Talk:List of murderers by number of victims

Missing cases
From Wikipedia itself, here are ten cases which are missing from the list. I'm not sure I'm clever enough to be able to edit the list properly to include them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltraud_Wagner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Stano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Toppan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Williams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earle_Nelson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Knowles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Shawcross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Ball

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nannie_Doss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ruppert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Louis_Wallace   added this one also  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.3.141 (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

pb, 11 March 09

Also Donato Bilancia is missing, 17 murders, Italy, 1998... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donato_Bilancia Fabio

Here is another case that should go on the list...: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morden_p%C3%A5_Malm%C3%B6_%C3%96stra_Sjukhus Only available on wikipedia in swedish but it involves an 18year old boy working on a hospital in malmö who killed some 25+ elder people. This being added to the list would also change which scandinavian case had the most proven victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.117.4 (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Numbering
It looks quite confusing with the rank number immediately followed by the murder tally - maybe the rank should be taken off or the tally number moved to the end of the line or something Halfabeet (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This page in general just needs an overhaul (perhaps an organized table?). - k|e|n|g  -  t  |  c  - 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit: I just changed the information into a (hopefully) easy-to-read table. - k|e|n|g  -  t  |  c  - 01:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahmad Suradji
http://peter_jackson_online.tripod.com/frighteners/killers.htm said that this Indonesian sorcerer murdered 42 people. Why is not he on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.246.2 (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any reliable sources? --Hamster X (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Untapped sources
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/11062003-1.shtml

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=117072007

http://massmurder.zyns.com/index.php

Removed arson attacks and bombings
The following events have been removed because they are not "murders" in the strictest sense, since agency is indirect rather than direct, meaning that not all victims were intended/known when the act was committed. People think of shooting someone or suffocating someone as different to someone dying as a result of a fire you started, even if that fire was started deliberately to cause harm. In the case of Albert Guay, the event probably counts as terrorism, which is also not included here as it lacks direct agency.


 * 1) 323 - 🇧🇷 Disgruntled employees (Grand North American Circus arson), Niterói, Brazil, (December 17, 1961)
 * 2) 198 - 🇰🇷 Kim Dae-han (Daegu subway fire), Daegu, South Korea, (February 18, 2003)
 * 3) 98 - 🇵🇷 Héctor Escudero, Armando Jimenez and José Francisco Rivera Lopez (Dupont Plaza Hotel arson), San Juan, Puerto Rico, (December 31, 1986)
 * 4) 87 - 🇨🇺 Julio González (Happy Land Fire), The Bronx, New York City, United States (March 25, 1990)
 * 5) 87 - 🇺🇸 Julio González (Happy Land Fire), New York City, New York, U.S. (March 25 1990)
 * 6) 63 - 🇸🇪 Shoresh Kaveh, Housein Arsani, Meysam Mohammadyeh and Mohammad Mohammadamini (Gothenburg nightclub fire), Gothenburg, Sweden (October 28, 1998)
 * 7) 45 - 🇺🇸 Andrew Kehoe (Bath School Disaster), Bath, Michigan, U.S. (May 18 1927)
 * 8) 25 - 🇺🇸 Humberto de la Torre, Los Angeles, California, U.S. (1984)
 * 9) 23 - 🇨🇦 Albert Guay, Charlevoix, Quebec (September 9, 1949)
 * 10) 22+ - 🇭🇺  Sylvestre Matuschka, Hungary (? - 1931) - At least 22 murdered by way of rail bridge sabotage, exact total unknown
 * 11) 11 - 🇺🇸 Juan Manuel Alvarez, Glendale, California, (2005)

Furthermore, the following fall below the albeit arbitrary threshold for inclusion, but may have killed more:
 * 1) 9 - 🇩🇪 Peter Kürten, Düsseldorf, Germany (1913-1929) - Kurten admitted to nearly 80 crimes, and his true number of victims is probably higher
 * 2) 9-100 - 🇺🇸 Donald Henry "Pee Wee" Gaskins, Johnsonville, South Carolina, United States (1969-1978) - figure gained from confessions prior to execution, thought to be much higher.
 * 3) 2-15 - 🇺🇸 Henry Lee Lucas, Texas, USA (1960 - 1983)
 * 4) 2 - 🇺🇸 William Richard Bradford, California, United States - police suspect 50 victims, but only two are confirmed
 * 5) 5 - 🇺🇸 Richard Kuklinski, New Jersey, United States (1970's - 1980's) - suspected of murdering 33 people, confessed to hundreds more


 * 146 - 🇨🇳 Dr Hu Wanlin, China, (1997 - 1998)
 * 163+ - 🇬🇧 Dr John Bodkin Adams, Eastbourne, United Kingdom, (1946-1956). Acquitted controversially but an inquiry by pathologist Francis Camps concluded that he had killed at least 163 patients.
 * 100+ - 🇮🇹 Giovanni Brusca, Sicily, Italy, (1970 - 1996) - total unknown

Bath School Disaster
Isn't the Bath School Disaster a bombing? Therefore, should Andrew Kehoe be on here? Starstattoo 10:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Duplicate Entry
Removed Thug Behram from top of list because he was listed twice, at #1 with ~931 victims and #7 with ~125 victims. I removed the #1 ranking because the #7 ranking had the more credible number as well as a detailed footnote. Starstattoo 09:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Gilles de Rais
Is Gilles de Rais on the list? He should be.

