Wikipedia

Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously/Archive 4

< Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Mercster in topic Mysterious Definition
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Criteria for inclusion

Latest comment: 7 years ago54 comments8 people in discussion

Should we set to defining what sort of criteria we should use for inclusion? I think it would be useful to help us avoid a lot of discussions down the road. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We have talked about this in the past. I think that a) your list above is a good place to start and b) we should put some version of it in the list intro, perhaps even reiterated in a page notice, so that editors contemplating additions know what should go here, and where those notable cases that don't fit the criteria should go. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean this criteria:

  1. A person who vanishes unexpectedly and without apparent reason;
  2. A person who was not a criminal or suspect fleeing prosecution for crimes they were accused/charged with;
  3. A person who someone else has not admitted to - or been convicted of - killing.
  4. A person who was later found alive or dead.

If so, I think we still have to address the matter of missing children. On my talk page, I had a discussion with another editor over the value of including them in the article. I noted:

"With most children, their disappearances are abductions. The fact that they are a child removes a lot of the mystery, as adults have more tools at their disposal (mental and physical) to defend against whatever forces array to make them disappear. Children have little in the way of such defenses."

I think that the numbered criteria are pretty clear, but I am unsure how to proceed with child disappearances. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If it is known for sure they were abducted, they should be put on a separate list for that (as Jacob Wetterling could have been had this discussion taken place before this year). Our belief, or the belief of many reliable sources, that missing children were abducted does not make it a verifiable fact that they were. It can certainly be mentioned in the blurb, but it isn't an official conclusion until the officials so conclude. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Could we have 5. A plurality of reliable sources assert the disappearance was mysterious. And if not, why not? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd say no, because there is a difference between poetic flourish and actual mysteriousness. Lucan was charged with a serious crime and faced loss of peerage, public humiliation and likely imprisonment if convicted. Mysteriousness does not rely on the fact that a person disappeared or where they disappeared to, but the fact that their disappearance was unexpected and that there was nothing to suggest that the person had a reason to disappear. Lucan had plenty of reasons to disappear and was in fact considered a fugitive, and not a person who wanted to be found. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
You are still assuming that this is why he fled. The Metropolitan Police would be interested in the reasons you have for thinking this. Britmax (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I am not making any assumption. The police considered him their prime suspect int he murder of the nanny. An arrest warrant was issued for him. They officially declared him to be the killer. Since the penalties for murder tend to be a bit on the stiff side, Bingham's flight from justice is neither without precedent or inexplicable. His whereabouts might be unknown, but the reason for his disappearance are not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
What you're really saying, Jack, is RS be damned, Jack knows best. Really, you have been here too long for any good you might do. There is a shedload of RS saying Lucan's disappearance was mysterious. Jack says no, because he was a fugitive, and Jack thinks he knows enough about fugitives to know they don't belong on this page. And ditto anything else Jack does not like. This is an RS free zone, in which arcane circumlutions will be employed to massage the page to Jack's liking. Children, for instance. Who needs 'em? No one. So draft an arcane explanation: "The fact that they are a child removes a lot of the mystery". Case closed. Wikipedia works from RS. Jack does not. ffs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Jack Sebastian has still not addressed what I stated in the section above: that how Lucan disappeared is a mystery, irrespective of why he disappeared. Come on Jack, tell us how Lucan disappeared. If you can't, it's a mystery and Lucan belongs in the list. Tell us. Akld guy (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
As I noted before, it is that the method of disappearance isn't key. Did Lucan take a boat, a car, a plane or a unicycle to effect his escape from justice? It doesn't matter. His disappearance was not unexpected, thereby failing to have disappeared mysteriously.
That is the crux of your misunderstanding, Akid guy: How he disappeared is not the subject of the article. That an entrant disappeared unexpectedly and without cause is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The article's title is "List of people who disappeared mysteriously" with no criterion expressed as to whether it's the why or how or some other criterion. How Lucan disappeared is a mystery, and you can't just dismiss it as "isn't key". For all you know, he was murdered in an act of revenge and disposed of. You have no idea how he disappeared and just admitted that. Akld guy (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Akld guy: With disagreement among editors there needs to be a consensus process. Jack Sebastian has explained that he does not consider "how" to be a criterion for inclusion. I happen to agree with him. He has explained himself. The criteria are being discussed, and there may very well be an RfC on the issue, but please give it a rest until there is an RfC or a clear consensus emerges to support your position. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Akld guy: You should take a look at the article's archives, which offer insight into the factors which go into inclusion. Because most people have a wildly different idea a to what constitutes "mysterious disappearance", a decision was apparently made to utilize the legal definition of such, even though it primarily refers to property law.

And, for the most part, that worked for a while. What returned interest to the article (and the inclusion criteria) was the purging of a great many entrants to the article without references. Some of them were legitimate, some weren't. That has created subsequent discussions as to what constitutes "mysterious disappearance" when it refers to individuals or groups of people.
The first premise of this that the person has in fact disappeared mysteriously. There is no mystery to a person who was being charged with murder making themselves scarce. In the case of Lord Lucan, all of the sources agree that when they couldn't find him, he was declared a fugitive from justice. He was declared the killer of the nanny.
The fallacy connected to this premise is that we need to know how this person disappeared in order for it to be mysterious. It doesn't. To end up in the article, you have to have disappeared unexpectedly and without warning or cause to do so. We don't have to know the how; we focus on the why to define whether its mysterious or not. Why did Lord Lucan flip out and beat a woman to death? It's a mystery. Why he disappeared, not a mystery. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

