Talk:Serial killer/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Citation for military members training on when not to kill

The whole section on the military seems biased against the military. Military members issued firearms are given daily training on the use of deadly force, when it can and cannot be applied. Can an editor add this citation http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf . This is the DOD directives for all services regarding deadly force. Each service has unique documents that implement these directives and serve as the rules for ROE or SOP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.67.27 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at the section now. I have re-arranged the information, added or clarified a little, copyedited, and included the source you provided as well as one or two others. I hope I made it more balanced. I tried to find information on the percentage of veterans of nations' populations other than the US, but couldn't find any hard numbers. If you or anybody knows or has a reference, please add it or post the reference here. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Objection

I believe there is a problem with the phrase "little research has been conducted focusing on the societal influences—particularly gender roles and expectations of women—which contribute to these women committing multiple murders." This is a very biased opinion. You could say that about anybody comitting a crime. What research shows this? I would like to suggest it be removed. Andacar (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fact mixed in with an opinion that is sourced, Andacar. You can check the sources it is attributed to. But I agree that "which contribute to these women committing multiple murders" is very opinionated. Perhaps we should put it in quotation marks? Or leave it as "little research has been conducted focusing on the societal influences—particularly gender roles and expectations of women—which may have contributing to these women committing multiple murders"? Or something like that? Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I put it into quotation marks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit better, though it still suggests that women are serial killers because male society makes them so, which is, again, somebody's opinion. I politely would suggest something more like "So and so suggests that more research needs to be conducted examining..." I don't, however, want this to turn into an edit war, so if the consensus is to leave this as is I'll let it be. There are way too many fights over things like this on Wikipedia already. Thanks for looking at my comments. Andacar (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's remember that it does use "contribute," which likely means the source is not saying that only these things contribute to women being serial killers. The section is discussing societal influences just as much as anything else. And the influences discussed there are generally seen in women who serial kill. I'll look through the sources later and see if I can pinpoint if it is mentioned who stated the above quote. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr Phil? Seriously? Sources in the Characteristics section

A significant amount of content in the "characteristics" section is sourced only to drphil.com, much of it copied verbatim from there. Does anybody have a credible source for this information?GideonF (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Using Dr. Phil as a source has been criticized before (see General note on citations/references used), and I agree with the criticism. Although I disagree with DreamGuy about TruTV. Nothing horrible about using TruTV, though scholarly or journal sources are preferred. Some months ago, a lot of scholarly sources were added to this article, but the Characteristics section obviously wasn't taken care of as well on that front.

Why did you remove this sourced sentence, by the way? Other than what is stated in your edit summary, I mean. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because it's literally nonsense. "While South Africa has no known motive for sexual killing" is not a meaningful statement in the English language" and "Australia and U.S. share the motive of 'lust killing,' as well as childhood sexual abuse, drugs, and animal cruelty", if it means anything, means that childhood sexual abuse, drugs, and animal cruelty don't exist in South Africa. It looked like obvious vandalism to me.GideonF (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how "no known motive for sexual killing" is not a meaningful statement in the English language. All it means is that no known motive has been demonstrated by researchers. It likely means "no consistent motive." And the line wasn't saying "childhood sexual abuse, drugs, and animal cruelty don't exist in South Africa." It said "the U.S. and Australia share the motive of 'lust killing,' as well as childhood sexual abuse, drugs, and animal cruelty." It was speaking of the characteristics that define serial killers. Or at least I think it was. Saying that these two countries are known to share those influences/characteristics. Though I agree it could have been worded better. South African "serial killers," according to that one source, seemingly are not known to share the same influences/characteristics. The edit wasn't vandalism. It was made by an editor whose edits were discussed in the Maintaining a difference between serial killers and serial murderers section. As seen in that link, I also complained about the accuracy of these sources...because I don't believe all of them are defining serial killer in the way that experts define the term. Most of what that editor added was removed by another editor, per what was stated in the #Dubious section. Flyer22 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Incidence of Psychopathy Amongst serial killers statement doesn't appear to be supported by citation

I came to this article specifically because I was researching this issue particularly and google found the sentence "Currently, there is no data to identify the prevalence of psychopaths among serial killers" on this wikipedia article. When I clicked the footnote at the end of the sentence and went to the indicated source I found information to the effect of (paraphrasing) "Not all psychopaths are serial killers, and not all serial killers are psychopaths." true as that may be that says nothing about whether there is nor isn't data on the incidence of psychopathy amongst serial killers, for it to do so it would need to either have a sentence clearly saying almost exactly what the original sentence on this page said or in the case that it proves the sentence wrong, would have statistics on the matter. This article says and has neither of these things, the fact that there isn't data regarding the prevalence of psychopaths among serial killers in the cited article doesn't mean there isn't any, anywhere, only that there isn't in that article and the article itself doesn't say that there is no such data in existence, in fact it just doesn't comment on it at all.

I'm being pedantic about this only because I would actually particularly like to know whether there is such data and what that data shows, so unfortunately I can neither support nor refute the statement because I don't know. I don't think the statement ought to be here though, if its cited source only implies the content of the statement through omission of evidence that would refute it. If such were sufficient to make similar statements, then any source whatsoever even something unrelated to psychopathy or serial killers would be acceptable on the condition that it didn't present data on the prevalence of psychopathy amongst serial killers.

4 February 2012 4.17pm

I removed the line.[1] Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree - We should also remove all the books listed in the books section same as with all the films as there many more that are much more relevant then whats this late 20th century list conveys - lets not have any so no-ones favorite books are listed especially a list of books and films that seem like a 20year old favorite list.Moxy (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Like, DreamGuy in this edit, I disagree with removing the Books and films sections. They are a subsection of In media and popular culture. And as such, they are pretty relevant topics. They shouldn't merely be a collection of books and films, though. They are supposed to go into analyses about the impact that serial killers have had on the book and film industries and/or the impact of certain books. Of course every book or film is not going to be mentioned. The point is to summarize the impact in those areas. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Adoption correlation

I have heard the correlation between adoption and serial killing drawn many times, and by people who study/find serial killers. I think it would be beneficial to add something to the article that discusses this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.88.22 (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

How common are serial killers?

I'd like to compliment the editors on a detailed and well-sourced article. However, I noticed one large omission: no information is given on the relative incidence of serial killings among all homicides. I would think this is crucial information needed by readers to put the topic in perspective, considering the attention the media pays to serial killers and the many fictional protrayals of serial killers in television and books. I have no knowledge in this area but I have heard the incidence is very small. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

elfs?

