Talk:List of Craigslist killers

==Earlier Craigslist Killer== In 2007 a teenaged boy killed a woman responding to a babysitting advertisement; he was also called the "Craigslist Killer." Don't know if this deserves mention to avoid confusion or not. Шизомби (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Done -- but can you come up with a reference for this? I have included it, but a source is needed. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourced and then some, as well as a third case in which the accused bears the same media-bestowed title of "Criagslist Killer." cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-linking to earlier "Want Ad Killer" examples

I think this article is coming along well. I have made a point to link it into earlier, pre-internet "Want Ad Killer" and "Lonely Hearts Club Killer" material, both on and off Wikipedia.

If anyone can supply further wiki-links of this nature, it would be appreciated. I think these links would work best if they are placed in the new "See also" sub-section, but not in the body of the article. There may even be enough of them to start a category that would include both print and internet examples of this particular modus operandi. cat yronwode (not logged in; sorry!) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

This is not an article topic but a glorified disambiguation page. It needs to be converted using the dab page structure. I also have serious doubts as to whether the title is correct. It should probably appear as "Craigslist killer", not "Killer". Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, i do agree with you that "Craigslist killer" needs a lower-case "k" in killer.

I respectfully disagree... The media has by-and-large referred to the suspect(s) as the "Craigslist Killer" (with a capital "K"); the attribution has become a nickname and should therefore be presented as a Proper Noun. Adams kevin (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your idea that this is a dab page, but i think it is also an article. I have spent years editing true crime material and i speak as a published author on this subject, for what i's worth. The term refers to a type of criminal, like a want ad killer, a serial killer, a burglar, a highway robber, etc.

Meanwhile, over at the badly-written Philip Markoff stub, there is an AfD. [1] What do you think of that?

If you are proposing to move our better Markoff text from here to the Markoff page and retain anything we can salvage from the current Markoff page there as well -- and also create pages for Anderson and Katehis -- then that would not bother me. BUT, if you want to eliminate Katehis and Anderson, that would be something i would oppose strenuously. I have put in about 6 hous on this thing and i will NOT take kindly to it bing dabbed out of existence.

cat yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

funny, what you call "badly written" is simply mostly your words changed slightly in syntax and vocabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.117.213 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Philip Markoff is going to survive the AfD, whether it is this one or another one won't matter. There is no single Craigslist Killer. This is either a disambiguation page pointing to three separate topics or it is an article about the Craigslist killings. That there are few, if any good sources describing the latter, we can only go with the former. And, the categories aren't being used correctly. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we slow this discussion down and that before any changes are made, we also make sure that links to here are included in the Markoff afd / redirect discussion, as the two situations are intimately interlinked.

I agree with you that the categories are being used ambiguously here.

I am not oposed in theory to making "Craigslist killer" a dab page, but i would agree to this only if the Anderson and Katehis pages are created and only if one month after their creation they are not afd-ed out of existence -- which is, i am convinced, EXACTLY what will happen if they are left to stand alone.

Think about it my way, too, though: In my opinion, "Craigslist killer" is not a dab -- it is a new term of art. This is one writer who will be pissed off as hell if an entire day's work of mine is trashed by deletionists just because *you* don't get it that "Craigslist killer" is a newly-coined specific term with a specific meaning and as such it is currently much used in popular culture to refer to any and all murderers, with any and all kinds of motivation, who have in common the modus operandi that they find victims via Craigslist.

cat yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm an inclusionist, and I've been one for five years, so you're really off the mark. None of your responses have addressed the issues, and you admit above that this is a "new term of art". These are your ideas, and belong to you alone. There are three "Craigslist killers" listed here. An article about them would be called "Craigslist killings" or "Craigslist murders". Contrary to your personal research on the matter, on Wikipedia, "Craigslist Killer" is not a new term of art. It is a name given to one or more murderers, none of which have anything to do with each other. On Wikipedia, in these situations, we usually create disambiguation pages, if they are needed. I see that at least one other murderer, Michael John Anderson, had an article at one time, but was twice deleted, notably the first time in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigslist Killing. The article section, Craigslist#Controversies_and_illegal_activities_by_users adequately covers this topic. You are trying to get around consensus and policy on the two prior deletions by expanding this article with original research and duplicating the current Craigslist controversy section which already has this information. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No original research

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

It's a disambiguation page at this time, nothing more. All of the original research that you've added doesn't change that fact. Material like this is not acceptable:

Before the development of the internet, when similar cases were described in the media, they were commonly known as "Want Ad Murders" and the perpetrators were called "Want Ad Killers" or "Lonely Hearts Club Killers", due to their method of finding victims through newspaper classified ads and personal or lonely hearts club ads.

Please read and understand WP:NOR. I understand that you enjoy writing about this topic, but this is exactly what you cannot do. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that's an intreresting statement. You say that i "enjoy writing about this topic" but you overlook that i have done so professionally, repeatedly, over a period of several years. That puts us at rather an impasse, does it not?

Here's what i propose: Either you accept my informed professional opinion that this is "common knowledge" and not "original research" or i shall, as a professional and published author on the subjct of true crime, organized crime, economic crime, and sociopathic serial killers, go to one of my several web domains, and write an article about the historical linkage between want ad killers, personals ads killers, lonely hearts club killers, and Craigslist killers -- which only vary by media format, and not by modus operandi. Then you, as a Wikipedia editor, will go to my page and quote my professional writing on the subject. That way, there will be no original research at Wikipdia. Will that make it okay for you? RSVP.

P.S. Thanks for your solicitous note over at my talk-page, where you said that you "hope [that i am] actually thinking things through before [i] click save page. That is so considerate of you! Smooches!

Also, since you asked, i certainly do hope that the badly written and poorly sourced Philip Markoff article will be redirected. If not, then the Craigslist Killer page will fall apart and i am sure that the John Katehis and Michael Anderson write-ups will be speedy-deleted.

