Jump to content

Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

A lot of these aren't mysterious at all

For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Uemura Another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_Jan_Ader

I could add dozens, but I'm just finding the most obvious. How do we start cleaning this up?

Mercster (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Some aspects of this have been discussed in threads above, one of which also tries to deal with the fact that the solved cases are not mysteries. Unfortunately, it seems that the discussions keep stalling. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The first one should definitely be removed from the list, though I would balk at deletion as it is clear he had other stuff going on. The second, would suggest death by drowning, so again, not mysterious at all. A discussion (actually quite a heated discussion) was held about the validity of including Lord Lucan, who, let's face it, did not disappear mysteriously hence why he is not on the list. Deletion of routine run of the mill articles is fine by me, though I would prefer that they follow the format above instituted by Sitush whereby notice is posted on this page rather than just sending to AfD. These articles are where the person is non-notable other than their disappearance except when the disappearance is notable (IE Corrie McKeague, Lionel Buster Crabb, etc). The problem lies with where do you draw the line; Amelia Earhart is a definite disappearance that was mysterious, but DB Cooper less so, because he intended to disappear otherwise he would be sent to prison if he survived.
The solved cases issue was raised quite recently, though I cannot remember if we voted on it (although I actually think that was to spin the solved cases into a separate article rather than flat out delete.) Propose a vote? That is, after all, the Wikiquette way. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't want solved cases to simply be deleted if for no other reason than that "whatever happened to so-and-so" (the McStay Family or Martin Bormann or whoever) is precisely the sort of question many people turn to Wikipedia to find out about. The solved cases section was originally set up to list, "a few cases of people whose disappearances were notable and remained unexplained for a long time, but were eventually explained, or the body found," as the article's introductory paragraph states. But it has long since gone beyond "a few cases," so I vote for it to be spun off into a separate list that links back to "mysteriously disappeared." Pleonic (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of articles

Pinging users TheGracefulSlick Icewhiz; Whilst I have no issue with the deletion of articles and the evidence offered to delete rather than keep, could you please post notice on this talk page with a link to the AfD template detailing which articles are in the process of AfD? At least eight articles have gone via AfD without letting everyone know on this talk page, which would be appreciated. I wouldn't have voted to keep any of those that have gone, but I have only found out after they have been deleted and removed from the list. Thank you and best wishes. The joy of all things (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush: (who nomed some of these). I believe they were all in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime (and if not definitely in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People). I didn't nominate any of them - though I did !vote (as I do on most Crime delsorted entries). I don't think any are open at the moment - Sitush and TheGracefulSlick did nominate a few (some were kept, many deleted) whose sourcing wasn't strong (e.g. an entry in a couple of missing person DBs and a local paper).Icewhiz (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Icewhiz; Sitush and I had a conversation on his/her talk page where I mentioned this and he/she did post their AfDs on this page, which is why I left him/her out. I recognise that you have voted only so far, but just in case you do forward some to AfD, then I think that the community and myself would appreciate prior notification. The issue I have is that they are being posted almost anywhere but here (WP crime is not a catch all as some of the articles do not have a Crime Tag on them). Thanks for the response and best wishes. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

When is "List of missing ships" / "List of missing aircraft" more appropriate?

After reading through all the unsolved cases on this page and reviewing its lead paragraph as well as the leads for "List of missing ships" and "List of missing aircraft", I made a list of all the entries on this page that seem more appropriate for the other two:

List of missing ships

  • Evi Nemeth (2013): disappeared without a trace on a yacht between Australia and New Zealand
  • Angus Primrose (1980): missing at sea, although I couldn't tell if his boat was ever found
  • David Kenyon Webster (1961): disappeared while shark fishing off the coast by Santa Monica, although I couldn't tell if his boat was ever found
  • Ettore Majorana (1938): disappeared on a boat trip from Palermo to Naples, but may have been sighted years later
  • Joshua Slocum (1909): disappeared while sailing from Martha's Vineyard to South America
  • Hermann Fol (1892): disappeared along with the crew of his yacht after leaving France
  • Theodosia Burr Alston (1812): disappeared after sailing from South Carolina, where legend has she was captured by pirates
  • George Bass (1803): never heard from again after setting sail from Australia to South America
  • Aimée du Buc de Rivéry (1788): disappeared when returning to Martinique from France when her ship went missing; legend has she was captured by Barbary pirates and sold to be a consort to an Ottoman sultan
  • Henry Vansittart, Luke Scrafton, and Francis Forde (1769/70): delegation whose ship disappeared with all hands while sailing the Mozambique Channel
  • Urasoe Chōri (1638): disappeared with his ship off Japan
  • Ikegusuku Antō (1579): disappeared at sea while traveling from Japan to China
  • Francisco de Hoces (1526): disappeared in the Pacific Ocean, although rumored to have made it to "Easter Island or any of the Polynesian archipelagos, or even New Zealand"
  • Miguel Corte-Real (1502): disappeared at sea while searching for his brother (see below)
  • Gaspar Corte-Real (1501): "disappeared on an expedition to discover the Northwest Passage from Europe to Asia"
  • John Cabot (1499): "disappeared along with his five ships during an expedition to find a western route from Europe to Asia"
  • Vandino and Ugolino Vivaldi (c. 1291): each disappeared on their own galleys while trying to make the first voyage from Europe to Asia


List of missing aircraft

  • Ian Mackintosh (1979): disappeared with two passengers over the Gulf of Alaska; no wreckage was ever found, despite a distress signal being sent out
  • Frederick Valentich (1978): disappeared over Bass Strait in Australia
  • Nick Begich and Hale Boggs (1972): disappeared without a trace over a remote part of Alaska
  • Charles Clifford Ogle (1964): disappeared after taking off from Oakland, presumably headed towards the Sierra Nevada
  • Camilo Cienfuegos (1959): disappeared while flying from Camagüey to Havana
  • Three United States Air Force airmen, commander Captain Robert H. Hodgin, observer Captain Gordon M. Insley, and pilot 2nd Lt. Ronald L. Kurtz (1956): disappeared over the Mediterranean
  • First Lieutenant Felix Moncla, pilot, and Second Lieutenant Robert Wilson (22), radar operator (1953): disappeared over Lake Superior while intercepting an unknown (allegedly Canadian) aircraft
  • Sir Arthur Coningham (1948): "one of 25 passengers, together with six crewmen" who disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle
  • Glenn Miller (1944): disappeared over the English Channel
  • Sigizmund Levanevsky (1937): disappeared with his crew of five near the North Pole
  • Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan (1937): of course disappeared over the Pacific, near Howland Island
  • Roald Amundsen (1928): disappeared with five of his crew in the Arctic
  • Paul Redfern (1927): disappeared while trying to fly from Georgia, USA to Brazil (I think)
  • Charles Nungesser and François Coli (1927): disappeared while attempting a transatlantic flight
  • Alejandro Bello Silva (1914): disappeared over Chile
  • Eduardo Newbery (1908): disappeared over Argentina


Thedeathofusernames (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thedeathofusernames: As I've said elsewhere, aerial and maritime disappearances where the vehicle does not go missing but the people do should be put on this list (the cruise ship disappearances of Rebecca Coriam and Amy Lynn Bradley being prime examples). Disappearances where the plane or watercraft disappeared along with them go on those lists. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Irvine (mountaineer)

Andrew Irvine (mountaineer) is listed in the 1924 section. True, his body may not have been found but there is nothing mysterious about his disappearance. Indeed, it is quite commonplace. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This, by the way, is an example of why the entire list is dubious. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the ridiculously catch-all lead section. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

We really need to make it clear in the lead that a disappearance is mysterious when no one can say for certain that the person died, even if the circumstances of their last known whereabouts probably argue for the conclusion that they did. That has been the thrust of previous discussions here.

