Talk:Serial killer

Cleanup in progress

This article has been selected by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for inclusion in Wikipedia 0.7; see the Serial Killer task force talk page for more info. I am doing a full cleanup (gm, punc, wiki, etc.) on the article; however, it still has considerable room for improvement/expansion. Please feel free to help. --*momoricks* (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I finished the cleanup. This article's on its way to GA status; however, it needs more footnotes and examples. For instance, in the Motives section, Visionary, Hedonistic and Gain motivated have examples while Missionary and Power and control do not. The external links may be able to provide more sources. WikiProject Crime has a list of resources as well. --*momoricks* (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism

1.The majority are single, white males.

This is pure racism. I looked at the source and there was nothing white males included.

1. Over 90 percent of serial killers are male. Where do I see white there? Bunch of racism. Edit that article. Nicoliani (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicolani, there are two sources used for that information. The Schechter and Everitt book identifies them as "single, white males". mo ^talk 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The second source given(footnote 10), a webcitation page containing a list of 14 serial killer characteristics from Ressler and Schechter mentions males, but not specifically "white males". --68.14.137.191 (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if it does it's not appropriate to single out that they are white. I don't see under rape that black in US are the majority perpetrators in that category as they are. Now I'm not saying they should be labeled of race, you shouldn't judge rapist as black just as whites under Serial killer. Nicoliani (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This information is significant, so leave it in if it is reliable. However, I would be interested in seeing the Schechter and Everitt numbers in context. If it simply cites a high percentage of whites among documented serial killers worldwide, then delete it by all means. The plain truth is that some places document their crime rates more thoroughly than others.

I have encountered this idea being thrown about loosely in the past, which is why I came here to look. The only other online source I have located is a set of lecture notes by a forensic psychology professor. Using US crime statistics, he reported the white percentage of serial killers being slightly lower than whites' percentage of the US population. I am not linking that source here, because the notes were rather sketchy and this clearly is not their intended use. For the same reasons, I will not change the article, though I am disinclined to accept that particular conclusion.--Geometricks (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the vast majority of serial killers are male, specifying "white" is misleading, as if white males are somehow more prone to be serial killers. Studies of serial killers indicate that, by race, serial killers appear roughly in proportion to their percentage of population. For instance, African Americans are about 13% of the US population, and about that proportion of indentified serial killers are African American.

"There have been few studies of the race and ethnicity of serial killers, but the handful that have been done suggest that black serial killers occur in roughly equal -- or even slightly greater -- proportion to the number of blacks in the population. These studies estimate that between 13 and 22 percent of American serial killers are black."RETRACING A TRAIL: THE SNIPER SUSPECTS--68.14.137.191 (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be your personal perception of it, it says nothing of the sort. The statement is that of the population of serial killers, the majority are white, not in relationship to the proportion of one race vs. another in the population as a whole. That it says that white males are more prone to be serial killers is your interpretation. Please come up with statistics of serial killers by race in comparison to its own population (serial killers), not with the percentage of race as a factor of the whole population. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Connection to Autism

