Talk:Serial killer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Relationship between killer and victim

Regarding single homicides rather than serial killers mentioned for comparison in the Victims section. It states that males who commit single homicides more often target family and friends. However, the truth is that a high proportion of murders in which both killer and victim are young males, they are strangers or only know each other slightly. A high proportion of male-on-male violence takes place on the street. Examples of that are: a) killings are the result of drunken stupidity and arrogance that makes a certain kind of person want to start fights, in places such as outside bars and nightclubs, that involve people likely to not have met until the night of the fatal fight / attack. b) Gang killings, in which the killer and victim will often not know each other well; members of rival gangs are very unlikely to be friends or related to each other. c) Muggings that end in the victim's death; in the vast majority of muggings, the mugger(s) and victim are strangers. The vast majority of each of those three types of homicide are male killer(s) and male victim. Crime researcher (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And the vast majority of those are not considered serial killers by the standard definition, so making original research-style arguments based upon homicides as a whole cannot be included in an article on serial killers. DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are serial killers, but the Victims section compares single homicide offenders to serial killers, where it falsely states that one-time killers target males and females equally. It is fact, backed by statistics, that most single homicides are male-on-male; it is not original research, nor is it merely an argument. Compare how many males are murdered to how many females are murdered; the number of males is massively higher. Young males are, by far, the most frequent victims of violence. The article should correctly compare the difference between serial killers and one-time killers. That difference is, in reality, that serial killers are more likely to target females, whereas one-time killers are much more likely to target males. I corrected the false claim about single homicides in the Victims section; it was reverted. Who is claiming that single homicides are as likely to have a female victim as a male victim? I am not disputing that serial killers are more likely to target females. Crime researcher (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Victims

However, some serial killers choose victims who are not of their own race. African-American Coral Eugene Watts preyed on young white women.

I inserted that text along with a good source, page 10 of: http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Psyc%20405/serial%20killers/Watts,%20Coral%20Eugen%20_2008,%20spring_.pdf

momoricks said it was "inserting commentary or your personal analysis".

I disagree. I'd like to hear what others think.Dopplegangerr (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The source has a table entitled "Serial killings" in which there is an entry of Victim type: young white woman. Where does it say that he's a notable exception to the previous statement of The majority of victims are white, supporting researchers' claims that serial murder is intra-racial? I reverted the edit because it gave undue weight to a minority view without providing a reliable, verifiable source showing that it is an expert's opinion, not yours. The warning I put on your talk page is appropriate. Your racially biased edits continue despite reversions and explanations by several editors. momoricks 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Momoricks' reasoning here. If you have a WP:RS then please post it here on the talk page for reading. If not we have to follow policy. I don't think breaking down racial tones is necessary nor is it needed unless it's documented, notable and meets weight issues. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

CrohnieGal, thanks for the feedback.

Momoricks, my edits are an attempt to balance the racially biased inclusion of the 14 "Characteristics" list.

I hope you will refrain from personal attacks in the future.Dopplegangerr (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Falsely accusing others of personal attacks is not helpful. Pointing out that your edit added personal commentary is not a personal attack, it's simply a politely worded description of why your edit violated policies. DreamGuy (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Disorganized offenders

I provided a reliable University source(page 10)

http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Psyc%20405/serial%20killers/Watts,%20Coral%20Eugen%20_2008,%20spring_.pdf

for my statement: "Coral Eugene Watts is an example of a disorganized serial killer".

Then DreamGuy makes an outlandish baseless attack on my motives. Also, DreamGuy it is not undue weight any more than are the Organized Offenders examples of Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. You have no objection to their inclusion, do you?

DreamGuy, please refrain from making personal attacks, and stick to the facts at hand.Dopplegangerr (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC) "I did not make any personal attack, and was sticking to the facts at hand. Your edit patterns are fully demonstratred at this point. The only commonality between them is a demonstrated desire to make black serial killers look more common than they really are. And for someone who was yelling at people and calling them racists because they wouldn't let you add unsourced, racially-motivated POV to the article, it's a bit hypocritical for you to even bring up personal attacks as something to allege that other people are doing. That facts at hand are that your edits would push a racial agenda onto the article, and that cannot be allowed. DreamGuy (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please no need to scream, the caps are screaming incase you were unaware. ;) As I said earlier, there is no reason to state 'white females', let the WP:RS say what happened. This prevents editors from be concerned with POV and undo weight issues among other policy violations. I don't think anyone is trying to 'get in your face' about things. I did use your reference for the main article for Coral Eugene Watts. I think this is the way to show what he did and to whom. Hope this helps, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

CrohnieGal, the 'white females' issue from the Disorganized Offenders section was from a while back, as you know. It has been resolved as far as I am concerned.

What is your opinion on the most current issue, inclusion of the statement:

"Coral Eugene Watts is an example of a disorganized serial killer"?Dopplegangerr (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd need a reliable source stating it to even think about adding it, and picking that particular example -- one black man out of a long list of generally white killers -- seems to be chosen solely to justify having a photo in the article of a black man when serial killers are being discussed. That'd be giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to race-based decisions for the intention of pushing a POV onto the article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

More information about list of characteristics

In an attempt to find more information and better sources for the list, I came upon Harold Schechter's The Serial Killer Files. Pages 22 and 23 include the same list found in The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. According to the book, the list was included in a paper presented by Robert Ressler and three others at a 1984 meeting of the International Association of Forensic Sciences. It was based on a study of 36 serial killers, including Edmund Kemper and Herbert Mullin.

After the list is the following text: It is important to remember, however, that these traits were extrapolated from a small sample of thirty-six sadistic lust murderers, all men and most of them white. There are many other serial killers who possess different characteristics.

I was unaware of this when I added the list to the article and feel like an ass for not doing more to verify the information. The paper is entitled "Serial Murder: A New Phenomenon of Homicide" and is mentioned on Ressler's website here; however, I don't believe there is a copy accessible to the public. Without more information from the paper, it's probably best to remove the list. Thoughts? momoricks 09:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The list is widely discussed in other locations, and was added to by later studies. Instead of removing it completely it'd be better to add more information so people can understand the context. People coming to this article probably are already familiar with some part of the list, so it's better to give more info to educate people than to leave it out so people are confused. DreamGuy (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, DreamGuy. I'll work on properly incorporating this info into the section. momoricks 00:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It turns out that putting the information into proper context in a clear way is going to be difficult and time consuming. Until that happens I'm moving the list here so readers do not think it is current, correct information.

Serial killers in the United States tend to share the following general characteristics:

1. The majority are single, white males.
2. They are often intelligent, with IQs in the "bright normal" range.
3. Despite their high IQs, they do poorly in school, have trouble holding down jobs, and often work menial jobs.
4. They tend to come from unstable families.
5. As children, they are typically abandoned by their fathers and raised by domineering mothers.
6. Their families often have criminal, psychiatric and alcoholic histories.
7. They are often mistrustful of their parents.
8. It is common to find that as children, they were abused—psychologically, physically and/or sexually—by a family member.
9. Many spend time in institutions as children and have records of early psychiatric problems.
10. They have high rates of suicide attempts.
11. From an early age, many are intensely interested in voyeurism, fetishism, and sadomasochistic pornography.
12. More than 60 percent wet their beds beyond the age of 12.
13. Many are fascinated with fire starting.
14. They are involved in sadistic activity or torturing small animals.