And it appears that none of the OWNers of this page care about RS. Jack wonders, on my talk page, why I'm so mad at him: it's for that reason - a plethora of RS saying mystery, and Jack saying 'no mystery'. And sorry, but I hate OWNy and illogical behaviour, and having to put up with what feel like trolls (of the under-a-bridge type, rather than the internet type) repudiating a core value of wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, I went to your talk page, seeking to avoid the dramahz of embarrassing you by pointing out that the language in your post here was far too aggressive. I pointed out that one of our actual core values at Wikipedia is to avoid personal attacks and work to stay polite and collaborative. I finally stated that I wouldn't respond to your posts if you couldn't soften the tone of your posts. I am commenting here because you are unnecessarily escalating this discussion, and I don't reward bad behavior with attention. You can either write a post that avoids personal attacks (and get a response), or keep being uncivil (and have your posts ignored by me).
In order to save other editors the trouble, I'll again note that I have logically explained the basis for why Lord Lucan absconded from justice. It wasn't a mystery as to why he left (punishment for a crime), and therefore doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
No, you have not "logically explained the basis for why Lord Lucan absconded from justice". You have given us your opinion on why he did so. You may be right, but no-one knows for sure. "We think" is not good enough. Just out of interest, you say "With most children, their disappearances are abductions." How do you know this? Britmax (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have already noted that Lord Lucan was declared a fugitive from justice, and provided references of such. Being declared a fugitive explicitly tells us that the police officially believe that he absented himself illegally from legal process for a crime. We don't have to determine that he fled a murder charge - the police already did that by declaring him a fugitive. That isn't an opinion. That's fact, not opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Lucan did not disappear as the result of being named the murderer by a coroner's court. He had disappeared long before the hearing took place. In fact, it was around the other way, in that the verdict that he was the murderer was in part based on his absconding. So we are left with the questions of why and how he fled. Most likely he feared he would be suspected of the crime, but we do not know that. WP:BLP prevents me from saying too much, but it's possible he fled in order to make himself the scapegoat for another person who he wanted to protect. I can't point to a reference for this, because the media are also restricted from speculation. All I can say is, keep an open mind and don't seize on the one most obvious reason as his motivation for disappearing. Akld guy (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
We have evidence that Lucan is a fugitive from justice. That has far more weight than your speculation that "it's possible he fled in order to make himself the scapegoat for another person who [sic] he wanted to protect". As for his disappearing before the hearing, that doesn't make him any less of a fugitive. If I murder someone, know that I most likely will be convicted, and want to avoid punishment, I won't wait for the hearing so that I can get locked up and then try to escape. I flee before the hearing. The overwhelming evidence is that he fled to escape punishment. Sundayclose (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)But that's just it, @Akid guy:; we don't have to keep an open mind here. It is not up to us. Wikipedia is built upon what other minds have said and done. We can personally think that he's innocent, or that he's a hippie living in India, or that [Kurgan] took his head and his Quickening.
What we think does not matter. We report only what others say. Period. If the Metro Police and QP decide to treat him as a fugitive, then - in Wikipedia - he is by reference a fugitive. Fugitives running away aren't mysteriously disappeared. We are not making a value judgment on whether Lucan is guilty or innocent, abducted or dead. He is whatever the sources say he is. Those articles which list his disappearance as 'mysterious' are selling papers by drumming up the natural fear people have of being snatched out of thin air. The police and QP gain nothing by declaring him a fugitive, declaring him guilty of the crime and, later, declaring him dead. Their weight as source is more reliable than someone looking to sell a book or litter box liner. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I hope no one minds if I interject a couple of observations. While it's certainly true that WP is source-dependent, to rely exclusively on primary sources based on an independent assessment of their motivations, and to dismiss secondary sources as "just trying to sell papers", runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. And it begs the question. Pronouncing Lucan a "fugitive" tidies the QP's books, but doesn't solve the mystery. He would still be entitled to a trial if he were to ever turn up, so even the prosecutors admit that the question of why he disappeared remains open. No source, primary or secondary, offers answers to any of the obvious questions: Why would Lucan kill his children’s nanny (if he in fact did)? Did he “fall on his own sword", or flee the country? Is he alive or dead? The declaration, as indisputable fact, that Lucan fled to avoid prosecution is classic WP:OR - a conclusion formed by an editor without direct support from any secondary source. Worse, it is WP:WEASEL language - making a blanket statement from a limited set of facts. At least, that's how I see it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I take exception to having my postion considered to to be OR or weaseling. If you don't understand my reasoning, just ask - don't insult me (and don't refactor section headings, while you're at it). I've posted at least half a dozen sources that note that a) he is accused of murder; b) an arrest warrant was issued for him on the charge of murder; and c) the government declared him a fugitive from justice when they couldn't find him. All of the news reports didn't treat him like a little lost lamb who'd been scooped up from the playground. They treated him like a dangerous murderer on the loose.
I understand that a lot of people grew up with the 'mystery of Lord Lucan' in the public consciousness, just as us Yanks grew up with DB Cooper - I totally get that this is one of your sacred cows. That said - there isn't the slightest bit of OR to note that official governmental sources obtained an arrest warrant, declared him a fugitive from justice and later declared him the killer. The government sources are more neutral and reliable, aren't they? They are simply reporting on governmental process, and not musing on the nature of his departure. I'm not saying that newspapers aren't valid sources; I'm saying that Occam's Razor should guide us, not imaginations: "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."
I believe that the focus of what criteria we should use to add entrants into the article is clear (from archives and basic common sense). What makes a disappearance mysterious is not method by which they disappeared, nor where they might be. The mystery lies in the instance of unexpected, unanticipated missing-ness. Freshly-cooked food left on the table, or an auto motor running, or an appointment that the disappeared would never have willingly missed. These are the crux of mysterious disappearances, not the lurid details of what might have happened (though the creep-out factor of disappearances make that morbid preoccupation with what happened after they disappeared normal), or the spiraling conspiracy theories.
The basic point is that what makes mysterious disappearances mysterious is that of all people, the ones who vanished were the least likely to do so. A murder suspect is expected to try and flee. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
In that case, I can safely remove D. B. Cooper from the 1971 entry. "Cooper" disappeared with a ransom of $200,000 from a plane he had hijacked. His article says "a Portland grand jury returned an indictment in absentia against "John Doe, aka Dan Cooper" for air piracy and violation of the Hobbs Act. The indictment formally initiated prosecution that can be continued, should the hijacker be apprehended, at any time in the future." Cooper was therefore a felon fleeing from justice against whom charges have been laid in absentia. Akld guy (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Akld guy: You are correct in removing D.B. Cooper, for the same reasons Lucan does not belong in the article. Cooper's story is fascinating, but his reasons for disappearing are not a mystery. Sundayclose (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Akld guy: I agree, and now I am glad you see as well, Akid. They both belong in another article about uncaught fugitives from justice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Interesting how people take things personally. My observations addressed the argument, not any participant in particular. No offense was intended, and I apologize, Jack Sebastian, if any was taken. I completely understand your reasoning; I simply feel that it's faulty, and runs afoul of various guidelines, as stated, and I think you are setting the bar too high for inclusion on this list. The man disappeared under mysterious circumstances; the mystery remains unsolved, no matter how many declarations government officials issue to get the case off their dockets, and that should be sufficient for inclusion on this list. Reliance on primary sources is discouraged here, because it nearly always forces editors to draw their own conclusions, (WP:OR), and that's what has happened here. Absolutely correct that there's no OR involved in noting all the prosecutorial stuff reported by primary sources; the OR comes when you draw conclusions from that information not supported by secondary sources. The gov't declared him a fugitive because they couldn't find him, not because they knew for a fact that he fled to avoid prosecution. If Occam's Razor is going to be your guiding principle, then you can't assume that that was his motivation, or even that he vanished voluntarily. It's a long OR leap from "I don't know" to "I do know that he fled from prosecution". I realize that you're not going to change your mind - Wikipedians seldom do - but the fact remains that consensus is against you here. (Alkd guy's ironic statement does not constitute agreeing with you.) That's my two centavos on this minor issue; you're welcome to the last word, if you want it; I only stopped by to record my observations. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the apology and your opinion, @DoctorJoeE:, even though I disagree with the latter, as well as your contention that Wikipedians rarely change their minds. Only a stupid person doesn't consider the ideas of others; but i wise person ponders their value against their own and changes his mind to have the view of the greatest value.
