial killer, because, like I stated in that edit summary, it is a somewhat inaccurate definition that was added by a newly registered user without discussion[3][4]...and caused confusion in your editing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

a) The traditional definition of a serial killer is the 3+"cooling off period"

b) FBI has opted for a strictly less restrictive definition, meaning that ALL a)-cases are included within b), but that FBI regards it as more operationally suitable to be able to classify "not-yet-cases" also as the work of serial killers. (for example, the modus operandi of "Bavarian maiden butcher" Andreas Bichel, in jurist Paul Feuerbachs retelling from 1811 or so, clearly shows that that he would have become a serial killer in a)-definition, if he hadn't been caught after his second victim.)

c) Thus, the divergence in these definitions has ZERO relevance for the 25 females I added (and are still present); they are 3+ females (with deliberate omission of girls of Susan Atkins, of Charles Manson fame, due to her spree character)

d) And, reiterating: There exists NO articulated policy (that I have found!) at Wikipedia that the particular phrase "serial killer" MUST have appeared in any so-called reliable source in order to legitimize editors' usage of it; but the definition of the concept should most definitely be had from reliable sources!

e) Here's my take on "usual wordings": Unless a particular reliable source itself has used words like "probably"/"mostly"/"likely", wholly independent of theme, such words should NOT be used by editors (I believe you agree with the avoidance of typical "weasel words"). But applying the phrase "serial killer" to somebody found, for example, within reliable historical sources to have killed 3+ over a period of many years; should this require that Somebody has called that person a "serial killer" in beforehand"?? I think not, because the content of the reliably sourced definition is NOT of such a kind to require an expert's verdict (in contrast, say, to declare that a particular set of symptoms a given person showed it probable he died from a SPECIFIED disease. Such identification MUST be based on a medical expert's pronouncement). If so, then that MUST be stated in SKTFs aims. It would be a restrictive requirement, not very meaningful IMO, but I'll certainly abide with it in the future. Arildnordby (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I just commented, I can't state too much more than what I already have above and than what was already stated to you in the aforementioned discussion. Also see in that discussion where I stated, "Well, of course there isn't a specific policy about the term serial killer on this matter or at all. We have general policies and guidelines for things like this."

I wish you the best in your editing here, and appreciate you helping out and trying to help out. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

To bear out that irrationality, and complete ad-hoc waiving of "requirement", if the phrase "serial killer" MUST be substantiated by a source, then it follows with logical necessity that at the first time "serial killer" appears in an entry, then it should be..REFERENCED. This has NEVER been done done at Wikipedia, neither for male or female "serial killers". Arildnordby (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, among a multitude of cases one might point to, Gregory Brazel is listed as an "Australian serial killer", although NONE of the given references name his as such. It is time for people here at Wikipedia to give ME an unconditional apology for making up requirwements on the spot Arildnordby (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Aril, please give a read to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Now, that's a deletion-related page, so it doesn't directly apply here, but it does a good job of summarizing why your argument - that other stuff is out there that's also not well-sourced, because people haven't fixed it yet, so we should keep your unsourced changes, as well - doesn't justify keeping stuff that we know is unsourced. In both cases, the correct handling is to source or remove the information. If you've found an article that calls someone a "serial killer" when reliable sources don't call them that, it would make sense for you to remove that claim. I promise you that no one is "making up" requirements here - these are our usual policies, being applied in the usual ways, and you do need to adhere to them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

[Edit conflict; was about to state the same thing as Fluffernutter about the "other stuff" essay.] This will likely be my last reply in this discussion to you, Arildnordby: One Wikipedia article doing something does not mean that a similar Wikipedia article should do the same thing, especially if violating a Wikipedia policy or guideline. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you wish me to point to the tens or so articles in which I easily found to substantiate the FACT that no phrase reqwuirement policy concerning serial killers has ever been present at Wikipedia? As for you. Fluffernutter, Debora Green DOES belong in the category of "serial killer", since she appears in an academic book concerning..serial killers. so there, whether yuou like it or not. (Or, have you arrogated to yourself the Authority to declare which academic sources are "reliable" or not?) Arildnordby (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC) To begin with, randomly down the list, apart from Brazel, neither Cayetano Santos Godino, Robledo Puch, Caroline Grills are referred to with the phrase "serial killer" in any given references. I can go on and on, proving that no such policy ever has existed on Wikipedia. Arildnordby (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The only consistently applied definition on Wikipedia in regard to "serial killer" is that of multiple murders (generally, but not universally 3+) commmitted as SEPARATE events. And from the very start, I have abided with that. Arildnordby (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Arildnordby, have you considered that there are a lot of people who have committed multiple murders, but are not considered serial killers, such as cops, soldiers, gang members and mob bosses? That's one of my points about how killing two or more/three or more people does not necessarily make someone a serial killer. Serial killers are also usually defined, by the experts in this field, as people who get psychological gratification from killing people; they are usually characterized as seeking out people to kill because they have an overwhelming desire to do so, unlike how most female serial killers are characterized as murdering for material gain. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

