Talk:Serial killer

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Serial killer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology High‑importance Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Horror High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Top-importance). Sociology Mid‑importance Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Low‑importance Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Death High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Momoricks, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on September 22, 2008.

The content of Serial killers still at large was merged into Serial killer on 30 November 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

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)[reply]

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

Yes it does 197.188.234.242 (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Quick note on reverts I made yesterday

Yesterday, an IP made two edits to this page: this one, and this one. I wanted to make a note here on why I reverted them, in case someone tries to reinstate the content.

I'll deal with the edit second first. It relies on two sources: I'll call them newspapers.com 1 and newspapers.com 2. Both of these are clippings from the North-West edition of the Daily Post. At the top of the page, they say '1966', but off to the right they say '1996'. Digging a bit deeper to confirm the dates, it is very obvious that they are both from much later than 1966 - one of them is a review of a 1993 film, the other one is right above a review of a programme on Channel 4, which didn't start transmitting until 1982. They were both clipped by the same person, shortly before the edits were made - this could be an elaborate hoax/sneaky vandalism, or it could be an honest mistake on behalf of that person.

The first edit relies on a source that is more convincing - newspapers.com 3. It does genuinely seem to be from a 1967 newspaper, the Anniston Star, and it does use the phrase ""serial" killer" (the word 'serial' is in inverted commas in the source). The clip was made by the same person. For the purposes of demonstrating an earlier use of the phrase it would be a primary source, and using (as the original edit did) to assert that the other sources are wrong would be original research, but it does genuinely seem to be the case that the phrase was used in 1967. Perhaps someone might want to use it and craft some appropriate language around it. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second edit is completely using inappropriate clippings, wrong dare as mentioned. I did look in Brophy's 1967 book, and he did mention the phrase, "serial murderers", as well as a "serial seducer", but no "serial killer" phrase was mentioned.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we are including in the paragraph the 1974 use of the term 'serial homicide', which seems to be later than this book, so the book's use of 'serial murderer' seems equally relevant. Also, the review shown in the clip does use the actual phrase 'serial killer', albeit with inverted commas around the word 'serial'. It does look like there might be something in that, but how best to use it without a secondary source I'm not sure. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]