Life dates
The list is already pretty information heavy, and we already have the dates when these people were active as murderers, I don't believe adding the birth and death dates serves any useful purpose. If readers have any special interest in any of the particular individuals then all of them are easily linked. We would be best served, I believe, by restricting the information provided rather than showing everything on this page. Jdcooper 09:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Woo Bom Kon
There is a mistake with the number 10 murderer Alexis Petredis. The correct name should be Woo Bom Kon. Somebody please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.161.91.194 (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara a killer, murder ???
The guidelines say 'most prolific recorded murderers by number of victims. Both serial killers and spree killers are included, but acts of terrorism are excluded' so the question is why is Che Guevara on this list, in his article it doesn't mention him been a killer, murderer etc. This should be removed as it is miss guiding.--McNoddy 11:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If a reliable source can be found with a reasonable figure for how many people he killed with his own hands, as the article insists, then he can be re-added, but for now I will remove it. Furthermore, I will put Luis Garavito back in his previous position, as we should try and list the individuals by official estimates of victims, since speculative estimates for some of them run, ridiculously, into the thousands, with no official endorsement of such figures. Jdcooper 15:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Point conceded. However, I added to the guidelines in order to avoid future confusion. ie with [the murderer's] own hands. MBWikiguy (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Pickton
He stands accused of murdering 26 women (20 charges were dropped temporarily so as not to add undue stress to the jury), and has admitted to murdering 49. Should he be added?

Robert_Pickton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.106.141 (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess we should wait until he's convicted before adding him, but after that by all means... Jdcooper 08:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

John Bodkin Adams and others
It is not always possible to go solely by number of convictions. In many cases, the murders (and trials) happened in places where the contemporary justice system was inadequate, inefficient or corrupt, giving an inaccurate figure, in other cases the police stopped pushing for more convictions (even though the evidence was there) because they were satisfied that the individual in question was to be imprisoned for the rest of his life anyway, in others (as in the case of Bodkin Adams), individuals who were clearly guilty were acquitted through a miscarriage of justice. The figure we should be using is the one that police and/or historians regard as the most accurate and likely, and in most cases such a figure exists. Otherwise, this page is no longer "Most prolific murderers" and should be renamed "Individuals who have been convicted of most murders by courts of law". Jdcooper 15:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I quite agree. The Adams case has been clearly demonstrated to have been interfered with and he should be reinstated. British justice was not as fair as it is usually portrayed as being. Pietro Pacciani too, after all, is also on the list yet he was acquitted. His presence therefore is probably due to the balance of evidence, quite rightly. Malick78 13:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mhm, the only thing we have to watch out for in that case is being guilty of original research. If we can find a reliable source saying that the general consensus between police involved in the Pacciani case was that it was him (shouldnt be too hard) then cool, but otherwise its just our conjecture (for a newcomer to the case at least). Jdcooper (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He wasn't convicted. Simple fact. This isn't titled "suspected murderers", he has to go. One Night In Hackney  303  17:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He was acquitted of just one of the 163 murders he is suspected of. How does that invalidate the other accusations? Also, see Neutral point of view:

"'Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.'(My bolding of words.)"
 * Expert consensus is that he was a killer and the article, to be NPOV, should reflect that. Please tell me why a fiddled trial should outweigh NPOV and then point to the Wikipedia guideline that states that. The trial is one of many 'sources' of opinion, yet it is 'unreliable' and should not be given undue weight in the light of more recent opinion and more thorough research. Malick78 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He was acquitted - fact. He was a murderer - opinion. One Night In Hackney  303  20:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't include anyone that has been aquitted in a trial.--Padraig (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask a personal question Padraig? Were you asked to contribute by One Night? I ask because you have a shared interest in Irish subjects and canvassing is discouraged. As for the article, it is about serial killers, not specifically "convicted serial killers" (though that is obviously preferred except in exceptional circumstances). Adams more than anyone qualifies as an exception. There is no reason why Adams should not be included if overwhelming expert opinion is that he was guilty, especially if a caveat is given. That is the best way to conform to the NPOV regulation. Malick78 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No I seen the discussion on ONIH talk page and was curious as to what Adams the debate was about, as for this issue Adams stood trial and he was acquitted, therefore in the eyes of the Court he is innocent, this article is on convicted killers therefore he should not be included, the personal opinion of experts, is POV if they truly believed he was guilty they should have put together a better case to secure conviction.--Padraig (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will assume good faith but I am amazed at your timing - appearing for the first time here on the very day this debate restarted and on a page only barely concerned with Adams. Still, miracles happen. As for experts giving opinions at the trial - read the Adams page and you will understand why this didn't happen. It's an interesting article - worth your time. You still haven't explained though how a court judgement is unquestionable though. NPOV says all significant views should be represented. Including him is the only way to satisfy this. Malick78 (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly is his "confirmed number of victims" (emphasis added) then? "None" by any chance? One Night In Hackney  303  22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It all depends what 'confirmed' means. Having checked the first six people in the list - not a single one of them has their 'confirmed number' listed. Most don't have a confirmed number (ie Bathory - check her reference here! Does it look reliable?) - only Shipman has reliably been investigated and even then his number is given here as 250 when the 6th Shipman report only says: "My overall conclusion, therefore, is that Shipman killed about 250 patients between 1971 and 1998, of whom I have been able positively to identify 218." And this was based on the following criteria: "My decisions would be very largely based on inferences from circumstantial evidence. My confidence in drawing such inferences would be greatly increased if I found that patients had died in circumstances strikingly similar to those in which the jury had found that Shipman had murdered his patients." There are therefore just '15' confirmed deaths for Shipman (for which he was convicted in trial), the others are just 'probables'. Adams has 163 'probables' (well - 'very likelies' - according to the pathologist involved). So, while you are right to question his inclusion on the basis of 'confirmed' - his inclusion on Wikipedia's usual "reliable sources" criteria - used for every other page - would get him in. Hence I will ask for consensus to rewrite the opening sentence - which currently makes a mockery of the whole list. It's a shame though that you are fixated on Adams rather than interested in improving the list as a whole. Malick78 (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry you didn't answer the question, perhaps you'd like to do it now? How many confirmed (either by conviction, confession or official inquiry) victims did John Bodkin Adams have? The answer is none isn't it? You also seem to be deliberately obtuse regarding Shipman, as the two cases are vastly different. Rather than waste a large amount of time prosecuting all charges, he was charged on sample charges. This states "An official report has concluded that former GP Harold Shipman killed at least 215 patients over more than 25 years. His confirmed victims....". That total was then increased to 250 by the same official inquiry. Where's the official inquiry for Adams? Somebody writing a book (and you can't libel the dead after all....) doesn't carry anything like the same weight does it? As for the rest, make whatever changes you like to the article but I object to the inclusion of Adams as he's not got a single confirmed victim. One Night In Hackney  303  22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact still remains, Malick, that Adams was acquitted, and you have provided nothing that undermines that fact. A collection of opinions cannot outweigh an official verdict in a court of law.  Please drop the issue already! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If any of you want to write an article called List of individuals by number of murder convictions, feel free. That is not what this list is, alas. Are you honestly suggesting that those who have committed murders in places where the justice system is not sufficiently competent to achieve convictions should not be included here? I agree, of course, that we require references for each of these people, but, in Adams' case at least, we have them. The inquiry into his case concluded that the acquittal was an error, and that he killed all those people, and police and historians now agree. A collection of opinions from Wikipedians cannot outweigh an official verdict in a court of law, but a collection of researched and supported conclusions from police, historians and inquiries can, and should. And furthermore, I don't see how the issue can be dropped until we have come to a consensus how to proceed. Edit warring is not helpful though, I would support leaving him off the list until said consensus is reached. Jdcooper (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly suggesting that a man acquitted in a court of law---and not in a place "where the justice system is not sufficiently competent to achieve convictions," to use your words---a man acquitted, mind you, of one murder, should be placed on this list based on some books written almost 100 years after said acquittal? That turns the policy on verifiability and confirmation on its head.  There has been no official inquiry into his case, nor into the propriety of his trial.  What we have are a series of opinions which may or may not be correct. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to RJ: The trial was in 1957, the book published in 2006. 49 years. Please read the article if you want to comment on the case. As for acquittals - they only have special precedence in BLPs. This isn't one. Hence we use "reliable sources". Malick78 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, no. Why haven't you grasped this yet? That he was acquitted is a FACT, anything else is the OPINION' of some tawdry hack smearing the name of a dead man. One Night In Hackney  303  17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Name calling? Dear, dear... The "hack" got a commendation from the BMA as we mentioned below. Hardly a "hack"... Anyway, re: verdicts - your best buddy User:RepublicanJacobite was kind enough once-upon-a-time to draw our attention to the Sacco and Vanzetti page - about two people convicted for murder but who aren't categorised as murderers because of doubts about the trial's fairness. Why can a verdict be doubted there, but not here? That is inconsistent me thinks. Please explain the difference. Malick78 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Red herring, red herring! We're not talking about them, please stop trying to drag this down Tangent Boulevard. As you've constantly refused to admit, John Bodkin Adams has zero confirmed victims, therefore he doesn't belong on this list. One Night In Hackney  303  09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article includes the word "confirmed" for a good reason, despite attempts to remove it largely to allow the inclusion of Adams. Without it, anyone can be labelled a murderer as long as someone has written a book claiming it. If you want to write an artice called List of individuals who have been accused of murder but not convicted and didn't confess, feel free. That is not what this list is, alas... One Night In Hackney  303  17:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since lower down on this page you brought up the issue of the reliability of sources Hackney, I thought this might be of interest to you. This page shows that Cullen's book on Adams, which says he killed 163 patients, has been given an award by the BMA (see the "Basis of medicine; Commended" section). Hence even British doctors commend the research into this case and the conclusions reached. It's therefore, it would seem, reliable. If they trust it, can't you? Malick78 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It says the book was "commended", not the conclusions reached "commended". That's a leap of logic. How many confirmed victims does Adams have again please? One Night In Hackney  303  16:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The book is commended hence reliable. Wikipedia requires "reliable sources". You know that. Furthermore, if the BMA like the book as a whole and since the whole point of the book is that Adams was a killer, it isn't a leap of logic at all to say that the author's reasons for concluding that are reliable too. You're just being perverse claiming otherwise. As for the "confirmed" in the intro, it is already made absurd by Balthory et al whose numbers aren't confirmed at all. Luckily, if there is consensus to remove the word, it can be removed. Malick78 (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When did I say it wasn't a reliable source? As before, it's a leap of logic to claim that the BMA agree with the conclusions simply because it was commended, and quite a desperate one in fact. In the absence of any official inquiry, you're now attempting to say that because the BMA commend a book it's as good as on official inquiry. Ludicrous! And I suggested you remove some entries, but I see you didn't, so....
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  One Night In Hackney  303  17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Americans
A large percentage of these killers are American. Is this simply because the American justice system is better able to discover serial killers? I would think serial killers are evenly placed throughout all the world's societies... Could someone do research and include this? Jstanierm 22:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe so. I'm sure that would make a very interesting section on the serial killer article (what it is about American society that breeds so many serial killers perhaps?). Or maybe we are missing prolific murderers from around the world. We can only list the killers we learn about, or people are bold and add. Please don't assume bias, and if you think there is a problem with the article you are, of course, welcome to fix it yourself! Feel free to research international killers, I added all the ones on the lists I incorporated when compiling this. Jdcooper 01:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, I wasn't discussing this in terms of bias. I know it isn't.  I was just curious as I was reading this article why so many were Americans.  American society?  Reports?  It doesn't say so maybe for the interested reader we can include something like that.  I seriously haven't got the time right now, but I thought I'd shoot out this observation and see if others want to run with it.Jstanierm 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out the serial killer article, its a pretty good article. I guess that would be a more appropriate article to include stuff about America's many murderers, as long as you can find sources, maybe academic or sociology theorists etc. I'm pretty sure there must be an article about crime in the USA, and about the various reasons for American murder rates being higher than other countries. Jdcooper 05:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My 2¢- Criminal justice means different things in different times and places. Anecdotal evidence: I lived in Cocoyoc, Morelos, Mexico from 1999 to 2000. I was walking down the street with a local friend, when she pointed out a grizzled man sitting on the curb on the other side. She said, "Stay away from that guy. He killed 6 people." "Why isn't he in jail then?" I responded. She answered, "He was drunk when he killed them, and they were on his land." My friend wouldn't lie about that, and one of the victims was a cousin of hers. I gathered that the murders were done with a machete, and they were all drinking together. For some reason no one ever brought charges against him, and the families of the victims didn't do anything about the murderer. I still can't understand how or why they stomach his presence. --MBWikiguy (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Its an interesting debate, certainly, and I can believe that different areas of the world have different attitudes, but I guess this isn't really the place to decide matters like that. Jdcooper (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hitmen
I haven't gone through the whole list yet, but should contract killers be mentionned here, as the introduction says it's about serial killers and spree killers? A hitman wouldn't fit in any of the two, given the definitions. The case that bothers me is the presence of Giuseppe Greco in the list. He sure did kill a lot of people, but as a hitman, so not as a serial killer (spree killer is obviously out). Palleas 12:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how to word it, but by the "both spree killers and serial killers" bit I wasn't trying to limit inclusion, but instead distinguish between "own hand killings" and "indiscriminate acts", if you get me. Hitmen have direct agency over their murders, and as such I reckon should be included, but I guess there's gotta be a better way of explaining that in the intro. Jdcooper (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This confused me too. I added Giovanni Brusca, a much worse hitmen. But the only reference I could find was in the wikipedia Diegoami (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ludke
should be removed - clearly didn't do it... Thoughts? If no meaningful objections, I will do it. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I am doing it. Arbeit Sockenpuppe 15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Kuklinski
Richard Kuklinski was a notorious hitman for the Gambino crime family, and has killed anywhere from 33 - 200 people. At the very least, he should be Number 23, knocking Seung-Hui Cho down to 24. Should he be included?
 * In the article about him it says authorities have never settled on a number. And I'm not convinced we should take the word of these people as a source, its far from reliable, and far from NPOV. Without a figure for his count it would be difficult to include him on the list. Jdcooper (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus or confirmed?
The intro currently reads: "This is a list of the most prolific recorded murderers by confirmed number of victims. Both serial killers and spree killers are included, but acts of terrorism are excluded. The murders must be reliably referenced to have been committed 'with [the murderer's] own hands.' Counting victims of very prolific murderers is by no means an exact science, so individuals are listed here by the most common consensus figures, where possible. (my bolding)"