There is a strong possiblity between the sympotoms of Autism and serial killers. Most people with Autism are not dangrous, but there is a relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.188.213.150 (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please provide a reference. I found this with a quick search (see the second link down, a pdf file) - but it links Autism spectrum disorders with murder, not serial-killing specifically. So if you had a source that would be helpful. Malick78 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This page suggests Jeffrey Dahmer and the Unabomber (amongst others) may have had asperger's. Anybody got any other sources? Malick78 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I did searches on Google (including Books and Scholar) and Yahoo, and from what I can determine, this is a fringe theory that hasn't been documented well enough to satisfy WP:FRINGE guidelines. momoricks ^{make my day} 13:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be quite the fringe theory. It's quite easy to assign symptoms and diagnoses after the fact and to tie disparate abnormalities together to concoct an explanation. It's not a foregone conclusion that Asperger's and Autism are definitively linked, and extending this to say that because certain individuals displayed characteristics that can be found in a given disorder may mean they had the disorder is a stretch. I have issues with backward diagnosis, which is what the authors of the articles have done. It's quite easy to pick the disorder and find indicators that fit them, in any person. Essentially what they have done is highlighted some characteristics common to people with antisocial personality disorder, including the absence of empathy, to characteristics of organized killers and called it something. Because they started with constructs that are related to a disorder and found them in some killers also excludes a myriad of more predominant symptoms that other killers have that aren't being considered. Neither Dahmer or Kaczynski were diagnosed when alive, so the connection is clouded. I would suspect you could find as many symptoms in either that would fit just as well with a diagnosis of paranoia, depression, psychosis, or a plethora of other personality disorders (besides antisocial PD). In essence, some researchers looked at a handful of cases where someone with a developmental disorder happened to have committed a crime and have extrapolated that as a possible indicator that some sub-group of killers might belong in that category. Do developmentally disabled people commit crimes? Sure they do. Is it because they are DD? Here one must ask the question of how many people who are DD don't commit the crime. If the answer is a lot more than the ones who do, then there must be other mitigating factors that would account for the violence. Extreme caution should be taken before linking such things, if for no other reason than to protect individuals who are in the group whose lives are not connected to crime. Do DD people become violent? Some do, but it's much more related to a lack of learned coping skills or other diagnoses complicating the equation than it is to the fact that they are DD. If the researchers looked long enough, they were bound to find someone with Asperger's who committed a violent crime. They also had to eliminate a lot of individuals who did not. Serial killers are compulsive. But the compulsivity has an organization to it, at least at first, otherwise they don't survive in freedom long enough to become serial killers. The psychopathology involved with someone who is a serial killer is quite complicated and nearly impossible to sort into categories the way that a couple of left field correlation studies have done. My two cents. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Psychopaths vs. personality disorders

There are many personality disorders, not just Antisocial Personality Disorder. While some of the others are similar (but not that similar), the symptoms listed in the paragraph I've edited ("lack empathy and guilt, are egocentric and impulsive, and do not conform to social, moral and legal norms. They may appear to be quite normal and often even charming.") describe Antisocial Personality Disorder specifically, not personality disorders as a general subject.

The first sentence states that serial killers "tend to be psychopathic, meaning they suffer from a character disorder, such as Antisocial Personality Disorder." Here, I interpret that as "people with personality disorders are psychopaths." add the statement that "Psychopaths lack empathy and guilt, are egocentric and impulsive, and do not conform to social, moral and legal norms. They may appear to be quite normal and often even charming", I interpret this paragraph as saying "people with personality disorders lack empathy and guilt, are egocentric and impulsive..." Which would be undeniably false.

I am clarifying that the symptoms listed are symptoms of Antisocial Personality Disorder specifically, not of all personality disorders generally. Also, not everyone with a personality disorder is psychopathic.

CH52584 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to comment that you didn't termed it correctly, that is your interpretation. I read no such broadness in the sentence. I would also have to ask if your changes reflect what the given source says or if they have changed the sentence from the the source's intent. What I read in your change is that serial killers have Antisocial Personality Disorder, rather than that the most prevalent form of personality disorder noted in serial killers is APD. Some have had others. I have reworded this in a way that I feel is more psychiatrically valid. I would have to also note that while serial killers exist world-wide, not every country uses the same DSM diagnostic criteria and may have other specific disorder categories. ICD-10 criteria for Dissocial personality disorder are congruent with Antisocial personality. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Make it neat

Serial Killers in Popular Culture and references are mixed up they should be made seprate Jon Ascton (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone just inadvertently removed the References heading. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Article needs to be completely re-written from scratch

