Jump to content

Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

miscellaneous

The section on this page about Madaleine Mcann has been vandalized. Could someone please edit the page back to a more sensible version. Thanks --NO, THE TRUTH ISN'T COMMUNIST

Yaruch Bann is listed twice -- once under 2002 and once under 2006.

Should this be alphabetized? It seems to be somewhat in order but it seems quite confusing, actually.

The link for Benjamin Bathurst needs to be fixed. This article refers to a different Benjamin Bathurst.

Just for the record, the three edits ascribed to me on 5 November 2003 were in fact just one minor edit (adding the word "who" in the introductory paragraph). Whatever happened I can only guess, but I certainly did not delete the whole article (as the page history suggests). --KF 08:03, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Madalyn Murray O'Hair's body has now been identified pretty certainly. Do we think she should be taken off this list? DJ Clayworth 21:58, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removed the following:

See the article - he was officially declared dead in 1973. Not aware of any evidence to the contrary that has cast doubt on that.

There are lots of people on this list who have been officially declared dead. Should we remove them, as well?The Invisible Man 02:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Martin Bormann's remains were found and were identified, first by dental analysis and later by DNA analysis, as those of Martin Bormann. Quite different from someone like Jimmy Hoffa who was declared dead without ever being found. Vidor (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Are people who are known to be in hiding (OBL for example) really mysteriously disapeared? There are many fugatives and others who are hiding, but the implication of the page title is that no-one knows what happened to these people. Mark Richards 16:55, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OBL doesn't belong on this list, there are plenty of people who know where he is, and it's pretty well established that he's still alive. It's like me saying Mel Gibson is dead because I don't know where he is right now. -Alakhriveion

I am removing the following on the grounds that he never disappeared:

User:Kittybrewster 15:55, 21 January 2006

Jarret Lee Burton

I removed the following: " in the 1400 block of Seidersville Road in Salisbury Twp. Jarrett Lee Burton is a black man, who stands about 6 feet tall and weighs about 190 pounds. When last seen, he was wearing beige dress pants, light-colored dress shirt and glasses. He has silvery-gray hair, brown eyes and a freckle on his nose. Anyone who sees Jarrett Lee Burton is asked to call Salisbury police at 610-797-1447" This is not a missing persons tip line. 75.110.137.47 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

William DeVino

I'm quite sure that I put that a guy named William DeVino, a.k.a. Billy Batts, disappeared from Queens, New York in 1970. Although he's probably been declared legally deceased and Henry Hill informed the FBI that he had been killed and his body buried in Connecticut, but it was never actually found by the authorities, so he's still considered missing by most standards, therefore I'm putting it back in.

Frank Morris and brothers John and Clarence Anglin

How about these? They officially drowned, but their bodies were never found. Wouldn't this qualify for the list?

No "External links" category

Why no "External links" category? It has one now, and it is well populated with appropriate web pages dedicated to Missing person cases. Also put in a state-by-state index. ProfessorPaul 04:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A necessary deletion

I know that a deletion usually raises Wiki-Red Flags, but in this case the deletion was approprate and necessary. The entry in the category "No Year Stated" was the exact same person as in the 1945 category Subhash Chandra Bose. ProfessorPaul 23:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

List format

Please advise if I should revise this such that each year is not a heading but an entry in a list. I think it looks outstandingly awkward that way it is now and that it ought to be a list. Will 08:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Air Flight 574

Underwater wreckage from the aircraft was eventually located two weeks later. While there is no mention on here if bodies were recovered the fate of all onboard appears to warrant removal from this list. As tragic as the events may be it seems inappropriate to list every aircraft incident that some victims were never recovered from. If the plane had never been located then I'd say keep it on here. SkyWayMan 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Date of Death

Reviewing the entries on this page, the format of the birth/death for each article does not follow a consistent format. Wikipedia policy (see section 1.9) suggests that when death is certain, but exact date of death is not known, the format should be, e.g. (4 April 1893 - date of death unknown). Any information regarding the date the person was last seen should go in the lead paragraph. I propose a project to clean up the entries on this page to provide a consistent, encyclopedia-wide format. Discussion?Ronnotel 09:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam Walsh

Just throwing this out there, but the article skips over 1981, which involves the disappearance of Adam Walsh, it doesn't mention him. could someone please add that in? Funfair15 11:05 am July 11, 2007 (UTC)

This list is for "people who have mysteriously disappeared, whose death is not substantiated, whose remains have not been recovered, whose current whereabouts are unknown, and who (except for the most recent cases) may be presumed deceased." That doesn't apply for Adam Walsh. Also, you replaced another user's comment with yours; please be careful not to do that in the future. TomTheHand 15:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Osama

Shouldn't Bin Ladin be in here? I mean, we never found the body... that guy just disapparated!

Lost at sea

I removed the following listing as it's not a disappearance. All the information is already on the Bob Gainey page. 58.8.12.19 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • On 8 December, 2006, 25 year-old Laura Gainey, daughter of Montreal Canadiens general manager Bob Gainey went missing when she was swept overboard while sailing in the North Atlantic. Gainey temporarily passed his GM duties on to assistant manager Pierre Gauthier while awaiting word on Laura. She was sailing on the barque Picton Castle, a sail-training ship based out of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada, destined for Grenada. Gainey, a professional crew member with the rank of leading seaman, was swept off the boat during a storm around 9:30 p.m. and is presumed drowned. On 11 December, 2006 at 6pm EST the United States Coast Guard held a press conference in Portsmouth, Virginia, to confirm that the search for Laura Gainey has been halted.