So which is it? Consensus or confirmed? I would go with consensus because the majority do not have 'confirmed' totals. Even Shipman only has 15 'confirmed' - and someone like Bathory will never have a proper confirmed total. The usual standard is for consensus and reliable sources - so I suggest we go with that. Thoughts? Malick78 (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * List by confirmed total (with unconfirmed totals mentioned inline), anything else will make it a POV minefield. Anyone with no confirmed murders (such as John Bodkin Adams) shouldn't be on the list. One Night In Hackney  303  21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with you argument, of course, Malick, is that Adams has 0 confirmed murders. Not 1 and possibly as many as 15, or whathaveyou.  He has 0.  So, the change you suggest would make the article, as Hack says above, "a POV minefield."  Please, as I suggested earlier, drop this issue already.  You cannot win. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  00:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I realise how important you two are but I would prefer to hear some responses from the general community. It's a shame you are trying to stifle discussion RJ - and don't tell me to shut up when I truly believe there is a problem here (see Civility). After all, do you really think there is no contradiction in the intro at the moment? That is actually what this section is about. Malick78 (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question, I suggest removing the first "confirmed". It doesn't clarify anything to the reader, if nothing else. Also we should change "by no means an exact science, so individuals are listed here by the most common consensus figures, where possible" to "often a subject for dispute, so individuals are listed here by the most reliable figures from police, inquiries or investigative historians, whichever is the most authoritative consensus". If such a figure is not possible we shouldn't include it at all, and this sentence elucidates better where we are getting our figures from. Jdcooper (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like we're heading in the right direction. Maybe just "reliable sources" will suffice though for brevity:) Feel free to change it - I won't - not at least until User:RepublicanJacobite deems my input welcome again. Malick78 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no other way to sort the list except by confirmed victims. In many cases, the numbers given by authors for the same person vary to such an extent that the list would be unworkable. How does anyone determine what the "consensus" figure is? Which author they like best? One Night In Hackney  303  16:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliability:) Like everything else on Wikipedia. Malick78 (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and assuming the authors aren't publishing on vanity publishers, how do editors determine which author is more reliable? It can't be done. One Night In Hackney  303  16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I never once suggested that anyone "shut up," and I do not believe I said anything that demonstrated incivility. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Drop this issue already" means "stop talking". Doesn't it RJ? It's not a comment conducive to fruitful debate. As for One Night - your point is applicable to every page in Wikipedia. Somehow the thing hasn't ground to a halt yet though. I think we may overcome it:) Malick78 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can often even find a reliable source for which sources are considered more reliable in particular cases. There's no reason to worry that recognition of reliability should ever come to WP:OR, as Malick says, that would screw up the majority of wikipedia. Jdcooper (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Malick78 has made a good and sound argument. You should let him make his edits and stop stonewalling constructive input from the community.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.36.173 (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Notoriety tends to be based on the largest ever claimed figure, these figures only ever rachet up, often in search of better stories. These figures are of general interest, although they do not often correspond to either the number of convictions, nor the mainstream belief of serious criminologists (or in some cases historians). Rich Farmbrough, 12:46 8 February 2008 (GMT).
 * So what are you saying you prefer RF? Which definition? Malick78 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Most of this has already been thrashed out at Talk:List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims. Rich Farmbrough, 12:38 8 February 2008 (GMT).
 * Agree Why not merge List of serial killers by country into it as well? With sortable tables, it's redundant. One Night In Hackney  303  09:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree I agree with both suggestions. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  18:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree I think we should keep the list by country article separate. That article makes no mention of numbers of victims, or any related attempts to rank them in order, plus it has such a large number of murderers listed that, if merged, would turn the final product into one unmanageable beast. As it is it is a fairly nice reference list. I would favour either leaving it as it is or turning it into a system of categories. Re: The other merge, I've been meaning to go for it for ages, and have just returned to wikipedia after a long break due to IRL responsibilities, so i should have time to do it now, if there's no further objections. Jdcooper (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree This list is different to the one for serial killers since it doesn't state that the reason for killing should be a psychological urge. Whether that is a good enough reason for its existence is debatable, but as it stands it does actually do something the other list does not (ie. it can include hitmen theoretically - even if the intro precludes that (and hence should perhaps be rewritten)). Malick78 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that the two articles contain in essence the same list. We can iron out the introduction/definitions involved as much as we like after, or before, the merge, but they cover the same topic. Jdcooper (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree I would support the merger if I could see one of these "sortable tables" that One Night in Hackney referred to above. -ErinHowarth (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are various merges to decide on. One is to merge Most prolific murderers by number of victims with List of serial killers by number of victims, and it appears that there is pretty much consensus on that. The other is to merge the resultant article with List of serial killers by country. As per the reasons above I would disagree with this. Even with sortable tables we would still either be including people who have only killed 2 victims or excluding interesting and relevant links just for space reasons. It is useful to list the murderers not just in a different order, but on different criteria. A lot of the murderers on the List of serial killers by country page have uncertain totals, and whereas here we can note that, or include a range or an approximation sign, with a sortable table such figures would render the list incomplete. Jdcooper (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree As mentioned above, this list is different than that of the article proposed for merging. The list highlighted in this article shows most—but not all—of the serial killers mentioned at List of serial killers by number of victims, and that list is more detailed (example: list shows not only how many victims the killers were convicted for, but the number of victims the killer probably killed but could not be charged for (due to lack of evidence, etc.)). I think these lists should be separate, but that each article should be linked together under a "See also" heading. - k|e|n|g  -  t  |  c  - 01:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Makes sense to me. They should just be at the top of the list. ForestAngel (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree: While there are many duplicate names in the articles, there is a key difference in the meaning of the two articles. To be included in Most prolific murderers by number of victims a person has to have killed 10 or more people; however, a serial killer is a person "who murders usually three or more people". Therefore, there are different "qualifications" for placement on the articles.--*momoricks* (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Giuseppe Greco
Does a hitman really count as a serial killer? I mean, a hitman is really an assassin, and doesn't fall under Wikipedia definition of serial killer. I'm just saying. ForestAngel (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The title of this list is Most Prolific Murderers by number of victims - not serial killers
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Osama Bin Laden - these are just a few names that I think should be included on this list. Nobody would argue that Charles Manson was not responsible for the Tate-LaBianca murders even though he had no hand in the actual, individual acts of murder. Serial Killers are just one kind of murderer but this list seems to only focus on them.

