[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Wikipedia

Talk:Internet homicide

Latest comment: 3 months ago by Drmies in topic See also: Eamonn Walker?
Learn more about this page

Topic

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
edit

The motif of the internet killer is fairly common in contemporary popular media, especially characters who are either serial killers or serial killers who also broadcast their crimes on the internet. A list has been started, but further examples from fictional books, television shows, and movies are solicted. Any editors care to list a few? If you can, thanks! cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

There may be better sources to quote on these movies and novels/short story collections, but:
Definitely a recurring, recognizable, recognized trope. Шизомби (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The subject

edit
The subject does not exist outside of your imagination. All of these sources were tied together to create a subject that is not directly referenced by any reliable secondary source. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please speak with courtesy and respct to your colleagues. The subject is the logical counterpart of Internet suicide. Please be patient.
That's funny. You just spent the last several days attacking me over and over again on Talk:List of Craigslist killers. Now you call for courtesy and respect? Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

* 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.")

* 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.") (also cited here: "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)

* Cyberstalking: harassment in the Internet age and how to protect your family‎ - Page 20 by Paul Bocij - Social Science - 2004 - 268 pages ("The idea that a serial killer may have operated via the Internet is, understandably, one that has resulted in a great deal of public anxiety.")

* Anyone you want me to be: a true story of sex and death on the Internet by John E. Douglas, Stephen Singular - True Crime - 2003 - 308 pages (the Robinson case)

* I: The Creation of a Serial Killer by Jack Olsen, Keith Hunter Jesperson - True Crime - 2003 - 320 pages ("As his revelations mounted, the killer turned to the Internet for more attention and notoriety. Members of America Online were inundated ..." -- Review: "Keith Hunter Jesperson is an American serial killer who raped and murdered eight women while he worked as a long-distance trucker in the early 1990's. He is also notoriously media-hungry, known for having set up personal web pages with his delusional rants against the government during his early imprisonment, as well as starting a serial murderer pen pal club." His use of the internet is unusual; it may also be outside the scope of this article. Just considering it here. )

* Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis‎ by Brent E. Turvey - Law - 2008 ("... the Internet enables offenders to gain control of their victims or gain ... of the admitted killer she had seduced with the assistance of the Internet. ...")

* 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.")

* Criminal visions: media representations of crime and justice‎ by Paul Mason - Law - 2003 - 310 pages ("leading researchers in the field [...] address issues of fictional, factual and hybrid representations of crime and justice in the media.")

* Technology and law enforcement: from gumshoe to gamma rays - by Robert L. Snow, Raymond E. Foster - Social Science - 2007 - 188 pages ("The news media dubbed Robinson as the world's first "Internet Serial Killer" because he met most of his victims in chat rooms on the Internet.")

* Digital evidence and computer crime: forensic science, computers and the by Eoghan Casey, Robert Dunne - Computers - 2004 - 690 pages (serial killer Maury Troy Travis case: "The FBI subpoenaed the Internet service provider to find out who had been assigned the IP address... ")

* 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")

*German 'cyber killer' may have been in love with victim's girlfriend

Sep 27, 2008 ... A GERMAN internet fan accused of murdering a British student after a cyberspace row may have been in love with his alleged victim's ...

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1741236.ece (Note: they met in an online game called Advance Wars and the killer flew from Germany to England to kill his victim.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll be using these and other sources as references and writing more over the coming days.
Quick storage of news pieces (on Montgomery) i don't have time tonight to format:
Bizarre tale of boy who used internet to plot his own murder ... May 29, 2004 ... The final internet chatroom exchange took place on 28 June last year. "U want me 2 take him 2 trafford centre and kill him... www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/may/29/crime.uknews
BBC World Service | Assignment 2007 The internet chatroom murder. Thomas Montgomery, 47 years old and the father of two children, was a very ordinary American. And then he switched on his ... www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1327_assignment_2007/page13.shtml
More to follow.
cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'll go through each and every one of them, but I doubt I'll find anything remotely resembling the subject of an "Internet killer". Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I mentioned at the talk page for Craigslist killer, Harold Schechter has an entry for "Internet" in his The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. He writes in part, "If the Internet has become a very useful tool for people interested in serial killers, there's some indication that it may also prove to be a resource for serial killers themselves" (130). He mentions Meiwes and Robinson, noting the latter was called "the first Internet serial killer" (emphasis mine) in the press (131). He also mentioned internet dating in his entry on "Ads," and Meiwes' use of internet ads in that entry as well. Шизомби (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, schizombie. That is a good source and the quotes are most helpful; i will use this. I am going through the sources listed above, have been adding them where appropriate. I am under some other deadlines (workshops i am planning) and will only be able to devote a few hours to this project today. Any further additions you could make to the page itself would be greatly appreciated. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. And you don't take statements like "luring a person from a chat room to an actual meeting can turn deadly" and claim it supports this article. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Merger proposal

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Would expanding List of Craigslist killers' Internet component from only dealing with Craigslist and narrowing its focus to murder make for a good omnibus to which to merge any notable content from here [Edited: "Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users"]? Please provide your thoughts/input. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 05:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC) ↜Just me, here, now … 18:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, because there is no evidence that any reliable source has covered the subject of an "Internet killer". Viriditas (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hasn't the merger already been done? What's left to be merged that hasn't been? Шизомби (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes. While a bit ORy, NPOV is way more important than NOR. Sceptre (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
As it stands, merging Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users into this article wouldn't make sense, because that article deals with more things than just murder. I would favor remerging Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users back into Craigslist from where it was removed. The murders only could be taken out and replaced by a shorter summary and link to this article, perhaps. Шизомби (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thankfully, your proposal isn't supported by the AfD. This article is an unsupported list, and everything else needs to be deleted. There is not a single reliable source that directly supports this topic. Not one. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sourcing or lack thereof

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

"An Internet homicide is a homicide committed by an individual who has met his or her victim on the Internet." There is no single source that says this. None. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Killers on the Web: True Stories of Internet Cannibals, Murderers and Sex Criminals" (Hardcover) by Christopher Berry-Dee and Steven Morris.
I am adding it now.
catherine yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Without a direct quote and a page number, I remain skeptical. Per talk page and source guidelines, please provide a quote and page number here on the talk page. And, you are still claiming that ref 1 is a definition. Please prove that is true by providing the rest of the paragraph. Also, the rest of the article is not suported by any source on the topic. These are your ideas supported by multiple sources that do not directly support the topic. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I need not provide a "page" number for the book "Killers on the Web: True Stories of Internet Cannibals, Murderers and Sex Criminals" because internet homicide is the subject of THE ENTIRE BOOK, all 304 pages of it.
You are hair-splitting in my opinion. One definition of internet homicide (Fortinash and Patricia A. Holoday-Worret) cites "chat rooms". Another source (Schecter) cites serial killers who use "internet ads". A third source (Berry-Dees amd Morris) cites "the web" as a venue for internet homicide ("killers on the web"). A bazillion news jouranists cite "Craigslist" as a venue for internet homicide ("Craigslist killer"). Another half-a-bazillion journalists and several fiction authors cite "the internet" as a venue (the internet killer"). Some news sources cite Craigslist, the internet, and chat rooms interchangeably in the same article.
The internet is comprised of a number of venues, such as chat rooms, web sites, e-lists, advertising sites, and so forth. Now, are you saying that because some sources mention chat rooms and others mention Craigslist, or web sites, and some only concern themselves with serial killers, no matter what the venue, that we should write a separate article for each venue: Internet chat room homicide, Internet website homicide, Internet serial killer, Internet advertising homicide???
cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
That isn't how we use sources, and we have discussed this several times. Unless you can provide a direct quote and page number, we can't use it. Please take a moment to famialiarize yourself with how we use sources on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you are welcome to start a new thread on the reliable sources noticeboard. All of these page moves have not changed the underlying problem, but serve to distract attention away from it. When asked to provide a page number and passage supporting your content, you need to be able to do this. On Wikipedia, every statement that is challenged requires a source. This entire aricle makes claims and reaches conclusions that do not exist outside Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
How "we" do things at Wikipedia varies quite a bit from article to article. Notice that over at Internet suicide there is not one source given for the definition, only 9 souces in total -- most of them referring to specific cases, and none of them to a complete overview of the subject ouside the nation of Japan -- and the article has never been AfD'd. Here, on the other hand, at Internet homicide, there are, as of tonight, three sources that relate to the definition and about 50 sources given in total that are outside Wikipedia -- and the article is on AfD.
You have written that this topic exists only in my "imagination" -- and now you write that, "This entire aricle makes claims and reaches conclusions that do not exist outside Wikipedia." Yet there is an entire book devoted to the subject, and it has received entries in a well known encyclopedic book on the general true crime subject of serial killers. Are you daft?
Earlier i asked, "Are you saying that because some sources mention chat rooms and others mention Craigslist, or web sites, and some only concern themselves with serial killers, no matter what the venue, that we should write a separate article for each venue: Internet chat room homicide, Internet website homicide, Internet serial killer, Internet advertising homicide???" Please reply to this question, and state your reasons.
cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
It might be more productive to try raising the issue at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard, since Viriditas' mind is already made up regardless. It's unfortunate that more people haven't weighed in on these talk pages or the AfDs. That there are so many articles under discussion with related issues may be part of the problem, but clearly not the whole problem. I did request mediation and posted on some of the relevant wikiprojects, but so far the process isn't working like it's supposed to work. Шизомби (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I will raise it there tomorrow, time permitting, if nobody else does first. I don't know if some editors have some confusion as to what original and secondary sources are. Movie reviews are secondary sources. Newspaper articles can be either, depending. Шизомби (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Schizombie, I posted a short notice there -- although I hope you'll do one there in more depth. Anyway, thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 04:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
What part of "please provide one reliable source that covers the topic" is causing you folks difficulty? Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
The general notice I posted, pointing to "Internet homicide," is here (WP:No original research/noticeboard#Would an article on "Murder and the_internet"of necessity be OR?), but please note that I've also posted a philosophical question here: (WP:No original research/noticeboard#A philosphical take on what constitutes "OR"). ↜Just me, here, now … 14:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It survived the AfD, here are the sources I dug up during the process. Some may already be used on the page. This source discusses the concept in detail:[1]. The author is critical of the concept; 'Internet killer' admits murdering women he met in online chat rooms; Life for internet killer; Jury Recommends Sentence For Internet Killer; Internet killer gets life term for 'vicious crimes'; "Er soll der unheimliche Internet-Killer sein, der mindestens zwei Frauen getötet hat"; Love link to 'cyber row killer'; Used in fiction in the show "Homicide" in 1999; Woman 'confesses to internet murder';Help To Halt Online Predators. Internet Murder: Tips Every Parent Should Knowsounds like a how to guide; Internet 'murder' boys told: Never see each other again; Internet murderer 'saw the eyes of Jesus'; First Internet murder Fences and windows (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for these sources. Please do feel free to add them, for they are good examples of the genre of journalism of which we are speaking. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please provide just one source that directly supports the topic. Just one. Most, if not all of these sources support other established topics, not this one. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Give it up. See the sources I added under the name discussion. Fences and windows (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
What is preventing you from giving me just one? This isn't the way we use sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Lede and article sections