--momoricks 00:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I say that a little of this needs to go back into the article for now...but in paragraph form, until we can better sort this all out. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Momoricks decision to remove properly cited material was unnecessary, in any case some of it should go back into the article for now. South Bay (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

South Bay added the information back, dated 03:56, 21 December 2009. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing the rest

I was wondering if you guys would agree to a collaborative effort to get the rest of this article sourced within the next few days or weeks. There is not much that currently needs to be sourced in this article, and I am sure that we could soon get it up to par to where there are no citation tags anywhere within it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to collaborate on this. I probably won't be able to tackle anything until this weekend, but here are some things that are unclear:

These works in the bibliography don't have corresponding footnotes:

• Douglas, John (1997). Journey into Darkness. Pocket Books. ISBN 0-671-00394-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Douglas, John (1997). Mind Hunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit. Pocket Books. ISBN 0-671-01375-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Lane, Brian (1996). The New Encyclopedia Of Serial Killers. Headline. ISBN 0-7472-5361-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Leyton, Elliott (1986). Hunting Humans: The Rise of the Modern Multiple Murderer. McClelland and Stewart. ISBN 0-7710-5025-9.
• MacDonald, J. M. "The threat to kill." American Journal of Psychiatry 120 (1963).
• Norris, Joel (1990). Serial Killers: The Growing Menace. Arrow Books. ISBN 0-09-971750-6.
• Wilson, Colin (1995). A Plague Of Murder. Robinson. ISBN 1-85487-249-4.

To which book does the "Holmes and Holmes (1998)" footnote refer?

• Holmes, Ronald M. (1998). Contemporary Perspectives on Serial Murder. Sage. ISBN 9780761914211. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Holmes, Ronald M. (1998). Serial Murder (Second ed.). Sage. ISBN 978-0761913672. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

These footnotes don't provide page numbers:

• Holmes and Holmes (1998)
• Linedecker
• Rushby
• Sitpond
• Whittle and Ritchie

--momoricks 02:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for some tasks to work on and for jumping in on this, Momoricks. I will be "finishing" up my work on the fictional character article Todd Manning this week (see what I can trim with that article especially), but I will tackle some of the tasks you have put forth for this article as well. I will likely look to source the unsourced spots first, at some point this week or weekend, and then try to better the references you noted above. Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I will try to get started on sourcing parts of this article sometime this week. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. The main reason I added the list above is they were in the bibliography section when I attempted to match listed sources with uncited info last year. Unfortunately, I don't believe any of them have previews on Google Books. I thought you might have access to hard copies, which would save you some work. Best, momoricks 02:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I added references for two easy parts to just get out of the way. As for the other obvious spots that need sourcing, they are as follows:

In the of Types of serial killers section:" They will carry out careful and methodical murders at the start, but become careless and impulsive as their compulsion takes over their lives."

In the Organized/nonsocial offenders section: "Some serial killers go to lengths to make their crimes difficult to discover, such as falsifying suicide notes, setting up others to take the blame for their crimes, faking gang warfare, or disguising the murder to look like a natural death."

In the Serial killers in history section: "In his 1886 book Psychopathia Sexualis, psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing noted a case of a serial murderer in the 1870s, a Frenchman named Eusebius Pieydagnelle who had a sexual obsession with blood and confessed to murdering six people."

For the Psychopathia Sexualis/Eusebius Pieydagnelle part, this source pretty much backs it up, except for the fact that I do not see where the source says that the info about Eusebius Pieydagnelle is noted in Psychopathia Sexualis; the source rather notes both closely together. I have read parts of Psychopathia Sexualis before. Has anyone here read the whole thing, or at least a significant portion of it? Even if so, I am looking for where in that book this info about Eusebius Pieydagnelle is noted...because I am thinking that it is best to get the primary source for this. Flyer22 (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Has any serial killer targeted muggers, street drug dealers etc.?

In the Mission-oriented section, it mentions some groups, but not any who are bad by definition, such as muggers or drug dealers. Have any known SKs targeted such criminal groups? I would have thought that some of the people who have repeatedly been mugged would have decided to get rid of those weapon-using street thugs who terrorise so many innocent people. A similar thing for someone whose son / daughter / brother / sister had died due to their addiction to crack cocaine or heroin might decide to get rid of street dealers, as they destroyed their family member (and many others). Street dealers are easy to find; they deal openly on city streets. Has no mission-oriented killer ever targeted them? If so, the Mission-oriented section should include an example. If not, why not? If, as the section states, SKs have targeted Catholics, why not muggers or drug dealers? A group such as Catholics (or Protestants, Jews etc.) includes good, bad and neutral. In comparison, all muggers and drug dealers are very bad. If a person feels they are on a mission to improve society by getting rid of bad people, why target Catholics rather than muggers or street drug dealers? It doesn't make any sense. Crime researcher (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, you're confusing your moral judgments of what is "bad by definition" with the moral judgments of other people: some of them may consider all Catholics to be bad, regardless of your opinion on the matter. And there have been serial killers that targeted pedophiles (or suspected pedophiles). Can't think of the names but I think it was in Australia, so looking at the list of SKs or Googling should bring it up. Really, though, the mission-oriented killers are only a very small minority of SKs anyway... most claims to have been trying to improve society by their killings were only after-the-fact rationalizations to try to explain things in a way that makes themselves look like more than thrill killers. DreamGuy (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition, number of killings

The article uses sources of book authors who state that the traditional definition is three or more. But, at least in theory, their definition should be getting derived from law enforcement ... and according to at least one document, there appears to be a conflicting definition published by the FBI.

In San Antonio, Texas, on August 29, 2005 through September 2, 2005 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) brought together a multi-disciplinary Symposium in order to have a group of respected experts on serial murder from a variety of fields and specialties, to provide input and to identify the commonalities of knowledge regarding serial murder. A summary of the Symposium is available on the FBI website in both html format as well as pdf format.

Two key quotes exist in chapter II "Definition of Serial Murder" ... first, a "traditional" definition that was derived from legislation is mentioned, but also mentions that this version was not intended to be a generic definition for serial murder:

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.

Although the federal law provides a definition of serial murder, it is limited in its application. The purpose of this definition was to set forth criteria establishing when the FBI could assist local law enforcement agencies with their investigation of serial murder cases. It was not intended to be a generic definition for serial murder.

But further along, the document states that a slightly different definition was reached by participants of the Symposium:

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

• one or more offenders
• two or more murdered victims
• incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times
• the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder

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

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

Should this alternate definition be worked into the article? It appears that the two-or-more definition is a more formally agreed on definition, but lacks the legislative reasons of the three-or-more definition. What are other opinions on this? I've searched the FBI website, and can't locate any mention of which definition is used internally today by the organization. 67.183.232.99 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I did some searching, and noticed that the second edition of the Crime Classification Manual, published in 2006, also mentions the change resulting from the Symposium - but is again unclear on if it's officially used within the FBI. The manual states on page 96 that:

... At a 2005 FBI conference on serial murder, discussion focused on the number of events needed for classification as serial. There was considerable support for reducing the number to two or more events to qualify as serial in nature. ...