None of those caveats are relevant in the cases discussed here. They are trivialobjections, and most definitely was not any of the criteria by which Debora Green or Stacy Castor was excluded. Furthermore, those objections relative to cops and soldiers, are already taken care of by, for example, FBIs definition, namely that we are talking about murder, which is a judicial category, rather than "killing", being merely causative. As for mob bosses (and for that matter, cruel nobles), ordering deaths is trivially regarded by everyone as different from "committing", and furthermore, being a professional hitman/assassin is neither included in "serial killer".

Absolutely NONE of these other groups are, however, relevent to either Stacey Castor or Debora Green, or any other I included. Thus, your comment is largely irrelevant, merely listing a few selfevident additional criteria that I haven't sinned against. Arildnordby (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's true that killing someone doesn't necessarily equate to murder. The examples I gave, however, could be cops, soldiers, gang members and mob bosses who have committed multiple murders...meaning intentional murders. I was also referring to mob bosses actually committing murders. Just as many gang members have committed multiple murders...but are not locked away as serial killers; they are simply labeled "murderers." And my point in listing those groups, as stated, is that killing -- whether murder or non-murder -- two or more/three or more people does not necessarily make someone a serial killer. Let's say that Stacey Castor killed two people, since, although she is rightfully suspected of having murdered her first husband, she was only convicted of murdering her second husband. This does not necessarily make her a serial killer. I stated that "Serial killers are also usually defined, by the experts in this field, as people who get psychological gratification from killing people; they are usually characterized as seeking out people to kill because they have an overwhelming desire to do so, unlike how most female serial killers are characterized as murdering for material gain." Stacey Castor is a material gain type of killer; such killers are not defined as serial killers by most experts in this field. In fact, a lot of psychologists and psychiatrists state that anyone who has murdered once, as in intentional murder, is usually capable of murdering again. And simply being capable of murdering again, eventually murdering more than two or three people, is not how most psychologists and psychiatrists define serial killers. If the FBI would classify Castor as a serial killer, then that is the FBI; they have their own criteria, which somewhat differs from how many, if not how most, psychologists and psychiatrists define serial killers. I don't consider my latest point irrelevant at all...because it very clearly further shows what goes into defining a serial killer and that it is not as simple as you are making it out to be. You obviously consider my latest point irrelevant, and you are entitled to do so; it doesn't bother me. I and others have tried to reason with you enough on this. Take our advice in any way that you will. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that you or the others do not have any case, as of yet, since no such discernible policy of phrase requirement on "serial killers" has been followed (Instead, the consistent policy has been a 3+separate events def). If you WANT such a policy, by all means advocate it. But don't come around saying it is already is in place, because THAT is provably wrong.