Somebody needs to edit this article! Please remove the reference to elves from the North Pole being serial killers! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.33.32 (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've alerted the administration. They should be locking the article down soon so these people can't edit it.Legitimus (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That was likely one guy at the University of Central Florida using two IP addresses: 132.170.77.84 (talk · contribs) and 132.170.88.36 (talk · contribs). Cluebot caught this edit[2], but missed the elves thing because he used the other address right before switching. Just standard vandalism, I doubt page protection is warranted. But, since you requested it, we'll see what happens. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the other piece of vandalism that also wasn't removed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And much thanks to this IP who removed the elf text three minutes after this discussion section was started. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. For every one vandal behind an IP there are thankfully several other good editors behind other IPs who help the project constantly. Doc talk 00:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. And the article was semi-protected soon after your latest comment, and the protection won't expire until November 8, 2012, so at least that's something else to be thankful for. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I also had to revert the removal of "not" for the "whites are not more likely than other races to be serial killers" part of a sentence.[3][4] I obviously missed that the first time around. Flyer22 (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Female serial killers section

Sk1244 has made changes to this section. Here are edits I have made in response to them thus far:[5][6][7][8] It's not just a claim that female serial killers are rare; it's what the data shows in comparison to male serial killers, and this is why it's what most sources state. So "female serial killers are rare" should not be treated as a controversial statement all because a few sources suggest or state otherwise. The word "some" should be avoided when possible because of the WP:Weasel word guideline. And "claim," per the WP:CLAIM guideline. We also need to be careful not to give WP:UNDUE weight in any one source, such as Peter Vronsky. For example, that "female serial killers tend to murder men for material gain, appear to be emotionally close to their victims, and generally need to have a relationship with the victim" is not just a past matter; more than enough reliable sources still report that; so in cases like that, we need to balance the sources by making it clear that while some research states [so and so], other research states [this and that]. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And again.[9] Using "In the past" or "Historically" is inappropriate, as that information is still being reported and there is no consensus among experts in this field (the study of serial killers) that most female serial killers no longer "tend to murder men for material gain, appear to be emotionally close to their victims, and generally need to have a relationship with the victim." Further, peer-reviewed sources on this matter, actual studies, outweigh books on serial killers and author opinion (even when the author is an expert on the matter). We need to keep away from WP:Editorializing. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Female serial killers are far more rare than their male counterparts, as research shows. Men are more likely than women to murder in general, as statistics bear out. As far as them appearing to be emotionally close or having a relationship with their victims, or to murder outside of financial gain, we have only to look at three of the most infamous female serial killers to see that it's not always the case: Elizabeth Báthory, Jane Toppan and Aileen Wuornos. Female serial killers are more likely to poison or shoot their victims as opposed to the more "hands-on" approaches like strangling, bludgeoning and stabbing (Báthory was an extreme exception to the rule). The article is still a C-class, and more research (good, referenced research) is needed to get it above this stage. Doc talk 02:57, 7 January 2013‎ Doc9871 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc, for weighing in at my request. The Aileen Wuornos and Elizabeth Báthory exceptions are noted in the section, as you know, and Jane Toppan in the Medical professionals section. Like I stated, I object to stating that it's a past matter that female serial killers "tend to murder men for material gain, appear to be emotionally close to their victims, and generally need to have a relationship with the victim." Those characteristics are still reported in sources, and a few sources saying otherwise doesn't make it simply an "In the past" matter or something that should be worded with the qualifier "Historically" as though it's more of a past matter. We would need strong, peer-reviewed data to state that these and/or any of the other characteristics that are typically associated with female serial killers are no longer the most common characteristics of these offenders. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I also changed the "appear to be" wording back to "are usually," which is the original wording before Sk1244 changed it, and is not vague. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I tweaked the part about the rarity of female serial killers by adding "compared to their male counterparts," and also added a line from the FBI which supports the text that serial killers are rare in general.[10][11] Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Psychology Today as a " a blog posting that doesn't cite sources."

Victor Chmara removed this content from the article, stating, "removed claims based on a blog posting that doesn't cite sources."

But like I stated to him in this WP:Dummy edit: "I don't mind the removal of that source, since it's not the best. But Psychology Today is a reliable source; this isn't the type of blog that WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability warns against." In fact, the reliability of Psychology Today was recently questioned at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and this is what was stated in response to the person who posted the query. Also, there of course is no requirement on Wikipedia that Psychology Today cites its sources, any more than there is for other sources to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The context in which the Psychology Today source was used makes it inappropriate. The blog posting's claims do not appear to be based on any sources and are not supported by any research that I know of, yet the source was used to dispute empirical findings on the demographics of serial killers, as published in proper scholarly sources by Anthony Walsh and others.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for further you explaining your reasoning behind removing the source. I feel the need to state, however, that I doubt that the "psychologist, social worker and a professor of law" in the source was making up any of the information you removed; he even cites the FBI for some of the information used in his article about this topic. And, in other sources, I have read a lot of what he stated about serial killers. For example, you mentioned Anthony Walsh, who is noted in the Serial killer article (not the Anthony Walsh who has a Wikipedia article of course). He says, "While it is true that most serial killers are white males, white (Anglo) males are actually slightly underrepresented in the serial killer ranks in terms of their proportion of the general male population." And what the Psychology Today source says about racial profiling is essentially what Pat Brown says. The Wikipedia text tells us that she says serial killers are usually reported as white because the media typically focuses on "All-American" white and pretty female victims who were the targets of white male offenders, that crimes among minority offenders in urban communities, where crime rates are higher, are under-investigated, and that minority serial killers likely exist at the same ratios as white serial killers for the population. She believes that the myth that serial killers are always white might have become "truth" in some research fields due to the over-reporting of white serial killers in the media.

But, again, I agree that a better source than Psychology Today would be more appropriate for the information you removed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidence

There's a figure being circulated that the FBI estimate between 35 and 50 serial killers active at any one time in the US, but I can't find any official citation for that figure: the closest I could come was 'Mind Hunter', written by John Douglas. Can anyone provide a more concrete source for this figure, or is this one of those ideas that seemingly comes from nowhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.215.25 (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into it. But Legitimus may be more helpful than me on this. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Theories

An observation regarding the so-called "military theory". The article states "The "military theory" can be included as to why serial murderers kill. Looking deeper into some serial murderer's pasts reveals that some have served in the military or other such fields. According to Castle and Hensley, 7% of the serial killers studied had military experience". ONLY 7%? Considering that according to the US Census Bureau 9% of Americans have served in the military it seems that, if anything, serving in the military REDUCES the chances of a serial killer developing.

TobusRex (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A recent Master's Thesis, Serial Killers and the Military: Misconceptions and Statistical Facts was written covering this and disproving the Castle thesis based off of data from the Radford/FGCU Serial Killer Database and hundreds of military records. You can read the abstract here [12] «»Who?¿? 02:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pat Brown is not an appropriate source

Under the "demographics" heading is information attributed to writer and self-proclaimed criminal profiler Pat Brown.

Ms. Brown is not an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article. She is a self-trained "pseudo-expert" who has never trained directly under a law enforcement officer or worked for any law enforcement agency. She has never closed a cold case or brought a criminal to justice. Her abilities and professionalism were recently called into serious question when she tried to self-publish a book about the Madelaine McCann case that was rife with inaccuracies and inflammatory statements. It was concerning enough that Amazon pulled the book from their site.

