Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Gabby Petito/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 21 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved until a coroner's report is available confirming it as a killing. In the discussion below, a consensus arose that the FBI's initial report does not constitute an official declaration of the manner of death, as per WP:KILLINGS. It obviously goes without saying that a coroner's report would be sufficient to move it--in fact, I feel confident in asserting that there is a consensus to move immediately if and when an official coroner's report confirms the death was a killing. A new move request shouldn't be required once the report goes out (if it does). However, to precede the coroner's report by pre-emptively declaring it a killing would be a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as repeatedly referenced in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Death of Gabby Petito → Killing of Gabby Petito – Per https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/gabby-petito-autopsy-body-found-b1924349.html. The FBI has determined the cause of death to be a homicide. Per WP:KILLINGS this should be the title until a murder conviction. SK2242 (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Death has been notified of this discussion. SK2242 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. SK2242 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. SK2242 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Women has been notified of this discussion. SK2242 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - I understand the sentiment, but let's not rush any renaming. These are just the first conclusions, literally minutes old. "Death of" is more neutral and stable for now, and it is common for articles of this nature to stay with this type of title while the facts get sorted out and more time passes. Also your conclusion is not correct - the FBI did not determine anything. "Teton County Coroner Dr. Brent Blue ruled the death a homicide in his preliminary findings." (CNN) -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, "FBI Denver has announced the manner of death of Gabby Petito is a homicide" [1], but I agree, let's wait for a while. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Always risky to go with a news outlet's interpretation. Better to go with the FBI's own words: "Coroner Blue’s initial determination for the manner of death is homicide. The cause of death remains pending final autopsy results." The FBI didn't announce the manner of death was a homicide – it said the coroner's determination was. Twitter - Fuzheado | Talk 22:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The FBI is going to rely on the coroner's conclusions. That's how cases and evidence work, agents themselves are not going to examine as they have no medical skills. As for exact cause, it's clearly about how she was killed rather than being a question of whether she was. The title should be changed to "Murder of Gabby Petito". Agreed it's just recently been found out, but people aren't going to say she's disappeared any longer now. The number of sources calling it her murder will eventually become high, there's no point in waiting for an inevitability. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
"Initial determination" being the operative phrase here. We don't even have the final autopsy results, just an initial guess. This often changes as evidence emerges. Too much is changing moment to moment for the title switch just yet. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@LéKashmiriSocialiste: There's quite a bit of original research, speculation, WP:CRYSTAL and absence of reliable sourcing in your comments. No reputable news outlets are referring to it as a murder at this time, so this is not currently a reasonable option. If things change in the future, we can revisit. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The manner of death has been determined as homicide and I don't remember seeing any mention that that was "preliminary". The cause of death (which is not the same thing as manner of death) has not yet been determined. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: Disregard the part about murder. I didn't know how homicide exactly works since I'm not a native English-speaker. I take my suggestion back. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I quoted it exactly and gave a reference. "The FBI tweeted that Teton County Coroner Dr. Brent Blue ruled the manner of death a homicide in his preliminary findings." (CNN) - Fuzheado | Talk 10:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Support "killing" - Fuzheado I just said I don't know what homicide means and my original comment clearly states that I was thinking homicide means murder. Don't know what's so hard for you to understand. Regardless I support changing it to "Killing of Gabby Petito". It might not be murder but it is a killing. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I also support killing. If she just "died", she wouldn't have an article, and if she did, it would be under a section of the article titled "death". Because she was killed in the manner she was, that is why she is notable enough to have an article. EytanMelech (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - As much we all know she was killed and we have many reasons to suspect and believe it was a crime, the fact that the coroner has determined it was a homicide does not mean it was criminal. Definition of homicide: Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense. So let’s keep the name as is. Bohbye (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be a crime to be named "Killing". Certainly don't use "murder of", but "killing of" is reasonable as reliable sources are reporting it's a homicide. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Affirmative, I agree with requested move, but am hesitant to bring it to fruition. Who was her killer? Suspect #1 is clearly her fiancée, but we don't know for sure. Unknown0124 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree This seems like a much better title, as her death has been ruled a homicide by forensics, even if her fiancé did not do it. Killing is more descriptive. RobotGoggles (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Support per WP:DEATHS with the FBI determining the cause of death was homicide. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