Notable people

Per WP:BIO#Lists_of_people I'm removing non-notable people. People should have their own article before they are listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonearles (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 June 2007

Please sign your postings by striking the tilde key (~) four times. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Robin Graham

I had added Robin Graham to 1970 disappearances; I'd also created a Wikipedia page for her detailing in some depth her disappearance. As her case changed the way the California Highway Patrol deals with stranded women motorists at night, I think it's significant. I notice that her individual page has been removed - can anybody enlighten me as to why? Thanks LynnMaudlin (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was removed 08:24, 22 October 2007 by user:Jeandré du Toit - the edit comment was "rm NNs per WP:BIO#Lists_of_people".
It's in place now and I've just revised it to mention that the circumstances of her disappearance resulted in CHP policy being changed.
If the Robin Graham article (or an article dedicated to her disappearance) remains, so should the listing here. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense

...if only people who were notable before they disappeared got listed here? We have a bit of a mash mash here:

  • People who vanished from the historical record, but may not have disappeared to their peers at all
  • Notable people who disappeared, such as Steve Fossett
  • People only notable for disappearing, generally murder/abduction victims
  • People not notable at all

--kingboyk 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For whatever its worth, I tend to agree...but with the caveat that limiting to "notable people" be reserved for the addition of modern disappearances. Here's my reasons: there may not be much 'notable', in modern times and to a modern reader, about the French explorer Perouse. But he was a significant man in his time, and his disappearance is more of a mystery than, say, Ms Gainey listed below (meaning, yeah, she disappeared too but for all practical purposes we know what happened to her. Another example is Natalee Holloway)....I guess partly what I'm getting at is we have to define what constitutes a "notable" person, and what constitutes a "disappearance", if that makes any sense(?). I'd personally want to include any historical explorer no matter how obscure, versus, say, a Steven Fossett...but I certainly agree with your point that the mish-mash could get wildly out of control:)....Engr105th (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Such like Maddy (media bubble) and ordinary peoples should not put in that list, or i will put here over hundred persons missing without trace in past ten years only in estonia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.196.67 (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the most logical thing to do would be to list anyone who has a Wikipedia article devoted to them, and who disappeared. If they are deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, they belong here as well. Personally I doubt that Etan Patz and some of the other persons here are notable enough to have their own articles, but if they DO have their own articles and they disappeared, they should be on this list. Vidor (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ships?

There is a separate category for disappeared ships. Some of those ships are on this list and some aren't. We should either include all of them or none of them, right? Vidor (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that this list shouldn't include all disappeared ships (or just all famous disappeared ships, or all mysteriously disappeared ships, or even all famous mysteriously disappeared ships); likewise missing aircraft. So I think it probably shouldn't include any. So I've removed the following:

ships:

aircraft:

All four missing ship articles (but not "Island Queen" or Carroll A. Deering) are already included in both List of missing ships and Category:Disappeared ships. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC) & 58.8.5.244 (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again as I stated below. Semantics. There were people on board the above listed ships & planes. Earhart disappeared in an AIRPLANE. Whether she disappeared in a plane or while walking on water, she's missing. Miller disappeared in 1944 but no mention is made of the two other men who disappeared with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 23:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see the first line - "This is a list of notable, historically testified people who mysteriously disappeared, and whose current whereabouts are unknown or whose deaths are not substantiated.", also #Notable people only. Earhart entry has not been deleted, it's been merged with the listing for Fred Noonan [10]. The listing for Miller says "...remains of the aircraft and those on board were never recovered"; for more detail, see Glenn Miller#Disappearance. 208.76.82.4 (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul America

The listing of Paul America on this page states that he disappeared without a trace; the page for Paul America states he was killed in an auto accident, but there's no reference for same. Anyone know for sure? Hue White (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing was removed 17:25, 29 January 2008 by 90.152.38.198.
I just added a {{fact}} tag to the relevant line of the Paul America article. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Change to the lead

I propose adding the word 'notable' to the lead. i.e. The following is a compilation of notable people. Currently the criteria could include anyone. --neonwhite user page talk 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK --Michael C. Price talk 09:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently the list seems to be getting pretty aimless.--Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

-

I'd like to propose the following:

Any objections or better suggestions? 58.8.5.244 (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I just added the bold emphasis to the above suggestion. If there are no objections I propose to go ahead with this change. I'd also like to start a discussion (in a new section) about the intended scope of this list and inclusion/exclusion criteria, with a view to further improving the lead and possibly a #Name Change. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Does there have to be evidence that they were real people

I'm a bit bothered that for some of these people we don't know for sure they were real. Madoc is a relatively recent example.--Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Legends have a basis in fact and shade continuously into historical characters. Mythological characters we should be more wary about. In that respect I would say that Madoc is legendary (his father is an historical character).--Michael C. Price talk 00:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he is not mythological. But although his father existed, he may not have. And if the story was made up by the Tudors, does that make him legendary? And just to confuse things more, there was a Saint Madoc (Maedoc, Aidan, other spellings) or maybe 2, or even 3. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09520a.htm and at http://www.britannia.com/bios/ebk/madocapn.html he is called Prince Madoc. Also see http://www.mail-archive.com/celt-saints@yahoogroups.com/msg00081.html I need to put something about this in the Madoc article, don't you think? Romulus seems legendary, by the way.--Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do add to the Madoc article. And yes, Romulus is legendary. But quite plausibly he might have existed. --Michael C. Price talk 08:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that Madoc didn't mysteriously disappear, either in reality or in legend - please point me in the right direction if I'm wrong. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I just added [[Category:Disappeared people]] to the Madoc article and it was promptly removed [11] with the comment: "not an historical person so couldn't have disappeared". 58.8.5.244 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

