Template:Annual readership

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Utah / Wyoming Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Utah. This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Does there really need to be mention at the end of the article of "Missing White Woman Syndrome"? For one, it is in incredibly bad taste considering her family and friends don't know whether she's alive or dead. Second, I believe it's borderline racist, as we don't know what race/ethnicity she identifies with. 2600:1005:B0CA:4D69:49D0:DBF7:CF24:D3F9 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, removed that section, its incredibly distasteful and also inappropriate. The MWW page itself is a travesty of pseudoscientific woo and outright racism, Id say it should be deleted, but likely entrenched editors won't allow it. Next best step is to quarantine it by removing all links to it we find — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.28.113 (talk • contribs)

• I removed "See also" section that had this link in it. Unless reliable sources make this relevant, we will not make that call.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose consensus is to remove the MWW link as it may not be so related to this subject, but I don't think it is pseudoscience. Perhaps that article can do with opposing opinions added for balance. 79.70.179.144 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they were being pre-emptive. She will surely be added to the MWWS article once this is all over, as she should be. Evosthunder (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The media's habit of trawling around looking for missing "white" women (who also happen to be attractive) to make national headlines is a well-documented bias and certainly isn't "pseudoscience" or "woo". This is Natalie Holloway, the sequel.

Race isn't either a biologically coherent category or something to do with how people identify themselves. It's about how society views you, and what sorts of privileges and disadvantages accompany that mental impression. As it relates to this particular case, you would think that no black people have ever taken a road trip and gone missing. That's a bias that has consequences for the black community, as it determines, among other things, what sort of resources and attention black families receive when their loved ones go missing.

Here's the compromise: Leave the MWW section out for now, but as soon as reliable sources start publishing on this topic (and I promise you this will all be pouring out soon in the press), it is our task to document it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you disrespecting Gabby Petito is not going to get more attention to missing black people and Petito herself is not responsible for black people not getting as much attention as you want. CaptainPrimo (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree. While I do understand there is some bias in what is reported, claiming that Gabby's situation is "Missing white woman syndrome" is very shallow and such disrespect towards Gabby. She didn't ask for what happened to her, and she sure as heck didn't plan on dying so that she could steal the spotlight from missing women of other races. It is also not at all relevant to this article.EytanMelech (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now there's a section with appropriate sources. Honestly, this is the most prominent case of MWWS in years, there's no getting around it. Mtijn (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan f1: - While I agree that there is a tendency for the media (usually in America) to make a big deal out of missing women who are considered "white", I don't agree with your statement claiming that "Race isn't either a biologically coherent category or something to do with how people identify themselves. It's about how society views you." Even if "race" is made-up/nonsensical, self-identification is still a significant part of "race". Singer Halsey looks "white" and is probably assumed to be such (though she's part African-American). Despite this, I believe Halsey considers herself "mixed". There are other people, like diplomat and former governor Nikki Haley, of Northern Indian ancestry and light skinned. She has identified as being "white" on a voter registration form and may "pass" as being "white" to some people. Though Indians are not considered "white" in the U.S.[1] Personally, I don't understand why superficial, socially constructed labels like "whiteness" must always be mentioned. Look at how arbitrary/illogical the label "Asian" is. A country like Canada considers people with origins from all regions of Asia to be "Asian Canadian", but in the United States, only East, Southeast and South Asians are "Asian American" (they're also considered a "race" instead of a "non-racial ethnic category") and the United Kingdom usually only considers South Asians as being "Asian". But that's beyond the point of this discussion. The subject was American and several sources on her page have now been provided which do mention "MWWS" in regards to the media coverage surrounding her disappearance/death. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This subject seems to be producing repetitive overwriting of edits (if not necessarily simple reverts). For instance, a link to the Missing White Woman Syndrome Article in the See Also section has been removed and added back repeatedly. Regardless of people's opinions, remaining objective and neutral in good faith is important (also the MWWS has been the target of vandalism). As is maintaining a consensus to avoid potential edit warring. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say this belongs to page Missing white woman syndrome, but the inclusion to this page is debatable per WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Being a white women, is it relevant so much to this story? I would be inclined to exclude it here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is very disrespectful to make a political point on the page of someone who was murdered. CaptainPrimo (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:CaptainPrimo Literally everything is "political". Just because it's something you personally find offensive doesn't make it any less true. If people are criticizing the coverage, then that criticism belongs in the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your right wing ideology. When journalists and criminologists mention something relevant and notable, Wikipedia cites them and mentions it. NPOV is about tone, not about content. The content comes from citations. RobotGoggles (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it's a soapbox for your left wing ideology instead. Can I add criticisms of thr coverage of George Floyd to his article? CaptainPrimo (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a space for left wing or right wing ideology. When a subject receives notability, it is written about. No matter what you personally find objectionable about it. RobotGoggles (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above; there is an entire article on Reactions to the murder of George Floyd and another on Reactions to the George Floyd protests, the latter including plenty of reactions by right wing personalities, presented objectively and with citations. Again, "NPOV is about tone, not about content".

Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are separate articles and not George Floyd's article. You have already added Petito to the Missing White Girl Syndrome article. It is not relevant to her main article. CaptainPrimo (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Captain doesn't seem to grasp the irony in his argument. That it's political to include the content, but to remove the entire section is a totally apolitical move. The only thing that should be debated here is what reliable sources are saying.Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its political because its making a political argument that too much attention is being paid to Petito because of her race. Leaving it out no argument is being made. It's pretty simple. CaptainPrimo (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ARTICLE is not making that argument, can't you see? Wikipedia isn't taking a stance on that issue one way or the other. This article simply states that experts, including journalists and criminologists who are cited, have publicly made that argument. If you're so upset, go blame them. RobotGoggles (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about not having it in the opening and just in the media section below? UpendraSachith (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

part of the opening and the media section both duplicate each other right now. Recently someone deleted the media section, shortened the content and moved it to the opening. Then someone else added the media section back. I agree the opening now gives too much attention to the media coverage and that part should be truncated or just deleted. But I urge consensus to avoid these back and forth edits that seem to be emanating from controversy over MWWS (and often end up changing text on unrelated issues in haphazard ways).Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a fair compromise. CaptainPrimo (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty simple, but not for the reasons you think. There are 17,000 open missing persons cases in the US, and nearly 185,000 unsolved homicides as of 2019 (and I'm aware the cause of death hasn't been determined here yet). That the press chose Gabby Petito among tens of thousands of people to be a national fixation has at least something to do with the fact that she fits the profile of all those other MWW cases that have been documented for over 100 years. That's what reliable sources have published, and that's what editors here are documenting. That something is "political" isn't by itself a valid reason to exclude content from the article, or any article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, etc. were way bigger national fixations than Gabby Petito. I don't think criminologists have coined a term for that syndrome yet though since it wouldn't fit this particular syndrome. CaptainPrimo (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not Wikipedia's issue to deal with. There is the more general term of "media circus". The deaths of George Floyd and Trayvon Martin are both included as examples of a Media circus under the United States section, along with the trial of Casey Anthony, and the disappearance of Madeline McCann in the UK section. As for the relevant issue here of whether discussing media coverage is appropriate within the article itself, the articles on Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and Death of Caylee Anthony both include detailed discussion and separate sections on media coverage, which include criticisms of the coverage and public speculation. Neither mention the term "missing white woman syndrome", but I think the reason could just be differences in contemporary media coverage. In this case, the media is openly mentioning the existence of bias while the case is still ongoing, even if that is political. The article on Murder of Mollie Tibbetts has an entire section on "Politicization of Tibbetts's death". Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because activists brought attention to those particular cases, after decades of the press ignoring them. Literally the ONLY reason why Gabby Petito has any notability whatsoever is because of MWW and related factors mentioned in that section of the article. Not only is this important, but it's something that should be mentioned in the lead so readers know why GP has a Wikipedia article and the thousands of other missing persons are just names on an FBI list.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:CaptainPrimo, you have been warned by multiple users who have been quite patient with you and willing to explain why this article is written the way it is. Please stop making grand removals of chunks of the article. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you incapable of reading the discussion above which you didn't counter besides yelling vandalism and reverting? CaptainPrimo (talk)

User:Arecaceæ2011 offered the compromise. That's not a consensus. I disagree with the compromise, and there has been no larger discussion about what should be done. If you think this needs to be edited that way, then WAIT FOR CONSENSUS. Right now, you DO NOT have it. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost like you're only reading tiny pieces of this talk page that agree with you, ignoring everything else. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing? You and Jonathan's annoyance that people care about this case as opposed to victims you two think are more worthy? CaptainPrimo (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about the worth of the victims?

Look, it's very simple: when reliable sources publish something, editors here document it. If sources publish unicorn sightings, editors document unicorn sightings, without ever taking a position on whether or not we believe in unicorns. You can't remove this content, but what you can do here is argue that this particular aspect of the story should be minimized and/or removed from the lead. Which I completely disagree with.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anything this story is a prime example of how Missing White Woman Syndrome works. Trillfendi (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More mention of the racial/gender aspect in CNN [2]. "The case has become an obsession for many, spurring digital detectives to comb through the couple's online trail and try to solve the case. At the same time, that intense attention has highlighted how race and gender impact which of the nearly 90,000 unsolved missing persons cases get attention, and which ones don't." Earlier I had mentioned 15,000 MP cases, but that's just in one year. There are apparently 90k open MP cases currently under investigation.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a host of factors (the social media that documented the journey, the bodycam footage and 9-1-1 call, the fact that Laundrie quietly came home alone from a vacation without her, the fact that he lawyered up immediately and refused to give any information to police or her family about anything, the fact that he subsequently disappeared, the fact that his family didn't report his disappearance for days, the fact that a body was found but there is no certainty yet if its her, etc.) that set this case apart from others beyond the race and gender of the missing girl. In fact, I challenge you to find another case with similar factors (that has not been widely reported in the media). You won't, because it doesn't exist. Its not a race or gender thing, the media circus is literally about the confluence of extremely strange factors specific to this case. In that very same article you're citing, CNN lists all the strange issues in this case that caused it to come into the general public consciousness, and then have that one little throwaway line that you cited about other missing people. I'll also point out that Gabby was Italian, a group not considered "white" by the overwhelming majority of white supremacist groups active in the United States. Further, if you want to talk about the missing 90,000 other people since 2011, that's a whole different article and completely irrelevant to this case. 24.178.111.153 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is good comment, and I tend to agree. The case did not gain so much attention just because she was a white women. Many other white women disappeared, and their cases did not get much attention. Actually, if she were a black women under exactly same all other circumstances, this case would gain the same attention, maybe more. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And your evidence for this hypothesis is? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is not about what Neo-Nazis think. Italians are firmly considered white by anyone else. The woman was even blond, for crying out loud! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that (to re-emphasise) editors' personal opinions and unsubstantiated OR arguments about whether or not the Gabby Petito case is an example of MWWS are utterly irrelevant for Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, are only white people blond now? I know some mixed race people who would strongly disagree with that assertion. Secoond, what's "utterly irrelevant" to this article is anyone else who went missing and who isn't connected to this case. Further, it didn't come off to me as his opinion - it seemed to me he was arguing the notoriety of this case for reasons other than MWWS, which is also in the cited article. 2600:6C5A:423F:306A:71A3:7F47:5F35:9E72 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you have no reliable sources, no suggestions on how to improve the article, except for an interpretation of a source I provided which is strictly forbidden on here. The source didn't say, "because there are a host of other factors involved, the race and gender of Gabby Petito have nothing to do with the attention she's received." That's your slanted analysis.

