This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
an Australian named Sam needs to be removed
The opening paragraph, defining what a serial killer is, needs to be changed - I tried editing it and it doesn't allow for that first sentence/intro to be edited.
Reference regarding America holding 76% of serial killers in the 20th century may need to be repealed or revisited.
The reference in question is reference number 151: Michael Newton. The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. Facts on File, 2006. ISBN 0816061955 p. 95. From having read the relevant excerpt I believe it would be beneficial, if not necessary, to find a better source regarding such fact as the current source seems biased and impossible to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagacity159 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Serial killer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100728094415/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/victims_1.html? to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/victims_1.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100106081640/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/nilsen/alone_4.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/nilsen/alone_4.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090309132810/http://www.enotes.com:80/forensic-science/serial-killers to http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/serial-killers
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218133027/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/notorious_murders/angels/index.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/angels/index.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120426081443/http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/Laurence/forensic/ProfileAnalysis1.ppt to http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/Laurence/forensic/ProfileAnalysis1.ppt
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130217183125/http://voices.yahoo.com:80/san-franciscos-zebra-murders-6725422.html?cat=37 to http://voices.yahoo.com/san-franciscos-zebra-murders-6725422.html?cat=37
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100114083906/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/puente/9.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/puente/9.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100520203225/http://fbilibrary.fbiacademy.edu:80/bibliographies/serialkillers.htm to http://fbilibrary.fbiacademy.edu/bibliographies/serialkillers.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111027101009/http://www.shsu.edu:80/~stdrem26/pictures/MilitarySerialKillers.pdf to http://www.shsu.edu/~stdrem26/pictures/MilitarySerialKillers.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121031044256/http://fdiai.org:80/2012%20Conference%20Daily%20Schedule.htm to http://www.fdiai.org/2012%20Conference%20Daily%20Schedule.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090601180208/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/index_1.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/index_1.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090716023114/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/werewolf_killers/14.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/werewolf_killers/14.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100106080546/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/1.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/1.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090601230659/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/6.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Serial killer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121001151839/http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/sub.cfm?source=department%2Freports%2Ffiveyearplan03%2Fplan03_population to http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/sub.cfm?source=department%2Freports%2Ffiveyearplan03%2Fplan03_population
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121111100620/http://books.google.ca/books?id=KV9GQwAACAAJ&dq=serial+offenders++Theory+and+Practice to http://books.google.ca/books?id=KV9GQwAACAAJ&dq=serial+offenders++Theory+and+Practice
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100416034209/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/1.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/1.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100410145929/http://www.trutv.com:80/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/6.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_culture/6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
NPOV
Someone is inexplicably trying to declare, in the voice of the encyclopaedia, that a particular definition is correct. This violates NPOV. As the article clearly states, there is no unique definition, and we have no business pretending there is. Even if three is the most common, you do not have the right to state that as the definition. The current wording is neutral; it states that three is the most common definition but that other definitions exist. Now kindly stop violating NPOV so egregiously. 193.60.234.209 (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- To anyone else reading this section, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this are the edits in question.
- To the IP, I've repeatedly told you that the WP:NPOV policy is about WP:Due weight; it is about giving most of the weight to what is prevalent in the literature. On Wikipedia, it is common to give due weight to the most prevalent definition first, and then present alternative definitions. For just two examples, we do this with the Atheism article and the Pedophilia article (although, in the case of the Pedophilia article, we are going by what is most prevalent in the medical literature, not popular usage). Even with the Sexism article, since the vast majority of sources define sexism as primarily being against girls and women, we give that definition its due weight early on. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse; it means following the sources with due weight. And in the case of the definition of a serial killer, there is a standard definition, and the sources I provided on the matter are clear about that:
- "Serial killer". TheFreeDictionary.com. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
A person who murders 3+ people over a period of > 30 days, with an inactive period between each murder, and whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - Contemporary Perspectives on Serial Murder. SAGE Publications. 1998. p. 1. ISBN 0761914218. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
Serial murder is the killing of three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a significant cooling-off period between the murders [...] The baseline number of three victims appears to be most common among those who are the academic authorities in the field. The time frame also appears to be an agreed-upon component of the definition.