Also as for why so many serial killers are American there are a few very obvious points. 1. America is a very populated nation which if I am not mistaken is only exceeded by India and China therefore a good percentage of the worlds serial killers will tend to be american by simple population distribution. 2. America has among the words freest societies with individual rights making it difficult to isolate a sophisticated and careful crimminal, allowing them to get away with crimes for a substantial time period and increasing the number of victims. In a less free society, a serial killer can be arrested with far less evidence and suspicion stopping their killing sooner. 3. In America, the owning of the tools of a killer (such as Guns and other killing instruments) is generally more widespread, legal, and not considered suspicious in and of itself. 4. In America nearly all murders are reported and investigated. In many nations, particularly in the third world, there are likely mass murderers that would top this list except that government is broken down or virtually non-existant thus murder is undereported and/or the killer is not known or proven or been convicted in any court. 5. This list does not include many people that I would consider as mass-muderers such as those listed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This list is for serial killers and spree killers, exclusively, which Hitler, Bin Laden, and Stalin are not characterized as in their respective articles, and indeed are not. — Hiddekel (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia
This seems prime for deletion. Does a 16th century military commander really qualify as a profilic murderer? This seems to set precident for the listing of thousands of other soldiers. There are no references to him personally killing en masse, the term murder implies unlawfull killing with intent, whereas his acts amount to civil war veteran turned privateer captain in charge of thousands of men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.58.184 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed this too, and agree. There have been many brutal warlords over the years; these are not listed here as "murderers". I'm taking him off.  — Hiddekel (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bassie the Clown
Just noticed the entry of Bassie the clown in this list. I seriously doubt this. Looks to me a like a case of vandalism. Besides the number of possible victims is lower than proven so that gives it away too. To see why it's false check the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassie_and_Adriaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac2beme (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

