Talk:Killing of Gabby Petito/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021 (2)
Change the first sentence from past tense to present as she is not confirmed deceased 2001:56A:78C7:4700:D138:949F:6F35:D0B3 (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Current event"
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the current event template for articles that are actually on the current events page? Trillfendi (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Page Move: Disappearance of Gabby Petito ?
Should we move the page to Gabby Petito  the Disappearance of Gabby Petito per WP:COMMONNAME? This seems like the name sources use the most. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The style we have on Wikipedia for things like this is that notability is centered around the events and circumstances around the individual (e.g. Death of George Floyd) so this is currently a proper title, and it looks like Death of Gabrielle Petito is likely to be a proper title quite soon. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I meant to write the Disappearance of Gabby Petito. Like the Disappearance of Maya Millete, we normally go by the WP:COMMONNAME of the individual in the title.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * seems to be a reasonable move. I'll do it, an RM is probably not necessary at this point. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Change of "is" to "was" to refer to GP
Human remains have been discovered consistent with the remains of Gabby Petito. This is one of my first changes of a news source. Editors please let me know how I can source if needed. Thanks. The FBI gave their condolences to the family. That is a confirmation. Bganter (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , Stop doing that. Sources have to confirm that is the body. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Giving condolences is providing sympathy, but not proof. They have identified a body "consistent with the description" of Gabby, but we will need more WP:V from an WP:RS before we state it as fact. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Fuzheado, have you ever asked for scientific proof of death before attending a funeral of your friend or family member? Of course not. Humanity gives proof, science gives confirmation. Be a human. Bganter (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Way before the funeral a person competent to do so hopefully confirmed the actual death of the person in question. Kind regards, Grueslayer 22:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have introduced the term "scientific" for some reason, when that is not the standard. Please familiarize yourself with our policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Was" is, without a doubt, inappropriate right now. It's highly likely the body is her, but until a statement is made confirming it, "is" is the only appropriate verb tense. Thetonestarr (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I was also going to suggest changing the first line to Gabby Petito *was, but I see this has already been discussed. Billbird2111 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Body found
Just-in: A body was found at Bridger-Teton National Park https://abcn.ws/39qUYqh (rushed reporting in advance of an update a few minutes from now). 2603:9000:A703:1EFD:48CC:67A:A863:3A74 (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not confirmed… Yet. But the body does match. 2603:9000:A703:1EFD:48CC:67A:A863:3A74 (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There is zero confirmation that a body has been found so please stop changing "is" to "was" Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not me. 2603:9000:A703:1EFD:48CC:67A:A863:3A74 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for now
The article has been semi-protected so only logged in autoconfirmed users can edit. Thanks. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021
86.126.172.33 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Her body was found! The FBI confirmed it!
 * They have identified a body "consistent with the description" of Gabby, but we will need more WP:V from an WP:RS before we state it as fact. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Change title of page soon?
If the body matches her and (probably) no one else matching her description has gone missing recently and her boyfriend goes missing (probably committed suicide), I think we all know where this is going. User:Thekristenjokes (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Gabrielle Petito.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * FBI-Gabrielle Petito.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021
Change “ Experts and media commentators have attributed the particular interest in Petito's case to a range of factors, including Petito and Laundrie's existing social media presence documenting their vandwelling lifestyle, a phenomenon whose popularity grew during the COVID-19 pandemic[citation needed] and the narrative appeal of a romantic excursion gone wrong.[35]”

To

“Experts have attributed the particular interest in Petito's case to the narrative appeal of a romantic excursion gone wrong.[35].

Petito’s social following grew from 149 YouTube subscribers on Sunday, September 12 to 60,000 by Tuesday, September 21st due to the popularity on her case (citation: https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCsgnE460ebvgB1I30gwuLkw). This combined with the international news coverage, have media commentators spectating how widely social media and public interest has contributed to the solving of her disappearance.” Factchecker09876 (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. I've taken out where it mentions COVID because it's not really related, but since most sources mention their vandwelling, I'm not taking that out. Also, see WP:SYNTHESIS. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Fake News"
There's now a subsection on "fake news". I'm not sure how accurate the term is for what the cited sources describe, which is the phenomenon of social media users spreading unverified information as fact inadvertently, rather than intentionally trying to misinform. Social media "rumours" or "misinformation" might be more accurate. "Fake News" might instead imply "disinformation" which would not really apply hear as far as I see. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

redirect
can someone who knows how to do it make a redirect to this article when a person searches for "Gabby Petito" thx. Gizziiusa (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is already a redirect for Gabby Petito. You might find this helpful: WP: Redirect Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Gabby Petito's White Van Spotted August 27th
This youtube channel recovered footage taken on August 27th of the van sitting in Teton National Park. It's likely close to the date of the murder, between her last FaceTime call to her mom on the 24th and the Tiktok users' account of picking up Brian on the 29th. Not sure how to add it but it is relevant information to the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBp3aNAGuFM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.70.146 (talk • contribs)
 * You'll need to cite a credible source that reports on the YouTube video, not the primary source itself. RobotGoggles (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The account of Red White & Bethune has been added to the section Death_of_Gabby_Petito. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 01:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Death date
If the body is confirmed to be her, what would be her death date? Would the coroner release their estimate and we work off of that? Or would we work off the last facetime/text? Kellis7 13:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * we'd work off of what reliable sources say. If inconclusive, we'd probably give a range, again based off of what reliable sources report ("she died between X and Y"). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We would go with what reliable sources report, based on what the coroner/authorities conclude. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We'll cross that bridge when we get there...  BOTTO ( T • C ) 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

No date should be listed until the case is closed and confirmed 100% by the authorities. Bohbye (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Domestic disturbance incident
The 911 call is not fully represented in this section. 911 call has been released and transcript says "We drove by and the gentleman was slapping the girl... He proceeded to hit her, hopped in the car and they drove off." As it is now, the section makes it sound like Petito was the only one displaying violence.