But, "more to the point," you asked me, "why haven't you created an article about the Want Ad Murders? Adding that material to an article about different 'craigslist killers' isn't helpful because it violates the NOR policy. You need to show that there is a direct relationship between the two; you can't just make that leap yourself."

I haven't created articles about want ad killers and lonely hearts killers for Beloved Wikipedia already, because it just never occured to me that Adored Wikipedia wouldn't already have such articles. To my mind, articles like those are a lot higher priority than six more articles about obscure brands of Asian candy, a topic with which Deservedly Blessed Wikipedia is all-too-well-endowed, article-wise -- but of course, that's just my naughty personal opinion, obviously. Silly me for not realizing that Auspicious Wikipedia needs me to do this! Immediately! Or sooner!

Only today, while researching pages to wiki-link the term want ad killer for the Craigslist killer "See also" section, i noticed that there was no Prestigious Wikipedia article on Harvey Carignan (the subject of Ann Rule's biogaphy, "The Want Ad Killer"), much to my surprise -- and i noticed that the Harvey Carignan article's unexpected absense from Fabulus Wikipedia is noted at other crime-bio sites as well. (See here, where the Sublime Wikipedia logo is X-ed out, signifying "No Wikipedia Article on Harvey Carignan the Want Ad Killer"). I'd humbly offer to write about Havrvey Carignan first, priority-wise, and then follow with general want ad killer and lonely hearts club killer terminological articles next, but such, alas, is not to be. Apologies!

Writing for Almost-Godly Wikipedia doesn't pay the bills, it seems. It's volunteer work. And if my volunteer work doesn't bring in pleasure, then it's not going to happen. I took a whole day off today from my paying job to write for Rapidly-Increasing Wikipedia and what did i get for it? Pleasure? Well, yes, at first. But after that -- just rudeness from you.

Thank you, Viriditas, for saving me from falling into my usual habit of useless and pointless volunteerism and concommitant violation of Always-Enforced Wikipedia NOR policies! Whenever i do drift over here and start to help out, i am promptly brought to my senses by editors like youself who know nothing about a topic and don't care to learn, but do have the rule-set firmly in hand and can slap professional authors with dozens of publication credits on these very topics back down like dogs! It is soooo delightfully collegial of you to do that. Rrruff!

Enjoy your little encyclopedia project. I'm sure it will bring you lots of fun.

cat yronwode, editor / researcher / ghost-writer / rewriter / reprint editor / typesetter / graphic designer and co-publisher of

True Crime Trading Cards,

True Crime II Trading Cards,

Crime and Punishment Trading Cards,

G-Men & Gangsters: From the Slum Gangs to the Mafia (True Crime, Vol 1),

Serial Killers & Mass Murderers (True Crime, Vol 2),

Coup D'Etat Trading Cards,

Drug Wars Trading Cards,

Savings and Loan Scandal trading Cards.

Rotten to the Core (N.Y.C. dirty politics) Trading Cards

True Crime Comics 1 (John Gotte Gets Made and The Aileen Wuornos Story),

True Crime Comics 2 (Amy Fischer story and the F.B.I. vs. "Big Paulie"),

True Crime Comics Special: Apocalypse in Waco,

Mr. Monster's True Crime Comics,

and so forth and so on.

64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the often unfortunate peculiarities of Wikipedia that sometimes yes, an editor might find it more useful to write about the topic offsite and then have that linked. Probably frowned upon, but acceptable AFAIK. There used to be an "apple pie exception" for writing about the obvious, as in this case where it's obvious the killers were nicknamed about the method they used to find their victims, and that that method in these cases specifically involved personal/want ads. Odd that two of them (Markoff and Glatman) had ties to Albany, incidentally. A shortcoming in the Serial killer article that I see is that there's no discussion of their nicknames there; why/how they're named. There must be some extant writing on that general topic. Шизомби (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the "apple pie exception" for writing about the obvious -- that's exactly what my brief continuity-linking comment about want ad nurderers was -- something obvious in a casually timeline-framing lead-in sentence that would have produced a quick back-link to the want ad killers page -- had there been a want ad killers page. It is by no means "original research."

Alas, apparently this sort of obvious common knowledge was NOT "obvious" to someone as new to this planet and to news reporting and to the true crime beat as Mr. "I Control the Rule Book" Viriditas, and so he saw fit to make HIS ignorance enforceable on everyone else's head, and to post pointless insults on my talk page while doing so.

cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The apple pie exception got deleted at some point. I started to look at the archives of the NOR page via Googling +"apple pie" +"original research" +wikipedia, but didn't go through it all. I see Rope: The Twisted Life and Crimes of Harvey Glatman pages 386-389 has some discussion of killers using personal ads: Glatman, of course, but also Belle Gunness, Henri Landru, Helmuth Schmidt , Albert Fish, Harry Powers (no article despite inspiring Night of the Hunter!), Harvey Carignan (as you mentioned), Earl Daughtrey, Robert Hansen. Not sure how many of these got nicknamed after their use of ads, though. That there's in effect two articles on Philip Markoff is a little odd, given all these redlinks for more notable killers sharing the same MO. But that's Wikipedia's current events bias. Hey, you might find WP:SERKILL of interest. Anyway, The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Harold Schechter has an entry on "Ads." He also mentions Armin Meiwes and in his section on "Internet" he has John Edward Robinson (serial killer). Шизомби (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cool lookups. I hope you write them into the article, bcause i am not going to revisit this debacle. Add H. H. Holmes to your list, as he advertised his boardinghouse / abbatoir in the newspapers. And then there are Fernandez and Beck -- and for reasons i truly cannot understand and would like to strenuously oppose, Raymond Fernandez owns the Wikipdia redirect for Lonely Hearts Killers, despite being only one of several people who used that form of contact and were thus named by the media. A really good set of articles on this subject would note both how the killers advertised for victims (or answered victim ads) and how the media came to nick-name them for this trait. Harvey Carignan, for instance, was also known as "Harvey the Hammer," after his favoured weapon, but he is best known as The Want-Ad Killer. Newspaper headline writers have a huge influence on idomatic English and eventual word formation. Thanks also for the pointer to WP:SERKILL -- i had not seen that previously. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Responding to the above, it isn't common, it isn't obvious, and it isn't subject to an apple pie exception. The material in question, was your idea, and you've even stated that you think the "Craigslist Killer" is a new form of art, whatever that means. Whatever the case may be, you linked the Craiglist cases with "Want Ad Murders" and "Lonely Hearts Club Killers" and the source you used doesn't discuss Craigslist. You go on to conclude that "the phrase "Craigslist killer," like "want ad killer" is generic", again with no sources. This isn't how we write articles on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you are a professional writer, you can't use Wikipedia in this way. And if you did choose to self-publish your theories, your personal website would be subject to WP:SPS. In any case, given the past record of trying to publish your original ideas here, I don't think it would be acceptable to use your personal website as a source in this case. There is no real topic here, yet. If there were, we would have secondary sources. What we have is a disambiguation page, nothing more. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious, though the apple pie exception appears to be no longer in use anyway. If a source is really needed, which I think is being unnecessarily particular, [2] comes relatively close given that it mentions Craigslist in the context of an article about a Lonely Hearts Murderer, and the article is in the news context of the Craigslist Killer stories. If these killers weren't named after the method they used to find their victims, how were they named? If it's not generic, how did it end up being used multiple times? She didn't call "Craigslist Killer" a form of art (though see On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts), but a term of art (I don't know if that article defines that the way exactly she uses it, but it seems close). I'm not sure SPS would be applicable in this case given her preexisting work in this area, it may be, though it definitely would be if I did. Anyhow, everybody consider revisiting Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Шизомби (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Viridis, that would be "term of art" not "fom of art." Look it up. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Same response. There are no good sources that discuss the term nor refer to the three murderers having any connection. You're trying to sensationalize something that doesn't exist. The New York Daily News source you've added to promote this view doesn't even discuss the criminals, and you've pasted it together simply to compare it with "Lonely Hearts Club Killers", a comparison that isn't made anywhere. Again, you are not following the source guidelines and you trying to push your personal research. It doesn't even belong here. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled what you mean by "no good sources that discuss the term nor refer to the three murderers having any connection." It hasn't been asserted that the murderers knew each other or that their murders were part of a single murder plot, the connection is simply that they all used Craigslist to find their victims and they all got called the (not "a") Craigslist Killer. If you've got a source saying an apple is a fruit, and one that says an orange is a fruit, you don't then need a source saying both apples and oranges are fruit: that follows logically. There is at least one article that mentions all three of them, though, for whatever that's worth: [3]. What needs more discussion than this though perhaps is what makes a murder or a murderer noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia (a distasteful question), and what the article should be named. I dislike the multiplication of articles on this subject. Шизомби (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Although, by definition, Craigslist will have been the initial contact point and a killing will have taken place in order for the suspcted, accused, or convicted perpetrator to be dubbed a Craigslist killer, the actual motivations of these criminals are varied. The victims' deaths may result from a robbery or a sexual encounter that turned violent. Some of these perpetrators may not have intended to commit murder, but killed their victims during the course of a struggle or to prevent capture."

This is somewhat more speculative. Though it is reasonable to think it may, we don't know if "Craigslist Killer" will be applied by journalists or crime writers to future murderers using Craigslist. It didn't get used for Willie Donaldson (yet, anyway) for whatever reason. Шизомби (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Right. No personal attacks, then.

This article's page was fissioned and all the work by previous editors and writers was deleted, with redirects made to one-line refs in another page that was not about the topic under discussion (murders, true crime cases), but was on another topic altogether (an online classified ad service). That is not the way we do things at Wikipedia.

The on-topic material has been recaptured by access to pevious edits of this page, and inserted into the newly made topical pages. That IS the way we do things at Wikipedia.

As for the term Craigslist killer being generic -- thank you Schizombie for pointing out the obvious -- and for the ref, which i am now going to link into the article.

Some editors really cannot stand being exposed as ignorant. They would rather wiki-lawyer other writers and insult them on their talk pages than admit their ignorance about a topic such as true crime or an idiomatic phrase such as "term of art" or "Craigslist killer". However, as the journalist and cowboy Will Rogers so astutely said, "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects" -- and when an editor grows up enough to realize the truth of that statement, he or she can actually become a valuable member of the cooperative team here instead of a stumbling block to the dedicated volunteer work of other, better informed writers.

We can but hope.

cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ues==

Please. You recreated material that was deleted twice by consensus in AfD and tried to redirect a a new article to justify keeping the older, deleted material. This kind of thing is really transparent. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of the material on the term of art "Craigslist killer" was not achieved by consensus. No consesnus was called for and none was reached. You will find nothing attached to this page that indicates that any opinions were registered on the subject.

The material was deleted by YOU and by you alone, repeatedly. It is YOUR decision and not a consensus decision that the article on "Craigsllist killer" is a disambiguation page. This is NOT the opinion of others, nor has your decision been subject to concensus decision.

Your deletion of the ref that schizombie brought to our attention, (in which a paraqllel was drawn by a reporter between Craigslist and matrimonial bureaus of the early to mid 20th century) is spurious, because the cited article explicitely draws a parallel between murderers who use electronic ads in Craigslist (i.e. "Craiglsist killers") and murderers who used paper-print ads in newspapers and at matrimonial bureuas (i.e. "lonely hearts killers")

It is my "transparent" contention, backed, i believe, by that of schizombie, that the term "Craigslist killer" is a term of art in journalism and as such the article should NOT be merely a pointer-page to three men's names, but deserves a definition and that this definition is best presented by defining the term in view of previous, similar terms of art, including "want ad killer," "lonely hearts club killer," "matrimonial bureau murderer," etc.