{{cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
(help) - Wayne Petherick (2005). Serial Crime: Theoretical and Practical Issues in Behavioral Profiling. Academic Press. p. 190. ISBN 0080468543. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
Three killings seem to be required in the most popular operational definition of serial killing since they are enough to provide a pattern within the killings without being overly restrictive.
- R. Barri Flowers (2012). The Dynamics of Murder: Kill or Be Killed. CRC Press. p. 195. ISBN 1439879745. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
In general, most experts on serial murder require that a minimum of three murders be committed at different times and usually different places for a person to qualify as a serial killer.
- Harold Schechter (2012). The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. Simon and Schuster. p. 73. ISBN 1439138850. Retrieved June 15, 2016.
Most experts seem to agree, however, that to qualify as a serial killer, an individual has to slay a minimum of three unrelated victims.
- Furthermore, the IP stating "at least two" is giving undue weight to the "two or more" definition, which is not as common as the "three or more" definition. Despite the lead's current focus on stating that the FBI starts at "two," the FBI has used "three or more" as well. Considering that my interaction with this IP and what I see of the interactions this IP had with Dennis Brown and Smalljim on the IP talk page indicate that the IP will continue to WP:Edit war over this, I have started a WP:RfC on the matter below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Should the lead sentence start with "several" or "at least two" instead?
This edit shows the dispute in question. One view is that beginning the lead with "three or more" violates NPOV, or, more specifically, WP:NPOV. This is based on the viewpoint that "three or more" is "inexplicably trying to declare, in the voice of the encyclopaedia, that a particular definition is correct." and that "As the article clearly states, there is no unique definition, and we have no business pretending there is. Even if three is the most common, you do not have the right to state that as the definition."
The other view is that "the WP:NPOV policy is about WP:Due weight; it is about giving most of the weight to what is prevalent in the literature. On Wikipedia, it is common to give due weight to the most prevalent definition first, and then present alternative definitions." Atheism and Pedophilia are two examples. "Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse; it means following the sources with due weight." Use of "several" in this case is not accurate since "several" is commonly defined as "more than two but not many," when various serial killers have killed many. And "stating 'at least two' is giving undue weight to the 'two or more' definition, which is not as common as the 'three or more definition'."
For those seeing this from the RfC page or a talk page via an alert, full commentary can be seen at Talk:Serial killer#NPOV. Sources are also provided there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
In this section, feel free to suggest alternative wording or discuss other aspects of the dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Responding to RfC - WP:NPOV does not mean we abstain from picking a side when there are two opposing views. In the oft cited example, we don't discuss creationism in the evolution article. We don't say "some people think the Earth is only 6000 years old" in the article on the Earth. We follow consensus, and we give more weight to viewpoints that are more prevalent than others. Following this consensus expressly does not violate WP:NPOV. WP:DUE absolutely applies. If the most prevalent definition is for three or more, then we should, nay, must say that, and give it its proper weight. If there is enough of a dissention from this view to merit it, there can then be a second mention of the dissenting viewpoint, but again, respecting WP:DUE. Fieari (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Responding to RfC If the most common definition is 3+, why not just say 'is most commonly defined as 3+' , the effect at the moment of opening with the definitive 'is 3+' and then shortly after saying 'Different authorities apply different criteria when designating serial killers; while most set a threshold of three murders, others extend it to four or lessen it to two' . Is confusing. I don't think this is quite comparable with fringe theories, since these higher/lower numbers are alternative criteria chosen by legit authorities, who are designating their own thresholds in a matter which is not susceptible to 'scientific' definition. I don't see the problem as mainly NPOV, more of clarity and saying 'it is usually 3 but sometimes other numbers' might actually be easier to say clearly. Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Pincrete, good point about the flow, and interesting point on the rest. Before the IP became involved, the lead used to look like this. The "Different authorities apply different criteria when designating serial killers" aspect was added by the IP, and I kept it as a compromise. I see that the IP weighed in again here on the talk page, but was reverted by JamesBWatson (also known as JamesBWatson3). In 2014, the WP:Lead sentence used to state "traditionally," but that was removed by Ianmacm per WP:RELTIME. And unless an article is about a word, I stay away from "is defined" for a lead sentence, per what the WP:Refers essay states. Even though the lead sentence uses "usually" for one part, we could use "typically" for the first part of it (as in "A serial killer is typically [...]"). When it comes to defining that lead sentence, I was going for, like I stated, what we commonly do at Wikipedia articles, which is present the most common definition first...if WP:Due weight allows for it. We also have the option of doing an approach like the Atheism article or Celibacy article.