Adding another reference (ABC news) since they posted the transcript of the 911 call.

Also, in the bodycam footage, Laundrie admits to shoving Petito and trying to lock her out of her van.

I don't have the seniority to change the article, maybe someone can improve this section to make it more balanced. Femaleredditor (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Both the official 911 call and news stories that I've listened to do not match up with what is written in the article. Moreover, when the police arrived to check on the couple in the white van, the police seemed completely unaware that the 911 call that prompted them to investigate in the first place specifically said that "The gentleman was slapping the girl...", so it appears that that information did not get passed onto them by the police department for some reason (hence why they never asked about it), and neither Petito nor Laundrie mentioned that either when the police arrived, which are probably the reasons why there is confusion as to what happened. I'm still not very experienced at editing, but if I can make corrections, I will. Voluntari Tau (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I also agree, the article is currently not accurately depicting the information. It can be seen in the video that caller later reported that he never actually saw Laundrie hit her, but rather push her in a perhaps defensive manner. The fact that the article presents the account of the 911 call as a fact causes incorrect information to be conveyed, as the 911 caller themselves later claimed they not once witnessed Laundrie hit Petito. This description should be removed, or clarified that the "initial report from the 911" caller stated he saw him hit her, but later retracted that account. LTClipp (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Police Interactions Regarding Domestic Violence Citation
The article should show that in the police body cam footage, police made the determination that Petito was to be charged with domestic violence and was the primary aggressor during the domestic disturbance. It should also state that police were discussing how to separate the couple, with one option being Petito staying in jail overnight while they find further accommodations. The police later agreed to not cite her but rather simply have the couple separated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTClipp (talk • contribs)

Trail camera
The possible trail camera sighting of Laundrie is currently being investigated. Police have not confirmed that the person is or is not Laundrie. Thriley (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant until an actual sighting by is confirmed - when caught. Bohbye (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is getting enough press attention to be considered relevant, it seems to me. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Police confirm the man captured by the camera is not Laundrie: Thriley (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A sentence was added but has now been appropriately removed, now that it has been confirmed it was not him. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 01:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

New Title - "Death of Gabrielle Petito"
FBI offered condolences and the nature of the case (murder/suicide/etc) is just beginning to be unraveled. So I suggest "Death" rather than "Murder" or "Disappearance".

BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is likely to be the proper title when her death is confirmed. Until then, the responsible thing to do and the well-established policy on Wikipedia is not to assume anything or speculate and to stick with verifiable facts from reliable sources. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Article has now been moved to "Death of Gabby Petito." - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Body has not been confirmed yet. She shouldn't be named in the past tense, either, because while condolences are being offered, that's on a "just in case it IS her" basis. As it stands, she has not been confirmed dead so wikipedia should not refer to her as if she has. Thetonestarr (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks and  - makes total sense. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've changed the lead to be "is" and with some more elaboration in the second paragraph. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Article title has been changed. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 01:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Alabama investigation
Should the Alabama investigation be mentioned even if nothing turned up? I think readers who are unfamiliar with the case would be best served if any of the leads that were investigated without any results were included. This may help reduce speculation into any alternative theories that may be circulating online. Thriley (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Not needed. Sightings and searches that lead to nothing will be all over. No point for it. Bohbye (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this reasoning. There was a huge search for Brian Laundrie in the Carleton Reserve swamp, that ended up not finding him there, but it would be ridiculous to omit mention of the search in the article.  The Alabama investigation is the same thing on a smaller scale.  If it's notable enough to have been reported in the press, especially after the investigation closed (if it did), then it should be in the article.  67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Location Categories
This page is included in the category "2021 in Utah". Since Wyoming and Florida are also the location of relevant events in this case, should the article be in categories for those places too? Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Insider Article and Possible Confirmation of Death by Family Lawyer
Insider article says the Petito's family lawyer has confirmed to them that the family identified the body found in Wyoming as Gabby Petito's. Here is the link to the article, but it also says there has been no official report from the FBI or the Teton Country Coroner's office, so I'm leaving note of the article here instead of in the article: https://www.insider.com/gabby-petito-body-confirmed-family-lawyer-2021-9 Adamopoulos (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A better source (CNN) has reported that the autopsy confirmed it is Petito. It has been added. -Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Domestic Dispute Caller Reports
The article currently states: "During the call, the witness told the dispatcher that Laundrie slapped Petito, the two ran up and down the sidewalk after which Laundrie hit Petito again, and then they drove off.[15][16]"

This is a misleading sentence as it doesn't indicate that the caller later retracted their account and later stated they never actually saw Laundrie hitting Petito, but rather that Petito had hit Laundrie with her phone.

The sentence should be amended as such: "During the call, the witness told the dispatcher that Laundrie slapped Petito. The caller later retracted their account and claimed that they never saw Laundrie hit Petito, but that Petito was hitting Laundrie. Body cam footage shows Laundrie with lacerations to his face." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTClipp (talk • contribs)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We need sourcing for the retracted statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021
The two lines of the final paragraph that states this case is about "white woman syndrome", and makes the death about Gabby about race is completely inappropriate, clearly racist, highly political and offensive. Not only that it is completely unreferenced Syndrome and instead references articles that mention the issue with domestic violence from a gender perspective which is relevant to this due to the domestic violence aspect. The racial element should be removed with immediate effect.

This is completely inappropriate and offensive and if this writer has an issue with people caring that gabby was missing and to be found alive should create their own research and term of "missing white woman syndrome" on wikipedia and go from there. It is beyond sick that they are putting it on the page of Gabby's murder as it is clearly racially motivated and disgusting. It should be removed completely.

