Talk:Killing of Gabby Petito/Archive 3

ref tags
Please don't add space before ref tags as you did in this edit:. It's contrary to MOS:CITEPUNCT. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * More aesthetic CRS-20 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your perception of "aesthetic" is at odds with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which states, "All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space" (emphasis added). The MOS governs our aesthetic here. In addition, it is mind-boggling that you are edit warring over such a trivial change, but if you change it once again (having now been asked by three different editors to stop) we will discuss it at WP:EWN.  General Ization Talk  03:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And you may now respond to the report there.  General Ization Talk  05:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

One more thing, please don't make a whole bunch of insignificant white space and capitalization changes like you did in that edit I linked. It makes it hard to find the real changes. Finding your ref error in that edit is like looking for a needle in a haystack. I already asked you twice on your talk page not to do that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Use mdy dates
Please stop changing the date in the Template:Use mdy dates. October is correct, as you can see in this edit:. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * FALSE CRS-20 (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So this is not October? Wow! WWGB (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ... it's not!?!?! I'm scared. Help us, Obi-Wan Kenobi! 50.111.2.158 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The template is updated automatically each time the MOSNUM dates.js script is executed, and reflects the date when the script was most recently executed, not its earliest execution against the article. The script was executed on October 17 by, hence the template reflects |date=October 2021.  General Ization Talk  16:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

human remains found at his campsite in the preserve
New FBI statement. Apparently, the parents took them directly to his campsite. Interested parties will edit accordingly. 50.111.2.158 (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Unidentified human remains and articles of clothing/personal items belonging to Brain Laundrie were found submerged in water at Carlton Reserve in Venice, Florida on Wednesday afternoon. Laundrie's parents were at the reserve with law enforcement when the remains and items of interest were found, family attorney Steve Bertolino said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakodo (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait for the facts first. No one knows if it's him. Trillfendi (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said unidentified human remains.
 * Content relating to this has already been included. I think it's fine. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

FBI confirms Brian Laundrie is dead
On October 21, the FBI confirmed through dental records that the skeletal remains found at the reserve belonged to Brian Laundrie. Brian Laundrie is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakodo (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

FBI Denver confirmed it https://twitter.com/FBIDenver/status/1451302161690898435 --HurricaneKappa (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Article title
Wouldn't it be better to change the article title name to "Murder of..."? Using "Killing of..." in the title sounds a little dramatic and over-sensational, in my opinion. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Please see WP:BLPCRIME, WP:KILLINGS and WP:KILLINGOF — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