And as far as people who disappear while mountaineering or hiking alone go, I'd support having a separate List of wilderness disappearances or something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

AFD

Sitush recommended I alert editors to AFD discussions here. I have started this discussion recently.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Date format

I noticed the article uses the dmy format throughout the article, which isn't entirely wrong. I was about to change it to mdy for those who required it but I know there is a guideline regarding keeping the same format throughout the article. However, there also exists MOS:DATETIES, but this article in particular has more than one nationality. Plus, the American date format always used mdy as has Canada. I thought I'd reach out here first before changing the dates. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

no Jacques La Ramee?

he disappeared in either northern colorado or southeastern wyoming back in the 1820s and was never seen again. his namesake is all over the place out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.6.225 (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Marcelin & Francine Dumoulin, Switzerland, 1942

According to the Sunday Times (London), 'Home' supplement, p. 25, Jan 21,2018 the bodies these 2 Swiss people, having disappeared after going to milk their cows, were rediscovered in July 2017 after the melting of part of the Tsanfleuron glacier. These facts, perhsaps from a more detailed source, maybe worth adding to the article. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not simply a case of adding their disappearance and the fact that their remains have been found. An article about their disappearance must exist first, so that its notability can be established. Many, many people disappear but we don't write articles for them unless they were notable individuals or the disappearance was in some way unusual. You're welcome to go ahead and start an article on the disappearance of the Dumoulins, but at this stage it looks like the only thing interesting was that they remained undiscovered so long. Akld guy (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No references, no inclusion

Just a reminder to not add a person to this article without a reference that explicitly speaks to the mysterious nature of their disappearance. Uncited entries will be removed (and re-removed, if necessary). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Solved cases

Some of the recent solved cases have bodies discovered within the month, with at least one found within the week. Does this really constitute a "mysterious disappearance" as it is very close to the point where everyone abducted and murdered would qualify? Britmax (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The idea is that if they were formally reported missing, they can be included, since during that time between the report and the discovery of the body they had mysteriously disappeared.

I personally think it's time to spin that off into a separate list. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Break up list?

Thoughts on breaking up this list? It is quite long, and has over 850 references. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As I have said in other discussions, at the very least we should have any fugitives from justice (Lord Lucan, David Durham etc.) on a separate list as their disappearances are, by definition, foul play. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Lord Lucan should not be on the list as his disappearance was not mysterious; he intended to disappear as did D.B. Cooper. However, I do believe the list should be split up, though I would prefer a country by country (or continental basis). Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
By definition all fugitives from justice intended to disappear; the police must actively seek them.

I certainly wouldn't quarrel with a country-by-country split either (along with a separate chronological split; entries could and should be on both); I think we are sort of headed that way.

I have also argued in the past for splitting off maritime disappearances, specifically those in which either a) someone disappeared while on board a ship, like Rebecca Coriam or Amy Lynn Bradley or b) the person or people disappeared but the boat was found (Kaz II, Mary Celeste etc.) Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: If there is any clear candidate for being split as it stands right now, it's the list of "solved cases" at the end, basically just because we wanted to keep them on this page. I think that could easily become List of formerly missing people, subdivided into "found dead" and "found alive", with maybe a subsection for people like Agatha Christie and that French lawyer who reappeared but never disclosed their whereabouts afterward. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The list could be split as the current list and then List of people who disappeared mysteriously in the 21st century including the solved cases. I set up a split page at my sandbox page and it would shrink the current page by 156,218 bytes. Shinerunner (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

El tunante

I thought it would be interesting to add the story of a boat with 4 Argentinians that capsized off the coast of Brazil. There was another boat 400 meters away that was going to help but that due to visibility couldn't.

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/1787277-tunante-la-historia-de-un-naufragio

That sounds like they died by drowning, so whilst sad, not mysterious. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Scope

With 7 billion people on the planet, the number of unsolved disappearances is going to be large. For example, how many people disappear intentionally on a path to suicide, or escape from a domestic situation? This list represents only a fraction, but it's still too long. The list might be more manageable, and useful, if it was limited to genuinely curious disappearances, where there is no primary theory what happened (or is otherwise highly notable). A genuine mystery, not to be confused with lack of certainty. Most of these cases appear to have reasonable theories (stated or implied) and tend to be kind of banal. -- GreenC 05:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This article isn't about "unsolved disappearances". Read the title. The fact that the disappearance was mysterious confers the idea that people considered and wondered about the absence. The person disappearing was more widely known than, say, a little kid going k=missing in the favelas of Sao Paolo. Both are heart-breaking, but the scope is limited accordingly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