"The intensity of the coverage surrounding Petito's disappearance and the subsequent investigation drew comparisons to missing white woman syndrome, or the over-emphasis of media coverage on individuals based on their race or background." Alvin Williams, host of the "Affirmative Murder" podcast, noted in the state of Wyoming, since 2011, 710 indigenous women had been reported missing without any media attention of a similar scale.[59][47][60] 92.31.45.126 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is well sourced content about a well known issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It actually wasn't well sourced at all at the time the IP wrote this, though I have just changed around the sources and taken out some material that that didn't appear in reliable sources. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Which content did you remove? The part about the missing indigenous people in the state of Wyoming almost certainly was sourced to an RS. If it wasn't here's a source .Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the bit about the podcast because I didn't find in the cited sources – it seems to come from the New York Times on further look. Fine to restore with the NYT cite, though judging by that NPR article the point should probably be more focused on comparisons in general to Native Americans than any specific podcast. Edit: I've done just that. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There are several other sources covering the Native American angle. Here's Newsweek .Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, I've already added it in (probably just missed my edit as you posted that). Note that per WP:RSP, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable... consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis, so I used other news articles instead (including the NPR article you linked me). &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Really? I wasn't aware of Newsweek's status. Here's another source if you need it .Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There was another thread about this further up, and Petito as an MWW case is well documented. I just came across this (another op-ed about the issue) too. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Right, they keep coming out, but some editors here have been working to suppress the information, even though it's arguably key to GP's notability.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is another link, article is syndicated from wapo but sfgate bypasses wapo's subscribe/nag wall. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

New Info about the Couple's alleged last Day together
I think this is pretty relevant: https://www.foxnews.com/us/gabby-petito-brian-laundrie-argued-in-wyoming-restaurant-eyewitnesses
 * Yes, this has been covered in the Death_of_Gabby_Petito section. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly did they argue about all the time? My very best wishes (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Lede
In lede, "a body fitting her description was found in Bridger–Teton National Forest in Teton County, Wyoming," change "a body" to "human remains", the term used in most sources at least as of yesterday, and in today's FBI press release. Sorry to be gruesome but the condition of the remains was unspecified at that time. If this has changed then new sourcing should explain. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - That section has now been changed to "human remains consistent with her description were found." - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Separation anxiety
Domestic disturbance section says:
 * In the report, the officers characterized Petito as the suspect as "the male tried to create distance by telling Gabby to take a walk to calm down... She did not want to be separated from the male and began slapping him. She showed indications of separation anxiety. He grabbed her face and pushed her back as she pressed upon him and the van".[23]

The citation is to https://abc7ny.com/11022251/ but I can't find the quote about separation anxiety in the cited article, including in the archived version. Maybe a misplaced citation? The quote looks legit in other regards. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly that was meant to be a description of the police account rather than a quote? I looked it up and could only find it on Wikipedia (or social media quoting Wikipedia), so I've removed it. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone heard from Stan?
Referring to the notorious text message about missed calls from "Stan", Gabrielle's grandfather. I haven't followed this case super closely, but it seems obvious that someone should have asked Stan about whatever communications he might have had with Gabby and whether he heard anything back. I don't see anything about this in the article or in the limited press reporting I've looked at. If there is any reasonably sourced info about Stan supplying any information, imho it should be added to the article. Otherwise it seems like something to watch for. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard anything regarding that beyond the strange text message. Love of Corey (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Stan is believed to be an older man who does not speak to the media, I doubt we will hear from him at all. Miss E Kelly 05:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * He's a grandpa so yes I'd expect he's older ;). Sure he might not speak to the media, but I'd be surprised if the police or family haven't asked him and reported on that.  2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it's surprising that the police have not reported on it. Even in the modern US the police still generally try to keep a lot of info from the investigations secret. I'd further note that phone records would show any voice mails and probably missed calls too. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Don’t hold your breath for a grown man of his age to speak to the media without a lawyer. Trillfendi (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Domestic violence
Quite a lot of internet discussion of this case is about domestic violence issues, resources for escaping abusive relationships, etc. I haven't currently researched whether sources usable for the article are saying similar things in connection with the GP case. If they are, the article should use some of the material. If not, there's at least a temporary gap between public discourse and usable secondary sources, so it's something to keep an eye open for. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021
Article is inaccurate under investigation. It states that Grand County police said in a news release that her death/disappearance is unrelated to a recent double homicide in the area. This statement is true, but was not from Grand County police, as that agency does not exist (the local police department is Moab City Police). It was actually the Grand County Sheriff that released this news statement, and it even says this in the cited source article. 206.128.76.70 (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Murders in Moab
Since I don't know the specifics of the van groups timeline I hesitate to add this but it is interesting. Apparently near to where the van couple were arguing on August 12 was a store, and a cashier at the store and her wife went missing on August 13 and found dead on August 14. The article does state that there is no connection but think its interesting. Leaky.Solar (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * there is going to be tons of speculation online in cases like this, so i agree that it doesn't go in the article. have to have some reputable news source making a real connection.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * just collecting more articles of same thread in case it becomes something, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaky.Solar (talk • contribs)


