This category was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey, I'd like to know how to contribute articles to this category. I might contribute short articles on (for instance) Sara Aldrete.
Also there are existing articles (eg. Martha Beck) which could be linked to from this category, but aren't. How can I add a link?
Invaluable help from unknownmisandry blog; have added those that appear in peter vronskys 2007 book AND already have independent Wikipedia entries to category Female Serial Killers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arildnordby ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Ursinus, Patty Cannon, Catherine Wilson, Margaret Waters, Mary Ann Cotton, Flannagan sisters ( Black widows of Liverpool), Sarah Makin, Amelia Dyer, Sach and Walters, Martha Rendell, Enriqueta Martí, Amy Archer-Gilligan, Martha Wise, The Angel Makers Nagyrev, Daisy Louisa C. De Melker, Anna Marie Hahn, Marie Besnard (acquitted), Mary Elizabeth Wilson, Delfina, María, Carmen & Maria Luisa de Jesús González, Charlene Gallego, Suzan Barnes Carson, Cynthia Coffman, Blanche Taylor Moore, Karla Homolka, Betty Neumar Arildnordby ( talk) 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
no additions Arildnordby ( talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
added the 8 following from categories Category:Nurses_convicted_of_killing_patients , Category:Poisoners Elfriede_Blauensteiner Stacey Castor Janie Lou Gibbs Debora Green Masumi Hayashi ? Audrey Marie Hilley Martha Needle Lyda Southard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arildnordby ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Removals of Stacey Castor and Debora Green perfectly acceptable, and correct removals to me, although Debora Green IS referenced within a book concerning serial killers ( Inside the Minds of Health-Care Serial Killers: Why They Kill She's borderline serial and alive. "Serial killer" is NOT however, some sort of trade mark term that MUST appear in another source (no such policy exists), but either definitions as based on reliable sources makes her and Castor into border lines, but not as "evident" serials. thus, they ought to be excluded. Arildnordby ( talk) 18:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:
one or more offenders
two or more murdered victims
incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times
the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder
In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:
Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate event
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two
Arildnordby ( talk) 19:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
b) FBI has opted for a strictly less restrictive definition, meaning that ALL a)-cases are included within b), but that FBI regards it as more operationally suitable to be able to classify "not-yet-cases" also as the work of serial killers. (for example, the modus operandi of "Bavarian maiden butcher" Andreas Bichel, in jurist Paul Feuerbachs retelling from 1811 or so, clearly shows that that he would have become a serial killer in a)-definition, if he hadn't been caught after his second victim.)
c) Thus, the divergence in these definitions has ZERO relevance for the 25 females I added (and are still present); they are 3+ females (with deliberate omission of girls of Susan Atkins, of Charles Manson fame, due to her spree character)
d) And, reiterating: There exists NO articulated policy (that I have found!) at Wikipedia that the particular phrase "serial killer" MUST have appeared in any so-called reliable source in order to legitimize editors' usage of it; but the definition of the concept should most definitely be had from reliable sources!