people considered and wondered about the absence would be the case for unsolved disappearance, by definition. It's unsolved because they considered and wondered about the disappearance. The favela example is pretty extreme and misses the point that, oh, 80% of the world is not of that type. There will be local news sources in most cases. The scope is way too broad, the only reason the article isn't much bigger is it's random, with no systematic attempt to find all such cases. Usually developed Western nations get attention due to the inherit systemic bias of what sources editors/readers are exposed to. But even there, many are still missing from the list. -- GreenC 15:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I cannot disagree with you more, GreenC. What you call "systemic bias", I (and likely most of the rest of the Western World) consider to be an openness to all stories that one rarely finds in non-Western countries. For example: booksellers in Hong Kong began to systematically go missing1 which was reported by the western media outlets, and completely nothing was heard from within China. Likewise, Indonesian, Thai and Pinay female hosekeepers and nannies in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and elsewhere in the Middle East are constantly abused, both sexually and overworked, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any media coverage from a Middle-Eastern-based news media (al Jazeera as always, being the notable exception). Also consider that people probably go missing in these non-Western countries just as often as citizens in their western counterparts, but the disappearances are balanced against some of the notoriously violent (and often repressive) condictions of these countries. Thus, the favela example; people go missing everywhere with depressing frwequency. If someone known or popular (pre- or post-disappearance) goes missing, it draws more attention.
I'd also suggest that you consider the possibility that the demographic backgrounds of our frequent contributors - privy to comparatively open societies - instead of some nebulous 'systemic bias'. Indeed, Wikipedia takes an inordiante nubmer of steps to counter any such bias that occurs2, 3, so maybe slow your roll on making an accusation which is only going to get you trout-slapped. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I respect your right to think that the topic is "too broad", but it seems to have worked thus far. The editors working here have managed to calve off those articles or disappearances that don't fulfill the criteria for inclusion to this article. If you are unsure of those criteria, just ask. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I think your over-reacting to a single sentence (supported by WP:SYSTEMIC and any number of academic studies on Wikipedia) - no bad faith intended but it looks like a derail from the central point that this list is way too broad in scope, it could be orders of magnitude bigger based on the current criteria for inclusion. And it's already too big. -- GreenC 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
129,000 missing person reports within a few states in India (not the whole country). What percentage of these have reliable sources in newspapers? 5% seems low, but even that would be 6,500 new entries in this list. -- GreenC 19:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
"An average of 4,818 people are reported missing every year in Hong Kong". If 5% of those cases make the news, that would be 240 new entries. Every year. From Hong Kong. Example cases. -- GreenC 19:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you suggesting sister articles that are country specific, under an umbrella article about those disappearances that are transnational in nature? If so, I find that an intriguing idea. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Those articles would also be too big. The numbers are huge. Look I understand how these lists get started, at some point Wikipedia needed a place to track it, probably split off from the main article missing person years ago. Over time many editors put a lot of work into it. But clearly it's not working when the list is so incomplete, and would require a full-time staff to keep the database up to date globally. The solution is simple: tighten inclusion criteria. -- GreenC 20:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Excellent points Green C that the list will never be complete or accurate. I'm sure that the editors that are/have worked on articles like the List of stars, List of galaxies and Lists of comets (along with the related sub lists) also realize that the task is too large and never will be complete. My thought is that this is the English Wikipedia, not the Complete Worldwide Wikipedia nor the Encyclopedia Galactica, and many of the world's cases of mysterious disappearance won't be found here but may be found on one of the other 300+ language Wiki's. Also, one of the existing entries may pique interest in shipwrecks, glacial motion or any number of subjects that are sometimes connected to a disappearance[1]. Since you brought up India I took a look at the numbers for missing persons in the United States "which had roughly averaged 750,000 cases per year between 2004-2014" and have possibly 1-2 entries per year on the list currently. I agree with you that notability or unique circumstances, such as multiple persons disappearing at the same time, should be the primary reason for inclusion but I think that you would be had pressed to find a case in which there is "no primary theory what happened" in a modern case of a missing person. Getting off my soapbox now.Shinerunner (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Well thank you for recognizing the scope problem, and giving a reasonable perspective on it. I can certainly understand English vs. non-English weighting, it's a systemic bias but not in a negative or positive sense, just reality of Enwiki. Perhaps rather than the "no primary theory" approach, another way is to require a higher degree of sourcing eg. no local-sources only, multiple national or international sources, etc.. this can be codified in the article itself, or as a guideline on the talk page. It doesn't have to be a hard line, just a local guideline, if people really want to add something anyway they can. Then go through the current list and move any that fail into the talk page with a note why, and if someone thinks it should be added back then discuss. Then going forward the list will be shorter, fewer entries being added, and more in-line with Wikipedia's conceptual core of "notable" information. -- GreenC 15:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me that the list could use some cleaning. I eliminated a number of entries while converting the list to a sortable table, thought about removing some others, and rewrote some entries to make them more coherent or added background information to give understanding for the entry. Splitting the entries of explained disappearances, after looking back through the archives and seeing most agreed with such a split, is one way to try to make the list more manageable. Personally, I think the list should be split again, similar to the split we did at List of maritime disasters, to List of people who disappeared mysteriously in the 21st century. Amusingly, someone, in a removed response here, accused me of engaging in "official vandalism". Sometimes it feels like a Catch-22 situation. Shinerunner (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are going to have to reinstate those entries you removed while creating the table; any entries you disagree with deserve discussion before removal. The alternative is going back through the history and undoing the entire table and reinstating the old format before putting the table back in with ALL of the entries. While I am fairly certain that no discussion was had regarding the addition of a table format, I am not as opposed to that as I am to the wholesale removal of entries (like that of Lord Lucan, who has been the subject of no less than two sections here in discussion) under the apparent 'noise' of reformatting. I am hoping that such was not the intent, and am hoping that it was done under the mistaken belief that it was efficient.
I leave the choice up to you; I will only wait a day or so (to keep the resulting mess at a minimum) before undoing the entire table to uncover the entries removed. I really wish you had discussed this idea of the table before implementation. Being Bold isn't a great idea when moving through contentious edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The article is improved by the table. Recovering some lost entries is not worth the loss of the table (plus many new entries only exist in the table). I would suggest working with Shinerunner to uncover lost entries, and/or checking the diffs yourself, but making threats of removing the table and giving a 24hr deadline -- I couldn't support that. -- GreenC 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Not to be overly contentious, but commenting that the article is "improved by the table" is a subjective opinion; as per BRD, its a bold move, and is subject to reversion and subsequent discussion. Had we discussed it beforehand, we might have made to provisions to avoid the clusterfuckery of missing entries now. I don't see why I or anyone other than the person making the change should sort through to find out which entries were removed on the sly. If I am forced to go over DIFFs, you can bet that the table is going to go away to find them.
In the alternative, I would suggest that we:
  1. discuss how the table improves the article. I for one disagree with this assessment, as it makes it more difficult for those unfamiliar with table design to add new entrants to the article.
  2. go back and undo the addition of the table, the recreate the table (assuming there is consensus for the table) and add ALL of the entries into said table. Those entries that people disagree with gets discussed here, not accomplished by fiat.
That's how we move forward from here. If you perceived my previous comment as a threat, consider that adding the table and simultaneously (and subjectively) removing entries was a recipe for a stupid edit-war. It should have been discussed. I think the two options above are completely agreeable, considering the alternative BRD removal of the bold change to a table. In any case, Lord Lucan - who was surrepticiously removed during the en-tabling of the article - goes back into the article. There has been a shit-ton of discussion about this, and if you wish to challenge existing consensus about it, feel free.
I know that some will take exception to both my language and my bold use of a semi-ultimatum here; I apologize for that. I am likely taking extreme exception to the removal of entries by undiscussed fiat. This admittedly cynical observation is reinforced by the complete lack of apology by the acting editors for having done so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Changing to table format began on 23 March, more than three weeks ago, in this edit, which put the "Before 1800" cases in table format. Other sections were later converted. The solved cases were split off into a separate article. Not a single editor has complained or reverted the changes. In my opinion, the changes are an improvement. In the original format, some of the entries were overly wordy with too much detail. The table format now encourages editors to be more concise. The reader's eye can now scan down columns for a date, name, age, or circumstances without being distracted by the other information, which is now in another column. Much clearer and neater. It was certainly a mistake to remove entries at the same time as tabulating, and that is most unfortunate. However, it would be a mistake to revert the tabling and seek consensus for it. Because no editor has complained over the past hree and a half weeks, the table format has by default already achieved consensus, and the onus is on the objecting editor to seek consensus for reversion. Akld guy (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
That's an interesting opinion; it is also the wrong one, Akld guy. The regular contributors to this article's structure don't visit here every day, and it isn't unusual for some of us to not visit the article in a month, esp. if we are simultaneously involved in RL activities and other articles here. As far as I can see, there were about three editors working in tandem to repopulate data after the article was restructured. Three folks do not a consensus make (you will recall in other articles from the past where you have argued precisely this point).
Note that I am not necessarily opposed to the restructuring (apart from the problem of new entries being added by those who are unfamiliar with tables) as much as I am with the undiscussed removal of entries.
I made my position pretty dang clear: reinstate all of the entries removed during the table-making process, or we have to go back to before the table was created, achieve a spoken consensus that the table format is better and THEN populate the table with ALL of the entries, not just cherry-picked ones. I have noted that no such effort has been made by the editors creating the table to reinstate the entries they removed. That suggests that they don't want to, and you know me well enough to know that that is a problem. The clock is ticking. I'm urging the editors who unilaterally removed content to reinstate it. Or I will. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I made no claim that three editors working to repopulate consisted of a consensus. There must be many, including myself, who have this article in their watchlist. According to this statistic page, there are 646 people watching the article. Not one of them has objected to, or reverted, the table format first introduced on 23 March. Akld guy (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you seem to be taking my patience in explaining the point to you as wavering in my statement. Had the table been inserted without the rampant and unexplained removal of entries, that would be a simple matter or revert and discussion. Since the en-tabling was not a pure move (ie, the sole conversion of text into a table), the entire action is malformed. Therefore, it must be undone and - if upon consensus - redone - retaining all of the entries. Entries can then be retained or dispensed with via discussion. Using Lucan as but a single example, there are megabytes of discussion about his entry, and yet, it was removed without a single sentence of explanation. That's just begging for a fight, and corrosive to the point of article discussion.
I've removed the table. I am not opposed to the recreation fo the table, and the entries ported over. I will not allow the table to be reverted back in, as the missing entries would stll be missing. We add the entries, or the table stays out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been unable to establish consensus via informal talk page discussions. Multiple people disagree with your proposal and multiple people have reverted your proposed changes. The next step is you would start a formal consensus process such as an RfC. -- GreenC 06:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: I am sorry, but you seem to be misapprehending how BRD works. You added the table without discussion. That's called a BOLD change. It was REVERTED. As per WP:BRD, the point is to now DISCUSS. If you aren't interested in BRD, please feel free to initiate an RfC; after all, you want to add the table, and you are encountering dissent for its inclusion of the table in its current form