No, the FBI did not determine the cause of death. It was simply relating the coroner's "preliminary findings" and also "The cause of death remains pending final autopsy results." It would be too soon to move this article, especially not to a title with "murder." -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Support "Murder of Gabby Petito" and I'm sold. BOTTO (T•C) 00:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: I've decided to change my vote, as it would be proper for wait for the autopsy to be completed and Fuzheado is correct about no reliable sources acknowledging it as an explicit murder. BOTTO (T•C) 14:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
No reliable source has yet used the term "murder of Gabby Petito" so this title would be inappropriate. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose for now, doing so prematurely compromises the neutrality of this article. "Killing" and "Murder" implies that someone did something wrong, which has not been tested yet. It is important with crime to remain as neutral as possible, as it often contains information about living people. Aasim (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - Until adequate detail is brought forth about the manner of homicide, I do not support changing the title yet. Trillfendi (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Support killing, Oppose murder; a murder requires a conviction. Nobody has even been charged yet. I do support killing of Gabby Petito has the corner's office ruled it a homicide. cookie monster 755 01:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • To add to my RM, I strongly oppose "Murder of Gabby Petito" unless someone is convicted of her murder. This has been standard practice on other articles such as Murder of George Floyd. SK2242 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Killing of Gabby Petito. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't feel that a pagemove is needed, but either way is fine. I'm actually quite surprised that while Nicole Brown Simpson's biography says:
    An autopsy determined that Brown had been stabbed seven times in the neck and scalp, and had a 14 cm-long (5.5 inches) gash across her throat, which had severed both her left and right carotid arteries and breached her right and left jugular veins.[31] The wound on Brown's neck was so severe it had penetrated a depth of 1.9 cm (0.75 inches) into her cervical vertebrae,[31] nearly decapitating her.[26][32] She also had defensive wounds on her hands.[31]
it demurs from saying that Brown was murdered. Although OJ Simpson's post-acquittal search for the real killer iirc came up fruitless, it seems bizarre to omit the M-word with regard to Brown. Brown's biography at least cross-links List of unsolved murders, which does a better job of acknowledging reality. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support killing with future murder. -- GreenC 03:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait 24-48 hours I'm reading the above linked image and post on Twitter from FBI Denver. To reiterate that says "Coroner Blue’s initial determination for the manner of death is homicide. The cause of death remains pending final autopsy results." It sounds to me like the probability is non-zero that this determination could change in the next day or two. If it does, it will look like Wikipedia took a position on the matter before all of the facts were adequately verified and that will look like bias. If in 48 hours, the FBI hasn't walked back any of these statements, then we change it from "Death of" to "Murder of" or "Killing of." - Scarpy (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait until the final results are out. As far as I know the final autopsy results have not been released yet, and as other users pointed out if we move the page it would result in Wikipedia taking a stance before the final ruling. We should be neutral in our coverage. Keivan.fTalk 03:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Support - since this has been determined to have been a killing, not an accidental or natural death. However, we cannot refer to this as a murder since no one has been convicted of a murder in this case yet. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
It has not been "determined" a killing. We need to stick to the facts, and right now it is: "Coroner Blue’s initial determination for the manner of death is homicide. The cause of death remains pending final autopsy results." Also, there has been no conclusion that it was non-accidental as manslaughter, negligent homicide, et al are possible outcomes. We should not jump to conclusions that have not been declared. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/FBIDenver/status/1440421552042897415?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1440421552042897415%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fus%2Fgabby-petito-remains-confirmed