afghani serial killer <300 kills Abul Djabar
I found this killer Abul Djabar in a report from a german police officer who worked during the late 1960 in kabul. The guy killed more than 300 afghani man with their turban during sexuall intercourse. He got hung up his neck in october 1970 in karbul http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/authoralbumbackground/3591/als_in_kabul_hippies_tanzten.html

Vlad the impaler
I believe that Vlad Dracula killed most of his victims first-hand. Should we add him?

Estimates for him include Florescu & McNally, Dracula: Prince of Many Faces: 100,000 citing Bishop of Erlau, but of the opinion that it is probably an overestimate. Epa101 (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability
Does anyone else find it odd that the two most prolific serial killers in history don't seem to be notable enough to merit their own articles on Wikipedia? Just saying. --78.150.158.62 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Shipman's kill count
A recent edit altered Harold Shipmans kill count by 400 people, from 218-300 to 613-615. The source used to justify this provides no support - "My overall conclusion, therefore, is that Shipman killed about 250 patients between 1971 and 1998, of whom I have been able positively to identify 218", which is in line with the previous articles assertions. I dont know enough about both the case nor wiki to look into this further. Nor if the edits are infact true, but the exploded count looks suspect to me. Could someone look into it. 82.25.100.216 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Gilles de Rais
Why does the second table say "Proven victims 200" when the first table says "80–200+ victims Estimated totals range substantially."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.157.22 (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Serial killer list - time active needed
The first list has time active, the second doesn't. It'd probably be helpful to add it, no? Malick78 (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

