Talk:Killing of Gabby Petito: Difference between revisions

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. United States: Utah / Wyoming C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Utah. This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming. Women C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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 • ^hasspoken 19:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How about not having it in the opening and just in the media section below? UpendraSachith (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This seems like a fair compromise. CaptainPrimo (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

More mention of the racial/gender aspect in CNN [1]. "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

And your evidence for this hypothesis is? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1] Leaky.Solar (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • just collecting more articles of same thread in case it becomes something ^[2], ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaky.Solar (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

Not to my knowledge. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 | Talk 22:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: seems to be a reasonable move. I'll do it, an RM is probably not necessary at this point. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not confirmed… Yet. But the body does match. 2603:9000:A703:1EFD:48CC:67A:A863:3A74 (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Not me. 2603:9000:A703:1EFD:48CC:67A:A863:3A74 (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bganter, Stop doing that. Sources have to confirm that is the body. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 | Talk 22:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 | Talk 23:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article has been semi-protected so only logged in autoconfirmed users can edit. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk 22:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Disappearance of Gabrielle Petito has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

86.126.172.33 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  Her body was found! The FBI confirmed it![reply]

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 | Talk 22:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gabrielle Petito.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FBI offered condolences and the nature of the case ^[1] (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)[reply]

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 | Talk 23:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now been moved to "Death of Gabby Petito." - Fuzheado | Talk 21:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks Fuzheado and Thetonestarr - makes total sense. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I've changed the lead to be "is" and with some more elaboration in the second paragraph. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• FBI-Gabrielle Petito.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Kellis7: 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 | contribs) 15:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We would go with what reliable sources report, based on what the coroner/authorities conclude. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We'll cross that bridge when we get there... BOTTO _(T•C) 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ^{[1] [2]}

Adding another reference (ABC news) since they posted the transcript of the 911 call. ^[3]

Also, in the bodycam footage, Laundrie admits to shoving Petito and trying to lock her out of her van. ^[4]

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)femaleredditor[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request to Disappearance of Gabby Petito has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

 Not done. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)gizziiusa[reply]

There is already a redirect for Gabby Petito. You might find this helpful: WP: Redirect Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The possible trail camera sighting of Laundrie is currently being investigated. Police have not confirmed that the person is or is not Laundrie. [2] Thriley (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant until an actual sighting by is confirmed - when caught. Bohbye (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A better source (CNN) has reported that the autopsy confirmed it is Petito. It has been added. -Fuzheado | Talk 21:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The request to rename this article to Killing of Gabby Petito has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

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

Note: WikiProject Death has been notified of this discussion. SK2242 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. SK2242 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. SK2242 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Women has been notified of this discussion. SK2242 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the sentiment, but let's not rush any renaming. These are just the first conclusions, literally minutes old. "Death of" is more neutral and stable for now, and it is common for articles of this nature to stay with this type of title while the facts get sorted out and more time passes. Also your conclusion is not correct - the FBI did not determine anything. "Teton County Coroner Dr. Brent Blue ruled the death a homicide in his preliminary findings." (CNN) -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "FBI Denver has announced the manner of death of Gabby Petito is a homicide" [3], but I agree, let's wait for a while. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Always risky to go with a news outlet's interpretation. Better to go with the FBI's own words: "Coroner Blue’s initial determination for the manner of death is homicide. The cause of death remains pending final autopsy results." The FBI didn't announce the manner of death was a homicide – it said the coroner's determination was. Twitter - Fuzheado | Talk 22:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI is going to rely on the coroner's conclusions. That's how cases and evidence work, agents themselves are not going to examine as they have no medical skills. As for exact cause, it's clearly about how she was killed rather than being a question of whether she was. The title should be changed to "Murder of Gabby Petito". Agreed it's just recently been found out, but people aren't going to say she's disappeared any longer now. The number of sources calling it her murder will eventually become high, there's no point in waiting for an inevitability. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Initial determination" being the operative phrase here. We don't even have the final autopsy results, just an initial guess. This often changes as evidence emerges. Too much is changing moment to moment for the title switch just yet. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: There's quite a bit of original research, speculation, WP:CRYSTAL and absence of reliable sourcing in your comments. No reputable news outlets are referring to it as a murder at this time, so this is not currently a reasonable option. If things change in the future, we can revisit. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As much we all know she was killed and we have many reasons to suspect and believe it was a crime, the fact that the coroner has determined it was a homicide does not mean it was criminal. Definition of homicide: Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense. So let’s keep the male as is. Bohbye (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a crime to be named "Killing". Certainly don't use "murder of", but "killing of" is reasonable as reliable sources are reporting it's a homicide. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support per WP:DEATHS with the FBI determining the cause of death was homicide. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the FBI did not determine the cause of death. It was simply relating the coroner's "preliminary findings" and also "The cause of death remains pending final autopsy results." It would be too soon to move this article, especially not to a title with "murder." -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Murder of Gabby Petito" and I'm sold. BOTTO _(T•C) 00:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source has yet used the term "murder of Gabby Petito" so this title would be inappropriate. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "Murder of Gabby Petito" after looking at recent sources. There is no doubt she was murdered per already existing and published conclusion by the coroner. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be interested in your sources. Other than one questionable Buzzfeed article, no respectable news outlets are declaring it a murder at this time. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support killing, Oppose murder; a murder requires a conviction. Nobody has even been charged yet. I do support killing of Gabby Petito has the corner's office ruled it a homicide. cookie monster 755 01:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To add to my RM, I strongly oppose "Murder of Gabby Petito" unless someone is convicted of her murder. This has been standard practice on other articles such as Murder of George Floyd. SK2242 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Killing of Gabby Petito. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't feel that a pagemove is needed, but either way is fine. I'm actually quite surprised that while Nicole Brown Simpson's biography says:

  An autopsy determined that Brown had been stabbed seven times in the neck and scalp, and had a 14 cm-long (5.5 inches) gash across her throat, which had severed both her left and right carotid arteries and breached her right and left jugular veins.[31] The wound on Brown's neck was so severe it had penetrated a depth of 1.9 cm (0.75 inches) into her cervical vertebrae,[31] nearly decapitating her.[26][32] She also had defensive wounds on her hands.[31]

it actually demurs from saying that Brown was murdered. Although OJ Simpson's post-acquittal search for the real killer iirc came up fruitless, it seems bizarre to omit the M-word with regard to Brown. Brown's biography at least cross-links List of unsolved murders, which does a better job of acknowledging reality. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

 Done - That section has now been changed to "human remains consistent with her description were found." - Fuzheado | Talk 22:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]