You then go on to make a couple of outrageous declarations, claiming that out of the 90,000 open missing persons cases, not one of them involves a set of unusual circumstances. I think it's safe to assume that more than a handful of the families and investigators working these other cases would emphatically disagree with you.

And if that wasn't weird enough, you then try disputing GP's race based on what white supremacists think. As Florian noted, it is utterly irrelevant what hate groups think about Italians. Normal people (ie people in the press, and the vast majority of people who consume mainstream press) regard GP as a white female. Not to mention your unsourced and irrelevant claim about the white supremacists is dubious to begin with - I've had the misfortune of having to research the online white supremacist publication American Renaissance (magazine) for another project, so why don't you go over there and ask them if they think Italians are white (spoiler: they do). Christian Picciolini, whose parents were straight from Italy, is a former neo-Nazi who was involved in white supremacist organizations. His talks can be found on Youtube, which is probably where you came from.

Please, this page is to discuss improvements to the article based on reliable sources. That's all it's for.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) He relied literally on the same source you did, the CNN article, which was hundreds of words long and spent the majority of the article talking about the factors that made Gabby's disappearance noteworthy. That is in direct opposition to your point that the case is noteworthy merely because of her gender and race. That line you quoted was the only line that even mentioned anything about other people who have gone missing. So if his source is unreliable, so is yours.

2)He never said that none of those 90,000 cases involved unusual circumstances. He said none of them involved this confluence of similar circumstances enough to warrant this level of media attention. If you're going to try and take him to task, at least read and understand what he's saying first.

3) The race point is valid. Racial identifications are becoming more fluid and complex by the day; your assertion that "normal" people think she's white has no more evidence for it than anything he said when he claimed that she may not be universally viewed that way.

4) Finally, people in glass houses shouldn't be casting stones. You have simply gone around attacking people and trying (poorly) to throw your weight around. You sling personal attacks like crazy at anyone who doesn't agree with you and I can guarantee you, THAT is not what this page is for. 2600:6C5A:423F:306A:71A3:7F47:5F35:9E72 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. No one ever said that the case is noteworthy only because of her race and gender. The argument here is that we have several reliable sources discussing this aspect of the case, and editors who don't want the information in the article. The CNN article didn't spend a significant amount of space talking about this because that wasn't the point of the whole piece. But they still brought it up, because that's what other sources are talking about. Articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have focused more specifically on this. Joy Reid at MSNBC spent a whole segment of her show on the subject. You and others are actively trying to suppress information in reliable sources, accusing everyone but yourselves of acting political.

As to point two, IP's acting like the circumstances surrounding this case are so crazy wild that they explain why nearly 90,000 missing persons cases and nearly 200,000 unsolved homicides haven't received the same degree of attention. No source, not even the CNN article I linked, comes anywhere close to making this point.

Point 3: that she's white is self-evident. The IP merely regurgitated some hackneyed meme about Italians without even knowing GP's ancestry; he simply used her last name as a proxy. My last name is found exclusively in the British Isles but I have half of Western Europe in my ancestry.

So now that the case has been upgraded from MP to homicide, the editor Fuzheado decided to chop down the lead and remove the content that's disputed here, as if it's no longer pertinent to GP's notability. I'll let other editors weigh in here.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the controversy is solely whether the mention of MWWS belongs in the lead, there's been anger at the extent of its mention in other parts of the article. It only ended up in the lead when someone suddenly deleted the media response and public reaction heading and moved most of the section's contents to the lead. Then someone added the section back but left the lead as it was at the time. I agree the lead was too long just before now actually (because it contained basically an entire section that someone transplanted into it).

On the lead: at least a brief mention of media coverage absolutely belongs there as it's key to notability. I'm indifferent to whether MWWS is mentioned there but I lean towards not mentioning it there for now given that the article is still relatively short and a long opening seems less readable. And if the lead is short and only focuses on a few key details of the disappearance and the investigation, adding too many details on media coverage might be giving undue weight (actually the sentence on tiktok aiding the investigation seems excessive right now for the same reason). After the case is essentially over, the article will be way longer and then future editors can decide how much to discuss in what will presumably be a longer lead.