hh holmes listed twice.
Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.73.217 (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Josef Mengele?
Not typically listed among serial killers, but I think he'd fit every criteria. He had a pretense of medical research but the vast majority of his "experiments" had zero scientific merit, it was just his MO. The only point that might make him contentious is that he was operating withing the legal perimeters of the Nazi organization, but I think it's worth considering. His body count is over 10,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.113.35 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can one with a Government sanctioned death count be considered a murder or for that fact a serial killer and what are the cut offs for those considerations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.73.217 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well his actions, while sanctioned by the nazi regime, were still considered criminal acts of murder against private citizens by international law AND he was not acting under orders. It's a unique case, but he's clearly distinct from soldiers or enlisted war criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.190.56 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he should be included, seeing as he killed people with his own hands and he never got orders from Hitler to inject people with malaria. Epa101 (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Up and coming additions and article parameters
So Anthony Sowell looks to be well on his way to making this page. I will grant that they are just hitting the trial phase and they haven't finished cracking open all the potentially related cold cases or even digging up the vacant property next door so clearly it's a bit early to pin a number on him. But at what point can we say he belongs here? I'm not saying we should do trial by Wikipedia, since that's just about the most eggregious NPOV violation possible. But I am curious as to where the line gets drawn. aremisasling (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Varg Vikernes
Why is Varg Vikernes in a list of serial killers? He was only ever convicted of one murder, which was more than likely unplanned and quite an impulsive or defensive act. Also, he is not under investigation or suspicion of any other murders. PyrE (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. This page contains a list of serial killers. This implies that they were proven serial killers. If it is only possible that they killed enough individuals to be classified as serial killers, then I do not feel that they belong on this page. Are there any arguments against this suggestion? If there are none by next week I am going to remove them. Joshua Phillips (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Michel Fourniret
Michel Fourniret is missing on the list. He killed at least 9 persons. -- fdewaele, 12 January 2009, 12:25 CET

Marc Dutroux
Weinstein wasn't the neighbour but an accomplice of Dutroux. -- fdewaele, 12 January 2009, 12:25 CET

Vasili Mikhailovich Blokhin
Shouldn't Vasili Mikhailovich Blokhin actions during the Katyn Massacre be worth of an entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.41.115 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Shipman
I have removed the "Dr" from his listings. The General Medical Council struck Shipman from its list of registered medical practitioners and in the UK the medical degree is a bachelors degree and not a doctorate. Since Shipman never had a doctorate (in any field) and since his registration ended with the GMC he was no longer legally allowed to use the title doctor. It was only his registration with the GMC that permitted him (and any other non-doctorate medical doctor in the UK) to use the title, hence, I've removed it. Please discuss it before reverting.  fr33k man  -simpleWP-   00:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

another missing case from Wikipedia itself
John Norman Collins. The article about him is titled the Michigan Murders. He was tried and convicted of one murder, but pretty plainly committed several others. The article reports 7 murders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.57.85 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Javed Iqbal
"as a Pakistani serial killer who was found guilty of the sexual abuse and murder of 100 children. This is disputed now because 26 of the children he claimed to have killed were found alive after his death. The case stands officially closed but allegedly not well investigated." I do not think he should be number 8 since 26 of his 100 alleged victims were found to be alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.85.64 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

'Proven victims' for Javed Iqbal is 2 only - the remains found in his house. The amount of other victims is unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.52.140 (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowtown Murders
In this case, 11 people died. The two murderers involved that are listed here have been given 10 and 11 victims respectively but some of these victims are the same people, making it seem like more people died than actually were killed. I think these two (John Bunting, Robert Wagner) should be listed together similar to the Columbine shootings to clarify the number of victims. 121.45.145.132 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Christman Gniperdoliga
why he isn't on the list anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.172.201 (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Tommy Lynn Sells
the list is missing Tommy Lynn Sells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.255.211 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Gregory Scarver
The list mentions a Gregory Scarver as a serial killer from St. Louis known as the "Son of the Reaper," yet I can't find any sort of record of any such person existing, let alone a serial killer by that name, and there is no direct citation on the entry. Paris1127 (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Improper Sorting
I cannot get the dates correctly formatted so that they are sorted properly YYYY-MM-DD is the proper syntax, correct? Lyndon1504 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Lyndon1504


 * I think that all of the entries now sort correctly by date. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Country
The country column seems a bit abiguous to me. Is it the nationality of the person who committed the crimes or the country in which the crimes were committed? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

New here, unregistered user.
I decided to add "Carried out the single largest known spree killing in modern history, surpassing Woo Bum-kon 29 years later." to the Anders Behring Breivik additional information column. Feel free to edit the last part, but I really think the part in bold should stay. A similair statment is made in the Woo Bum-kum article and I feel "largest known" is a relevant and distinctive fact. 76.177.17.94 (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Breivik
Shouldn't Anderd Breivik be seen as a terrorist? And hence not be included in this list? SpeakFree (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He used murder and fear as a political weapon, his manifesto is political, the part of his life that we know about seems to be entirely based on politics and religion. I agree that he is a terrorist. But he still acted alone as far as we know, so he fits in this list terrorist or no.--Lead holder (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Breivik has not been convicted, and technically must be assumed innocent even in the face of a confession, it is futile to distinguish "terrorism" from "non-terrorism" in this sense. The deciding factor should be whether the killing was perpetrated single-handedly. This would exclude teams of terrorists such as 9/11 or the Mumbai attacks, which can be considered paramilitary massacres, while single perpetrators will be listed, regardless of whether their confused minds thought they were engaging in "terrorism". --dab (𒁳) 12:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are other teams of killers on the list e.g. Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono. Also Fred West murdered together with his wife Rosemary but is not listed as such (which I will correct in a minute). So the list is not limited to "lone killers". SpeakFree (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How come Anders is on the list already? Dbachmann has got a point, he is still not convicted and and technically must be assumed innocent. Wiki should therefore atleast mention that he is a suspect and not yet convicted. 84.202.169.251 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Breivik should not be added to this list unless convicted; WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCAT are clear about this. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that clear, I think. It says: Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.  Okay, my serious consideration is that since he admits the killings it should be listed. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 04:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