I think the article should at least acknowledge that there's discussion to lower the count criteria. At least until a source can be found that clearly states which count is currently officially in use. 67.183.232.99 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting, IP. Yes, I had researched some of that as well. But there are so many people who would be called serial killers if it was defined as "two or more," when they really are not serial killers (at least not in the traditional sense). At least when it is "three or more," we can be fairly certain that the person is a serial killer. If we were to add what you propose to the lead, I would suggest that it goes after the traditional definition of "three or more." After the traditional definition, we could say, "it has also been defined as two or more in..." (address what the "in" is) and leave it at that. I do not feel that we need a Definitions section in this article to address this, since the traditional definition is so prominent. But whatever we decide on this matter, there should be WP:Consensus about it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Elaboration

"Psychopaths lack empathy and guilt, are egocentric and impulsive, and do not conform to social, moral and legal norms. Instead, psychopaths often follow a distinct set of rules which they have created for themselves." This is extremely interesting, and I'm convinced this article would benefit greatly from a deeper understanding of what these rules are. Furthermore it will provide good insight and provoke further reading for those interested in psychology. If anyone could elaborate, please take the time to do so. OktoberStorm (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious where you got the above quote from. Do you have a reference for it?

Moving on with your query: yes, the article can always be improved (as can any WP article - even those some consider to be "stable"). Are *you* interested in expanding the article to include more information on psychopathy and sociopathy? If so, be bold and go for it. I know I'm not going to bite you for doing so. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OktoberStorm was quoting from this very article, its Characteristics section, with the above quoted lines. That information is attributed to this source.

But, yeah, OktoberStorm, you should expand on that if you want. We could create a subsection or how many ever needed within the Characteristics section to significantly elaborate on all that. It should be backed up by reliable sources, though, per WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition

Who wrote this rubbish about "thirty day" periods in between murders? Where did they get that number from? Why is there a distinction between a mass murderor and a serial killer? The reason some people get confused between the two.. Is because they are the same thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources here at Wikipedia, per WP:Reliable sources. And it does not say "thirty day" periods in between murders. It says: "A serial killer is a person who murders three or more people over a period of more than thirty days..." It means that a person can be considered a serial killer if they have murdered three or more people a little over thirty days or longer. It does not mean that every murder has to happen at least thirty days after the previous murder. If you have a better reliable source to replace that part of the definition, then provide it. The current one could probably be worded a little bit better...so that people are not confused the way you were by it. And, no, serial killers and mass murderers are not the same thing. Read the Mass murderer article, and do further research on that particular term. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Section on Serial killer and music

I've been looking to find references for this section and so far in my search I've only found one that comes close to what we are trying to achieve here and it's not acceptable as a reliable source because it's a blog site. I am finding suggestion and hypothosis that some songs maybe about a serial killer but nothing saying they are about a serial killer. Like the song from the Rolling Stones (Midnight Rambler). I guess what I'm asking others is this, it this section really needed in the article? Names of artist and their songs keep being added but it's required a source template since April this year. I don't see what value this has overall, at least the way it is set up in the article now. So maybe it should be deleted as trivial or written out in more prose about just a few songs that can be referenced. Thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it should be written out in more prose about just a few songs that can be referenced. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I just went through the section and wikilinked songs and took out the ones that have articles stating that the songs were about other things and not serial killing. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/sociology2/pdfs/Haggerty%20modern%20serial%20killers.pdf. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Ted Bundy comment removed

An unsourced line stated Ted Bundy was a mission oriented serial killer. Since there is already a properly sourced line placing Bundy in the controlling serial killer category instead, I removed the unsourced comment. MitchBrennersBirds (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Unneeded Focus on Sexuality

Leave out gender terms entirely where they are not specifically called for (IE, details of a female serial killer [you can include she's female, but don't pull out gender statistics.]). Sexuality is a specific that shouldn't be included in such a broad article; the title is "Serial Killers", not "American Serial Killers", "White/Black Serial Killers", or "Female/Male Serial Killers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.197.213 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Unabomber

I don't think that it's appropriate for him to be mentioned under the "mission-oriented" section. He wasn't a serial killer. He was, IMO, a terrorist, but definitely not a serial killer. There has to be a case study that's a far more accurate representation of that subtype. --209.89.155.96 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Alright, as soon as I finished writing that it occured to me that Robert Hansen might be a better fit. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.155.96 (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the Unabomber is "definitely not a serial killer"? DreamGuy (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To 209.89.155.96: I understand your concern. Some experts classify him as only a terrorist while others consider him to be a serial killer as well, such as the authors of the Crime Classification Manual, the cited source. Robert Hansen is mentioned in the Thrill section. momoricks 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the original post. The article begins with the definition: "A serial killer is a person who murders three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a 'cooling off' period between each murder, and whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification." I certainly see good reason to consider the Unabomber a murder and a terrorist, but there is little evidence that his murders were conducted out as part of gratification or compulsion psychology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.94.167 (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why terrorists are not perfect. They may have psychological problems considering that they became a terrorist in the first place. Unless you think terrorists are psychologically normal people, which implies their actions had direct reasons, or in other words they were all provoked. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Libel

The article lists Elias Abuelazam as a serial killer. Abuelazam merely has been charged with killings, not convicted of any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.229.114 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, a person is guilty until RELIABLE sources prove him/her innocent. Wikipedia's admins and crats decide what sources are reliable, so if they think Abuelazam is guilty, too bad for her.66.183.59.211 (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's "him," actually.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Removed statement

I have removed the following statement bellow.
The majority are single, white males. However, there are recorded cases of non-Caucasian serial killers, such as Carl Eugene Watts, Wayne Williams, Timothy Spencer, Charles Ng, Angel Maturino Reséndiz.Pat Brown, "Killing For Sport- Inside The Minds of Serial Killers."
I have done this because i have just read the book used as a reference and it dose not imply this at all...In fact the opposite See Killing for Sport: Inside the Minds of Serial Killers By Pat Brown, page 12, Beverly Hills, CA : Phoenix Books, (2008) - 2003 - ISBN: 9781597775755 .............Moxy (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

An IP did that. I reverted him or her. But then added that part of their changes back, since a source was provided. Seeing John Muhammad and Lee Malvo listed did raise red flags, though; they are more so spree killers. Thanks for spotting this and removing it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Executioner's Song

I removed The Executioner's Song from the list of literary works dealing with serial killers, on the grounds that Gary Gilmore was not a serial killer. john k (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

serial bullies / serial abusers

Much of the public interest about serial killers has been spawned by Hollywood films. However serial killing is only the tip of the iceberg as a similar psychopathic personality type is responsible for serial abuse of various kinds and serial bullying. This gets much less media attention but is much more common. --Penbat (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Racism

1.The majority are single, white males.

This is pure racism. I looked at the source and there was nothing white males included.