Please stop deleting the material we have written and allow us time to write the other pages, and you will see that there is a series of common journalistic terms of art here, and that they cannot be defined by merely naming the people to whom they have been attached -- but rather should be explained by a definition of what the terms actually mean.

I think it is time to call in third parties here, as your obstructionist insistence that this is a dab page is lessening Wikipedia's functionality as an encyclopedia and is verging on an edit war.

User:catherineyronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I did act with consensus, as you agreed to my proposal. Then like the wind, you changed direction, several times. Please try to be consistent. This is a dab page, nothing more. You are trying to turn this into a topic based on sources that don't exist. Your poor use of synthesis and unsourced conclusions with references tacked on to the end to make it seem authentic aren't fooling anyone. The "term of art" doesn't exist. It's a nickname for three different killers, and Wikipedia handles it with a dab page. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Craigslist Killer>Craigslist killer

I disagree with this move. Do not the articles that use "Craigslist Killer" capitalize both? Шизомби (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper writers often do indeed captialize both words, in exactly the same way that they often capitalize Board of Directors, Stawberry Queen, and Chief of Staff in news stories. The trouble here is that we are dealing with Wikipedia editors, for whom all is grammatical function; not being conversant with newspaperese, they insist on adherence to non-idiomatic capitalization. My 2 cents. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikifying title's capitalization

The wording uses an indefinate article, "a Craigslist killer." Non-proper noun phrases in English are not capitalized. ↜Just me, here, now … 03:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See? Proved my point. For Wikipedia editors who are writing outside of their field of knowledge, the only rules to follow are those that apply to NON-idiomatic phrases that are not terms of art in journalistic writing. Such is life. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "term of art". It's a dab page. You have not provided a single reliable source showing otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A topic, not a dab

Google lists 1,830,000 occurances of "Craigslist killer" in quote marks; it is a topic, not a list of three names for disambiguation. Please, Viriditas, if you want to improve the article, start researching the TOPIC. You cannot force such a widespread term into dab status when almost 2 million instances of the term in quotes appear at google. Please be reasonable. catherine yronwode. Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not how we determine a topic. You know, you've been here for a while now, right? Surely, you understand what a disambiguation page is used for, and how we write topics? Please provide me three reliable sources on the subject of "Craigslist killer" or "Craigslist killings" or "Craigslist killing". Just three. Please remember, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We only report what other sources have already reported or published about the topic directly. We do not take two or three sources and draw conclusions about the subject from sources that do not talk about the subject directly. That is exactly what you are doing. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been here a number of years. I have often seen google numbers used to clarify discussions on notability, terminological preferences, and so forth. I consider this a valid way of shedding light on how and why readers of Wikipedia may wish to have information served up to them.

Meanwhile, i spent this evening doing something that you asked me to do: i created and researched a page on Lonely hearts killers and also a page on Internet killers. These crime topic definition pages, of which Craigslist killer is the third, form a set of terminological definitions that i believe most readers will find valuable and informative. They not only contain referenced sources to online and print true crime journalism, they also contain lists of notable persons whom the media have titled with these terms, generally in headlines -- and where i could find hadlines using those terms, i did so, to save the reader from having to open the link to see the term used in an off-wiki article.

I have done a lot of work here -- as have others, noably Schizombie, who has helped by supplying refs -- yet it seems that no matter how much effort goes into the project -- including creation of pages at YOUR request! -- you are still mis-reading what is happening here.

Your accusation that my mention of the gradual change in popular forms of advertisements over the years is my "original research" is ridiculous, because this historical overview is commonplace -- yet when Schizombie presented an extremely good ref, in which a reporter wrote a sidebar on the Markoff case and spcifically explained that before Craigslist there were lonely hearts killers who found victims through lonely hearts clubs, you did not even understand that your "original research" objection had been trumped. The article Schizombie reffed said preceisely what was claimed -- and its position as a published sidebar to a published Markoff story presents the evidence very clearly.

I suggest that you take a step back and reflect on why you are so insistent on having your way here -- even to the point of actually LYING and saying that the change of this topic page into a dab page was reached by "consensus," when no consensus case was opened and no votes have been cast.

I will admit that i got pretty angry when you insulted me on my talk page, but i am over that now and i apologize for my earlier use of sarcasm. However, i am sincere when i say that your heavy-handed reversion tactics, which border on edit-warring, are not good for the team that is working here. Can we bring in third party opinions? Would that help? Please, let us try to work together.

Above you askde me to "provide [you] three reliable sources on the subject of "Craigslist killer." Do you mean articles about the phenomenon, as such, rather than the three previously named individuals? If that is all you want, i can do so -- but they will be opinion pieces or editorials, not news journalism.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinion pieces and editorials are not classically defined as "reliable sources" on Wikipedia. In some circumstances they may be used, but not as the foundation for an article. Usually, they are used to document the opinion of the writer in an article about the writer. Otherwise, they are generally avoided. I think my request is reasonable. Please find just three reliable sources on the phenomenon. For me, that would be enough to provide a basis for an article on the subject, but others may disagree. So far, I haven't seen any reliable sources about the topic. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What Viriditas is referring to I think is WP:GOOGLEHITS. I would maintain that the similarity between killers using print ads to select victims and internet ads to select victims is a simple logical deduction permissible under WP:NOTOR. This doesn't mean they're similar in all ways, just this way. I'm not sure if it's even a deduction, it's already given in the givens. And as mentioned, Bovsun and Schechter both tie print and internet ads. At the moment, I'd prefer to see lonely hearts killers, internet killers and craigslist killers dealt with in a single page or section of a page, or category or something, though I remain open to good arguments for alternatives. Шизомби (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTOR is an essay, and it doesn't even apply in this situation. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term Craigslist killer" as a generic

Please understand that the first use of the term was in 2007, when the first killing via a Craigslist contact occured -- and that this case was only adjudicated in April 2009. meanwhile, the second case had occurred, in March, 2009, followed by the third case in April 2009. Obviously there has not yet been time for a publisher to print a book on the subject. Now, i am going to give you some "non-reliable" sources to show you how the term appears in common generic usage, as of this past month:

Craigslist FREAKS and KILLERS (Note that this is actually an advertisement on the Boston Craigslist warning people to be careful; it does not name any of the three people in your dab; it is about the phenomenon as a whole.)