New article for Brian Laundrie?
Anyone else think there should be a article specifically for Brian now that he has been confirmed dead? Killers are only as great as their killings, but he was a figure that has and will occupy the American news cycle for weeks upon weeks. It's only fair that Brian gets his own article, considering his fame and abundance of articles detailing unique characteristics of his character. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the talk header about existing consensus on this. Your argument doesn't move this ahead because it's not in line with WP:BLP1E. It just reinforces how the event is notable, and this is the article for the event. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Where did she work?
where are you seeing that she worked in Florida? Neither source says that as far as I can tell. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok much better now. I also have doubts about "nutritionist." We don't have a source that says she worked as a nutritionist. What we have is the bodycam transcript in which she says she worked as a nutritionist. In the same transcript she says she's from California, and I don't think that's true. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Rumors of planted evidence
Does the part about Laundrie's parents planting evidence belong here? Yes it's being reported by sources, but sources are not saying who is spreading these rumors, and WP:BLPGOSSIP says "Ask yourself ... whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward removal. Not WP:DUE seeing how it's unclear how widespread these rumors were. For inclusion there should be more in depth coverage of these speculations. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This would be determined by WP:WEIGHT, and I've only seen Insider and Fox News talk about it. Just say no to Fox News in general. I don't think Insider's reporting is enough to merit inclusion. Also remember, that BLP rules applay for this article, so even if you're trying to debunk baseless rumors, you might end up giving them credence by even including them. People might read it and skim over it or half remember reading the page, and only see the accusation but not the further context. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Organization of content and the headings unnaturally deemphasize the fact that Petito was killed
Edit: Basically, we must say in own voice that Petito was killed in the article to justify the title, and it can't only be in the lead. To us editors it's a conventional "formal truth" that if coroner ruled homicide it's an instance of "Killing of...", but not to a casual reader. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a 'Disappearance' h2, and a 'Discovery of Petito's remains' h3. So... does one die from being a missing person? This is bad from the standpoint of WP:PLA. More emphasis is needed, in real chronological order, on the killing, that is disentangled from the narrative of how we learned about what happened. This is in response to your revert. Regards.
 * I agree completely, and will add that it's bad manners to remove a section that has a comment above it that says "don't remove it". The comment serves as a notice that this has been contentious in the past, and that it should be discussed on the talk page before removing it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the removal, and it's hard to grapple with this, because of the peculiarity of this subject. I just want this to be earnestly discussed, and a consensus-based solution to be found. Edit: at the very least, I'd say that my reinclusion of what had earlier been removed without an edit summary was responsible, but the result probably wasn't ideal. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way but on Wikipedia it's called WP:BEBOLD / WP:BRD. I left a clear and detailed summary with a firm rationale for the edit. Putting a "don't remove it" comment does not grant a particular viewpoint privileged status so hopefully we can come to a consensus on this. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you really think readers will overlook the first word of the article's title? Jonathunder (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The title comes from the subject, and the subject comes from what the key information presented in the body is. Key information is that Petito was killed, but we never say "Petito was killed" (except in the lead which is just a summary of the body, and can't stand on it's own -- as of now, it's desynchronized from the body) We can't rely on the title to do the work of transmitting crucial information to the reader. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've since made this change: diff — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't understand the complaint and why you are so insistent in inserting her death into prose that doesn't fit the chronology. The section you are editing is on the "Disappearance" and is describing the circumstances around Gabby going missing. Narratively, it is illogical to declare her death, as the investigation (next section) is what led to the discovery of her body and the determination that she had died. I'm quite puzzled why WP:PLA is being quoted here, as folks getting to this section of the article, as per our MOS guidelines on writing in the inverted WP:PYRAMID style, would know already the subject died. Let's take stock:
 * As said, the name of the article is "Killing of..."
 * The first sentence of the article is: "Gabrielle Venora Petito was an American woman who was killed..."
 * The third paragraph of the article is: "On September 19, 2021, Petito's remains were found..."
 * We have reached this point of the article with this crucial context so WP:PLA is not a valid concern here. I've edited hundreds of articles of these types over 15+ years, and this is the first time I've heard this line of reasoning to break the narrative flow. Since you have been editing less than a year, I'm not sure what your comment "To us editors..." refers to. I'm open to hearing other rationales, but the explanation you have provided goes against the custom and letter of our best practices for articles of this type. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to get this out of the way first, do you contest this subsequent edit: diff? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I find that edit/addition in the "Disappearance" section extraneous and illogical and would prefer to see it removed for the same reason I stated above. But in a show of good faith, I'll not act on anything related to that edit until we've discussed it more. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. I'll start with saying how I'm not complaining, and I'm not insistent, and I'm manifestly an editor. We're within the bounds of the normal editorial process. Context is great, but we need text. The body needs to stand on it's own, because lead is only a derivation of it, and has no standalone content, and the title is underpinned by crucial information in the body, not by some overarching context of infobox + lead + implicit claim in the body. So we need to say somewhere in the body explicitly that Petito was killed during the timeframe specified by the coroner, not just that the coroner made a certain finding. I tried a h3, okay, not optimal, very short section, sticks out, I tried the h2 top content and since right now the heading is "Disappearance" this is obviously also not perfect (heading can be "Disappearance and killing/homicide" however). What I'm looking at is a satisfactory way to have us say that she was killed in own voice in a relevant spot. There may not be a perfect solution. This relevant spot can't be as late as the coroner's finding. When you say "narrative", implying a chronology from that, you obviously refer back to what I refer to when I said the narrative of how we learned about what happened. This is not encyclopedic. It simply isn't the relevant chronology -- it's the chronology of the discourse, not of the event as such. We need to employ a more matter-of-fact style of accounting for what happened, taking in the totality of what is verifiable at this point, with appropriate hindsight. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ellipses
MOS:ELLIPSIS calls for non-breaking space before ellipses: "use a non-breaking space before an ellipsis". Your edit is contrary to our MOS. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Timeline and time of death:
Investigators have released two bits of information which have been conflated on this page:


 * 1) They believe she disappeared between Aug 27-30
 * 2) The coroner believes she died 3-4 weeks before her body was found.