1. Over 90 percent of serial killers are male. Where do I see white there? Bunch of racism. Edit that article. Nicoliani (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicolani, there are two sources used for that information. The Schechter and Everitt book identifies them as "single, white males". mo ^talk 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The second source given(footnote 10), a webcitation page containing a list of 14 serial killer characteristics from Ressler and Schechter mentions males, but not specifically "white males". --68.14.137.191 (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if it does it's not appropriate to single out that they are white. I don't see under rape that black in US are the majority perpetrators in that category as they are. Now I'm not saying they should be labeled of race, you shouldn't judge rapist as black just as whites under Serial killer. Nicoliani (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This information is significant, so leave it in if it is reliable. However, I would be interested in seeing the Schechter and Everitt numbers in context. If it simply cites a high percentage of whites among documented serial killers worldwide, then delete it by all means. The plain truth is that some places document their crime rates more thoroughly than others.

I have encountered this idea being thrown about loosely in the past, which is why I came here to look. The only other online source I have located is a set of lecture notes by a forensic psychology professor. Using US crime statistics, he reported the white percentage of serial killers being slightly lower than whites' percentage of the US population. I am not linking that source here, because the notes were rather sketchy and this clearly is not their intended use. For the same reasons, I will not change the article, though I am disinclined to accept that particular conclusion.--Geometricks (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the vast majority of serial killers are male, specifying "white" is misleading, as if white males are somehow more prone to be serial killers. Studies of serial killers indicate that, by race, serial killers appear roughly in proportion to their percentage of population. For instance, African Americans are about 13% of the US population, and about that proportion of indentified serial killers are African American.

"There have been few studies of the race and ethnicity of serial killers, but the handful that have been done suggest that black serial killers occur in roughly equal -- or even slightly greater -- proportion to the number of blacks in the population. These studies estimate that between 13 and 22 percent of American serial killers are black."RETRACING A TRAIL: THE SNIPER SUSPECTS--68.14.137.191 (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be your personal perception of it, it says nothing of the sort. The statement is that of the population of serial killers, the majority are white, not in relationship to the proportion of one race vs. another in the population as a whole. That it says that white males are more prone to be serial killers is your interpretation. Please come up with statistics of serial killers by race in comparison to its own population (serial killers), not with the percentage of race as a factor of the whole population. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(2006 FBI bulletin: While technically correct, at least for the United States, this statement is incomplete. To understand it properly, the relevant base rates also must be considered. Three different studies of serial murderers found black offender proportions of 16, 20, and 20 percent, and female offender proportions of 9, 10, and 16 percent. According to the 2000 census, the U.S. population is 75 percent white and 49 percent male. So, while disproportionately male, the only reason most serial killers in the United States are white is because most of the population is white. More important, all else being equal, serial killers are less likely to be white in predominantly black or Hispanic areas.) Dopplegangerr (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's really sad that political correctness rules wikipedia. Is there anyone willing to say with a straight face that If a list of characteristics said "the majority of ____ are single black males, that wikipedia would allow it? No chance in hell.

The communists apparently not only run the Universities, but wikipedia as well.Dopplegangerr (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is evidence of the brainwashing of college students found in a forum on the internet: "Recently in my forensics class, my teacher handed out a sheet that had listed the most common characteristics of a serial killer. Everyone in class read it over and saw how much they had in common with a serial killer. I had the most in common out of the entire class." The list was the same piece of garbage saying the majority are single white males.Dopplegangerr (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The majority *are* single white males. DreamGuy (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If the truth means so much to you, why won't you allow additional clarifying information? If it's OK to say more tan 50% of serial killers are white males, why is it not OK to add a percentage of other races?Dopplegangerr (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Me? I posted below that I am in favor of clarifying inforamtion -- provided it uses reliable sources and is written in a way that the people here agree meets WP:NPOV. Your edits did not meet those criteria. In fact, the more you edit the more you seem to be editing with an agenda in mind, and one that is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I now see where you said that before, sorry. You seem to be a fair editor. Momoricks, in contrast, seems to be a young naive person who has been brainwashed. Does she have ultimate say over what is allowed on this topic?Dopplegangerr (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I take it back, I can no longer say you are a fair editor after your statement that my "only reason for editing here is to stir up racial conflict".

How do you back up that statement?Dopplegangerr (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's examine the following post by momoricks:

"Here's some background: I added the list and sources in September 2008 when I was a newbie and trying to expand the article. Its contents are a compilation of the lists in Schechter and Everitt's The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers and the Dr. Phil webpage. As far as I remember, the lists are similar but not identical, so I tried to incorporate everything mentioned in both....momoricks 02:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)"

Is this not a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research?68.49.118.36 (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

68.49.118.36, please respond to other editors' notes in the section where they were originally written. This helps readers follow a particular discussion. Accusing someone of original research is a big deal and extremely uncivil unless you have specifc examples. Where do you see my opinion or material taken out of context? momoricks 00:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

After further research, it appears that the information was taken out of context by the sources. See "More information about list of characteristics" section below. momoricks 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In Ann Rule's The Stranger Beside Me, she writes that serial killers are "more likely to be White than Black, and very rarely Oriental or Indian." This is just a single opinion, but it does come from a very well-known true crime author and therefore it has some credibility. GSMR (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that it is often reported by very reliable sources that the majority of serial killers are Caucasian males; I definitely feel that this information needs to go back into the article. People can call it racist all they want, but facts are facts. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, however, Caucasian is not a synonym for White European, so be sure to say "White" and not "Caucasian". See Caucasian race. GSMR (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, the majority of serial killers studied in America are white males... but then the majority of people in the United States are white. It's a fact, sure, but it's also misleading, as it suggests that being white is linked significantly in some way to being a serial killer. We do not include that the majority of serial killers are right handed, or have dark hair, and so forth, because those facts, while true, don't mean anything of any importance. DreamGuy (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I do not feel that we are necessarily saying that being White is linked significantly in some ways to being a serial killer. Are you now against relaying this information? Every book and reliable article I have read about the topic, which is not always by American writers, says that most serial killers are White males; I see the information as being important to this topic. In addition, I see it as not too differently than relaying that most rapists and pedophiles are men, as the Rape and Pedophilia articles do. We could note the percentage, as the Rape articles does, as to seem more fair with the information. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As for GSMR saying that Caucasian is not a synonym for White European, I have to disagree. It sure is one on most important applications. The word "Caucasian" is there over "White," and anyone who is White is expected to mark the Caucasian box (not the "Other" option). Even the Caucasian race article says that it is mostly restricted to reference of White European, though sometimes used more broadly. Likewise, the White people article says the same thing. Thus, I am not getting the point of distinguishing. When you say/write "Caucasian," most people think of White European. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

An anthropologist will make the distinction. [1] clearly shows that usage of the term to refer to any sort of race is outdated, and even when it was used in that sense, it did not exclusively refer to White Europeans - it included people from North Africa, West Asia, and India (who some anthropologists still classify as "Non-European Caucasoid".) GSMR (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point there, and am familiar with anthropologist distinctions. But while some do not believe in race in reference to human beings or classifying people by race and rather go by clines, others still go by or believe in "race." Either way, I am still not feeling why the distinction should necessarily be made in regards to this article or otherwise in general. The two are hardly ever distinguished (except by some anthropologists), no matter how supposedly outdated "race" is...and "White" in this context is used to refer to "race" as well. Not to mention, as I stated above, "White" does not always strictly refer to White Europeans either. We will likely state "White" in this article instead of "Caucasian"...but, like I already made clear, I do not see it as necessary. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

