Talk:List of serial killers in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wayne Williams

Under "proven victims" for Wayne Williams the number should be 2. He was convicted of killing 2 people at trial, and even those convictions are highly controversial, as the note says. This page currently says 25 with no attribution. Batsarentbugs (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the entry for Wayne Williams. dashiellx (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red links.

Removed the following additions with red links. They can be replaced on the page in the future when an article for each is created.

@Scrubsit: All additions to this list must have a Wikipedia article. Feel free to write Danks' article (with appropriate sources) and then add him to the list. Sundayclose (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues

This list is in serious violation of

WP:LISTPEOPLE. Blue links are not sufficient. If someone begins working on this, I think we can give it a reasonable amount of time to be completed. But if no one takes this on, I will put in a PROD or RfD. Thanks for your cooperation. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Table?

Does anyone else think that a table would best serve this page? Some field examples are number of victims (suspected, convicted and confessed), suspected/confirmed start and end dates, nicknames, etc. Perhaps even known states. It would actually make the information helpful if we could sort the information in various ways, besides the almost uselessness of last names only. That's only helpful when you know the name you're looking for. The point of information is to utilize it. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a table that may be helpful. I've filled in the present first two killers. It's just a sample and is open for discussion. It is here. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit Gosnell

I have removed Gosnell from this list as he does not fit the technical definition of a serial killer: a person who has killed three or more people over a period of more than a month, with down time (a "cooling off period") between the murders, and whose motivation for killing is usually based on psychological gratification.--ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this entry again. However reprehensible one might find Kermit Gosnell's actions, he doesn't fall under the category of "serial killer" as it is generally understood. NillaGoon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current red links

They seem notable enough for an article judging by their inclusion here (other red links have been removed). Sometimes I feel like we're giving this people undeserved publicity but it is what it is i guess. For example, Andrew Uridales comes up with many Google search results and andrew uridales Wikipedia, wikipedia english, and serial killer wikipedia are also search recommendations. I also searched their names on Google trends and they all came up. Sometimes there is no info on trends if not enough people search for something. So I say feel free to make an article about any of them.WikiOriginal-9 (talk)

Removing red links

  • Edwin Kaprat: dubbed the "Granny Killer" - killed 5 people in Hernando County, Fl - rape/arson/beatings.[2]
  • Alfredo R. Prieto: linked up to 9 murders in Virginia and California by dna and ballistic tests, currently in death row.[3]
  •  Done Robert Ben Rhoades: killed 3 people in 1990, also kept a torture chamber inside his truck[4][5]
  • Andrew Urdiales: savagely murdered 8 women in the USA[6]
  • Samuel Little: DNA evidence linked him with 3 murders in Los Angeles in the 1980s, also suspected of other slayings across the US.[7][8][9]

if we add red links there are many more that could be added. It would be huge. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Link (John Turnow)

Removed red link with reference. Can be placed back onto page when an article is created.

  • John Turnow: committed 6 murders {including four law officers} plus a suspect in 1 disappearance between 1911 and 1913; killed 1913

Reference: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=10648

The list should include Zebra Killings / Zebra Murders

Suspected in as many as 73 or more murders. Starhistory22 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They might have been prolific killers, yet do not appear to qualify as serial killers. It appears more as a radicalization, rebellion, or revolutionary killings.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albert DeSalvo/Boston Strangler

Since posthumous DNA evidence has shown Albert DeSalvo is the likely killer, should he be in the "Convicted" section or remain in the unsolved/unconvicted section? Please share your thoughts.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Rissell - Alexandria, VA

A story known to people who grew up in this area. From what I see, he meets the definition. I don't know that i'm qualified to write the entry. A description of the case is here: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=H-FNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4233%2C2481919

From http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?94169-VA-MONTE-RISSELL-Alexandria-1976-77:

"The murders all occurred in the Landmark area of Alexandria where Rissell lived with his mother.

Aura Marina Gabor, 26, masseuse, lived in Rissell's apartment building. Strangled with her bra. Body found in a creek off Shirley Hwy in August 1976.

Gladys Bradley, 27, post office clerk, resident of Holmes Run Apts. She was found drowned in a creek off N. Beauregard, April 30, 1977.

Jeanette McClelland, 24, proofreader, resident of Holmes Run Apts. Stabbed 24 times. Body found in a culvert near Shirley Hwy, May 5, 1977.

Aletha Byrd, 34, department store employee, resident of Holmes Run Apts. Stabbed 14 times in the chest. She went missing April 4, 1977. Body found May 18 in a wooded area near Polk and Pegram Sts.