On the media coverage section: there is still persistent "controversy" over MWWS that is getting a bit ridiculous at this point. Why does it have an undue weight template? The section is pretty reasonable when read as a whole. MWWS has one sentence in the middle of like 4 paragraphs. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw plenty of mentions of missing white woman syndrome in connection with this case and it absolutely does seem relevant to discussion of the media frenzy about it. A quick web search[3] finds lots of links to Joy Reid but a fair number of non-Reid sources as well. Anyway, it's notable and should be in the article. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: someone tagged the media section as potentially undue and non-neutral. Go type in "missing white woman syndrome" into Google and count how many articles in the past 24 hours alone have been published on this subject, relating specifically to the GP case, not just in the US, but also in Britain and Ireland (The Independent, Independent.ie). See here [4] here [5] here [6] here [7] and here [8].Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at Disappearance_of_Natalee_Holloway#Press_coverage (which is very well written) and Murder_of_Mollie_Tibbetts#Reactions the section in this article is absolutely fair and doesn't merit the undue weight template.Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the MSNBC article directly contradicts some of the (unsourced) claims that have been made here: In reality, data show the popularity of this particular story is likely due to the way the American media prioritizes missing people — not the specific details of Petito’s case.[9].Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, in that piece, does the author actually back up this statement or provide the "data" they are referring to? It doesn't appear so, and the MSNBC piece is not so much an article as it is an op-ed. - Fuzheado | Talk 21:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPR piece [10].Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the See Also section: People keep adding and removing the link to the MWWS article there. There needs to be consensus on whether it's appropriate to avoid what is now borderline edit warring. I believe it is probably not appropriate; none of the other cases of MWWS include it in the see also section even if they mention MWWS in the text of the article, although the Caylee Anthony article does have see also: media circus and trial by media. The See Also section has no citations or context (although a short annotation could be added WP: see also) and so makes mentioning anything there seem attributable to Wikipedia's analysis, and in this case comes across as unnecessarily pointed. If the see also section were longer it might make sense to include it amongst other tangentially relevant links but right now it doesn't make much sense. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been expanded to say "The case gained widespread attention due to the amount of audio/video documentation and logistical information around the couple's travels, including police body camera video footage, emergency dispatch call recordings, social media posts, and mobile tracking information," but there's no mention of GP's racial/gender profile which has been a subject in just as many if not more reliable sources. The MSNBC article (see above), among others, rejects the notion that the circumstances unique to GP's case explain its notability. Someone also went into the media section and removed the sourced content on the number of missing indigenous women in Wyoming. The NPR link I provided above covers this topic, and there are several other sources if that's not enough (here [11] here [12] here [13]). The template above the media section still hasn't been removed.

It can be argued that the edit warring began yesterday morning with CaptainPrimo and has persisted for over 24 hours now. Several different editors are involved, many IPs, but they're all acting to conceal the same information. As it stands right now there are far too many editors working on this page, to where it's nearly impossible to regulate the edits of what's now a whole group of non-neutral actors, without the situation degenerating into more edit wars. Protection may be warranted.Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another CNN article discussing this [14].I think that this not only explains at least partly why GP is notable, but that it needs to be mentioned in the lead. Because it's not just because she was active on social media, the 9-1-1 call (which was released only after she became national news), or the police body cam. Those were certainly factors, but so is this. There are too many reliable sources focusing solely on this particular aspect of her notability to ignore it in the lead. At least imo.Jonathan f1 (talk)

That's a hugely hypocritical article. Is CNN denouncing themselves as a bunch of racists? As they must know, the reason the media isn't interested in the killings of black women is because their murderers tend to be black men. Everyone likes a good murder mystery. If the victim is a white woman, those who cover it are less likely to be drawn into a racial quagmire. 99to99 (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is very tragic that many thousand people disappear in the USA every year [15]. Just a few can become a symbol for all of them. I think this is just a such symbolic case. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an NBC New York news report discussing the case [16]. About 15 mins in they're interviewing a criminologist who brings up the MWWS subject and states that one, it's a real thing; and two, it's absolutely a factor in the coverage of this case. I've argued this for days now so I'll leave this in the hands of others. But as it stands right now, there's an abundance of reliable sources covering MWWS and associating it with this case, and it's clear that this phenomenon is responsible, at least in part, for the subject's notability. Brief mention should be made in the lead.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't know the specifics of the van groups timeline I hesitate to add this but it is interesting. Apparently near to where the van couple were arguing on August 12 was a store, and a cashier at the store and her wife went missing on August 13 and found dead on August 14. The article does state that there is no connection but think its interesting.^[1] Leaky.Solar (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• there is going to be tons of speculation online in cases like this, so i agree that it doesn't go in the article. have to have some reputable news source making a real connection.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • just collecting more articles of same thread in case it becomes something ^[2], ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaky.Solar (talk • contribs)

As an update, for whatever it is worth, it appears that authorities are ruling out any connection. See this article. I would suggest that many people may be like me - I saw a report about this possible connection a few days ago but when I came to Wikipedia, I was surprised to find it not mentioned at all. I think we should perhaps mention it as a service to our readers, if only to say that at this time, the authorities are ruling out a connection.