King Sebastian of Portugal

Last seen battling by himself in enemy lines, how would his disappearance be mysterious? And his body may have been found according to the Wikipedia article. Surely this doesn't belong?--Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article suggests he was almost certainly killed in the battle. Hardly a disappearance. • Anakin (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Likewise Spartacus. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Another nomination for deletion, and an idea

This article has again been nominated for deletion; as of March 16, 2008, the general consensus seems to be Keep. However, one of the ideas under discussion is to split this article into two categories, which roughly described would be something like: historical disappearances (people who have disappeared but would likely be too old to still be alive) and contemporary disappearances (people who have disappeared but might conceivably be alive, although quite aged). So, with good intentions may I ask this group: What do we think about keeping this article as is--or splitting it up? Take care. ProfessorPaul 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As the list is in chronological order, the historical/contemporary proposal sounds to me like it wouldn't make any useful difference. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Any objections to any of the following deletions:

strike = now deleted from list [12] 58.8.10.69 (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC) & [13] 58.8.10.69 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC) & [14] 58.8.10.69 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC) & [15] 58.8.15.18 (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

remainder:

I object to many of these deletions. The first one I checked, William Hare is mysterious since no one knows what happened to him, Etc etc etc etc. Please stop this wholesale deletion until consensus is reached. I am probably going to do a wholesale revert. --Michael C. Price talk 11:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
My opinion: nobody knowing what happened to someone isn't necessarily a mysterious disappearance. Likewise when a body is lost at sea, down a crevice, in a huge explosion, etc, it's not necessarily a mysterious disappearance. A mysterious disappearance is someone going missing in mysterious circumstances.
Which of the others don't you agree with? 58.8.5.244 (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
BUMP! If there are any others you don't agree with, please list them here - thanks. 58.8.10.69 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the 4 listings shown above with the year of disappearance displayed bold italic (William Hare (murderer), E. B. Farnum, Boston Corbett, Lieserl Einstein) to a new #Mysterious non-disappearances section. 203.189.129.129 (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC) - deleted [18] 74.63.84.101 (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

-

I propose to delete the 10 listings shown above with the year of disappearance displayed bold on the basis that they are all non-controversial - in each case, their fate is known (they died when they disappeared and their remains were lost to the elements) and not disputed, the circumstances of their disappearance are known (they all died while doing something dangerous in locations where it's not unusual for bodies to go missing) and not disputed, and there is no suggestion whatsoever of any mysterious circumstances. Any objections? 58.8.10.69 (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC) - done [19] 58.8.15.18 (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

-

This is the list of disappeared people, not the list of mysteriously disappeared people? Apart from the Romanov's I would object to all these propose deletions. Perhaps a separate list should be created. I think the article name should be changed to List of people who have mysteriously disappeared--Michael C. Price talk 08:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's put the suggestion out for a vote. --Michael C. Price talk 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Disappearances do not have to be mysterious for inclusion. trying to vote on deletion of various entries sounds a bit odd and impractical. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The intro says ...compilation of people who have mysteriously disappeared... 58.8.5.244 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with 58.8.5.244 here, but not with the narrow way mysterious is being interpreted. --Michael C. Price talk 11:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
How should it be interpreted? 58.8.5.244 (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

Should the article be called List_of_people_who_have_mysteriously_disappeared? It would seem to be a more accurate. Any objections? Better names? --Michael C. Price talk 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mysterious" is pretty vague and would only confuse things, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObiterDicta (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 May 2008
Any reason not to include "mysterious" and clarify the meaning in the intro? 58.8.5.244 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Errr, because I don't think it would "clarify the meaning." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is, any reason not to include "mysterious" in the article name, and then, in the intro section of the article, clarify the meaning of "mysterious" for the purposes of this article (ie inclusion/exclusion of people/events). 58.8.5.244 (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What language would you propose? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
English? (sorry, couldn't resist)
Suggest we first somehow arrive at a consensus on exactly what we intend it to mean (ie define the criteria for inclusion/exclusion), and then consider how best to explain it. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus

I think this will be pretty easy to take care of. Jesus was readded with the edit summary "His body disappeared. Hostorical fact. Why is another story. Note that Muhammad al-Mahdi has an entry"

First, I would dispute that it is simple as calling the disappearance of the body a "historical fact." the only real evidence we have for the disappearance of Jesus's body is the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, three of which were written several decades after his death and the fourth even later.

However, the real reason why this entry is inappropriate is that in the Gospel accounts Jesus really doesn't disappear according to the criteria of this list:


If you accept the NT as authoritative for purposes of Jesus's body's disappearance from his tomb, it should also be authoritative for his subsequent reappearance and ultimate departure. ...seated at the right hand of the Father...yadda, yadda, yadda.