  • Oppose Coroners have been known to retract initial statements. We should wait for the official autopsy to be released in order to credibly determine if she was in fact murdered or died of some other cause. The only logical name is "Death of Gabby Petito." "Murder" and "killing" both implied intent, which we have not clearly determined yet. LTClipp (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Nice Stop hand image, :LTClipp, I'll have to start using that myself ;). BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
No please don't. It's not worth making a fuss about but this really isn't the place for it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
But the biographical information is just confined to one section of the article. The rest is about her death, the investigation, and the reactions. Love of Corey (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
It's quite normal for a biography to focus on a particular phase or aspect of the subject's life – their main claim to fame. The point is that we don't need to make the title fit that. WP:PRECISION states that "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic." In this case, the common name of Gabby Petito is adequate and so we don't need any more. This then removes the need to argue about Death/Killing/Murder/Whatever. It's the KISS principle. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Homicide refers to a killing and since it has already been ruled as a homicide, there's no problem in naming it so. We don't have to wait to find out the exact detail of how she was killed. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep death (oppose killing) just like all articles for people are regardless of cause. The reason can be mentioned within the article if she was killed/murdered. However, if later it's determined she was murdered, perhaps changing it to "Murder of Gabby Petito" is logical. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support killing per WP:KILLINGS Eevee01(talk) 16:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose killing no need to rush to call it a crime. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    No one is suggesting we call it a crime. They are many reasons for legally killing someone. Killing does not infer illegality or guilt. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:DEATHS - The currently understood manner of death is homicide. [2] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:DEATHS. If everyone would put sentiments aside and look at the S.O.P. for page titles of this type of subject is "Killing of" - FlightTime (open channel) 18:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:DEATHS. Using the article naming flowchart provided on this page, "Killing of Gabby Petito" is the appropriate title. The coroner did rule her death to be a homicide, but since no arrests or convictions have been made for it, the flowchart says we've got to go with "killing". I'm sticking with the policy on this one. Helen(💬📖) 19:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose both killing and murder per WP:DEATHS. The FBI's "initial determination" is not reliable per how articles are named: "A determination of the manner of death should be made by some official authority, such as a coroner, coroner's inquest, medical examiner or similar expert person or organization." Remember, the FBI--while probably correct that this was a homicide--has an interest in labeling this a homicide in the early investigatory stage, particularly given the public interest in this case. However, there has not been an official determination by any official medical examiner or coroner, or any final report of autopsy. Preliminary opinions by the coroner or ME are not adequately reliable under WP:RELIABLESOURCES. A final report is expected to be released in the coming days according to official reports, so the question of renaming can be taken up at that time. Regarding the use of "murder," WP:DEATHS is clear that that word requires a conviction. "Murder" is conclusory and is a legal term of art. This is not a "murder" until a jury determines it was a murder, or until a defendant pleads guilty to murder. Map42892 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks – this is an excellent summary of why our policy demands that we wait for a definitive conclusion from an official autopsy report, and not react an "initial determination" irresponsibly. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    It’s not - it’s very clear it’s a homicide, as already stated by official sources. I extremely disagree in the strongest possible way that this is in any way irresponsible. It’s also very misleading to state the FBIs words and a preliminary report as an "opinion". SK2242 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    "Very clear" based on what? Let the details come out so we can report on the facts without synthesis. Look at the page move history for Killing of Trayvon Martin for comparison. – The Grid (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose both killing and murder per Map42892‘s argument. Thriley (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose both killing and murder per Map42892. "Homicide" is a very wide term that can mean a number of things. We don't know what the exact manner of Petito's death is yet. The manner of death could have been something like strangulation, or it could be more something along the lines of "criminally negligent homicide" (ie, Petito was left abandoned in the middle of the wilderness and was left to die). "Death" is the most proper term to put in this article's title for the time being.Canuck89 (Converse with me) 22:46, September 22, 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose killing and murder, ok with "homicide of..." based on FBI press release this morning that referred to Petito's homicide ([3] 2nd paragraph). I still don't support any rename, but find "homicide of" less objectionable than the other suggestions. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC) (aka 67.164.113.165 above)
  • Oppose any move per Map42892. This is induced conditioning by the FBI. 2001:1970:564B:4700:594:1851:1A09:4827 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Huh? What are you talking about, "induced conditioning"? The FBI isn't attempting to alter the public's view or the facts of the case. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm mainly rephrasing Map42892‘s point on the FBI opportunistically bringing the public's attention to this case and by extension perpetuating MWWS. 2001:1970:564B:4700:594:1851:1A09:4827 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose both killing and murder (for now) per Canuckian89. Wait until our sources report something final, official, or in more detail. The sources are clear that what we know now (which isn't much) is preliminary. After an official action of some kind (autopsy report, homicide arrest warrant, charging document) is reported, we can discuss a move with more confidence. Maybe if multiple sources were reporting something in more detail (e.g., "_____ news spoke to a coroner official who said the cause of death is _____ due to _____.") we could consider a move. Vadder (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now). There are several Wikipedia articles titled "Killing of..." so a rename of the title of this article may be justified, once it is definitely proven that Miss Petito was killed and more is know about how she died. Until then, "Death of" is more appropriate. Truthanado (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's just unencyclopedic sounding. Maybe "Murder of" but certainly not "Killing of". 109.78.253.48 (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It was officially ruled a homicide by the coroner. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 13:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    They are only preliminary results and no final autopsy report has been released. [4] - Fuzheado | Talk 19:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems best to edit the title based on confirmed facts, when it may be changed to either "Killing" or "Murder" — which remains unknown, so change is premature.Sunny Clark (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per FBI autopsy detailing her death as a homicide. Whether it be by Laundrie or some third party, this was a homicide. If the killer is caught and charged with murder, then the title should be renamed to fit accordingly as it was with Murder of George Floyd. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    No, there was no "FBI autopsy" and the final results are still pending. Changing anything at this time would be premature. [5] - Fuzheado | Talk 13:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Support on the notion that while the killer is not yet officially declared, the fact that it is a killing is the scientific consensus per the autopsy. NovumChase (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
It's important to note "scientific consensus" is not a term we see in reliable sources. There has only been a preliminary report and the final autopsy report has not been released. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: Please see WP:BLUDGEON, replying to every comment that has a different opinion to yours is unnecessary. SK2242 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
On the contrary, when over and over again people are leaping to conclusions that are clearly not factual or correct, it is necessary. Any closer of this discussion should be aware of this. - Fuzheado | Talk 19:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no "scientific consensus" in autopsies. --No coffee, please. (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, for the 'preliminary findings' justification mentioned by a dozen others. It will likely be eventually be considered a killing officially, but not yet. --No coffee, please. (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, let's not be hasty and veer into WP:CRYSTALBALL. The truth will prevail. Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2021