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Definition

edit
  • In Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing, the authors Katherine M. Fortinash and Patricia A. Holoday-Worret define internet homicide as a crime that occurs when a killer succeeds in "luring a person from a chat room to an actual meeting," which "may turn deadly.[13][14][3]
    • Three references that I suspect do not support this statement. Please provide the statement in full from the sources. Please also learn how we cite sources on Wikipedia; This means using ISBN numbers. From what I can tell, Fortinash et al. are directly discussing "Internet violence", and describe something called "internet homicide" as one aspect of it. They do not seem to define anything related to "internet homicide" so that is your own interpretation; They merely talk about how violence on the internet can result in death. The source you are using is generally described as a reference book, which is a tertiary source and generally not used as a foundation for an article. However, most established concepts in reference books are easily found in other sources. Why doesn't this appear anywhere else except for a nursing book designed to help nursing students pass the National Council Licensure Examination? I don't think that qualifies as a reliable secondary source at all. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anonymity of the internet

edit
  • To reporter Patrice O'Shaughnessy of the New York Daily News the "anonymity" of the Internet facilitated the connection between the murder victim Julissa Brisman and accused "Craigslist killer" Philip Markoff: "Their lives intersected in the anonymous fog of the Internet, tailor-made for a young woman who made a living meeting strangers in hotels and a man looking for easy victims."
    • Pure original research. What is the connection with Internet homicide? You are making the connection, not O'Shaugnessy. The writer is talking about Philip Markoff and Julissa Brissman. The subject of "internet homicide" is not under discussion. You are personally highlighting ten words in an article, Their lives intersected in the anonymous fog of the Internet and forming a connection between the muder of Julissa Brissman and the subject of internet homicide, a connection that is not even mentioned in the article you cite. Please stop doing this. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

ok, this section just IRKS me. It's absurdly misleading. let me point out the obvious: the anonymity here is part of a masseuse/prostitute arranging to meet a client/john. it has nothing to do with the internet; it's exactly the same 'anonymous fog' that let people like Jack the Ripper and the Green River Killer (and many others, long before the invention of the internet) get away with murder. and yet, this paragraph effectively transmutes a age-old strategy for finding easy victims into something specific to the internet. In fact, the internet is a bad place to seek out victims; most everything is logged, somewhere, and once people start searching you need to be a damned good hacker to keep them from finding you. and yet, I can't see a way to say any of this in the article without being accused of synthesis myself, and I suspect if I just delete it people will complain that I've deleted a valid source.

This is the kind of idiocy that happens once you allow a neologism like this to stand. it poisons any efforts at creating NPOV, because everything has to be consistent with the original synthesis that created the article. If someone can see a way to fix this passage, please do so, otherwise I'm going to have to remove it, sooner or later. --Ludwigs2 21:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed the teensy section being discussed. It didn't seem to add that much to the topic (which might perhaps more a list, for WP purposes in any case)? Yet to any and all, please do restore the graf if you choose. No worries. ↜Just M E  here , now 22:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I removed it as a banality and not because I believe that such a statement offers per se any comparison of the Net's anonymity with that of special-massage hookups via the yellow-pages/news-classifieds/alternative-weekly-backpages/word-of-mouth-at-the-gym/&c., just as a banality about the desert's desolation doesn't necessarily imply any comparison being offered with that of the steppes, the arctic tundra, the high seas. ↜Just M E  here , now 22:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
The section read like original research, coatracky, synthy, and {{essay-entry}} style. I think it was a good idea to remove it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I also agree with this removal because above statements by both editors. Just a comment, can there be a little bit better organization to this page? Comments and new threads seem to be all over and hard to follow, at least to me. ;) Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Serial killers and internet homicide

edit
  • Serial killers are murderers who target three or more victims sequentially, with a "cooling off" period between each murder, and whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification.[6][7]
  • According to Paul Bocj, the author of Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family, "The idea that a serial killer may have operated via the Internet is, understandably, one that has resulted in a great deal of public anxiety."[8]
    • Ok, but that has to do with the article on serial killers, not internet homicide. Also, the author is saying may have operated, there is no certainty here. We don't deal with speculation, and then draw interpretations from it. Very poor form. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • In Harold Schecter's A to Z Enclyclopedia of Serial Killer's, the entry for "Internet" reads in part: "If the Internet has become a very useful tool for people interested in serial killers, there's some indication that it may also prove to be a resource for serial killers themselves."[9]
  • The first serial killer known to have used the Internet to find victims was John Edward Robinson, who was arrested in 2000 and was referred to in Law Enforcement News as the "USA’s first Internet serial killer" and "the nation’s first documented serial killer to use the Internet as a means of luring victims."[10][11]

Specific internet venues

edit
  • Like online predators and paedophiles and participants in internet suicide and suicide-homicide pacts, internet killers may seek out victims in a variety of venues, such as internet forums, chat rooms, listservs, email, bulletin boards, online role playing games, online dating services, Yahoo groups, or Usenet.
Oh, Thanks for pointing that out! I had the sources in in at one point, but they got lost in the moving and renaming shuffle. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The World Wide Web

edit
  • In the 2006 book Killers on the Web: True Stories of Internet Cannibals, Murderers and Sex Criminals, the criminologist and author Christopher Berry-Dee and his co-writer Steve Morris examined what they called "the darkest recesses of the world wide web," and reported cases ranging from "cannibals ordering a human meal by email to mail-order brides whose quest for better lives end in grisly murder." Among the cases they covered was the consensual murder of Bernd Jürgen Brandes by the so-called "Internet cannibal" Armin Meiwes; the two met at a web site called The Cannibal Cafe, where people described their fantasies of cannibalism, and where Meiwes openly advertised for a willing victim.[3][12]