The comparison with al-Mahdi, who was mentioned in the edit summary, is instructive. Shia Muslims believe he is the Twelfth Imam, who disappeared at five years old, while he was reciting his father's funeral prayer. Unlike Jesus there were no claimed subsequent sightings. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And as you should be aware, some of the early gospels only mention his disappearance without mentioning his reappearance.--Michael C. Price talk 11:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Michael. As an initial point, it is probably important to remember that simply because a specific text does not mention that an event happened, that is not evidence that the event did not happen. The author would need to include an affirmative statement that the event did not occur.
All four of the canonical Gospels describe Jesus's reappearance after his crucifixion and burial, so I assume you are referring to a noncanonical gospel. If so "Gospels" would normally not be capitalized in the plural as it was in you preferred version and reference be made to specific noncanonical gospels rather than a generic reference to "the Gospels."
I fully admit that I could know more about the noncanonical gospels. The only complete noncanonical that I am familiar with that purports to be a life of Jesus and mentions his disappearance, but does not mention his subsequent appearances to the Apostles is Gospel of Nicodemus. However, this is not an early gospel, so that does not appear to be the noncanonical you are describing. Even if it was, Jesus does not actually disappear in that gospel, but goes through the Harrowing of Hell. In any event, saying that the omission of his subsequent appearances in this particular gospel means that they did not happen, is original research, which we cannot do here. Relying on gospels that have not come down in complete form for your assertion is obviously not on.
However, what I believe you are probably thinking of is the purported letter from Pilate to the Emperor Claudius that forms the last part of Nicodemus. You would be correct that this mentions Jesus's disappearance but does not mention any subsequent reappearances. However, it would be mistaken to assert that this is evidence that Jesus's disappearance is "historical fact," as its authenticity is extremely dubious.
If there is some Gnostic (or other early Church) tradition that I am unaware of that asserts Jesus's disapperance from the Sepulcre, but denies his subsequent reappearances, this might be worth mentioning in the list, however, it would need to be explained as such. Once again, a comparison to al-Mahdi is instructive. If it is proper to include him on the list, it is because Twelver Shias believe that he disappeared and remains hidden. However, we would need to mention the specific tradition or early sect that believed that. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
After doing a bit more research on this, I'm unable to find an early noncanonical gospel to match your description, Michael. If you're not simply thinking of Pilate's supposed letter, could you clarify this for me? Thanks, ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Early versions of Mark only mention his disappearance, not any reappearance. --Michael C. Price talk 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Too many deletions

I don't agree with many of the deletions that have been going on. Jesus, Laozi, Spartacus etc deleted on the grounds that someone (without discussion) thinks they have an explanation. Please discuss things more and reach a consensus first. --Michael C. Price talk 11:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Which deletions do you disagree with, and why?
I agree that Jesus probably should be included (I didn't delete it).
Laozi - I didn't find any mention in the Laozi article of him going missing (but maybe I missed something?) so didn't think that deletion could be regarded as controversial (see edit summary).
Spartacus - I provided a reference for him being known to have died in battle, so didn't think that deletion could be regarded as controversial either (see edit summary). 58.8.5.244 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you reread the Laozi article.
Since his body was not recovered (and the Romans would have sorely liked to recover it), he could have slipped away. Why did the Romans not recover his body? -- that in itself is a mystery.--Michael C. Price talk 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Laozi: I've reread the article, found nothing.
Spartacus: if it had said that in the article, I would have reworded, not deleted - but it doesn't. The reference I provided says "he and the great mass of those with him were surrounded and slain". Alternative account: "he stood alone, surrounded by a multitude of foes, and was still defending himself when he was cut down" (I've added a {{fact}} tag to the Spartacus article where it says "his body was never identified"). 58.8.5.244 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the 14 that I deleted, edit summary in italics (excludes 8 ships & aircraft - see #Ships?):

58.8.5.244 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2008 & 58.8.5.244 (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To much detail

The details can be read at the subjects' pages. Too much detail here was one of the complaints raised during the AfD process--Michael C. Price talk 11:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the two AfD discussions: 1 2 - where exactly are the "too much detail" complaints? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.5.244 (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The list contains large amounts of speculation as to the means, reasons, or causes for the disappearances of these various people, and all but a handful are completely unreferenced. Keep the speculation, theories etc for the subjects' articles.--Michael C. Price talk 14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
But that's from the second nomination - nobody agreed, and the nominee then said he wished he could withdraw it 58.8.5.244 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't invalidate the point (nor does it mean that people disagreed with it). Wikiguidelines say that, generally, we should not copy information from one article to another, rather we should refer to the original article.--Michael C. Price talk 09:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fugitives

I removed the following because they are known fugitives:

In a nutshell, similar reasoning to the #Ships? discussion - either these should be deleted or else all (notable) fugitives (whose whereabouts are unknown) should be listed here. 58.8.10.69 (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann

"The Sun, a UK tabloid newspaper, issued an official apology (along with several others) in February 2008 with regards to suggesting that they were involved in their daughter's disappearance."

This sentence should be removed, it seems to suggest that the parents of Madeleine McCann are innocent indeed. Since when is the opinion of The Sun of any importance? There are lots of people what different views on this case out there and they are not included. There's enough room in the main article to discuss this matter, but it doesn't belong in a summary of the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wartime disappearances

I propose to remove the following as they are wartime deaths in circumstances where the fact that their bodies were not recovered/identified isn't significantly unusual or mysterious. In each case, there is no evidence that their disappearance was not the direct result of their death, and no evidence of any mysterious circumstances:

203.189.129.129 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed the above four, 9 June 2008 [34] - 203.189.129.129 (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Heinrich Müller