From an absolute numbers standpoint, this may be true (white male majority). From a per-captia basis, which is how crime is traditionally measured when race is also evaluated, I am certain that this is false. I think this statement should be removed or at least qualified unless someone can present unambiguous statistics one way or the other. Dgarvin1 12/22/2009

It also depends on how people define a serial killer. An African American man having killed three women does not necessarily mean that he is a serial killer, especially if he partly killed them, all in the same night, because they were all living in the same household. Plenty of people from gangs have killed three or more people but are not serial killers. I bring all this up, because some people define "serial killer" differently or in weird (weird to me) ways. Whether or not to include the above debated information is also being discussed below, in the #Racial characteristics – opinions please and #More information about list of characteristics sections. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact is you are correct, the % of serial killers in an area tend to reflect the racial makeup of the area. If the USA is 75% "white" then roughly 75% of serial killers will probably be white. In South Africa the majority of serial killers are black. In China they are Asian. The statement that most serial killers are white is regarding USA/Europe (while not disclosing that other regions of the globe weren't considered in data collection) and also so general as to be almost laughable when applied to the United States. The implication being that serial killing is something only suffered in USA/Europe. --TobusRex (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For God's sake, if a sample has more white people during the time serial killers were recorded, OF COURSE there will be more white serial killers! This does not mean white people are any different. Obviously, the sources cannot take equal samples of white and other races because they cannot measure the percentage of white people in the sample since serial killers that come from outside the sample are mixed with those that are not.66.183.59.211 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Characteristics

The characteristics list serves no purpose, it's outdated sensationalism full of stereotypes.Strde (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It serves the purpose to document the characteristics of serial killers. Generally, these same characteristics are reported in every new reliable article or book on serial killers and serial killer types. Therefore, it is up-to-date. But even if it wasn't, these are things that have largely defined serial killers. It's not about sensationalism at all. Some definitions don't change. What defines a serial killer is something that has largely stayed consistent over time. And exceptions can (and are) also be listed in the section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I suppose in your view there should be a characteristics list for rapists and murderers and car-jackers?Strde (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

For the Rape article (which I work on at times), I wouldn't mind that, no. But we take care of that by having a Causes section with a Motivation subsection. And unlike the usual characteristics of serial killers -- one-time murderers, spree, mass, or gang-type murderers do not generally follow the same type of pattern time and time again. Nor do they generally have the same set of circumstances attributed to their actions. If they did, were not much different than serial killers, serial killers would not be defined the way they are in the lead (intro). The same goes for rapists and car-jackers; they do not typically follow the same type of patterns. Nor do they generally have the same set of circumstances attributed to their actions. The way serial killers are typically defined could be considered stereotypes, such as by you, but, according to most reliable sources on the topic, these are characteristics which are usually true...not simply myths. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Change i made

Agian i see that we are saying "are predominantly white males" - ok so lets fix this to with real refs so theres no dispute - one ref from world renowned Pat Brown (criminal profiler) and the other from lets say the main investigative force in the USA Federal Bureau of Investigation - Moxy (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• The racial diversification of serial killers generally reflects the demographics of the U.S. population. Ref1 from the FBI and ref 2 Pats book

I reverted, because, as I stated in my edit summary, that section already points out that these characteristics are based on U.S. serial killers/sources, and there is no use in even reporting the "race demographics" if we do not report what they specifically state. I will change the wording back to "generally" (seeing as someone recently changed it to "predominantly" with an additional source), but that section was already recently edited to be neutral (by me and Strde). It starts off saying "According to some sources," and also has a reference from the FBI stating that serial killers are no more likely to be white than any other "race." Having the information that serial killers are usually reported as white is important/vital...because American research typically reports them as that (over and over again). I have no problem with your sources being included, of course; only the way you removed what you did. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I made the information even more neutral, with the Pat Brown source as well. The FBI source was already there, and, as I mentioned above, that particular bit does not need to be stated. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And another tweak/add-in, especially on the "serial killers are always white" myth. Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We should not be regurgitating false facts - its sounding better but still a bit off - with very bad sources used and sounds a bit weasely. Demographics are very important and reflect the facts. lets drop the bad sources used. let me give you some more sources with stats Race and crime: a biosocial analysis - The serial killer files: the who, what, where, how, and why of the world's .. I can give many many many more - this ref is no good and this ref is even worst. We should be using proper published books and not High school projects nor a blog posting. Shirley Lynn Scott does have some credibility in this field, but is not a criminologist or a profiler - she is just an author who writes about what has been reported. Moxy (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We regurgitate false facts to dispel myths. And according to plenty of reliable sources, it is not a false fact that serial killers are generally white males. But on the topic of sources, how is truTV.com a bad source? I did not originally add that source, but your opinion that Shirley Lynn Scott is not appropriate is just that -- an opinion. It's not the best source, sure, but it's not a bad source either. It can be used for the other stuff in that section, but not for the "race" part? As for the first source listed there, I did not originally add that either (as noted above), but it also doesn't look like a very bad source to me. About sounding a bit weasely? The use of the phrase "according to some" is acceptable when it has sources to back it up and when there is no other way to get across the fact that "only some" report it that way. Furthermore, the FBI and Pat Brown sources back up that serial killers are generally reported as white, and can be used to cite the fact that most sources/researchers typically report serial killers as white. Sources aside, the way I formatted that information makes more sense -- stating that racial demographics regarding serial killers are somewhat debated, as some sources report them as generally white, with other sources stating that there is no certainty that serial killers are generally white...and why that is. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For false facts i meant This ref thats is usless just look at its sources and it says 90 percent (way off) - as stated here (if blacks make 22 percent and there are still many many many other races how is it possible to be 90 percent). What we could say it that "the majority of reported and investigated Serial killer are white males". As for "Shirley Lynn Scott" or better know as Shirley Tatum is a screen writer and is what she is famous for - writing for truTV.com is a side project. Would be like quoting a amateur geologist. Moxy (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your edit change and all good for me ---ThanksMoxy (talk)

Yeah, I changed it to this, taking out the disputed bxscience source and adding your suggested line about majority in (also attributing it to the FBI and Pat Brown sources). I left in the Shirley Lynn Scott truTV.com source because she counts as a reliable source on the matter (reporting from truTV.com at least), is generally backed up by other sources, and lists a lot of the typical characteristics. Having that source there as a secondary source to Dr. Phil is much better than Dr. Phil being there alone. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OMG just saw the Dr. Phil ref (yep it needs backing as you say)....i will contact if i can Julietta Leung author of this and see if i can get them to fix all the links - So that we can perhaps use the sources stated in that text (that dont work). This way we can have multiple and real Data - as one of the dead sources is a statistical annalist for the FBI. On a side note i have a book (that is new) that can be used as a source for the types of killers here - I think its best i dont add anything for the book because of my involvement with its development. PS great talk this went very very smoothly - great working with you on what i saw as a problem in that statement of "are predominantly white males". Moxy (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL, the Dr. Phil issue was discussed above, at #General note on citations/references used, remember? Not that Dr. Phil isn't reliable, but we definitely need a better source that lists the typical characteristics, without having to add a whole bunch of different sources to validate each one, which is why I was glad when an editor added the truTV source (and why I left it in moments ago). And thanks. It has been great working with you too; not just on this, but in reverting vandalism or unsourced information regarding this article as well. On Wikipedia, I'm always for trying to reach a compromise when there is a dispute...unless it is something that just cannot be given a compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