e) Here's my take on "usual wordings": Unless a particular reliable source itself has used words like "probably"/"mostly"/"likely", wholly independent of theme, such words should NOT be used by editors (I believe you agree with the avoidance of typical "weasel words"). But applying the phrase "serial killer" to somebody found, for example, within reliable historical sources to have killed 3+ over a period of many years; should this require that Somebody has called that person a "serial killer" in beforehand"?? I think not, because the content of the reliably sourced definition is NOT of such a kind to require an expert's verdict (in contrast, say, to declare that a particular set of symptoms a given person showed it probable he died from a SPECIFIED disease. Such identification MUST be based on a medical expert's pronouncement). If so, then that MUST be stated in SKTFs aims. It would be a restrictive requirement, not very meaningful IMO, but I'll certainly abide with it in the future. Arildnordby ( talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
To bear out that irrationality, and complete ad-hoc waiving of "requirement", if the phrase "serial killer" MUST be substantiated by a source, then it follows with logical necessity that at the first time "serial killer" appears in an entry, then it should be..REFERENCED. This has NEVER been done done at Wikipedia, neither for male or female "serial killers". Arildnordby ( talk) 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, among a multitude of cases one might point to, Gregory Brazel is listed as an "Australian serial killer", although NONE of the given references name his as such. It is time for people here at Wikipedia to give ME an unconditional apology for making up requirwements on the spot Arildnordby ( talk) 21:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you wish me to point to the tens or so articles in which I easily found to substantiate the FACT that no phrase reqwuirement policy concerning serial killers has ever been present at Wikipedia? As for you. Fluffernutter, Debora Green DOES belong in the category of "serial killer", since she appears in an academic book concerning..serial killers. so there, whether yuou like it or not. (Or, have you arrogated to yourself the Authority to declare which academic sources are "reliable" or not?) Arildnordby ( talk) 22:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC) To begin with, randomly down the list, apart from Brazel, neither Cayetano Santos Godino, Robledo Puch, Caroline Grills are referred to with the phrase "serial killer" in any given references. I can go on and on, proving that no such policy ever has existed on Wikipedia. Arildnordby ( talk) 22:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The only consistently applied definition on Wikipedia in regard to "serial killer" is that of multiple murders (generally, but not universally 3+) commmitted as SEPARATE events. And from the very start, I have abided with that. Arildnordby ( talk) 22:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
None of those caveats are relevant in the cases discussed here. They are trivialobjections, and most definitely was not any of the criteria by which Debora Green or Stacy Castor was excluded. Furthermore, those objections relative to cops and soldiers, are already taken care of by, for example, FBIs definition, namely that we are talking about murder, which is a judicial category, rather than "killing", being merely causative. As for mob bosses (and for that matter, cruel nobles), ordering deaths is trivially regarded by everyone as different from "committing", and furthermore, being a professional hitman/assassin is neither included in "serial killer".
Absolutely NONE of these other groups are, however, relevent to either Stacey Castor or Debora Green, or any other I included. Thus, your comment is largely irrelevant, merely listing a few selfevident additional criteria that I haven't sinned against. Arildnordby ( talk) 23:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Besides, as to you, who dismiss both expressions of forensic psychologists in and the FBI whenever you feel like it, ought to be the one rethinking your MO, not me mine) Arildnordby ( talk) 10:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
In order to be constructive, people reall should offer specific criticisms to the choices I made, rather than general blatherings. In order to be constructive, I'll list the following persons I entried in the category "Female Serial killers" and that I stand by, provisionally:
I'll come back with the others. Arildnordby ( talk) 23:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No such policy has been followed as of yet at Wikipedia. That is provably wrong. The consistent criterion has been quite a different one (in general, a 3+separate events criterion). If you want to have your new def. implemented, by all means advocate for it. Arildnordby ( talk) 10:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore these 5 people HAS been said to be in Pete Vronsky's book (and absolutely NO other from that particular blog), and that is why i included them. Patty Cannon, at pages 111 and 439, catherine Wilson at 106-7, Margaret Walters at pages 443, Ursinus at 442 and Mary Ann Cotton at 107-8. Now, for several of these, Peter Vronsky has NOT been explicitly cited as a source for their inclusion, and I am perfectly willing to go through those I HAVE included and add page refrence to Peter Vronsky. Would that be OK for you? Arildnordby ( talk) 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Arildnordby ( talk) 11:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
2) The Peter Vronsky book is a passable source for the women it identifies as serial killers, though I do want to point out that the bulk of the women you're sourcing to there get literally less-than-one-line mentions in a list that looks like it may have been copied from elsewhere, not any critical discussion of their cases. That's not to say it couldn't be used as a source for labeling them serial killers, but if it's the best source you can find for that...it's very weak.
3) Will adding references to the work you're using to define these women help? Yep, it will! That's one of the things I pointed out in my last comment - if you have a reliable source, use it. But please do try to cite it in a manner that's consistent with the other references on a page - I notice you're adding your refs to the "See Also" section, in plain text, rather than using footnotes, which is the usual standard for citations and would make it much easier on your readers.
