Talk:Serial killer/Archive 5

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Serial killer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/victims_1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013160336/https://www.theroot.com/views/course-there-are-black-serial-killers to http://www.theroot.com/views/course-there-are-black-serial-killers
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304124633/https://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/Serial%20Killer%20IQ.htm to http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/Serial%20Killer%20IQ.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100829110653/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1613/is_1_16/ai_n29335603/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1613/is_1_16/ai_n29335603/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/Laurence/forensic/ProfileAnalysis1.ppt
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C867859%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5214/is_2003/ai_n19132282?tag=content%3Bcol1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=149172
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007204834/http://www.fbi.gov/publications/serial_murder.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/publications/serial_murder.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Prostitute vs. sex worker
R4dic4lEdw4rd, regarding this, I reverted you because not only do we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, but also because "sex worker" does not automatically equate to "prostitute." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead
I found that the previous lead was quite oddly written, chopping back and forth between discussions of numerical thresholds and psychological aspects. It was also needlessly vague, starting by saying that a serial killer is "typically" blah blah. And it ended by saying the a serial killer is not a mass murderer or spree killer, but did not explain why. I rewrote it so it starts with a clear and universal definition (noting the important distinction with other types of multiple murderer), followed by numerical specifics, followed by psychological aspects. This is for sure better than the previous. Why is the user who is undoing the edits wholesale doing so? 79.2.234.49 (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As seen at Talk:Serial killer/Archive 4, we have already been over this. As that discussion shows, a WP:RfC was had for the lead you are reverting away from. I find you not signing in odd, but, then again, since I'm sure I know which editor you are (there are few editors on this site obsessed with presenting definitions in the lead), it is not surprising that you opted to edit this article as an IP. This version (your version) of the lead is absolutely poor. We do not begin definitions by contrasting them with other concepts. Your lead says that a serial killer "is a type of multiple murderer." No, that is a vague description, which is why your poor lead sentence throws in "mass murderer" and "spree killer" to assist defining it. But it still does not define it. Your lead states "distinguished by their crimes occurring sporadically over a period of time." What is "sporadically over a period of time"? The previous lead you are opposing gives a number because leading with that number, as made clear by the sources and aforementioned RfC, is important. Leading with "abnormal psychological gratification" and "over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them," which are specific, are also important. These are not things to note later on in the lead. They are things for the very first sentence. We define what something is first and we then distinguish. This edit also does not help. It is your unsourced wording. We follow what the sources state with WP:Due weight. Your lead will not be standing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that perhaps the reason you are so annoyed by my edit is because you have in mind that I am someone you don't like. Well, how about you just say who? As I have no recollection of seeing your name before, and have not edited this article before today, I'd be interested to find out. Once that's out the way, perhaps a sensible discussion will ensue. 79.2.234.49 (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Above, I've explained what my issues with your edits are. Once this article is semi-protected and your edits reverted, we will see if you do not show up with your registered account. The edit warring also gave you away. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained your issues at all. Your comments about me "not signing in" and saying you are "sure I know which editor you are" convince me that you have not approached this in good faith. Likewise, quoting only half of a definition and then casting aspersions on it as "vague" is really rather childish. Seriously, if you think I'm someone in particular, say who it is. Let us clear that up, and then maybe we can have a sensible discussion once that is out of the way. 79.2.234.49 (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn has clearly pointed out issues with your edit. For example, you've take a relatively clear definition in the lede sentence and replaced it with "a type of multiple murderer" despite that category not being defined anywhere on the page or the linked page and contrasting it with mass murderer and spree killer. There's one source that has "multiple murderer" in the title, but it seems to be entirely about serial killers. --tronvillain (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't edit war. If someone reverts your edits, you should really engage in significant discussion here on the talk page, not restore the edit (especially when it's something previously established by a RfC). --tronvillain (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ..you say, having just undone every one of the changes I had carefully made to the article, without bothering to explain what if any objection you actually have. That's pretty sick-minded. 79.2.234.49 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, going back to the version before the edit war that was originally reverted to. Also, "pretty sick-minded"? No personal attacks. --tronvillain (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * If I state which registered account you are, you will no doubt deny that you are that editor, just like you have denied being familiar with me. You will then approach that registered account saying how that the person has been falsely accused, and then that registered account will show up here, and more drama may ensue. That registered account will obviously support your edits. I could then report the matter as a WP:Socking issue, but, with your latest IP, there is not enough evidence (well, some would state so anyway) to tie you to that account, and WP:CheckUsers generally will not publicly tie an IP to a registered account. Unless a clerk or CheckUser is satisfied with the evidence I do have on you, which is also present in your argument style here (including your focus on WP:ANDOR), my only chance would be a CheckUser finding you suspicious enough and then temporarily blocking your IP and/or registered account per a WP:LOGOUT violation. If you continue to edit war, though, I can report you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard.