Ursula Miltenberger, 22, manager trainee at a McDonald's near the Holmes Run Apts. Stabbed to death. Her body was found March 6, 1977, near Burke in Fairfax County. Rissell was questioned and cleared, but later confessed and was convicted on all five murders. He was only 19." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcknigs (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I'll add this. The only thing I recall about him was he spared one further victim when she said she had a relative who had cancer she was caring for. I think he started offending when very young too. Rissell also had a relative with cancer so he let that woman go.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Falls and Maryvale Serial Shooter

Both are identified but are listed under unidentified. Maryvale_serial_shooter and Neal_Falls

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of serial killers in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Golden state killer

Has been identified Shambles666 (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until convicted for the crimes, technically the killer is unidentified. -dashiellx (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suffusion of Yellow I was getting ready to shut down my computer when I got a message about my edit being reverted. I just got the pending changes reviewer permission last week. I am more concerned with getting things right then speeding through the list. I saw that the table got jacked and fixed it. But I didn't notice that the row didn't get moved from unidentified to identified serial killers which would have mattered if the guy had been charged with the crimes and the edit did not need reverted as I just found out. I know we can mostly do a good job with content pending changes, but we are not expected to be subject matter experts on everything. I'm not sure if there's a place that says they have to be charged with a crime before you can add the name that we can see when we are reviewing changes. Either way, it does help to get involved in the article and pay attention to what goes on in it after you've handled a pending change in it or edited it due to one. And it has helped me to learn to get better with this task of resolving pending changes. Any tips are welcome. dawnleelynn(talk) 07:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
Twinkle
is used to roll back multiple editors, the system only notifies the most recent editor to the page. So, yes, you were only fixing a table layout issue of an edit that had already been (incorrectly) accepted, so ideally the alert should have gone to someone else, but that's how it works.
As to the issue at hand: He hasn't been convicted, so we can't under any circumstances imply his guilt in Wikipedia's voice, which is what putting his name in the first column would be doing. That's a plain pure
Golden State Killer for those who are interested enough to click on the link. But I wouldn't revert such a change either, and I well may have a minority opinion here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Suffusion of Yellow Thank you so much for the information. So now I understand that the person needs to be convicted of a crime to be put in that first column and moved to identified killers. In the future, this will help me when I resolve pending changes on this article. And what you say definitely makes sense according to the policy for BLP. I mean, if I removed content about a supposed conflict between two bull riders when one left the Professional Bull Riders because it was unsourced (I did and it was editing in my area not a pending change), how much more so for stating they are a serial killer when they haven't been convicted? Regarding Twinkle, yes I use that too. I didn't see a need for Rollback but I may revisit that now. Thanks again. Feel free to contact me anytime about pending changes in this article. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Death A.K.A Harold Shipman

Dr. Death, or Harold Shipman is a doctor who was convicted for killing 15 of his patients but is said to have killed more than 250. He was convicted in 2000 and died in 2004 in a prison in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.6.142 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Taylor Moore

The lede of this article reads.

A serial killer is typically a person who murders three or more people, with the murders taking place over more than a month and including a significant period of time between them. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines serial killing as "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone"

WP:BLP, she cannot be classed as a serial killer in the absence of convictions. 2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:65A3:B8B1:4355:7534 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

but there are other people on this list have only two or even one confirmed victim but suspected of having killed tree or more.--College railman (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at BLPN. Thincat (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@College railman:

  1. Don't amend the comments of other editors as you did with this edit, especially when your change isn't correct to begin with.
  1. If there are other living people who have been convicted of killing less than two people they should be removed as well, see
    WP:BLPCRIME. Rising5554 (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Rising5554:I would hesitate to remove entries just because they were convicted of killing 2 or less persons. Number of victims is only one aspect for defining a serial killer. There are other criteria. Also, many times prosecutors will charge with one or two crimes because those are the slam dunk convictions. That does not mean someone was/is not a serial killer. --dashiellx (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on who is doing the defining, in this case Wikipedia is doing the defining so our policies apply.
Quite often legal authorities in a one jurisdiction will try someone in a death penalty case who is already under sentence of death in another jurisdiction, and the same applies to non-death penalty cases too. Why, since they can only be executed once? Simple, if the case is like you say a "slam dunk conviction" it makes sense to have a second sentence applied in case the first ever gets overturned on appeal. You don't want to be 10-15 years down the line and having to deal with problems like witnesses having moved away, died, changing allegiances (meaning someone who was once a co-operating witness is now a hostile witness), evidence having gone missing and so on. It's a lot simpler to try the case when you have all your ducks lined up in a row, rather than scrambling around before a suspected serial killer goes free as they've overturned their single conviction.
But enough generalizing, as I stated our policies apply specifically
WP:BLPCRIME like I already mentioned which says "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction". So it doesn't matter what true crime books and so on think, if a living person has only been convicted of a single murder it can't be stated as fact they are a serial killer, they are presumed innocent on any charges they haven't been convicted of. As the IP's contributions (Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:3C72:D200:65A3:B8B1:4355:7534) show, this was backed up by multiple editors relating to this specific entry on this specific article during the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive287#List of serial killers in the United States. Rising5554 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Also there is a significant difference in your post compared to what I said. You said "convicted of killing 2 or less persons", I said "killing less than two people". My post only applies to people convicted of 1 murder, not people convicted of 2. Rising5554 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Thomas Dillon's and Milton Johnson's sections

