![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I provided a reliable University source(page 10)
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)
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)
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? momo ricks 09:01, 21 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] [2]
-- momo ricks 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)
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:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)To which book does the "Holmes and Holmes (1998)" footnote refer?
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)These footnotes don't provide page numbers:
-- momo ricks 02:34, 24 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:
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)
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)
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)
... 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. ...
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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.) [3] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
The characteristics list serves no purpose, it's outdated sensationalism full of stereotypes. Strde ( talk) 17:09, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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>
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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. | ” |
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)
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)
Killers in tandem with a well know neurologist. Her take on Ted Bundy is esp good. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I provided a reliable University source(page 10)
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)
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)
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? momo ricks 09:01, 21 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] [2]
-- momo ricks 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)
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:
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)To which book does the "Holmes and Holmes (1998)" footnote refer?
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)These footnotes don't provide page numbers:
-- momo ricks 02:34, 24 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:
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)
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)
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)
... 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. ...
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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.) [3] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
The characteristics list serves no purpose, it's outdated sensationalism full of stereotypes. Strde ( talk) 17:09, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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>
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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. | ” |
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)
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)
Killers in tandem with a well know neurologist. Her take on Ted Bundy is esp good. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)