I think that some editors are conflating the bewildering and horrifying nature of the crime that Lucan was accused of with his 'mysterious' disappearance. The two are separate in that we don't know why Lucan killed the nanny, stuffed her in a sack and them brutally assaulted his wife before leaving. That's a mystery that only Lucan could answer. We likewise don't know where Lucan went; that too is a mystery. He left the scene of the murder on his own accord and never returned. He made the choice to leave instead of facing police inquiry. The idea of someone trying to escape the consequences of their horrible choices and actions is not a mystery at all. Because the article is a "List of people who disappeared mysteriously," we can't in good conscience allow someone who almost assuredly took flight from the consequences of their actions.
Lastly, the strongest references that we have on the subject consider him a fugitive:
*{noun} A person who has escaped from captivity or is in hiding. Ie.‘fugitives from justice’[1]
* (noun) 1. a person who is fleeing, from prosecution, intolerable circumstances, etc.; a runaway: a fugitive from justice; a fugitive from a dictatorial regime.
(adjective) 2. having taken flight, or run away: a fugitive slave.[2]
By declaring him a fugitive, the sources themselves rob Lucan's departure of any possible mystery. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The primary sources do, yes -- which is what steered you toward your conclusion that the mystery was solved - which, once again, is OR. But I'm not going to rehash my entire argument; I did say you were welcome to the last word. I would only call attention to your reference to "someone who almost assuredly took flight from the consequences of [his] actions". Almost. That's the mystery. That's why the circumstances of his disappearance remain mysterious, and merit his inclusion on the list until almost becomes undoubtedly. And why not? It is, after all, just a freaking list. Another common WP trap is missing the forest for the trees. Okay, good talk. I'm outta here. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "almost assuredly" generally means that there is a scintilla of possibility that virtually anything can be contrary to what is widely believed. It is remotely possible that many people not on the list disappeared in ways that are contrary to the general public's understanding of what happened to them. The people who killed Osama bin Laden and disposed of his body may have secretly worked for the CIA and participated in a conspiracy to keep him alive to torture information out of him. Several members of the Mafia have "almost assuredly" been murdered by other Mafia members, but we don't have a body so there is that extremely remote possibility that they are still alive. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelming that someone disappeared the way any reasonable person would conclude. But we don't add them to the list because a fringe conspiracy theorist thinks otherwise. Sundayclose (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
No need to go reductio ad absurdum, and there are no fringe theories about this guy, AFAIK. The point is that everyone has made assumptions about his motives, based on limited info from primary sources and focal amnesia re: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV -- but the correct, most NPOV answer is that we don't know. In the end, the reason for his disappearance is not known; it's assumed, but we're not a tabloid, we're an encyclopedia. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
With all respect, I don't consider the extreme possibilities that I presented to be reductio ad absurdum. I think they are just as likely as, for example, Lucan disappearing to be the scapegoat for someone he's trying to protect, or Lucan coincidentally having a bizarre accident that made his body impossible to find at about the same time as his estranged wife was murdered. You're right, we're not a tabloid and we don't decide the contents of the article based on such "tabloidish" extreme possibilities. The overwhelming weight of professional opinion is that he is/was a fugitive from justice. Sundayclose (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
With equal respect, and not to sound like a broken record, that's a blanket statement based on a limited set of facts presented in primary sources. Secondary sources have pointed out numerous flaws in the original police inquiry, and list other theories that have emerged since that early assumption was made. The larger point is my disagreement with those who contend that if we know (or think we know) why the subject disappeared, there are no longer any "mysterious circumstances". Where is that written? "Mysterious circumstances" are not necessarily limited to the "why", IMHO. But it's a minor point, and my WP time is finite, so once again—for sure this time—I'm outta here. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I think we all understand that Wikipedia prefers the use of primary sources for articles, as they are closest to the article subject (or, in this case, article entrant). Secondary sources draw conclusions and make analyses based upon the primary sources (I'd usually offer an example of that at this point, but I am presuming you what I'm talking about). The definition that others have used to define mysterious disappearance (as indicated from the archives for this article) focus on the unexpected/unanticipated nature of the disappearance. We do not focus on the how. We don't focus on any speculation at all. The supposed flaws with the police investigation, etc. are not within the scope of this article, but instead the parent article for Lucan. We only focus on whether the entrant fulfills the criteria for inclusion, based upon the unexpectedness/unaticipated-ness of the entrant's disappearance.
As Sundayvlose wisely pointed out (while simultaneously reinforcing your point), we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or a detective magazine. The primary secondary sources and official voice of the police and British government stipulate that he was a fugitive from justice, and therefore not an unexpected disappearance. ipso facto, Lucan doesn't qualify for this article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I know I've announced my exit 2 or 3 times now, but you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP source policy, and that may be part of the problem here. WP does not "prefer the use of primary sources", as you say. Please read WP:PSTS, which explains in detail why the absence of conclusions in primary sources is problematic for WP editors. We try not to rely on primary sources because they nearly always force editors to draw their own conclusions, which is a basic WP no-no because you are doing OR, as I have already said half a dozen times. For the last time (I hope), you are certainly entitled to your opinion that Lucan doesn't belong on this list -- but your opinion (and mine) don't mean diddly here. What matters here are sources, and not primary ones, to the extent that that is possible, which it is, in this case, in abundance. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I must make my most humble of apologies here, as I have been using the term primary source to actually refer to a secondary source. I shouldn't edit while distracted or tired. In the discussion, I was referring to those references which state facts, like the issuance of a police report, declaration of fugitive status and inquest verdict of guilty - all of which are secondary-sourced statements. If my improper mix-up of the terms caused any confusion, please accept my apology. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
What we have here, it appears, is a failure to communicate. All of your examples - police reports, declarations of fugitive status, inquest verdicts - are primary sources. Secondary sources consist of an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. WP articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source; otherwise, it's OR - which was my whole point. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, you are inaccurate. Each of the sources that note the arrest warrant, the fugitive status and the guilty verdict are in fact from news stories that covered the subject. We are not looking at witness statements and declarations from cops at the scene. Everything else you said is accurate. Articles can contain all of that, if its done by the source, not us. The problem was initially of my using the wrong term to denote the sources; the sources themselves are fine. The overarching issue is - and this is the sole reason we have spent walls o' text on this - is that the only people who consider his disappearance 'mysterious' are not utilizing the official sources that considered him as a fugitive (until he was declared dead so his son could inherit the title). What we are dealing with is fringe theories and, while they sell books (like books on DB Cooper and Jack the Ripper and UFOs), adding Lucan as someone who disappeared mysteriously is giving the conspiracies too much weight. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break2