I agree that the inclusion of this source would be a fine addition for either of those pages, but whether it gets picked up and used would be up to the editors of those pages, i should think. I'm not currently editing those pages. I only have limited time to work on Wikipedia. cat yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Internet dating

edit
  • According to Michael Largo, the author of Final Exits: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of How We Die[31], "Internet dating is becoming very popular, but since 1995, there's been[...] over 400 instances where a homicide has been related to the person that [the victim] met online." [32]
    • Same issue; cherry picking specific statements and out of context quotes to make it seem like it supports the topic. I want to see the entire statement in context, and I predict it has nothing to do with "internet homicide". Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
edit
  • The theme of internet homicide has proven popular in fiction, with examples seen in books, television shows, and movies, in a number of which the murderer is referred to as "the Internet Killer" by other characters.
    • There is no specific secondary source cited here. Statements like this require sources. For example, a similar claim is made in Terraforming in popular culture: "Terraforming has been well-represented in popular culture, usually in the form of science fiction." That statment is sourced to Ira Flatow, however, let's say I don't trust that source. I can open Martyn J. Fogg's Terraforming (1995) and find a similar passage on p.13: "Science fiction gave terraforming its name and helped to explore its vision, much in the same way it has done for other imaginative ideas that have since made it into actuality, or into the province of theoretical science..." Other passages support the statement throughout the book, such as on p.9: "It is a concept that has long been familiar to planetary scientists and readers of space-related and science fiction literature, but has gradually gained a wider public exposure..." Of course, I can further support this statement in dozens of additional reliable sources. Where are the sources that support the "theme of internet homicide"? Let me make a prediction: There are none. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Name

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments9 people in discussion

Title change: Trying to be helpful, I've now done the title change, as proposed above -- From "Internet killer" to "Internet homicide": which I think is maybe a little less newspapery and more encyclopedic in tone (and which anyone can revert, if they'd like, of course, too). ↜Just me, here, now … 19:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's still 100% original research. The title change changes nothing. Now, the sources are being misused. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note: All participants of the recent three, related AfDs were "appropriately canvassed" wrt this discussion (per the stipulations laid down at WP:CANVASSING: namely a few WPdians who've an interest and are neutrally selected) by ↜Just me, here, now … 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC).Reply

WP:NEO:

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

↜Just me, here, now … 23:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • There's precision on one pole, pith on the other. Pith is good cos of its memorableness -- its making a place for itself within our internal lexicon. But such pith gotta be found in situ. We can't "just make it up!" So, despite the ease of figuring out exactly what's being referred to by "Internet homicide"/ "--- murder" ...((especially since these are essentially back formations, conceptually, from the shorthand meme of "Internet killer"/ "--- murderer"; and, just as easily as we know that "Internet friendship" (to which readers are re-directed who look up the neologism "Cyberlove") means friendship through, and not of, the Internet, lol))... as Ludwigs2 has said at the AfD, WPdia shouldn't be in the business of promoting neologism. And we can't just invent yet some other neologism such as "e-something" or "Web- ---," or whatever, either (I dunno, "Death phisher"?), cos all of these are worse than the "Internet killer" tag, as sometimes used in news reports, that we started out with.
Abandoning pith, we gotta embrace precision and pretend that's where we wanted to end up anyway.
  1. Let's start with a take-off from Viriditas's proposed title that focused on Craigslist, "Craigslist controversies and illegal activities by users." How about "Homicides ---"/ "Murders by Internet users"? "
  2. Add a conjunction? "The Internet and murder"?
  3. Qualify the pith? "Internet-related killers"/ "--- murderers"/ "--- murder"/ "--- homicides"? ↜Just me, here, now … 04:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand your thinking, i think -- but let's look at this for consistency and popularity. Basically, Wikipedia classifies crimes into four categories

1) Crime-by-type-of-crime - Probably the most popular naming convention at Wikipedia: Homicide, Proxy murder, Assassination, Consensual homicide, Contract killing, Torture murder, Honour killing, Mass murder, Murder-suicide, Lust murder, Lynching, Double murder, Insurance fraud, Misdemeanor murder, Robbery, Theft, Crime of passion, Justifiable homicide, Vandalism, Rape, Sexual assault, Abduction, Kidnapping, Torture, Extortion, Blackmail, Fraud, Incest, Wire fraud, Battery, Assault, False imprisonment, Mayhem, Arson, Embezzlement, Larceny, Perjury, Stalking

2) Crime-by-type-of-victim - Probably the 2nd-most popular naming convention: Child murder, Human sacrifice, Feticide, Suicide, Familicide, Avunculicide, Prolicide, Filicide, Infanticide, Neonaticide, Fratricide, Sororicide, Mariticide. Uxoricide, Parricide, Matricide. Patricide, Genocide, Democide, Gendercide, Omnicide, Regicide, Tyrannicide, Witness tampering

3) Crime by type-of-criminal - A less-common naming convention at Wikipedia: Serial killer, Spree killer, Lonely hearts killer, Online predator -- which would argue for the use of Internet killer and, yes, Craigslist killer -- however, this type (3) formation is being actively devalued at Wikipedia in favour of either type (1) names (Rapist redirects to Rape, Robber redirects to Robbery, Thief redirects to Theft) or type (4) names (Pirate redirects to Piracy).

4) Crime-by-contact-venue - Used at Wikipedia when old crimes are historically identified by contact-venue (e.g. Piracy) or when old crimes acquire new contact venues: Piracy, Skyjacking, Carjacking, Computer crime, Cyberstalking, Internet crime, Internet suicide, Cyberterrorism, Internet fraud, Vehicular homicide -- which would argue for the use of Internet homicide, although the term is rarer at google than Internet killer. However, even when the contact-venue is notable, there is inconsistency at Wikipedia; for instance, note that Highway robbery (type 4) redirects to Robbery (type 1), but Cyberstalking (type 4) does NOT redirect to Stalking (type 1), which is a separate article.

Due to the obvious inconsistency of naming conventions at Wikipedia and the ease of creating redirects, i am fairly comfortable with either Internet killer (type 3) or Internet homicide (type 4), even though i happen to know that the former is far more popular than the latter in terms of google searches.

I hope this method of categorization opens up folks to think about the subject a bit more fully, in terms of Wikipedia's own conventions -- and inconsistencies.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

At the moment I would tend to favor "internet homicide" "internet murder" or "internet killer" as a title rather than a longer more descriptive title. Wikipedia:Naming conventions mentions "making linking to those articles easy and second nature"; the longer and less obvious the title, the less likely that is. Removing original research, adding additional/better sources is more of a priority for the article than the title, for me anyway. Шизомби (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of course, wouldn't redirects from all such neologisms achieve this same end? I will defer here to the consensus of the community but still am curious if, in general, WP:Naming conventions's concern about a title being obvious is trumped by "WP:NEO's" concerns about WP's promotion of a particular protologism (or, viz, assisting in the process whereby such neologisms become idiomatic in English through currency). ↜Just me, here, now … 20:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
if we want to solve the neologism problem and keep the page name on focus, then probably we need to use something a bit less sexy, like 'internet-related homicide' or 'web-procured murder', or else move the whole page in as a section of 'cyberstalking' (on the grounds that the 'internet' part of this has to do with finding and stalking the victims, not with killing them). --Ludwigs2 20:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It seems to me 'internet-related homicide' or 'web-procured murder' would be wikipedia-created neologisms, whereas the other terms are, while new, in use elsewhere. Stalking and Cyberstalking strike me as dissimilar; I don't recall seeing them mentioned in any of the sources. In the cases of the various "internet killers," they used a lure on the internet to get someone to meet them in person. With cyberstalking, one person is harassing another person online, which may escalate to murder. There's no harassment in these cases that I'm aware of. Шизомби (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. You may be right, Schizombie, that glomming Web Killer with cyber Stalker might present possible gliches.
  2. As for the present article's name: FWIW what WP:NEO#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms says is "[...T]here will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." And IMO this would seems to distinguish between ersatz "coinages" that are, as the guideline says, "descriptive phrases in plain English," and what-may-still-be tabloidish coinages that have not become universally accepted and so that, therefore, an encyclopedia might want to avoid endorsing. ↜Just me, here, now … 22:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't like "Internet homicide" much, it isn't a phrase used outside a handful of webpages. "Internet killer" is the phrase most used in the press coverage and is no longer a neologism - it has been used since the nineties. Next most common seems to be "Internet murder". I don't like "Internet-related killings" or anything along those lines, as it doesn't clarify things, and is a bit vague. The suggestion to include this as a part of cyberstalking is perhaps OK - but internet killing goes beyond cyberstalking, it involves meeting and killing the other person and is notable by itself. I'd go with no merge and "Internet killer". Fences and windows (talk)

(outdent) There are a lot of problems with ascribing new vernacular on Wikipedia, original research/synthesis being primary. This doesn't fall under Wikipedia guidelines for naming conventions, it falls under categorization. The most overt examples from above make me hesitant about the use of "Internet homicide". Catherineyronwode outlined Crime-by-contact-venue, including Piracy, Skyjacking, Carjacking, Computer crime, Cyberstalking, Internet crime, Internet suicide, Cyberterrorism, Internet fraud, Vehicular homicide, and stated that such would argue for the use of Internet homicide. So the approach would be to examine what those mean, how they are defined. I'd remove Piracy, Skyjacking, and Carjacking from that because piracy and hijacking are old terms that are widely used and accepted and the meaning for them is not ambiguous. That leaves the rest.