From what I can tell, several of the serial killers listed in this article who have died mention within their section that they have died. However, at the time of this writing, Thomas Dillon's "Status"-section just says "5 terms of 30 years to life" even though he, according to his article (at the time of this writing), died October 21, 2011. Should his section within this article say that he has died? According to his article (at the time of this writing), he died in the prison wing at Corrections Medical Center, so I am not sure if "Died in prison" would be accurate. As for Milton Johnson's section: At the time of this writing, his section within this article lists his status as "Sentenced to death" even though the infobox in his article (at the time of this writing) lists his penalty as "Death, commuted to life without parole". However, I can't (at the time of this writing) find any mention of that within his article outside that infobox. So should his "Status" within his section of this article be changed to "Sentenced to death, commuted to life imprisonment" or something along the lines of that? Heart of Destruction (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of your suggestions seem good. Any edits made in good faith to improve the article are welcome. As far as "Died in prison" not being 100% accurate, perhaps "Died While Incarcerated" would be better?--dashiellx (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have edited their sections (See here). Is that okay? Heart of Destruction (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Perrone and Curry

Is there anybody who is going to make an article on these two SKs? If not, I'm going to remove them until somebody does. Haunted Spy (talk)

About Marybeth Tinning's section

At the time of this writing, several of the serial killers listed in this article mention within their "Status"-section that they have been released or been granted parole. For example, at the time of this writing, Scott William Cox's "Status"-section says "Granted parole in 2013", Thomas Kokoraleis's "Status"-section says "Released March 29, 2019" and Terri Rachals's "Status"-section says "Sentenced to 17 years imprisonment; Released 2003". At the time of this writing, Marybeth Tinning's article says "Tinning was incarcerated at Taconic Correctional Facility for Women in Bedford Hills, New York. She was denied parole six times, but was granted parole at her seventh hearing in July 2018 and was released on August 21, 2018." and "Tinning (aged 76) was released on parole August 21, 2018. She served more than 31 years of her 20-years-to-life sentence before being granted parole. Tinning's husband, Joseph, who supported her throughout her incarceration, was there for her release. As part of her release, Tinning will remain under parole supervision for the rest of her life.[46] A Department of Corrections spokesperson stated Tinning lives in Schenectady County, in upstate New York. She has a curfew and must attend domestic violence counseling.[47]" and the infobox lists her "Criminal Status" as "Released from incarceration on August 21, 2018". Should her section's "Status" within this article mention that she has been released/granted parole similarly to the other serial killers I mentioned? Heart of Destruction (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly seems like her status should be updated. In general, I say if you think something need to be updated, do it. If another editor disagrees, they'll change it. As long as we don't end up in edit wars, everything to good. --dashiellx (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But how should her "Status"-section be rephrased? Should it be something like "Granted parole in 2018" (Specifying the year but not the date, similar to Scott William Cox's "Status"-section)? Or "Released August 21, 2018" (Specifying the date and the year, similar to Thomas Kokoraleis's "Status"-section)? Or "Sentenced to 20 years to life; Released 2018" (Specifying the sentence and the year of release, similar to Terri Rachals's "Status"-section)? Or something else? Heart of Destruction (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd err on the side of being detailed as possible where the details can be backed up with references. --dashiellx (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Gacy

John Wayne Gacy was suspected in far more than the 34 "possible" murders listed. There are multiple sources that hypothesize this assertion. At least the cited number could be listed as 33+ rather than 34. Tzittnan (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the 33+ figure is also cited in the actual article on Gacy, I concur and made the change. Please feel free to make changes you feel are relevant and can be supported by references. -dashiellx (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article stubs

I've added two relatively recently made articles (Charles Severance and William Pierce), and although they are in a pretty basic and unfinished form, I'm hoping that in this way other editors may notice them and take the time to improve them. I hope this makes enough sense. Haunted Spy (talk)