Heinrich Müller was proposed for deletion 2 June 2008 and removed 9 June 2008 (see immediately above) and then reinstated without an edit summary on 9 September 2008 [35]. I suggest the reinstatement be reverted as the RG 263 Detailed Report of his CIA file and related documents quotes the file as stating that there are "...strong indications but no proof that [he] died [in Berlin]..." and concludes that while the record is "...inconclusive on Müller's ultimate fate ... [he] most likely died in Berlin in early May 1945" - and Heinrich Müller (Gestapo)#Disappearance doesn't offer anything to contradict this. 58.8.240.109 (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet he was also the subject of a prolonged search; as they say, inconclusive. Hence mysterious. --Michael C. Price talk 19:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The <ref>'d report addresses the extensive searches and potential for mystery. The conclusion that he most likely died in Berlin in early May 1945 suggests that his disappearance very probably was not, after all, mysterious; and the Heinrich Müller (Gestapo) article doesn't suggest there's any evidence to the contrary. 58.8.240.109 (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Except of course that there is no evidence that he died either, no body (even decades later), no eye witnesses to his death etc -- unlike the case with every other leading Nazi.--Michael C. Price talk 20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the CIA file report took all that into account. 58.8.240.109 (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Their conclusion is not devoid of mystery. Even if we accept he died in Berlin -- which the CIA say is only "most likely" -- , then how? And of course we don't know that anyway.--Michael C. Price talk 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could expand the Heinrich Müller (Gestapo) article with evidence & <ref>s of equal or greater weight to the contrary - i.e. current expert opinion that he "most likely" did not die in Berlin? 58.8.240.109 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Why? I accept that he did "most likely" die in Berlin -- but that still leaves considerable mystery. As I said earlier, the CIA said it was "inconclusive". It's certainly a lot more mysterious than Fosset's disappearance! --Michael C. Price talk 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Inconclusive" isn't necessarily "mysterious", and our personal opinions are moot.

If it could somehow be confirmed that he did die in Berlin in 1945, then even if exact cause of death and whereabouts of his remains were unknown, he should not be listed here.

If there was any hard evidence that he may have survived beyond 1945, then he should be listed here.

In fact, there's no hard evidence either way. However, we do have current professional expert opinion effectively saying he "most likely" should not be listed here, and nothing to the contrary. 58.8.240.109 (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the lack of hard evidence either way that makes it mysterious.
No, there is no "professional expert opinion effectively saying he "most likely" should not be listed here". You are saying he shouldn't be listed, I say otherwise. I repeat my implicit question: how is Fosset's disappearance (whose retention you argue for) any more mysterious than Muller's? --Michael C. Price talk 08:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree with the first four of the five sentences of my previous reply? 58.8.9.148 (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I do. But we are approaching the issue from different ends. If there was an accepted story of how Muller died, with supporting evidence, then I would agree to his exclusion. But just saying, as the CIA do, that in the absence of any clues whatsoever we must assume he's most likely dead is not good enough. Most likely just means p>0.5, which stills leaves a very real possibility (p<0.5) that he finished up somewhere in S. America, like so many others. --Michael C. Price talk 10:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So as you pointed out, I say he shouldn't be listed, you say otherwise. To clarify why I think he shouldn't: not because that's simply my personal opinion, or because it seems to be a more or less mysterious disappearance than any other, but because I've made a real effort to follow encyclopedic principles when trying to determine what to include/exclude here, and we already have a <ref> to a highly reputable expert opinion based on extensive research, which says that it's "most likely" that my second sentence (above) applies here, and nothing to the contrary.
If there was any evidence that he might not have died in 1945, then I'd agree that "most likely" wouldn't be good enough to warrant exclusion. But there isn't. And as the <ref> effectively says he "most likely" doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion here, and this is "List of people who have [mysteriously] disappeared", not "List of people who have, or who may have, [mysteriously] disappeared", seems to me he should be removed from the list.
In other words, I think any case where the overwhelming balance of <ref>s suggest that the criteria for inclusion are "most likely" (your p>0.5) not met, and there's no hard evidence that the criteria might be met so the remaining (your p<0.5) possibility is pure speculation, should be excluded.
I agree that there's a possibility he didn't die in 1945 - however that possibility exists to a greater or lesser degree in just about every case where someone goes missing and is thought to have died but their body is not recovered, and I think it's already clear that not every disappeared person whose remains have not been found/identified warrants inclusion. 58.8.9.148 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It's more than a possibility, it's a probability that might reach .49999.. according to the ref. There's a basic disagreement between our understanding of terminology. If someone may have disappeared mysteriously then there is a mystery. End of story, full stop etc etc. (Now we can go only to quantify this, but "most likely" is not sufficient to reduce the chance below p=0.499999..). Your argument based on there being no evidence to the contrary is simply 1) not relevant 2) original research. --Michael C. Price talk 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. You say "If someone may have disappeared mysteriously then there is a mystery" - true, but that "maybe" mystery doesn't fit the definition "people who have [mysteriously] disappeared"; it's now a different kind of mystery - a "did they mysteriously disappear or didn't they?" mystery. 58.8.12.90 (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you think the lead should be revised to say "This is a list of notable, historically testified people who have, or who may have, mysteriously disappeared, and whose current whereabouts are unknown or whose deaths are not substantiated."?
Do you think every disappeared person whose remains have not been found/identified should be included? 58.8.12.90 (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the disappearance occasioned an inconclusive report, clearly is was a mysterious disappearance.
By the logic of your first paragraph, if there were the slightest possibility of a resolution to any disappearance then the disappearance is not mysterious and so would not merit inclusion. By this criterion every single entry would be excluded.
It should be clear that the answer to your 2nd paragraph is, "it doesn't matter" since it amounts to the same thing, and the answer to your 3rd paragraph is simply "no", since non mysterious disappearances occur. --Michael C. Price talk 06:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-mysterious disappearances

Sneha Anne Philip

I think this listing should probably be removed (again). Although no physical evidence confirming her fate has ever been found, in 2008 she was officially/legally declared a victim of the 9/11 attacks so I don't think this qualifies as a "mysterious" disappearance. According to the Sneha Anne Philip article there's absolutely no evidence to contradict the court ruling, and all the speculation seems to cite a single source. 203.189.129.129 (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed again, 9 June 2008 [36] 203.189.129.129 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The appeals court decision was not unanimous, and there is some interesting evidence (which has not yet been discussed by a reliable source, but it was at PostSecret and is sitting on my hard drive waiting for when it is) suggesting she may have indeed used the attack as a cover to escape her life. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Irvine