  • Computer crime: This article includes a very clear definition with a specific source: criminal activity involving an information technology infrastructure, including illegal access (unauthorized access), illegal interception (by technical means of non-public transmissions of computer data to, from or within a computer system), data interference (unauthorized damaging, deletion, deterioration, alteration or suppression of computer data), systems interference (interfering with the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data), misuse of devices, forgery (ID theft), and electronic fraud. Generally, however, it may be divided into one of two types of categories: (1) crimes that target computer networks or devices directly; (2) crimes facilitated by computer networks or devices, the primary target of which is independent of the computer network or device.
It would seem logical that anything falling under this general term would also involve the use of anonymity and distance to complete such crimes without coming directly into contact with victims.
    • Internet crime redirects to this article.
    • Internet fraud: any type of fraud scheme that uses one or more online services - such as chat rooms, e-mail, message boards, or Web sites - to present fraudulent solicitations to prospective victims, to conduct fraudulent transactions, or to transmit the proceeds of fraud to financial institutions or to others connected with the scheme.
This seems to fall under the general category of Computer crime and is clearly (albeit broadly) defined.
    • Cyberstalking: the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone.
This is a more specific term that falls under stalking.
    • Cyberterrorism: The article is quite clear in that this term is controversial but still has a definition: “The premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives.”

Personally, I think it can be effectively argued that all of the above terms fall under a broad umbrella that considers the use of computers and networking to perpetuate crimes that are in most cases addressed specifically by law and have become part of the current criminal vernacular. Then we have to consider the remaining terms on the list.

  • Vehicular homicide: I'm not sure at all how this term fits into the discussion. Vehicular homicide is a specific crime with specific definition and is not in anyway ambiguous. It involves the use of a vehicle in a way that is negligent or illegal that results in a death. In this situation, the vehicle itself is the weapon that was used directly to cause a death. Not related to computers or the anonymous use thereof to do anything.

This leaves Internet suicide. So what is it? The article defines it as "a suicide pact made between individuals who meet on the Internet." Is it a crime? Not specifically, at least in terms of laws prohibiting such. It becomes a crime if someone uses computer/internet to persuade others into entering and completing a pact without actually participating. At that point it isn't a suicide pact. At this point, this concept still remains vague and undetermined in scope.

What troubles me about this article is that it seems to try and create a new broad topic. It doesn't use the term to define how a victim is killed. It tries to define how a victim is found. That doesn't fall under the umbrella of new crime, only new MO, and doesn't define something different than is already addressed in various articles. I can't see how this term differs in anyway from Internet killer, Internet chat room killer, Craigslist killer, Internet serial killer, lonelyhearts killer, want ad killers or a myriad of other journalese terms. This article reads a lot more like investigative journalism (read that synthesis) into a new phenomenon and I honestly still cannot see how this does not skirt original research, especially if the article tries to define something new. One of the sources that supposedly supports a definitional term is here. It says it is from teaching text and has a definition. Um, sorry, but that is far from clear. It isn't definitional, it looks like an overhead projector type of headline which would be used to generate further discussion or lecture on a topic. I'd also like to see the first reference, Psychiatric mental health nursing, Katherine M. Fortinash, Patricia A. Holoday-Worret, 2007, in context, since it uses nearly identical wording to the handout ref. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I truly think the quote in context is quite important. It says "Internet Homicide: Luring a person from a chat room to an actual meeting. Can turn deadly" is not a definition of a crime, intent, or action. Again, it is a topic.

