Talk:Richard Speck

Category: American Rapists

The only mention of rape in this article that I found was "Although he was a suspect in the rape of Virgil Harris (aged 65)" if he was not convicted by the court I do not think we can label him a rapist. Did he rape any of the nursing students? If he was a rapist I think we should establish proof within the article. Bronayur (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't quite believe I'm reading this. He raped all the nurses. Is that not quite enough for us to risk hurting someone's feelings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor alacarte (talk • contribs) 04:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the TV series MindHunter, and to the Wikipedia article as it stands, he raped ONE of the nurses. That is, it is stated in the paragraph about the murders that he raped his last victim. In the first paragraph, though, it does say that he raped them all. Biography.com (https://www.biography.com/people/richard-speck-11730438) quotes the NY Times to the effect that at least one of the victims was raped. The first paragraph should probably be changed to say "allegedly raped" at least one of the murder victims, unless more definitive information is found. 71.93.172.99 (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

WTMI - Way too much information

I understand the author is so proud of knowing so much about Speck and his murders that he feels the urge to tell every detail he knows, with absolutely no concern about how unintersting it might be. In order to tell who Speck was and why he murdered people you don't need to list every single day prior to the mass murders, where and when he bought a car, how much the guns have cost he stole, and you don't need to quote personal comments about his funeral. The article can be shortened to 10 % of its lenght by reducing it to the relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.110.164.3 (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Most of this article just needs to be deleted. Professor alacarte 00:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Four years later the article still suffers from this problem. 85.149.13.48 (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No harm in it. Leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.249.90 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There absolutely is "harm" in it as it's unencyclopedic being this unnecessarily verbose and pedantic. Jersey John (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Cause of death

The inclusion of the "cause of death" parameter in this article's infobox is disputed. As per WP:ONUS, not everything that is verifiable is required to be included, and it's up to those wanting to include something to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Additionally, as indicated in my edit summary, the template documentation for {{infobox person}} (for which the template in use here is a wrapper) indicates that cause of death "should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability... It should not be filled in for unremarkable deaths such as those from old age or routine illness". There is no indication in the article thus far that this case falls into the former category, and in the absence of such indication the cause listed would certainly qualify as routine. The rationales put forward in edit summaries so far for its inclusion are also unconvincing: it's not deprecated (the fact that it's not forbidden does not require it to be included, nor support the value of including it), it's used on some other pages (as per MOS:INFOBOX what portions of the infobox to use are decided at the article level, not based on what other articles do or don't do), and it's reliably sourced (as above, this does not require inclusion nor support the value of including it). For these reasons I am going to restore the previous version, pending consensus for the change. If you have other rationales to put forward please do so below. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, The points you made here are moot, One his death is reliably sourced and verified by multiple reliable sources, Two his death was not a routine illness or old age, He died from a sudden heart attack at the relatively young age of 49 while under custody in a hospital near the prison he was sent to for his life sentence. And his death is also significant that he passed the day before his 50th birthday and his death also had untroubled, optimistic reactions from the victims family and people connected to him that felt justice had been served for his crimes, Sources: [1],[2]. And your reverts are undermining the point of the infobox. The purpose of the infobox is and I quote from MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article..... Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form,". Which the cause of death parameter performs. There's no real reason why this shouldn't be featured, And the only one opposing the cause of death parameter significantly is you. The infobox cause of death also can serve google searches. If a curious person is wondering what killed richard speck, they will instantly get the results from the wikipedia infobox. And to make the argument disputing the parameter on the article scale, it is also warranted due to the previous points I mentioned above. Minor good-faithed additions such as these should not warrant a lengthy RFC or debate especially when the counter rebuttal for them is redundant. You should understand this being a former admin. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

his death is reliably sourced and verified by multiple reliable sources As noted above, per our verifiability policy that is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. Two his death was not a routine illness or old age, He died from a sudden heart attack at the relatively young age of 49 Heart attacks are one of the most common causes of death for men in this age group - definitely qualifies as a routine illness. his death is also significant that he passed the day before his 50th birthday and his death also had untroubled, optimistic reactions from the victims family Neither of these suggests significance for his cause of death. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. This argument is entirely consistent with excluding the field in this case; nothing put forward so far demonstrates the opposite. the only one opposing the cause of death parameter significantly is you. And the only one supporting it is you - meaning that it stays out pending consensus in favour of inclusion. Ordinarily I would suggest a third opinion or RfC to get additional input; if you don't want to have further debate about this that's fine, but that means it gets excluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Serial killer?

A serial killer is "a person who murders three or more persons ... with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them" whereas a "FBI defines mass murder as murdering four or more people during an event with no cooling-off period between the murders." By those definitions Speck is a mass murderer, not a serial killer. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"Mass murder", to me, suggests a single event (like Uvalde). Better term is probably "spree killer". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)