Your new craigslist killer: John Katehis (Note that this article recognizes a previous case (Anderson) and calls Katehis "your new Craigslist killer" as a generic, meaning a replacable person who fits into the Craigslist killer slot, so to speak.)

'Craigslist Killer' Highlights Danger in Looking for Love or a Rub Online (Note that this article treats the phenomenon as a Craigslist issue and cites all known cases of sexual deviance at Craigslist including non-killer Craigslist ads; it serves to warn the reader, uses the term "Craigslist killer" generically, and does not discuss the cases in detail. The piece opens with mention of a Craigslist ad in which, "A gentleman had offered to come over to your home, and rub everyone's feet, male and female. He promised not to speak or make eye contact, and it would be free of charge.")

Do not call him the Craigslist killer (Note that this author clearly explains the historical context and understands that the term is generic: "As with Gary Ridgway, convicted in the Green River murders, this killer is pursuing women he believes to be prostitutes. He seeks out ads for massage therapy, which he probably takes to mean sexual services, engages the women and then, in the intimacy of their workplace, attacks them. [...] The only reason Craigslist enters into this at all is that the killer is using that site to search for victims. If newspapers were still big would you call him the Boston Globe killer?" She gets snarky: "A 20-year old man in Minnesota lured women to his home with a phony Craigslist ad and got life without parole. He was also called the Craigslist Killer. Think the Minnesota killer should sue this one for copyright violation?" And she is a bit on the defensive: "By calling this one the Craigslist killer old media is attacking the whole online world...")

cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the term is in use, and refers to three people. That's why we have a dab page. But Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. If you want to write about the subject of a "Craigslist killer", you will need good secondary sources. As you know, we don't have them. Now, I see that you are duplicating the same problems with two of your newer articles (of which you claim this is one of a series), namely Lonely hearts killer and Internet killer. You are pretty much doing the same thing there, although "Lonely hearts killer" is an actual phenomenon supported by many reliable sources, sources I don't see you using. Nevertheless, they are there and easy to find. On the other hand, I'm not so sure about "Internet killer". It looks like you are doing the same thing with "Internet killer", drawing disparate sources together to compose an article that doesn't actually talk about the topic. Which one of those sources actually talks about "Internet killers"? None that I can see. In some ways, this is more of a list than an actual subject, but as a general term it appears to be related to Online predators. Please take a good look at those sources. They are reliable, i.e. academic, scholarly, peer-reviewed, and even include published primary sources. To summarize, "Lonely hearts killer" is supported by many sources; there is no dispute there. It is an actual phenomenon. I don't see the same thing about "Internet killer", at least not yet, and I don't see any sources supporting the idea of a "Craigslist killer". This is just a nickname given to a murderer that uses Craigslist. We don't even have categories in Category:Internet culture dealing with these types of crimes, aside from Category:Cybercrime, which is technically only supposed to be related to computer crime but has somewhat of a crossover with other types of crimes. There are a lot of unanswered questions here. But, I think I can state with confidence that you are arguing for the creation of a List of Craigslist killers, which still doesn't change the underlying problem. You want to discuss the phenomenon of the Craigslist killer, and you want to compare and contrast it with two related ideas (see above), but aside from opinion pieces, editorials, blogs, and self-published websites (and even those are hazy on the subject), there aren't any reliable sources. Is it because the phenomenon is too new, or is it because we haven't found the actual term? You are arguing that a Craiglist killer is a type of Internet killer, which is a modern type of Lonely hearts killer. You actually say that:

A modern term that describes murderers whose similar modus operandi involves locating victims via the web-based internet advertising service Craigslist are referred to as Craigslist killers.[1]

The source you cite doesn't say that. That is your interpretation of the source and your comparison isn't even accurate. "Lonely Hearts killers" and "Craigslist killers" are not the same. The "Lonely Hearts killers" took advantage of lonely women. How have any of the three "Craigslist killers" even approached this type of confidence trick? They haven't, and this is the type of error you make when you rely on your personal interpretation of sources and original research. We have policies and guidelines to prevent editors from making these mistakes. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I was uploading another commentary source when my internet connectivity blew. I will go back and recapture that below, but first, let me correct your false impression that "'Lonely Hearts killers' took advantage of lonely women" These services, and the so-called "marital bureaus," were also were used by lonely men (see Belle Gunness) -- and in addition to being print-media dating services, the term "lonely hearts club" was a well-understood euphemism that could easily indicate a barely-concealed advertisement of assignation for sexual contact, including paid sexual services.

You may remember (well, i doubt you do, but others will) that the very first wave of explicit sex ads appeared only as recently as the 1960s, with the Berkeley Barb being considered one of -- if not the -- first newspaper to run such ads. That's why Harvey Carignan was known as a "want ad killer" -- he worked through want ads for photographic models, such ads being a well known method in the 1920s - 1960s for prostitutes to connect with clients, as well as for people looking for one-night-stands to connect without monetary considerations.

So forget the "taking advantage of lonely women" thing and also forget about your question, "How have any of the three "Craigslist killers" even approached this type of confidence trick?" -- confidence trickery was and is only a small part of the picture of this type of killer. Remember, their motivations vary -- what we are listing is their modus operandi. H. H. Holmes, for instance, built a large boarding house in Chicago where he rented rooms to women (often in pairs, as roommates), so that he could kill and dismember the women and, among other things, make their bodies into medical skeletons, which he sold. He was a typical "want ad" killer of the 19th century -- but the women were not "lonely" and he was not a "confidence trickster." He used women as raw material to manufacture a saleable product.