Numerous policy violations removed from list

See section

WP:BLPCRIME. As such, I have deleted numerous living people with only a single murder conviction. Rising5554 (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Joe Metheny should not be listed as a BBQ killer

I could find no reliable source which mentions Joe confessing to serving up barbecued victims. All stories I found are post 2015, but his trial occurred in 1997-98. The story is also not included in the main Wikipedia article, so it is likely an urban legend. 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-05-01-1998121025-story.html Scrubsit (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done The information is reliably sourced, and you have provided nothing except your comment that "I could find no reliable source". You're asking us to trust your ability to search the entirety of all published information and jump to a conclusion that is contrary to the source in the article. That's not how Wikipedia and logic work. Sundayclose (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are hitmen listed here?

We have a lot of hitmen listed here who's sources make no claim they are serial killers as well.

Understanding Hitmen Versus Serial Killers - Scott A. Bonn Ph.D. University criminology professor.--Moxy 🍁 00:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on how "serial killer" is defined, which has been a matter of dispute in some articles. The article on
serial killers defines it as "a person who murders three or more people". If we define it according to motive (money or perverse gratification) it becomes very murky. We don't necessarily know all of the motives, including for hitmen. Sundayclose (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That's only half of the definition we use here....there is no confusion in the academic community.... just like terrorists, soldiers and states that use the death penalty are not classified as serial killers.David Wilson; Elizabeth Yardley; Adam Lynes (28 July 2015). Serial Killers and the Phenomenon of Serial Murder: A Student Textbook. Waterside Press. pp. 43–.
ISBN 978-1-909976-21-4....not our job to guess....need sources that say this. --Moxy 🍁 03:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I think this also needs to be addressed at Talk:Serial killers. If the definition in that article can be clarified it will make the need for removal of hitmen here clear cut. Sundayclose (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone like
ISBN 978-1-987902-34-1..--Moxy 🍁 05:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with Sundayclose. The definition should be set in the main project. If the change is made there, then it should then propagate throughout Wikipedia.--dashiellx (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to changing the definition used by Wikipedia. But again I will raise a bit of a thorny issue. Who decides whether someone kills for fun, profit, perverse gratification, or some combination of those? Making that decision would require Wikipedia editors to assume they can get inside the head of the killer. As it is now, the definition at Serial killer may be flawed but has little ambiguity: the person murders (not just kills, which rules out capital punishment) three or more people. I foresee some disputes, but that may be unavoidable. Sundayclose (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow the sources....no sources for the gangsters listed here.--Moxy 🍁 03:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So we automatically assume that if someone is classified as a "gangster", they derive no pleasure or perverse satisfaction in the act of killing? Again, that assumes we can get in the gangster's head. Sundayclose (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should assume nothing.....only follow the sources. Not our job to classify killers with no sources to back that up. Will add sources to main article.--Moxy 🍁 03:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, some people who have been classified as serial killers would be eliminated. Do we have reliable sources that unequivocally identify the motives of people like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer? We know they murdered more than two people, but we don't necessarily know why. So without a source identifying their motives, they would not be serial killers. Again, I'm not arguing that the definition should simply be murdering three or more people. My point is that in some cases there will be no reliable source that identifies why they killed. It's not as simple as "follow the sources" and "make no assumption". Sundayclose (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't have an authoritative source saying someone is serial killer why would we guess at it?--Moxy 🍁 03:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone we consider to be a hitman and not a serial killer is referred to as a serial killer by a reliable source, we should put him on this list as a serial killer? I think you're assuming that all reliable sources will agree with you (or any of us). I suspect some of the sources will use the same criterion for serial killer that Wikipedia currently uses: three or more murders, regardless of motive. In principle I fully agree with you. But I think there will some be disputed cases. Sundayclose (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you. We should follow the sources and if there is a debate we show that debate and let the readers read about it. Simply put
WP:Burden should be followed here to label someone for anything regardless of what our parent articles says.--Moxy 🍁 15:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Just a note: Wikipedia doesn't state "three or more murders, regardless of motive." It's clear that psychological gratification is the usual motive. It's about the desire/need to murder, and so on. The "material gain" thing more so applies to female serial killers. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But in any event, Moxy has the right end of the stick here: we should not be describing anyone as a serial killer (either via explicit prose or implicitly through their inclusion in any particular list), except where they are so described in
WP:Synthesis. This isn't even a particularly nuanced or borderline call: we go with the sources for any disputed description of any individual--let alone controversial labels--and inclusion on relative lists proceeds accordingly. There's really no other way to approach this situation under our most basic of content policies. Snow let's rap 22:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