In a report prepared for homicide detectives, the FBI spoke out about the damage this sort of "expert" can cause to an investigation. (See Chapter X.)

In short, this woman knows no more about serial killers than any well-read person making educated guesses. For the sake of credibility, I'd remove the quote attributed to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurer kg (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How common?

There is nothing in the article about how common serial killers are. What percentage of murders is commited by them, for example? How many are there on average per year in the US? -- 92.226.25.193 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a bit about it in the Female serial killers section; an editor placed it there some time ago to counter the information about the occurrence of female serial killers being significantly less common than than the occurrence of male serial killers. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also the Ethnicity and serial killer demographics in the U.S section immediately below the Female serial killers section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a very important issue, raised again and again on this talk page, that is being ignored by this article. With all of the endless media coverage of serial killers, television police dramas, and murder mystery books, there is a great potential for misconception by the public on how prevalent serial killers are. Everything I have heard is that serial killings and serial killers are a very small percentage of the homicides in any country. This article doesn't do a thing to address this issue. It pays a huge amount of drooling attention to the personal and sex lives of serial killers, but neglects to address the basic statistics of serial killings as a crime. --Chetvorno^TALK 07:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I pointed out above that the article does address this issue; it's just not to the extent that some, such as you and the IP (are you the IP?), would like. I'm certainly not against expansion on this aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

organized vs disorganized iq

the section called organized, disorganized and mixed is misquoting the source of citation 36. The Radford U article says that 99.6 is the mean iq score for organized type serial killers, not 113. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.172.133 (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Currently, as of our last published statistics, we have the Mean IQ at 86.5. «»Who?¿? 01:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Correction, sorry, was reading the wrong line. Organized is currently 98.5. Disorganized 92.6. «»Who?¿? 01:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Article Qoute:

'Some authors state that African American serial killers are as prevalent, or more so, in proportion to the African American population. According to some sources, the percentage of serial killers who are African American is estimated to be between 13 and 22 percent.[71][72] Another study has shown that 16 percent of serial killers are African American, what author Maurice Godwin describes as a "sizeable portion".[73] Anthony Walsh writes, "While it is true that most serial killers are white males, white (Anglo) males are actually slightly underrepresented in the serial killer ranks in terms of their proportion of the general male population" and that "[w]hatever the true proportion of black serial killers in the United States is or has been, it is greater than the proportion of African Americans in the general population."[74] Popular racial stereotypes about the lower intelligence of African-Americans, and the stereotype that serial killers are white males with "bodies stacked up in the basement and strewn all over the countryside" may explain the media focus on serial killers that are white and the failure to adequately report on those that are black'

End Qoute

This paragraph proports that Black serial killers are greater than the official numbers but sites no evidence that this is so. 'Some authors state...' Which authors? Who? Neo-Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan?

This is the worse sort of racial bigotry, an accusation without evidence based solely or conjecture and I believes has no place in a respectable publication. And the author mentioned, Maurice Godwin, what are his bona fides? What is his research? Where is his evdience aside from racial prejudice?

Please, can this paragraph be boostered by links or edited out. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.4.7 (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Serial killer/Archive 3#African American serial killers, which shows that I objected to that material when it was its own section; it has changed somewhat since then, but still is about proving a point. And while one can think that the editor who added it is biased against black people, I note that the editor in question has stated that he is black (at WP:LGBT); see this discussion (the WP:NOTFORUM part for the author's comment). So I'm not sure what his motivations were for adding that material, except to relay that some reports single out black people rather than white people as serial killers. As for "Some authors state," examples are given after that sentence (one of which you mentioned). And by "boostered by links," I take it that you mean data supporting these authors' statements? Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As of 25OCT2013, we have a little over 3200 subjects (serial killers, spree and mass murderers) in the Radford/FGCU Serial Killer Database, for all countries with the confirmed race that are confirmed black (not just African American, but all countries), makes it 31%. In the annual statistics we publish on US Serial killers, the current percentage for confirmed African Americans is 25.36%. The data in our database is from Primary sources and confirmed identities, kill counts etc. Hope this helps. Radford/FGCU Serial Killer DB Annual Statistics «»Who?¿? 01:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, again reading the wrong line, make that 40.7% of US Serial Killers, between the decades 1900-2010. «»Who?¿? 03:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Pat Brown

Pat Brown is not a criminal profiler. She has no law enforcement background and no advanced degrees in behavioral science. Her opinions do not constitute reliable information. Her opinions should be removed from the page or it should be noted that she is not a criminal profiler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awhitenoisemaker (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sure about that? .. Judith Ann Warner (2012). Women and Crime. Texas A&M International University. p. 123. ISBN 978-1-59884-424-5. received a master's degree in criminal justice from Boston University (2007) -- Moxy (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Following instructions at WP:PM I am proposing the merger of International serial murder into Serial killer.

I think that this is a category 1 proposal (a proposal so obviously necessary and appropriate that no one is expected to object) but given that I haven't been involved with too many mergers before, I'm taking the conservative route, and assuming it's a category 2 (mergers that would benefit from discussion with the other editors...).

The International serial murder article has had a Multiple issues banner since 2009, shortly after its creation, with five bullet items and all five issues still apply. Imho, the article is hopelessly flawed, but it may be that some content can be rescued and merged here. Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

One thing about that article is that I hope that it is not at any point confusing a person who has committed multiple murders with being a serial killer. Though serial killer and serial murderer are often used interchangeably, being a serial murderer does not necessarily make someone a serial killer (by that, I mean as the word is usually defined by experts on this topic). For example, there are gang members who have murdered multiple people, but they are not considered serial killers by experts based only on that; other factors, as discussed in this article, must come into play. Also see Talk:Serial killer/Archive 3#Maintaining a difference between serial killers and serial murderers for a better understanding of what I mean on this. Flyer22 (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, regarding that archived discussion, I should not have included "war vets" or soldiers in general in that second sentence of mine in reference to murder (their killing people is not usually defined as murder). Flyer22 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I've redirected that article here; if anyone can find anything of use they may merge at a later date. Fences&Windows 18:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanked you via WP:Echo. But taking the time to thank you here as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

serial killers

Do you believe spring heel Jack (aka) Jack the ripper, came to America when he finished the series of murders in White Chapel, London? Lnforstmann (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Female serial killers