You're aware, I think, Jack, that I have major problems with what I perceive to be your WP:OWN approach to this article and talk page, that I have major disagreements with the arguments you've made w.r.t. criteria, and that I have major issues with your (and Sundayclose's) argumentation on this page. (I accept your views differ from mine, and that you have problems with my arguments and style.)

I have taken the trouble to read and then to reread, multiple times, all of the article discussions to date; and especially your contributions. I come away with grave doubts that you are fostering a good-faith attempt to reach consensus; and instead have the impression that you are seeking to impose your conception of an appropriate set of criteria over any and all objections, however and wherever stated.

We need to be clear that right now there is not a consensus on criteria, and that a consensus has not existed in the past. Appeals to an alleged status quo or to talk page history cut no ice (although talk page history is always instructive).

Where you appear to differ from some others who have entered into the discussion over time is your insistence that the assertion that an individual is a fugitive from justice renders them disqualified from a listing in this article. You are entitled to your view. Some others support your view. Some others do not support your view. There is not a consensus on the matter and I would wish you to act as if you accept that lack of consensus.

You are well aware that Lord Lucan is very much a litmus test for a number of us. As Pleonic commented in Archive 3, In Britain Lord Lucan seems to be regarded almost as a synonym for "mysterious disappearance". Pleonic is absolutely correct. Lord Lucan is almost certainly the gold-standard for "mysterious disappearance" in the UK. That Lucan should be included in the list, and that the delisting of fugitives is not supported, has been (to greater or lessor extents) argued by Akld guy, Britmax, Roisterer; by Pleonic (perhaps only to the extent of treating Lucan as a special case); and by me. And of course, that Lucan nor fugitives should be included has been argued by you, Sundayclose, and Daniel Case. (Doubtless there are others on both sides of the argument that I have not listed here: and I do not seek to represent any of their views here - they are all capable of speaking for themselves.)

Presuming that you accept the assertion that in the UK Lucan is a synonym for "mysterious disappearance", you must see that it is gravely problematic, at least for UKians, to see his exclusion from the list.

It is also gravely troubling that you appear to wish not to be guided by reliable sources. You make comments through the discussions about not acting as armchair detectives, not being Sherlock, etc; but in regard to Lucan you are in the vanguard deciding that the vast array of RS that identify Lucan as a "mysterious disappearance" should have less weight than your own prejudice against the inclusion of fugitives.

I'm aware of WP:AGF, and aware that I have said, above, that I do not find you engaged in a good-faith approach to consensus-building. I identify your repeated refusal to give other viewpoints so much as the time of day; the very considerable snark you employ when it suits you, and the very considerable sanctimony you employ when that appears to be a more advantageous rhetorical device than snark. I'm not intending to provide a string of diffs to evidence these comments. Editors who have read through the disussions will either agree or disagree with me.

I don't know where we go from here. I find the criteria you have set out to be wholly inadaquate in all sorts of ways (apart from the fugitive/Lucan business). I don't see much virtue, yet, in discussing these other shortcomings whilst we are unable to resolve the Lucan problem. I don't think an RfC will help: it would be just another discussion; it is not a silver bullet.

I do suggest that use-cases may be of some help; but only if there is actually a willingness on your part to concede well-made and evidenced arguments that differ from your point of view. Lucan, clearly, is such a case, but there are many others that we could look at to see how each case is viewed in light of suggested criteria and in light of reliable sources.

I'd be interested to hear what others think. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Thanks for sharing your opinions here. Please stop accusing anyone on this talk page of acting as if they WP:OWN the article. Editors are entitled to express any opinions on this page without having to deal with that type of personalization and false characterization. It distracts from the important matters of discussing the disputed content. That includes you, me, Jack Sebastian, and anyone else who wishes to comment here. You have been asked politely several times to stop. I normally would have posted this on your talk page, but that has been done, to no avail. So please stop. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Wow, that was something. Especially after you have been warned twice before about making personal attacks. I have two options now. One is to simply report you, see you blocked and be done with you. Second is to address one last time and then simply ignore your petulant behavior.
Your entire argument that I am demonstrating OWNy behavior disintegrates upon your accusation that I am "not interested in consensus-building", and that I am 'unwilling to entertain any point of view but my own'. As you have "read and reread" the article discussions, you may have noted that there are numerous discussions that I initiated with regards to setting up criteria filter for entrants for the article. You may have also noted that I engage with anyone who expresses a point of view; I am looking for someone to disprove my policy-view of sources that declaring someone a fugitive removes the mysteriousness from the disappearance. No one has done so as of yet.
As well, you make a fine point about how "Lord Lucan is very much a litmus test for a number of us...'UKians'". That suggests to me a certain ownership of Lord Lucan's story as a subject in the UK - akin to that of Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood or Jack the Ripper. I'm also sensing some resentment towards anyone who'd seek to challenge the 'mystery' of Lord Lucan.
I haven't done this; the sources from within the UK have done this - first by trying to arrest him, then declaring him a fugitive when they couldn't find him and then finally finding him guilty in absentia. I am not going to even address all of the solid sources that offer the idea that he was a hippie in India.
Sources have relative weights; sources noting the official position of the Yard and the Crown pretty much tell us the bare bones of the truth. The sources that you think I am ignoring are speculative at best, offering conspiracy theories and other nonsense. I am not saying that they can't be used...in the article about Lucan. But here is a very narrow set of criteria. By its very dictionary definition, a fugitive is someone who has absconded from justice. Show me the mystery in that. That's what I am asking for.
Every other entrant into this article was someone who had no reason to vanish. There was no warning signs, and that's what makes every entrant in this article tragic; a life abruptly interrupted. According to sources, Lucan squandered his life after murdering an innocent person. D.B. Cooper squandered his after jumping out of an airplane with ransom money. Neither are mysteries because criminals choose to vanish. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
If you recast your argument without the abuse and the patronising tone (which, I would remind you, is our turf) then we may have a deal. Britmax (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
To indicate how fucking stupid the idea is that I'm all OWNy about the article and unwilling to reason/work with others, a
Allow me to offer a compromise that I can live with:
  • Lord Lucan (39), Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, commonly known as Lord Lucan, was a British peer who disappeared in 1974 after the murder of his children's nanny and assault of his wife, who identified him as the assailant. An arrest warrant was issued for Lucan, who was declared a fugitive from justice and later convicted of murder in absentia. Despite rumors of Lucan living in various parts of the world, he was declared dead in 2016..(ref of the murder) (ref of the arrest warrant) (ref of the conviction) (ref of being declared dead) (ref of rumor of him living in India).
That could work, as it is factual, and still preserves the cultural icon of mystery for folk Across the Pond, and allows for a presence on this list. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I was dealing with adults who can communicate without using abuse. Please let me know when you can do this as your suggestion is a fairly good one taken on its own merits. Britmax (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I accept your apology for refactoring my text. Please accept mine for being pissed at a user who thought that personal attacks were in any way useful. A good editor looks past the bs and cuts to the meat of the matter, so I offer the bypassed meat of the matter again:
  • Lord Lucan (39), Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, commonly known as Lord Lucan, was a British peer who disappeared in 1974 after the murder of his children's nanny and assault of his wife, who identified him as the assailant. An arrest warrant was issued for Lucan, who was declared a fugitive from justice and later convicted of murder in absentia. Despite rumors of Lucan living in various parts of the world, he was declared dead in 2016..(ref of the murder) (ref of the arrest warrant) (ref of the conviction) (ref of being declared dead) (ref of rumor of him living in India).
- Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Great. Now that's sorted we can talk about what seems, to me at least, to be a reasonable approach to our problem. Britmax (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
So, barring further dissent, I'll add this back in at the end of the working day:
  • Lord Lucan (39), Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, commonly known as Lord Lucan, was a British peer who disappeared in 1974 after the murder of his children's nanny and assault of his wife, who identified him as the assailant. An arrest warrant was issued for Lucan, who was declared a fugitive from justice and later convicted of murder in absentia. Though theories abound as to his fate, he was declared dead in 2016..(ref of the murder) (ref of the arrest warrant) (ref of the conviction) (ref of being declared dead) (ref of rumor of him living in India).
- Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty close to what most of us favored in the first place. So, bravo. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. It hardly needs to be pointed out that Lucan was declared the murderer by a coroner's court partly because he disappeared, and that this right to name a person as a murderer was removed from coronial court hearings soon after. In other words, the legislation allowing coroner's courts to make such a determination was flawed since in this case the named person was not present to defend himself. Akld guy (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a reference that notes that the guilty verdict was overturned? If not, we state the official record. The entrant's article is the place to address those concerns, or Coroner's Jury (where I believe it is noted). If that explanation is satisfactory, I will add it back in after making sure there isn't going to be dissent about this. For the same reasons, I will also be adding DB Cooper back in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
There was no guilty verdict, since Lucan was never put on trial...and therein lies the problem. The coroner's court had the option of stating that the nanny was murdered by a person or persons unknown, but instead named Lucan as the murderer. That's not a guilty verdict. The anomaly was noted, and legislation was amended to ensure that an inquest could never again name as murderer an absent person who had no possibility of defending himself. It's all in the article. Akld guy (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, all of the sources say he was pronounced guilty of murder by an inquest jury on June 19, 1975. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. etc. etc.). Yes, the right to pronounce verdicts was removed from the coroner inquest shortly after this judgment, but - and this is key - the judgment was never reversed, which is why it has stood until his declaration of death. We focus on the facts, not supposition or speculation. We are not going to give any sort of sway to the conspiracy theories for this entry, except to note that they exist. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
So, since no one has voiced any other problems with Lucan going back in as described, I'll add it at the end of the day. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Way back on 7 August 2015 I added, with WP:RSs, a notable case from Australia, the Disappearance of Michelle Pope and Stephen Lapthorne on 25 August 1978. See here. It was removed because it had no article. Allegedly 'by consensus'. Is this the practice here?I know WP:redlinks are allowed. I had hoped someone more skilled at writing than me might be encouraged to create that page . 220 of Borg 08:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Disappearance of Sheila Fox‎