I think this is an inappropriate article to use that message ABruhRandomUser (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ABruhRandomUser: What is the rationale for your comment? Sundayclose (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose: Some people believe maintaining this sort of knowledge only encourages others. Tipper Gore/Rock-n-Roll, etc.... dashiellx (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dashiellx: Sorry, but I don't understand your explanation. What is "this sort of knowledge"? What does "Tipper Gore/Rock-n-Roll" have to do with serial killers? If you're referring to unsourced or poorly sourced additions, then I would agree; but that applies to almost everything on Wikipedia. But I don't see a problem with well sourced additions to a list article. If the article was titled "Most notable serial killers" or similar that might make sense, but that's not the case. Sundayclose (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose:Sorry, didn't mean to be confusing. There are people who think our recording of these people and their activities is glorifying them. Asking people to "expand" the article is interpreted by these sort of people as encouragement. We need to be protected from ourselves or we might end up becoming "morally bankrupt". It is the same argument people used against Rock-n-roll and a billion other subjects they find uncomfortable. It has nothing to do with accuracy or knowledge. -dashiellx (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dashiellx: Ah yes, I failed to grasp the meaning between the lines. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose: It's cause it sort of makes it sound like it wants people to join the list ABruhRandomUser (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ABruhRandomUser: An encyclopedia article doesn't "want" anything; it's inanimate. It's simply an acknowledgement that there may be legitimate items that have not been included in the list. Many, many list articles have this statement at the top because it encourages editors to add those legitimate items; read WP:WikiProject_Lists#Incomplete lists. What is it about this list that makes it an exception among all list articles? Do you think you have some sort of insight into exactly how many serial killers have existed and do exist in the United States? Exactly at what point do you think the article has exhausted the potential entries? When there are 5 items? 10? 20? What is your basis for restricting number of items? And do you think you alone should determine that criterion? Or do you think this list shouldn't exist at all on Wikipedia? If so, why? Sundayclose (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose: What I mean is that they should reword the message as it sounds like they want more of the violence ABruhRandomUser (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ABruhRandomUser: How is expanding a list on Wikipedia in any way wanting "more violence"? Who wants more violence? A Wikipedia article cannot "want" anything, violence or otherwise. Are you saying that the creators of the list want more violence? If that's your meaning, then the logical extension of that argument is that the media should not report about serials killers because they "want more violence". And I'll reword my questions to you: Exactly how many items should be in the list without making it "want more violence"? If the list had 10 items, does stating that there might be more serial killers than 10 mean that it is a request for "more violence"? How about 20? 30? At what point does it change from a normal Wikipedia list to a list that is requesting more violence? If I find a serial killer that is not in the list and add it, do I "want more violence"?
And do other lists that have a similar statement requesting expansion suggest that anyone wants more of whatever is listed? For example, List of people who were executed has such a statement. Does that mean the list is a request for more executions? Sundayclose (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I immediately understood why someone might find that note to be inappropriate. (And, yes, that also applies to List of people who were executed–just imagine a cartoon with the former Attorney General reading that note, thinking to himself "I'm on it!"). Personally, I find the effect to be funny rather than disturbing. But we tend to try to avoid inadvertent humour, and might want to consider doing so here, as well. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your hypothetical example (very hypothetical) assumes that an Attorney General in their right mind would take action based on a hatnote in a Wikipedia article. The humor is not based in reality and is entirely based on your imagination. We can turn almost anything into humor if we try. That's no reason to impose arbitrary limits on improving Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The black humour (such as it is) only works by deliberately misunderstanding "incomplete" - in context, it obviously means not including all that have occurred to date; the incompleteness is relative to the facts as they stand. Yes, the list is tragically open-ended and will lengthen in the future due to the accretion of new cases. But in that sad sense it will never be compete in any sense anyway. The only thing that seems inappropriate here is that the discussion was opened in the first place. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:65C6:96EB:D265:E131 (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Roger Kibbe's section

At the time of this writing, several of the serial killers listed within this article mention within their section that they have died. However, at the time of this writing, Roger Kibbe's "Status"-section within this article is listed as "Sentenced to life imprisonment" even though he (according to his article (at the time of this writing)) died February 28, 2021. Should his section within this article mention that he has died? Heart of Destruction (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heart of Destruction: Yes it should. If you notice something wrong, feel free to fix it. There are a few of us who watch this page to keep vandals away, but I encourage you to make any edits you feel would be helpful. -dashiellx (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. At the time of this writing,

WP:BLPCRIME by having his status say that Jason Budrow killed him. What do you think? Heart of Destruction (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