I haven't seen any reports explaining *why* they are ruling it out and so it is unclear to me how firmly they are or are not ruling it out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief sentence about it, not too fussed if it is removed though (in 10 years people may view it as strange that we found it important to mention, but I suppose it's fine for the time being). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe because the double murder is in the news often right now that the sentence will help aid those trying to get information today and in the next year, but may be irrelevant later. Do we want to list the victims by name? Miss E Kelly 05:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, they're not that relevant to this case and there are privacy considerations for the names of low-profile living or recently deceased people (see WP:BLPNAME). ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone should consider that police are saying there's no connection only so as not to alert Laundrie that they know it was him. For the longest time they were calling him only a "person of interest" in Gabby's disappearance/murder also, when obviously he's really been a suspect all along. Consider that there have only been 3 homicides total in Moab in 20 years. And now a double murder (probably the first ever there), just when Laundrie was in the area? And at a 'dispersed campsite', with the bodies left in a creek, all similar to how Gabby was found? And one of them worked at the Moonflower, where Laundrie and Gabby got into the fight? The odds of it being him seem astronomically high, and the similarities and timelines should be highlighted and discussed, IMHO. Even if only maybe in a Wiki entry of its own, for their murders, which could be linked here. Here's another link to an article with some details: https://www.moabtimes.com/articles/officers-discovered-slain-couple-partially-undressed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.56.137 (talk • contribs)

Redirect searches for Gabby Petito to Gabrielle Petito.

When a person reaches a degree of public awareness (either through fame, notoriety, or other means), the standard practice for Wikipedia articles is to use the person's name. At this point, Gabby has reached a point where simply calling the article "Gabrielle Petito" is adequate. Editors can and should organize the unfolding events under appropriate headlines. Eventually, when this event passes into history, Editors can clean up the article and make it more concise. - Gorba (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The standard practice is to use the commonly recognisable name. In this instance, that would be "Gabby". – Rhain ☔ 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add onto what was said above, if you take the example of Bill Clinton, the page isn't titled "William Clinton" or "William J. Clinton"--just good 'ol "Bill"! Good point, though. And both Gabby Petito and Gabrielle Petito redirect properly to this page. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a rename discussion above at #Requested_move_21_September_2021.—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Gorba's credit, this is completely unrelated to that discussion. – Rhain ☔ 23:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct since it's the norm that any alternative titles can be discussed in an open RM. However the proposed name is a terrible idea unsupported by policy anyway. The article's focus should be on the death of Gabby Petito which is what's notable. As unfortunate as this may be, it's unlikely Gabby Petito will ever be notable so we will have a biography on her. Instead we will only cover the relevant biographical details in this article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An unmitigated no. By Wikipedia standards, she wasn’t notable until this foul play case which tragically resulted in death. Very unlikely she would’ve had an article for being a travel vlogger by itself. Trillfendi (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we agree that Ms. Petito is personally notable, see WP:BLP1E. Her significant notability stems from a single event: her disappearance, which was the result of her untimely death. Consequently Ms. Petito would not meet the notability requirements for an article titled with her name. The current structure — an article about the notable event, with appropriate redirects titled with the names of relevant parties, including Ms. Petito — is the correct structure according to Wikipedia's policies. General Ization ^Talk 19:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For another, well-established, article that reflects this policy and uses this structure, see Murder of Kitty Genovese (noting that her death was clearly adjudicated to be an act of murder, hence the reason for the use of that term in the title). Ms. Genovese likewise does not have a Wikipedia article, other than the redirect to the article about the event. General Ization ^Talk 19:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the article in line with WP:BLP1E, most importantly removed bolding from the first sentence and reworded it to clearly read as event subject matter.