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Is Disappearance of Sheila Fox‎ able to be readded? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


Singular argument expressed in different ways

Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

Proposed deletion of Amelia Earhart entry

I intend to delete the Amelia Earhart entry on the grounds that there is no mystery about her disappearance. She perished somewhere in the Pacific after her plane ran out of fuel and crashed. Akld guy (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably advise against it, since we do not know that Earhart went into the Pacific. Again, the criteria you seem to be misunderstanding is that of intentional disappearance versus unintended disappearance. I think that every source you could possibly find will agree that it was not Earhart's intention to go missing.
If she didn't perish in the Pacific, where did she go? Where could she have gone? Her radio signals were heard at full strength by the Itasca shortly before contact was lost. Where could she have possibly gone? Even if she crashed on an uninhabited island, she obviously perished in the Pacific. Intentional versus unintentional is irrelevant and is being put up as a smokescreen. Akld guy (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
It's described as "mysterious" for a reason, Akidguy. If the sources don't know, then we don't get to voice our own theories. We aren't citable.
And you might want to avoid characterizing my edits and arguments as "smokescreens", as its considered a personal attack. Intentional disappearances versus unintentional is pretty clear, and not an opaque description at all. Assume good faith please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What obviously happened to Amelia Earhart is that she made a wrong turn and nobody expected it, and when they couldn't find her where she was supposed to be, they freaked out, and she's actually alive and well, but out of context nobody recognizes her.


I'm kidding, duh. Sea Captain Cormac 23:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

Proposed deletion of Charles Rogers

I propose to delete the 1965 entry Charles Rogers from the list. His parents were found murdered and he had disappeared. He was thus a fugitive fleeing from justice and doesn't belong in the list, according to criteria put forward on this Talk page. Akld guy (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, the problem her is that Rogers was not, in fact, a fugitive. The police were seeking him on a material witness order, which is definitively different than an arrest warrant - he wasn't a suspect but someone who police thought that, having lived there, might have invaluable information pertaining to the crime. Did he do it? Not my job or yours. Had he been a suspect, there would be a perfect place for this entry on a 'fugitives from justice'-type article. Since that's not the case, I think they still have a place here. The title of that article should probably change, though; identifying him as a murder suspect when he hasn't been formally ben charged (either in person or in absentia) is a violation of BLP.
Rogers was a fugitive from questioning and therefore a fugitive from the justice system. Since you have used the argument elsewhere on this page to deny the listing of Ronald Jorgenson on the grounds that you think he was fleeing from justice, I see no reason why the Charles Rogers listing should not be denied on the same grounds. Akld guy (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately (for you), the references noted within the article for the person make no mention of his being a suspect or a fugitive. Are we supposed to take your word for it and just list him as one anyway? Because we can't. We note only what reliable sources say; otherwise, it's original research. I'll address your issues with Jorgenson below. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
You have decided to disallow the listing of Jorgenson on the grounds that he was fleeing from justice (actually he was on parole at the time). He might have been fleeing from a jealous husband, or from criminal associates who he had ripped off. We don't know, therefore his disappearance is mysterious and he should appear in the list. Akld guy (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jack (surprise!) While one could reasonably suspect him of his parents' murder, he is not (unlike Lucan) under indictment for it. The police have no duty to find him and arrest him. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, Daniel Case is referring to Charles Rogers, not Ronald Jorgensen. Akld guy (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Understood. You and I reached an accord on Ron Jorgenson. If, as the sources you presented, he had completed his sentence and wasn't in fact on parole (in lieu of incarceration) or a fugitive, then his disappearance is indeed mysterious. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rebecca Coriam

I propose to delete the 2011 entry on Rebecca Coriam, whose disappearance is no mystery. She undoubtedly fell overboard and perished. Akld guy (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"Undoubtedly," eh? Perhaps you could have a future with Disney Cruise Lines' PR department (j/k). We do not know what happened to her, and neither do the sources. Since we follow the sources, her death remains mysterious. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
+1 "Mysterious" simply means cause unknown; it's a legal phrase. Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I mean, she could have also been snooping around in the engine room, slipped, fallen into the machinery and burned up-- WHY DO I THINK OF THESE THINGS?!Sea Captain Cormac 23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