 * As an update, for whatever it is worth, it appears that authorities are ruling out any connection. See this article.  I would suggest that many people may be like me - I saw a report about this possible connection a few days ago but when I came to Wikipedia, I was surprised to find it not mentioned at all.  I think we should perhaps mention it as a service to our readers, if only to say that at this time, the authorities are ruling out a connection.
 * I haven't seen any reports explaining *why* they are ruling it out and so it is unclear to me how firmly they are or are not ruling it out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a brief sentence about it, not too fussed if it is removed though (in 10 years people may view it as strange that we found it important to mention, but I suppose it's fine for the time being). &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe because the double murder is in the news often right now that the sentence will help aid those trying to get information today and in the next year, but may be irrelevant later. Do we want to list the victims by name? Miss E Kelly 05:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, they're not that relevant to this case and there are privacy considerations for the names of low-profile living or recently deceased people (see WP:BLPNAME). &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I think everyone should consider that police are saying there's no connection only so as not to alert Laundrie that they know it was him. For the longest time they were calling him only a "person of interest" in Gabby's disappearance/murder also, when obviously he's really been a suspect all along. Consider that there have only been 3 homicides total in Moab in 20 years. And now a double murder (probably the first ever there), just when Laundrie was in the area? And at a 'dispersed campsite', with the bodies left in a creek, all similar to how Gabby was found? And one of them worked at the Moonflower, where Laundrie and Gabby got into the fight? The odds of it being him seem astronomically high, and the similarities and timelines should be highlighted and discussed, IMHO. Even if only maybe in a Wiki entry of its own, for their murders, which could be linked here. Here's another link to an article with some details: https://www.moabtimes.com/articles/officers-discovered-slain-couple-partially-undressed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.56.137 (talk • contribs)

Gabby = nickname
The article is entitled "Gabby", but she is cited as "Gabrielle". Since the title is "Gabby", somewhere in the article is should state that "Gabby" is the same person as "Gabrielle" ... and that "Gabby" is her nickname (what she is known by) ... and "Gabrielle" is her legal / real / official name. I tried adding it in, once or twice ... and someone keeps deleting it. And someone (right there in the lead) added a hidden comment that says "don't add Gabby ... see MOS:NICKNAME". So, what's the appropriate thing to do? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's in the ibox. Jim Michael (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The Info Box is supposed to be a "snap shot" summary of the article's contents. Its purpose is not to "introduce" new material.  No?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * See Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Its lead states: An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop version of Wikipedia), or at the end of the lead section of an article (in the mobile version), that summarizes key features of the page's subject. Infoboxes may also include an image, a map, or both. .  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject's full name appears in the lead sentence of the article (hence the infobox in this parameter summarizes the lead). The article's title uses the WP:COMMONNAME by which the subject is generally known. There is no reason for this article to receive different treatment than the thousands of biographical articles that follow this convention.  General Ization  Talk  02:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * But, see Kiki Camarena. That article starts out with:  Enrique "Kiki" Camarena Salazar (July 26, 1947 – February 9, 1985) was an American intelligence officer for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  So, what's the "rule" supposed to be?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "Kiki" is not a common hypocorism of Enrique. "Gabby" is a common hypocorism of Gabrielle. Did you actually read MOS:NICKNAME, an instruction you clearly saw because you mentioned it above?  General Ization Talk  04:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That's my point. I'd bet with Spanish-speaking people, "Kiki" probably is a common nickname for Enrique.  Or, easily discernible.  (I didn't look up exactly what "hypocorism" means ... but I assume I am in the right ball park.)   I don't think that the Gabby/Gabrielle connection is all that obvious to some people.  Also, why the attitude?  I came to the Talk Page with a legitimate -- not to mention, polite and respectful -- question.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The answer to your question "what's the appropriate thing to do?" is contained in the MOS guidance you apparently ignored several times before you asked the question here. The "Gabby/Gabrielle connection" will be readily apparent to most readers, and if not it can easily be inferred from the fact that the article correctly refers to her as "Gabby" in its title and as "Gabrielle" in the lead. Frankly, I doubt that anyone else is giving this as much thought as you are. I don't have an attitude; I was genuinely inquiring whether you had actually read the MOS article, because, if you had, I find it hard to understand what aspect of it you find unclear.  General Ization Talk  04:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, the word "hypocorism" is linked in my answer to you above; if you are unsure what "hypocorism" means, you might spend a moment to find out, because it is part of the answer to your question. (Common hypocorisms are also further explained in a footnote at MOS:NICKNAME.) General Ization Talk </i> 04:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, you can speculate that "Kiki" is a common hypocorism of Enrique, but your speculation will not make it so. You don't need to speculate when it comes to "Gabby"; see Gabby and the numerous examples of biographical articles linked from it, including Gabby Giffords, which follows the exact convention followed here. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 04:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The average Gabrielle is Gabby or Gab. We don’t need to add that the sky is blue. The MOS aspect covers that. If you have for example Tom Hanks it’s ostensible that his name real name is Thomas Hanks, so there's no need to put it in quotations. Trillfendi (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, just so I am clear: "Gabby" is a commonly understood nickname for "Gabrielle". That is stated above as fact. "Kiki" is a common nickname for Enrique. That is deemed above as speculation. LOL. Nice to see consistent rules, based on subjective whims. LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in an argument, feel free to start one on your Talk page. Personally, I'm not, and whether or not "Kiki" is a common hypocorism for Enrique has literally nothing to do with this article. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 20:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Uhhhhh ... read the above discussion. "Gabby" as a common nickname is (somehow) a fact.  "Kiki" as a common nickname is (somehow) speculation.  I mentioned consistent rules.  So, yeah ... whether or not "Kiki" is a common nickname is relevant to this discussion and to this article.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Funeral Information
Would it be worthwhile to include this information in the introductory area of the page? After the event, we can then revise it to later say when the funeral was held. Just an idea. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think, notwithstanding the public post, this would be an invasion of the family's privacy and is not particularly relevant to this article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a collection of funeral announcements. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 19:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