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

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

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

New Title - "Gabrielle Petito"

Redirect searches for Gabby Petito to Gabrielle Petito.

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

The standard practice is to use the commonly recognisable name. In this instance, that would be "Gabby". – Rhain ☔ 06:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Just to add onto what was said above, if you take the example of Bill Clinton, the page isn't titled "William Clinton" or "William J. Clinton"--just good 'ol "Bill"! Good point, though. And both Gabby Petito and Gabrielle Petito redirect properly to this page. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
There's already a rename discussion above at #Requested_move_21_September_2021.—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
To Gorba's credit, this is completely unrelated to that discussion. – Rhain ☔ 23:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
That's not correct since it's the norm that any alternative titles can be discussed in an open RM. However the proposed name is a terrible idea unsupported by policy anyway. The article's focus should be on the death of Gabby Petito which is what's notable. As unfortunate as this may be, it's unlikely Gabby Petito will ever be notable so we will have a biography on her. Instead we will only cover the relevant biographical details in this article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
An unmitigated no. By Wikipedia standards, she wasn’t notable until this foul play case which tragically resulted in death. Very unlikely she would’ve had an article for being a travel vlogger by itself. Trillfendi (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Even if we agree that Ms. Petito is personally notable, see WP:BLP1E. Her significant notability stems from a single event: her disappearance, which was the result of her untimely death. Consequently Ms. Petito would not meet the notability requirements for an article titled with her name. The current structure — an article about the notable event, with appropriate redirects titled with the names of relevant parties, including Ms. Petito — is the correct structure according to Wikipedia's policies. General Ization Talk 19:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
For another, well-established, article that reflects this policy and uses this structure, see Murder of Kitty Genovese (noting that her death was clearly adjudicated to be an act of murder, hence the reason for the use of that term in the title). Ms. Genovese likewise does not have a Wikipedia article, other than the redirect to the article about the event. General Ization Talk 19:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the article in line with WP:BLP1E, most importantly removed bolding from the first sentence and reworded it to clearly read as event subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch Emis (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