Proposed deletion of Maud Crawford

I propose the deletion of the 1957 entry on Maud Crawford. She disappeared and a court declared that she had been murdered by a person or person unknown, without her remains ever being found. According to criteria being put forward on this Talk page, a legal determination of murder is sufficient to render the case not mysterious, and the entry should be deleted. Akld guy (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are mis-apprehending the criteria, and in some of the other grouped instances, mangling the intent. We are focusing on the nature of the disappearance, not the likely cause. She disappeared under mysterious circumstances, and no source has determined where she went of her current disposition.
The Maud Crawford case is exactly the same as the case of the disappearance of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. In the case of Crawford, a court declared her dead as the result of foul play by a person or persons unknown. In the Smart/Hope case, a court found Scott Watson guilty of their murders. In both cases, bodies have never been found. Same thing. Why retain the Crawford listing, yet seek to delete the Smart/Hope listing. You're inconsistent and I'd like to know why. Akld guy (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Easy. We have a separate list of murder convictions without a body. Someone was convicted of murdering Smart and Hope, even if their bodies were never found. No one has ever been officially suspected of killing Crawford. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
To be frank, I tend to find this sort of semantical theatrics annoying, but I get that perhaps I am not thoroughly explaining my point of view. If that's the case, please accept my apology. I am trying to help you understand my point that those who fulfill the following criteria should be on this list, as per the article title:
  1. A person who vanishes unexpectedly and without apparent reason;
  1. A person who was not a criminal or suspect fleeing prosecution for crimes they were accused/charged with;
  1. A person who someone else has not admitted to - or been convicted of - killing.
  1. A person who was later found alive or dead.
I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. In all four of the above criteria, the nature of the disappearance is mysterious - ie, is unknown. The person disappearing had no substantial reason to disappear (ie. being accused of a crime or being a parolee on a life sentence). The missing person was not murdered by a confessed or convicted murderer (ie. Watson's conviction of Smart and Hope's murder). And lastly, that the person or their remains didn't later turn up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
None of the first three criteria are implied by the article's title. The only criterion is that the disappearance be mysterious, which means that it took place under circumstances that are unclear and unresolved to this day. You're attempting to impose your criteria on the list and you have no mandate, and certainly no consensus, to do so. In fact, consensus ran against you in the case of Lord Lucan, which has been restored after you removed it on the made-up criterion that he should be delisted because he was a fugitive fleeing from justice.
Only your fourth criterion is valid, that of a person later found alive or dead, and there is a list of entries for such cases at the end of the article. Akld guy (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with the definition of the operative word for the article"

mysterious * [mi-steer-ee-uh s]
1. secret, esoteric, occult, cryptic. Mysterious, inscrutable, mystical, obscure refer to that which is not easily comprehended or explained.(1)
Difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify.(2)
‘his colleague had vanished in mysterious circumstances’
‘a mysterious benefactor provided the money’

Armed with this definition from two separate sources, we can proceed on the assumption that my interpretation of the word's meaning is on pretty solid ground.
We can be fairly certain that first criterion is obviously met - the person has vanished unexpectedly, after all. lol
The second criterion is likewise obviously met because a person who is suspected of a crime or seeks to abscond from custody is obviously going to flee punishment for said crime. This is obvious. Most of the time, the suspect is caught. Sometimes they aren't. it isn't 'mysterious' in any way.
The third criterion is just as clearly met because when someone is convicted for their murder, like 'oh yeah, I fed them to the sharks', the person's whereabouts aren't - you see where this is going, right? - mysterious anymore. They are dead, either by admission or conviction of the guilty party.
So, I've already given you a heads up about mischaracterizing my edits an assuming good faith, so I won't revisit it here, except to point out that attacking your fellow editors is an crap-ass way to find common ground. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Lars Mittank

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

28-year old German tourist - DIsappeared in July 2014 under very mysterious circumstances, he had to stay behind after a tourist trip with friends to the Gold Beach area in Bulgaria since he suffered a ruptured ear drum during a fight while there. In the days following the departure of his friends, he became increasingly paranoid, constantly calling his mother and telling her that he felt he was being followed. It has been suggested that the antibiotics he was given might have caused hallucinations, or that he had a head injury that had not been diagnosed. He is last seen in CCTV footage of Varna airport calmly walking into the medical center there on the day he was supposed to leave, then running out again after 40 minutes without his bags. He has not been seen since. I don't know how to edit Wikipedia articles so could somebody else please edit this? Here are links to the CCTV footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUdyrwRz8I#t=1m55s and there are many newspaper articles about him as well as an Interpol search alert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:8C:2F66:8200:688D:FE80:61E:7904 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Were there solid, reliable references for this, I'd support inclusion. This story has been on the net a whiel, but I don't know if its real or not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I've found three reliable sources, but some information is hard to come by (it's testing my GCSE German to the limits - I took it 28 years ago!) When I have enough, I will have a crack at writing an article. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This has gotten a lot of attention online; we should probably have an article if we can find the sources. I *do* think there are some in English.

Personally, I'd wait till the 3rd anniversary next summer so we could get the article on DYK for that day. But that's just how I do it, of course. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you're okay doing that. Having gone through a DYK recently, I'd recommend having it ready a month earlier than necessary and it can sit in their holding area. They have been having a lot of problems with a backlog - they are doing a sterling job, it is just taking some time. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Spooky! Sea Captain Cormac 23:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

Arthur Kingsley Porter

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vanished in 1933 on the coast of Ireland, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kingsley_Porter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:8001:BDD5:3CC4:A2F4:902E:3AD1 (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Charles Horvath-Allan

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, all. I have added an article for Charles Horvath-Allan who disappeared in 1989. He was a British National, but I have written it for Canadian English as he disappeared in Kelowna, British Columbia. Could someone who is Canadian take a quick look at the article for me, please? MOS:DATEFORMAT states either DMY or MDY can be used, I used DMY as that is what my wikibrowser defaults to, but if wish to change it, please do so. Thanks, regards, and I hope all is well in Canada. The joy of all things (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Article is missing Haleigh Cummings, who disappeared in Florida in 2009.

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I don't know the process or rules of editing an article, nor do i feel comfortable being responsible for proper citing of information. But i do know this article has omitted Haleigh Cummings, who disappeared in Florida while being babysat by her father's 17 year old girlfriend / eventual wife. 96.240.88.203 (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

By consensus, we only include subjects of existing WP articles. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

And this article should be treated as an article of encyclopaedia, not a missing people’s report listing anyone and everyone, including petty murders. How many of those names after 1960 warrant an entry into this article, except may be five or six? A simple example is, Amy Fitzpatrick. Who is she? She doesn’t even have a wiki page on her name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.9.137 (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Amy Fitzpatrick, disappeared 2008, has an article about her disappearance. Akld guy (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wot about Anastasia ? ( Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia )

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

SHe certainly "disappeared mysteriously", even if her body was eventually found... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.154.198 (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Once someone's body has been found, they are by definition no longer missing. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The list also includes solved cases or at least presumed solved cases. Dimadick (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

She was more of a disputed death than a missing person. There were contemporaneous accounts of her being among the executed dead. There were later rumors that she survived, and those who claimed to be her like Anna Anderson. As we know now, the Rolling Stones were right and "Anastasia ... screamed in vain". She does not and would not have belonged on this list by any criterion. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please....

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please guys, use the Show preview button before submitting your edit. It's becoming tiresome clicking through multiple edits to see what's been done. Some editors are making 6,7, or 8 edits to complete entries when they could be done in one. You should be able to leave the edit window open and open a new window for google searching. Please don't force other editors to waste their time. Akld guy (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of people who disappeared mysteriously. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Timur Mutsurayev

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Current whereabouts of Chechen singer and bard are also unknown. I think he also should be included in this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.43.141.100 (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

His disappearance isn't mentioned in his Wiki article. Might be good to put details about it there before you add it here. Pleonic (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Don Kemp

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I recently created the article on Don Kemp. I wasn't sure whether it should go under "Solved Cases". His case is solved (in that his body was found 4 years after his disappearance with no signs of foul play), but there are still unsolved aspects of his disappearance.

