Template talk:Infobox murderer

Cause of death
Template currently has a "cause" of death parameter which is used for recording the method of execution also. I feel that this could be made clearer with an additional "execution" method parameter to beused instead. Comments? Moondyne 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Like I mentioned below, this template needs instructions/parameter definitions to guide editors in completing it accurately and consistently. --*momoricks* (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Number of victims"
Shouldn't that read as "number of known victims"? 66.199.228.38 (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Template instructions needed
It would be helpful if instructions/parameter definitions were added to this template. My main concern is editors adding this infobox to articles are inserting a serial killer's nickname(s) (i.e. "The Boston Strangler") in the alias field. If I'm not mistaken, an alias is a pseudonym not a nickname. --*momoricks* (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I 2nd the idea that this template needs better documentation.--Rockfang (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Span of killings
I removed the spaces around the en dash per WP:MOSDASH because the parameters specify years, not full dates. If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss here or leave a note on my talk page. Perhaps the parameters should be changed to specify full dates, as a number of infoboxes in use include that info. --  mo   talk  23:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed Spanish wiki link
I did some digging and discovered that Spanish Wikipedia uses the Infobox:Criminal template for serial killers per and.  momoricks   (make my day)  06:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Modus operandi
Please anybody also add modus operandi, it is a very important feature.
 * Not for serial killers. An M.O. might be valid in other types of crimes, but not this sort. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Should this template be added to the generic "Infobox templates" Category as well? It's rather hard to find right now. Zubrowka74 (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. categories are hierarchical, and this one is already in Category:People infobox templates. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Typo in the Infobox code
There seems to be a typo in the vcard / hcard class; "nickanme" should be "nickname". zubrowka 74 20:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Birthname
I think it should be "birth_name", but it seems that doesn't even work - see William MacDonald (serial killer) Lionel (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Amended code
Hi. I suggest the template is amended as opposite so that if a label linewraps, the data follows on the same line. Also creates more space for data column. The colons after each label are gone too, as they're probably unnecessary. "Span of killings" (seems a bit odd) becomes "Killings took place during". 213.246.83.86 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Spree killer infobox -- sensitivity
I began a discussion at the Village Pump, but was informed it wasn't the best place. So, I'll follow the advice there, and start an RFC here. Noloop (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Serial killer and spree killer infoboxes
The infobox for spree killers specifies things like weapons used and numbers killed. Is this insensitive and in poor taste, or important and relevant information? Noloop (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
The items below the header "Killings" read like a list of "accomplishments." It feels like glorifying serial killers, reminding me a bit of a trading card in its format. See Kip Kinkel, George Banks and Jennifer San Marco for examples. I am focussing on the "Killed", "Injured", and "Weapons" lists. I don't see how it is notable that Kinkel's victims were murdered with a 9 mm Glock 19 pistol, sawn-off .22LR Ruger 10/22 rifle, and .22LR Ruger MK II pistol, or why such information should be featured. I do see how it could be considered insensitive. I might object mildly if that info were in the article, but I object strongly to calling attention to it. I 'd like the template to be altered to make it less reminiscent of a trading card. Noloop (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I support my own proposal. Noloop (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed Those items should be removed from the infobox. They're in bad taste. And really, I don't see the point of having an infobox at all. There's no requirement that all articles have one. Zagal e jo^^^ 02:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Having advised this as the better forum at village pump, I'm dropping by to note that I agree with Noloop. Actually, I agree with Zagalejo as well, but if an infobox is going to be used, it should be properly encyclopedic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support rewording, not deletion - I support changes so that it does not appear to be glorifying the crimes. But I do not support wholesale deletion of information.  Here is what I would propose:  (1) change "Killings" title bar to "Crime information"; and (2) remove the "Number of Victims" statistic. --Noleander (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support rewording To avoid glorifying the crimes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposed First of all, the trading card-style presentation of information is nothing to complain about, because all infoboxes work that way, e.g. Template:Infobox officeholder. That this makes the information look like a list of "accomplishments", well that is your subjective interpretation, whereas I'd say that it is simply presented in a neutral and objective way; and how that could be insensitive or seem glorifying, I don't know. Second, no matter how unfortunate and offensive you may call it, the fact remains that information about the crime is of as much relevance in an infobox about a criminal, as information about his time in office is in an infobox about a politician – a circumstance