There was something about the funeral on TV news an hour or so ago, so it was at least semi public in that regard. Apparently a local TV station streamed part of the service from the funeral home, with the family's permission. Another part was not allowed to be streamed. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Spotify account
Should anything be mentioned about the Spotify account that was believed to be shared by Petito and Laundrie? It has been updated since Petito’s death: Thriley (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - I personally think it's a matter of speculation right now. If and when the Spotify account becomes relevant to the investigation, then it might be added as part of a section on the page dedicated to evidence. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , that’s what I was thinking. I just wanted to note it here as the Spotify account is included in many theories, some of them totally outlandish, that are circulating online. Might be good to address the Spotify thing as well as the totally fake Instagram live story somewhere in the article at some point. Debunking conspiracy theories on Wikipedia is an effective way to combat misinformation. Thriley (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it's certainly not a bad idea! What do you think, ? BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's marginally interesting but needs to be validated by a reliable source. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant information right now, unless there is some explanation how it ties into the case. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Burner phone
I think this should be included. It's not guaranteed to be true, but most readers seeking info about the manhunt would consider it relevant, imho. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Added: per Brian Entin, Bertolino (Laundrie family lawyer) apparently says to his knowledge, that phone is the one Brian Laundrie left at home and that the FBI already has it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Date of disappearance
I changed the date of the disappearance to Aug. 27-30th, citing ABC News Timeline (dated Aug 25th) who in turn were citing investigators. Her last confirmed sighting is Aug 27th. The mother received text messages up to Aug 30th, however sources ( 1, 2, 3) cite that investigators and the mother are unsure whether they were sent by Gabby. This Fox News piece is the citation saying she definitively went missing on Aug. 30th, seemingly alluding to the unconfirmed text messages. This is simply sloppy reporting by Fox News, and a good reason why it shouldn't be used as a reference for this article. As far as I know, there has been no change in information, and investigators place her disappearance between 27th and 30th which should be reflected in the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Names and irrelevant details
I removed the names of the witnesses and they were added back. WP:BLPNAME is pretty clear that extreme caution should be used when adding the names of people involved in one event and not directly involved. Their witness testimony is relevant, not who they are. Also, Wikipedia is fairly permanent so having people's names outed forever whereas news sources are much more temporary. I also removed the name of her youtube channel, which again is pretty irrelevant. The name of the channel has zero bearing on the case. Adding it is borderline WP:TRIVIA

Remember, that much more details will be added as the investigation continues. We should keep articles focused on the most important details instead of just adding everything. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also including Dog the Bounty Hunter's involvement because we aren't the news and don't have a crystal ball. We don't know if any of this will have any impact on the case at all. If it does, then it will be added. If not, then it's just another irrelevant detail. We don't need to add everything, and as time goes more information will be added so it's best to keep the article lean and focused on the main narrative and outcome. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Could not agree more with all of the above; the names especially should be removed quickly. Dog the Bounty Hunter is irrelevant here, and should also be removed, but that's not nearly so pressing.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the witness names. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say, with the names removed, it becomes hard to follow. I see substitutions such as "another witness" and "a further witness" and "other witnesses". It gets really confusing when one of the earlier witnesses is mentioned again. An alternative might be using substitutes such as "Witness A" and "Witness B" but that doesn't seem right either. --SVTCobra 22:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Even putting aside the BLPNAME issue, the previous version of the article was poor [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Gabby_Petito&diff=1047267815&oldid=1047265718]. It introduced random people with no explanation of their involvement/connection to the case and left it to the read to try and figure out who these random people were (i.e. uninvolved witnesses). Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The names were removed but have been added back. And there is a discussion on the BLP notice board about this so that I could get viewpoint from the broader community:

Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Gabby_Petito

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2021
Change citation [42] under Disappearance to:

Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Looks like this is already in place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Missing white woman syndrome"
Does there really need to be mention at the end of the article of "Missing White Woman Syndrome"? For one, it is in incredibly bad taste considering her family and friends don't know whether she's alive or dead. Second, I believe it's borderline racist, as we don't know what race/ethnicity she identifies with. 2600:1005:B0CA:4D69:49D0:DBF7:CF24:D3F9 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, removed that section, its incredibly distasteful and also inappropriate. The MWW page itself is a travesty of pseudoscientific woo and outright racism, Id say it should be deleted, but likely entrenched editors won't allow it. Next best step is to quarantine it by removing all links to it we find — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.28.113 (talk • contribs)
 * I removed "See also" section that had this link in it. Unless reliable sources make this relevant, we will not make that call.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  19:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I suppose consensus is to remove the MWW link as it may not be so related to this subject, but I don't think it is pseudoscience. Perhaps that article can do with opposing opinions added for balance. 79.70.179.144 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps they were being pre-emptive. She will surely be added to the MWWS article once this is all over, as she should be. Evosthunder (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The media's habit of trawling around looking for missing "white" women (who also happen to be attractive) to make national headlines is a well-documented bias and certainly isn't "pseudoscience" or "woo". This is Natalie Holloway, the sequel.
 * Race isn't either a biologically coherent category or something to do with how people identify themselves. It's about how society views you, and what sorts of privileges and disadvantages accompany that mental impression. As it relates to this particular case, you would think that no black people have ever taken a road trip and gone missing. That's a bias that has consequences for the black community, as it determines, among other things, what sort of resources and attention black families receive when their loved ones go missing.
 * Here's the compromise: Leave the MWW section out for now, but as soon as reliable sources start publishing on this topic (and I promise you this will all be pouring out soon in the press), it is our task to document it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * you disrespecting Gabby Petito is not going to get more attention to missing black people and Petito herself is not responsible for black people not getting as much attention as you want. CaptainPrimo (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. While I do understand there is some bias in what is reported, claiming that Gabby's situation is "Missing white woman syndrome" is very shallow and such disrespect towards Gabby. She didn't ask for what happened to her, and she sure as heck didn't plan on dying so that she could steal the spotlight from missing women of other races. It is also not at all relevant to this article.EytanMelech (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And now there's a section with appropriate sources. Honestly, this is the most prominent case of MWWS in years, there's no getting around it. Mtijn (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - While I agree that there is a tendency for the media (usually in America) to make a big deal out of missing women who are considered "white", I don't agree with your statement claiming that "Race isn't either a biologically coherent category or something to do with how people identify themselves. It's about how society views you." Even if "race" is made-up/nonsensical, self-identification is still a significant part of "race". Singer Halsey looks "white" and is probably assumed to be such (though she's part African-American). Despite this, I believe Halsey considers herself "mixed". There are other people, like diplomat and former governor Nikki Haley, of Northern Indian ancestry and light skinned. She has identified as being "white" on a voter registration form and may "pass" as being "white" to some people. Though Indians are not considered "white" in the U.S. Personally, I don't understand why superficial, socially constructed labels like "whiteness" must always be mentioned. Look at how arbitrary/illogical the label "Asian" is. A country like Canada considers people with origins from all regions of Asia to be "Asian Canadian", but in the United States, only East, Southeast and South Asians are "Asian American" (they're also considered a "race" instead of a "non-racial ethnic category") and the United Kingdom usually only considers South Asians as being "Asian". But that's beyond the point of this discussion. The subject was American and several sources on her page have now been provided which do mention "MWWS" in regards to the media coverage surrounding her disappearance/death. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This subject seems to be producing repetitive overwriting of edits (if not necessarily simple reverts). For instance, a link to the Missing White Woman Syndrome Article in the See Also section has been removed and added back repeatedly. Regardless of people's opinions, remaining objective and neutral in good faith is important (also the MWWS has been the target of vandalism). As is maintaining a consensus to avoid potential edit warring. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say this belongs to page Missing white woman syndrome, but the inclusion to this page is debatable per WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Being a white women, is it relevant so much to this story? I would be inclined to exclude it here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is very disrespectful to make a political point on the page of someone who was murdered. CaptainPrimo (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:CaptainPrimo Literally everything is "political". Just because it's something you personally find offensive doesn't make it any less true. If people are criticizing the coverage, then that criticism belongs in the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your right wing ideology. When journalists and criminologists mention something relevant and notable, Wikipedia cites them and mentions it. NPOV is about tone, not about content. The content comes from citations. RobotGoggles (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah, it's a soapbox for your left wing ideology instead. Can I add criticisms of thr coverage of George Floyd to his article? CaptainPrimo (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a space for left wing or right wing ideology. When a subject receives notability, it is written about. No matter what you personally find objectionable about it. RobotGoggles (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with above; there is an entire article on Reactions to the murder of George Floyd and another on Reactions to the George Floyd protests, the latter including plenty of reactions by right wing personalities, presented objectively and with citations. Again, "NPOV is about tone, not about content".
 * Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are separate articles and not George Floyd's article. You have already added Petito to the Missing White Girl Syndrome article. It is not relevant to her main article. CaptainPrimo (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Captain doesn't seem to grasp the irony in his argument. That it's political to include the content, but to remove the entire section is a totally apolitical move. The only thing that should be debated here is what reliable sources are saying.Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Its political because its making a political argument that too much attention is being paid to Petito because of her race. Leaving it out no argument is being made. It's pretty simple. CaptainPrimo (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The ARTICLE is not making that argument, can't you see? Wikipedia isn't taking a stance on that issue one way or the other. This article simply states that experts, including journalists and criminologists who are cited, have publicly made that argument. If you're so upset, go blame them. RobotGoggles (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How about not having it in the opening and just in the media section below? UpendraSachith (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * part of the opening and the media section both duplicate each other right now. Recently someone deleted the media section, shortened the content and moved it to the opening. Then someone else added the media section back. I agree the opening now gives too much attention to the media coverage and that part should be truncated or just deleted. But I urge consensus to avoid these back and forth edits that seem to be emanating from controversy over MWWS (and often end up changing text on unrelated issues in haphazard ways).Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like a fair compromise. CaptainPrimo (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is pretty simple, but not for the reasons you think. There are 17,000 open missing persons cases in the US, and nearly 185,000 unsolved homicides as of 2019 (and I'm aware the cause of death hasn't been determined here yet). That the press chose Gabby Petito among tens of thousands of people to be a national fixation has at least something to do with the fact that she fits the profile of all those other MWW cases that have been documented for over 100 years. That's what reliable sources have published, and that's what editors here are documenting. That something is "political" isn't by itself a valid reason to exclude content from the article, or any article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, etc. were way bigger national fixations than Gabby Petito. I don't think criminologists have coined a term for that syndrome yet though since it wouldn't fit this particular syndrome. CaptainPrimo (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not Wikipedia's issue to deal with. There is the more general term of "media circus". The deaths of George Floyd and Trayvon Martin are both included as examples of a Media circus under the United States section, along with the trial of Casey Anthony, and the disappearance of Madeline McCann in the UK section. As for the relevant issue here of whether discussing media coverage is appropriate within the article itself, the articles on Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and Death of Caylee Anthony both include detailed discussion and separate sections on media coverage, which include criticisms of the coverage and public speculation. Neither mention the term "missing white woman syndrome", but I think the reason could just be differences in contemporary media coverage. In this case, the media is openly mentioning the existence of bias while the case is still ongoing, even if that is political. The article on Murder of Mollie Tibbetts has an entire section on "Politicization of Tibbetts's death". Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because activists brought attention to those particular cases, after decades of the press ignoring them. Literally the ONLY reason why Gabby Petito has any notability whatsoever is because of MWW and related factors mentioned in that section of the article. Not only is this important, but it's something that should be mentioned in the lead so readers know why GP has a Wikipedia article and the thousands of other missing persons are just names on an FBI list.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

User:CaptainPrimo, you have been warned by multiple users who have been quite patient with you and willing to explain why this article is written the way it is. Please stop making grand removals of chunks of the article. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you incapable of reading the discussion above which you didn't counter besides yelling vandalism and reverting? CaptainPrimo (talk)
 * User:Arecaceæ2011 offered the compromise. That's not a consensus. I disagree with the compromise, and there has been no larger discussion about what should be done. If you think this needs to be edited that way, then WAIT FOR CONSENSUS. Right now, you DO NOT have it. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's almost like you're only reading tiny pieces of this talk page that agree with you, ignoring everything else. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