 * As for the lead, I most certainly did explain my issues with your edits. So has Tronvillain. The sources clearly state that "three or more" is the standard. And Wikipedia commonly leads with the most common definition first. That is WP:Due. Wikipedia usually commits to a definition, regardless of a minority definition also existing. The minority definition gets its due, but not before the most common definition. The sources don't define "serial killer" in the vague way you are defining it. They do not state "A serial killer is a type of multiple murderer, distinguished by their crimes occurring sporadically over a period of months or years (in contrast to a mass murderer who kills many people at once in a single place, and a spree killer who kills many people in a short period of time but in several places)." And the reason they don't is because simply having murdered multiple people does not make one a serial killer. The baseline exists for the reason that the article states, and so does the important "abnormal psychological gratification" and "cooling off period" aspect (which the lead currently words as "a significant period of time between [the murders]"). The FBI can do what it wants (although an editor in the RfC stated that the FBI also uses the "three or more" criteria, and I'd need to check the most recent way the FBI defines the term), but the FBI is the outlier or rather significant minority in this case (as made clear by the sources noting what most experts agree on for the definition). The FBI is also United States-centric. But then again, it seems that most research on serial killers has taken place in the United States. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Etymology
Just found that the word serial-murderer (which I consider the same as serial killer) was used in Dutch in a Dutch newspaper in 1927, pre-dating all the othe r mentions in this article. You can see it here; https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?query=serie-moordenaar&coll=ddd&sortfield=date&identifier=ddd%3A010657985%3Ampeg21%3Aa0262&resultsidentifier=ddd%3A010657985%3Ampeg21%3Aa0262 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missjoh (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent lead edit -- the standard number again
Ipanemo, regarding this, why do you think we should prioritize the FBI definition over the multiple sources making it clear that the "three or more" criteria is the standard? The 2012 Schechter source states, "Most experts seem to agree, however, that to qualify as a serial killer, an individual has to slay a minimum of three unrelated victims." The 2005 Petherick source notes why this is, stating, "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."

Per Talk:Serial killer/Archive 4, consensus is for going with "three or more" for the lead sentence. As has been stated before, the lead already acknowledges that some extend the criteria to four murders or lessen it to two murders.

What reliable sources do you have stating that "a minimum of three unrelated victims" is no longer the standard? That it's no longer the criteria that most experts on this topic go by? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, simply defining a serial killer as "a person who murders two or more people in separate events" is not enough, as this implies that anyone who has killed at least two people in separate events is a serial killer. And that simply is not true. A gang member who has murdered three or more people, for example, is not automatically a serial killer because he has killed three or more people. A war vet who has killed three or more people on the field is not automatically a serial killer because he has killed three or more people. There are criteria in place to set apart serial killers from non-serial killers, and psychological gratification is an important aspect of what it means to be a serial killer. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The FBI's definition is here. Three murders seems to be the popular choice with a range of sources, and the FBI definition also requires "temporal separation between the different murders, which was described as: separate occasions, cooling-off period, and emotional cooling-off period."-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the number chosen by committee, this is still a very convoluted intro, with statements and sentiments repeated several times in the first tow graphs. It needs serious editing, cleaning, and updating. Much of what you're stating above could be reduced to one sentence. There is more than ample supporting material in the many sections that follow. My attempt is to simplify an overly crowded intro that tries to cram the entire definition into the opening, which is not where it belongs (since it is repeated again later and in various forms).Ipanemo (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Ipanemo, the only sort of repetition I see in the lead is "while most authorities set a threshold of three murders." But one can argue that this isn't repetition because it's not stated before in the lead; before that point, we don't speak on what most authorities think. And having the "while most authorities set a threshold of three murders" piece there enlightens readers; it lets them know why we begin with the "three or more" aspect. As for "there is more than ample supporting material in the many sections that follow", the lead is meant to summarize the article. This per WP:Lead. The lead should not be lacking simply because the aspects are covered lower in the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I also see that "Although psychological gratification is the usual motive for serial killing" is redundant. The current text states, "Although psychological gratification is the usual motive for serial killing, and most serial killings involve sexual contact with the victim, the FBI states that the motives of serial killers can include anger, thrill-seeking, financial gain, and attention seeking." How would you reword this? Do we state "In addition to psychological gratification [...]"? Do we drop "psychological gratification" altogether from this paragraph and trust that readers will remember that we address that aspect in the first sentence? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that all the definitions are crammed into the intro, potentially keeping everyone who edits happy. There are lots of FBI references throughout, but great pains are taken to provide alternate definitions--in the intro--as if skewing one way or the other at the outset will taint the entire article. How about a simple sentence in the intro that states that a serial killer is a person who kills three or more people over time in separate events. Then, in the definition segment, pile on with all the varied interpretations, definitions, psychological gratification, etc. (the "cooling off period" appears to have been dismissed as not-quite-quantifiable in 2005, yet it seems to have a popular following in this article). I suggest moving most of the back and forth about definitions down to where they belong--in the definitions. There, readers will get what they expect (if they are so inclined), as opposed to being bombarded with competing definitions during an intro. So many back and forths in an intro sort of defeats the purpose of a handhold for readers. Ipanemo (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is common for Wikipedia articles to address different definitions in the lead paragraph. We are not obligated to include just one. Nor should we when more than one is WP:Due. It's common for Wikipedia articles to begin with the most common definition and then note other definitions, with a "Definitions" section (or similar) going into extensive detail. There are not a lot of definitions in the lead of this article. The "three or more" aspect is important per above. That comes with mentioning "usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them." And that is just one sentence. It is also important to state in the lead that "other [authorities] extend the number to four murders or lessen it to two murders." That these different definitions exist is very important to mention in the lead, as is clear by the previous RfC discussion. It's not just to keep everyone happy, but that is a part of it. We have a "Etymology and definition" section. The lead should summarize the definitions as well. That is what the lead paragraph is doing now, but I don't see that the part we report as the FBI definition needs to be in the lead unless one argues that it should be there because they are thoroughly intertwined with the topic. For example, we have a whole "FBI: Issues and practices" section. The "cooling off period" aspect is an integral part of the topic, as made clear by the sources in the lead. This is also made clear by the source that Ianmacm pointed to above, which is also in the lead. That the FBI has found it of "no real value" doesn't make it any less important or outdated to the topic as a whole. The standard definition of a serial killer typically includes the "cooling off period" aspect, which helps separate serial killers from other types of killers.