You might have missed how I created a section to discuss this very matter at the bottom of the page. Maybe contribute there, to keep all comments about the same subject int he same place. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD-NOT: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. -- GreenC 06:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
First of all, it isn't a Good Faith effort if you conceal removals of entries during the table's population process. If anything, that's considered bad faith, in that you populated a version of the article within the table. Maybe you should address that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, I know you might be blind with rage at having your pet version reverted, but I will point out - yet again, that there is a section set up to discuss this very topic. Maybe, you know, use it.
But in case you are still raging away, allow me to point out a few things:
  1. You didn't have any consensus for adding the table. Strike one.
  2. You removed entries from the article while making aforementioned unilateral table. Strike two.
  3. You were given the option - several times - to re-add all of the removed entries to the table, knowing full well that failing to do so would cause the table to be removed. Strike three, buddy.
This ain't Burger King; you don't get it your way. You find a consensus for a change you want to make. If you don't get consensus and make the change anyway, anyone can come along and undo the change. BRD isn't there as some humpty-dumpty acronym for you to spout off at a dinner party. Its there to provide you a framework for editing the right way and avoiding the shit-storm you've managed to create here. BRD allows people to discuss changes before they are implemented; so its pretty fucking omportant. You failed to do that; this is what happens when you try to end-run the process. And removing entries willy-nilly? You are just begging for an editorial curb-stomp when you do that. And when you conceal them in a table creation under the guise of making things better? That's blockable territory there, sport.
So, you are starting off in the hole here. Maybe addressing the points I've brought up, and maybe explain why you removed entries while creating the table. Explain why you are edit-warring when there is a reasonable alternative on the table that doesn't end up with your getting trout-slapped. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Jack, you claimed that "Lord Lucan - who was surrepticiously removed during the en-tabling of the article" and "Using Lucan as but a single example, there are megabytes of discussion about his entry, and yet, it was removed without a single sentence of explanation". Lord Lucan was removed by you [2]. Edward321 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Article scope

The article scope is currently defined:

This is a list of people who disappeared mysteriously and of people whose current whereabouts are unknown or whose deaths are not substantiated. Many people who disappear are eventually declared dead in absentia.

Question: does this include solved cases? That is, cases that were not immediately solved, resulting in a period of mystery, but were later solved, no longer being a mystery. Seems like this list should be for active mysteries only and not solved ones, because the later is a much larger set than the former. -- GreenC 15:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it should include solved cases: the name of the page is "List of people who disappeared mysteriously", and, pretty much by definition, that covers both solved and unsolved cases, as the "mystery" presumably applies to the mystery at the time of disappearance. If we want a different definition, the page should be called something like "List of unsolved mysterious disappearences", but I think its content would be so nearly the same as the current page as to make it pointless; not to mention that we would then need another smaller page entitled something like "List of solved mysterious disappearences". Perhaps we could have a "solved" flag somewhere in each solved entry, to clarify which is which? Maybe something looking a bit like the  Done or
Resolved
templates? -- The Anome (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The format before table formatting included solved cases; so should this. Before the conversion and after the conversion should show precisely the same entries. People who want to remove entries AFTER the formatting can do so, when the dust has settled. I am going to presume that that has been done. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"Mysteriously" vs "Fugitives"

I know this has popped up a few times in the past, but I just wanted to get clarification on the matter. The article deals with people who disappeared mysteriously - that is, there is no definitive explanation for their disappearance. Under this reasoning, Lord Lucan, for instance, is not included on this list, since although he disappeared, it was after committing murder: thus it can safely be assumed that his disappearance is not mysterious, since we know why he disappeared - to avoid capture by the police. Skimming the page, I see a number of entries including Bradford Bishop, Xavier Dupont de Ligonnès and David Durham all listed. If we aren't including Lucan since his disappearance can be explained, should these guys also be removed from the list? In all three cases, their disappearances are not mysterious. Sure, their whereabouts are unknown, they may be missing presumed dead, but their disappearances aren't mysterious. All three are fleeing murder charges. I'm not advocating one way or the other, just wanted to get a general consensus from editors here - should fugitives be included, given their disappearances can be explained? FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