4) Debora Green's classification, citing Katherine Ramsland's book: if you refer back to the book you're citing, you'll see that Ramsland says of Debora Green, "Like many female killers [Green] killed people close to her, but the next healthcare worker was a predator of strangers, in the classic manner of a serial killer". That is, she is distinguishing Green from someone who murders like a serial killer, by saying that while Green killed like a "female killer", she did not kill like a "serial killer". Ramsland even says in the beginning of her own book that it will discuss both healthcare worker killers and healthcare worker serial killers (page xi in the copy I'm working off of), and she will distinguish between the two. This comes back to what Flyer22 and I have been trying to explain to you about synthesis. It is not enough to say "Green is mentioned in book X, therefore she is a serial killer" or "Green killed Y people, therefore she is a serial killer". You need to find a source that says "Green is a serial killer". The same goes for anyone else that you wish to classify as a serial killer. I'm honestly not sure why you're so desperate to classify as serial killers people who no sources seem to say are serial killers, but you need to focus your energies on the ones where reliable sources support your opinion, rather than using the scattershot "tag everything and fight to keep it" method you've been doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 15:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, you don't get the main point here: The policy you are demanding of me personally, has never been implemented at Wikipedias earlier Arildnordby ( talk) 16:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC) As to Green, FINALLY a good specific criticism from your part! Arildnordby ( talk) 16:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC) " Whether someone's a serial killer, what month they were born in, whether they designed planes or wrote books or killed people...anything you assert about an article subject must have a source. That's what our policy says, and that's the standard to which your writing needs to adhere". This is..INCORRECT. There is NO general requirement fior specific phrase reference, because for innumerable terms, legitimate inference from commonly accepted defs (from reliable sources) will be more than enough. Arildnordby ( talk) 16:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
This category was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey, I'd like to know how to contribute articles to this category. I might contribute short articles on (for instance) Sara Aldrete.
Also there are existing articles (eg. Martha Beck) which could be linked to from this category, but aren't. How can I add a link?
Invaluable help from unknownmisandry blog; have added those that appear in peter vronskys 2007 book AND already have independent Wikipedia entries to category Female Serial Killers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arildnordby ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Ursinus, Patty Cannon, Catherine Wilson, Margaret Waters, Mary Ann Cotton, Flannagan sisters ( Black widows of Liverpool), Sarah Makin, Amelia Dyer, Sach and Walters, Martha Rendell, Enriqueta Martí, Amy Archer-Gilligan, Martha Wise, The Angel Makers Nagyrev, Daisy Louisa C. De Melker, Anna Marie Hahn, Marie Besnard (acquitted), Mary Elizabeth Wilson, Delfina, María, Carmen & Maria Luisa de Jesús González, Charlene Gallego, Suzan Barnes Carson, Cynthia Coffman, Blanche Taylor Moore, Karla Homolka, Betty Neumar Arildnordby ( talk) 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
no additions Arildnordby ( talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
added the 8 following from categories Category:Nurses_convicted_of_killing_patients , Category:Poisoners Elfriede_Blauensteiner Stacey Castor Janie Lou Gibbs Debora Green Masumi Hayashi ? Audrey Marie Hilley Martha Needle Lyda Southard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arildnordby ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Removals of Stacey Castor and Debora Green perfectly acceptable, and correct removals to me, although Debora Green IS referenced within a book concerning serial killers ( Inside the Minds of Health-Care Serial Killers: Why They Kill She's borderline serial and alive. "Serial killer" is NOT however, some sort of trade mark term that MUST appear in another source (no such policy exists), but either definitions as based on reliable sources makes her and Castor into border lines, but not as "evident" serials. thus, they ought to be excluded. Arildnordby ( talk) 18:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The different discussion groups at the Symposium agreed on a number of similar factors to be included in a definition. These included:
one or more offenders
two or more murdered victims
incidents should be occurring in separate events, at different times
the time period between murders separates serial murder from mass murder
In combining the various ideas put forth at the Symposium, the following definition was crafted:
Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate event
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two
Arildnordby ( talk) 19:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
b) FBI has opted for a strictly less restrictive definition, meaning that ALL a)-cases are included within b), but that FBI regards it as more operationally suitable to be able to classify "not-yet-cases" also as the work of serial killers. (for example, the modus operandi of "Bavarian maiden butcher" Andreas Bichel, in jurist Paul Feuerbachs retelling from 1811 or so, clearly shows that that he would have become a serial killer in a)-definition, if he hadn't been caught after his second victim.)