General note on citations/references used

This entry puts-forth certain peices of information that are not considered facts or are disputed by many in the Forensic-psychological science community. Eg, using "Dr. Phil" as a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocRyz (talk • contribs) 06:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

you sound informed on the subject ...perhaps you could add a template to what you believe is wrong see Wikipedia - Template messages - Cleanup - Verifiability - Inline for a list ..the example with "Dr. Phil" you could use {{Verify credibility}} at the end of the statement.Moxy (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

From my studies of this topic, what Dr. Phil lists about the characteristics of serial killers is commonly cited as the characteristics of serial killers (without any dispute). But better sources for all that could not hurt. Flyer22 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dr. Phil list is now somewhat backed up by this source, but I would prefer Dr. Phil be replaced completely with other sources. Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, "Recent scholarship has cast doubt on the Thuggee cult and suggested that the British in India were confused by the vernacular use of the term by Indians, and may also have used fear of such a cult to justify their colonial rule.[93]" sounds like revisionist/agenda-driven history - in any case, Thuggee is VERY well documented (see Wiki's own article on the subject.) This should go or be balanced with a statement that it is dubious. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Dr. Phil and TruTV are very lousy sources for this topic. With all the books out there we should not use amateurish sources like this. They would not be accepted for a high school essay in any good school, let alone in an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Kermit Gosnell?

Reading the definition of serial killer (more than three kills, over a long period of time, etc) it seems like the abortion doctor recently charged in Pennsylvania, Kermit Gosnell, would meet the criteria to fall under the category of accused serial killer. I realize that he's innocent until proven guilty, but is it okay to add him as an *accused* serial killer? Why or why not? I'll wait for feedback before adding him.OrthodoxLinguist (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)OrthodoxLinguist

--TobusRex (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. First off, we should not have accused ones even listed. Secondly, the motives do not match the motives of serial killers. Third, the whole concept is politically motivated. DreamGuy (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

References

Ok i have taken the time to consolidate and link the references, so we can go over this article. Flyer22 looking to you for some help here in verifying things :-) .Moxy (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Moxy. I'm not quite understanding why you changed some of the references to this style. How do we duplicate such references when we need to attribute them to more than one thing, without citing them in their full form? What I mean, and you may already know this, there is something I call "the duplicating feature," which makes it possible not to have to reenter all the same information for each individual reference. For example, when adding a source, you can add the chosen name (any name you chose) as an attribute by using <ref name="name">details of the citation</ref>. Thereafter, the same reference may be used multiple times by adding <ref name="name"/>. "Some names require the use of straight quotation marks, and it is never wrong to use them." Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

oops forgot to add back the quote - my fault sorry - good eye...The main reason to use harvard citation style is so the refs link to the books below in the Bibliography section. {{sfn|Holmes|1998}} should work the same as <ref name=FOOTNOTESmith200626>. All you have to do is pick the page number to make it different. Moxy (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Template {{sfn}} creates a named footnote, so that identical footnotes are combined automatically. The footnote name begins with FOOTNOTE followed by a concatenation of the arguments to {{sfn}}. E.g.: this template call

{{sfn|Smith|2006|p=26}}

should have exactly the same functionality as

<ref name=FOOTNOTESmith200626>{{Harvnb|Smith|2006|p=26}}</ref>

which, in turn, has the same functionality as

<ref name=FOOTNOTESmith200626>[[#CITEREFSmith2006|Smith (2006)]], p. 26</ref>

I see, and I figured that's all I had to do. The same thing is done with other book style citations, so yeah. I was just too lazy to try it out. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait... I thought I figured that. But what if we don't know the page number? I wonder if a sfn reference can be formatted as a typical REFNAME reference. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See belowSee ref #6 'I" just add ?? to the ones with no page #s - guess i could add "page needed".

After thinking about this best we use the {{Page needed}} were needed - Found most of them. Moxy (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

First opening statement

PS had to redo intro with this edit. Statement was a direct copy vio from here that as stated was first published in this manner in 1998 by the author of both books. AS i said i am going over the refs one by one..not good start so far - the first statement is a copy vio :-( LOL Moxy (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ref 51 works for me. I opened it with Microsoft PowerPoint. Flyer22 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool..Could you tell me what its called with who and when it was published? Shit now #52 LOL ps good ce on the intro much better.Moxy (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It was broken up in different pages before I closed it. But I'll look again soon. Right now, I'm sleepy.

Of course you know I tweaked your alteration of the lead.[2][3][4] While your or my tweaks are close to the original wording, there is nothing we can do about that if we want to relay the term accurately, as traditionally defined. Flyer22 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you no longer want that information for ref 51? Flyer22 (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it got moved to #52 - the one ref thats not in a template.Moxy (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It had dawned on me what you meant a few moments after I stated that. You were saying it was ref 52 all along. And, yep, not working for me either. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

