Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) →8 new from existing categories: Other add-in. |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
[[User:Arildnordby|Arildnordby]] ([[User talk:Arildnordby|talk]]) 19:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
[[User:Arildnordby|Arildnordby]] ([[User talk:Arildnordby|talk]]) 19:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Hello, Arildnordby. About defining serial killers, I can't state much more than what I already have above and than what was already stated to you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fluffernutter&diff=530797711&oldid=530797500#Re_on_serial_killers at the aforementioned discussion.] I feel that we should go by authoritative sources and/or what most sources state when categorizing someone as a serial killer. And I do mean what the sources state about that person or the people in question. I feel that way because we are supposed to go by the [[WP:Verifiability]] policy, which states, "[Wikipedia] content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I also feel that way because the term is often thrown around inaccurately, especially in the media. Just because [[ABC News]] says that someone is a serial killer, for example, it doesn't mean that we should categorize that person as a serial killer on Wikipedia. ABC News is not a psychology and/or medical source. And as [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations]] states, "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication ([[opinion pieces]]) or outside authors ([[op-ed]]s) are reliable primary sources for [[WP:INTEXT|statements attributed to that editor or author]], but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." And as [[WP:MEDRS]] (which covers psychological topics as well) states in its '''Popular press''' section, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." |
:Hello, Arildnordby. About defining serial killers, I can't state too much more than what I already have above and than what was already stated to you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fluffernutter&diff=530797711&oldid=530797500#Re_on_serial_killers at the aforementioned discussion.] I feel that we should go by authoritative sources and/or what most sources state when categorizing someone as a serial killer. And I do mean what the sources state about that person or the people in question. I feel that way because we are supposed to go by the [[WP:Verifiability]] policy, which states, "[Wikipedia] content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I also feel that way because the term is often thrown around inaccurately, especially in the media. Just because [[ABC News]] says that someone is a serial killer, for example, it doesn't mean that we should categorize that person as a serial killer on Wikipedia. ABC News is not a psychology and/or medical source. And as [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations]] states, "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication ([[opinion pieces]]) or outside authors ([[op-ed]]s) are reliable primary sources for [[WP:INTEXT|statements attributed to that editor or author]], but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." And as [[WP:MEDRS]] (which covers psychological topics as well) states in its '''Popular press''' section, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." |
||
:Yes, going by my initial comment above, noting the Serial killer article, I am aware of the FBI's definition of serial killer, but the FBI is not the only or main definition; like I stated above, "serial killer" is still often defined by "three or more" murders with a "cooling-off period" between the murders. So because the definition of "serial killer" can somewhat vary, this is another reason that it is not easy to define a serial killer, and, on Wikipedia, is better to go by what authoritative and/or most sources state about any one person on the topic of killing and/or serial killing. Most sources -- authoritative, average or below average psychological/medical, criminal and media sources -- define [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] as a serial killer, for example; there is nothing to dispute about that. But defining people as serial killers based on our own beliefs that they are serial killers because they fit any one definition is trickier. This is what others were telling you about not defining people as serial killers unless there are reliable sources in that person's article defining that person as a serial killer. This is covered by the WP:Verifiability policy. Even then, it may be debatable because the sources could simply be media sources and/or there could be conflicting sources (sources that state the opposite) available. And this is why WP:Verifiability also states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its [[WP:DUE|due weight]], and maintain a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]." |
:Yes, going by my initial comment above, noting the Serial killer article, I am aware of the FBI's definition of serial killer, but the FBI is not the only or main definition; like I stated above, "serial killer" is still often defined by "three or more" murders with a "cooling-off period" between the murders. So because the definition of "serial killer" can somewhat vary, this is another reason that it is not easy to define a serial killer, and, on Wikipedia, is better to go by what authoritative and/or most sources state about any one person on the topic of killing and/or serial killing. Most sources -- authoritative, average or below average psychological/medical, criminal and media sources -- define [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] as a serial killer, for example; there is nothing to dispute about that. But defining people as serial killers based on our own beliefs that they are serial killers because they fit any one definition is trickier. This is what others were telling you about not defining people as serial killers unless there are reliable sources in that person's article defining that person as a serial killer. This is covered by the WP:Verifiability policy. Even then, it may be debatable because the sources could simply be media sources and/or there could be conflicting sources (sources that state the opposite) available. And this is why WP:Verifiability also states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its [[WP:DUE|due weight]], and maintain a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]." |
Revision as of 20:28, 1 January 2013
Crime and Criminal Biography Category‑class | |||||||
|
Death Category‑class | |||||||
|
comment
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?
- Never mind, got it figured out. ;-) Thanks msnyder 07:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Added 23 in "Female serial killers" category from Wikipedia
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)
- For those wishing critical reexamination, here's my additions:
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)
Category:Executed_English_women
no additions Arildnordby (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
8 new from existing categories
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)
- I removed Stacey Castor from the category,[1][2] because, like I stated in my second edit summary, "it is only one forensic psychiatrist defining her as such. [At least in the Stacey Castor article.] That's not enough to warrant placing her in the category." Furthermore, just because a person has murdered two or more people, that does not necessarily make that person a serial killer. And "serial killer" is still often defined by "three or more" murders with a "cooling-off period" between the murders. The Serial killer article goes over the aspects that define serial killers, as well as the fact that female serial killers are rare. So we need to be careful about assigning the term "serial killer" to people, which is something that I see was already discussed with Arildnordby. A different editor also removed Debora Green from the category, soon after she was removed from it before. I have yet to check to see if others need removing. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 31 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 WORKING definition of FBI (a reliable source, I'd say!), has the following definition, chosen for flexibility for law officials:
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)
- Hello, Arildnordby. About defining serial killers, I can't state too much more than what I already have above and than what was already stated to you at the aforementioned discussion. I feel that we should go by authoritative sources and/or what most sources state when categorizing someone as a serial killer. And I do mean what the sources state about that person or the people in question. I feel that way because we are supposed to go by the WP:Verifiability policy, which states, "[Wikipedia] content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I also feel that way because the term is often thrown around inaccurately, especially in the media. Just because ABC News says that someone is a serial killer, for example, it doesn't mean that we should categorize that person as a serial killer on Wikipedia. ABC News is not a psychology and/or medical source. And as Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations states, "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. 'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." And as WP:MEDRS (which covers psychological topics as well) states in its Popular press section, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles."
- Yes, going by my initial comment above, noting the Serial killer article, I am aware of the FBI's definition of serial killer, but the FBI is not the only or main definition; like I stated above, "serial killer" is still often defined by "three or more" murders with a "cooling-off period" between the murders. So because the definition of "serial killer" can somewhat vary, this is another reason that it is not easy to define a serial killer, and, on Wikipedia, is better to go by what authoritative and/or most sources state about any one person on the topic of killing and/or serial killing. Most sources -- authoritative, average or below average psychological/medical, criminal and media sources -- define Jeffrey Dahmer as a serial killer, for example; there is nothing to dispute about that. But defining people as serial killers based on our own beliefs that they are serial killers because they fit any one definition is trickier. This is what others were telling you about not defining people as serial killers unless there are reliable sources in that person's article defining that person as a serial killer. This is covered by the WP:Verifiability policy. Even then, it may be debatable because the sources could simply be media sources and/or there could be conflicting sources (sources that state the opposite) available. And this is why WP:Verifiability also states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."
- I also removed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force's definition of serial killer, because, like I stated in that edit summary, it is a somewhat inaccurate definition that was added by a newly registered user without discussion[3][4]...and caused confusion in your editing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)