Should anything be mentioned about the Spotify account that was believed to be shared by Petito and Laundrie? It has been updated since Petito’s death: [22] Thriley (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley - I personally think it's a matter of speculation right now. If and when the Spotify account becomes relevant to the investigation, then it might be added as part of a section on the page dedicated to evidence. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BiscuitsToTheRescue, that’s what I was thinking. I just wanted to note it here as the Spotify account is included in many theories, some of them totally outlandish, that are circulating online. Might be good to address the Spotify thing as well as the totally fake Instagram live story somewhere in the article at some point. Debunking conspiracy theories on Wikipedia is an effective way to combat misinformation. Thriley (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's certainly not a bad idea! What do you think, @Fuzheado:? BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's marginally interesting but needs to be validated by a reliable source. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelevant information right now, unless there is some explanation how it ties into the case. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a new page about the Brain Laundrie and his disappearance due to the increase in articles and tips from people claiming to have seen him? A large amount of the articles seem to be discussing the arrest warrant, neighbors claims for him and his parents and people coming forward claiming he hitchhiked with them. Leaky.Solar (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page will end up being dedicated to the case against him and later named "Murder of Gabby Petito." If you look up Jodi Arias for example, it just redirects to the page about the entire Travis Alexander case--that seems to be the standard on Wikipedia. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, everything here relates to the death of Gabby Petito and forking to a new article at this time would be undue. It would also be inappropriate from a BLP standpoint to make a biography containing primarily highly negative, speculative material on someone who has not even been designated a suspect yet, let alone charged. JoelleJay (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, a page for Laundrie at this time would be inconsistent with our policies, especially WP:BLPCRIME. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:BLP1E. Neither Petito nor Laundrie are sufficiently notable for anything other than the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and apparent murder to qualify for a biographical article at Wikipedia dedicated to either one of them. This article pertains to those events rather than to either party specifically. General Ization ^Talk 02:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's not some famous person and is only notable for this event. This article should be big enough to contain any subsequent investigation and prosecution of the case. No need for new articles. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose he is not notable at this time. cookie monster 755 23:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone tried it and it was reverted. StonyBrook (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is entitled "Gabby", but she is cited as "Gabrielle". Since the title is "Gabby", somewhere in the article is should state that "Gabby" is the same person as "Gabrielle" ... and that "Gabby" is her nickname (what she is known by) ... and "Gabrielle" is her legal / real / official name. I tried adding it in, once or twice ... and someone keeps deleting it. And someone (right there in the lead) added a hidden comment that says "don't add Gabby ... see MOS:NICKNAME". So, what's the appropriate thing to do? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the ibox. Jim Michael (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Info Box is supposed to be a "snap shot" summary of the article's contents. Its purpose is not to "introduce" new material. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Its lead states: An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop version of Wikipedia), or at the end of the lead section of an article (in the mobile version), that summarizes key features of the page's subject. Infoboxes may also include an image, a map, or both. . Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's full name appears in the lead sentence of the article (hence the infobox in this parameter summarizes the lead). The article's title uses the WP:COMMONNAME by which the subject is generally known. There is no reason for this article to receive different treatment than the thousands of biographical articles that follow this convention. General Ization ^Talk 02:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But, see Kiki Camarena. That article starts out with: Enrique "Kiki" Camarena Salazar (July 26, 1947 – February 9, 1985) was an American intelligence officer for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). So, what's the "rule" supposed to be? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Kiki" is not a common hypocorism of Enrique. "Gabby" is a common hypocorism of Gabrielle. Did you actually read MOS:NICKNAME, an instruction you clearly saw because you mentioned it above? General Ization ^Talk 04:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. I'd bet with Spanish-speaking people, "Kiki" probably is a common nickname for Enrique. Or, easily discernible. (I didn't look up exactly what "hypocorism" means ... but I assume I am in the right ball park.) I don't think that the Gabby/Gabrielle connection is all that obvious to some people. Also, why the attitude? I came to the Talk Page with a legitimate -- not to mention, polite and respectful -- question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question "what's the appropriate thing to do?" is contained in the MOS guidance you apparently ignored several times before you asked the question here. The "Gabby/Gabrielle connection" will be readily apparent to most readers, and if not it can easily be inferred from the fact that the article correctly refers to her as "Gabby" in its title and as "Gabrielle" in the lead. Frankly, I doubt that anyone else is giving this as much thought as you are. I don't have an attitude; I was genuinely inquiring whether you had actually read the MOS article, because, if you had, I find it hard to understand what aspect of it you find unclear. General Ization ^Talk 04:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the word "hypocorism" is linked in my answer to you above; if you are unsure what "hypocorism" means, you might spend a moment to find out, because it is part of the answer to your question. (Common hypocorisms are also further explained in a footnote at MOS:NICKNAME.)General Ization ^Talk 04:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can speculate that "Kiki" is a common hypocorism of Enrique, but your speculation will not make it so. You don't need to speculate when it comes to "Gabby"; see Gabby and the numerous examples of biographical articles linked from it, including Gabby Giffords, which follows the exact convention followed here. General Ization ^Talk 04:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The average Gabrielle is Gabby or Gab. We don’t need to add that the sky is blue. The MOS aspect covers that. If you have for example Tom Hanks it’s ostensible that his name real name is Thomas Hanks, so there's no need to put it in quotations. Trillfendi (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just so I am clear: "Gabby" is a commonly understood nickname for "Gabrielle". That is stated above as fact. "Kiki" is a common nickname for Enrique. That is deemed above as speculation. LOL. Nice to see consistent rules, based on subjective whims. LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in an argument, feel free to start one on your Talk page. Personally, I'm not, and whether or not "Kiki" is a common hypocorism for Enrique has literally nothing to do with this article. General Ization ^Talk 20:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhhh ... read the above discussion. "Gabby" as a common nickname is (somehow) a fact. "Kiki" as a common nickname is (somehow) speculation. I mentioned consistent rules. So, yeah ... whether or not "Kiki" is a common nickname is relevant to this discussion and to this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worthwhile to include this information ^[1] in the introductory area of the page? After the event, we can then revise it to later say when the funeral was held. Just an idea. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think, notwithstanding the public post, this would be an invasion of the family's privacy and is not particularly relevant to this article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of funeral announcements. General Ization ^Talk 19:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was something about the funeral on TV news an hour or so ago, so it was at least semi public in that regard. Apparently a local TV station streamed part of the service from the funeral home, with the family's permission. Another part was not allowed to be streamed. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the names of the witnesses and they were added back. WP:BLPNAME is pretty clear that extreme caution should be used when adding the names of people involved in one event and not directly involved. Their witness testimony is relevant, not who they are. Also, Wikipedia is fairly permanent so having people's names outed forever whereas news sources are much more temporary. I also removed the name of her youtube channel, which again is pretty irrelevant. The name of the channel has zero bearing on the case. Adding it is borderline WP:TRIVIA

