Talk:Serial killer

Liu Pengli

I removed the claim that Liu Pengli was a serial killer as I regard it as original research. That edit was reverted because of the presence of a citation to Sima Qian's The Records of the Grand Historian. However, since that text was written in the Han dynasty, Sima Qian unfortunately does not use the term "serial killer" or any equivalent. For Sima Qian, Liu Pengli is simply a murderer. As for the interpretation of Liu Pengli as a serial killer, that was first added in 2007. No source on google books or google scholar calling Liu Pengli a serial killer exists before this date, and all the works that do are popular texts that appear to have just copied from wikipedia. As it stands at the moment, the claim that Liu was a serial killer is original research. Retinalsummer (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Other sources [[1]] There are books as well, but I do not own them, so others will have to confirm.

The Absence of Purity - Page 61, Historical Serial Killers - Page 36, Serial Killers - Philosophy for Everyone: Being and Killing, The World Encyclopedia of Serial Killers: Volume One, A–D, Serial Killer Trivia: Fascinating Facts and Disturbing ... - Page 91. And more.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The blog you linked also merely cites Sima Qian, and Medium is not considered a reliable source on wikipedia (see WP:MEDIUM). As I have already said, the books you cite were all published after Liu Pengli's name was added to this wiki page, which strongly suggests citogenesis. Moreover, none of those books are reliable. The first one you cite, The Absence of Purity, is a novel. The second one, Historical Serial Killers, is categorised under "Juvenile non-fiction". The third, Serial Killers - Philosophy for Everyone is again, a popular text ("for everyone") and only cites Sima Qian (and in an amazing coincidence, the exact same translation and edition cited on wikipedia). The third (The World Encyclopedia of Serial Killers) has no citations whatsoever. I shouldn't have to tell you what's wrong with using a book called Serial Killer Trivia as a source, so I'll stop there. Retinalsummer (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said, others need to check those books (and others) as I do not have access to them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

But lets have some others then [[2]], https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Monsters_and_Monarchs/40cxEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Liu Pengli + serial killer&pg=PA183&printsec=frontcover. But it may be better if those with access to books about serial killers look.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Monsters and Monarchs (p.183) cites the aforementioned Serial Killers: Philosophy for Everyone. Retinalsummer (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

But what it is not is wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have clearly made my case for why the interpretation of Liu Pengli as a serial killer is not to be found in the secondary literature, except where authors copied wikipedia, which has resulted in citogenesis. You seem not to agree, although your reasons have changed (first claiming there is a source in the wiki, to saying there are sources not cited in wiki, to questioning what original research even is). At this point, it seems sensible to me to try and reach consensus with other editors. With that in mind, I will briefly re-state my position: 1. There are no references to Liu as a serial killer before this wiki page was edited in 2007 2. After that, the only secondary sources that call Liu a serial killer cite the ancient historian Sima Qian, who did not call Liu a serial killer 3. Those works are popular and unreliable, or (in the case of Monsters and Monarchs) only rely on popular and unreliable sources and/or wikipedia (albeit uncredited) 4. I cannot find any scholar who specialises in serial killers who calls Liu a serial killer 5. I cannot find any scholar who specialises in Chinese history (let alone history of the Han dynasty) who calls Liu a serial killer. Conclusion: the interpretation of Liu as a serial killer originates on wikipedia, and is thus original research. Retinalsummer (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

No my reason has not changed (I said it was not OR, and you have not shown these sources do use wiki, only suggested they might). That is what I addressed, now I will let others with more knowledge of the subject decide if it is wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Etymology and definition section unclear

I am very new to wikipedia editing, please let me know any tips you have

I think the start of the etymology and definition section is unclear:

″The English term and concept of serial killer are commonly attributed to former FBI Special agent Robert Ressler, who used the term serial homicide in 1974 in a lecture at Police Staff Academy in Bramshill, Hampshire, England, United Kingdom.[10] Author Ann Rule postulates in her 2004 book Kiss Me, Kill Me, that the English-language credit for coining the term goes to LAPD detective Pierce Brooks, who created the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP) system in 1985.[11] There is ample evidence the term had been used in Europe and the United States earlier.[citation needed]″

The next paragraph lists several earlier examples. I suggest we delete the first paragraph or move it to later in the section. Whowhywhenwhere (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Whowhywhenwhere, just remember that I can help you out since you're very, very new.[3] Psychology is one of the topics I labor on.

So, new one, why do you want to take away sourced information? Wouldn't it be better to sort out origins by examining resources? If information conflicts, so does Wikipedia. GBFEE (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Serial killer

Is it still a serial killer if the person is killed multiple people but under different circumstances 2601:40F:4000:66F0:A87B:2173:B958:F83E (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read the article, which answers your question. General Ization ^Talk 21:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: EDT 251 - Research Skills and Strategies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 March 2024 and 17 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GUENTHS2 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jasmeen.Kaur88.

— Assignment last updated by Jktmiami (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

The sources don’t agree that two is enough murders for someone to be a serial killer. Should the article be updated? McYeee (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think @DMacks: might know. McYeee (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! I did not notice that there were contradictory sources there...just looked at footnote #1 and not the details and other refs in footnote #2 that dispute that same info. If there are contradictory sources, then indeed we should not only pick one unless that one is clearly the most strongly supported by cited refs. But if there is an overwhelmingly more-supported (or supported by better sources), we should go with that. Britannica is the only one of the four refs that uses "two" rather than "three", and I would give more weight to multiple experts in the field than a more lay-public encyclopedia. However, Britannica says that "two" is the US DOJ definition and also that based on DOJ "many scholars worldwide" have adpoted that definition as well.

So I would propose two article changes:

1. Merging the Britannica ref into the unified footnote citing the diverse opinions of the number, as a fourth bullet-point that notes the DOJ/etc basis
2. Simply saying "multiple" in the lede rather than trying to decide if "two" or "three" is the correct specific number, since there appears to be a legitimate dispute among RS sources

DMacks (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless I see comments to the contrary, I will treat this as the consensus and make the suggested changes. McYeee (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking back at this, doesn't multiple just mean two or more? McYeee (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Going by refs (such as this) "there are three major forms of multiple murder: mass murder, spree murder, and serial murder", which gives us the lead definition:

Serial killing (also called a serial murderer) is a form of multiple murder where the killings taking place over a significant period of time.

That places the topic as a subset of "multiple murder" and we have no need to define how many, taking care of WP:YESPOV problems. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Since I’m not sure exactly how much quoting we want to do or how the ref should look, I’ll let someone else do the edit. McYeee (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as well, or anything else that does not take a specific numerical stance. DMacks (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't proof my own post. Make that "Serial killing (also called a serial murder) is...." .... it doesn't match the article title but lead sentences don't have to. There may have been lots of blood on the walls re: this article's title (I haven't bothered to read the archive talk) so don't know if its set in stone as to what we call it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I just checked (after my most recent edit to the article). There was a relevant RfC at Talk:Serial killer/Archive 4#RfC: Should the lead sentence start with "several" or "at least two" instead?. McYeee (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)