Right now, the lead paragraph is all that tries to specifically define what "Internet homicide" is, and right now, it fails to do so. All it does at the moment is attempt to define a new term, which is doesn't do. The rest of the article tends to regurgitate content covered from other articles rather than present new content supported clearly by reliably published sources. Using "internet homicide" implies something that isn't currently established as anything new or different. The internet isn't the weapon and this terminology is misleading in that it tends to imply something new. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wildhartlivie's analysys seems very informative and would seem to carry a lot of weight. However, there is one very small point that I'd like to quibble with. And that is that IMO the tone it takes when it describes wiki-contributor Catherineyronwode's efforts as "regurgitation" is probably less than accurate. Yronwode is a published crime-genre writer and editor in her own right (eg here's a random sentence I pulled out of Cat's own WP biography: "In 1992, the convicted serial killer Kenneth Bianchi, one-half of the pair known as "The Hillside Strangler", sued Yronwode for 8.5 million dollars for causing an image of his face, which he claimed was his trademark, to be depicted on a trading card") who, I believe, has contributed a lot of freshly referenced material to WP moreso than she's been simply engaged in her cut-'n'-pasting snippets from existing WP articles and glomming them together in the proposed catch-all topic or title here. ↜Just M E  here , now 06:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
See Argument from authority. Wikipedia is not the place for investigative journalism. Try Wikinews. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Just to clarify something. I was not commenting on any specific effort by any editor, including those by Catherineyronwode. In fact, I didn't look to see who made what edits to the main article. However, the article does rely quite heavily on other topics that already exist, whether the material is the same or different. That it does so in support of the creation of content to support new terminology not widely covered in specifics is the heart of the problem. It is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to explore new territory in an investigative way. With all respect to Catherineyronwode, great care must be taken to only cover what has previously been published in a way that does not synthesize new research. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • What troubles me about this article is that it seems to try and create a new broad topic.
I think Wildhartlivie breaks dowm the situation here quite well. Also, this project isn't supposed to create new topics like this. Maybe in time Internet homicide or any other variation will be commonly used in references that make the term(s) WP:N and with WP:RS but right now the sources are failing. The article is filled with WP:Syn and other core policy problems. Like I said below, maybe we can get others to comment on this article so a consensus can be found. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree with Wilhartlivie, Viriditas, and Chronie about the failing sources to support this topic. As Wildhartlivie mentions, most of the other articles mentioned are "addressed specifically by law and have become part of the current criminal vernacular" (actually I see a couple that are not addressed by law, but they appear to be similarly suffering from a lack of sources and probably need to be put up for AFD, for example "consensual homicide" and "lust murder"). Nobody is ever charged with "internet homicide". --MPerel 13:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I noticed a problem with a number of the murder articles too, and commented on it Template_talk:Homicide#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_the_template.3F, though it seems a more prominent place to spur discussion would be desirable. Lust murder I've heard of before and I'm sure can be supported (The Psychology of Lust Murder: Paraphilia, Sexual Killing, and Serial Homicide immediately comes up in a search). Consensual homicide, I don't know. Can we pledge to handle these articles better? Tagging them, dating the tags, starting discussion on the talk pages, soliciting input from knowledgeable editors would seem to me a better move than simply submitting them to AfD, which growing out of the problems here might be WP:POINT and disruptive. Leaving them as is is not desirable, though, I wholly agree. I don't think any of us here have any expertise in the area of criminal law (not that we have to according to Wikipedia, but it would be useful). That said, you're quite right, nobody has been charged with "internet homicide," and we can't speculate that anyone ever will be (or won't be), not in the article anyway. That's not a requirement for crime articles that there be a penal law about them, though. I do currently support this article (though I have made very few edits to the article, I think; posting instead to talk and in the AfD), but I agree there is also original research in it, and perhaps my mind will change about the article. I think it is correct some of the time that the sources do not support the claims, or at least not as directly as one would like. However, I don't agree that they all don't support the claims. Given the multiplication of sources in the article, it will be somewhat of a pain to go through them all, but certainly as they have been challenged it's appropriate to do so. It would be desirable to get some new editors involved here to do that, I think. Reposting to the relevant Wikiprojects and seeking mediation may be the route to go and I will try to do that later, though it may be possible to reach consensus without new input if we try to understand each other (but that hasn't been going so well so far). Шизомби (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I simply do -- not -- compute -- some of the irritation on Schizombie's part as expressed in the post above that in a roundabout way seems directed towards me but in the end I would probably ascribe it to be due to some kind insiders-club - versus - newcomers-to-the-scene dynamic. In my mind, if some edit or editor presents a problem, deal with it immediately and specifically. In fact, this is the editing rationale I took myself when I came upon this article. As the case has it, I saw that Viriditas was applying his sincere editorial judgement through his continually blanking Cat's work on the topic and making it into a disambiguation page. I don't think this edit warring proper and I believe someone who felt as strongly as V. does that a topic should be deleted should simply list it at AfD. Which /I/ did, giving as my explanation exactly and precisely this very reason. I'd moved the article to be a list because that is my own editorial judement about its contents (see WP:BOLD), since it seems more "almanacky" type thing than a scholarly, legal/therapeutic/&c one to me.) If people didn't think the List treatment a better form, they should have immediately reverted (see WP:BRD). In fact, if any wikicontributor thought my AfD nom of the article improper, s/he should have challenged at the time as well. The guidelines I've read support my methodology of goodfaith edits or process nominations and allowing others to revert these edits or counter these process nominations as they arise. And I simply don't find anything in the guidelines that encourages editors to go along with bold edits and nominations they disagree with complain about them as being incorrect down the road. Is the edit warring of continually blanking of a page as per Viriditas really to be thought OK whereas my having effectively brought the process along to bring this warring to an end by way of my nominating it according to WP procedural norms for an AfD, thereby presenting it to a wider audience of competent and interested WPdians, to be thought, per Schizombie, to not be OK? ↜Just M E  here , now 15:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
My irritation may be mine alone. I don't like how there was in a short period of time a multiplication of new articles with overlapping subject matter and page moves particularly when it was clear there were conflicts of opinion, and the multiplication of AfDs which if they had to have been done may have been better done bundled. I think I expressed all that all along. I'm hardly an insider and don't have an idea of how long other editors here have been at Wikipedia. An article isn't supposed to be submitted to AfD to settle an edit war or talk page dispute, though. See e.g. "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Likewise, disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. [...] The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion That was not done. It's clear this article will be resubmitted to AfD at some point, I think I saw somewhere it was recommended it be done a month or two from now; resubmitting in less time can be viewed as bad faith. In the interim, I am convinced the best thing to do is to get more people involved. New editors may be able to solve the problems with the article. Шизомби (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Schizombie said, "I am convinced the best thing to do is to get more people involved."
-
Do it! {smiles} Yet, ironically, note that the actions of mine about which you complain have been rather effective in getting a certain number of more people involved in actuality. And also note that there is no policy that insists we remain forever in the thicket of discussion and edit warring without resort to AfDs, either; indeed the very purpose for WP:BOLD and WP:BRD is that with perpetual discussion no editing or process motions get initiated. (And, Schizombie, I believe your methodology in this matter has been weighted a little too much toward your having merely made suggestions, "Such-and-so oughtta be done," and then falling back on this fact, "I suggested as much!," but without enough bold initiation of action -- which is only my opinion, for whatever it's worth.)
-
I had been contributing some with Cat to the original page and V. kept deleting the material and turning it into a disambig page, citing as he did just about every wikireg in the wikibook (eg WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NN, and I don't know maybe WP:Overcategorization and who knows what else) any which of rationales would have been sufficient alone for V. to have filed a legitimate WP:AfD instead of blanking the page and edit warring. As it was I had indeed chimed in on the talkpage of the original article but basic powers of observation would reveal the likelihood that V. wasn't going to stop V.'s blanking of my and Cat's mainspace edits, in blatant disregard of WP policy, simply in response to even more copious talkpage chitchat, so, as you've noted, I indeed took additional action per my right as a WPdian. And my very point here, Schizombie, is that if any single one of my actions in this regard were thought unconstructive they could either have been reverted or challenged in some way.
-
The policy from WP:Deletion policy that V. was disregarding is the one you've quoted above, that
-
"Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page."
-
But this wasn't me! Likewise wrt what you're complaining about wrt WP:CFORKS: /I/ had made none; and the one V. had made I had also dutifully challenged as such at an AfD. (Yet, of course, the wikicommunity liked his article better so in the end of the day his rationale for its creation prevailed: OK.) In any case Cat also created this "Internet killer" quasi WP:CFORK, which V. challenged. (However in this case his opinion didn't prevail, at least to-date.) In any case, I'd myself tried to tie the three related AfDs together through See-also's on each page whereas noone else stepped in to bundle them (other than your having said somewhere, no doubt, "We ought to bundle them": but, obviously, discussion cannot completely take the place of more effective actions). And my actions throughout thes chains of events were to make single bold moves that anybody could have challenged. (Although I suppose you perhaps said somewhere then, as you do now, "Justme ought not to do that"? But since I obviously disagreed and since no one reverted either my moving the original page to be a "List-of" or challenged the legitimacy of my AfD nom at the time, in any effective manner...here we are!) ↜Just M E  here , now 19:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Order! Order!. This page survived the AfD. Please stop rehashing the arguments and do some constructive finding of sources and editing. The subject goes back to at least 1996[2], and there are articles explicitly discussing this phenomenon:[3][4][5]. And even Bill O'Reilly thinks it's a phenomenon: “Every day we’re seeing kids molested, murdered, kidnapped because they are meeting people on the Net and then they go meet them in person. And that’s just insane.”[6] For balance, try this: "My editor, however, was looking for something more sensational. He asked, for example, if I could dig up an opening anecdote about, say, an eight-year-old getting killed by a chat-room stalker. But after days of research—and yes, I actually looked at the Google results past the first page—I could not find a single example of a preteen getting abducted and murdered by an Internet predator."[7] Fences and windows (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you look at the sources, CBS specifically refer to how to protect kids from "Internet murder", and a definition of "internet homicide" was also sourced. The case of John Robinson is described as the "first Internet serial killer", and I found a source noting how the Internet facilitated his crime: "It was the Internet that brought BDSM within reach of everyone and this has been both a blessing and a curse for practitioners. On the one hand, it has increased the pool of doms and subs, but it has also allowed dangerous malefactors to infiltrate the society and bring harm to innocent participants. Sociopaths like John Robinson are much more difficult to identify online and the anonymity of the Internet makes sharing information about particular threats among a close-knit group almost impossible. In the days when clubs and munches were the only way to meet like-minded people, serial killers were less likely to ingratiate themselves into a small group of BDSM aficionados and any mysterious disappearances of regular munch attendees would be noticed." [8]. A book called "The dark side of the Internet" says he could be an example of "white knight" syndrome:[9] and describes another case wherein a man lured a man to his death by pretending to be a girl:[10]. Another book "Crime Online" has its first chapter titled "Killed by the Internet"[11], about "cyber homicides, cyber suicides and cyber sex crimes". It suggests that "individuals who might be otherwise predisposed to commit suicide, murder or abduction might be drawn to the Internet to facilitate their desires, particularly if their behaviour receives support from communities of other people who are sympathetic to their thoughts, values and behaviour." It may well be that, as the Hypercrime book asserts, there's really no such thing as "internet murder", but there's plethora of sources calling people "internet killers" and describing the perceived risk of being killed by someone you met online. Fences and windows (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Titling proposals

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion

  1. "Internet killer" or "--- murderer" remains too tabloidish to a preponderance of the WP community, currently, IMO. (Could change. And, according to my best in-good-faith sensing of the mood of the community or finger in the wind.)
  2. "Internet killer" would still redirect to whichever more precise title would be selected, so ease of finding it would remain [en-/ or ] as-sured.
  3. Guy who murdered his estranged wife for updating her Facebook page to Single wouldn't be included despite tabloid mentions of the Facebook killer. (I doubt but just sayin'.) ↜Just M E  here , now 05:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Er, can you please stop moving and changing the names of all of these articles? To date, it hasn't solved a single problem or issue that has been raised. Please address the outstanding issues without appealing to another page move. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
(Huh? Wikicontributors: note that I have started a section below for discussion of people/conduct/editing quirks. Please try and take discussions along those lines there in order not to sidetrack this subsection, OK?) Speaking to issues of editing, the purpose of this section of the talkpage has been to discuss the article's title -- yet, indeed, if in the communities' best estimation, the existing name of Internet homicide is best, I would have absolutely no qualms in going along with that. ↜Just M E  here , now 05:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's just another distraction. The problem isn't with the title. The problem is with the content. How many editors have told you this? Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree that constant debates about titling distract from editing the article and discussing its merits and focus. Leaving it as internet killer would have been much better. As for behaviour, I find both Viriditas and Justmeherenow are posting so much and with so many arguments that it is almost impossible to keep track or have a coherent debate. Fences and windows (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

(outdent) Besides the issues about content and synthesis, I have an issue with the term "internet homicide". While homicide doesn't by definition mean an act covered under law, in general, the use of the word does imply legality. This is where negligent homicide, vehicular homicide, etc. become pertinent. In general, nomenclature using the word homicide tends to group terms into a legal category and there is nothing whatsoever in regard to this article that falls under that. As I stated earlier, this article addresses MO, not a specific crime nor a new term. I see its use as no different than other similar topics such as lonelyhearts killer. It isn't a new phenomenon, it is an approach to luring victims, something alluded to in the talk page section Talk:Internet homicide#Anonymity of the Internet section. I don't have another suggestion, but I had one less issue with this when the article was called Internet killer. By the way, I have similar misgivings about the article Consensual homicide. All it is is a rehash of physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia. My real feeling is that all of these articles need to be clarified, combined and organized with some sort of consistency in regard to the overriding meaning, not how many sources can be found using different types of vernacular. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