African American serial killers

I'm not seeing why there should be a section on this. One "race" should not be singled out any more than others by having a whole section dedicated to them. Further, I don't trust it on this subject unless there is hard data -- information distinguished from popular press. Not writers surmising their own conclusions and theorizing about it. I certainly don't trust how they are defining serial killers. These days, the word "serial killer" is often used incorrectly in the media or thrown around at random by the general public, to describe someone who has killed more than one or two people. For example, a mob boss may have killed several people, but that doesn't make the mob boss a serial killer. If we are going to keep it, it needs to be thoroughly examined and integrated into the Characteristics section without being a section on its own. It's a short section, after all. The only reason we single out female serial killers is because they are rare. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The first source in the section lumps John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo in as serial killers. That is exactly what I mean about inaccurate definitions. Muhammad and Malvo were spree killers, not serial killers. I have removed the section until these issues are worked out here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Was also concern about the additions - was hoping you would come by and confirm by observations. You have! In other words i second the removal. Moxy (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, the sources are reliable and verifiable. I don't know if "One race should not be singled out" and "I don't trust it" are reasons grounded in policy. However WP:DONTLIKE and WP:NOTCENSORED are policies that may be applicable. Whether it has it's own section or is hidden away in Characteristics should be based on WP:UNDUE, not by fiat of a single editor. Regarding "inaccurate definitions", you are free to add reliably sourced content to discuss, refute or elaborate upon the sources I added. Lionel (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, do not come to this talk page with an attitude. It seems you've recently been warned about that very thing (your aggressive tactics) on your own talk page. "One race should not be singled out" is based on WP:UNDUE. What reason is there for this topic to have its own section when other "races" do not? And as for sources, this article should go on non-popular press sources, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations, WP:MEDRS, and other policies or guidelines, when defining serial killers. The same goes for Pedophilia and many more research topics. "Verifiable" is not good enough, as "verifiable sources" can call anyone a serial killer or a pedophile; "verifiable" does not mean it belongs in this article. The fact of the matter remains...killers such as Muhammad and Malvo are not serial killers, no matter how many times popular press sources call them such. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As I don't have time to get into an edit war with you over this, and you are clearly someone I cannot reason with, I will simply open this discussion up to the wider community by posting a link to it at related WikiProjects. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The first policy you cite actually bolsters my position: "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable." The second you cite specifically relates to medical articles and has no application here. And FYI just about anyone who edits abortion articles has a talk page full of warnings: the entire topic is 1RR. If you have any argument regarding reliability of my specific sources I'm listening. In any event you have provided absolutely nothing which impeaches the sources I added and I'm restoring sourced content. Lionel (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You clearly missed the part of the section that says, "However, even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis... For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the information in question; as always, consider the context." Needless to say, the context of your sources are flawed if they cannot even accurately identify serial killers. It's also clear that you haven't studied this topic to insist that it is unrelated to the medical field. FYI, most sources in this article are psychological/medical, as psychology is a part of the medical field. Your aggression? No, no, your warning was exactly about that. You need a new tactic when editing articles/debating on the talk page. And, no, you are not listening. I have given glaring reasons why your sources should not be used in this article. But since you insist on using them and reverting without in-depth discussion, I suppose I will have to use one of your sources to again put forth the belief that most serial killers are white. Seriously, one your sources actually says that, which is another reason why your sources are flawed. Though most sources, even most scholarly/research sources (of the past anyway), state that most serial killers are white, it needs to be given context these days. The Characteristics section gives context to the "white male" issue. Anyway, I will be integrating the section, per WP:UNDUE, and balancing it out. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Lionel pls read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle before proceeding with the additions again. We have certain conduct expectations here on Wikipedia. That said it is a bit odd to mention one ethnic group from one single country. Its there a way we can get more stats from other country and ethnic groups - because i do think our readers may find this interesting if presented properly. This article USA lean keeps getting bigger and bigger and this could be a way of fixing that. And yes the news report is not very good for a topic of this calibre.Moxy (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As I've integrated the section, there's no valid reason for him to revert again...especially since it's otherwise a case of WP:UNDUE. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Maintaining a difference between serial killers and serial murderers

Now of course these two terms are used interchangeably and can mean the same thing, but I what I mean by "maintaining a difference between them" is that not all serial murderers are termed "serial killers" by medical professionals/criminologists/etc. The term "serial killer" has a more specific definition, while "serial murder" can include war vets or other such soldiers who have killed countless men, a mob boss who has killed several men, a gang member who has killed several men (as plenty of gang members have), etc., etc. Understand the difference? These examples are not accurately termed "serial killers." They have killed more than two or three people and can be termed "serial murderers," sure, but they are not what experts would define as serial killers in the sense that the lead of this article defines them. The same goes for spree killers such as John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. I touched on this above, in the African American serial killers section. And the recent information added by NK456 on African serial murders doesn't sound much like "true serial killing" either. Anyone with access to the books by Hickey, Holmes, Ressler, and Mouzos, I ask that you check out the accuracy of this information of African murderers -- how the authors are using the term. Frankly, I am starting to be against any source using "serial murderer" instead of "serial killer." We might as well list all of the military if we are going to be defining "serial killer" as anyone who has killed more than two or three people. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a few of those books in hardcopy. I will post a little later once I find were I put them.Legitimus (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Legitimus. I knew you had something about Holmes. And you do understand what I mean about the definitions, right? Spree killers, for example, are not considered true serial killers in the way the term has come to be defined. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok now that I've had a chance to take a closer look at this, I may not be as useful as I had hoped. I used to have a strong interest in the subject (heck I even shook hands with Special Agent John E. Douglas once), but that was many years ago and looking over the book sources in this article, I feel I have gotten a bit rusty on the subject. I do however have copies of a few recent books of note. I have Holmes and Holmes "Profiling Violence Crime" 4th Edition (2009) and the Crime Classification Manual, 2nd Edition (2006), both of which are popular reading for the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit. Holmes titles Chapter 7 as "Profiling Serial Murderers" yet uses the term Serial Killer in the chapter for typologies. I believe he uses the terms interchangeably. The Crime Classification Manual also used the term "Serial Murder." For this reason, I think the popularity of "killer" might just be linguistic: "Killer" is easier to say for English speakers than "Murderer". I have met people who literally cannot pronounce "murderer" out loud without muddling it.

All of the technical definitions I have read so far seem to provide specific rules or reasons that make a serial killer distinct from the examples you provided, in that there is more to it than body count. All definitions seem to indicate that each kill is a single isolated "event," that a definite period of cooling off occurs, where emotions subside and they go about their "normal" lives, and that the motive is psychological gratification of some kind, even if the kill also has some "fringe benefits."Legitimus (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You're still helpful either way. Thank you.

I know that "serial killer" and "serial murderer" are used interchangeably and pretty much mean the same thing, as I stated above, but it seems that some sources (especially news sources) take any type of body count to mean "serial killer." John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo are often touted as serial killers (even in scholarly sources, I think). So much so that I had to tweak the John Allen Muhammad article to state him as a spree killer first and foremost...and then note him as being referred to as a serial killer by the media. I even put a hidden note in the lead of his article, and there is a debate on his talk page about whether to refer to him as a serial killer or a spree killer. I mean, really, if reliable sources are referring to these guys as serial killers, what can we do to combat that? It reminds me of people wrongly referring to individuals as pedophiles. This is why I feel "serial murderer" is often about body count, because almost any time I see it, I see names such as John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo thrown in. In reputable, non-news sources, however, "serial killer" is used more accurately. What you state about the definition is exactly what I mean. It's also why I am skeptical of the new information added about African serial murderers. It just sounds like the sources are talking about body count to me -- that these individuals are referred to as "serial murderers" because they have murdered more than two or three people. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Beltway Sniper's typology is debated even by experts in the very books we're reading. The Crime Classification Manual contains them as a case study, and implies they are both spree and serial. They are mentioned directly under Spree Killer, yet the case study contains this statement:

“ The thirteen victims, ten dead and three wounded, qualify this crime as serial, given the cooling-off period between each of the shootings. It could also be argued that the crime was a group cause given that Malvo has been directly implicated in at least two of the shootings and the actions were committed by two individuals who arguably had similar ideologies. ”