that leaves persons of very dubious character like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, or George W. Bush with their own little list of accomplishments – and in the case of a mass murderer this means listing when and where the crime was committed, how many people were killed and injured, which is btw in accordance with infoboxes dealing with comparable topics (e.g. Template:Infobox civilian attack, Template:Infobox serial killer and Template:Infobox military conflict), and also what kind of weapons were used, which, too, is not only part of other similar infoboxes, but even of special notability in the context of mass murder, because of the unavoidable discussions about gun control following many of these instances. And furthermore, I guess it is quite obvious that it does make bit of a difference, and therefore is of some relevance, if a mass murderer uses a kitchen knife, a .22 caliber single-shot bolt action rifle or a 5.56 semi-automatic. Finally, judging something to be insensitive is not a very good criterion to begin with, if you want to edit an encyclopedia article (or a template in this case), because it is always a POV argument. God forbid that "feeling offended" ever becomes an acceptable reasoning for editing or deleting content on WP. Decapitation, Slow slicing, Execution by firing squad, Benito Mussolini, Anilingus, or simple Erection, anyone with nerves of less than steel, or an agenda would have a field day raping these articles. So, I do not understand how anyone could find factual details such as information about the weapons used or the number of victims in an article about a mass murderer insensitive. I mean, it's not as if we are talking about close-up pictures of the victims with their brains blown out (which would probably be insensitive in the eyes of most people, but could still pass notability guidelines in certain cases anyway). And, just out of curiosity, why are we discussing matters dealing with the Template:Infobox mass murderer here at the Template:Infobox serial killer? (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Comment. I also oppose featuring a weapon-list in articles like Columbine High School massacre. Such featuring is glorification, e.g. "Weapon(s): Intratec TEC-DC9, Hi-Point 995 Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, Stevens 311D double barreled sawed-off shotgun". It certainly doesn't need to be featured. If there is a documented connection to a gun control debate, then the general nature of the weapons can be discussed within that context in the article. Some victims and victims' families are still living, so sensitivity does matter. Noloop (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not say that mentioning the weapons in an infobox alongside other relevant information is tantamount to featuring it, nor does this mere statement of fact come close to any form of praise, glorification, or exalted accentuation. Or is it also glorifying that the infobox in the article about the Empire State Building informs the reader that it was the tallest building in the world from 1931 to 1972? I think it is simply a detail that is of special interest for anyone doing research on the skyscraper and therefore it warrants being mentioned in the infobox, so you don't have to skim the whole article just to find it. It's the same with the weapons in a case of mass murder. If you'd ever happen to find yourself in a situation where you'd have to research mass murders you'd pretty soon come to the conclusion that the type of weapons used is one of the most crucial bits of information you would want to know; and if you have information about the exact model, why should you deliberately obfuscate the details by resorting to vague and less specific terms? Regarding the Columbine massacre, that Klebold used a TEC-DC9 is especially interesting, because this model was regarded as "the most favored weapon of the most dangerous criminals". Sure, some victims and victims' families are still living, but I assume it is unlikely that they would be offended by such a little detail, if there is a whole article to be pissed off about. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Not putting the details in an infobox doesn't "deliberately obfuscate" them. I find it unlikely that the the type of weapon used is "the most crucial bit of information" I'd want to know about a mass murder. Living near Springfield, OR at the time of Kip Kinkel's attack, I can assure you I was not interested in his weaponry. I did find his mental health, medication, and history of personal failures interesting. I'd be interested in possible causative factors. The article on Columbine has a section on factors and rationale, and not one of them is "Weapons Used." The factors do include psychopathy, depression, social climate, and bullying, That section is followed by a Secret Service report which also makes no mention of "Weapons Used," but does mention mental health. I see both Harris and Kinkel have mental-health diagnoses. Maybe we should replaces "Weapons Used" with "Mental Health Diagnosis" or "Medications". It would better fit your criterion of "a detail that is of special interest for anyone doing research". Noloop (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If the information would be retained in the text it would obviously not be obfuscated in its entirety, but a) you said yourself that you might still object, mildly though, if that info were in the article itself, and b) I was argumenting here from the standpoint that at least some information about the weapons should be present in the infobox. So, take my perspective for a second now, if some information about the weapons, like say semi-automatic pistol or bolt-action rifle, should be given in the boxy overview, then why keep the sketchy terms, if you have the information at hand to be more specific? Wouldn't make sense, in my eyes at least. Furthermore I did not write that the weapons-info is "the most crucial bit of information", but that it is "one of the most crucial bits". I admit that the average person researching a single mass murder probably won't care a lot if the perpetrator used a gun, rifle, or an AR-15, as