Remember, that much more details will be added as the investigation continues. We should keep articles focused on the most important details instead of just adding everything. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also including Dog the Bounty Hunter's involvement because we aren't the news and don't have a crystal ball. We don't know if any of this will have any impact on the case at all. If it does, then it will be added. If not, then it's just another irrelevant detail. We don't need to add everything, and as time goes more information will be added so it's best to keep the article lean and focused on the main narrative and outcome. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could not agree more with all of the above; the names especially should be removed quickly. Dog the Bounty Hunter is irrelevant here, and should also be removed, but that's not nearly so pressing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the witness names. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, with the names removed, it becomes hard to follow. I see substitutions such as "another witness" and "a further witness" and "other witnesses". It gets really confusing when one of the earlier witnesses is mentioned again. An alternative might be using substitutes such as "Witness A" and "Witness B" but that doesn't seem right either. --SVTCobra 22:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even putting aside the BLPNAME issue, the previous version of the article was poor [23]. It introduced random people with no explanation of their involvement/connection to the case and left it to the read to try and figure out who these random people were (i.e. uninvolved witnesses). Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The names were removed but have been added back. And there is a discussion on the BLP notice board about this so that I could get viewpoint from the broader community:

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Gabby_Petito

Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[24] I'll leave this for the RS police to decide. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know about the RS police - but what TMZ reports from "their source" isn't going to pass muster. It might get picked up by more credible sources, but right now this citation isn't cutting it. Thanks for adding it to talk.Sgerbic (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dog found something but it could mean anything. If it goes anywhere it will be picked up and reported on. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[25] I think this should be included. It's not guaranteed to be true, but most readers seeking info about the manhunt would consider it relevant, imho. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added: per Brian Entin,[26] Bertolino (Laundrie family lawyer) apparently says to his knowledge, that phone is the one Brian Laundrie left at home and that the FBI already has it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the date of the disappearance to Aug. 27-30th, citing ABC News Timeline (dated Aug 25th) who in turn were citing investigators. Her last confirmed sighting is Aug 27th. The mother received text messages up to Aug 30th, however sources ( 1, 2, 3) cite that investigators and the mother are unsure whether they were sent by Gabby. This Fox News piece is the citation saying she definitively went missing on Aug. 30th, seemingly alluding to the unconfirmed text messages. This is simply sloppy reporting by Fox News, and a good reason why it shouldn't be used as a reference for this article. As far as I know, there has been no change in information, and investigators place her disappearance between 27th and 30th which should be reflected in the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change citation [42] under Disappearance to:

^[1] Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Looks like this is already in place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A 911 call was released today where a hiker found Laundrie in North Carolina. Should it be added to the page? https://fox8.com/news/listen-911-call-released-of-hiker-saying-he-saw-brian-laundrie-near-north-carolina-border/ https://www.wfla.com/news/sarasota-county/listen-911-call-from-man-who-claims-he-spoke-to-brian-laundrie-along-appalachian-trail/ wizzito | say hello! 01:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unconfirmed. We don't need day by day updates on sightings until something meaningfully comes out of it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a reaction from Petito's sister included in the investigation section? I'm not sure where else it would go but it doesn't seem to merit its own subsection seeing as that subsection only has one section right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arecaceæ2011 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appears resolved now that some sections have been rearranged. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2600:100C:B233:1F57:C1AF:D362:82E4:57FD (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting the date of death of Gabby Petito be deleted because the Coroner nor the Medical Examiner has declared the date of death. The exact date of death for Gabby Petito can not be confirmed as August 30th so this is false information. Please delete.