You write, "In some ways, this is more of a list than an actual subject." If that's the only common ground we can reach, i will take it. I AM trying to develop a list or hub-page, where people can find all killers who have been tagged in the media with specific journalistic terms, namely "internet killer / chatrooom killer," Craigslist killer," and "lonely hearts killer / want ad killer / marital bureau murderer." That is indeed part of my mission -- to create and populate those three hub-pages with lists.

Your reduction of the page to a dab page ruins the usability of the feature -- it cannot be utilized for anything more than finding three names. As a dab, it does not point the reader toward other, related pages -- and because there is no hub page that covers all five basic terms (3 for print as well as 2 for electronic modus operandi) the reader cannot discover a timeline of the use of the terms or learn about the length of time that this modus operandi has been in use by killers. Basically, your insistence on making the page a dab page signifies a clear decision to withhold contextual historical information and further wikilinks from the reader.

You write: "We don't even have categories in Category:Internet culture dealing with these types of crimes, aside from Category:Cybercrime, which is technically only supposed to be related to computer crime." That is correct. BUT ... note that even if there were such a category, and it included both the broader term "internet killer" and the specific term "Craigslist killer," it would not fulfill the interests of the reader who is actually seeking information on all killers who use want ads, matrimonial bureaus, personals ads, and so forth -- both print AND online -- to locate and contact their victims.

Why is there no single over-arching term for this modus operandi? I do not know, but i can make a pretty solid guess: the transition from print ads to electronic ads has hapenned fairly rapidly, and this sort of killer is not all that common (despite our having two in one month via Craigslist). I think that no book or magazine writer has yet taken the subject in hand and worked out an over-arching term -- and that's why there are at least 5 such terms now in use -- 3 for print ads and 2 for electronic ads. Also, we should not forget, as i have mentioned previously, the power of headline writers, and their love of alliteration: "Craigslist killer," with its clanging k-sounds, is a better headline choice than "internet killer," even though Craigslist is but one of many venues where such contacts are made. And check out the semi-clanging term "chatroom killer" too -- "Gay chat room killer sentenced in North Carolina" Feb 15, 2006. Someone will come up with a book on the sbject soon enough (perhaps someone reading this talk page even now) -- but the whole shift from print to electronic media is new, and sources take time to get into print, so, as yet, we have no single term for the whole phenomenon, from print to electronic media. BUT THE PHENOMENON EXISTS and also PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. So that's why i think we should write about it.

The fact that you label my mention that society is transitioning from print ads to electronic ads "original research" is so bogus that i can only think you are kidding -- but you aren't! You're serious. You are fighting for hours over the fact that (duh) the internet is fast replacing print as a medium for advertisement. Is this news to you? You've never really heard of this before now? I've got to PROVE this to you?

My opinion is that you got into this article without understanding this modus operandi or any historical cases -- and i am pretty sure you still don't understand it, given how you wrote tonight about "confidence tricksters" and "lonely women." Now, i know that not everyone on Earth is familiar with how these sorts of killers contact their victims, but for those of us who do know, your every comment reveals your ignorance. I have to ask you -- what are you trying to accomplish here, when at every turn in the road you demonstrate a fundamental unfamiliarity with the topic, yet you continue to insist that the page be developed according to your wishes?

Okay, enough of this -- i have another link that i lost when my internet connection broke. I will post it here and then go unrevert your reverts. I've asked you before if you think we should bring in some third-party opinions. You never replied. Please let me know.

catherine yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Another online source noting that the term is generic and/or that this phenomenon is simply a continuation from "want ad" and "lonely hearts" killers:

Will "Craigslist Killer" Reignite Legal Debate Over Internet Classifieds? April 17, 2009

Note that this article is brief and sparse, but what is more interesting is the knowledge and sophistication of the commenters, who wrote things like

"Never see the movie: Sea of Love? In the Sea of Love, several men are found killed after responding to classified ads in a local singles magazine. There is nothing new about Craigslist."

and

"Nothing new Haven't there always been "want ad" killers? http://www.prairieghosts.com/holmes.html "In 1893, Chicago, Illinois was host to a spectacular World’s Fair -- The Columbian Exposition... An advertisement for lodging during the fair was not the only method that Holmes used for procuring victims. A large number of his female victims came through false classified ads that he placed in small town newspapers, offering jobs to young ladies." http://www.annrules.com/prod15.htm THE WANT-AD KILLER SBN 0-451-16688-4 (Paperback) Signet. The actual case file of a scheming serial killer who roved free for decades until Washington and Minnesota authorities got together to catch him at last."

This last commenter draws the same conclusion as the one who mentions the movie "Sea of Love" -- that there is no fundamental difference between an H. H. Holmes, a Harvey Carignan, and a Philip Markoff in terms of modus operandi. Other details will vary, but the use of print want ads for room rentals, print ads for photographic models, electronic ads for nannies, and electronic ads for massage services have in common one thing -- the killer's use of ADS as a way to meet victims.

cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The list now stands at 5

The list of Criagslist killers now stands at 5; two convicted, 3 indicted. All convictions have been in 2009; all outstanding indictments are for crimes committed in 2009. One of the five failed in her murder attempt and was convicted of attempted murder-for-hire via a Craiglist ad. I have added two new refs to detail the two new cases.

Frankly, i find this topic interesting, and not reductive to dab status, despite Viriditas's constant overwriting of the page with his dab template. Each time the page comes back, it grows and becomes more informative.

catherine yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't understand what disambiguation pages are or what they are used for, and that would explain much of your confusion. What you personally find "interesting" or what you feel others want is not an adequate reason to keep the article you wrote. Please read and understand the original research policy. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The article in the boston herald that you reference for the two new people that you've added does not indicate at all whether the media termed these people a "craigslist killer", it is just an article covering the philip markoff murder and listing other cases where people have been murdered or attacked after responding to a craigslist ad. if this is truly a journalistic term of art, as you argue, why have you made a list of "individuals [that] have used Craigslist advertisements as a means to contact alleged or known murder victims". Rather, shouldn't it be a list of killers or alleged killers that the media have termed "craigslist killer" ...I also strongly object to your original research at the beginning of the article, as have many others. 24.91.117.213 (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Cat has the burden of proof, but expects the rest of us to argue for her. So far, we have an article whose subject does not exist outside Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your ignoring articles like the one below (carried down from up above, where you ignored it) cause me to wonder if you are playing fair. Here we see the phrase "your new Craigslist killer" used as an obviously generic term, You ask me to supply examples. I do. You ignore them. What's up with that?