Conflating these two things counts as Original Research. It sounds very nit-picky, but authorities haven't combined these pieces of information, so neither should we. Disappeared does not mean death, just the last time she could be confirmed seen alive by someone. The text messages sent between Aug 27 and 30th have been questioned by family members and investigators alike as whether they were sent by Gabby or someone else. This places her last confirmed sighting at 27th in the Tex-Mes restaurant.

Based on what has been released, she could been taken and then killed some time after the 30th and still fall within the timeline the coroner put out. It is very likely that investigators will put out their final report on the case and their timeline of what they think occurred. They will likely give their final opinion on whether they think the text messages are genuine as well. We should wait until that occurs however until we put definitive dates on timeline. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't nitpicky at all. It most certainly counts as original research to say she was killed between Aug 27-30. I was about to start this same section that you did. Edit: this concerns the event infobox btw. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"a music video to raise awareness about gun violence that was inspired by the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting"

Assuming the music video was about general gun violence, not just gun violence inspired by a shooting, this is ambiguous in a bad way... I'd fix it myself but the article is locked down :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:72:0:B53:A460:1345:A4A0:D09E (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see what that has to do with her date of death but I fixed it anyway. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Investigators have released several findings but none of their conclusions. They would have at least wanted to talk to Brian Laundrie first since he was the last person with her alive. With his death, they are likely just going to release their proposed timeline of events and their conclusions. So we will just have to wait. That will include the time of death. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Having read MOS:BIRTHDATE and MOS:APPROXDATE I suggest "March 19, 1999 – 2021" in the first line and "Between August 27 and September 19, 2021" in the infobox, with footnotes on both. The footnote would read something like "Petito died some time between August 27, when she was last seen in public, and September 19, when her remains were found. The medical examiner said she died between about three and four weeks before the remains were found." And I do think we should fix this, the August 30 date implies that we think Laundrie killed her. Are any of the reliable sources saying Aug 30? GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We should just say she was last seen 27-30th, and her body was found sept 19th, having been dead for 3-4 weeks. We can let readers then make any conclusions they want from that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Or just use circa? Have it state something like "March 19, 1999 - c. August 27, 2021. Canuck 89 (Talk to me)  22:31, October 27, 2021 (UTC) They haven't released their full report, but investigators are saying they believe Laundrie was dead by the 15th. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Typo
First line of head section it says "the Laundrie" for intended "that Laundrie". 178.4.151.17 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. clpo13(talk) 22:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2021
The police did not "force" a traffic stop. That would suggest a PIT maneuver, stop sticks, or some other intervention. They actually "conducted" a traffic stop. Most agencies wouldn't even pursue if the driver had fled in that situation. 47.5.18.101 (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Media coverage/pop culture
I was wondering if there should be a section added to this page for the case's coverage in popular media. 60 Minutes Australia, Dr. Phil and a number of other TV shows have extensively explored the case and it seems like it would be beneficial to mention these in the article, since these are major programs watched by international audiences. I can't edit the article itself, but I can provide links to these instances of media coverage and pages for citation purposes. PetSematary182 (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2021
Irrelevant: "White Woman Missing Syndrome", which is neither scientific nor related to this individual story. Therion1313 (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ This case did in fact cause an elevated national debate about missing white woman syndrome, a term used by social scientists. How to discuss it in this article has been extensively discussed but you are free to see if you can change consensus. --SVTCobra 19:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be good to provide more neutrality in this section, as the "missing white woman syndrome" thing is quite biased when looking at the sources, but it still isn't irrelevant. It was debated at length in this case, and so should be included, not removed. PetSematary182 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182