(Besides, as to you, who dismiss both expressions of forensic psychologists in and the FBI whenever you feel like it, ought to be the one rethinking your MO, not me mine) Arildnordby (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Stacey Castor is a material gain type of killer; such killers are not defined as serial killers by most experts in this field. In fact, a lot of psychologists and psychiatrists state that anyone who has murdered once, as in intentional murder, is usually capable of murdering again. And simply being capable of murdering again, eventually murdering more than two or three people, is not how most psychologists and psychiatrists define serial killers This is so totally UNTRUE of you! Baby farmers are consistently listed as "serial killers", although their overriding motifs are..material gain. Please don't come up with new fantasy requirements on the spot, that never has been part of previous policy. Arildnordby (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You somehow do not understand that "Well, of course there isn't a specific policy about the term serial killer on this matter or at all. We have general policies and guidelines for things like this." I've told you this and Fluffernutter has told you this. If you violate the WP:Verifiability policy, especially on a WP:BLP article, you should expect confrontation over it. I did not state that any policy is in place that actually is not in place. Nor have I dismissed "expressions of forensic psychologists" by stating that we should not go by one forensic psychiatrist's (or psychologist's) word, or dismiss the FBI by pointing out that they "have their own criteria, which somewhat differs from how many, if not how most, psychologists and psychiatrists define serial killers." And what I stated about Castor being "a material gain type of killer; such killers are not defined as serial killers by most experts in this field," and the rest of what I stated, is totally true. I've studied the topic enough to know that, and the matter of fact is...most murderers, as in intentional murderers, are capable of murdering again. If most psychologists and psychiatrists didn't define serial killers in the way that they usually do, then any intentional non-mass/non-spree murderer could be considered a serial killer since most of them are capable of murdering again. That's one reason they usually get locked up in prison for so long. That's the reason why when a convicted murderer, who committed an intentional murder, is freed from prison because he or she has served their time, most people are uncomfortable being around that person; there's always the possibility that such a person will murder again. But I don't mind you believing what you want on this matter, as long as you stick to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just remember that WP:Verifiability is a policy, and one that you should especially follow on BLP articles. You also need to make sure to try to keep your attitude calm, per WP:CIVILITY. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The she-demon is in the details., part 1

In order to be constructive, people reall should offer specific criticisms to the choices I made, rather than general blatherings. In order to be constructive, I'll list the following persons I entried in the category "Female Serial killers" and that I stand by, provisionally:

• Sophie Charlotte Elisabeth Ursinus ‎referred to as "serial killer" in article, with 3 head counts and 1 attempt. In extraneous source, Michael Newton has her included in "The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers". a) Should that be regarded as "reliable source"? b) and if so, should M.N. be included in list of reference? or c) If neither a or b, should person be removed as "serial killer"?
• Patty Cannon slave trader indicted for 4 murders, died in prison, removal?
• Catherine Wilson convicted of 1 murder, thought responsible for 6 more. In Katherina Watson's book, Poisoned Lives, she is callewd a "serial poisoner". Removal?
• Margaret Waters, baby farmer, reference to M.N "Encyclopedia of serial Killers". removal?
• Mary Ann Cotton believed responsible for 21 murders, both M.N. and numerous other sources identify her as "serial killer". removal?

I'll come back with the others. Arildnordby (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Each of these cases can be easily decided by answering one question and one follow-up question, the basis of which has been explained to you repeatedly. I'm truly out of ideas on how we could make this any clearer to you. Question: Do reliable sources explicitly label the person a serial killer? Remember, reliable sources are things like journal articles, books, some newspaper articles - not things like Wikipedia articles or blogs. Also remember that the source must say something like "So-and-so is a serial killer", not "serial killers are $blah" with you processing that into "This means so-and-so is a serial killer". Follow-up: If the answer to the first question is "yes", is the relevant reliable source cited in the article? After you answer the questions... If the answers to both parts of the follow-up question are "yes", go ahead and tag the article as belonging to category:serial killers. If the answer to the first part of the follow up is "yes", but not the second part, add the relevant source (supporting identifying the person as a "serial killer") to the article, then tag the article with the category. If the answers to both parts of the follow-up question are "no", then do not categorize the article as being about a serial killer. It doesn't matter at that point if you think the person fits a definition of a serial killer, because you are not a reliable source (nor am I, or Flyer22, or anyone else here). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: Do reliable sources explicitly label the person a serial killer?

No such policy has been followed as of yet at Wikipedia. That is provably wrong. The consistent criterion has been quite a different one (in general, a 3+separate events criterion). If you want to have your new def. implemented, by all means advocate for it. Arildnordby (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore these 5 people HAS been said to be in Pete Vronsky's book (and absolutely NO other from that particular blog), and that is why i included them. Patty Cannon, at pages 111 and 439, catherine Wilson at 106-7, Margaret Walters at pages 443, Ursinus at 442 and Mary Ann Cotton at 107-8. Now, for several of these, Peter Vronsky has NOT been explicitly cited as a source for their inclusion, and I am perfectly willing to go through those I HAVE included and add page refrence to Peter Vronsky. Would that be OK for you? Arildnordby (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And again, relative to Debora Green. She is included in Katherine Ramslands book, who teaches forensic psychology at DeSales University. Why is she NOT a reliable source?