Your new craigslist killer: John Katehis (Note that this article recognizes a previous case (Anderson) and calls Katehis "your new Craigslist killer" as a generic, meaning a replacable person who fits into the Craigslist killer slot, so to speak.)

Curious cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you truly do ignore all rules, and that's fine, but at the end of the day, the rules don't ignore you. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

List now at 6

First, i want to say that by going back in time, i have found something i had not seen earlier, which Viriditas had recommended i look for: the term "Craigslist killing." By using the google news timeline feature i found that over time the term has included both variants, as well as the rather archaic-sounding "Craigslist Slayer" and "Craigslist slaying." So, thanks, Viriditas, for pointing me in that direction.

Second, i have found another Craigslist killing -- one that did not make the tabloids, probably because the victim was a 52 year old prostitute in North Carolina and the accused man has a long criminal record. This 6th case lacks the shock-glamour of the Markoff case ... still, "they met on Craigslist, where he answered her ad" -- in other words, it's the same modus operandi.

Sidelight, for what it's worth: the rate of speed of Craigslist killings may be picking up: There was one in 2007, two in 2008, and two in just the first four months of 2009. A qualified reasearcher would need more data-points to see if this marks a trend, but, anyway, those are the numbers.

cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is called original research, and it's something we don't do here. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A comment prefaced by FWIW on a talkpage and you drop mention of the WP:OR guideline, Viriditas (using the royal "We")?? {shakes head} ↜Just me, here, now … 08:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all three paragraphs are original research, not just the third. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I have attached a notability tag. None of the sources establish that there is a notable phenomenon of "craigslist killers". They seem to be a combination of examples of the phrase (but a recurring phrase does not make a notable subject), and the intersection of two details - that there was a murder, and that Craigslist was somehow involved. We don't have articles for Amtrak Killers (when it involves that train company), "Safeway Killers" (when the grocery store is involved), etc. The press seems to have a fascination at the moment of connecting murders to Craigslist, but has not established that his is actually a phenomenon. A few years ago they were all excited about Dungeons and Dragons mudres, then rock-and-roll listener murders, then cell phone murders, and who knows what else. It simply does not seem like a real, notable subject. If it is, there would have to be some sources on the thing itself, i.e. that there is a meaningful intersection. Wikidemon (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. The page exists now because of exactly the media frenzy you are noticing. Whether or not the topic has legs -- like car-jacking and sky-jacking did -- is something we cannot yet know, which is why it is tagged as a "current events" page. Still, you ought to be aware that as of today google lists 4,850,000 page results for the term "craigslist killer" in quotes. This needs to be emphasized. If you look above, you will see that earlier on Thurday i wrote this:

Google lists 1,830,000 occurances of "Craigslist killer" in quote marks [...] Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2009

The google page count has more than doubled in less than 24 hours. Of such things are notability made, like it or not.

Now, to look at this another way, it could be argued that the term "Craigslist killer" should redirect to the mouch more generic and long-established term "Internet killer," a phrase with much more of a timeline behind it, qute a basis in popular fiction as well as in true crime -- but only 15,600 google pages for the term in quotes.

If the parties to this discussion wish to port the Craigslist killer text over to the Internet killer page, and then rediect the Craigslist killer page there, i would be satisfied with that. This does not mean that i agree to a redirect without first salvaging the text and dozens of refs from this page. It is always easier to do consolidation work in an orderly way, and not by fishing it out of the history pages.

Before voting for a redirect, however, we must also consider what to do with the unwieldy long list in the middle of the Craigslist page that documents a variety of criminal and controversial Craigslist events, including the murders. That list is not consistently formatted (it suffers from "many hands syndrome") and it seems to be bogging down the Craigslist page with negativity. So that opens another pathway for us -- we could move that material to a new page, as a list, which is common practice, and that would allow us to find a use for some of the formatted news refs that have attached themselves to this page -- and which, in some cases, are better than is what's on the Craigslist page.

cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The article, "Craigslist killer" is a disambiguation page. Per dab guidelines, none of the content is necessary. If you want to split the section out of the Craigslist article and create a separate list, I don't think anyone would object to that, but you can't keep creating topics that have no actual sources. The problem (as I have repeatedly discussed it above) is that you are interpreting sources to say what you want them to say, not what they actually say, and you are doing this because in RL, you are admittedly, a "professional writer" who has spent years investigating and researching this particular set of topics. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the right venue you are looking for, as we only report what other sources have already established, and when it comes to a new phenomenon, the criteria for good sources is even stricter. You are not the first (or the last) writer to come here and try to do this. It actually occurs on a daily basis, and if you watch recent changes for any length of time, you will discover many editors doing exactly what you are doing here, as it is a very common mistake. In its infancy, Wikipedia probably glossed over this type of editing, but as the policies and guidelines became established, this type of editing could be immediately identified and deleted. What you are doing is creating a topic, not an article, and that is exactly what the WP:NOR policy is supposed to prevent. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not create this topic. I found the page through google and decided to fix an error on it (it originally said that all the victims of Crigsist killers were "young women," which is not true, given George Weber being a victim. I checked the discussion page then and was reminded, by a note there, of the Anderson case, so i went on and fixed that up too.

When you argued that to mention that the long-running modus operandi of killers meeting victims through advertisements is migrating from print to electronic venues is "original research," Schizombie found a nice ref that described the linkage, and you claimed it did not say what it said.