Andrew Irvine (mountaineer) was removed from the list on 5 May 2008 along with 9 others [37] per #Proposed deletions with the group explanation "I propose to delete the 10 listings [identified above] on the basis that they are all non-controversial - in each case, their fate is known (they died when they disappeared and their remains were lost to the elements) and not disputed, the circumstances of their disappearance are known (they all died while doing something dangerous in locations where it's not unusual for bodies to go missing) and not disputed, and there is no suggestion whatsoever of any mysterious circumstances." and the individual explanation "body never recovered, but not a mysterious disappearance", and then reinstated 12 June 2008 with the edit summary "Re-added Andrew Irvine. Until someone finds his body, he's missing" [38]

I've reverted the reinstatement as his disappearence clearly isn't mysterious (it's actually a good example of a non-mysterious disappearance). The cause of his disappearance and death are famously well-known (he disappeared as a direct result of his death while attempting the first ever ascent of Everest, in 1924) and not disputed, the fact that his remains have not yet been recovered isn't unusual given the location, and although it's not known whether he died just short of the summit or shortly after starting to descend from it, there's no suggestion whatsoever of any mysterious circumstances. 203.189.129.129 (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Henry Hudson

Any objections to the deletion of Henry Hudson? His disappearance was the direct result of being set adrift in a small open boat after a mutiny by the crew of his ship while exploring the Hudson Bay region in 1611, and there appears to be no suggestion of any controversy nor evidence of any mysterious circumstances. 208.76.82.4 (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Now removed [39] - 208.76.82.4 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ian Mackintosh

Any objections to the deletion of Ian Mackintosh? His disappearance was the direct result of a light aircraft crash over the Gulf of Alaska - a distress signal from the 'plane was picked up by the United States Coast Guard; no suggestion of any controversy or evidence of any mysterious circumstances. 208.76.82.4 (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Now removed [40] - 58.8.15.16 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
By the same criterion you should remove Steve Fossett. --Michael C. Price talk 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
If Fossett had also had a distress call picked up, and had also crashed over an ocean, and had not been the subject of "the largest search and rescue effort ever conducted for a person within the U.S." [41], and Steve Fossett#Disappearance and search didn't run to 8 paragraphs and 27 <ref>s, I'd probably agree with you. 58.8.240.109 (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Roald Amundsen

Any objections to the deletion of Roald Amundsen? His disappearance was the direct result of the flying-boat he was in being lost while searching for an airship that had crashed while returning from the North Pole - a pontoon from the flying-boat, improvised into a life raft, was found near the Tromsø coast; no suggestion of any controversy or evidence of any mysterious circumstances. 208.76.82.4 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Now removed [42] - 58.8.15.16 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Airship Italia

Airship Italia was removed 1st May 2008 (not mysterious, North Pole airship crash) then reinstated 16th July 2008 (Add the Italia in. Certainly as mysterious and disappeared as Michael Rockefeller.). I've reverted the reinstation as the fate of the six crew carried away by the damaged envelope after the crash is known (they perished and their remains were lost at sea as a result of the crash) and not disputed, the circumstances of their disappearance are known (they died while doing something dangerous in a location where it's not unusual for bodies to go missing) and not disputed, and there is no suggestion whatsoever of any mysterious circumstances. 58.8.4.230 (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Antoine de Saint Exupéry

Antoine de Saint Exupéry was removed 3 May 2008: delete Antoine de Saint Exupéry - no longer a mystery: aircraft wreckage found & +ID'd, identity bracelet found & +ID'd, body lost at sea then reinstated 18th August 2008: [43] (no edit summary). As his fate is known (he died July 31 1944 when his aircraft crashed into the Mediterranean and his body was lost at sea) and not disputed, and there is no suggestion of any controversy, I've reverted the reinstatement per the edit summary of the original removal, and per #Wartime disappearances. 66.96.221.101 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Helen Brach

See Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously#Helen Brach

Gedhun Choekyi Nyima

I propose to remove Gedhun Choekyi Nyima from the list as his disappearance wasn't mysterious (he was arrested and taken into "protective custody" by PRC authortities[44]). His whereabouts/fate are a mystery, but he didn't go missing in mysterious circumstances. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Now removed [45] - 66.152.166.101 (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury

See Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously#Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury

Mysterious non-disappearances

See also: #Disappeared from history

There are currently a handful of entries where there's no evidence that the people in question ever disappeared. Typically it seems their exact fate is unknown (hence it could be said that their fate is (now) a mystery) but only because there's no extant record, not because they went missing.

eg:-

  • 1828 - William Hare (murderer) - "there are various conflicting and unreliable accounts of Hare's later life" - but no evidence that he ever went missing
  • 1879 - E. B. Farnum - no evidence or suggestion that he ever went missing, just that he moved on
  • 1888 - Boston Corbett - no evidence or suggestion that he ever went missing, just that he moved on
  • 1903 - Lieserl Einstein - may have died of scarlet fever in 1903, or may have been adopted and died in the 1990's, but no evidence that she ever went missing

I suggest that if there's no evidence that a person went missing during their own lifetime or when they died or immediately thereafter, then that person shouldn't be listed here. 203.189.129.129 (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

William Hare (murderer), E. B. Farnum, Boston Corbett, Lieserl Einstein now removed [46] - 74.63.84.101 (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for deletions/additions

