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

Template:Annual readership

@CRS-20: Please don't add space before ref tags as you did in this edit: [1]. It's contrary to MOS:CITEPUNCT. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More aesthetic CRS-20 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception of "aesthetic" is at odds with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which states, "All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space" (emphasis added). The MOS governs our aesthetic here. In addition, it is mind-boggling that you are edit warring over such a trivial change, but if you change it once again (having now been asked by three different editors to stop) we will discuss it at WP:EWN. General Ization ^Talk 03:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20: And you may now respond to the report there. General Ization ^Talk 05:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20: One more thing, please don't make a whole bunch of insignificant white space and capitalization changes like you did in that edit I linked. It makes it hard to find the real changes. Finding your ref error in that edit is like looking for a needle in a haystack. I already asked you twice on your talk page not to do that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20: Please stop changing the date in the Template:Use mdy dates. October is correct, as you can see in this edit: [2]. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE CRS-20 (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So this is not October? Wow! WWGB (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's ... it's not!?!?! I'm scared. Help us, Obi-Wan Kenobi! 50.111.2.158 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template is updated automatically each time the MOSNUM dates.js script is executed, and reflects the date when the script was most recently executed, not its earliest execution against the article. The script was executed on October 17 by FlightTime, hence the template reflects |date=October 2021. General Ization ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New FBI statement. Apparently, the parents took them directly to his campsite. Interested parties will edit accordingly. 50.111.2.158 (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified human remains and articles of clothing/personal items belonging to Brain Laundrie were found submerged in water at Carlton Reserve in Venice, Florida on Wednesday afternoon. Laundrie's parents were at the reserve with law enforcement when the remains and items of interest were found, family attorney Steve Bertolino said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakodo (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the facts first. No one knows if it's him. Trillfendi (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said unidentified human remains.

Content relating to this has already been included. I think it's fine. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On October 21, the FBI confirmed through dental records that the skeletal remains found at the reserve belonged to Brian Laundrie. Brian Laundrie is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakodo (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Denver confirmed it https://twitter.com/FBIDenver/status/1451302161690898435 --HurricaneKappa (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to change the article title name to "Murder of..."? Using "Killing of..." in the title sounds a little dramatic and over-sensational, in my opinion. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see WP:BLPCRIME, WP:KILLINGS and WP:KILLINGOF — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else think there should be a article specifically for Brian now that he has been confirmed dead? Killers are only as great as their killings, but he was a figure that has and will occupy the American news cycle for weeks upon weeks. It's only fair that Brian gets his own article, considering his fame and abundance of articles detailing unique characteristics of his character. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk header about existing consensus on this. Your argument doesn't move this ahead because it's not in line with WP:BLP1E. It just reinforces how the event is notable, and this is the article for the event. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does the part about Laundrie's parents planting evidence belong here? Yes it's being reported by sources, but sources are not saying who is spreading these rumors, and WP:BLPGOSSIP says "Ask yourself ... whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward removal. Not WP:DUE seeing how it's unclear how widespread these rumors were. For inclusion there should be more in depth coverage of these speculations. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would be determined by WP:WEIGHT, and I've only seen Insider and Fox News talk about it. Just say no to Fox News in general. I don't think Insider's reporting is enough to merit inclusion. Also remember, that BLP rules applay for this article, so even if you're trying to debunk baseless rumors, you might end up giving them credence by even including them. People might read it and skim over it or half remember reading the page, and only see the accusation but not the further context. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ward330: where are you seeing that she worked in Florida? Neither source says that as far as I can tell. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok much better now. I also have doubts about "nutritionist." We don't have a source that says she worked as a nutritionist. What we have is the bodycam transcript in which she says she worked as a nutritionist. In the same transcript she says she's from California, and I don't think that's true. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzheado: There's a 'Disappearance' h2, and a 'Discovery of Petito's remains' h3. So... does one die from being a missing person? This is bad from the standpoint of WP:PLA. More emphasis is needed, in real chronological order, on the killing, that is disentangled from the narrative of how we learned about what happened. This is in response to your revert. Regards.