@Heart of Destruction:Sounds good to me. I appreciate your efforts to make this list more accurate, but you do not need to run edits past anyone here. If you can support the edit through appropriate citations, go for it. If someone disagrees, they'll change it to something else. If there is still disagreement, bring to the talk page and we'll get it work out. --dashiellx (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have edited Roger Kibbe's "Status"-section within this article to reflect his death (See here). Is that okay? Heart of Destruction (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heart of Destruction:Looks perfect. --dashiellx (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harnoko Dewantoro

The addition of Harnoko Dewantoro by @Haunted Spy: has brought forward a discussion that I've been thinking about for awhile in regards to this page: How is the title "List of serial killers in the United States" interpreted. Is it Serial Killers who operated in the United States or Serial Killers from the United States? --dashiellx (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dashiellx: As the page is titled "in the United States" I guess it means any serial killer who operated in the United States but not necessarily from there. Likewise if an American serial killer operated in another country without killing anyone in the United States then they should not be included in this list. That would be my interpretation. Inexpiable (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VA serial killers

There are at least 3 serial killers in Virginia that are not listed: Randy Taylor Michael Adams (dirty mike) Freddie Hammer (Christmas tree killer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.84.244 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of them have Wikipedia articles, therefore they cannot be added to the list, unless you or another user creates them. Inexpiable (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Norman Collins

Why is John Norman Collins not on the list? He killed several coed from 1967-1969. I grew up in Ypsilanti and heard about this all the time from my parents. Jaminjim38 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know he has tried and almost succeeded a few times in trying to get extradited to Canada where he would have been set free. Really good book called A Terror In Ypsilanti and i would recommend it to ANYONE!! Fantastic read and really intriguing story!!


I see why he is not listed I guess he was only convicted of one murder although they had him on others and One in California but it was the most expensive trial in history and they just wanted him locked up forever. Jaminjim38 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the single conviction would preclude him from technically being called a serial killer. However, the Michigan Murders are included on the list. dashiellx (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnabet

has 35 in the confirmed victims column. there is only 1 confirmed victim, 35 is the number claimed or suspected as a max. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:65C6:96EB:D265:E131 (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Keyes

The start of Israel Keyes activity should be either 1996 or 1998, he committed his first assault on a person in 1996 when he raped a woman in Oregon, however he claims to have committed his first murder in 1998. Disregard if it refers to the start of the killers crimes in general.

Steven Timothy Judy

@Inexpiable: - First, not sure why you Red Warned me. How was my edit vandalism? Second, your response of "What are you on about, half the people in this list are here for that reason... " I do not feel is sufficient (or even polite). We can't under any circumstances imply guilt in Wikipedia's voice. That's contrary to

WP:SUSPECT
. The lead of this article states "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone". There is only the one conviction for a single event. As far as others also being on this list who do not meet the criteria either is not sufficient justification for inclusion. Any entries that do not meet the two or more murders, committed as separate events threshold should be removed. I have removed Judy again. Please, let's discuss and reach a consensus on this. --dashiellx (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dashiellx: Well, if you feel Judy doesn't belong on this list, I feel a lot of the entries in this list aren't justified either, which is why I took offense to your removal of him. I feel he belongs on this list a lot more than certain other entries here. A serial killer is someone "who murders three or more people, usually in service of abnormal psychological gratification", as defined in the serial killer article. I really don't agree with the idea that a person who has murdered multiple clerks during armed robberies in separate incidents is a serial killer... they are simply an armed robber committing murder during the commission of a robbery more than once. It's not like they killed them for pleasure, it was for financial gain. A few articles I've expanded and created have been featured in this list and I do not agree that they are necessarily serial killers. Jurijus Kadamovas and Iouri Mikhel are the perfect example. They committed five separate murders but it was purely for financial gain, not psychological gratification, so do they belong on the list or not? What about Velma Barfield who was convicted of one murder but confessed to six? Yet she's on the list? Should Robert Gleason (murderer) be added to the list as he killed 3 people in separate incidents, yet two of them were in prison, so does he classify or not? You removing the Judy entry feels personal, when I would argue a lot of these entries aren't valid either, but you had no problem allowing them to exist in this list? Ultimately, the problem I think is because the criteria of serial killer is too vague, it makes everything a grey area, so there isn't really a right or wrong answer is there? You're not wrong but nor am I. There isn't really a right or wrong answer as to whether Judy should be added to this list, and therefore, because I feel he defines the criteria based on my interpretation of a serial killer, I feel the entry should be listed. Inexpiable (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even the lead of this article isn't clear as to what the definition is: "A serial killer is typically a person who murders three or more people" yet the FBI definition is "a series of two or more murders" so are we going by two murders of three murders? Lol. This is the problem, the defining criteria is too vague. Inexpiable (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for any entries to be removed, nor do I want them to be, just pointing out the definition is vague and thus why there is confusion as to what should be listed and what shouldn't be. It seems there are multiple interpretations as to what a serial killer is defined as. Inexpiable (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inexpiable: Nothing is meant to be personal. I am sorry if it felt that way. I've been watching this page for several years and have seen you make several improvements. However, I will admit that the RedWarn put me off a bit and if I came on strong, I apologize.