And why were you demanding "proof" that the internet is gradually replacing newspapers anyway? I mean, i could turn up hundreds of refs for that -- but WHY? Well, it seems that you thought that the old want ad and lonely hearts killers of yore preyed exclusively on "lonely women" or were "confidence tricksters," unlike today's modern internet killers of prostitutes and gay radio reporters. In short, you didn't know that they had whores back then, and male victims, and even gay male victims. But once i explained that you, with refs ... you ignored it.

When you asked for a reference in which the term "Craigslist killer" was used generically and i supplied it -- the one that has as its headline "Your new Craigslist killer: John Ketehis," you ignored it.

When you asked why i had not written a page on the want ad / lonely hearts club modus operandi or the general phenomenon of internet killers, i took a whole day off from work and started both articles, and received not a word of acknowledgement from you.

When i said that, despite the fact that google now lists almost FIVE MILLION pages for "Craigslist killer" in quotes, i am quite willing to not only port the contents of this page over to the evidently more generic, albeit less popular search term, internet killer -- you ignored that.

When i mentioned that there are problems with the Craigslist page's long list and said that i am also willing to pitch in to help clean up that too -- you ignored that.

The only thing you have responded to is my career as a writer, which led you to tell me that, "Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the right venue you are looking for."

Please, stop insulting me. Please respond to some of the suggestions that have been made. Please acknowledge that Schizombie and i have turned up refs for you that most editors would not have demanded in the first place.

Thank you.

cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the article for unsupported assertions, then removed the tag. If the article itself is thought not to be notable, please nominate for deletion. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 09:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Before that is done, I would like to go through the entire article word by word, line by line, here, and explain the problems in depth. I'll be back an hour to do just that. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research continues

The article continues to change by the minute so I will only address the version that is live as of this timestamp: 12:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Craigslist killer refers to a person or persons perpetrating the crime of murder against a victim who either posted advertisements to, or answered advertisements via Craigslist, a popular classified advertising website.
  • There are three sources listed, none of which give this exact definition or discuss it. If this was an actual term in use by someone other than sensationalist media hacks, we would have an actual source listing it. But, the term is too new so all we have is an interpretation from the sources, which isn't good enough for an article about the subject.
• The first use of the term Craigslist killings may date to October 31, 2007, when the phrase appeared in a headline in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press in Minnesota, in reference to the murder of Katherine Olson by Michael John Anderson, who was then dubbed the "Craigslist killer".
  • Pure original research. There is no secondary source that makes this observation. This statement is made only by a Wikipedia editor and exists nowhere else.
• Before the development of the Internet, when similar cases were described in the media, they were commonly known as "want ad murders" or "lonely hearts club murders" due to their method of finding victims through newspaper classified ads and personal or lonely hearts club ads.
  • Lots of sources listed, none of which make this exact claim. We are supposed to be impressed that a Wikipedia editor has listed four sources after this statement, but after close examination, three of the sources have nothing to do with the Craigslist killer, and only one, the New York Daily News, makes the briefest passing mention of it, but does not make the same claim as the Wikipedia editor. The NYDN does not make the claim that "similar cases were described in the media commonly known as want ad murders or lonely hearts club murders" - that claim is only made by the Wikipedia editor. The source in question says nothing about murders in this context at all. Again, original research.

I can go on like this, but why bother. Hopefullly, someone gets the point...If not, I can continue, as the rest of the article has the same issues. This should be moved to userspace, as it doesn't belong here. Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The most neutral term is Internet homicide -- an obvious counterpart to Internet suicide --

• Psychiatric mental health nursing‎ - Page 509 by Katherine M. Fortinash, Patricia A. Holoday-Worret - Medical - 2007 - 716 pages (Definition): "INTERNET HOMICIDE Luring a person from a chat room to an actual meeting. Can turn deadly.")
  • Where does that source use the word "definition". Please provide the paragraph. It looks like you chose 14 words randomly from Google books. Please display the entire paragraph here. I don't see the word "definition". Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• A similar (one word different) definition is also fount at Napa Valley College: "Chapter 22 Internet Homicide. • Luring a person from a chat room to an actual meeting. • May turn deadly ..." www.napavalley.edu/Projects/189/Chapter_022_4th_ed__handout.pdf)
  • I don't see a definition. I see a slide presentation talking about internet violence. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Crime classification manual: a standard system for investigating"‎ by John E. Douglas, Ann W. Burgess, Allen G. Burgess, Robert K. Ressler - Psychology - 2006 - 555 pages ("includes crimes committed over the Internet or whereby the Internet plays a role")
  • What does this have to do with "internet homicide" and the article you have written? Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

However, some relaible sources use the term internet "adjective" killer -- in which the adjective can be "chat room" or "serial" or another word. see:

• The Internet in Public Life‎ by Verna V. Gehring - Philosophy - 2004 - 136 pages ("stalking complaints, rigged auctions, and even 'the first Internet serial killer.' Yet, this is just one face of the Internet.")
  • You are interpreting a source. Please try to stick to the subject. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Clues from killers: serial murder and crime scene messages by Dirk Cameron Gibson - Social Science - 2004 - 249 pages ("Bistate task force thinks it has USA's first Internet serial killer," Law Enforcement News 26:536, http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu, June 30, 2000, p. 5. 30.")
  • So, this is a type of serial killer. Belongs in that article. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Over at Internet killer, the entire Craigslist killer conttent has been incorporated, and two days ago, if it had not been for Viriditas' premature and ill-temepered AfD, i would have already made a redirect to Internet homicide -- but the AfD has frozen everything until a vote summary takes place.

There are other sources listed here, which Viriditas has continued to ignore.

We need help sorting this out, because the continual carping about "no sources" plus moving of the goal posts, persomanal insults, erratic page-moving, duplication of text on different pages have led to ill-temper and failure to conclude the disputes.

cat yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have failed to answer a very simple question. Show me the money. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)