FirefoxLSD - is there a reason you chose to start a new section, and not follow-up with the section I just posted 10 minutes ago right above it on the exact same topic? We are in agreement the list should not include solved cases. -- GreenC 15:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that I'm not in agreement about the solved/unsolved distinction, for the reasons I gave above: but the fugitive vs. non-fugitive issue, yes, that makes sense to me, as the disapperances certainly couldn't have been a mystery at the time. Perhaps there should be a page List of fugitives for that? -- The Anome (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
There's a difference between solved cases and fugitive cases. Solved cases are where someone went missing, and after a period of time their disappearance was explained, and the myery is solved. Fugitive cases on the other hand are ones where from the very start their disappearance can be explained, there is no mystery at all about them.FirefoxLSD (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I can see that. But the article title is "List of people who disappeared mysteriously", not "List of mysterious disappearances". I agree that the disappearance is no longer mysterious (present tense), but they still disappeared mysteriously (i.e. it was a mystery at the time of disappearance). If you want to make that change, I think you should also rename the article to reflect the new definition: to say "List of mysterious disappearances". -- The Anome (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I understand the point that you are making. Let's take Lord Lucan as an example. Members of his household wind up dead and Lucan, the most liley suspect, goes missing. He was declared a fugitive from justice, so someone who who blows town to avoid a 6x9 cell until the 6th of Nevuary isn't really a mystery. That's the distinction that separates Lucan from, say, Judge Crater, who up and vanished like a fart in the wind. There was no clear reason for him to vanish, so the disappearance is mysterious. If later its found that Lucan or Crater are found, or someone credible (and official - that's key, i think) comes forward to explain the mystery, then it moves from the mysterious column to the solved column. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
There's a difference between someone who disappeared under circumstances that remain mysterious (the vast majority of cases here) and someone who evaded justice by means that remain mysterious (Lucan and a few others). We can guess why Lucan may have chosen to disappear, but it's the method he used that's the mystery. Did he leave the country? How did he do that without a passport? Was he helped by friends or the police? Did he commit suicide? I don't think we should be excluding such people simply because we think we know the why and are insisting on that narrow definition. It's the how that makes some cases mysterious. The fact that editors re-enter Lucan from time to time is proof of that. Akld guy (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Lord Lucan should certainly be in the list because there are numerous sources which describe his disappearance as mysterious. Having browsed the list, there are many other entries which don't seem mysterious -- just gaps in the historical record in ancient times; people lost at sea; people lying low after losing a battle. What I'd expect from this list are the famous cases such as Lucan; the Mary Celeste and Ambrose Bierce. There are borderline cases like Amelia Earhart which are not especially surprising (flying round the world was obviously dangerous) but which have an element of mystery (was she spying on the Japanese?). We should generally be looking to the sources for evidence that the cases are considered mysterious; we should not be engaging in independent OR. Lucan obviously qualifies. Andrew D. (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, as did the consensus that emerged every single time this came up in previous discussions (See archives 3 and 4 for details). I think that this comes from a major misunderstanding of what the litmus for inclusion to this article is.
In short, a mysterious disappearance is characterized here as a person who vanished from public view for no earthly or understandable reason. Judge Crater, or Maura Murray or Jorgenson Jorgensen are good examples of this. Crater was an employed, respected member of the community, Murray vanished from the scene of a car crash, and Jorgenson Jorgensen had just finished prison and had a an apparently good life. None had an ascertainable reason to disappear.
People like Lucan were the main suspects in some pretty horrific shit, and that they got themselves gone is not only reasonable, but predictable. Add to that the fact that numerous sources consider him a fugitive from justice, and boom, the guy doesn't belong on this list.
To be clear: how someone disappears may be flamboyant or mundane, but it isn't germane to the fact that they are gone when there is no reason for them to be gone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Corrected spelling from Jorgenson to Jorgensen for those who want to search for the entry. Akld guy (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Jack Sebastian here - fleeing from the law is a disappearance, but not a mysterious disappearance. Edward321 (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that was a lot of removals, Edward321. Perhaps verifying that we're dealing with actual fugitives from justice might help matters. Dave Brown, for instance, wasn't a fugitive; the FBI just wanted tot alk to the guy about the murder. No warrant was ever issued. Therefore, not an actual suspect - at least, not according to the article or the sources there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Xavier Dupont de Ligonnès

Xavier Dupont de Ligonnès is a fugitive from justice. "On 10 May, an international arrest warrant was issued for Xavier Dupont de Ligonnès."[1] His disappearance is not mysterious.

References

  1. ^ "Un mandat d'arrêt international est lancé contre Xavier de Ligonnès". Le Monde.fr (in French). ISSN 1950-6244. Retrieved 2015-09-14.

Jack Sebastian, what is your rationale for adding this fugitive from justice to the article? @Edward321: and myself believe it should be removed. As you have noted, "The litmus for inclusion is when someone disappears when they had no earthly or obvious reason to do so," which is supported by many previous consensus discussions. -- GreenC 21:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

David Durham (fugitive)

David Durham (fugitive) is a fugitive from justice. "A Federal arrest warrant for Durham was issued January 29, 2011, and as of 2018 is still outstanding."[1] His disappearance is not mysterious.

References

  1. ^ "David Anthony Durham". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved November 7, 2017.

Jack Sebastian, what is your rationale for adding this fugitive from justice to the article? -- GreenC 21:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

List of fugitives from justice who disappeared

I have begun the above article with the two entries that were most recently deleted. Please add to the list in that article. Akld guy (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Are all (most) fugitives from justice disappeared? -- GreenC 22:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The historical ones from long ago certainly are, since they are now dead and will forever be disappeared. Another editor tried to move the article to List of fugitives, which would have implied that the list contains only recent people who could still be expected to be alive. Some cases are so old that they must be dead by now. Do you see the difference? Akld guy (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
(we should have this discussion over there). If they are disappeared or not doesn't seem related to their being alive or not. Nor would List of fugitives from justice imply a recent or historic case. There can be historical fugitives from justice. I tend to agree with @El cid, el campeador: who renamed the article, though if it should be List of fugitives from justice or List of fugitives is a further question. -- GreenC 01:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
List of fugitives implies that it's a list of those who are currently fugitives. Makes no allowance for historical cases where the fugitive is now long-dead. Akld guy (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
A person was a fugitive regardless of their current living status. Category:Nazi fugitives contains such examples. -- GreenC 01:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