Thanks, Gobonobo. It looks better now. I think it's important to emphasize somewhere in the article that serial killers in general are rare to begin with, but there's no need to labor the point every time an even rarer subset is mentioned. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This, this and this are all the edits that 72.200.151.13 are referring to. In this and this edit, I cleaned up the section, tweaked some things, removed the "three or more murders" part as unneeded, and gave the section some order. Gobonobo de-emphasized the material gain aspect at one point (as seen in the third link in this paragraph), but I emphasized it because female serial killers murdering for material gain (commonly described as black widows if involving the murders of lovers or husbands) and/or being a part of a serial killer team remains the most common type of female serial categorization, as the section in question shows. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I made two followup edits to the section here and here. And as for it being important to emphasize somewhere in the article that serial killers in general are rare to begin with, I agree with 72.200.151.13 on that; if we are not going to have that piece in the first paragraph of the Female serial killers section where it was, it should be somewhere in the General subsection of the Characteristics section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Two other followup edits that I made to the section are here and here. And I'll of course continue to edit that section as time goes on, as I have done various times before this case. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Serial killer definition is wrong

Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.224.103 (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong how? "Serial killer" is commonly defined as three or more killings, or two or more killings (and, of course, the psychological component that comes with that), which the lead currently notes. The lead also includes the FBI definition, which goes by the "two or more" definition. The lead includes the "over a period of more than a month, with down time (a 'cooling off period') between the murders" aspect because that is an important aspect of what defines a serial killer; like the Spree killer article currently notes, "According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the general definition of spree killer is a person (or more than one person) who commits two or more murders without a cooling-off period; the lack of a cooling-off period marking the difference between a spree killer and a serial killer. The category has, however, been found to be of no real value to law enforcement, because of definitional problems relating to the concept of a 'cooling-off period'." Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Who defines it as "a person who has murdered three or more people", apart from Wikipedia? There is no formal definition. But surely the definition relates to the killings being in a series - two can be a series. The current definition is that of a mass killing, not a serial killing.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Royalcourtier (talk · contribs), if you want to know who defines a serial killer as "a person who has murdered three or more people," all you need to do is look to the sources in the lead of the Serial killer article that are there for that aspect. You can also look on Google Books; for example, by searching "Serial killer three or more"). Your "formal definition" argument is odd. A serial killer is defined by at least two or three murders with a "cooling off" period between the murders, and often (or usually) the inclusion of psychological gratification. Not everyone who who has killed two or more people is a serial killer. Soldiers of war who have killed many people are not serial killers. Typically, neither are mob bosses who have killed several or more people. There are certain factors that make a person a serial killer. The current definition in the lead of the Serial killer article is not the definition of a mass murderer, if that's what you meant by "mass killing." And not only is the lead of the Serial killer article clear on that, so is the current lead of the Mass murder article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The article states that African-American serial killers make up almost 41% of all serial killers in the U.S. yet they are only 13% of the total population. Is this information accurate and if so shouldn't there be a source included that explains WHY so many more black serial killers exist? 2604:2000:7FC0:1:9803:C510:4091:EA8F (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the section you are talking about. It gives different percentage estimates for black serial killers, and I trust none of those estimates. The part you are talking about is sourced to Mike Aamodt of Radford University/FGCU, and it states, "A 2013 Radford/FGCU Serial Killer Database annual statistics report showed that for the decades 1900–2010, the percentage of White serial killers was 52.4% while the percentage of African American serial killers was 40.7%." As for whether or not it classifies as a WP:Reliable source for the topic at hand, you can ask at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 you wrote "It gives different percentage estimates for black serial killers, and I trust none of those estimates". Three questions: why is that data in the article then? what don't you trust about the estimates? what do you mean when you say "it gives different percentage estimates"? Thanks ... 2604:2000:7FC0:1:9803:C510:4091:EA8F (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

IP, I did not add that material to the article. If you check the archives, shown at the top of this talk page, you will see that this content has been debated before and has changed over the years. And whether I like and/or trust something is not supposed to be the sole basis as to whether article content can stay; the same goes for any Wikipedia editor. As for what I meant by "It gives different percentage estimates for black serial killers," I was referring to the section as a whole. The Aamodt material clearly is not the only percentage estimate material mentioned in that section regarding black serial killers. And I don't trust any of the percentage estimates there because it all looks like speculation and guessing to me. Flyer22 (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If the percentage is correct, it simply relates to the fact that blacks are much more disposed to crime of all types. Whatever the reason may be, it is an undeniable fact that the majority of crimes are committed by blacks.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Royalcourtier (talk · contribs), unless you have WP:Reliable sources stating that "the majority of crimes are committed by blacks," you should not even think of making that argument. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Source 21 is unreliable and generalizes a country's population as a whole. Furthermore, the data that source 21 supplements here is obviously being contested above. This statement should at least be changed to avoid declaring such generalizations as fact, if not removed entirely along with the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.95.55 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Royalcourtier (talk · contribs), refrain from adding mess like this to the article again. If you continue to do so, appropriate means will be taken (whether it's a report at the WP:Original research noticeboard or elsewhere). Flyer22 (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't threaten me, Flyer22. My edit was consistent with the data contained within the article. If 40% of serial killers are blacks, and 60% white - as stated in the article, and I have no idea if this is true - then the suggestion in the article that whites are not more like to be serial killers is misleading, what should be said is that blacks are more likely to be serial killers, contrary to the popular stereotype. Need I remind you that black Americans represent some 15% of the American population, not 40%.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Royalcourtier (talk · contribs), you call it a threat; I call it following Wikipedia's rules. Violate them again on this matter, and appropriate means will be taken. You are wrong, with regard to how Wikipedia is supposed to work and with regard to your "race" conclusions (that includes making it seem like whatever percentage of serial killers there are in the United States equates to serial killers in the world in general).

Gobonobo, are you still watching this article? Can I count on you to revert inappropriate edits made to it? Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't been, but I've got this on my watchlist now. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Royalcourtier, see the WP:Original research policy, especially its WP:Synthesis section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Serial killer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228222445/http://www.sho.com:80/site/dexter/characters.do to http://www.sho.com/site/dexter/characters.do

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fictional portrayals of serial killers

If fictional portrayals of psychopaths warrants an article then surely an article on fictional portrayals of serial killers is warranted seeing as the latter is much more extensive and significant, yet at the moment it seems to be restricted to a few brief paragraphs in the main serial killer article. Also seems like some of the psychopath article is conflating psychopaths with serial killers. Humorideas (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:Spinout and WP:No split, I wouldn't create a Fictional portrayals of serial killers article unless needed. But, yes, you can validly create one since the topic is WP:Notable. Doing so will also allow for significantly reducing the "In media and popular culture" section; that might be your aim? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