New 911 call

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

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

Family Reaction Under Investigation

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

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

Killing of Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner

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

Should there be a new page for Brian Laundrie?

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

I think this page will end up being dedicated to the case against him and later named "Murder of Gabby Petito." If you look up Jodi Arias for example, it just redirects to the page about the entire Travis Alexander case--that seems to be the standard on Wikipedia. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely not, everything here relates to the death of Gabby Petito and forking to a new article at this time would be undue. It would also be inappropriate from a BLP standpoint to make a biography containing primarily highly negative, speculative material on someone who has not even been designated a suspect yet, let alone charged. JoelleJay (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
No, a page for Laundrie at this time would be inconsistent with our policies, especially WP:BLPCRIME. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Also see WP:BLP1E. Neither Petito nor Laundrie are sufficiently notable for anything other than the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and apparent murder to qualify for a biographical article at Wikipedia dedicated to either one of them. This article pertains to those events rather than to either party specifically. General Ization Talk 02:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Oppose he is not notable at this time. cookie monster 755 23:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment Someone tried it and it was reverted. StonyBrook (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Final autopsy report released

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

References

  1. ^ https://people.com/crime/gabby-petito-cause-of-death-revealed-homicide-strangulation/
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t86s6Msy2x0&ab_channel=WFLANewsChannel8
 Done Trillfendi (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Lede and MWWS