To table or not to table, that is the question

I returned to the article and noticed that someone had added a nifty little table to the article. I also noticed that quite a few entries that had been int he pre=table version were missing from tho post-table version. One of the missing entries in particular was one for which there was a fairly strong consensus for inclusion.
I am concerned that the folks who created the table did so without discussing what is a fairly major change to the article. In any case, as per WP:BRD, it was a Bold edit, which I have Reverted; now, Discussion takes place.
Additionally, I am extremely concerned that entries went "missing" during the conversion. Maybe it was all a big oopsie, but, judging from the talk here, it was no mistake. Creating a table has a lot of moving parts, and people might miss an entry that doesn't get added. After the creation of a table, its hard to revert it back in without messing up the table formatting. I'm trying to maintain AGF, but I cannot help but wonder if that was in fact the tablemaker's intent. Or, alternatively, if the tablemaker thought that it might be easier to chop this article into a number of subsidiary artivle.
So, I think we need to actually find a consensus for the table's inclusion (there are significant arguments for anf against). If we find that there is a consensus for a table, every entry must be entabled, not just what the tablemaker thinks should be in the artile. Editing in Wikipedia is by consensus, not by fiat.
Whatever we decide, the table cannot be reverted back in; too many entres were whimsically removed without discussion, and its pretty difficult to sift through the DIFFs to find the orphaned entries. If we decide to re-create a table, then I am cool with that, so long as the entire article is converted over to the table - not just the tablemaker's preferred entries. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit that converted the article into a table, and requested that GimliGlider and GreenC address these issues on this page. I'd suggest that separating the issue of reformatting the article as a table from discussions about content inclusion might be a way to start to resolve this in an amicable way. In principle, reformatting the article as a table seems fine to me, but making contentious content changes hidden within that reformatting, without engaging in discussion, seem to me to be against policy. -- The Anome (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, The Anome. Now, can we discuss the pros and cons to replacing the current format with a table? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You said in the ANI you don't mind the table. Now you want to discuss the pros and cons of having a table. Which is it? I get the impression you don't want the table is the real underlying issue. -- GreenC 14:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: GreenC, let's not make this personal; you shouldn't impart intentions to my actions when you have proven you don't listen when i clearly tell you what they are.
I am in support of a table, despite the fact that doing so will make it more difficult for the average user to add content - they are likely unfamiliar with table formatting, and will create a series of headaches every time a new entry is added. And there will be additions. As people keep disappearing mysteriously.
As for those deleted entries, mankind doesn't have the instruments that can accurately measure how strongly I object to that. To be blunt, it was precisely that shit that created this whole kerfuffle. If you had just done the table, and imported all the content in, chances are, I and everyone else would have been okay with it. To be frank, I am not sure what your intent was, but removing entries while populating the table comes across as pretty shady. You keep talking about how you had consensus for the table (as if 3 editors out of hundreds would ever constitute such), but yet want to deny that consensus existed for every single one of the entries that you removed on the sly. You don't get it both ways.
So, to sum up:
yes to the table, and
hell-effing-no to the undiscussed removal of entries.
You can recreate the table and then populate the table with every single entry - which is what I have proposed since the beginning of this entire discussion. Then you can discuss the removal of entries. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Please get a spell checker, your posts often have blaring spelling errors ("I ogject"). Lay off the swearing and cursing see WP:CIVIL. Third, try not to post walls of oddly formatted text. Post indented text following the person your replying to (me) and not someone else (Guy). Get your facts straight I had nothing to do with creating the table or removing entries - in fact the only edit I ever made to this article has now been deleted by your revert. Do you plan on restoring it? -- GreenC 14:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I mentioned before how you should probably make your comments about the edits, and not the editor, right? :Since you were able to figure out the gist of my post, maybe be a grown-up and move on past the occasional misspelling. My formatting is just dandy, so either get used to it, or get gone. I have no time to spare on snippy little comments masquerading as commentary. And by the by, the word you probably meant to use in place of 'blaring' was 'glaring'. But that's okay; everybody makes mistakes.
Lastly, I did not blame you specifically for the removal of entries during the table substitution. I do hold you responsible for your endorsement of undiscussed reverting of entries, which is still pretty bad.
Now, do you want to focus on the content, or do you want to complain about something else I've done to personally upset you? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You don't want the table is the underlying issue, everything else is a derail to prevent it from being implemented. -- GreenC 18:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. I think I've noted on at least a half-dozen occasions that I'm not opposed to the table. What I don't want is a table where someone slyly removed entries before they were transposed from the previous article format to the table. So add the table, and add every single entry from the article into it. That's it. No extra hoop-jumping, no storming the castle, no illuminati secret handshakes required. Just create a table that's an honest translation of the article format from before.
I am not sure how to make that *any* clearer to you, short of charades or the invention of a silly walk. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't create the table, so that will be up to someone else. You have noted a number of times why the table is not a good idea. So you are inconsistent. You have also not made a !vote, in this discussion, why, what are you keeping back if you support the table? -- GreenC 18:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not blaming you for the table, GreenC, but you seem to be jumping to its defense, so you are who I'm replying to. Belly up to the bar, or go away. I personally don't think the table is a good idea, but some editors want it, and collaborative editing means you don't always get what you want. But hiding deletions while formatting is not a good faith action. If you need to, re-read my previous posts. Stop focusing on the table format; it isn't the problem here (you know, apart from the whole BRD thing). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support conversion to the table format, but for that conversion process to be content-neutral by preserving all entries, including those whose removal Jack Sebastian finds concerning. Subsequent addition and removal of material can then be done as a separate series of edits, subject to discussion at this talk page, as per normal editing processes. -- The Anome (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Precisely. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Table is a vast improvement. It is much more readable, which should be a high objective of any article. The trimming is good to and could probably go further. The editors who did this should be commended as making tables here is a arduous process at the best of times. AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Yes, as long as the formatting and trimming are two separate operations. When you mix the two together, you conceal changes to the article that might deserve discussion. But as for the trimming before the formatting, David Goodheart and I and several others thank you very much. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Nothing is "concealed" it's all in the diffs. You sound like a motivated intelligent user, why don't you re-add the missing entries? You have a bad faith attitude about intentional "concealment". We don't punish editors and degrade the article over suspicions of bad actions. Why don't you help out. Making tables is a huge job anyway this is supposed to be joint effort. Build on what they started. -- GreenC 23:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
This might come as a shock to you, but sometimes editors aren't always that specific in their edit summaries. No one should have to pore over dozens of DIFFs to uncover skullduggery. You are wasting time, GreenC. Focus on the task of a table conversion that creates a true copy of the article that existed before the formatting. If people object to an entry, it can be done when the table is complete. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Aww it's not so hard. Compare the lists side by side, fill in the missing entries. Helping out isn't wasting time. Improve the article rather than accuse editors of skullduggery. All editors believe they are improving the article. -- GreenC 01:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so it shouldn't be all that much trouble to repopulate the table without errant entry removals. That doesn't seem all tha thard, either. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not that its a !vote or anything, but there appears to be a clear consensus for converting the article to table format. Now, how do we start the process of transferring the data from the article to the table woithout losing any entries? That was the problem with the prior table formatting; entries were removed during the process. We need to avoid that mistake this time. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I've been through the history from the first conversion to table format on 23 March to the edit by Jack Sebastian which restored everything back to how it was. Many edits consisted of heavy changes to make the entries compatible with the table format, but there were very few deletions of entries. Here is a list. Unless otherwise stated, the following edits removed entries in their entirety:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4 Restoration of Lord Bingham
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8 Solved cases split
  • 9
  • You can see that there are really only 7 cases of deletions, and those may not even be controversial. They can be re-entered on a one by one case, as per consensus. On the other hand, the table formatting met with approval and many edits were made this month to clean up typos, spelling mistakes and table formatting errors. It would be a tremendous amount of work to start the table formatting all over again, together with the loss of all the good fixes, simply for the sake of 7 deletions that are probably not going to be contentious.
  • Akld guy (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for compiling that list, Akld guy. And no, we are not going to add them back in "on a case by case basis"; that isn't how it works. The table gets repopulated with exactly the same number of entries that were on there before the conversion (in the off-chance that you have missed more deleted entries). Then, and only then, do we discuss the removal of any entry (controversial or not). Had the formatting been performed without adding/removing entries, we wouldn't be here. Going back to the table that was here before it was reverted out is a non-starter. Do it right, or don't do it at all. If anything, it will serve as a model of how to to perform an article table conversion the correct way. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
(in the off-chance that you have missed more deleted entries). Chance isn't how we determine things here. Point out deletions that I missed and if you find any, add them to my list.
it will serve as a model of how to to perform an article table conversion the correct way. No, we don't set examples. What you're attempting here is WP:POINT. I need hardly tell you that WP:POINT is a form of disruption. Akld guy (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted and dismissed. You found 9 instances of entry removal (thanks for slogging through that, btw); I hardly think that the removals were all innocent removals. In any case, it polluted the table formatting because - and you'll want to pay attention here, as this is important - there wasn't a true conversion of the article. That all by itself required redress. Way back at the beginning of this kerfuffle, I did ask the table formatters to undo their entry removals. Their silence was answer enough; they didn't want to do it. So everything that followed, from bandwidth here to the AN/I complaint - is all on their heads. I did nothing but act as the voice of fairness.
You're welcome, btw. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
A "voice of fairness", let's see. The table had an error rate of 1% well within normal human error rates. Nevertheless you made a constant barrage of bad faith accusations towards the "table creators" (User:Shinerunner) claiming they did it intentionally. Then claim their silence in this discussion is an admission of guilt, but this is what Shinerunner been up to recently. At best you can claim to have uncovered the nine missing entries, but you could have done that quicker and easier by just checking the diffs without all this ANI/RFC nonsense. The root of the problem is your lack of good faith towards the table creator, which stems from your dislike of having a table in the first place. -- GreenC 01:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, GreenC, I will challenge you to point out a post where I said I don't want a table, and I will point out how - in every post - I've stated that its fine to have one. Guess who's going to win that particular pissing contest, sport? But you seem comfortable with your fake narrative; its all you have, and that's pretty fucking sad.
And I didn't "claim" to have found nine deleted entries: Akld guy did that slog work himself. I just knew that entries were going missing during the formatting process. Good faith is given to those that act in good faith. removing entries under the guise of table formatting isn't good faith. If Shinerunner removed the entries, then he's the source of the problem. And no, I won't be apologizing to him if he is one of the people who removed entries without discussion. The way forward is to create a true copy of the article as the table formatting takes place.
Bullshit claims aside, all I want is the table formatting treated honestly. I wonder why people are so dead-set against being honest... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with GreenC. Withdraw the ANI, apologise to Shinerunner and perhaps we may find a way forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Addressing the mistakes of the previous table