an Australian named Sam needs to be removed

The opening paragraph, defining what a serial killer is, needs to be changed - I tried editing it and it doesn't allow for that first sentence/intro to be edited.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Serial killer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100728094415/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/victims_1.html? to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/victims_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100106081640/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/nilsen/alone_4.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/nilsen/alone_4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090309132810/http://www.enotes.com:80/forensic-science/serial-killers to http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/serial-killers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218133027/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/notorious_murders/angels/index.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/angels/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120426081443/http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/Laurence/forensic/ProfileAnalysis1.ppt to http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/Laurence/forensic/ProfileAnalysis1.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130217183125/http://voices.yahoo.com:80/san-franciscos-zebra-murders-6725422.html?cat=37 to http://voices.yahoo.com/san-franciscos-zebra-murders-6725422.html?cat=37
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100114083906/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/puente/9.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/puente/9.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100520203225/http://fbilibrary.fbiacademy.edu:80/bibliographies/serialkillers.htm to http://fbilibrary.fbiacademy.edu/bibliographies/serialkillers.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111027101009/http://www.shsu.edu:80/~stdrem26/pictures/MilitarySerialKillers.pdf to http://www.shsu.edu/~stdrem26/pictures/MilitarySerialKillers.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121031044256/http://fdiai.org:80/2012%20Conference%20Daily%20Schedule.htm to http://www.fdiai.org/2012%20Conference%20Daily%20Schedule.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090601180208/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/index_1.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/index_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090716023114/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/werewolf_killers/14.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/werewolf_killers/14.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100106080546/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/1.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090601230659/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/6.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/6.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Serial killer. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121001151839/http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/sub.cfm?source=department%2Freports%2Ffiveyearplan03%2Fplan03_population to http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/sub.cfm?source=department%2Freports%2Ffiveyearplan03%2Fplan03_population
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121111100620/http://books.google.ca/books?id=KV9GQwAACAAJ&dq=serial+offenders++Theory+and+Practice to http://books.google.ca/books?id=KV9GQwAACAAJ&dq=serial+offenders++Theory+and+Practice
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100416034209/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/1.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/1.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100410145929/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/6.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/6.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

Someone is inexplicably trying to declare, in the voice of the encyclopaedia, that a particular definition is correct. This violates NPOV. As the article clearly states, there is no unique definition, and we have no business pretending there is. Even if three is the most common, you do not have the right to state that as the definition. The current wording is neutral; it states that three is the most common definition but that other definitions exist. Now kindly stop violating NPOV so egregiously. 193.60.234.209 (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

To anyone else reading this section, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this are the edits in question.

To the IP, I've repeatedly told you that the WP:NPOV policy is about WP:Due weight; it is about giving most of the weight to what is prevalent in the literature. On Wikipedia, it is common to give due weight to the most prevalent definition first, and then present alternative definitions. For just two examples, we do this with the Atheism article and the Pedophilia article (although, in the case of the Pedophilia article, we are going by what is most prevalent in the medical literature, not popular usage). Even with the Sexism article, since the vast majority of sources define sexism as primarily being against girls and women, we give that definition its due weight early on. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse; it means following the sources with due weight. And in the case of the definition of a serial killer, there is a standard definition, and the sources I provided on the matter are clear about that:

"Serial killer". TheFreeDictionary.com. Retrieved June 15, 2016. A person who murders 3+ people over a period of > 30 days, with an inactive period between each murder, and whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Contemporary Perspectives on Serial Murder. SAGE Publications. 1998. p. 1. ISBN 0761914218. Retrieved June 15, 2016. Serial murder is the killing of three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a significant cooling-off period between the murders [...] The baseline number of three victims appears to be most common among those who are the academic authorities in the field. The time frame also appears to be an agreed-upon component of the definition. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

Wayne Petherick (2005). Serial Crime: Theoretical and Practical Issues in Behavioral Profiling. Academic Press. p. 190. ISBN 0080468543. Retrieved June 15, 2016. Three killings seem to be required in the most popular operational definition of serial killing since they are enough to provide a pattern within the killings without being overly restrictive.

R. Barri Flowers (2012). The Dynamics of Murder: Kill or Be Killed. CRC Press. p. 195. ISBN 1439879745. Retrieved June 15, 2016. In general, most experts on serial murder require that a minimum of three murders be committed at different times and usually different places for a person to qualify as a serial killer.

Harold Schechter (2012). The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. Simon and Schuster. p. 73. ISBN 1439138850. Retrieved June 15, 2016. Most experts seem to agree, however, that to qualify as a serial killer, an individual has to slay a minimum of three unrelated victims.

Furthermore, the IP stating "at least two" is giving undue weight to the "two or more" definition, which is not as common as the "three or more" definition. Despite the lead's current focus on stating that the FBI starts at "two," the FBI has used "three or more" as well. Considering that my interaction with this IP and what I see of the interactions this IP had with Dennis Brown and Smalljim on the IP talk page indicate that the IP will continue to WP:Edit war over this, I have started a WP:RfC on the matter below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead sentence start with "several" or "at least two" instead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This edit shows the dispute in question. One view is that beginning the lead with "three or more" violates NPOV, or, more specifically, WP:NPOV. This is based on the viewpoint that "three or more" is "inexplicably trying to declare, in the voice of the encyclopaedia, that a particular definition is correct." and that "As the article clearly states, there is no unique definition, and we have no business pretending there is. Even if three is the most common, you do not have the right to state that as the definition."

The other view is that "the WP:NPOV policy is about WP:Due weight; it is about giving most of the weight to what is prevalent in the literature. On Wikipedia, it is common to give due weight to the most prevalent definition first, and then present alternative definitions." Atheism and Pedophilia are two examples. "Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse; it means following the sources with due weight." Use of "several" in this case is not accurate since "several" is commonly defined as "more than two but not many," when various serial killers have killed many. And "stating 'at least two' is giving undue weight to the 'two or more' definition, which is not as common as the 'three or more definition'."

For those seeing this from the RfC page or a talk page via an alert, full commentary can be seen at Talk:Serial killer#NPOV. Sources are also provided there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

In this section, feel free to suggest alternative wording or discuss other aspects of the dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to RfC - WP:NPOV does not mean we abstain from picking a side when there are two opposing views. In the oft cited example, we don't discuss creationism in the evolution article. We don't say "some people think the Earth is only 6000 years old" in the article on the Earth. We follow consensus, and we give more weight to viewpoints that are more prevalent than others. Following this consensus expressly does not violate WP:NPOV. WP:DUE absolutely applies. If the most prevalent definition is for three or more, then we should, nay, must say that, and give it its proper weight. If there is enough of a dissention from this view to merit it, there can then be a second mention of the dissenting viewpoint, but again, respecting WP:DUE. Fieari (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Responding to RfC If the most common definition is 3+, why not just say 'is most commonly defined as 3+' , the effect at the moment of opening with the definitive 'is 3+' and then shortly after saying 'Different authorities apply different criteria when designating serial killers; while most set a threshold of three murders, others extend it to four or lessen it to two' . Is confusing. I don't think this is quite comparable with fringe theories, since these higher/lower numbers are alternative criteria chosen by legit authorities, who are designating their own thresholds in a matter which is not susceptible to 'scientific' definition. I don't see the problem as mainly NPOV, more of clarity and saying 'it is usually 3 but sometimes other numbers' might actually be easier to say clearly. Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, good point about the flow, and interesting point on the rest. Before the IP became involved, the lead used to look like this. The "Different authorities apply different criteria when designating serial killers" aspect was added by the IP, and I kept it as a compromise. I see that the IP weighed in again here on the talk page, but was reverted by JamesBWatson (also known as JamesBWatson3). In 2014, the WP:Lead sentence used to state "traditionally," but that was removed by Ianmacm per WP:RELTIME. And unless an article is about a word, I stay away from "is defined" for a lead sentence, per what the WP:Refers essay states. Even though the lead sentence uses "usually" for one part, we could use "typically" for the first part of it (as in "A serial killer is typically [...]"). When it comes to defining that lead sentence, I was going for, like I stated, what we commonly do at Wikipedia articles, which is present the most common definition first...if WP:Due weight allows for it. We also have the option of doing an approach like the Atheism article or Celibacy article.