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

@CaptainPrimo; @SVTCobra I support the inclusion of the MWWS statement in the lead and have reversed CaptainPrimo’s deletion of SVTCobra’s edit. I understand there has been much discussion of this already on this talk page, so without belaboring all that, I will reiterate that the assertion is well documented and covered by reputable news sources including the New York Times, The Guardian, MSN and Good Morning America. It is part of the story! MOS:LEAD says the lead is intended to serve “as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.” Note the relevant word: “summary”. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate, to inform, and to be comprehensive in as little space as possible. That is why the lead is so important. There has also been discussion about WP:DUE. When SVTCobra made their edit, the amount of space given to the issue in the lead was proportional to the space given in the body of the article (about 5 percent; I worked it out). It is important but not dominant in the lead, in the way same way it is not dominant in the body. It is a fair proportion of the article and entirely worthy of inclusion in the lead. By the way, no disrespect to the victim should be intended or inferred in this edit. Verne Equinox (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not part of the story for anyone who cares about Gabby Petito. It's only part of the story for people who resent that she's getting attention. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe it's leadworthy at this current time but for people to deny reality and have hostility about reality is a bit pathetic, in my opinion. The truth hurts. Trillfendi (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I follow true crime so I'm aware of plenty of non white victims. The only thing that hurts is that they only seem relevant to disparage a white woman who died and got a lot of media attention. If one cared about non white victims I would think trying to create positive attention would be the more productive recourse. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
It's sad that media figures create the narrative that this only serves to twist the knife and not highlight the actual dichotomies in the way we as a society respond to violence against women. Trillfendi (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree MWWS should be included in the lede. It's had substantial coverage in WP:RS. @CaptainPrimo you are right, it is disparaging and IMO disgraceful to someone thats just recently been killed. However, this is just how RS is, a reader can form an opinion about MWWS and the state of the mainstream media themselves, Wikipedia is just supposed to give the info. If we didn't include MWWS with due weight it would violate WP:NPOV. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Whether the debate was sparked or not had no effect on the outcome of the murder investigation and the case this article intends to cover. It was only something discussed in the media and therefore it should be limited to the media section. CaptainPrimo (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Under WP:LEDE we are supposed to provide a summary of the content as a whole, in accordance with WP:DUE. MWWS is part of this summary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
There's a lot more in the media section you need to insert into the lead then if you think all of it needs to be summarized in the lead. No, the lead should only contain what's relevant about this case. CaptainPrimo (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Any further thoughts on why this should be in the lead? It hasn't affected the case or its investigation or changed the coverage of the case. If there's no further comment I will remove it again. CaptainPrimo (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
You speak as if you won an argument. As for your previous statement about other about media coverage being more deserving of inclusion in the lede, I reject that wholly. There's an entire paragraph on media coverage and MWWS is but one sentence. It absolutely has changed the coverage of the case; in fact it has become inseparable. You can look at Jack the Ripper for a similar example. --SVTCobra 21:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Jack the Ripper coverage changed because you and others started talking about missing white girl syndrome? I don't see the Jack the Ripper lead mention anything about missing white girl syndrome. How has it changed the coverage? I'm curious to see how it has changed besides a few articles being written saying Gabby Petito is getting attention because of missing white girl syndrome. Most articles written about Gabby Petito still don't mention it so it is separable despite what you claim. CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Here's just the first articles that came up: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/16/us/gabby-petito-timeline-missing-case/index.html https://www.foxnews.com/media/gabby-petito-family-hunt-brian-laundrie https://www.foxnews.com/us/gabby-petito-youtube-video https://www.fox13news.com/news/gabby-petito-memorial-to-be-removed-as-city-seeks-permanent-solution
No mention of missing white girl syndrome in these articles that pop up when I google Gabby Petito. Clearly it is separable. CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
And I could find articles that just talk about the van. Or any specific thing. And also MWWS as in this article. I am failing to grasp your point. What is your objection? I don't see it as being factual. My sense is you want to remove it on moral grounds. --SVTCobra 23:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
You said its inseparable. I said it wasn't and proved my point by linking to the first articles that came up which happened to not mention what you claimed was inseparable. You have to actually explicitly look for articles about missing white girl syndrome or just the van to find them. The article you linked you had to go to September while there's articles still coming out today without mentioning missing white girl syndrome. Since there's articles about just the van according to you should that go in the lead as well? CaptainPrimo (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Day-to-day articles don't mention everything. That is what I illustrated. Nothing about mentioning a debate means it is proved. I'm sorry, but I don't think you are arguing in good faith. I'll try to leave it up to other editors. --SVTCobra 00:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
your desire to insert something irrelevant to the lead seems to not be in good faith to me too. CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
You are the only person who says it is irrelevant. --SVTCobra 17:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@CaptainPrimo: In response to edit summaries of your reverts -- something being covered in the body does not mean that it necessarily need not be mentioned in the lead. Per MOS:LEAD lead is a summary of the body and notability is explained early (in the lead). — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Something that is mentioned in the body that has no effect on the case or how it's covered needs to be mentioned in the lead anyway? CaptainPrimo (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
It has relevance for how it's covered (why it's covered as much), and how it's covered is relevant for establishing notability, which is done in the lead. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Its a hypothesis of why its covered as much and shouldn't be given undue weight by putting it in the lead. Look at the Natalee Holloway article as to how this has traditionally been handled on Wikipedia. The Holloway article is featured so it would be an example of how to write an article on a publicized murder victim whose media coverage has given rise to similar criticism. MWWWS shouldn't be featured up front because its not central to the case or even part of the case. Rather its a criticism of how the media has covered it and thus should be limited to the media section. CaptainPrimo (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No, I think it should not be included to the lead, simply because it is described in less than one paragraph in the body of the page (in section "Media coverage"). Yes, 1-2 phrases about media coverage in the lead is obviously good, but I do not think it should mention the "syndrome". Personally, I think it is more notable that "The national spotlight on Gabby Petito's disappearance has given families of other missing persons hope that they too can amplify their stories and find loves ones." [6]. Perhaps there will be more attention to missing persons in the USA after this case. This is a good thing. And yes, Natalee Holloway article is a good example of how this should be handled. My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @SVTCobra - To me, "missing white woman syndrome" is just another divisive topic for the media to use in an effort to get people talking. Sadly, the accuracy and quality of many news outlets in general has dropped significantly in the past couple of decades now. In my own personal view, I don't consider "missing white woman syndrome" to be all that relevant to the Petito case, but that's just my two cents. I am fine with having it kept on the page just as long as the information presented is accurate. — jmcd88 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Surreality TV