c) Thus, the divergence in these definitions has ZERO relevance for the 25 females I added (and are still present); they are 3+ females (with deliberate omission of girls of Susan Atkins, of Charles Manson fame, due to her spree character)
d) And, reiterating: There exists NO articulated policy (that I have found!) at Wikipedia that the particular phrase "serial killer" MUST have appeared in any so-called reliable source in order to legitimize editors' usage of it; but the definition of the concept should most definitely be had from reliable sources!
e) Here's my take on "usual wordings": Unless a particular reliable source itself has used words like "probably"/"mostly"/"likely", wholly independent of theme, such words should NOT be used by editors (I believe you agree with the avoidance of typical "weasel words"). But applying the phrase "serial killer" to somebody found, for example, within reliable historical sources to have killed 3+ over a period of many years; should this require that Somebody has called that person a "serial killer" in beforehand"?? I think not, because the content of the reliably sourced definition is NOT of such a kind to require an expert's verdict (in contrast, say, to declare that a particular set of symptoms a given person showed it probable he died from a SPECIFIED disease. Such identification MUST be based on a medical expert's pronouncement). If so, then that MUST be stated in SKTFs aims. It would be a restrictive requirement, not very meaningful IMO, but I'll certainly abide with it in the future. Arildnordby ( talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
To bear out that irrationality, and complete ad-hoc waiving of "requirement", if the phrase "serial killer" MUST be substantiated by a source, then it follows with logical necessity that at the first time "serial killer" appears in an entry, then it should be..REFERENCED. This has NEVER been done done at Wikipedia, neither for male or female "serial killers". Arildnordby ( talk) 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, among a multitude of cases one might point to, Gregory Brazel is listed as an "Australian serial killer", although NONE of the given references name his as such. It is time for people here at Wikipedia to give ME an unconditional apology for making up requirwements on the spot Arildnordby ( talk) 21:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you wish me to point to the tens or so articles in which I easily found to substantiate the FACT that no phrase reqwuirement policy concerning serial killers has ever been present at Wikipedia? As for you. Fluffernutter, Debora Green DOES belong in the category of "serial killer", since she appears in an academic book concerning..serial killers. so there, whether yuou like it or not. (Or, have you arrogated to yourself the Authority to declare which academic sources are "reliable" or not?) Arildnordby ( talk) 22:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC) To begin with, randomly down the list, apart from Brazel, neither Cayetano Santos Godino, Robledo Puch, Caroline Grills are referred to with the phrase "serial killer" in any given references. I can go on and on, proving that no such policy ever has existed on Wikipedia. Arildnordby ( talk) 22:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The only consistently applied definition on Wikipedia in regard to "serial killer" is that of multiple murders (generally, but not universally 3+) commmitted as SEPARATE events. And from the very start, I have abided with that. Arildnordby ( talk) 22:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
None of those caveats are relevant in the cases discussed here. They are trivialobjections, and most definitely was not any of the criteria by which Debora Green or Stacy Castor was excluded. Furthermore, those objections relative to cops and soldiers, are already taken care of by, for example, FBIs definition, namely that we are talking about murder, which is a judicial category, rather than "killing", being merely causative. As for mob bosses (and for that matter, cruel nobles), ordering deaths is trivially regarded by everyone as different from "committing", and furthermore, being a professional hitman/assassin is neither included in "serial killer".