What am I missing? You and Jonathan's annoyance that people care about this case as opposed to victims you two think are more worthy? CaptainPrimo (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about the worth of the victims?
 * Look, it's very simple: when reliable sources publish something, editors here document it. If sources publish unicorn sightings, editors document unicorn sightings, without ever taking a position on whether or not we believe in unicorns. You can't remove this content, but what you can do here is argue that this particular aspect of the story should be minimized and/or removed from the lead. Which I completely disagree with.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

If anything this story is a prime example of how Missing White Woman Syndrome works. Trillfendi (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

More mention of the racial/gender aspect in CNN. "The case has become an obsession for many, spurring digital detectives to comb through the couple's online trail and try to solve the case. At the same time, that intense attention has highlighted how race and gender impact which of the nearly 90,000 unsolved missing persons cases get attention, and which ones don't." Earlier I had mentioned 15,000 MP cases, but that's just in one year. There are apparently 90k open MP cases currently under investigation.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a host of factors (the social media that documented the journey, the bodycam footage and 9-1-1 call, the fact that Laundrie quietly came home alone from a vacation without her, the fact that he lawyered up immediately and refused to give any information to police or her family about anything, the fact that he subsequently disappeared, the fact that his family didn't report his disappearance for days, the fact that a body was found but there is no certainty yet if its her, etc.) that set this case apart from others beyond the race and gender of the missing girl. In fact, I challenge you to find another case with similar factors (that has not been widely reported in the media). You won't, because it doesn't exist. Its not a race or gender thing, the media circus is literally about the confluence of extremely strange factors specific to this case. In that very same article you're citing, CNN lists all the strange issues in this case that caused it to come into the general public consciousness, and then have that one little throwaway line that you cited about other missing people. I'll also point out that Gabby was Italian, a group not considered "white" by the overwhelming majority of white supremacist groups active in the United States. Further, if you want to talk about the missing 90,000 other people since 2011, that's a whole different article and completely irrelevant to this case. 24.178.111.153 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is good comment, and I tend to agree. The case did not gain so much attention just because she was a white women. Many other white women disappeared, and their cases did not get much attention. Actually, if she were a black women under exactly same all other circumstances, this case would gain the same attention, maybe more. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And your evidence for this hypothesis is? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, this is not about what Neo-Nazis think. Italians are firmly considered white by anyone else. The woman was even blond, for crying out loud! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that (to re-emphasise) editors' personal opinions and unsubstantiated OR arguments about whether or not the Gabby Petito case is an example of MWWS are utterly irrelevant for Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First, are only white people blond now? I know some mixed race people who would strongly disagree with that assertion. Secoond, what's "utterly irrelevant" to this article is anyone else who went missing and who isn't connected to this case. Further, it didn't come off to me as his opinion - it seemed to me he was arguing the notoriety of this case for reasons other than MWWS, which is also in the cited article. 2600:6C5A:423F:306A:71A3:7F47:5F35:9E72 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, you have no reliable sources, no suggestions on how to improve the article, except for an interpretation of a source I provided which is strictly forbidden on here. The source didn't say, "because there are a host of other factors involved, the race and gender of Gabby Petito have nothing to do with the attention she's received." That's your slanted analysis.
 * You then go on to make a couple of outrageous declarations, claiming that out of the 90,000 open missing persons cases, not one of them involves a set of unusual circumstances. I think it's safe to assume that more than a handful of the families and investigators working these other cases would emphatically disagree with you.
 * And if that wasn't weird enough, you then try disputing GP's race based on what white supremacists think. As Florian noted, it is utterly irrelevant what hate groups think about Italians. Normal people (ie people in the press, and the vast majority of people who consume mainstream press) regard GP as a white female. Not to mention your unsourced and irrelevant claim about the white supremacists is dubious to begin with - I've had the misfortune of having to research the online white supremacist publication American Renaissance (magazine) for another project, so why don't you go over there and ask them if they think Italians are white (spoiler: they do). Christian Picciolini, whose parents were straight from Italy, is a former neo-Nazi who was involved in white supremacist organizations. His talks can be found on Youtube, which is probably where you came from.
 * Please, this page is to discuss improvements to the article based on reliable sources. That's all it's for.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) He relied literally on the same source you did, the CNN article, which was hundreds of words long and spent the majority of the article talking about the factors that made Gabby's disappearance noteworthy. That is in direct opposition to your point that the case is noteworthy merely because of her gender and race. That line you quoted was the only line that even mentioned anything about other people who have gone missing. So if his source is unreliable, so is yours.
 * 2)He never said that none of those 90,000 cases involved unusual circumstances. He said none of them involved this confluence of similar circumstances enough to warrant this level of media attention. If you're going to try and take him to task, at least read and understand what he's saying first.
 * 3) The race point is valid. Racial identifications are becoming more fluid and complex by the day; your assertion that "normal" people think she's white has no more evidence for it than anything he said when he claimed that she may not be universally viewed that way.
 * 4) Finally, people in glass houses shouldn't be casting stones. You have simply gone around attacking people and trying (poorly) to throw your weight around. You sling personal attacks like crazy at anyone who doesn't agree with you and I can guarantee you, THAT is not what this page is for. 2600:6C5A:423F:306A:71A3:7F47:5F35:9E72 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. No one ever said that the case is noteworthy only because of her race and gender. The argument here is that we have several reliable sources discussing this aspect of the case, and editors who don't want the information in the article. The CNN article didn't spend a significant amount of space talking about this because that wasn't the point of the whole piece. But they still brought it up, because that's what other sources are talking about. Articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have focused more specifically on this. Joy Reid at MSNBC spent a whole segment of her show on the subject. You and others are actively trying to suppress information in reliable sources, accusing everyone but yourselves of acting political.
 * As to point two, IP's acting like the circumstances surrounding this case are so crazy wild that they explain why nearly 90,000 missing persons cases and nearly 200,000 unsolved homicides haven't received the same degree of attention. No source, not even the CNN article I linked, comes anywhere close to making this point.
 * Point 3: that she's white is self-evident. The IP merely regurgitated some hackneyed meme about Italians without even knowing GP's ancestry; he simply used her last name as a proxy. My last name is found exclusively in the British Isles but I have half of Western Europe in my ancestry.
 * So now that the case has been upgraded from MP to homicide, the editor Fuzheado decided to chop down the lead and remove the content that's disputed here, as if it's no longer pertinent to GP's notability. I'll let other editors weigh in here.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the controversy is solely whether the mention of MWWS belongs in the lead, there's been anger at the extent of its mention in other parts of the article. It only ended up in the lead when someone suddenly deleted the media response and public reaction heading and moved most of the section's contents to the lead. Then someone added the section back but left the lead as it was at the time. I agree the lead was too long just before now actually (because it contained basically an entire section that someone transplanted into it).
 * On the lead: at least a brief mention of media coverage absolutely belongs there as it's key to notability. I'm indifferent to whether MWWS is mentioned there but I lean towards not mentioning it there for now given that the article is still relatively short and a long opening seems less readable. And if the lead is short and only focuses on a few key details of the disappearance and the investigation, adding too many details on media coverage might be giving undue weight (actually the sentence on tiktok aiding the investigation seems excessive right now for the same reason). After the case is essentially over, the article will be way longer and then future editors can decide how much to discuss in what will presumably be a longer lead.
 * On the media coverage section: there is still persistent "controversy" over MWWS that is getting a bit ridiculous at this point. Why does it have an undue weight template? The section is pretty reasonable when read as a whole. MWWS has one sentence in the middle of like 4 paragraphs. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I saw plenty of mentions of missing white woman syndrome in connection with this case and it absolutely does seem relevant to discussion of the media frenzy about it. A quick web search finds lots of links to Joy Reid but a fair number of non-Reid sources as well. Anyway, it's notable and should be in the article. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also: someone tagged the media section as potentially undue and non-neutral. Go type in "missing white woman syndrome" into Google and count how many articles in the past 24 hours alone have been published on this subject, relating specifically to the GP case, not just in the US, but also in Britain and Ireland (The Independent, Independent.ie). See here here  here  here  and here .Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at Disappearance_of_Natalee_Holloway (which is very well written) and Murder_of_Mollie_Tibbetts the section in this article is absolutely fair and doesn't merit the undue weight template.Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that the MSNBC article directly contradicts some of the (unsourced) claims that have been made here: In reality, data show the popularity of this particular story is likely due to the way the American media prioritizes missing people — not the specific details of Petito’s case..Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, in that piece, does the author actually back up this statement or provide the "data" they are referring to? It doesn't appear so, and the MSNBC piece is not so much an article as it is an op-ed. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * NPR piece .Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