Yep, we appear in agreement that a table format is the way forward. Consensus is good.
Now, do we divvy up work from a table template, or what? Understand that we won't revert back to the table result from last time, as it not only removed entries, but sought to change the rules for inclusion without any sort of discussion. So arguing that is a non-starter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The table is created. The result of many hours of labor. It only needs nine more entries, already identified. The criteria changes should be restored to original, a different discussion. -- GreenC 15:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@GreenC: @Jack Sebastian: If GreenC can give a link to a revision that contains their preferred re-formatted version of the article, and Jack Sebastian can give me a list of the nine disputed entries, I will happily merge the two to a version of the article that hopefully satisfies both sides, at least for now. Once that's done, content editing, including any changes to the inclusion rules if so desired, can proceed in the normal way, by discussion-driven consensus. Would everyone be happy with that? -- The Anome (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Since that is what I wanted to see happen from the beginning of this process, I'd be okay with it. Akld guy found the following deletions/edits inconsistent with a pure table conversion:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4 Restoration of Lord Bingham
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8 Solved cases split
  • 9
And thank you for offering what others refuse to do (and that which I do not have time to do myself), Anome. I cannot see a reason why others would honestly have a problem with this solution. The article as it was before the table conversion, is precisely the same after the table conversion. Any changes not related tot eh table conversion can be discussed subsequent to the conversion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, that's good. If GreenC can give me their preferred revision, I can merge those 9 entries back in, and that can be a kicking-off point for further editing that should end the conflict about combining formatting with content editing. @Jack Sebastian: you should not be surprised that other editors will then take them out shortly after the merge. But at least you, and the other editors contributing here, can then engage in editing that is solely about policies and content, for which we have clear policies, without the reformatting being caught up in the mix. -- The Anome (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That's fine, Amone; if they choose to try and remove them, they'll be reinstated, as per BRD; discussion and consensus will determine the strength of the arguments for removal/inclusion - the way it should, instead of some sneaky fait accompli. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The Anome, the latest version of the table is, I guess this. Only for the table itself the lead section shouldn't change. Thank you for taking this up. -- GreenC 18:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what version that is, but here is a DIFF showing the differences between the original (non-table-formatted) version and the last version of the table-formatted version. That best exemplifies tha differences in versions, which frankly looks like a lot more than 9 entries removed. Let me know if you need help. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are the missing entries and the source code that found them: 

Download wikisource for table to file "o2" (manually remove everything but the tables)
Download wikisource for list to file "o1" (manually remove everything but the list)

1. Find primary entry names in o1

  grep -E "^\*" o1 | awk '{split($0,a,/(\[\[)|(\]\])/); split(a[2], b, /[|]/); split(b[1], d, /[#]/); print d[1]}' | sort > o1.names

2. Find primary entry names in o2

  awk -ireadfile 'BEGIN{IGNORECASE=1;f=readfile("o2");patsplit(f, field, /[|][-]\n[|]data[-]sort[-]value[^\n]*[\n][|][^\n]*[\n]|[|][-]\n[|]rowspan[=]\"[0-9]\"[ ]*data-sort-value[^\n]*[\n][|][^\n]*[\n]/,sep); for(j in field) {gsub(/^[|]rowspan[=]\"[0-9]\"[ ]*/,"",field[j]);split(field[j],a,/(\[\[)|(\]\])/); split(a[2],b,/[|]/); split(b[1],d,/[#]/); print d[1]}}' | sort > o2.names