  1. Wildhartlivie, out of curiosity, would you have a working title you could suggest offhand for such a collective article dealing with these range of phenomena?
  2. I personally have no objection to a preference for "killer" over "homicide"; yet, as to an objection to an appellation of "homicide" on the grounds of its legal precision, in this case such precision might be well-placed, as some places in the article deal with incidents involving what may be suicides or otherwise consensual deaths of some kind(?) Nonetheless maybe such concerns are putting too fine of a point on things and "killer" could stand for all these variations just fine, or else such items that don't fit could be relegated to at best "see-also" treatment and taken to another article or article's section. ↜Just M E  here , now 08:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Offhand, no I really don't. As I said, what we're really addressing here is yet another way that people have found to predate upon others. I'm not sure that I think this particular focus should address what really aren't the same kinds of killing/death, as you note with "consensual deaths" or suicides. The only time "internet suicide" would ever be connected to a predator would be the sort of situation where an actual predator seized upon such a situation for other purposes than something that would be considered a pact. Predators don't enter into pacts, they use them. In any case, I think it's very important to keep in mind that we're not making new, we're simply describing a new way of making old. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

alternate proposal

edit

ok, after sitting with it a bit, I think maybe we can transform this whole article into something less contentious. I suggest we re-conceive the as an "Internet and Death" article: then we can have sections on internet homicide (separating actual and fictional ats), internet suicide, and even cover other related issues (email or web death threats, Timothy Leary's online suicide, the the use of the internet by the Columbine killers), without making more (or less) of the subject than it deserves, or making any unwarranted synthesis between speculative and actual events. what do you all think? --Ludwigs2 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wow I found your post! :) Sorry I expected this a tad lower, like in a new thread. Anyways, Ludwigs, are you suggesting rewriting this article under a new article name? I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. What would be the need for a new article like "Internet and Deaths"? I guess I'm not understanding your proposal properly, sorry. Would you mind explaining? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
well, a new name, yes, but really I'm suggesting that we expand the article to the more general topic of the way death and the internet interrelate in popular culture. we can start the article out by noting that (I'm sure we can find academics that say something like this) the internet is a new social environment, with its own set of fears, risks, and myths, and then we can just list them all out as popular culture items: urban myths and fictional representations of internet killers, actual cases of homicide that used the internet and the media hype that surrounds them, websites that advocate death in one form or another, etc. by casting it as a popular culture issue we avoid all the wp:syn concerns about whether we're implying that 'internet homicide' (&etc) is a real thing, and put the issue in a bigger, more abstract context where will be easier to maintain NPOV. or so it seems to me...
p.s. sorry to hide the original post on you.   --Ludwigs2 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I abolutely would endorse this proposal Ludwigs2 is laying out. ↜Just M E  here , now 16:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Alternative proposal sounds good to me. Of course we'd need to make sure such a title would properly distinguish actual death from the mere discussion of death on the Internet. ↜Just M E  here , now 16:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It sounds like a reasonable proposal. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm uncomfortable with an approach of "we'll start by saying X, I'm sure we can find sources for it". Very likely we can find sources that say just that, but starting out looking for one particular opinion risks bias against sources that say the opposite. I can't quote chapter and verse, but I have certainly seen sources that note that many urban myths encountered on the Internet are not original to the medium; often they go back much earlier, being based on tropes that are almost timeless. --GenericBob (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm undecided. The title, if approved, would have to be "Internet and death" though, since it's not about Death himself. Pretty broad topic, potentially including posthumous e-mail services (mylastemail, Deathswitch, etc.), inheritance of websites (legacylocker), probably lots of other things. I imagine the OR and Synth claims would be made against "Internet and death" as well. Шизомби (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I like the proposal to re-name and broaden, but the proposed title does seem a bit too broad. Internet and death could cover any death mentioned on the internet, including obituary sites. I dont have any counter proposals, but think some how the title needs to be restricted a bit more, it sounds more like a category name than an article name, maybe a good solution is to make a few different articles on different related internet/death topics and put them all under an internet and death category (even start a wikiproject if enough people are interested).Camelbinky (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think the basic proposal is sound, although I hesitate when I even read the words "popular culture" in relationship to articles such as this. I think the overall topic of how the internet found its way into yet another societal aspect of ways that people have found to kill each other and themselves is sound, but I'd wince if I read it and found listings of how a film depicted death and computers, such as in Feardotcom, Untraceable, or the episode of SVU where internet viewers log in to vote on whether the kidnapped socialite should live or die. It would require careful monitoring. And yes, the potential for synthesis would be an issue as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Process Q

edit

Would it be too outside normal procedures to invite an uninvolved editor (User:Icestorm815, perhaps) to consider looking over this talkpage section after a reasonable amount of time and figure out which, if any, proposal has the most support? In any case, after the first five participants' initial comments in this section, my own guess would be that the current title, Internet homicide retains the most support (given that its several supporters from above on the talkpage haven't said elsewise and no other title as of yet has as much support at least yet, IMO. ↜Just M E  here , now 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wiki editors and their foibles

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am no angel. I'm sorry that I reacted so adversarily, when I came to the general subject of Internet related killings, to V's insistance that Cat and my and others contributions to a page dedicated to this subject not be allowed to progress. Mea culpa.

Yeah I've an interest in the subject. Say it was, by analogy, the newspapers' fascination in drownings in Lock Ness. (To analogy haters: WARNING. DO NOT READ AHEAD!) Say I shared an interest in that. I write, "So and so disappeared in the loch on this date blah blah." Somebody deletes, "So what! WP:NN!" I counter, "I got plenty of WP:RS for incidents and think a listing is notable enough." Then it turns instead of a discussion of Lockness drownings a discussion about how this other person is a pain in the butt and I'm a jerk. Fine. But sort of counterproductive to the project. (I say, "The other editor started his OWN page about general deaths, drowning and car accidents, etc., in Inverness, Scotland! It's a WP:CFORK!!!! He just doesn't want me and certain others to contribute to the encyclopedia!" And the other editor counters: "Justme is disruptive. S/he's worrying about the name of the article. S/he should just leave.") I'd offer a truce but doubt that would be as much fun for the participants who like this stuff. So instead I offer you up this talkpage subsection. Have at it and add your pithy comments and put downs and worries about others' whacky editing practices and behaviors below. Enjoy! {smiles} ↜Just M E  here , now 05:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Challenge to Afd closure