I don't know if I'm missing something. This list is supposed to be about people who have disappeared/missing(semantics). Not the reasons why they disappeared nor that they were famous & disappeared. Some of these people became famous only after they disappeared ie Dorothy Arnold. My recent additions for pioneer aviator Cecil Grace(minus a Wikipedia article) is being considered. The addition I made of pioneer aviator Gustav Hamel who disappeared over the same stretch of water as Grace is deleted. Wtf. Okay if so, then why for instance is Amelia Earhart or Glenn Miller still posted as they went missing in airplanes too. Likewise Steve Fossett is still on the list. They should be deleted also especially Miller since in recent years it's been concluded that he disappeared in the same area that Grace & Hamel did 30 years before. Earhart & Miller should be deleted too wouldn't you think. Hamel was famous in his own time as testament of a New York Times online article from May 1914 mentioning the aviator's disappearance leads evidence to in bold type. Likewise my addition of the SS Naronic which disappeared wihout a trace is deleted while Charles Nungesser who disappeared without a trace is retained. The heading on this page says List of people who have disappeared not List of Famous People who have disappeared. The deletions & additions on this page are very bizarre and looks as if unknowledgable people made random choices. They in many cases as I described above make no sense. There's a consistency problem on this page. Please talk. thanks Koplimek (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the first line - "This is a list of notable, historically testified people who mysteriously disappeared, and whose current whereabouts are unknown or whose deaths are not substantiated."
  • Cecil Grace - please see #Notable people only and WP:WTAF. This has already been added 21 February 2008 and deleted 16 March 2008 at least once before. If his disappearance was mysterious, then a link to an article about him or covering his disappearance should be added. However, acording to http://www.earlyaviators.com/egrace.htm and nytimes.com archives there would appear to be no suggestion or even speculation of any mystery or controversy.
  • Gustav Hamel - apparently no mystery or controversy - the Gustav Hamel article states: "In these early days, flying was a dangerous endeavour; accidents and deaths were common. ... He disappeared over the English Channel on 23 May 1914 ... in a new 80hp Morane-Saulnier monoplane he had just collected."
  • Earhart, Miller, Fossett - if you think any of these disappearances are not mysterious, suggest you start a new section here for each one and propose that they be removed from the list.
  • SS Naronic - see #Ships?
  • Charles Nungesser - see Talk:Charles Nungesser#Disappearance. In the meantime I've revised the listing to include mention of the supposed "mystery"[47]. Feel free to propose it be deleted from the list if you think that would be more appropriate.
"The heading on this page says List of people who have disappeared not List of Famous People who have disappeared." - see WP:BIO#Lists of people: "notable" is assumed, and that word (or similar, such as "famous," "noted," "prominent," etc.) should not be included in the title of the list article.
"The deletions & additions on this page are very bizarre and looks as if unknowledgable people made random choices." - please give some specific examples, and for each deletion please quote the relevant edit summary. Thanks. 208.76.82.4 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

hi, 206.76.82.4, thanks for your response. I'd like to see the list built up rather than deleted down. There's a story behind each missing person. As far as listing examples of random deletions or additions, I thought I'd already done that in the preceding paragraph. My main problem is with consistency of entries. I.E. How is the Mary Celeste story included and the SS Naronic not. The fact that Grace & Hamel went missing in 1910 & 1914 respectively without a trace should be 'mystery' enough if mystery is the criteria for being included on this web page. A generation later Earhart & Miller disappeared in similar fashions or at least mysteriously. Koplimek (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Celeste - the ship is mentioned in the listing for Benjamin Briggs; it's the person who is being listed, not the ship. NB: the ship didn't disappear - only the passengers/crew did.
SS Naronic - a notable ship/sinking, but AFAIK none of the people who were lost with the ship have WP articles. NB: the "mysterious disappearance" is that of the ship (ie why did it sink?) and not that of the passengers/crew (ie that they perished and their remains were lost at sea as a result of the ship sinking is not disputed).
"Disappeared without a trace" does not necessarily mean "disappeared mysteriously". For example, in each of these 10 example cases, the person disappeared without a trace, but in each case there's no mystery - their fate is known (they died when they disappeared and their remains were lost to the elements) and not disputed, the circumstances of their disappearance are known (they all died while doing something dangerous in locations where it's not unusual for bodies to go missing) and not disputed, and there is no suggestion whatsoever of any mysterious circumstances.
Cecil Grace & Gustav Hamel - no mystery or controversy - see my comments immediately above (yesterday).
Amelia Earhart & Glenn Miller - their respective articles have substantial referenced content detailing the mysterious circumstances of their disappearances. 208.76.82.4 (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
hi, I totally disagree with what you said. Cecil Grace & Gustav Hamel disappeared while flying in airplanes point blank. Amelia Earhart & Glenn Miller disappeared while flying in airplanes point blank. Now I wager no one here knew anything about Grace or Hamel or SS Naronic until I posted them, both men famous during their lifetimes. Earhart & Miller are two pretty well known and more recent disappearances which I believe is the motivation for theirs and other well known missing persons to be included. Wikipedia should be the place for the esoteric(meaning that which is not well known but important). Countless books, documentaries, movies have been made about Earhart & Miller and a few documentaries on the Mary Celeste. This makes this webpage a 'populist' page rather than a 'pragmatic' page and therefore this page will never be accurate or as good as it should be. I can't interpret the whole 'controversy' vs 'mystery' comparison as I said before, if a person is missing w/o a trace that's controversial cause no one knows what happened to that individual. When Earhart disappeared scores of people had disappeared in airplanes by that time including Charles Kingsford Smith(not on this list) and Earhart at that wasn't even the first 'woman' to disappear. This page should've been taken down(back during the March discussion) & restarted with a new directive, to include every missing person no matter who they are not just the ones covered relentlessly in the media. The present set of rules is ridiculous and confusing. thanks however for your response. Koplimek (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

The list currently uses an effectively random mix of two styles, eg:

1938

The current split is exactly 50/50 - 67 listings with a colon, 67 without.