Arildnordby (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's address your points one at a time. 1) "No policy says there must be a source that defines someone as a serial killer before we declare them a serial killer." Yes, there is no policy that uses the words "serial killer". That's because the policy covers all cases of facts needing to be supported by sources. Whether someone's a serial killer, what month they were born in, whether they designed planes or wrote books or killed people...anything you assert about an article subject must have a source. That's what our policy says, and that's the standard to which your writing needs to adhere. There isn't a policy dealing with serial killers, specifically, because we already have a policy that covers what you're doing.

2) The Peter Vronsky book is a passable source for the women it identifies as serial killers, though I do want to point out that the bulk of the women you're sourcing to there get literally less-than-one-line mentions in a list that looks like it may have been copied from elsewhere, not any critical discussion of their cases. That's not to say it couldn't be used as a source for labeling them serial killers, but if it's the best source you can find for that...it's very weak.

3) Will adding references to the work you're using to define these women help? Yep, it will! That's one of the things I pointed out in my last comment - if you have a reliable source, use it. But please do try to cite it in a manner that's consistent with the other references on a page - I notice you're adding your refs to the "See Also" section, in plain text, rather than using footnotes, which is the usual standard for citations and would make it much easier on your readers.

4) Debora Green's classification, citing Katherine Ramsland's book: if you refer back to the book you're citing, you'll see that Ramsland says of Debora Green, "Like many female killers [Green] killed people close to her, but the next healthcare worker was a predator of strangers, in the classic manner of a serial killer". That is, she is distinguishing Green from someone who murders like a serial killer, by saying that while Green killed like a "female killer", she did not kill like a "serial killer". Ramsland even says in the beginning of her own book that it will discuss both healthcare worker killers and healthcare worker serial killers (page xi in the copy I'm working off of), and she will distinguish between the two. This comes back to what Flyer22 and I have been trying to explain to you about synthesis. It is not enough to say "Green is mentioned in book X, therefore she is a serial killer" or "Green killed Y people, therefore she is a serial killer". You need to find a source that says "Green is a serial killer". The same goes for anyone else that you wish to classify as a serial killer. I'm honestly not sure why you're so desperate to classify as serial killers people who no sources seem to say are serial killers, but you need to focus your energies on the ones where reliable sources support your opinion, rather than using the scattershot "tag everything and fight to keep it" method you've been doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A vast majority of the cases I've read has their sources for the term "serial killer" from a newspaper report, that is, coined by a journalist.

Again, you don't get the main point here: The policy you are demanding of me personally, has never been implemented at Wikipedias earlier Arildnordby (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC) As to Green, FINALLY a good specific criticism from your part! Arildnordby (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC) " Whether someone's a serial killer, what month they were born in, whether they designed planes or wrote books or killed people...anything you assert about an article subject must have a source. That's what our policy says, and that's the standard to which your writing needs to adhere". This is..INCORRECT. There is NO general requirement fior specific phrase reference, because for innumerable terms, legitimate inference from commonly accepted defs (from reliable sources) will be more than enough. Arildnordby (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I just stated above, you somehow do not understand that "Well, of course there isn't a specific policy about the term serial killer on this matter or at all. We have general policies and guidelines for things like this." I've told you this and Fluffernutter has told you this (above in this section). If you violate the WP:Verifiability policy, especially on a WP:BLP article, you should expect confrontation over it.

Fluffernutter mentioned your reference-formatting style. This is not the proper way to add a reference; they don't go in the See also section. This isn't proper either. They should be put beside a piece of text in the main body of the article stating that [so and so] categorizes her as a serial killer. And they should be formatted in the way that Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates show. If it were just a matter of providing the readers with additional material to read, then those sources would go in a Further reading section of their respective articles.

And going by one author's opinion that someone is a serial killer is bad form, by the way, for all the reasons I've already stated. The same goes for adding someone who has only been convicted of murdering one person, but is "suspected of killing three other people and nearly killing another in the same manner." But I'll let others deal with all that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)