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

  • I don't know about the RS police - but what TMZ reports from "their source" isn't going to pass muster. It might get picked up by more credible sources, but right now this citation isn't cutting it. Thanks for adding it to talk.Sgerbic (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Dog found something but it could mean anything. If it goes anywhere it will be picked up and reported on. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The Laundrie family's attorney confirmed that the family stayed at the campsite where Chapman alleges Brian went on the run. Still not entirely sure if the Chapman shenanigans warrant a mention in the article (it strikes me as more of a publicity stunt than anything else) but an RS has picked this up. JOEBRO64 20:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2021

Remove "a few weeks after" from the second sentence of the article. That sentence is currently just a sentence fragment.

One could also correct the error by changing "a few weeks after" to " a few weeks after Petito's disappearance,". 2600:1700:6CC0:B280:B0E8:D6AC:8485:4A97 (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Move should proceed now

Article should be retitled to Killing of Gabby Petito per the closing comments of the RM on 9-21. Enwebb (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Glad to see the coroner has (shock) declared it 100% a homicide after it was already official through the FBI for nearly a month. There can be no argument against the move now. SK2242 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
It needs to be done by a mover/admin. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
👍 Red Slash 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

What happened?

RESOLVED
WP:ADVOCACY reverted; no outstanding proposals, so nothing to do — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The name of this article is "Killing of Gabby Petito". In the section marked as "Other missing person cases", there is a chart about other missing people. That chart takes up about a good half of the article space. Seems pretty odd. Material irrelevant to the killing of Gabby Petito is the most prominent section in an article about the killing of Gabby Petito? Can this be fixed? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not following why there's a giant chart of unrelated people. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
They're mentioned in coverage related to the case and given due weight in the article about the case. What's the confusion about?- Scarpy (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Irrelevant to Petito's killing. WWGB (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
While it is a noble endeavor to mention other missing people in a high-traffic article, which is also a stated goal of Petito's parents, I don't see how this fits in with WP:ADVOCACY. Sadly, hundreds of thousands of people go missing in the U.S., and all of them cannot possibly be listed, even in a dedicated list article. StonyBrook (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's too tangential, and the article only requires a sentence or two to summarize this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Two issues. (A) It's irrelevant or, at best, arguably tangential. We can debate whether or not to include such info, here. (B) The more important issue, I think ... it certainly does not merit fully taking up a good half of the article space. This "tangential" issue is taking precedence over the main topic of the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Create new article titled “Manhunt for Brian Laundrie”

The search for Laundrie has gathered international attention, as well as the hunters who are in search of him. Speculation about his whereabouts are subject to daily updates and news about him is very popular. An article about his manhunt should be created separate to the Killing of Gabriel Petito. CanadianOntarian (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No per WP:NOTNEWS. Not a viable independent encyclopedic topic. The day-to-day details of the search are of passing interest. What will stick are important news such as Laundrie being found etc, and such information will duly be included here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. This entire subject is not notable, IMO. Just another murder - but, probably no chance of getting the article deleted at this point. 50.111.46.2 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Bio vs. event-type lead