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments9 people in discussion
I'm going to be challenging the closing of this AFD. None of the sources you cite above directly support the statement, "Internet homicide is homicide among people who had met online, in some cases having known each other previously only through interaction on the Internet." There is no single source that actually says this. The entire article is composed of material pasted together to form a coherent topic where none actually exists. I've repeatedly challenged the sources used in this article and I've asked for the material (within my right per policies) to be copied to this talk page so we can look at it. None of the source material that I've questioned has been added here, and all of my requests have been ignored. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
To recap from above:
  • Internet homicide is homicide among people who had met online, in some cases having known each other previously only through interaction on the Internet.'[1][2][3][not in citation given]
  • Also the term Internet killer is journalese for a person who broadcasts the crime of murder online or who murders a victim met through the Internet.[4][5][not in citation given]
  • To reporter Patrice O'Shaughnessy of the New York Daily News the "anonymity" of the Internet facilitated the connection between the murder victim Julissa Brisman and accused "Craigslist killer" Philip Markoff:[not in citation given]
    • The source cited does not say this. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
      • Actually, the source is stronger than that. It says that the "anonymous fog of the Internet [was] tailor-made for a young woman who made a living meeting strangers in hotels and a man looking for easy victims." The author's "was tailor-made for" kinda smacks of Intelligent Design (joke!), so i chose the more NPOV word "facilitated." If there's a verb you like better, try it. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
        • Actually, the source does not say that. You cannot interpret a source to say what you want it to say in order to further an argument. This is precisely how we do not use sources on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • The article's first sentence explains in part that the topic of the article includes people who have met previously only online who have become such victims/perpetrators of homicide, with a footnote appended that includes a quote where its author states a belief that homicidal people have been known to lure chat room acquaintances to physical meetings and death. Is there a way, Viriditas, you'd prefer this sentence be crafted to better represent the quote in the source? If so, you could help us improve the article. However note that the article actually makes no empirical claims other than that Internet "whathaveyou" friends -- that is, chat friends, Web-discussion-group friends and the like -- sometimes have become victims-and-perpetrators of homicide. Just as an article about familicide is gonna say there's occasional homicide among close "relations" without its making empirical claims necessarily above and beyond the particular relationship and circumstance that "family" - "homicide victim"/"perp" provide. ↜Just M E  here , now 07:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • There isn't a single source being used correctly here, and our sourcing and original research policies specifically state that sources should not be used this way. We've been over this several times and I'm not going to repeat the same arguments again because you and Cat (64.142.90.33) either do not care or do not understand. I'm going to bring others into this. This article is a textbook example of original research and unless my questions are answered (with the exact passages I've requested per policy and guidelines), I'm going to start deleting what I can't verify, which means that this article will automatically become a list. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry but I have to agree with User talk:Viriditas. In rereading the article, the references seems cherry picked and does not support what the article is saying. The articles title is less important than what the article says or doesn't say. I personally couldn't find any refs for this artice. The ones I did find could go into the laundry list of articles stated above. If there are other articles that have the same problems as this one, that isn't a good reason to continue the habit. Is it possible to reopen the Adf or open a new one and post to some board to get a broader view from more editors about this? Or maybe a RFC on this page to see if more editors can come and give an opinion about this article. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
In the AFD, I struck my delete in favor of a rename once it seemed that a source was provided to support "internet homicide" (I lean anti-deletionist and like to give every benefit of the doubt to keep an article!) However, on closer look, the one source given is just not sufficient. As Wildhartlivie mentions in the above section, the source given "isn't definitional, it looks like an overhead projector type of headline", and I have to agree. I've searched for something that can support this article but so far cannot find anything to rescue it beyond original research and synthesis. Viriditas makes a strong case to delete based on lack of sources. --MPerel 13:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Although I heartily agree with those above who plainly point out that Internet related homicide is not a legally distinct category and is also one whose descriptions in scholarly literature are somewhat meager, my inclusionstic spirit wrt this collection of notable homicides remains undampened. Per META:WIKI IS NOT PAPER#ORGANIZATION the The key to avoiding WPdia's providing informational overload in its individual articles is to break them down into more than one page. (Quote) "These can start out as section headings and be broken out into separate pages as the main article becomes too long. [...]Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information, full of railroad timetables and comprehensive lists. But any encyclopedic subject of interest should be covered, in whatever depth is possible." (End quote.) IOW the fact that the topic isn't distinctly notable as an area of legal distinction doesn't preclude individual homicides among people with this relationship to be notable and deserving of inclusion somewhere in WPdia. And according to WPdia's vision, when such a compilation of notable incidents become too lengthy to fit comfortably within a parent article -- a contention I myself am neutral about at this particular moment -- it should receive coverage in a separate article, say in fulfilment of WPdia's role as an almanac/assortment of lists of notable things.
-
Then per the guideline concerning WP:CRUFT, topics whose notability comes from their having become media touchstones can and often do themselves become notable due to this fact. It says (quote) As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion. Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." (End of quote.)
-
In any case, in the end a topic of homicide circumscribed by the relation of the victim to perpetrator is not necessarily a legal distinction. I'm presently in the minority position here but nonetheless want to pitch in my two pennies that I think a better analogy for this article than that of a legal term would be to such compilations of notable killings as "List of women who have murdered their husbands." What I take to be the most basic philosophical foundation of the project is that WPdia is whatever we through consensus make it to be. And in that light I strongly agree with some the sentiments expressed above that the very best avenue for opponents of the inclusion of this topic-of-whatever-encyclopedic-merit to take would be for them to keep attempting to get inclusionistic supporters to "get it" or attract fresh eyes and eventually to relist it at AfD -- all of which I would hope could be accomplished under a veneer of decorum and collegial courtesy. ↜Just M E  here , now 14:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It may be best, as you (Justmeherenow) seem to suggest, to convert this article to list form, something along the lines of List of internet-related homicides and remove all but the list itself. I just read over the thread you began at the NOR/noticeboard and I especially think Blueboar makes a cogent point that clear criteria for list inclusion would be needed, for example would a man who kills his wife who is having an online affair be considered a murder involving the internet? --MPerel 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
If reliable sources called it an "internet killing", "internet murder", "online killing", "online murder", or a functionally equivalent phrase, then it would be fair to include such a murder. But the reliable sources refer to people killing people they met on the web. Please don't gut this article by turning it into one of those interminable lists. Fences and windows (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is a list, and nothing more. If gutting means removing original research, then that is exactly what is needed. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Agree with Vinditas. This article is ridiculous. The subject is contrived and not supported by the sources. --hippo43 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I came to this article talk page because I was contacted on my talk page to come as a third party to the renaming proposal section above based on continuing work at various noticeboards including original research and reliable sources. In doing research on what my stance should be (I dont automatically take a position based on dogma or predisposition of beliefs, every case is unique) I read the discussion in this section. I am now going to throw in my ten cents (inflation has made my opinion more than two cents). I am not going to delve into what the sources do or dont say, I'm simply going to say that ifsomeone finds the following then there is no discussion about redoing an AfD based on consensus that I have read in this talk page and at the noticeboards its been posted at...
  • if there are references (newspaper articles, tv reports posted online, books, etc) that refer to specific killings as "internet killing", "internet homicide", and the various equivalents then you dont need an overarching definition in a reference to use one as a title.
  • if someone out there has written a book or an article (even just one) that compares different internet related killings or does an analysis on common profiles of the murderers (similar to an analysis on mass murderers)
  • and most important in "killing" (pun intended) any talk of reopening an AfD that has been closed is this- a consensus is a consensus, its poor sportsmanship to throw a fit on losing or to game the system because you lose. It is against wikipedia policy to actually use wikipedia policies and guidelines to overrule consensus per wikipedia:policy and guidelines and wikipedia: consensus. Policies and guidelines are NOT above local concensus except for the exceptions listed at wikipedia: consensus as that page states. If this article has succeeded in surviving an AfD I strongly suggest any further attempts to fight the consensus be held off until people actually working on this article are done changing the scope and title.Camelbinky (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • The AfD was closed as no consensus, and I dispute that closing based on the arguments presented. Furthermore, the overall discussion was hijacked by the usual suspects moving the page during the discussion, distracting from the points under debate, and by the utilization of several SPA accounts who had never before used Wikipedia. I appreciate the time you took to weigh in with your opinion, but nothing you write above reflects the issues under discussion. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • It's true the two anonymous editors who weighed in with "Keeps" on the AfD might have been people who already weighed in with Keeps using an account. It may also have been that they were people who already weighed in with "Deletes" using an account, making anonymous "Keep" posts to try to discredit the Keep side. They may also have really been first time users (though as of this post they are still one time users only, unless they subsequently registered for an account, which we wouldn't know). This is why they're not supposed to be given much weight, particularly if they didn't make a useful comment, and the closing admin indicates they weren't User_talk:Icestorm815#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FInternet_killer. As for moving pages during an AfD, it is acceptable. As for making multiple comments during an AfD, that too is acceptable, even desirable (though the quality of the comments matters), since AfD is not a vote. It was not "hijacked by the usual suspects" (ahem, WP:ETIQUETTE) or "distracting from the points under debate" (not to everyone anyway), it was just done with less care than it should have been, I think; I was not happy with the manner of move either. Шизомби (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Meme," "journalese" in article lead; verification tags