I refrained from pinging Legitimus to this because, since he watches this article (or watched it) but didn't weigh in on this, I figured that he's not interested in this dispute. But maybe he has some insight into this terminological matter or what is the best wording to use. Maybe KateWishing does too. I'm clearly open to alternative wording suggestions. Fieari, what say you? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to admit that I know nothing about the subject beyond any lay person and the article itself. However I was slightly surprised to see the number (any number) placed as the principal defining feature. Clearly investigators need to have a threshold and pattern at which they start to think in terms of 'SK'. I do not know how much weight deserves to be given to different numbers, but unless a particular number is near-universal, I suggest some way of placing less emphasis on number. This isn't quite like bicycle or tricycle is it, where a number is the defining feature? The term, I think, is less used in the UK, but in so far as it is used, it is used of a pattern rather than a number, I think. Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a few books on the subject that I can check later, but I do have the Crime Classification Manual, which states "Serial murder generally involves three or more victims. What sets this category apart from the two others is a cooling-off period between murders. The hiatus could be days, months, or years. In other words, the serial killer is not killing with frequency."Legitimus (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok going through my books, all seem to use similar language: That 3 or more is "common" or "generally" or similar language. My 2009 printing of Holmes & Holmes's Profiling Violent Crime (this is one book used by the FBI as well) says "The most common number given is a minimum of three victims" but does give a mention that there are some that think higher or lower is more appropriate, such as Jenkins 1994 which specifies 4+ victims, while Egger 1998 thinks 2 is enough, though Holmes openly criticizes this in the text as over-inclusive.Legitimus (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no expertise on serial killing, but I don't think it violates WP:NPOV to state "three or more" in the opening, since (based on the quotes Flyer22 posted) that's the definition used by most reliable sources. Adding "generally" or "typically" like Legitimus's source would also be OK. KateWishing (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for weighing in. As noted above, I could go with a "typically" type of wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22, I noticed a number of the sources in the discussion above were saying 'traditionally', so even those seem to be endorsing a commonly/generally/typically phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any of the sources I listed in the #NPOV section, or the sources that Legitimus cited, stating "traditionally." What those sources are stating is that "three or more" is the standard way a serial killer is defined (when it comes to the number of killings, at least, since there is more to being a serial killer than a body count; otherwise, anyone who has killed three or more people would be a serial killer). And, regarding my dispute with the IP, I've been consistent in arguing that "three or more" is the standard number for a serial killer body count, and that, per WP:Due weight, it is not a NPOV problem to begin the lead with that standard definition (with or without a "typically" type of qualifier). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, you are right, it isn't 'traditional' in the examples above, but most are putting some kind of qualifier, 'most common', 'popular' etc. Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Three or more - According to this source via FBI.gov website - https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder - It states that "There has been at least one attempt to formalize a definition of serial murder through legislation. In 1998, a federal law was passed by the United States Congress, titled: Protection of Children from Sexual Predator Act of 1998 (Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 51, and Section 1111). This law includes a definition of serial killings:

  The term ‘serial killings’ means a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.

  Hope that helps. DrkBlueXG (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: "Three or more" seems acceptable to me. If reliable sources say that the most common definition is three or more victims (and, per above, it appears that they do), then I think it's entirely fine for the lead to say this and then the body of the article to elaborate on the differences of opinion about whether two murders counts as serial killing or whether that's too few, whether even three is too few, whether intention and interval between the killings is a more important criterion, and so on. That said, it would also be acceptable to say something like "A serial killer is a person who murders multiple people over a period of time, including a significant break or "cooling off period". The most common definition requires three separate killings, though some experts claim as few as two or as many as four are required." as part of the lead. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to RfC Define in simple terms, and go back to correct. Three or more seems to be the most common definition in western culture, but let's not use US law to clamp down on wording. Pincrete's definition above of is most commonly defined as three or more. Situphobos (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Situphobos, do you have any evidence that "three or more" is not the most common definition in non-western cultures? We can only go on what the literature relays or indicates. Also, if serial killers are mostly studied in western culture, as are a number of academic topics, then it is a matter of WP:Due weight. We should not go out of our way to accommodate the minority viewpoint. There are places for the minority viewpoint, and that place is usually second...if the viewpoint is included at all. If it's a minority viewpoint that is only a minority by a few numbers (meaning it's almost on par with the majority viewpoint), then that's a different matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to RfC - "Three or more" seems to be extremely well supported, while there seems to be relatively little support for "two or more." It seems that by WP:Due weight that's really what you'd have to go with, and the existing definition seems more than fair in subsequently mentioning the minority viewpoints. Adding a "typically" might be justified, but that's implied by mentioning the alternative definitions. --tronvillain (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Several, or something even less specific. Why try to choose a specific number? (Or a specific time, which is used right after this in the lede.) Is a professional hit-man a serial killer? A long-term gangster? A cop convicted of repeated killings motivated by hatred? Were Nazi camp guards serial killers? It's not that clear to most people, or most sources. The fact that some (not most) sources try to make it precise is of no help our readers. The common definition (which is social-emotional and therefore imprecise) is someone with a psychological need to kill that's never satisfied for long. By that definition, a person with that need is a serial killer when they start their first murder; they aren't suddenly transformed into one when they finish the second or third or whatever. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