Long story short: Don (single, 35) moved from New York to Wyoming. His car was found abandoned on a remote Wyoming highway in mid-winter with no sign of him. Body found nearby 4 years later. The police believe he abandoned his car and walked into prairie on his own volition and died soon after in a blizzard. But several months after he disappeared (i.e. after he was supposed to have died), a friend in New York (with an unlisted number) returned home from vacation to find a bunch of mysterious phone messages that the friend is convinced were Don's voice, and the messages came from the area in which Don disappeared. When she rang back, the person on the other end of the phone first said Don was there, then that he wasn't, then hung up. The police tracked down the location of the number and the guy denied being the caller or knowing Don Kemp, hired an attorney and moved away a few weeks later.

What do others think? "Solved cases" as it is officially solved, or not because of still unsolved aspects of his disappearance?

Thanks all. MorbidStories talk) 12:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it's definitely solved as far as this article goes since his body is no longer disappeared, but certainly still surrounded by mysterious circumstances. You could note them briefly in an entry under "Solved Cases." Pleonic (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Order of 'Solved cases'

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any logic to the order of the Solved cases list? I can't find any. Neither chronological, nor alphabetical. It's very confusing in its current state. -- Kazerniel (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No there isn't; everytime I look at it I keep thinking it needs to be sorted. Shall we start? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It appears that they have been sorted chronologically. The joy of all things (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Page move with no discussion

Latest comment: 6 years ago30 comments8 people in discussion

This article was moved from "List of people who disappeared mysteriously" to "List of missing people". To my knowledge there was no discussion of the move. Subsequently the lead sentence describing the contents was changed. Does this significantly change the criteria for inclusion in the article? There has been quite a bit of discussion on this talk page about not every missing person qualifies as having "disappeared mysteriously". Should this move have been discussed? Sundayclose (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. there was no discussion and the new title does not agree with the content of the article, which is people who have disappeared mysteriously. Suggest this move is discussed, once again, and original title, possibly re-instated. David J Johnson (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The page was moved requested by User:Yintan at WP:RM/TR for: 1) Current title is an unlikely search term, 2) disappearances are mysterious by definition, 3) new title is in line with List of missing ships, List of missing aircraft, and other "missing" lists. I'm in agreement with this move. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we need some opinions here. Pinging some people who have been active editing the article, as well as the editor who made the move. Feel free to ping others; I'm not trying to canvass one point of view: Davidgoodheart, Yintan, Akld guy, Jack Sebastian, AlexTheWhovian. Sundayclose (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I think there has been some dispute about whether all cases of missing people are "mysterious". For example, the remains of some 9/11 victims have never been found, but they have been declared legally dead and there is no real mystery about what happened to them. But I would appreciate other opinions on this matter. Sundayclose (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
But not all 9/11 missing cases are notable. If they are notable enough to have a wiki article, and are missing, they should be included. It's like having a "List of people from X city", you're obviously not going to include everyone in the city, just the notable ones. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Some are notable and have Wikipedia articles. I think those are cases that have been disputed for inclusion on this page. If there is a consensus to include such people in the article, that may resolve that issue. Sundayclose (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
As I said at the move request, "1) Current title is an unlikely search term, 2) disappearances are mysterious by definition, 3) new title is in line with List of missing ships, List of missing aircraft, and other "missing" lists." Especially points 1 and 3 carry a lot of weight, in my opinion. I didn't expect this move would need a discussion, I thought it was obvious. We don't have a List of ships that disappeared mysteriously, it's a List of missing ships. Also, virtually all people on the list haven't "disappeared mysteriously". They were lost on battlefields, kidnapped or abducted, drowned at sea, did a runner, etcetera. There's nothing "mysterious" about that. And in any case, the original title is now a redirect so there are no broken links or problems like that. Kind regards, Yintan  18:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
At this early stage I have no preference until I see some convincing arguments and ponder a bit. But the move should not have taken place without notification and discussion here first. We don't all monitor the move request page, so it was discourteous to move without seeking support here first. I'm highly tempted to move it back. Akld guy (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Akld guy: I don't think it was taken in a discourteous manner; I can see how the move may have been considered uncontroversial to some. Unless you have the page mover right you wouldn't be able to move it back because of the redirect anyway...but you would have to go here to contest an undiscussed move...however, talking it out here is a much better plan. Besides, Yintan has brought forward great points in my view to keep the current title, but none to change the title back. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I only moved it after it was listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests under "Uncontroversial technical requests"; I'm effectively just the messenger. I have no opinion on it either way. -- AlexTW 23:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This was not a trivial move. It should have at least been notified here. Akld guy (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely opposed to a change of name, but perhaps the new name is inappropriate. "List of missing people" conveys the sense that these are people who could yet be found alive. It seems an inappropriate name for people who died hundreds of years ago, or for those who would likewise certainly be dead by now. These people make up a large section of the list. Is it appropriate to list as missing Ambrose Bierce who died disappeared in 1914 aged 71? To complicate matters, we have a section devoted to those who disappeared and they or their bodies were later found, or the circumstances became known. Is it appropriate to list those under a title that calls them "missing"? I suggest that a more appropriate name is "List of people who disappeared", thus dropping "mysteriously" from the original name. It has correctly been pointed out that "mysteriously" is redundant. Akld guy (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I think people who returned or were later found shouldn't be listed anyway, whatever the name of the list. They are no longer missing nor have they disappeared. The other 'missing' lists don't mention found subjects either. Also, the current list is an almost random collection of people whose whereabouts, at some time or another, are/were unknown. Amelia Earhart should be on it, yes, but Sidney Reilly (shot as a spy in Russia) shouldn't because we know what happened there. The same goes for, for example, Agatha Christie. Trying to find a title that will adequately cover the current collection is virtually impossible, it's just too unfocused. In short, the title isn't the problem. The contents of the list are. Yintan  07:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me a ping on the topic. I think the move wasn't the best one to make. True, Tintan - other Stuff does indeed Exist, but that's not a compelling argument to advocate a change. And, as people are not ships or whatever, sometimes their disappearances are in fact out of character and mysterious. Your assertion:
"They were lost on battlefields, kidnapped or abducted, drowned at sea, did a runner, etcetera. There's nothing "mysterious" about that"
is one borne solely out of you Sherlocking the entirety of the article to an incorrect least common denominator. Why not just create a redirect called "missing people"? Sorry, I think your assumption that no one would care wasn't really thought out. It was a bold move, but I advocate returning the article back to its previous title, and creating a redirect or two in the off-chance that somepne doesn't know how to type in strange, mysterious, missing, people or some combination thereof. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It would have been very helpful to peruse the archives of this page and refer back to this discussion before any such move away from "disappeared mysteriously". Certainly the current title makes sense as a redirect, but as I concluded the logic behind that title was sufficiently convincing to retain it going forward. Given the prior history of discussions of the title, to move the page just like that is an ill-considered move at best.

