Talk:Patrick Tracy Burris

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

Rewrite needed[edit]

The whole section below needs to be re-factored in light of recent events. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sketch of the suspected serial killer has been released to the press; also, investigators believe that the murderer was driving a light gray or champagne tan 1991-94 two-door Ford Explorer. The police have still not revealed if all victims were found bound or if it was just the Linder family who was found in that manner.[1] If it was to be confirmed, a modus operandi could be established.[2]
The case has reached international interest.[3] Authorities have offered a $20,000 reward for information on the case.[4]
  1. ^ "The Ribbit | Cherokee County Serial Killer: Serial Killer DEAD - Criminal History - Gastonia 911 calls". Carolinascw.com. Retrieved 2009-07-07.
  2. ^ From Stan Moberg CNN. "'Serial killer' claims fifth victim in South Carolina - CNN.com". Edition.cnn.com. Retrieved 2009-07-07. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  3. ^ "Nu har han mördat fem | Nyheter | Aftonbladet". Aftonbladet.se. Retrieved 2009-07-07.
  4. ^ "Case Closed: Serial Killer Dead in Gaston County". WSPA. Retrieved 2009-07-07.

Picture?[edit]

Does anyone have a good quality free picture to put on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.203.93 (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be free since as the subject is deceased, a suitably illustrative, and adequately rationaled, fair use image could be used. Mfield (Oi!) 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of victims[edit]

This is unnecessary and redundant, as the victims names and ages are incorporated in the article text. In the Bundy article mentioned in the edit summary, there are far too many to incorporate in the text, so they're listed. Here that is completely unnecessary. Unitanode 14:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with you. Overall I think we have reached a consensus. cheers--Judo112 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he was "known as"[edit]

He is definitively not known as the "Gaffney Gunman", as far as I can tell from a basic Google search. As for "Cherokee County Serial Killer", that's not an AKA, but rather a simple "location/crime" moniker the police used before he was identified. An AKA is something like "BTK Killer" or "Boston Strangler." Unitanode 14:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes an overwhelming majority of all reports has talked about the Cherokee County Serial Killer which could be just as BTK killer. Anyway its mentioned in aliases its good enough for know.--Judo112 (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not his "alias" or even an "also known as." It is ONLY what he was called based on the location of the crimes until his identity was discovered. BTK was a name like "Boston Strangler" or "Jack the Ripper" that was an actual nickname given to the killer. "Cherokee County Serial Killer" was not. Unitanode 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think any AKA would need to be widely cited as such after his death. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spree vs Serial killer[edit]

Folks, there is a distinct, and important, difference between a spree killer and a serial killer (check the articles for details). Despite what Burris was called by the media, technically he was a spree killer, not a serial killer, so I have made the appropriate changes to the article. – ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well and have changed the hatnote at Patrick Burris to reflect this. momoricks 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: the placement of the Serial Killer Task Force banner is appropriate. The task force covers serial killers, mass murderers and spree killers. momoricks 02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted, thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with spree killer, but there is a problem that I feel should possibly be addressed. The reference used says serial killer not spree killer Has anyone looked to see if anyone got it right and called this a spree killing? We still have to use the sources and what they say not tell WP:TRUTH. Changing this to be accurate with the ref saying something else just feels like a policy violation of WP:SYN or something. Thoughts or am I being a policy nut? ;) Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we could state in the article that he was incorrectly called a serial killer by the media, but I am OK with it as it stands. If there is violent agreement with adding a short explanatory sentence, I would be OK with that too. – ukexpat (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I agree with clarifying this in the article. I found this Discovery.com Criminal Report Daily blog entry by David Lohr that addresses this issue. I don't currently have full internet access, so feel free to add it. As the investigation continues and more in-depth information is released, we should be able to find more sources identifying him as a spree killer. momoricks 20:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Murder in 2009[edit]

Why has this category been repeatedly removed? Crime researcher (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You created this category yourself, and it's simply redundant to the many other categories in which this article is already listed. Unitanode 00:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it redundant to have a category of murders and murderers of this year, or any other year for that matter? Crime researcher (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category clutter can become a problem. Unitanode 01:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Especially as there appears to be no precedent or consensus for that category -- I looked back 5 years and could not find similar ones. – ukexpat (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are often created, one at a time, without the existence of similar cats. I believe this cat is useful and intend to soon create Category:Murder in 2008, followed by Category:Murder in 2007. I am waiting a few days to see what the reaction to this cat is before creating similar ones. As this cat does exist, then this article should be in it, as it fits the obvious criteria. There is no sense in having the cat, yet not including this article in it. Crime researcher (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am questioning whether the cat is necessary in the first place. Maybe I will ask for input over at WP:CRIME. – ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that such a category is useful. By definition and Wikipedia standards for notability and inclusion, category breakdown by year for one given crime is going to be chronically underpopulated and redundant to the cross categories of Category:Murder and Category:2009 crimes (or whatever year). That, to me, effectively qualifies it as overcategorization. I think this actually would be the debate should such categories be nominated for deletion at WP:CFD and perhaps that is where it should occur for a definitive answer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an editor for almost a year and still don't know all of the category intricacies. I do know that Category:Murder articles was recently renamed Category:Murders after this CFD. That discussion, as well as this one, leads me to think there is a problem with murder-related overcategorization. The most appropriate categories for this page appear to be Category:2009 crimes (which includes murder articles) and the already-added Category:Murder in South Carolina. As for the relevance of Category:Murder in 2009, a CFD seems like the best way to determine this. momoricks 22:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Succumbed / died[edit]

Died of is a neutral term, and is preferred on Wikipedia, where neutrality is a key policy pillar. Why has it been changed back to the emotive term 'succumbed to'? Crime researcher (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Succumbed" is not emotive, only more interesting. There is nothing remotely more "neutral" about using "died of" or "died due to." Unitanode 00:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Died is the recommended term to use, due to its neutrality - WP:EUPHEMISM; succumbed sounds tabloidish. Crime researcher (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, no. The word "succumbed" is not even mentioned on that page, and it's not even a euphemism. It's simply a synonym that is far more interesting -- and hardly "tabloidish", whatever that might mean -- which is not prohibited by any policy or guideline. Unitanode 01:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to both editors, this is silly. It's a difference in wording preferences, that's it. momoricks 01:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be silly, but I think that the change degrades the quality of the writing, even if only in a minor way. Unitanode 01:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because this issue is being pressed, I took a closer look. According to Merriam-Webster, succumb means: "to be brought to an end (as death) by the effect of destructive or disruptive forces". WP:EUPHEMISM suggests the use of "died". It's neutral and means what it says. momoricks 02:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. "Succumbed" is a much more interesting synonym for died, and isn't mentioned at the wikilink you provided. It's not non-neutral, and isn't in any way a problem. I'm into good writing, and "succumbed" is that. If this issue is pressed through, there are plenty of other articles in the "sea" of Wikipedia I can work on, I guess. I won't edit war about it, but I also won't contribute any further to an article where this kind of nitpicking at good words is condoned. I'll just step away with no hard feelings. Regards, Unitanode 02:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Unitanode, you have put a fair amount of effort into this article and it looks good. I was just trying to make a point and think it's fine either way. It would be a shame if you quit improving this page. momoricks 02:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually preparing to go over the entire article in an attempt to liven up the prose a bit. My point is this: if an interesting word like "succumbed" is torpedoed, what's the point? Unitanode 02:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Patrick Tracy Burris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patrick_Tracy_Burris&oldid=1206487575"