- I refrained from pinging Legitimus to this because, since he watches this article (or watched it) but didn't weigh in on this, I figured that he's not interested in this dispute. But maybe he has some insight into this terminological matter or what is the best wording to use. Maybe KateWishing does too. I'm clearly open to alternative wording suggestions. Fieari, what say you? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am happy to admit that I know nothing about the subject beyond any lay person and the article itself. However I was slightly surprised to see the number (any number) placed as the principal defining feature. Clearly investigators need to have a threshold and pattern at which they start to think in terms of 'SK'. I do not know how much weight deserves to be given to different numbers, but unless a particular number is near-universal, I suggest some way of placing less emphasis on number. This isn't quite like bicycle or tricycle is it, where a number is the defining feature? The term, I think, is less used in the UK, but in so far as it is used, it is used of a pattern rather than a number, I think. Pincrete (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have a few books on the subject that I can check later, but I do have the Crime Classification Manual, which states "Serial murder generally involves three or more victims. What sets this category apart from the two others is a cooling-off period between murders. The hiatus could be days, months, or years. In other words, the serial killer is not killing with frequency."Legitimus (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok going through my books, all seem to use similar language: That 3 or more is "common" or "generally" or similar language. My 2009 printing of Holmes & Holmes's Profiling Violent Crime (this is one book used by the FBI as well) says "The most common number given is a minimum of three victims" but does give a mention that there are some that think higher or lower is more appropriate, such as Jenkins 1994 which specifies 4+ victims, while Egger 1998 thinks 2 is enough, though Holmes openly criticizes this in the text as over-inclusive.Legitimus (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I refrained from pinging Legitimus to this because, since he watches this article (or watched it) but didn't weigh in on this, I figured that he's not interested in this dispute. But maybe he has some insight into this terminological matter or what is the best wording to use. Maybe KateWishing does too. I'm clearly open to alternative wording suggestions. Fieari, what say you? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have no expertise on serial killing, but I don't think it violates WP:NPOV to state "three or more" in the opening, since (based on the quotes Flyer22 posted) that's the definition used by most reliable sources. Adding "generally" or "typically" like Legitimus's source would also be OK. KateWishing (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you all for weighing in. As noted above, I could go with a "typically" type of wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any of the sources I listed in the #NPOV section, or the sources that Legitimus cited, stating "traditionally." What those sources are stating is that "three or more" is the standard way a serial killer is defined (when it comes to the number of killings, at least, since there is more to being a serial killer than a body count; otherwise, anyone who has killed three or more people would be a serial killer). And, regarding my dispute with the IP, I've been consistent in arguing that "three or more" is the standard number for a serial killer body count, and that, per WP:Due weight, it is not a NPOV problem to begin the lead with that standard definition (with or without a "typically" type of qualifier). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Three or more - According to this source via FBI.gov website - https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder - It states that "There has been at least one attempt to formalize a definition of serial murder through legislation. In 1998, a federal law was passed by the United States Congress, titled: Protection of Children from Sexual Predator Act of 1998 (Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 51, and Section 1111). This law includes a definition of serial killings:
The term ‘serial killings’ means a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.
Hope that helps. DrkBlueXG (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: "Three or more" seems acceptable to me. If reliable sources say that the most common definition is three or more victims (and, per above, it appears that they do), then I think it's entirely fine for the lead to say this and then the body of the article to elaborate on the differences of opinion about whether two murders counts as serial killing or whether that's too few, whether even three is too few, whether intention and interval between the killings is a more important criterion, and so on. That said, it would also be acceptable to say something like "A serial killer is a person who murders multiple people over a period of time, including a significant break or "cooling off period". The most common definition requires three separate killings, though some experts claim as few as two or as many as four are required." as part of the lead. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)