Media sources at issue do require investigation though. I would argue that in some cases, news sources should have lower priority than reputable book sources, since forensic psychology is arguably a science that media is notorious for screwing up.Legitimus (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for Muhammad and Malvo, that's why I stated, "...even in scholarly sources, I think." But I am certain that most experts would label them as spree killers when compared to what typically defines a serial killer, which is why they are classified under "Spree Killer" first foremost in the manual you speak of. The "cooling-off period"... What is and what is not a "cooling-off period" is debatable, which is why the spree killer 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," as stated in the Spree killer article. But I always figured the "cooling-off period" to usually be "significant" in serial killer cases. At least that's what I've studied. And the Spree killer article says "...the lack of a cooling-off period marking the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder." Notice it says "lack of." I've never come across a serial killer case where the killings happen so often, sometimes within an hour of each other. If you look at the dates of the Beltway sniper attacks, they take place just a day later, on the same day in between hours, or only just a few days later. That is not a true "cooling-off period" to me. And, actually, any killer who has killed more than two or three people could be said to have "a cooling-off period," including murderous gang members. It's not as though any killer murders non-stop. So, given that, and not fitting the typical characteristics, I truly cannot see Muhammad and Malvo as serial killers in the true sense. And by "true sense," I mean how the term has come to be used in research fields. Not fitting the typical characteristics is not a reason to discount them, but I feel that it is when combining that with the style of their attacks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting here late - but i just happen to read a book that talks about this topic.Curt R. Bartol; Anne M. Bartol. 2008 Current Perspectives in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Behavior. SAGE. p. 61. ISBN 9781412958318. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help) In a short form I believe it's saying - Serial killers: kills for the fun of it - as in they simply are killing to kill for the enjoyment/thrill of it with no other motivation. A serial murderer: kills for a purpose other then to simply kill - as in there is a an outcome they hope to gain by the killings be it monetary, political, military, social standing etc. But this is not clear as the book mentions - simply hard to class like this. Moxy (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, Moxy. I wasn't aware there would be sources out there actually distinguishing between the terms since, for the most part, they mean the same thing. I was just trying to make a point -- that one can have killed several people and therefore accurately fit the title of a "serial murderer" due to body count...but not fit the correct definition/criteria of a serial killer (the definitions/criteria that have come to be used in research fields). I've never seen the terms distinguished in the way you just stated, especially since some people, specifically women, who are considered serial killers by experts do kill for financial/personal gain. The so-called "black widows." Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Source

Flyer have you read "Guilty by Reason of Insanity" By Dr. Dorothy Lewis. It has some incredible insights into the minds of killers. Most of them are not truly DX'd.You can get it used, cheap, on Amazon. I would HIGHLY recommend it! For the depth of info, it is an easy read. Will be expanding on it further, after you read it ;-) Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't read it. But I always take into consideration recommendations when it comes to reading. I can't say I have the time to look for and read the book these days. But I'll try to remember to read it in the future. If this discussion continues much further, we should probably transfer it to my talk page, though, before we are thought to be going against WP:NOTAFORUM. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I do recommend the book to anyone working in this genre. The author is highly respected in the US for asssessing

Killers in tandem with a well know neurologist. Her take on Ted Bundy is esp good. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

NOTE: POORLY SOURCED INFORMATION, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, AND POV WILL BE REMOVED. PLEASE DISCUSS MAJOR CHANGES ON THE TALK PAGE FIRST. Recent changes dubious. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you mean the recent information added about "African serial murderers," right, Doc? It was toned down at least. There was more than that before. I wouldn't say all significant changes need to be discussed here first, but I understand what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

TY Flyer! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't even have a lead paragraph! Significant changes need to be made, as the article meanders. Not even close to collegiate quality. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I just read the notes above. I see Flyer you have put a lot of thought and work into this piece. A cold reading by myself immediately put me into prof mode (I am retired). The South Africa stuff had to go. I have no doubt from your remarks that we can fix this article, I will try to leave my instructor hat off ;-) Looking forward to working with you.Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 11:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right on the tags, I couldn't find the right templates. I figured you would jump in,help! Thanks ;;-) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, DocOfSoc. And I understand you removing most of the South African information, per the concerns expressed by me above...and it looks like your own concerns as well. I'm not sure what you mean about this article not having a lead paragraph, though. We clearly start out with the most common definition of a serial killer and then explain the rest/more detailed stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All edits made after 3 am are suspect! I take it back, it was the middle of the night and I was cross eyed. Was looking at.. who knows? LOL It is actually a pretty good lead! Sorry, backing up the truck here :-D — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL!!!! I understand 3AM cross-eyedness all too well. You're forgiven. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

TYTY!! You are a treasure! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked TheCrow200 to weigh in on his or her additions here. I'm not seeing why this South African information is needed in the Characteristics section and why we should give undue weight to one ethnicity. If we are going to keep this South African information (we already left a little in the article), I would prefer we keep this toned down version that DocOfSoc removed. I still feel that they are not speaking of true serial killers, though, per what I stated in the section right above this.

Also, to TheCrow200...changes to the wording already present in the article should not be made unless those changes are backed up by the sources they are attributed to. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If the South Africa section is included, we open the Pandora's box of how may other countries on the planet do we include. Also, the point about South Africa's ban on porno, has not been sufficiently researched. I am willing to bet that many porn magazines could still be found between the mattresses of many young males. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thuggee?

I have to question whether the Thugs in India were "serial killers" in the same sense that Gilles de Rais was (in the same paragraph). The Thugs were religious cultists. They killed people, mostly travelers, for religious reasons, not because they were individually bent (unless, of course, you regard all religious fanatics as nut-jobs, which is a whole different issue). If the Thugs were serial killers, then so were any number of Catholic and Protestant leaders for burning their religious opponents during the 16th & 17th centuries. --Michael K Smith^Talk 22:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not seeing what you mean. Nowhere (that I can see) does any sentence state that the "Thugs in India were 'serial killers'". The paragraph on the Thugee is separate from the one on Gilles de Rais, though both are in the History section. And the paragraph in question states: "Thug Behram, a gang leader of the Indian Thuggee cult of assassins, has frequently been..."

The paragraph is about one man, the leader of the Thugee, with the exception of the last sentence. The last sentence turns the topic from the individual to the group, and I would agree that that one sentence could be excised. It's presence and its absence neither benefit nor detract from the article. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic?/Psychopathy

• Under the heading "Characteristics," the subject of the article changes suddenly from "serial killers" to "psychopaths" (I've marked this exact area with an "off-topic?" template). Why is there no transition here? If a comparison is being made between the two, there should be some kind of segue such as "A variety of scholars believe that a person's being a serial killer correlates with their being a psychopath" with a good deal of reliable sources, examples, and so on presented (perhaps even a percentage that such a scholar estimates of serial killers who are psychopaths...or at least that kind of empirical or widely supported research). This is an article on serial killers, not psychopaths, so if the latter is to be discussed, there must be some logical connection made between the two--hopefully supported by some solid sources. I just don't understand why psychopaths are suddenly being explained in the body of this article, out of the blue, when this is an article on serial killers. A rational relationship between the two terms must be articulated, otherwise the whole "psychopaths" commentary is a non-sequitur. Wolfdog (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Information about psychopaths should definitely be mentioned, as serial killers are largely considered psychopaths, but you are right that there needs to be a better transition into that regarding the text. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

An IP took care of the problem,[5] and I tweaked it.[6] Flyer22 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

America-centered - possibly?

Autochthony writes: although the section of the article covering the FBI's efforts to aid detection and apprehension [and subsequnt trial] of these malefactors is a welcome dse of reality, it is rather America-specific, I feel. If the advice was generalised - 'in multi-authority areas' rather than quoting the undoubted fact that the US is a multi-authority area - I would be a bit happier - and wouldn't have written this. Should I make the edit?? Autochthony wrote - 2106z 08 July 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.55.253 (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

...And apparently the FBI definition of serial killer requires that one of the killings happen in the US. On the Russell Williams page, they want a Canadian reference defining serial killers before considering him to be a serial killer. (!)173.206.131.48 (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)