List of serial killers is superfluous
The separate list of serial killers is superfluous. Many of them are already included in the main list, and those that aren't could just as well be added there. J I P &#124; Talk 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should merge lists. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If anything this list should be unmerged and dissolved, while the List of serial killers by number of victims should be reinstated. I don't see any point to keep this mess where different types of killers are senselessly thrown together. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Ok, quick decision on my part. I'm going to be bold and destroy this list, revive List of serial killers by number of victims and try to work it into something reasonable. Any complaints? Then say so soon, because I'll take up this task in a couple of hours. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Inconsistent ordering
The rules about how to order the list, in regard to murderers whose number of victims is listed as a range, are inconsistent. Observe the very top of the list: Are we going to list murderers by the lower end of the range or the higher end? If the lower, then Hernandez should be moved near the bottom of the list. However, if it's the higher end, then Thug Berham Elisabeth Báthory should rank much higher. Or are we going by the average? There really needs to be some sort of written-down rule about the ordering. J I P &#124; Talk 18:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

HELLO IM HERE LETS SORT OUT THIS MESS
So I've been trying to clean up and order this page for about a year now. It's incredibly difficult due to rampant nationalism, murky history, and just by the nature in which serial killers function and lie. The strange gray area that the first list occupies is that we must make assumptions based off of incomplete facts. My personal view of the informal list is that we should base this informal list based on the probability the murderer is telling the truth. That's really the only way of truly being able to rank this accurately. If a serial killer is known for making up false information to feed his or her own ego then there is a high probability the lower estimate is closer to the truth. I've noticed some of the most difficult cases to order are pre 1900's so I went ahead and added a historical section just so we can stop playing these silly games fighting over which figure killed the most people. I don't know how well it will go over but I think it would be worthwhile to keep this pre and post 1900's system in place due to the role of the serial killer changing drastically in the modern era.

Let's get more in depth though:

RANKING:


 * Let's take for example the Gonzales twins. They have a confirmed body count of 90 people but that figure is not the work of one lone individual. However we can't discount the fact that the "killer" worked as a unit between four sisters but the fact the work was split up makes it "lesser" than other murderers with similar body counts so you put it behind Gary Ridgeway.


 * For some serial killers admitting more deaths is merely a way of getting attention and for others its merely a last "I told you so" before they are put to death or fade into obscurity. The difference between the two is rather hard to decipher. Suspected is better than confessions. I've tried to keep most of the first list ordered by going off of "suspected" because if the police have a reason to believe that they killed more and the killer hasnt gone out of there way to deny these facts than the likelihood that they are telling the truth is more likely. In cases like Lucas it's highly likely he was merely trying to drum up attention after realizing he was done. It's an imperfect system but it works well for this inaccurate work.

Pre-1900's:


 * This should break up all the confusion with heads of state privately murdering people all the time.

Iqbal


 * 26 of his victims were found alive so I am going to lower his victim count down to 74.

Under 20 murders


 * I split it up so it's easier to navigate. Comment if you wish.

Okay so lets go from here. - Rox Da Box (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good morning!
Why haven't you got Giovanni Brusca (100-200), Mariam Soulakiotis (177), the Angelmakers of Nagyrév (50-300+), Kampatimar Shankariya (70+), Alice Mithcell (37+), Pedro Pablo Ramirez (29-40), Ali Asgar (28), Gu Guangfan (19), Wang Qiang (45+), Li Mingwu (29+), Fernando Hernandez Leyva (33-137), Vasili Komaroff (33) and Chang Shin Liao & Chang Shan Hsui (79)? They are very prolific serial killers (however, Giovanni Brusca was a mafia hitman, like Pino Greco); you also have to add Salvatore Giuliano and the Massacre of Portella della Ginestra (11 victims; the perpetrator was Giuliano, who killed with his gang 100+ victims during his career of outlaw and mafia gangster). I have also seen three other outlaws: Christman Gniperdoliga (964), Teofilo "Spark" Rojas (592+) and Micajah & Wiley Harpe, the "Harpe Brothers" (30+). You can find me in the italian Wiki, my nickname in "Logged"; here I'm not registrered. Find and insert all those killer; try to look around the Net. 2.40.43.164 (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Scientists
Thomas Midgley. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. J. R. McNeill opined that Midgley "had more adverse impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history" 174.23.137.44 (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

How many Greeks were killed by the Junta? (Total number)
Curious and I would like to be corrected, but besides the Polytechnic School uprising, what was the total number of people killed in the Greek Junta of 67-74? 2607:FEA8:7A5E:C400:486C:595:C57F:890C (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)