Edit: Basically, we must say in own voice that Petito was killed in the article to justify the title, and it can't only be in the lead. To us editors it's a conventional "formal truth" that if coroner ruled homicide it's an instance of "Killing of...", but not to a casual reader. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, and will add that it's bad manners to remove a section that has a comment above it that says "don't remove it". The comment serves as a notice that this has been contentious in the past, and that it should be discussed on the talk page before removing it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the removal, and it's hard to grapple with this, because of the peculiarity of this subject. I just want this to be earnestly discussed, and a consensus-based solution to be found. Edit: at the very least, I'd say that my reinclusion of what had earlier been removed without an edit summary was responsible, but the result probably wasn't ideal. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way but on Wikipedia it's called WP:BEBOLD / WP:BRD. I left a clear and detailed summary with a firm rationale for the edit. Putting a "don't remove it" comment does not grant a particular viewpoint privileged status so hopefully we can come to a consensus on this. - Fuzheado | Talk 21:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think readers will overlook the first word of the article's title? Jonathunder (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The title comes from the subject, and the subject comes from what the key information presented in the body is. Key information is that Petito was killed, but we never say "Petito was killed" (except in the lead which is just a summary of the body, and can't stand on it's own -- as of now, it's desynchronized from the body) We can't rely on the title to do the work of transmitting crucial information to the reader. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've since made this change: diff — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't understand the complaint and why you are so insistent in inserting her death into prose that doesn't fit the chronology. The section you are editing is on the "Disappearance" and is describing the circumstances around Gabby going missing. Narratively, it is illogical to declare her death, as the investigation (next section) is what led to the discovery of her body and the determination that she had died. I'm quite puzzled why WP:PLA is being quoted here, as folks getting to this section of the article, as per our MOS guidelines on writing in the inverted WP:PYRAMID style, would know already the subject died. Let's take stock:

• As Jonathunder said, the name of the article is "Killing of..."
• The first sentence of the article is: "Gabrielle Venora Petito was an American woman who was killed..."
• The third paragraph of the article is: "On September 19, 2021, Petito's remains were found..."

We have reached this point of the article with this crucial context so WP:PLA is not a valid concern here. I've edited hundreds of articles of these types over 15+ years, and this is the first time I've heard this line of reasoning to break the narrative flow. Since you have been editing less than a year, I'm not sure what your comment "To us editors..." refers to. I'm open to hearing other rationales, but the explanation you have provided goes against the custom and letter of our best practices for articles of this type. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get this out of the way first, do you contest this subsequent edit: diff? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find that edit/addition in the "Disappearance" section extraneous and illogical and would prefer to see it removed for the same reason I stated above. But in a show of good faith, I'll not act on anything related to that edit until we've discussed it more. - Fuzheado | Talk 21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'll start with saying how I'm not complaining, and I'm not insistent, and I'm manifestly an editor. We're within the bounds of the normal editorial process. Context is great, but we need text. The body needs to stand on it's own, because lead is only a derivation of it, and has no standalone content, and the title is underpinned by crucial information in the body, not by some overarching context of infobox + lead + implicit claim in the body. So we need to say somewhere in the body explicitly that Petito was killed during the timeframe specified by the coroner, not just that the coroner made a certain finding. I tried a h3, okay, not optimal, very short section, sticks out, I tried the h2 top content and since right now the heading is "Disappearance" this is obviously also not perfect (heading can be "Disappearance and killing/homicide" however). What I'm looking at is a satisfactory way to have us say that she was killed in own voice in a relevant spot. There may not be a perfect solution.

This relevant spot can't be as late as the coroner's finding. When you say "narrative", implying a chronology from that, you obviously refer back to what I refer to when I said the narrative of how we learned about what happened. This is not encyclopedic. It simply isn't the relevant chronology -- it's the chronology of the discourse, not of the event as such. We need to employ a more matter-of-fact style of accounting for what happened, taking in the totality of what is verifiable at this point, with appropriate hindsight. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Investigators have released two bits of information which have been conflated on this page:

1. They believe she disappeared between Aug 27-30
2. The coroner believes she died 3-4 weeks before her body was found.

Conflating these two things counts as Original Research. It sounds very nit-picky, but authorities haven't combined these pieces of information, so neither should we. Disappeared does not mean death, just the last time she could be confirmed seen alive by someone. The text messages sent between Aug 27 and 30th have been questioned by family members and investigators alike as whether they were sent by Gabby or someone else. This places her last confirmed sighting at 27th in the Tex-Mes restaurant.

Based on what has been released, she could been taken and then killed some time after the 30th and still fall within the timeline the coroner put out. It is very likely that investigators will put out their final report on the case and their timeline of what they think occurred. They will likely give their final opinion on whether they think the text messages are genuine as well. We should wait until that occurs however until we put definitive dates on timeline. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't nitpicky at all. It most certainly counts as original research to say she was killed between Aug 27-30. I was about to start this same section that you did. Edit: this concerns the event infobox btw. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"a music video to raise awareness about gun violence that was inspired by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting"

Assuming the music video was about general gun violence, not just gun violence inspired by a shooting, this is ambiguous in a bad way... I'd fix it myself but the article is locked down :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:72:0:B53:A460:1345:A4A0:D09E (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]