On the See Also section: People keep adding and removing the link to the MWWS article there. There needs to be consensus on whether it's appropriate to avoid what is now borderline edit warring. I believe it is probably not appropriate; none of the other cases of MWWS include it in the see also section even if they mention MWWS in the text of the article, although the Caylee Anthony article does have see also: media circus and trial by media. The See Also section has no citations or context (although a short annotation could be added WP: see also) and so makes mentioning anything there seem attributable to Wikipedia's analysis, and in this case comes across as unnecessarily pointed. If the see also section were longer it might make sense to include it amongst other tangentially relevant links but right now it doesn't make much sense. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The lead has been expanded to say "The case gained widespread attention due to the amount of audio/video documentation and logistical information around the couple's travels, including police body camera video footage, emergency dispatch call recordings, social media posts, and mobile tracking information," but there's no mention of GP's racial/gender profile which has been a subject in just as many if not more reliable sources. The MSNBC article (see above), among others, rejects the notion that the circumstances unique to GP's case explain its notability. Someone also went into the media section and removed the sourced content on the number of missing indigenous women in Wyoming. The NPR link I provided above covers this topic, and there are several other sources if that's not enough (here here  here ). The template above the media section still hasn't been removed.


 * It can be argued that the edit warring began yesterday morning with CaptainPrimo and has persisted for over 24 hours now. Several different editors are involved, many IPs, but they're all acting to conceal the same information. As it stands right now there are far too many editors working on this page, to where it's nearly impossible to regulate the edits of what's now a whole group of non-neutral actors, without the situation degenerating into more edit wars. Protection may be warranted.Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Another CNN article discussing this .I think that this not only explains at least partly why GP is notable, but that it needs to be mentioned in the lead. Because it's not just because she was active on social media, the 9-1-1 call (which was released only after she became national news), or the police body cam. Those were certainly factors, but so is this. There are too many reliable sources focusing solely on this particular aspect of her notability to ignore it in the lead. At least imo.Jonathan f1 (talk)
 * That's a hugely hypocritical article. Is CNN denouncing themselves as a bunch of racists? As they must know, the reason the media isn't interested in the killings of black women is because their murderers tend to be black men. Everyone likes a good murder mystery. If the victim is a white woman, those who cover it are less likely to be drawn into a racial quagmire. 99to99 (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is very tragic that many thousand people disappear in the USA every year . Just a few can become a symbol for all of them. I think this is just a such symbolic case. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's an NBC New York news report discussing the case. About 15 mins in they're interviewing a criminologist who brings up the MWWS subject and states that one, it's a real thing; and two, it's absolutely a factor in the coverage of this case. I've argued this for days now so I'll leave this in the hands of others. But as it stands right now, there's an abundance of reliable sources covering MWWS and associating it with this case, and it's clear that this phenomenon is responsible, at least in part, for the subject's notability. Brief mention should be made in the lead.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)