You make several valid points, the most important of which is that the definition of serial killer is vague. Adding to this problem is that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force appears essentially is dead. What needs to really happen is for someone to step up to act as coordinator and elicit feedback from those who have labeled themselves part of the project to reach a consensus on the definition.

I've been watching this page for a while and when a new entry is added I review. For the Judy entry, I just made a judgement that he didn't fit based on his confession not having been substantiated with actual evidence. I do understand why you disagree. These kinds of disagreements should probably be discussed at the project level, which being dead, etc... You are also correct that there are other entries on this table that probably don't belong either. In which case, they should be removed and any disagreements should be discussed at the project level to reach a consensus on disputed entries inclusion, but their existence on the list shouldn't be used as support to include an entry.-dashiellx (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I shouldn't have Red Warned, just had been a long day. Don't think there will ever be proper consensus because unfortunately writers of true crime articles on Wikipedia are somewhat rare to find these days, which is why I tend to support inclusions of any sort on lists like these, as long as they don't stray too far from what the standard definition is, to keep the subject alive and well. Judy probably doesn't fit the standard definition so I would leave him removed and judge it on a case by case basis from now on for when a new entry is added. There's a few others in the past I've thought of adding to this list but decided against it as I'm not sure they strictly qualify. I think just review each entry when it's added and decide if they fit the cut. Inexpiable (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article

Is it worth splitting this article now? It's getting full of entries and becoming a fairly long list. Perhaps adding words like "active" in the title might be more appropriate. So new pages titled: List of serial killers active in the United States in the 1900s ,2000s etc. It's pretty clear this list is going to keep expanding to the point where it will be far too long. That point is coming soon. Inexpiable (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Oken

Should Steven Oken be classified as a serial killer or a spree killer? Lightiggy (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should suspected serial killers be under a new category, or remain under identified?

In my mind, if a person is suspected of being a serial killer, especially if there is enough evidence save for more than one body, to the point it can be said without a doubt that someone is a serial killer, they should be classified as such. But, I am aware that such thinking is flawed. So, would an additional category or page for suspected serial killers be more beneficial? i don't think it would be, but hey, I'm not a moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkerer1523 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm this is interesting. I may support the inclusion of this section. However, it would mean the list would be extended massively. The article is already pretty long as it is. Inexpiable (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a BLP violation to list an unconvicted person as a serial killer. I would be very cautious in adding anybody to the list because some journalist or tabloid calls them by that term. Unconvictable individuals would need extremely firm sourcing in their subject articles.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article by states

When the time to split the article comes, and it undoubtably will, how about doing it by the states the serial killers were active in? For example, List of serial killers active in California and List of serial killers active in Texas. In my opinion I think it will work. Rexxx777 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do for interstate killers?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started to think about this and the only conclusion I've come to is just to have their page linked with all the states they committed their crimes in. Like, if a serial killer committed their murders in Nebraska, Montana, and Georgia, just have their page linked on all those pages. Rexxx777 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that if the they committed the crimes in more than one state, the would appear on more than one state page. In the notes column their could be a mention that they also committed crimes in the other states. --dashiellx (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page FREEZES browser

What the **** is with a screwy page? It locks up my browsers, both Chrome and Edge. Did somebody stick some JavaScript in here??? 97.116.106.68 (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zebra Murderers

The Zebra murderers (Jessie Cooks, Larry Green, Manuel Moore, and J.C.X. Simon) should be evaluated and updated with correct counts or removed. I have recently updated the Zebra murders page with a lot of info and references, but this is not something I want to tackle.

Each are listed as having 15 kills, but the total number of Zebra deaths is 14 (the extra death previously listed was actually grouped with the East Bay murders), and not all kills can be attributed to each Zebra murderer. Cooks was arrested after the murder of Frances Rose on Oct 30, 1973, therefore he was only responsible for, and officially charged with, 2 murders (the other being Quita Hague), and does not fit the criteria of being a serial killer. Moore and Simon were charged with the murders of Tana Smith and Jane Holly; Green was charged with the murder of Quita Hague; but all three could have contributed to the deaths of 12. TrueCrimeData (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine Barnabet

Does she deserve to be there? I know she was formally arrested and convicted for them, but they continued after both her and her father were in prison, and the wiki article even states multiple times it is doubtful. Since its questionable she actually was, does it belong?