Move request
This needs to be moved to Murder of Gabby Petito. The FBI Denver Division closed out the investigation and ruled Brian Laundrie as the perpetrator. Also why is List of unsolved murders still listed on the article?. Mysticair667537 (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mysticair667537 I noticed that you moved the article to a new name, although it clearly states on this talk page above: Current consensus (October 2021):Subject and title: The article title should be about the event and circumstances around the death of Gabby Petito and not "Gabby Petito" or "Gabrielle Petito" - Discussion: The article title should remain "Killing of..." and not "Murder of..." as per WP:BLPCRIME, WP:KILLINGS and WP:KILLINGOF. Did you perhaps gain consensus for your change in another location, and forget to move that discussion here? Netherzone (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think consensus needs to form here on the Talk Page first for moving the article from "Killing of..." to "Murder of...", as we don't yet have full information on exactly what transpired. It's not that I don't think he killed her; I'm the editor who made the first edit a couple days ago to directly attribute Petito's killing to Laundrie (as opposed to the deliberately indefinite way it was worded previously, before Landrie's notebook information was announced by the FBI).  It's just that we don't actually know yet what the underlying nature of the killing was.  Is it a situation which would have warranted first or second degree murder charges?  Or were the other factors in play that would have made it something more like voluntary manslaughter (i.e., the "killing of a human being in which the offender acted during the heat of passion, under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed to the point that they cannot reasonably control their emotions," etc.)  I'm sure that in time, the FBI will disclose the full contents of the notebook.  Until that information is parsed and reasoned through to reach a new consensus, the article should remain at "Killing of..." Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I reason for moving the article to Murder of Gabby Petito was because the word "Murder" was used in the Attack type, so I didn't think a consensus was needed. The FBI also used the word "Murder" In this statement:

“We truly appreciate the FBI’s diligent and painstaking efforts in this extremely complicated case,” according to a statement from Petito’s family. “The quality and quantity of the facts and information collected by the FBI leave no doubt the Brian Laundrie murdered Gabby.” Mysticair667537 (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Petito’s family, not the FBI. My mistake Mysticair667537 (talk) 06:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In deciding whether the title of this article should begin Killing of ... or Murder of ..., one needs to consider why Wikipedia has this convention. Primarily this convention exists because living people have the right to a fair trial and anyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent until found guilty. However, that is no longer the case in this situation, as the only likely suspect is deceased and investigators have evidence that the suspect admits to killing the victim. While it is not a finding in court, it is a finding by officials that this is a murder. The Wikipedia essay about "Murder of" articles and the naming conventions for violence and deaths, both do not seem to have contemplated that the prime murder suspect might admit guilt and then commit suicide. This eventuality falls outside the advice given by WP:BLPCRIME, WP:KILLINGS and WP:KILLINGOF, so we fall back to the general criteria for naming the article. Most of the reliable sources report that the FBI now considers this homicide to be a Murder as there is written evidence of the suspect admitting guilt in his notebook. Since the suspect is deceased as a result of his own actions, there won't be any charges laid, no court hearing nor a conviction. This is the situation where we should ignore the rules because they are no longer relevant. I support the latest title change because it is a Murder, in my view, and oppose trying to undo the change now that it has happened. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You mentioned above that the officials have found this to be a murder, and that the FBI considers it to be a murder. Can you provide us with some sources to verify that they have declared this to be a murder?  Or are the authorities still calling it a "killing" (and/or "homicide")?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems the Petito family, not the FBI is using the word "murder". We have to go by what reliable sources actually say. Let us not forget that even tho this is not a BLP, there are living people involved - there are two families - the Petito family and the Laundrie family. We need to be cognizant of the wording and considerate towards both families as neutral editors. When in doubt, do no harm. Netherzone (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This 21 January 2022 statement from the FBI Denver office includes the statement that "A review of the notebook revealed written statements by Mr. Laundrie claiming responsibility for Ms. Petito’s death." Although the FBI do not mention the word "murder", nor do they mention "killing", they only call this a tragic death as a result of "blunt-force injuries to the head and neck, with manual strangulation." in the statement. If one adopts the FBI approach, the title of the article should be Death of ..., if one adopts the Coroner's opinion then "Manual strangulation of ..." would be a good title. But since the only suspect is deceased and the FBI are saying he has admitted responsibility for causing the death of Gabby Petito, then the commonly recognizable interpretation is that the only suspect in this case has confessed to murder. I believe the facts in the FBI statement are sufficient to meet both the guilty act and the guilty mind elements for the crime of murder and the reporting media have portrayed this as a murder, not a death or a killing. A quick sample of reports in the media about the FBI statement are either interpreting this as a murder or at least a confession of responsibility for the death. See these sources and read beyond the headlines:


 * Were Brian Laundrie still alive, his confession would result in him being found guilty of and convicted for murder. Because Landrie is dead and the FBI is closing the case, I believes this amounts to adjudication in this case. The FBI says this is a death where their only suspect claims responsibility, the Victim's family and independent news media sources are interpreting that as murder. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Were Brian Laundrie still alive, his confession would result in him being found guilty of and convicted for murder. Because Landrie is dead and the FBI is closing the case, I believes this amounts to adjudication in this case. The FBI says this is a death where their only suspect claims responsibility, the Victim's family and independent news media sources are interpreting that as murder. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Were Brian Laundrie still alive, his confession would result in him being found guilty of and convicted for murder. Because Landrie is dead and the FBI is closing the case, I believes this amounts to adjudication in this case. The FBI says this is a death where their only suspect claims responsibility, the Victim's family and independent news media sources are interpreting that as murder. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Were Brian Laundrie still alive, his confession would result in him being found guilty of and convicted for murder. Because Landrie is dead and the FBI is closing the case, I believes this amounts to adjudication in this case. The FBI says this is a death where their only suspect claims responsibility, the Victim's family and independent news media sources are interpreting that as murder. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Were Brian Laundrie still alive, his confession would result in him being found guilty of and convicted for murder. Because Landrie is dead and the FBI is closing the case, I believes this amounts to adjudication in this case. The FBI says this is a death where their only suspect claims responsibility, the Victim's family and independent news media sources are interpreting that as murder. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Were Brian Laundrie still alive, his confession would result in him being found guilty of and convicted for murder. Because Landrie is dead and the FBI is closing the case, I believes this amounts to adjudication in this case. The FBI says this is a death where their only suspect claims responsibility, the Victim's family and independent news media sources are interpreting that as murder. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Were Brian Laundrie still alive, his confession would result in him being found guilty of and convicted for murder. Because Landrie is dead and the FBI is closing the case, I believes this amounts to adjudication in this case. The FBI says this is a death where their only suspect claims responsibility, the Victim's family and independent news media sources are interpreting that as murder. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Were Brian Laundrie still alive, his confession would result in him being found guilty of and convicted for murder. Because Landrie is dead and the FBI is closing the case, I believes this amounts to adjudication in this case. The FBI says this is a death where their only suspect claims responsibility, the Victim's family and independent news media sources are interpreting that as murder. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Were Brian Laundrie still alive, his confession would result in him being found guilty of and convicted for murder. Because Landrie is dead and the FBI is closing the case, I believes this amounts to adjudication in this case. The FBI says this is a death where their only suspect claims responsibility, the Victim's family and independent news media sources are interpreting that as murder. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the move as it clearly is not non-controversial. I suggest opening an RM discussion here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand why Elli has moved this article back to the title of Killing of Gabby Petito. Applying WP:KILLINGS strictly gives that title. However, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:KILLINGS and WP:MURDEROF does not contemplate that the single suspect is now both deceased and has effectively provided a deathbed confession to causing the death of the victim. The Denver office of the FBI has been careful to avoid using the terms "murder" or "killing" in their closing statement, only saying it is a "death". However, various media sources have used both "killing" and "murder" when describing this death. No charges of murder will be laid and there will not be a court trial to convict anyone. As various sources describe this event in different ways we need to decide not only what to title this event but also develop some principles or guidelines as to how and why we came to that title, so we can apply the same principles or guidelines in similar circumstances. If we accept the FBI's carefully worded statement, and apply the terms used by investigating authorities, then the title should be "Death of Gabby Petito", if not, then we need to consider what the most appropriate natural and recognizable common name should be, given the variability in the sources. We also need to be able to explain the logic behind choosing that name, so we can update the various guidelines and decision-making criteria. I don't think merely counting the number of times a particular term is used by sources is good enough, we need to explain how the sources are interpreted, too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t get why this is so controversial. Laundrie confessed. It was a murder. TheXuitts (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:KILLINGS is neither policy nor guideline, so its content is not binding. If we followed its flowchart zealously, murder-suicide would be impossible, since the suicidal killer would not be alive to be convicted of murder. WWGB (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