And regarding Agatha Christie, I think, we should create a subsection for people who did return after a disappearance but declined to explain their whereabouts (like that French lawyer in the 1970s whose name escapes me right now), or did not account for their absence convincingly (which would allow us to include Aimee Semple McPherson). Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • One of the following options might be appropriate:
  • 1. Retain the current name - List of missing people
  • 2. Move back - to List of people who disappeared mysteriously
  • 3. Move to - List of people who disappeared
    • Support. This simply drops the redundant 'mysteriously' from the original name. We are not obliged to conform with other articles on missing ships or planes, which may even be inappropriately named themselves. A redirect from "List of missing people" would easily solve the search problem that was of concern to the recent mover. The problem with the current title is that it implies that the people are missing and can be expected to be found, whereas many are long dead. Akld guy (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 4. Another name? Your suggestion
Maybe List of people who have gone been missing or List of people who have disappeared to better include those entries which are eventually found, as to say they have been missing at some point. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether you're a native speaker of English but I am. Both of those options carry the sense of an ongoing situation. Sorry, but they don't apply in the case of those who disappeared so long ago that they are now dead. Akld guy (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
ahahaah If you looked at my user page you'd see clear as day it states I'm a native speaker of English...but anyway...this whole page is about ongoing situations. They've gone missing and it is an ongoing situation of where they may be. The title you've suggested does not take into consideration those who have been found, as you've stated, so we're going to need to come up with something else. These are my suggestions to compensate for that. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Some editors lie on their user pages. Those pages can't be trusted. The title I suggested does not rule out those who have been found. Akld guy (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That's why we have a pretty clear policy on Assuming Good Faith. Be nice, or get slapped with a trout. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Recording the fact that at this point Vaseline struck out "gone" from his/her earlier post. Comments before this point refer to the unstruck version, "gone missing". Akld guy (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Just letting you know, you can use male pronouns if you need to mention me.
To me, "List of people who disappeared" implies they just disappeared and that was that; never to be found. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Vas here. With respect to Daniel Case' opinion, I think it should change back. Changing the title changes the point of the article. List of missing people could include unrecoverable 9/11 victims or people who are just missing. The emphasis is - and should be - on folk who disappeared mysteriously. The guy who makes my Subway sandwich is missing today, because he's not in. Compare that to 'the guy who makes my Subway sandwich vanished mysteriously after walking into the office in the back. Big difference. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Restoration to the original title would be my second choice, but it's a lot more appropriate than the current title. Akld guy (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My opinion (in case I haven't made it clear): Restore to "List of people who disappeared mysteriously". That's the only option that fits the content of the article. Sundayclose (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Since there was no consensus to move the article, and there appears to be a clear consensus against doing so, let's move it back. I nominate the person who moved it in the first place. I'd do it myself, but I'd likely fuck it up royally, not having done that before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Pinging AlexTheWhovian to see if s/he is willing to move it back. According to a comment above, moving it requires page mover rights. If no one is willing to move it, it may need to be addressed at WP:Requested moves. Sundayclose (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
He. And   done. -- AlexTW 04:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of people who disappeared mysteriously. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Status of "solved" cases?

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

While I understand that solved cases were once mysterious, should the "solved" cases be moved out of the article? It seems weird to me. They are no longer mysterious disappearances. Maybe another article for "Solved mysterious cases?" Just asking Mercster (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with a split off into another article. The solved section is inappropriate, and the article is too big and unwieldy. Akld guy (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Added Confusing Section tag. Feel free to improve, I'm a newbie at the tag thing. Mercster (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. Someone can disappear mysteriously, and then if the mystery is solved, that doesn't mean the mystery never existed. And apparently the IP who removed the tag had the same opinion. Here's an analogy: If I run for President of the USA but I'm defeated, that doesn't mean I was never a candidate. If I'm included in the article "List of candidates for U.S. President", my name should not be removed and placed into a newly created article "List of failed candidacies for U.S. President". In fact, that's how it has been done: List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008. The issue of whether to split the article is an entirely different matter, but it shouldn't be because of the reasoning that "they are no longer a mystery". At one time, there was a mystery. I personally oppose splitting the article. All of the items fit the criteria for inclusion at the beginning of the article: "This is a list of people who disappeared mysteriously, and of people whose current whereabouts are unknown or whose deaths are not substantiated, as well as a few cases of people whose disappearances were notable and remained unexplained for a long time, but were eventually explained, or the body found". No need for two articles when they all involve the same topic. Sundayclose (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Solved case are not mysteries. This list is way too long anyway and, arguably, indiscriminate. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There have been five or six removals from this list in recent weeks due to articles being deleted at WP:AFD. There have been comments in those discussions that plenty more of the items listed should not in fact exist on Wikipedia. I've just nominated another - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Charity Aiyedogbon. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Examples of those that have already gone:

Mysterious Definition

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I am not sure if "mysterious" is well defined. For example the entry for "Luis Macedo ..., American fugitive". It doesn't seem that mysterious on why he would disappear. I haven't gone through them all, but why is he (as example) included on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.57.115 (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It would help me immensely if you would indicate the date when Macedo went missing. I'm not prepared to search through the entire article to find it. Akld guy (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Akld guy: Please tell me you know about the "ctrl-F" function in which you can easily search for a word on any given page you are on? Anyhow, it is in 2015. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Ctrl-F. In which browser? I use the Edge browser. And where do I find the Ctrl key on my smartphone which I'm using to send this while out and about? Akld guy (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It works in Edge too. On your phone it's a little harder. On my iPhone I have the Google app and it lets me do it as it has a find function. Good luck. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 11:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does work in Edge. Now that's something that's not publicized. I learned something. Also just found that it works in Chrome too, in addition to Ctrl-G which I already knew about. Akld guy (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I use Chrome. Hmm didn't know ctrl-G did the same thing as ctrl-F. If you already knew about ctrl-G then you could've looked up his name? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I could have. But I usually keep Chrome running on my Gmail account and use Edge for browsing because it scrolls smoothly, unlike Chrome which won't even start scrolling until a page is nearly fully loaded and even then is jerky. So don't shoot the messenger; instead, it would have been simpler for the OP to be more explicit about where Macedo was; it's a huge article. Akld guy (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That's true. Back on topic, with Macedo, I agree it's not very "mysterious"...again there is some flaw with the naming, but in the previous thread, it was hard to pinpoint exactly how to do so. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
My preference was List of people who disappeared, but it got no support. It covers all cases, including those whose circumstances were solved. On the other hand, a good argument for keeping "mysteriously" is that in many cases the person's reason for disappearing is not mysterious, but the ongoing failure to reappear or be located is a mystery. This is so for Lord Lucan (1974). He was apparently a fugitive from justice or thought that he would be unjustly blamed, so no mystery there, but it's mysterious how no trace of him has been found. Macedo falls into this category too. Maybe this answers the OP's question. Akld guy (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

For an explanation of the use of "mysterious", scroll down to Pleonic's edit in this discussion. I have long agreed that we need a separate list for anyone such as Lucan who was a bona fide fugitive from justice, but until we do I think we're stuck having them here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that some of these aren't that mysterious. If you go backpacking in an area with rampant crime like part of Mexico, pakistan, etc... well, you know... just food for thought. Mercster (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
As an example, should we be adding the deaths of gang members in south central LA, when noone knows who did it and noone will talk? It's unsolved, but it's not mysterious... Mercster (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I am slowly starting to add suspect articles (not really mysterious at all) at the bottom of this talk page.

Mercster (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_who_disappeared_mysteriously/Archive_4&oldid=1136259546"