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

While "internet homicide"/"internet killer" might be a "meme" (not too sure about that, myself), and may be a "term of art" or "journalese" those are pretty specific claims and there's no support for actually calling them that in the article. Repeatedly, a number of killers have been nicknamed after their use of the internet to find victims, "internet killer" in particular, that's about as much as could be said, I think. Some would dispute even that that much could be written. Шизомби (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed Wikipedia's unsupported claim that this topic relates to a cultural preoccupation ("meme") until when (if?) supporting references for it might be found. ↜Just M E  here , now 03:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Per a quote from the essay WP:NOTOR#Compiling facts and information: "Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented." -- I think it might be OK for us to sort of group various terms for Internet killer/cyber-slayer/&c. in the lede. The fact that they are short, colorful neologistic nicknames that don't pass too readily for straightforward, descriptive English (...as looked up in Wikipedia: "Journalese is the artificial or hyperbolic, and sometimes over-abbreviated, language regarded as characteristic of the popular media."), i.e., "journalese," would seem to me to be a fairly straightforward observation as well, sort of along the lines of saying that WTF is an acronym, but it wouldn't hurt us to avoid anything that could possibly make WPdia's claims seem unsupported. Perhaps we should just leave "journalese" out and replace it with something more generic. Say, "appellations"? ↜Just M E  here , now 04:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is this the 1st?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Mercer County Prosecutors Office: "Man Pleads Guilty in Cyber Slay Case. An East Windsor man pleaded guilty today to aggravated manslaughter in the 1996 killing of a man he met through a sex 'chat room' on the Internet, Mercer County Prosecutor Daniel G. Giaquinto announced. George 'Chip' Hemenway (DOB 1/16/57), of the first block of Jeffrey Lane, had been indicted on murder and weapons offenses in the Jan. 4, 1996 death of Jesse M. Unger, 38, of Mark Twain Drive in Hamilton." ↜Just M E  here , now 03:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nice find, although to say in the article that it is the first you would need a source. Шизомби (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
User:Fences and windows had found reference to it. See hi/r comment that begins "Order! Order!' somewhere above. Phila. Inquirer: "Chip Hemenway and Jesse Unger were electronic pen pals of the '90s. They met through their computer screens. Then, Hemenway allegedly killed Unger here earlier this month, and investigators said he turned to others he met online for help disposing of the body. The case - believed to be the first killing in which the victim and the alleged killer met through the Internet[...]. ↜Just M E  here , now 05:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is sourced! I'm male, to avoid the contortions of s/he or hi/r. I use "they" and "their" as singular non-sexed pronouns. Fences and windows (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for finding this reference, F&windows. I've added mention of the "first known murder of a victim met online was 1996" to the article's lede. ↜Just M E  here , now 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
The only problem is that the source used is not about internet homicide. Again, you are doing original research by collecting all of these reports and adding them to the article. It might qualify as a list, but not as a topic. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Per WP:PRESERVE, over any anticipated deletion of the material in this article, I'd endorse its change to a list, per Viriditas's suggestion directly above. ↜Just M E here , now 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think the article is well-established, and we don't need to concede anything. The original research is gone and the article is fairly well constructed and it is well sourced. There are enough sources discussing the concept of internet killings in adequate detail to show that it is a notable topic, and the sources I added that argue that it isn't a phenomenon actually strengthen the argument for keeping the article, as there's obviously enough people who say it is real for them to bother refuting it. Fences and windows (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Citations wrt criticisms of the MSM

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
[ Justmeherenow put in the above section heading, after the fact.] ↜Just M E here , now 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if this merits a new section on the talk page. Some editors were complaining about how "internet killer" makes too much of how the killers located their victims, and how it plays into the demonization of the internet, and the limited meta-writing about the creation and use of the label itself, complaints I agree with to some extent myself. Found some sources along these lines: Rapp, Paul. "Don’t Blame Craig" http://www.metroland.net/rapp_this.html (which also accuses newspapers of backlash against Craigslist for loss of advertising revenue) and Harris, Leslie. "Because 'Classified Ad Killer' Doesn't Have the Same Ring" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-harris/because-classified-ad-kil_b_190965.html I just stumbled across these, at this point there may be more writing on the subject so it's worth another search maybe. Шизомби (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think we are presented only slightly "competing priorities" when presented the citations Schizombie brings to our attention here. (1) it's our job to present what secondary news sources say about Internet crimes.check Y But (2) I also believe it's our job to present what secondarily-sourced critics-of-the-mainstream media have said about alleged imbalance in its portrayals ←NEED TO DO. -- perhaps by a both a mention in the lede and the body of text, maybe even in its own section, which would add to our encyclopedic coverage here. ↜Just M E here , now 16:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
[Crickets.] ↜Just M E here , now 13:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I appended a sentence to the lede, referencing the Metroland and Huffington Post citations per Schizombie. ↜Just M E here , now 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Another article speculating on why the term stuck and bringing up moral panic: Sex, murder and the outbreak of moral panic [12] (appears to mistakenly use assonant instead of consonant, however, tsk). Some uncertainty about who originated the name, some say police [13], some say tabloids [14]. Шизомби (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Other articles critical of the terms "Craigslist Killer" and "Internet Killer": Christopher Lochhead, "The Scapegoating of Craigslist: Where's Mainstream Media's Perspective Gone?" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/19/opinion/main5025322.shtml Julie Hilden, "How the Internet Can Help Crime Victims and How Too Much Privacy Can Hurt Them" http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20010528.html Anyway, I hope to get back to working on this article. Found a number of other people called some variation on "internet killer" both real and fictional, and more articles making links between those people. Шизомби (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good work! Fences and windows (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, neither of those sources discuss the concept of either "internet homicide" or an "internet killer", but merely use the terms in passing. This entire article continues to be nothing but a nest of original research and is an exercise in how not to write an article on Wikipedia. I'm preparing for the next AfD... Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Recent case

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"A man from Germany has been jailed for life for stabbing a Nottingham student 86 times after stalking his girlfriend. David Heiss, 21, from Limburg, became infatuated with 20-year-old Matthew Pyke's girlfriend Joanna Witton, 21, during repeated internet exchanges ... Det Ch Insp Tony Heydon from Nottinghamshire Police warned people about the dangers of the internet: "It is the worst case I have dealt with. It is a horrific incident, a very pre-planned premeditated murder. The scene we found on the day was horrific and what happened to Matthew was a terrible act, everyone is shocked about what happened. David Heiss was very clever on the internet, and he learned a lot of information about Joanna Witton and Matthew Pyke and others. It is very, very interesting that he could do that. One of the things that's important here is that people need to realise that on their computers there is a lot of personal information that other people can gather. We know that Heiss found out a lot of information about where they lived and where they worked and all sorts of things about their social network that perhaps now with hindsight they wouldn't want him to know. So people need to bear that in mind when they are on their own systems using Facebook, people need to be careful.""Web murderer given life sentence, BBC Fences and windows (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Suspected womb-raider Korena Elaine Roberts

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

youtube of local KATU news report ↜Just M E here , now 04:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

YouTube isn't a reliable source, nor is the blog ref that was added, and how is this notable? You are picking and choosing every entry to this article. That's not how we write articles. If this was a legitimate topic, we would have an actual source about internet homicides. Please show me one. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
True wrt youtube (...however, this is a talkpage, not article space). ↜Just M E here , now 16:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

More cold water

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Another source pouring cold water on claims of the internet as a causal agent in murders:[15]. A legal theorist pressed for an "internet angle" on a murder by a journalist related that "I asked her whether, if I called her up and asked her out on a blind date and murdered her, she would think it was a "telephone-related murder"?". Fences and windows (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Added as part of a new section. Fences and windows (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Questionable phrase

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the phrase "such as in World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, Halo, or other online games" really necessary in the opening sentence? Sounds like more anti-game Bullcrap to me. There are many more ways a person can be met online, many predating the Online Gaming boom. Quatreryukami (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Internet homicide. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 20:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Internet dating section is problematically sourced

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section on Internet dating has a single source that states that "[...] since 1995, there's been [...] over 400 instances where a homicide has been related to the person that [the victim] met online." This source is no longer available on the original site; it is available on the Internet Archive, though that doesn't include the video. The archived version of the page includes a transcript that says 40, not 400, instances of homicides since 1995 (as of 2007) had been linked to people the victim met online; as the video is not available, it's hard to say if the transcript is accurate. So four things:

  1. The source, given its unavailability in original form and the lack of video in archived form, seems unreliable to me, though for now I've flagged it as a failed verification.
  2. Are forty homicides over a twelve-year period (that ended a decade ago) that have been mentioned in a single source that is no longer fully available really noteworthy? It's not as if all forty were committed by the same person.
  3. The transcript does not mention the locale of the forty (or maybe four hundred) homicides. We don't know if they're in a single country, let alone which; if it's a region; or if it's the entire globe. To me, that makes the source fairly useless.
  4. The text of the section is misleading. The same transcript that notes "over 40 instances" also states, "Since 1999, there has been over eight hundred thousand instances reported of date violence." Not only is the number in the text inaccurate, the text also leaves out a major contrast that the source includes. It seems written to provide something of a slanted perspective.
  5. Given the above, it seems to me the section is essentially unsourced, biased, and uninformative, and I'm not sure there's a way to fix it. Might it be better to move the link to the "Internet relationship" page to the "See also" section of the article, or at least to delete the current text (as it's outdated, insufficiently sourced, and misleading) and simply link to the "Internet relationship" page under the "Internet dating" subheader?

Subluxate (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Internet homicide. 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. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Internet homicide. 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. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sqlo123 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sqlo123 (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

See also: Eamonn Walker?

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What's the connection here? Doesn't seem to be anything in his personal life, so I'd have to guess it has to do with a role he played which seems like a bit of a stretch considering there's nothing else about the concept in fiction on the page. Would appreciate if anybody could reply with the relevance even if the link ends up removed. 2604:3D09:A27F:2EC0:3D97:7CC0:B8B7:7260 (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_homicide&oldid=1259531916"