^^^^^^ This. TheXuitts (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In the usual murder-suicide case, both the victim and perpetrator are dead by the time law enforcement intervenes, and they usually label the investigation a murder-suicide from the outset. In this case, the victim was alive, but distressed, when law enforcement first intervened and the case has evolved from there. The FBI's carefully worded statement does not use the word "murder", nor does it use "killing", it only says Laundrie accepted responsibility for causing Petito's death. However, various news media have also put their own spins on this "death" and called it a murder, killing, death or disappearance, as they see fit. You and I might also be of an opinion that this is a murder as well, but that leads to editorial bias. For me the question is: Who does the Wikipedia community, collectively, believe and accept is right? The FBI, who investigated the case and ought to know a murder when they see one, or the news media, who might put their own spin on what the FBI has to say and take into account the opinions of others. How does the Wikipedia community decide, consistently? This argument is really about verifiability and how to interpret sources that avoid using a succinct term that means what they say, so they can avoid giving an opinion on what happened. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. An FBI statement is a primary source. If RSSs use the term murder then so may we. WWGB (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of the Civilian Attack Infobox Template on "Killing of..." articles
For TheXuitts: In your edit summary here, you said that almost all "murder of" or "killing of" articles on Wikipedia include the "attack type" parameter in their infoboxes. Can you provide some examples? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article uses the wrong template. It should use template:infobox event, which is used for crimes. Template:infobox civilian attack is used in articles like 9/11. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * *Murder of Ahmaud Arbery


 * Murder of John Lennon
 * Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward
 * Murders of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña
 * 2018 Riverview murders
 * Killing of Vincent Chin
 * Killing of Vicha Ratanapakdee TheXuitts (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

“…killed by…” versus “…allegedly killed by…”
So, I would like to start this out by making it resoundingly clear that I believe Laundrie killed Ms. Petito. I would also like to state that I’m not terribly familiar with this section of Wikipedia, as I mainly focus on law enforcement, military, and aviation articles. So I’m not sure what the accepted convention here, is.

That being said; Should the intro not state that Ms. Petito was *allegedly* killed by Laundrie? Or are we staying an incontrovertible fact backed by consensus? Without a video of what happened, one will never be able to be 100% certain what transpired, unfortunately.

I’m very familiar with the FBI’s statement on the matter, and I know they state they believe that Petito was killed by Laundrie. However, the FBI does not pronounce guilt or innocence, it is a law enforcement agency (LEA). They are free to state their opinions. Furthermore, as this murder took place in the US, US law applies, and a dead person cannot be tried. I’m the eyes of the law, Laundrie is, and always be, innocent, as he was never proven guilty.

If Laundrie had been found alive, we would be staying “alleged,” correct?

I’d be more than happy to see something included in the intro that states something along the lines of, “The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that Laundrie was solely responsible for the killing,” and that “Laundrie himself admitted to the killing in a journal entry prior to his suicide.” I know that’s already mentioned in the intro, but we could bump it up higher.

I truly don’t want to start an argument over this, I’m merely wondering if this is the proper convention in a case like this. I couldn’t find any other articles to compare it to, so I figured I’d just open the discussion; Thoughts?