A D Monroe III, I argued against "several" above (see my initial post in the RfC section). As for choosing, we are not. We are going by what the authorities usually state on this matter since that's how WP:Due weight works. The authorities usually state "three or more." As for why, one of the sources I listed above relays, "Three killings seem to be required in the most popular operational definition of serial killing since they are enough to provide a pattern within the killings without being overly restrictive." It's about the pattern. Experts can't be sure that a person is a serial killer by just one murder. Killing a person with the desire to kill others for gratification is not how the term is defined. Many criminals have killed a person and expressed the desire to kill others; that doesn't mean we should label them serial killers. The term is defined by the number, and other things, just like mass murder is. We don't neglect the other numbers; we simply put the most common number first. Stating "with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant break (a 'cooling off period') between them" is also a commonly cited aspect of what defines a serial killer. Not all serial killers have acted the same, and, as noted in the Spree killer article, the "cooling off period" aspect is debated. But it is commonly cited nevertheless. And when experts discuss the topic of serial killers, there is no indication that "three or more" is "social-emotional and therefore imprecise." And adding "typically" or "usually" has been suggested as compromise wording for the first sentence. Years ago on this talk page, I noted the mob boss aspect and similar. These people are not serial killers because serial killing is about abnormal psychological gratification, with other facets as well. A cop who has killed three or more people is not automatically a serial killer. We shouldn't be vague when it comes to defining a serial killer; we shouldn't have readers going away from this article thinking that simply killing two or more or three or more people makes a person a serial killer. There are other facets, which is why the lead is currently the way that it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree with all the above. Since the RfC is giving the choices "several", "at least two", or leaving it as "three or more", I !voted for the least specific -- "several" -- with the addition "or something even less specific" because I didn't like any of the choices. I stated my reasons, which were then all repeated and expanded by the comment above. The only additional issue I have with "three or more" is that it states in WP voice that 3+ is the only definition, when it's not. AFAIK most sources don't give a number.

WP can say "the Earth is round" because virtually all sources state it's round(ish). But WP cannot state "intelligent beings from other planets have two or more eyes" because only a few sources state any number for their eyes, even though the ones that do make an acceptable case for 2+. When counting sources for the number of murders for serial killer, we must include all the dictionaries and such that do not give a precise number. If virtually all of them together say 3+, then WP must state 3+. But if not, WP must not state 3+. If only most of them say 3+, then WP could say "most say 3+" or some such. If a minority say 3+ with the majority giving no precise number, then we must back away from giving any number (or expand the present multiple-sentence explanation of the numerical controversy per WP:DUE, which isn't lede-worthy because our readers won't be interested in the resulting overt display of WP's editors' quibbling). We're currently putting the number first, but (from the above comment) we should put the "abnormal psychological gratification" with a pattern of murder first, as that is key to the popular definition, and only after that, probably in a second sentence, state numbers that can establish that pattern. People care about the crazed mind of the serial killer -- not math.

In summary, our first sentence should establish the primary distinction of serial killer (from spree killer, mob boss and the like) -- the psych need to repeatedly murder -- and only then maybe get into numbers and time as a secondary refinement of the definition of a pattern for the murders, per all the sources. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A D Monroe III (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), I guess we agree to disagree then. Not on everything, but I can't find a way to agree with your view on how we should relay this information in the lead. You stated, "The only additional issue I have with 'three or more' is that it states in WP voice that 3+ is the only definition, when it's not." But the lead does not state that "three or more is the only definition"; it gives "three or more" as the primary definition and then goes into the other definitions. As I noted above, this is a common way to format leads, and that first sentence can be altered with "typically" or "usually," or similar. And given the debate among some experts about whether to state "two or more" or "three or more," I support using such a qualifier. You stated, "AFAIK most sources don't give a number." But when I Google "Serial killer definition," I see a number given in various sources, and that number is usually "two" or "three." But when one looks at the academic sources, which are the sources we should usually be looking to on this topic, they commonly note what the sources I listed above note: Experts generally agree that at least three killings are needed to determine if a person is a serial killer. The sources I listed show that this remains true as of 2012. Four years have passed since 2012, and I would like to see what more recent sources state on the matter, but I don't think that the academic consensus has changed that drastically since 2012. For example, this 2015 Female Serial Killers in Social Context: Criminological Institutionalism source, from Policy Press, page 6, states, "The definition of a serial killer that the authors apply in this book is that which they have applied elsewhere – someone who has killed three or more victims in a period of greater than 30 days (Wilson and Yardley, 2013; Wilson et al, 2015)." As for the aforementioned Google search, if we look at some of the sources, although TheFreeDictionary begins by stating, "a person who carries out a series of murders," it also states, "someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval." Its medical version states, "A person who murders 3+ people over a period of > 30 days, with an inactive period between each murder, and whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification." And given that the topic is a psychology and mental health topic, I'm not surprised that it has a medical definition on that site. Some of the content in this article should be WP:MEDRS-compliant when it comes to sourcing.

You stated, "When counting sources for the number of murders for serial killer, we must include all the dictionaries and such that do not give a precise number." But that's not how sourcing issues usually work for topics like this. Academic sources are preferred. WP:Due weight is not about "virtually all sources" or assessing all sources. Dictionaries are often imprecise and/or outdated when it comes to a number of topics, especially medical or psychology topics. Plus, they are not comprehensive. All of that is why we don't rely on them at the Psychopathy article, for example. We mention the spree killer distinction in the lead, but distinguishing a serial killer from a spree killer, mob boss and the like is not something for the first paragraph, and it is better to go into that detail lower in the article. The lower part of the article should also address the definitional issues that exist among experts, especially since the lead (per WP:Lead) should summarize the article, not include content that isn't covered lower. I can't agree with a vague definition like "a person who carries out a series of murders." That definition is accurate on a basic level, but not on a comprehensive level since many people have carried out a series of murders without being an actual serial killer. And encyclopedias should be comprehensive, even in their leads at times. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would anyone think serial killing is so much about numbers? Can't we see what it's done to the article already? What if our article on Car used the same obsession?

A car is a vehicle that has three or more wheels,^[1] usually in service of carrying things, involving a significant distance.^[1][2] Different authorities apply different criteria when designating a car;^[3] while most set a threshold of three wheels,^[1] others extend it to four or lessen it to two.^[3] The Federal Bureau of Transportation, for example, defines car as having "two or more wheels, on separate axles, usually, but not always, with a single engine".^[2][4]

This is almost the same as our opening paragraph here! People reading this would think "huh? What's with counting wheels? This tells me nothing!" We're making WP look poor, and that reflects badly on us, the editors, fixated on something so minor, crushing all the main defining attributes of the subject to something badly worded and almost forgotten. We dedicate 70% of the first paragraph to pointlessly debate "3 or 2 or 4 or more". If we left out the numbers entirely, it would greatly improve the paragraph. People see serial killers are crazed guys with a need for repeated murdering. Please, let's spend our efforts on how to state this kind of numberless definition well with good sources using at least 70% of the first paragraph, and then debate numbers somewhere afterwards, maybe not even in the lede at all. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The second sentence of car says (emphasis mine) "Most definitions of the term specify that cars are designed to run primarily on roads, to have seating for one to eight people, to typically have four wheels with tyres, and to be constructed principally for the transport of people rather than goods." It might be an argument for moving the second and third sentences of the lede to somewhere else, but it's not obvious that it's a good argument for removing "three or more" from the first sentence. Serial killers aren't just "guys with a need for repeated murdering" - they need to have actually done the repeated murdering, which by most definitions is three or more times. --tronvillain (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So, we should follow Car? The second sentence in Car has a couple words on number of wheels. I'd be absolutely fine if the second sentence of Serial killer was the first time we mention number of murders, and only used a couple of words to do it. But, since the number of murders for serial killer is disputed and variable, it's even less important to the definition than the number of wheels for a car, so should probably have an even later mention. I'm fine with mentioning the number, after the more important points are well-covered, which would probably take at least one full sentence -- probably two or more. That's just the opposite of what we have now: the whole first paragraph devoted almost exclusively on the number of murders -- the least important part of the definition. Can we please stop trying to find ways to make this even worse? --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

