Jump to content

Talk:List of serial killers before 1900

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

Melcher Hedloff

[edit]

The German pamphlet on Melcher Hedloff is available at Wikisource: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/M%C3%B6rder_Melcher_Hedloff

Does this list really make sense given that the term and concept of a "serial killer" is a 20th century invention?

[edit]

It seems to me that calling someone a "serial killer" without a source referring to them as such (ie. by using the definition in the lead) is ultimately WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. The list's inclusion criteria should require at least one source using the term serial killer. --Aquillion (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency about political figures

[edit]

There's a lot of major political figures in this list given that it says at the top that they're excluded. I'm going to remove the most glaring (eg. sitting heads of state, princes and the like, or anyone where the accusation or reputation seems to be considered political in nature due to their office or position), but we should consider what to do with the large numbers of nobles, many of whom were also politically important figures in their day and which might require more examination. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think "no political figures" only refers to people like those listed after who committed mass murder. I doubt it means people like Gilles de Rais or Dhu Shanatir who committed numerous murders and happened to also have political careers are excluded, that would just be stupid.--Tulzscha (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it excludes all political figures (Leopold II of Belgium, Henry VIII, Attila and Hannibal are specifically named.) The issue is that in most cases accusations against major political figures are more political than criminal in nature - I would strenuously oppose any attempt to scale back that guideline. --Aquillion (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the criteria

[edit]

The criteria for being included in the list seems...dubious. Unlike the modern serial killers list, which uses the most widely accepted criteria of three or more victims, this one uses a shakier definition of anybody who has killed more than one person. This seems to be the only Wikipedia page to use this definition, which is a strange inconsistency. I'm also concerned about the inclusion of people such as Hannah Hanson Kinney who fail even to meet this definition, having only one proven victim or, in Hannah's case, no proven victims at all. Truecrimefan22 (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tulzscha, Swinub, Aquillion, Nyttend, ContributingHelperOnTheSide, Quelrod, Progüvo06, Anythingyouwant, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, Aquatic Ambiance, and Silent-Rains: Pinging editors who have contributed to the page within the last year or have made significant contributions in the past to discuss this issue. Truecrimefan22 (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is to make the list as all-encompassing as possible by using the broadest possible definition of "serial killer", but I agree it's odd that the definition used on every other page on the subject, including the serial killer page itself, isn't used on this one page.--Tulzscha (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only added Polly Bartlett, so that's the only case I can confirm as a serial killer case because I didn't look throguh the list extensively. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This definition was added when another editor brought up a problem with the lead def sending me to looked it up. There seemed to be a pretty standard def of two or more murders or a type of multiple murder re:

This overview paper notes a "Problems with victim count" and disagreement in various sources over definitions. That gets us to WP:YESPOV "including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight". So "more than one person" includes all verifiable points of view although "A type of multiple murder..." may be a better definition. I did not look into other Wikipedia articles because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that a few good criteria would be:
  • At least one WP:RS that unequivocally uses the word "serial killer" in those precise words should be a hard requirement for any named individual on the list, no exceptions; any entry lacking such a source should be removed immediately. The term has complicated meaning and trying to categorize things under it ourselves is always going to be WP:OR. Linking a definition and then a biography and saying "well, look, it fits this definition, right?" is textbook WP:OR; if it's true that X was a serial killer, you should be able to find a source saying such in as many words. If there's no RS referring to them as a serial killer they should be removed regardless of how many people they killed.
  • I would prefer to avoid listing political figures at all, because such accusations are often political in nature; accusing political rivals of hedonistic murders or the like used to be commonplace (to a certain extent it still is.) If we must include them I would say that the bare minimum is a legal conviction covered by multiple WP:RSes that describe it as a serial killing and no sources of any sort which indicate that the prosecution may have been politically motivated. If we listed every leader who was merely accused of repeated murder by their political opponents here, the list would become meaningless (or even more meaningless than it already is.)
  • More generally, I don't feel we ought to list rumors, unconfirmed accounts, and so on. There needs to at least something comparable to criminal conviction, which modern sources treat as credible.
Right now this is basically a listicle - an "ain't-it-strange" grab-bag of random rumors, killings, accusations and so on that don't really fit together. If it's going to list serial killings the absolute bare minimum is that we need to use sources that are actually about serial killings rather than editors trying to imply a history of serial killing via WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say I agree with you that there has to be some kind of conviction or equivalent thereof. As I said above, many of the people on the list do not meet the current criteria for inclusion, such as Hannah Hanson Kinney (accused of three murders but acquitted), Robert Butler (convicted of one murder, other alleged crimes were never proven) and Sarah Chesham (only convicted of attempted murder, and serious doubts over the fairness of the trial), and requiring some kind of legal proof that they were serial killers would help with this issue. A requirement for RS explicitly describing the person as a serial killer is a good idea but might be hard to enforce given that a fair number of the sources cited are books (we can't just assume they don't support the claim and remove them, but equally we can't check them all to see if the phrase "serial killer" or "serial murder" is used). Truecrimefan22 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aquillion, demanding exactly "serial killer" in a source is too strict — a source that uses alternate forms of those words (e.g. "serial killer's") or synonyms (e.g. "serial murderer") for a specific person would be just as good as a similar-quality source that uses "serial killer" for the same person. Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all right, "or words to that effect." What I mean is, not just by adding up kills and citing some definition from a source unrelated to that individual. --Aquillion (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion, on the subject of political figures, is it not too harsh to say that they can't be included if there is literally any source suggesting that the prosecution was politically motivated? Figures like Elizabeth Bathory where there's significant debate about their guilt is one thing, but it's something else to say that they're excluded because you can find one person in the entire world who doubts the conviction. For example, some people claimed that Crown Prince Sado (a verified serial killer) had been the victim of a political conspiracy, but no historian takes this claim seriously. And yet, under your proposed criteria, he would be excluded based on unfounded rumor. 5.61.122.219 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of unconvicted, suspected killers such as the three mentioned, we could perhaps do the same as the List of serial killers by number of victims and include a section for "disputed cases" including those merely suspected such as Kinney, Butler and Chesham, and potentially also including political figures such as Anula of Anuradhapura whose crimes have been suggested to be politically motived accusations.--Tulzscha (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person needs to have a criminal conviction against them or at least something that can be compared to a conviction (e.g. multiple people were found guilty of aiding Lewis Hutchinson's killing spree; Boone Helm was "convicted" by the Montana Vigilantes, which had no legal basis but is nonetheless viewed as credible by historians).
  • At least one source should refer to them as a serial killer, although there are some potential issues with enforcing this if the cited source is not available online.
Aquillion also suggested that we forbid the inclusion of political figures, or at least not include any political figures who have been suggested to have been persecuted for political reasons (which anonymous raised issues with), and Tulzscha suggested the inclusion of a "disputed cases" section for suspected but unproven serial killers. Any thoughts on these? Truecrimefan22 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really haven't been following the discussion here (tldr?) but criteria for this list seems pretty simple: title is "List of serial killers before 1900", so all entries need to follow WP:YESPOV re:"opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice" i.e. list should only contain individuals described as serial killers in reliable sources. They should be notable as serial killers, i.e. that description and reference should be in the individual's Wikipedia article. "Convictions" or "political figure" does not come into this, only what secondary sources say. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why political figures come into it is that there is disagreement over the following statement: "This list does not include mass murderers, spree killers, war criminals, members of democidal governments, or killings by major political figures". There is dispute over what the reference to "major political figures" refers to (see the above topic discussion "Inconsistency about political figures"), with Aquillion arguing that all political figures should be excluded because the allegations may have been political in nature and that even those who were convicted of murders should not be included unless there are no sources suggesting that the prosecution was politically motivated. Truecrimefan22 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the rule that convictions are necessary, I've realized that this overlooks one important factor, namely killers who were never identified such as Jack the Ripper or the Servant Girl Annihilator. By definition these killers cannot have been convicted because nobody knew who they were, but this does not change the fact that they were certainly serial killers. This also extends to killers who are confirmed by all existing evidence and records to have been serial killers but were not convicted solely because they died, such as the Bloody Espinosas who were killed by bounty hunters, The Kelly Family who were slain by a posse while trying to escape or the Bloody Benders who disappeared before they could be arrested. All of these people were undeniably serial killers but were not convicted due to disappearance or death alone. Perhaps an exception to this rule should be made for those who died or escaped before they could be prosecuted or who were never caught (which just seems like common sense).Tulzscha (talk)

Whether or no a serial killer is convicted is immaterial. A reliable source tells us who is a serial killer, not us looking for a conviction.

As for political figures - a serial killer is a very specific definition, it has nothing to do with a person's occupation, such as political figure. If a political figure had a side gig where they went out and personally killed people clandestinely, they would be a serial killer. If detractors are calling them serial killers, that would be cleaned up by WP:V/WP:YESPOV, its unverified or opinion - doesn't go on this list. The lead definition about not including "political figures" could be deleted, it has nothing to do with the WP:LSC. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems useful to me, because people may come here expecting to find Stalin or Mao, and be surprised that they're excluded. We could reword something else to clarify that we're talking about people who personally killed others, rather than commanding the deaths of others, or commanding something that resulted in the deaths of others. The inclusion criteria need to be clear, without requiring that the reader visit the serial killer article. Perhaps rewording would be better, because the point is excluding people who didn't personally kill others, not excluding people based on their occupations, and if a political figure has such a side gig, obviously he ought to appear on this list. Anula of Anuradhapura is mentioned above; if poisoning several people makes you a serial killer, she ought to be included, because she personally did the poisoning. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
? "commanding the deaths of others" is not the definition of a serial killer. The current "a person who murders more than one person" is pretty clear. If people don't understand that then they probably need to follow the link, we can't educate people on how to understand the English language. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's not the definition, but it's commonly said that politician X murdered a person whose death the politician sought to bring about, e.g. saying that Hitler murdered the victims of the Holocaust. Obviously Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths, but as far as I'm aware, he didn't personally kill anyone. It's roughly analogous to a person who hires a hit man, as the person can be convicted of murder in some jurisdictions, if I remember rightly; but we're not going to put a Mafia leader here, even if he ordered lots of murders, unless he also killed people personally. So while there's a good definition in the serial killer article, A serial killer (also called a serial murderer) is typically a person who murders three or more people,[1] with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them, I think we ought to clarify that this is just for people who personally committed the murder, instead of being responsible for someone else personally committing it. After all, the serial killer article provides plenty of context in its later sections, but if you just read that first sentence, there's wiggle room for misinterpretation. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_serial_killers_before_1900&oldid=1256970514"