This is my first post; I have not yet encountered a Wiki article that I've found to be so obviously flawed, with so many bold statements backed by comparatively meagre and questionable evidence. My primary aim in this post is to draw others' attention to the article, and to raise awareness of its severe faults. I am perhaps inclined to do the re-write myself, at a later date. The first problem, as stated, is the lack of referencing, and the poor quality of many sources. Sources should be accredited scientific, peer-reviewed articles/journals, reviews, meta-analyses etc - to back-up precisely what I've just listed, and for more specific information and examples, see the Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. The sorts of sources used in this Wiki article veer far too strongly toward 'popular science'; semi-fact based and often sensationalistic books found in the 'Crime' section of the local bookstore. This is simply unacceptable. Far more statistical evidence, and academic and peer-reviewed data should be used to support any sweeping statements, such as all those found in the 'Characteristics' section. For example, it is unacceptable to state that, with regard to serial killers: 'The majority are single, white males'. Out of how many total? In what country? In which decade? If this is based on a study that has collated information on every serial killer, from the beginning of time, and in every country in the world, then a) a link to that study should be posted, b) the wiki article should explicitly state that so-and-so percentage of serial killers, in so-and-so country/countries, and between so-and-so time, are of so-and-so race/ethnicity, gender, and so on. This applies to every one of the gross generalisations, backed by scant evidence, in the 'Characterisations' section. Precisely what percentage are fascinated by fire-starting? Who on earth found the information on bed-wetting characteristics of serial killers, and how was it verified? What percentage come from unstable families? What percentage torture small animals? FURTHER, do the 'general characteristics' apply to ALL serial killers, or just to the 'majority single white males'? The single white males of unspecified time or geographic location that is. Terms that are utterly ambiguous should never be used in a Wiki article. Again, the 'Characteristics' sections contains pervasive use of ill-defined, imprecise and woolly terms, such as 'The majority are...', 'They are often...', 'They tend to...', 'It is common to find that...', 'Many are fascinated with...'. The extensive problems are not solely confined to the numerously ill-defined, factually dubious and poorly cited 'facts' reported on this Wiki article; the entire structure of the article is weak, the style is too naive, unscientific, and lacking in scholarly merit. The section on 'Female serial killers', for example, is indefensibly poor, for example writing that female serial killers 'a preference for elderly victims, and prefer to kill with poison', without any attempt to qualify that statement. Frankly, saying that 'Females derive their excitement by killing intimately, such as poisoning a husband or smothering a child' is offensive. Over and above (but not excluding) all the obvious problems relating to figures, data and facts - such as which female serial killers, verified by whom, and how many exactly are smothering children? - are the overriding assumptions in this statement, of a qualitative nature; enormous and irresponsible inferences of the motives and psychological states of mind of (unspecified) female serial killers, or women smothering children/poisoning husbands. This Wiki article is a testament to all that still needs to be radically improved in the Wiki mainstream; an article of this low-grade quality should not be published anywhere where it may be seen by a number of people wishing to improve their knowledge on a subject matter. It is unfortunate that an article of this quality is included on the Wiki corpus at all, it should be re-written entirely, and as soon as possible. My academic discipline is psychology, my university is the University of Cambridge; I write this from a qualified position as a statement of fact, that every aspect of this article from content, style, evidence and quality is found wanting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VilliersB (talk • contribs)

Perhaps all of your points are valid, but let me suggest that before you embark on such a complete rewrite, you gain some experience in editing on Wikipedia, learn the referencing and stylistic policies and keep in mind that everything here is done by consensus. There are other editors who work on this page and you should seek their input before changing anything extensively. As a point, there are a large number of people on Wikipedia who have the same qualifications as you, and even more so. Don't be swayed by thinking your body of knowledge or education is greater than anyone else here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to VilliersB:

1. Wildhartlivie and I started working on this article after much of it had been written without inline citations and a long list of book sources. If you take a look at other articles, you will see that improper or lack of sourcing by editors is an ongoing problem. Because the Wikipedia community frowns upon deleting large sections of articles without replacing the content, articles often stay at low-quality status.
2. While it still needs a fair amount of inline citations, the article does not violate the reliable sources policy, as they are reliable, verifiable, and written by third parties, most of whom are considered experts in the field of criminology. The sources that I have accessed provide information from various studies. Accredited, peer-reviewed journals are preferred but fairly difficult to access by a good number of editors.
3. You are correct that the article needs a lot of work; it is currently a B Class article. Wikipedia articles reflect editors' interest and desire to put time into them. If you have the time and desire to improve this article, by all means do so; however, as Wildhartlivie suggested, please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies before diving in head first. momoricks (make my day) 01:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

This is also my first post...

The "list of characteristics" "source" points to another source.

Robert K. Ressler.

I doubt Ressler made any such list and the source should certainly point to Ressler and the book and pages.

Having read Ressler I suspect that this is purely "quote mining" and taking things completely out of context... not to mention... even if this list were accurate it clearly only applies to the U.S.

A quick look at Wiki's "list of serial killers by number of victims" brings in to question a lot of the "characteristics". (especially the top ten)

I don't believe Ressler would describe such generalizations as "characteristics".

Here are actual quotes from Ressler from the X-files book of the unexplained... they are not quoting him, this is from a direct interview.