So, you'd just have "several" or something in the first sentence and leave the specific number to the second sentence? I'm not convinced that flows especially well, or is more informative. And the number of murders does not appear to be "disputed and variable" - it's almost entirely three, with occasional two or four. --tronvillain (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This RfC exists because it's disputed and variable. Just try "series of" or "several" emphasizing motivations and patterns (based on sources). The 100 words on "mostly 3+" can come later. Really, it couldn't be worse than our current embarrassment. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I objected to "several" because it's not precise, given the common definition of "several." And I objected to "series" as vague. The sources I provided above are clear that the number aspect is nowhere close to being the least important part of the definition. What I stated above is all I have left to state on this matter. My compromise, which others also agreed to, is adding "typically" or a similar qualifier after "is." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I object to "3 or more" because it's precise and not vague enough; watering it down with "mostly", "usually", "often", "typically" is belaboring a point that doesn't matter in the first place -- literally a pointless distraction. People in general aren't going to think someone wasn't a serial killer just because he was interrupted in the midst of his third murder, or took a plea bargain of manslaughter on his first murder, or some similar technicality. Some agencies apply some precision they invented on their own to satisfy their own issues, but that doesn't change the more common use. The term "serial killer" comes from a series of killings; it's not "tri-killer". Think of this: on reading our first sentence, are we really worried readers will be surprised because we didn't give an exact number? Or is it more likely they'd be surprised that we spend so much effort on a number that isn't exact anyway? Yes, go ahead and include the full number discourse -- after the first sentence. Then we can be skip this whole time-consuming discussion on if might be possible to squeeze all the various conflicting sources into the tiniest phrase (required because of its lack of importance), and get on to productively improving WP. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chromosomal Makeup

I believe the section about the chromosomal make up of serial killers is underrepresented. It is a short paragraph section that basically just states that there has been research conducted to see if this is actually a possibility for a serial killer’s behavior. Being a criminal justice major and often learning about the social aspect of criminal behavior, it’s imperative to understand that in some cases, a criminal’s behavior can be determined by different chromosome make-ups. Although many of their behaviors can be explained by their social surroundings or their home lives growing up, it still would be a more neutral article if it included both aspects of the criminal mind in detail.

For the most part, the article is written upon a neutral stance. Obviously, in the case of serial killers and criminals, people will hold their own opinions. Many times, these opinions can be controversial and there are always two sides. The families of the victims and the suspect’s side will have varying stances on different situations. As I stated above, the article could be more neutral if it included more about the chromosomal make up of the killers and how this affects their crimes and what sort of offenses they commit. In addition to the chromosomal make up, the article references several topics regarding the killers, including motives, theories, investigation, and popular culture.

Many of the facts in this article are actually referenced with a corresponding link to prove authenticity. Especially when writing about serial killers, where there is proven evidence and a set verdict and punishment, it’s hard to misinterpret that and write it in a different way. Writing an article about serial killers could be a tough job to always be accurate in due to the amount of different stories and facts about each suspect. What was most interesting about this article is that it even included information about music, toys, and shows about serial killers. I’d say with the amount of information included in this article, it does a great job of ensuring that all information is accounted for and has a credible source to refer back to. Kayleyfrey (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Kayleyfrey, I see that you are a WP:Student editor. You are part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Michigan State University/IAH 206 It's Alive (Fall 2016). Welcome. As for including genetic material and tying that to the cause of behavior, it is important that the sources are WP:MEDRS-compliant, and that we stay away from WP:Undue weight and WP:Fringe ideas (unless the fringe ideas are notable enough for inclusion). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference regarding America holding 76% of serial killers in the 20th century may need to be repealed or revisited.

The reference in question is reference number 151: Michael Newton. The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. Facts on File, 2006. ISBN 0816061955 p. 95. From having read the relevant excerpt I believe it would be beneficial, if not necessary, to find a better source regarding such fact as the current source seems biased and impossible to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagacity159 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I support this entirely. A glance at the "serial killers list" article shows dozens of non-US killers that I never heard of; like myself, the author mentioned may be somewhat US-centric? Perhaps this sentence should just be deleted from the article. I'm not a regular here so I don't want to Be Bold and step on any toes. Just my two cents. Poidkurdo (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Strangers?

I am a layman and have zero expertise on this subject. But my admittedly subjective thinking on serial killers is that the victims are usually strangers (comfort-profit being a notable exception)? Strangers are mentioned under the "thrillkiller" section but not the "hedonistic/lust" or "power" sections. Of course, some SKs start with someone known to them, and every rule has exceptions.

I don't know where to find an "official" FBI definition, because the sources here are typically quoting but not specifying a source FBI official document. On https://web.archive.org/web/20100728094415/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/victims_1.html it says

"The FBI defines serial murder as:

• A minimum of three to four victims, with a "cooling off" period in between;
• The killer is usually a stranger to the victim — the murders appear unconnected or random;"
• (etc.)

I certainly don't want to revive the headcount debate (lol), but I'm hoping one of you could enlighten me whether the stranger aspect warrants greater mention (not just in the thrill section.) Thanks for any advice. Poidkurdo (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggested sources re female serial killers…

Both this article (which is actually a book excerpt) and the published scholarly works it cites could be added here. They suggest some major revisions to the "Women" section.

• “When Healers Do Harm: Women Serial Killers in the Health Care Industry | The Walrus.” 2021. February 10, 2021. https://thewalrus.ca/when-healers-do-harm-women-serial-killers-in-the-health-care-industry/.

--Carwil (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Caught this on my watchlist while on the wiki for a bit. I don't have any great knowledge on this topic, man, so bear with me. Knowing my sister (you maybe knew her as Flyer22) watched this page, I'll only offer my two cents before disappearing again for the gods know how long.

The ref is a media source and it's mostly speculation. I know sister would say to not give undue weight to it because of that. I get it too. Looking over some of the refs on the page and knowing about others out there (academic options too), I'm gonna say we really shouldn't make female serial killers look as prolific as male serial killers. In general, there are many more male killers than female killers. For crime in general too, it's more males than females. So to no one's surprise, it's the same for extreme topics like serial killers. If gauging this, I think that the most space we should give the "healers" ref, if it's included, is a paragraph. Like maybe put it in the section about medical professionals. It doesn't call for major revisions to the female section. It just doesn't. That's what I say.

Be well. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)