Delete if unnecessary, just wanted to talk to more active editors before I did something drastic. |1Falco3&#124 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have removed her entry. dashiellx (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Man From The Train link

The link from the entry "The Man From The Train" redirects to a book about the murders, not the murders themselves. I checked, and there is not official Wikipedia page about the murders. Should I unlink it or keep it or what? Bluehalooo (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about Cletus Reese

He killed about 5-10 people and buried them in his yard in Nellie Ohio. I’m not sure about the dates 107.11.183.154 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dayvon Bennett (King Von) and creating uniform standards for this list

King Von was recently added to this list, despite never have being convicted of a murder or being proven to involved by some method like DNA testing. I don't think this is reason enough to include him in the list, and when I looked through the table, there are other people like Charles Albright and John Baughman who also have not been proven to be linked to multiple murders

Because of this, I believe that specific criteria for inclusion on the list is required.

I propose the following: 1. The suspect must have been "proven" to have committed at least 2 murders at separate events. 2. The murders must have been committed in the United States "Proof" can be in the form on convictions, DNA evidence, and formal confessions (not rap music) like what happened with Velma Barfield. 3. Proof requirement is more stringent for recent murders.

I think we should try to keep gang violence off this list because those murders tend to go unsolved and also have questions about if the person who died was the aggressor if the accused was the aggressor.

Let me know what you think about this standard I've created, I think it'll improve the list DuraChica (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Kelvin Malone.

Am again removing Kelvin Malone from the list. As define by the The United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, a spree killer is define by "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders". Defined by the FBI as "a person (or more than one person) who commits two or more murders without a cooling-off period; the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree killer and a serial killer." Malone's killing spree occurred in only 6 days, during the commission of a crime spree with two accomplices that lasted only two weeks. Most of the references on the subject's page refer to the events as a "rampage" or a "spree". Malone is a clear example of a spree killer, not a serial killer, as defined by the FBI, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, and numerous authors cited in the spree killer article. ExRat (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ExRat: One of the sources uses the term "Serial killer" though. Vague descriptions from The United States Bureau of Justice Statistics should not take priority over a source that specifically uses the term. There are many examples of people who don't fit the term based on that description who are still referred to as serial killers. Reliable sources should take priority, and if a specific source identifies someone as a serial killer then we should identify them by that as well. Inexpiable (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is also possible for someone to be both a spree killer and a serial killer. The source using the term "serial killer" when describing Malone from the St. Louis Post Dispatch: [10] Inexpiable (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really that "vague" though as defined by the FBI, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, various authors and criminologists when differentiating between mass murderers, spree killers and serial killers. These differences are routinely made clear in various publications like Psychology Today, Death Investigation Training Academy, Science Direct, ThoughtCo., Eastern Illinois University, etc. Spree Killers: Practical Classifications for Law Enforcement and Criminology (2019) by Mark Safarik and Katherine Ramsland also make make clear the distinctions. The Daily Beast specifically refer to Malone's crimes as a "multi-state murder spree". I mean, by any metric, Malone is a spree killer, not a serial killer. He had two accomplices and began a two week crime spree (which most of the references in the article refer to it as) and then committed murder only six days of that spree in the course of robberies or theft. I agree that reliable sources should take priority, and most of the sources refer to Malone as a spree killer. Even his case trials refer to it as a "murder spree" (People v. Malone (1988)) and a "crime spree" (IN RE: Kelvin Shelby MALONE on Habeas Corpus. (1996)) ExRat (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case for him then
Ryan Scott Blinston should removed as well. 2600:1010:B168:BE5A:B422:D6BE:9299:6870 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Rex Heuerman's involvement in Gilgo Beach

Somebody gotta add Rex Heuerman to this list, he was convicted of 3 of the up to 18 Gilgo Beach murders, he most likely murdered a fourth woman too. Maybe he even murdered all victims if the SCPD's "single killer theory" is correct 67.80.134.47 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Scott Blinston removal

User:ExRat removed Kelvin Malone because he does not meet the definition Of a serial killer as stated in the topic above. If that is the case then why is

Ryan Scott Blinston still on here? Shouldn’t he be removed too? Startrain844 (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_serial_killers_in_the_United_States&oldid=1222708188"