3. Create o3.names (names in o1.names but not o2.names)

  awk 'NR==FNR{a[$0];next} !($0 in a)' o2.names o1.names > o3.names

4. Create o4.names (names in o3.names that also exist in o2)

  awk '{printf("grep -om1 \"%s\" o2\n",$0)}' o3.names | csh > o4.names

5. Generate list of missing names (names in o3.names but not o4.names)

  awk 'NR==FNR{a[$0];next} !($0 in a)' o4.names o3.names

There are 26 entries missing from the table. It is more than nine, but not a lot more. Jack, if you still don't believe it, you'll have to explain why my programming is wrong or show some evidence of other missing entries, not just gut feeling or insinuations of bad intentions. The data doesn't lie, this can be verified and replicated by anyone with access to a unix shell account, these are standard tools on any unix systems and the above can be cut and pasted by any non-programmer. -- GreenC 22:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for finding even more missing entries; I appreciate you taking the effort to find almost three times more missing entries than was previously though. I have no reason to fault your programming skillz; I'm not a programmer.
The end result of this is that Anome either has to add back in 3x more entries than he previously thought, or the table is going to have to be re-created and repopulated by all of us; I know this is a pain in the ass, but I don't see another way that restores some integrity to the article. I'm willing to help out with the work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify: it's disingenuous to claim that 3x more entries were deleted than I found. If you look at my original posting of the nine, I said that they were edits, not entries. Some of those edits consisted of multiple entry deletions. Akld guy (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@GreenC:@Jack Sebastian: I haven't had time to merge them yet, but I've reformatted all the missing entries, and sorted them by date, ready to merge into this article. You can find the list at User:The Anome/mystery. If someone wants to merge them, that would be fine with me. Otherwise, I will merge them either later today or tomorrow. -- The Anome (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The Anome - I merged the list at User:GreenC/mystery using your table - looks like you made a couple changes to dates while I was doing the merge. I also made some date changes. Will go back and try to sync those. -- GreenC 14:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I've also corrected some errors in my earlier conversion work, which was done with a very crude Python script. -- The Anome (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
No problem looking good. -- GreenC 14:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This diff shows 25 new entries added. The missing. It's 25 (not 26) because Flannan Isles Lighthouse was incorrectly identified as missing. This version of the article is the base to restart normal editing BRD etc. -- GreenC 15:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I look forward to seeing this article push its way toward featured list status. -- The Anome (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

add this person? Myra Lewis 2014 age 2 on FBI list

MYRA LEWIS Camden, Mississippi March 1, 2014 [3]

Date(s) of Birth Used November 30, 2011 Hair Black Eyes Brown Height 3'1" Weight 27 pounds Sex Female Race Black Reward: The FBI is offering a reward of up to $20,000 for information regarding the whereabouts of Myra Lewis.

Remarks: Myra Lewis was last seen wearing white or khaki pants, a turquoise sweater with a bear on the front, and pink tennis shoes.

Details: Myra Lewis, age 2, has been missing in Mississippi since March 1, 2014. She was last seen by family members, between 10:30 am and 11 am, playing outside her home in Camden, Mississippi. 140.247.201.57 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 18:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Emstason (talk) ALSO JOE WOOD, MT RANIER

[4] Emstason (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC) WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE MISSING FROM THE LIST I WONDER? Emstason (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Redundant text

Since this is a list of people of people who disappeared mysteriously, and the lead actually specifies the article is about notable people who disappeared in unexplained circumstances, why do we need to say in practically every single entry 'never heard from again', 'disappeared without a trace' or similar? TeraTIX 00:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

add recent people from fbi list?

140.247.201.57 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnapCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Hi, I'm totally new so I'm not going to try to add things myself. But the table (which I like) does not include many of the newer ones on fbi list. Thanks.140.247.201.57 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 140.247.201.57 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 140.247.201.57 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I compared the wiki page and fbi site, all these from the fbi list are not on the table on the wiki site: I removed two I know are dead (that recent van of family went off the cliff).

  • JONATHAN FRASER
  • AMINA AND BELEL KANDIL
  • FALOMA LUHK
  • MALEINA LUHK
  • PALMER CURTIS MARSH
  • KAYLAH HUNTER AND KRISTIAN JUSTICE
  • JABEZ SPANN
  • RUSSELL JOHN MORT
  • AKIA SHAWNTA EGGLESTON
  • RONDREIZ PHILLIPS
  • DANIELLE MARIE DIAMOND
  • AMBER ELIZABETH CATES
  • SHAINA ASHLEY KIRKPATRICK
  • SHAUSHA LATINE HENSON
  • AMY LYNN BRADLEY
  • JACOB LEE CALDWELL
  • ROBERT A. LEVINSON
  • DANIELLE IMBO
  • RICHARD PETRONE
  • SARA NICOLE GRAHAM
  • RELISHA TENAU RUDD
  • ASHLEY SUMMERS
  • LISA MICHELLE STEBIC
  • CRYSTAL ANN TYMICH
  • SIERRA MAE LAMAR
  • WILLIAM EBENEEZER JONES, JR.
  • JOSHUA KESHABA SIERRA GARCIA
  • ABBY LYNN PATTERSON
  • DAVID WILLIAMS
  • STEVEN ANDERSON
  • ENRIQUE RIOS
  • ELIJAH MOORE
  • ARIANNA FITTS
  • RACHEL LOUISE COOKE
  • NEFERTIRI R. TRADER
  • SHANNA GENELLE PEOPLES
  • CARLA VICENTINI
  • KIMBERLY IRENE CHAVEZ LOPEZ
  • AMANDA KAY JONES
  • ALEXIS TIARA MURPHY
  • KEIOSHA MARIE FELIX
  • ANGELA MAE MEEKER
  • TIONDA Z. BRADLEY
  • DIAMOND YVETTE BRADLEY
  • KYRON RICHARD HORMAN
  • LASHAYA STINE
  • ANTHONETTE CHRISTINE CAYEDITO
  • LISA IRWIN
  • WESLEY DALE MORGAN
  • ALEXIS S. PATTERSON
  • TABITHA DANIELLE TUDERS
  • KHOI DANG VU
  • TINA MARIE FINLEY
  • PAUL EDWIN OVERBY, JR.
  • STEVEN EARL KRAFT, JR.
  • ILENE BETH MISHELOFF
  • FELIX BATISTA
  • MARK HIMEBAUGH
  • JEFFERY WOODKE
  • BIANCA LEBRON
  • ROBERT GARRETT STEWART, JR.
  • NORMAN LEE
  • KRISTEN MODAFFERI
  • RYAN BRABEN CHICOVSKY
  • MATTHEW ALAN MULLANEY
  • LORI ANN BOFFMAN
  • DANIEL BARTER
  • LISA MARIA SZASZ
  • RAY FRANK GRICAR
  • SHIBILI YOUSEF ALAYSSAMI
  • AHMAD CHAAR
  • MONICA ELFRIEDE WITT
  • AUSTIN BENNETT TICE

140.247.201.57 (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

ALSO COULD THE COUNTRY BE ADDED TO THE CHART AS A SEPARATE COLUMN, OR THE FIRST WORD, SO IT IS BETTER SEARCHABLE 140.247.201.57 (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Article specifies it's a list of notable people who disappeared; they need their own articles before they are included. TeraTIX 00:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian of Portugal

Can I suggest the addition of Sebastian of Portugal to the list? He disappeared while he was King of Portugal and it was such an important event that centuries later people were still truthfully praying/waiting for his return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.23.233 (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_who_disappeared_mysteriously/Archive_5&oldid=1142768416"