Absolutely NONE of these other groups are, however, relevent to either Stacey Castor or Debora Green, or any other I included. Thus, your comment is largely irrelevant, merely listing a few selfevident additional criteria that I haven't sinned against. Arildnordby ( talk) 23:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Besides, as to you, who dismiss both expressions of forensic psychologists in and the FBI whenever you feel like it, ought to be the one rethinking your MO, not me mine) Arildnordby ( talk) 10:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
In order to be constructive, people reall should offer specific criticisms to the choices I made, rather than general blatherings. In order to be constructive, I'll list the following persons I entried in the category "Female Serial killers" and that I stand by, provisionally:
I'll come back with the others. Arildnordby ( talk) 23:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No such policy has been followed as of yet at Wikipedia. That is provably wrong. The consistent criterion has been quite a different one (in general, a 3+separate events criterion). If you want to have your new def. implemented, by all means advocate for it. Arildnordby ( talk) 10:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore these 5 people HAS been said to be in Pete Vronsky's book (and absolutely NO other from that particular blog), and that is why i included them. Patty Cannon, at pages 111 and 439, catherine Wilson at 106-7, Margaret Walters at pages 443, Ursinus at 442 and Mary Ann Cotton at 107-8. Now, for several of these, Peter Vronsky has NOT been explicitly cited as a source for their inclusion, and I am perfectly willing to go through those I HAVE included and add page refrence to Peter Vronsky. Would that be OK for you? Arildnordby ( talk) 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Arildnordby ( talk) 11:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
2) The Peter Vronsky book is a passable source for the women it identifies as serial killers, though I do want to point out that the bulk of the women you're sourcing to there get literally less-than-one-line mentions in a list that looks like it may have been copied from elsewhere, not any critical discussion of their cases. That's not to say it couldn't be used as a source for labeling them serial killers, but if it's the best source you can find for that...it's very weak.
3) Will adding references to the work you're using to define these women help? Yep, it will! That's one of the things I pointed out in my last comment - if you have a reliable source, use it. But please do try to cite it in a manner that's consistent with the other references on a page - I notice you're adding your refs to the "See Also" section, in plain text, rather than using footnotes, which is the usual standard for citations and would make it much easier on your readers.
4) Debora Green's classification, citing Katherine Ramsland's book: if you refer back to the book you're citing, you'll see that Ramsland says of Debora Green, "Like many female killers [Green] killed people close to her, but the next healthcare worker was a predator of strangers, in the classic manner of a serial killer". That is, she is distinguishing Green from someone who murders like a serial killer, by saying that while Green killed like a "female killer", she did not kill like a "serial killer". Ramsland even says in the beginning of her own book that it will discuss both healthcare worker killers and healthcare worker serial killers (page xi in the copy I'm working off of), and she will distinguish between the two. This comes back to what Flyer22 and I have been trying to explain to you about synthesis. It is not enough to say "Green is mentioned in book X, therefore she is a serial killer" or "Green killed Y people, therefore she is a serial killer". You need to find a source that says "Green is a serial killer". The same goes for anyone else that you wish to classify as a serial killer. I'm honestly not sure why you're so desperate to classify as serial killers people who no sources seem to say are serial killers, but you need to focus your energies on the ones where reliable sources support your opinion, rather than using the scattershot "tag everything and fight to keep it" method you've been doing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 15:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, you don't get the main point here: The policy you are demanding of me personally, has never been implemented at Wikipedias earlier Arildnordby ( talk) 16:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC) As to Green, FINALLY a good specific criticism from your part! Arildnordby ( talk) 16:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC) " Whether someone's a serial killer, what month they were born in, whether they designed planes or wrote books or killed people...anything you assert about an article subject must have a source. That's what our policy says, and that's the standard to which your writing needs to adhere". This is..INCORRECT. There is NO general requirement fior specific phrase reference, because for innumerable terms, legitimate inference from commonly accepted defs (from reliable sources) will be more than enough. Arildnordby ( talk) 16:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)