Should the list be standardised on the first (ie "Name, comma") style, or on the second (ie "Name: colon") style? 208.76.82.4 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Now done - all standardised on the first (ie "Name, comma") style. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Disappeared but not missing

See also: #Disappeared from history

I suggest the following be removed as there's no evidence they've ever been considered to be missing persons:

As per #Mysterious non-disappearances, their exact fate is unknown (hence it could be said that their fate is (now) a mystery) but only because there's no extant record, not because they went missing. 208.76.82.4 (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And likewise:

Rosemary Tonks & Licorice McKechnie & Sada Abe now removed [48] - 58.8.240.136 (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Mahdi

I propose the removal of muhammad al-mahdi from this list. There appears to be no information on the internet about his disappearance, and it's not even cited in the main article. All I can find is that he "went into occult" which appears to be similar to the disappearance of Jesus, and I feel that the deletion of al-mahdi will improve the article.Bradenkeith (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added {{Fact|date=August 2008}} tags to Muhammad al-Mahdi [49] and Hasan al-Askari [50], and removed the entry from this list [51] as it's had a {{fact}} tag since May 2008. It can easily be put back if suitable references are found. 74.208.16.17 (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Xu Fu

I propose the removal of Xu Fu. Every reference I can find to Xu Fu suggests that he set out for (what is now) Japan (he'd been there before), landed there (although accounts of exactly where in Japan vary - having said that, accounts of where he set out from also vary), has a famous tomb (in fact, several famous tombs!) in Japan, and many Japanese people claim to be descended from him and/or worship him as an ancestor. I can't find any reference to any alternative possible outcomes. 74.208.16.17 (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that all of this is legend, and perhaps the "multiple tombs" demonstrates the mysteriousness of his disappearance? I could go either way on this one, as it's tricky with anything this old to confirm details about what REALLY happened.Bradenkeith (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's only a mysterious disappearance if you tell the story purely from the point of view of Qin Shi Huang. The current reference says that it was not a mysterious disappearance, and the Xu Fu article has no references that contradict this. 202.62.106.10 (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Now removed [52] - 202.62.100.49 (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Disappeared from history

As a historian (among other things), I don't think people whose NAME at certain point disappeared from the documents at our disposal today belong in this list - especially not those who lived in distant eras (such as Nefertiti, or even Francois Villon). Historic records are notoriously spotty. An individual's disappearance from - better: "discontinued appearance" in - documents does not, under any circumstance, suggest that the PERSON herself/himself actually disappeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.132.172 (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

See also #Mysterious non-disappearances and the suggested "...if there's no evidence that a person went missing during their own lifetime or when they died or immediately thereafter, then that person shouldn't be listed here" criterea. I agree that the current Nefertiti and François Villon entries don't really belong here. 202.62.100.49 (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Nefertiti and François Villon now removed [53] - 74.208.16.17 (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone who disappears from history can become mysterious if enough historians (or laity) become curious about it and no resolution emerges. As in the case of Nefertiti.--Michael C. Price talk 12:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

New list of formerly mysterious disappearances?

How about an accompanying list of resolved / formerly mysterious disappearances? To much good material is lost from this list only to resurface again and again. Two lists would stop us going around in circles. --Michael C. Price talk 11:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea, i agree lately a lot of good material is getting deleted and not much is added, while a lot of the deletions seem to resurface again. A second list of resolved formerly mysterious disappearances seems like a good solution. Are you proposing a new list or one that is incorporated into this list? Erebus Morgaine (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
For starters, just make it two lists in the same article -- both seem covered by the article heading. Or explicitly change the list's remit to include "formerly mysterious" as well as "currently mysterious". After all both are mysterious, just with different adjectives. --Michael C. Price talk 12:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to include the words "formerly mysterious" or something along those lines, otherwise i expect the entries to get deleted/restored/deleted etc. again. So for clarity i think we must include that. Also I'm not quite sure how we would have 2 lists on one page without it looking messy but i trust you have an idea about that? Erebus Morgaine (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Can't we just stick them in separate sections and generate a contents list, as in List of oldest trees, which contains sublists? --Michael C. Price talk 09:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Isn't it about time we renamed the article "List_of_people_who_have_mysteriously_disappeared"? Any objections?--Michael C. Price talk 12:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No objections received, so page moved. --Michael C. Price talk 08:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, too late. I disagree with the change. A disappearance is by definition a mysterious thing. I don't think it needs emphasising in the page title. -- how do you turn this on 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Disagree - a disappearance is not by definition a mysterious thing. The clarification was long overdue (see #Name Change). 58.8.5.127 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the user in the above thread. It's too vague. -- how do you turn this on 19:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Too vague? Which user are you agreeing with?
To respond to another comment: disappearances are definitely not mysterious by definition. Look at the disappearance of Muller, which some people claim (quite vehemently -- and erroneously) is not mysterious. Or Nefertiti's.
--Michael C. Price talk 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Fossett

Should he be removed from this list as his body parts were found in the plane therefore he is not 'missing' etc anymore?

Indeed, he's not missing if that's the case. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Flight 19

I'm surprised that Flight 19 isn't in here. I know it might have it's own article and be in the Bermuda Triangle, but it should be here for completeness's sake, because it was a mysterious disappearance. 68.44.141.207 (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

See Ships? - 124.157.250.127 (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_who_disappeared_mysteriously/Archive_1&oldid=1137004736"