@FlightTime: Could you give a rationale for this revert? It changes the lead back to read like that of a biography, and the article covers an event. It's a regression. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Easy, no consensus. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
How does your revert improve the article? — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Easy, encourage discussion. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
You are not following the normal editorial process. You are contesting the change, so offer a rationale, or you will be WP:STONEWALLING. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I've already voiced my opinion above. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
That's not a rationale for the change. Please give an opinion that pertains to how your change is good for the article. The burden on you is to do it, when you revert and your revert is contested. If you are unsure about the merits of bio vs. event-type lead, see the last point of WP:DONTREVERT; please also see WP:AVOIDBOLD. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
My rational (again) IS NO CONSENSUS. If the community agrees with you then that's what will be. weather you like it or not is immaterial. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but what you're doing is disruptive. Whatever you were trying to do, you deleted the date from the lead, you broke a reference, reintroduced bolding against a clear WP:AVOIDBOLD rationale (while not even moving it out of the body, meaning the name is bolded twice in the article), you did not delete an inline note asking editors not to bold causing it to make no sense now, and now you are simply stonewalling. Please self-revert, and let's go back to the normal editorial process.
You did not revert just myself, you also reverted Dyaluk08 when he put the date at the beginning (diff). These changes have stuck for (more than a) week and no one has argued against them, despite various changes to the lead by other editors. Apart from the manual revert attempt being technically botched, You are going against both the normal editorial process and WP:EDITCON. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Laundrie in event ibx

@WWGB: Is there a way to include Laundrie in the event ibx on the top (any appropriate field), or is it still early / a bad idea? More curious than pushing for a specific change. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems too early to me. Per WP:BLP we need to be careful about suggesting that Laundrie was involved in the murder. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
He has been named as a “person of interest” but we only have a field for “suspect”. I’m not sure that they are the same thing. WWGB (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Timeframe in lead

I do think some time frame should be given in the first sentence. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
(fyi I'm not sure how far I should be indenting here, refactor if it's wrong)
Can I offer the following as a compromise?
Gabrielle Venora Petito, a 22-year-old American woman, disappeared while she was on a vanlife trip across the United States with her fiancé, Brian Laundrie. She is believed to have disappeared sometime between August 27 and 30, shortly before Laundrie drove the couple's vehicle from Wyoming to Florida alone and then refused to talk about Petito's whereabouts. On September 19, 2021 her remains were found at Bridger–Teton National Forest in Wyoming.
I believe the article should open Gabrielle Venora Petito, a 22-year-old American woman as she is the focus of the article, and it's reads slightly odd overwise. However I believe the time framing of the current second sentence is hazy. By taking Laundrie's drive out and making a new sentence framing it with her disappearance gives a better flow to the event timeline. I have no special attachment to my version of this second sentence. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. Only change I'd make is removing "believed to", because she really did disappear from the community's point of view up until her body was found -- so just: "She disappeared sometime..." — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Support. Sandbh (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm OK with the current version. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Someone unilaterally changed the "current version". Maybe something should be posted on their talk page. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
That's way too much WP:SYNTH for my taste. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Could you suggest something that has less WP:SYNTH, or is the whole suggest sentence at issue? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment I never meant for this to be a vote, nor do I believe it should be one. To be clear I'm for a changed second sentence or retaining the current wording. So if we can't agree I would say it shouldn't change. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: As a passer by I unilaterally changed the lede. Feel free to revert or ce if not happy. I happened to be reading WP:ANI and wondered what that was about. Sandbh (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite happy with your version. It's got the important "what where when who" (we don't know "why" yet) in the first sentence, and includes the Laundrie facts without making it sound like we think he did it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Gabby_Petito/Archive_2&oldid=1239388435"