long as he gets to know that the victims were shot, which is the reason why I wrote, if you "have to research mass murders" (plural, you see). If you have enough interest in the topic to read twenty, fifty, or a hundred articles on the subject you'll begin to realise why it is a very basic, and therefore crucial bit. It really gains a lot of relevance, if you don't stop at a single case, but research the whole thematic complex of mass murder. First of all, in many cases the type of weapon used had direct consequences not only for the murders itself, but also in the aftermath. Michael Robert Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Gian Luigi Ferri, Martin Bryant, Carl Robert Brown, Patrick Purdy, or Joseph Wesbecker, in each of these cases the weapons used had a more or less profound effect afterwards. And, btw, the article about Harris and Klebold actually has an entire section dedicated to the weapons and their acquisition. Second, the weapons used in mass murders are often addressed specifically in the relevant scientific literature, as well as books on the subject, and are also an essential part of the public discussion, see e.g. here, here, here or here. And finally, for anyone who has a deeper interest in the topic the information is extremely helpful for creating a mindmap, because he can not only categorize each instance quickly by location, gender, and offender age, but also by categories such as stabbings, shootings, bombings, or vehicle attacks, all by simply taking a glance at the infobox. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the mental health status of a mass murderer is crucial, but unfortunately it is almost impossible to get your hands on a reliable diagnosis in most cases, because either the perpetrator is unavailable for examination due to premature death, or the diagnosis is regarded as confidential and never released to the public. Not to mention that in some cases contradictory diagnoses have been given. Furthermore, the causative factors behind mass murders are much too complex to be condensed into a catchphrase that would fit into an infobox. (Lord Gøn (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Support. This is quite late in the day, but I think I will chime in. I agree that the fields under "Killings" are in bad taste and tend to glorify the serial killers. I am also a little skeptical about "Cause of death", "Conviction" and "Sentence" fields. All in all, I think a more general infobox would be more appropriate. Regards, —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions
Interpreting the results.... Point of emphasis: this vote is not about removing any information from the articles. Noleander's objection to deletion of information is noted. It is just about what information should be presented in an infobox, viewing the infobox as kind of "highlight" or way of featuring information. I will wait a few days for editors to comment on how I've interpreted their participation here. Noloop (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see support 5-1 for the concern that the infobox currently glorifies crimes.
 * 4-1 for removing the number of victims stat from the infobox (I'm classifying Martin as an abstain)
 * 3-1 support for removing the "Weapons Used" (counting Martin and Noleander as abstain)
 * Ok, if we'd delete the information about the number of victims and the weapons used, may I ask you what kind of information you'd like to see presented in an infobox about a mass murderer or serial killer? Just asking, because leaving only date and place of the act isn't really a lot of substance to go with. I mean, if all the relevant information about the actual crime is some sort of "glorification" in your eyes, the whole point of having a separate infobox about these kinds of criminals becomes moot and we could as well use Template:Infobox person.
 * Besides, presenting a fact in a neutral way doesn't even come close to any form of glorification that I am aware of. Stating that "Jimmy shot eight people with an AR-15", be it in the lead of the article or in form of a statistic in an infobox, is merely a recounting of what has happened. It is not judgemental in any way.
 * Now, if it would say that "Jimmy is really the best and most savvy guy ever, killing eight of those low-life cocksuckers with that awesome brand-new AR-15, having all those badass modifications and all. Really, that is one nasty weapon and extremely nice for shooting all sorts of scum, especially if you use that special ammunition that literally blows your victims' heads off. Sweet job Jimmy, we will erect a monument in your honor." or if the infobox would read something like "Killed - 15 (well done, boy) / Wounded - 2 (could be better) / Weapons - FN-FAL (good choice), Kitchen knife (that's lame, dude)" I would not be surprised, if anyone would complain about rampant glorification of a crime, or better a conflict with WP:NPOV.
 * But a simple sequence of facts embedded and presented in a neutral and non-judgemental setting? Really, how? Following this kind of logic the article about the My Lai Massacre must also be considered glorifying for featuring not only casualty numbers, but also a picture of those killed. Just imagine some nut looking at the image and thinking "Good riddance. William Calley should be considered a national hero for killing those Vietnamese pigs." If your perception is twisted enough anything can be considered glorifying, no matter how neutrally it is presented.
 * And as a sidenote, victims numbers are important enough for any sort of disasters and massacres to be featured in the infobox – just take a look here, here, here, and here. Why it should be different in the case of mass murder or serial killing eludes me. (Lord Gøn (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC))

Avoid linewrapping in labels
The linewrapping of the "Number of victims" and "Date apprehended" labels looks odd here, so, suggest they become, respectively, "Victims" and "Apprehended" (with note on the template's page that they refer to a number and a date). Or perhaps reduce the gap between the wrapped lines? 213.246.85.176 (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)