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the debate on missing white woman syndrome be mentioned in the lede paragraph? I removed on version of bringing it up and then inserted a reworked version with this edit. My opinion is, it has become a big enough issue in this case that it merits mention in the lede. Nevertheless, I was quickly reverted. Thoughts? --SVTCobra 03:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainPrimo; @SVTCobra I support the inclusion of the MWWS statement in the lead and have reversed CaptainPrimo’s deletion of SVTCobra’s edit. I understand there has been much discussion of this already on this talk page, so without belaboring all that, I will reiterate that the assertion is well documented and covered by reputable news sources including the New York Times, The Guardian, MSN and Good Morning America. It is part of the story! MOS:LEAD says the lead is intended to serve “as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.” Note the relevant word: “summary”. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate, to inform, and to be comprehensive in as little space as possible. That is why the lead is so important. There has also been discussion about WP:DUE. When SVTCobra made their edit, the amount of space given to the issue in the lead was proportional to the space given in the body of the article (about 5 percent; I worked it out). It is important but not dominant in the lead, in the way same way it is not dominant in the body. It is a fair proportion of the article and entirely worthy of inclusion in the lead. By the way, no disrespect to the victim should be intended or inferred in this edit. Verne Equinox (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not part of the story for anyone who cares about Gabby Petito. It's only part of the story for people who resent that she's getting attention. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's leadworthy at this current time but for people to deny reality and have hostility about reality is a bit pathetic, in my opinion. The truth hurts. Trillfendi (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I follow true crime so I'm aware of plenty of non white victims. The only thing that hurts is that they only seem relevant to disparage a white woman who died and got a lot of media attention. If one cared about non white victims I would think trying to create positive attention would be the more productive recourse. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that media figures create the narrative that this only serves to twist the knife and not highlight the actual dichotomies in the way we as a society respond to violence against women. Trillfendi (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree MWWS should be included in the lede. It's had substantial coverage in WP:RS. @CaptainPrimo you are right, it is disparaging and IMO disgraceful to someone thats just recently been killed. However, this is just how RS is, a reader can form an opinion about MWWS and the state of the mainstream media themselves, Wikipedia is just supposed to give the info. If we didn't include MWWS with due weight it would violate WP:NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainPrimo: Whether you or I find it disparaging or unproductive, it remains a fact that this debate has been sparked. We are not here to give value judgements. --SVTCobra 23:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the debate was sparked or not had no effect on the outcome of the murder investigation and the case this article intends to cover. It was only something discussed in the media and therefore it should be limited to the media section. CaptainPrimo (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:LEDE we are supposed to provide a summary of the content as a whole, in accordance with WP:DUE. MWWS is part of this summary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more in the media section you need to insert into the lead then if you think all of it needs to be summarized in the lead. No, the lead should only contain what's relevant about this case. CaptainPrimo (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any further thoughts on why this should be in the lead? It hasn't affected the case or its investigation or changed the coverage of the case. If there's no further comment I will remove it again. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You speak as if you won an argument. As for your previous statement about other about media coverage being more deserving of inclusion in the lede, I reject that wholly. There's an entire paragraph on media coverage and MWWS is but one sentence. It absolutely has changed the coverage of the case; in fact it has become inseparable. You can look at Jack the Ripper for a similar example. --SVTCobra 21:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack the Ripper coverage changed because you and others started talking about missing white girl syndrome? I don't see the Jack the Ripper lead mention anything about missing white girl syndrome. How has it changed the coverage? I'm curious to see how it has changed besides a few articles being written saying Gabby Petito is getting attention because of missing white girl syndrome. Most articles written about Gabby Petito still don't mention it so it is separable despite what you claim. CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's just the first articles that came up: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/16/us/gabby-petito-timeline-missing-case/index.html https://www.foxnews.com/media/gabby-petito-family-hunt-brian-laundrie https://www.foxnews.com/us/gabby-petito-youtube-video https://www.fox13news.com/news/gabby-petito-memorial-to-be-removed-as-city-seeks-permanent-solution

No mention of missing white girl syndrome in these articles that pop up when I google Gabby Petito. Clearly it is separable. CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I could find articles that just talk about the van. Or any specific thing. And also MWWS as in this article. I am failing to grasp your point. What is your objection? I don't see it as being factual. My sense is you want to remove it on moral grounds. --SVTCobra 23:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said its inseparable. I said it wasn't and proved my point by linking to the first articles that came up which happened to not mention what you claimed was inseparable. You have to actually explicitly look for articles about missing white girl syndrome or just the van to find them. The article you linked you had to go to September while there's articles still coming out today without mentioning missing white girl syndrome. Since there's articles about just the van according to you should that go in the lead as well? CaptainPrimo (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Day-to-day articles don't mention everything. That is what I illustrated. Nothing about mentioning a debate means it is proved. I'm sorry, but I don't think you are arguing in good faith. I'll try to leave it up to other editors. --SVTCobra 00:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your desire to insert something irrelevant to the lead seems to not be in good faith to me too. CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only person who says it is irrelevant. --SVTCobra 17:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainPrimo: In response to edit summaries of your reverts -- something being covered in the body does not mean that it necessarily need not be mentioned in the lead. Per MOS:LEAD lead is a summary of the body and notability is explained early (in the lead). — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something that is mentioned in the body that has no effect on the case or how it's covered needs to be mentioned in the lead anyway? CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has relevance for how it's covered (why it's covered as much), and how it's covered is relevant for establishing notability, which is done in the lead. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a hypothesis of why its covered as much and shouldn't be given undue weight by putting it in the lead. Look at the Natalee Holloway article as to how this has traditionally been handled on Wikipedia. The Holloway article is featured so it would be an example of how to write an article on a publicized murder victim whose media coverage has given rise to similar criticism. MWWWS shouldn't be featured up front because its not central to the case or even part of the case. Rather its a criticism of how the media has covered it and thus should be limited to the media section. CaptainPrimo (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I think it should not be included to the lead, simply because it is described in less than one paragraph in the body of the page (in section "Media coverage"). Yes, 1-2 phrases about media coverage in the lead is obviously good, but I do not think it should mention the "syndrome". Personally, I think it is more notable that "The national spotlight on Gabby Petito's disappearance has given families of other missing persons hope that they too can amplify their stories and find loves ones." [27]. Perhaps there will be more attention to missing persons in the USA after this case. This is a good thing. And yes, Natalee Holloway article is a good example of how this should be handled. My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created a draft article for the Killing of Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner. They are the couple that were found murdered in Moab, Utah in August. There has been some online speculation that their case is linked with this one, but there is no evidence of that. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you! Thriley (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a press conference today, 10/12/21, the medical examiner announced that the manner of homicide was strangulation ^{[1] [2]}. Please update the article to reflect this. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]