"In real life it is not known exactly what makes a killer. Statistically, neglect and maltreatment in childhood appear to play an important part."

And that is the only example he gives..."apear" being a key word.

"They are a lot different from one cuture to another" also says Ressler

He hardly sounds like someone who would make that list.

Here is a link to an F.B.I. page that disagrees with several "characteristics"

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/july08/serialmurder_070708.html

Here's more...

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/serial_murder.htm#one

And remember a lot of the "statistics" come from a comparison of 36 serial killers... here is article mentioning that

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=4

This list needs to be removed... or directly sourced.Douglas1102 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas1102 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that two new editors with no previous contributions have found their way to this page and posted similar rants within the period of several weeks. As with VilliersB, I suggest that Douglas1102 becomes familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Contrary to popular belief, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I'm not going to repeat myself, so please take a look at the section above for more information. momoricks (make my day) 05:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well... then verify, Ressler made no such list... and the souce cites him. (frankly you're making as ass of him)

And I have no idea who the other first time editor is... but believe what you want.Douglas1102 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved here from article

The CBS television show Criminal Minds is centered on the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit and deals with a different serial killer in each episode.

I moved this here from the article because I'm concerned that it's misleading. I currently don't have full internet access; however, I took a look at List of Criminal Minds episodes. While the majority of the episodes appear to be serial killer related, not all of them are, which I interpret "each episode" as conveying. I suggest rewording this in addition to adding more information, such as examples of several episode plots. Please remember: a reliable source needs to be provided for everything, including the statement that the show's main theme is serial killers, otherwise it can be interpreted as OR. What do other editors think? momoricks (make my day) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the CBS website, Criminal Minds "revolves around an elite team of FBI profilers who analyze the country's most twisted criminal minds". A Google search didn't find anything more specific, therefore I don't think this belongs in the article. momoricks (make my day) 11:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a TV series so in my opinion there is usually production decisions made to make it 'more interesting but not definitely factual'. I agree that it should be removed until there are citations that are more precise about what the subject matter is. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinions requested

The section about serial killers in popular culture here seems like trivia to me esp. the TV stuff. There should be enough WP:RS for the article without the need for such trivia. It just seems to open the article up for vandalism easier in an article that already sees too many vandals already. Am I missing a policy/guideline here about this? If so, would someone point me in that direction? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The only official policy/guideline that I'm aware of is WP:TRIVIA, which is a style, not a content, guideline. The associated essay, WP:HTRIV, suggests grouping information that cannot be integrated into other sections into a section entitled "In popular culture". I recently added subsections in an attempt to organize the existing information. The view that this section should be removed because it invites vandals is similar to nominating a page for deletion for the same reason. This is discouraged because the act of deleting is actually what encourages vandalism. A look at the page history shows that the majority of recent vandalism is to the other sections. momoricks (make my day) 01:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, ok then can we agree that entries to this section be referrenced like they are now? There have been edits put in without refs which have been removed. Should this method be continued? Oh and you're right about it not being deleted because of vandalism, I was wrong to use that for a reason. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We absolutely do not need subsections focusing of different aspects of popular culture depictions. I would think that User:Crohnie is more correct to say it doesn't really belong there at all than to actively encourage the section to get filled up by creating new headings for all sorts of new lines of trivia. Instead of lists of random information we should have a short section noting the most notable fictional representations. We need only mention the ones that are so important that they are what people immediately think of when serial killers are thought of, not just ones that happen to have serial killers in them some where. I removed the Blair Witch Project, for example, as there is a killer in it by reference, but it is overwhelmingly about the legend of the witch (and a bunch of kids wandering around in the woods) and the killer is just window dressing. DreamGuy (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy said this a whole lot better than I did. I agree with what he is saying, thanks for clarily saying what I couldn't. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the subheads were restored. I definitely will be removing them again, because they clearly do not belong. DreamGuy (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'd rather spend my time and energy on properly sourcing the rest of the article anyway. momoricks (make my day) 06:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Unibomber

I don't think that it's appropriate for him to be mentioned under the "mission-oriented" section. He wasn't a serial killer. He was, IMO, a terrorist, but definitely not a serial killer. There has to be a case study that's a far more accurate representation of that subtype. --209.89.155.96 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)