MWFwiki (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think video evidence of every killing and/or murder is an inconceivably high standard of evidence. Also, this is an encyclopedia not a court of law or an oracle of absolute truth. --SVTCobra 10:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It is indeed an encyclopedia, presenting factual information. It also should be as close to the absolute truth as possible, not sure why that is presented as a negative. Is it not factual that it is alleged that Laundrie murdered Petito? As I said, I’m perfectly happy to cede the fact that Laundrie admitted he did it. But, we may never know what actually transpired. I don’t understand why it’s okay to assume something simply because it “feels right” or what have you. As to my “inconceivably high standard,” what IS the standard, then?


 * I’d argue for adding “alleged,” but dedicating the following sentence to what we do factually know; That the FBI believes Laundrie was responsible and that he admitted murdering her.


 * MWFwiki (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears that there are no sources backing up the statement that Brian Laundrie killed Gabby Petito. The most credible source of this type of information is the FBI, and they have not stated that Brian Laundrie killed Gabby Petito.  They have said he is the only known person involved in her death, and that he claimed responsibility for her death, but never made the final jump to a statement that he killed her, and this appears deliberate.  Jumping to a claim that Brian Laundrie killed Gabby Petito, however small a jump that may seem, is conjecture on the part of persons without all the information that the FBI has. KCTongo (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The text from his notebook have been revealed where he explicitly admits to killing her and that he is going to kill himself afterwards. He claims it was some kind of a hiking accident. I don't think you can get more clear than a direct confession in a suicide note. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2022
Laundire's letter got released. It should be added. HereMichaelFansz (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC) MichaelFansz


 * I've added details of the letter including experts contending that it does not match reports and their views. Bronx News 12 consulted at least two experts critical of the content of the note. For balance their views should be included. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Death date
Brian Laundrie killed Gabby on August 27th,2021. Her death date should be August 27th. He admitted in his letters to killing her on that date. AutCol (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Motive
The motive should be domestic abuse 95.60.38.218 (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2023
Change

"Neither Petito nor Laundrie wanted to press charges as a result of the incident, which was characterized by police as a mental breakdown rather than domestic violence, which would have required an arrest. The police separated the couple, arranging for Laundrie to spend a night at the Bowen Motel in Moab,[19] and for Petito to stay in the van.[11]"

to

"Neither Petito nor Laundrie wanted to press charges as a result of the incident, and police were hesitant to report it as domestic violence because it would have required an arrest of Petito, who had claimed to be the instigator. Instead, they characterized it as a mental breakdown and separated the couple, arranging for Laundrie to spend a night at the Bowen Motel in Moab,[19] and for Petito to stay in the van.[11]"

I feel the line current line should be clarified that Petito would have been the one arrested, and that that's why the police were hesitant. Reading it with the ambiguity suggesting that they could have arrested Laundrie but didn't implies a greater degree of negligence. Itsmattkc (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Otherwise, this seems to be original research. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 13:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Events leading to the killing
There should be an added subcategory that talks about the events leading to the killing. Laundrie was an abusive partner and she told the cops but they didn’t believe her. Laundrie used DARVO and claimed to be the victim when really he was the abuser. The public fell for it. It is an important thing to add because only if the public has knowledge of this can they not fall for it the next time. And can they believe the victims and prevent a murder from happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.60.38.218 (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That is an idea not without merit, but domestic abuse and the responses thereto take many forms. I have noticed a marked dearth of commentary regarding her incessant nagging.  That deserves examination.  I concede dude’s response was wildly disproportionate. 2600:1700:726C:B000:5891:E290:5C83:BA12 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Nagging" is not abuse. "Nagging" is what misogynistic men call advice when it comes from their partner. They call it "incessant" when it doesn't just go away when they completely disregard it.
 * Even suggesting that this was a "response" (however disproportionate) to "abuse" is extremely inappropriate.
 * I'll shut up now before I get myself in trouble. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 14:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Numerous people, sadly many with agenda, do consider nagging to be a form of abuse albeit with a generally positive biological and social motivation. Anecdotally, I’ve been married. cf. Nagging 2600:1700:726C:B000:D47C:E636:5B5D:7C40 (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Gabby's last message
Did her last message to her Mom really state "no service in Yosemite" when they were in fact headed to Yellowstone? It is not supported by the referenced article. Alielmi1207 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)