 * The second paragraph is not about definitions. It's about the motives and characteristics. And all off that should be there as well. We have a whole "Characteristics" section; it is long. We have a "Motives" section; it is long. Given the size of this article, the lead should have two more paragraphs to summarize the article. Right now, the lead is inadequate. But as for the first paragraph, how about we change it to the following: "A serial killer is typically a person who murders three or more people, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them. While most authorities set a threshold of three murders, others extend it to four or lessen it to two." Can you agree to that as a compromise? For this proposal, I cut out the "Different authorities apply different criteria when designating serial killers." part and the FBI part. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Given the vagaries of the entire entry, I'm willing to go with your intro rewrite as a good compromise. Ipanemo (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, I implemented the compromise. Followup tweak here. When the "Etymology and definition" section is expanded a bit more, and the lead is eventually expanded to include at least four paragraphs, which will help balance it out, it may be a good thing to re-add just a bit about different authorities applying different criteria when designating serial killers. And by that, I mean specifying. It goes beyond the number aspect. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"relevant discussion may be found on the talk page"
I've tagged the section on the organized/disorganized dichotomy for NPOV, as this is a much more controversial idea than the section makes it sound. Synthesizing the literature into a Wikipedia-friendly form isn't quite in my ability for the moment, hence I haven't gone and fixed it myself. I hope to work on it at some point, but for the time being, there's the tag if anyone ever actually acknowledges them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Black serial killers
Vaticidalprophet, you made your edits.

A user objected.

You rolled back to your version.

I objected.

Okay. Let's discuss. When you made your edits, you directed people to WP:SPS, but WP:SPS also says, "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."

So what better sources do you have for us to say that most serial killers in the U.S. are black? Seems dubious. I just looked in the archives and saw that it's been disputed. The section already talks about black serial killers in the U.S., and it's done more neutrally. So what do we need your edits for? We shouldn't report on this in Wiki's voice anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandoBanks (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant link in Visionary section
In the blurb about Herbert Mullin, there is a reference to the "Big One," a colloquial name for a future large earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. But it is linked to the article about Megathrust earthquakes. The San Andreas is a transform (strike-slip) fault and will not produce a Megathrust earthquake. I'll leave the link alone, mainly because I don't know if there is a more appropriate one. The link should maybe just be removed, though. Angiest (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The original link appears to have pointed to a section of the Megathrust article that is no longer there. I don't know the history, but it's possible it was removed from that article some time ago for the very reason you just specified.  I have changed it to the article about the San Andreas Fault and specifically a subsection about this projection.Legitimus (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ángel Maturino Reséndiz.jpg