Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously/Archive 2

Possible additions

There are three from Exmouth. How do I get the information to you? 1918 HONOR BAMSEY age 12. Last seen in Castle Lane Littleham. Eric Sparrow (age mid twenties) strong swimmer last seen going out to sea in a small boat (1957-60). Genette Tate age 15 1970's bicycle found in a lane near Woodbury. This is Brian Worts at brianworts@supanet.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.40.239 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For possible additions that don't yet have an article about the person or about their disappearance, see the Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously/Possible additions page.

I removed the article link to Amber Dubois because it redirects to her killer, which I find inhuman. 86.162.37.228 (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-mysterious disappearances

Helen Brach

I propose that Helen Brach be removed as Richard Bailey has been convicted of conspiring to murder her and soliciting her murder (and a 1996 appeal against his sentence of life imprisonment was rejected), so this fails the "whose deaths are not substantiated" criteria. Also there's no suggestion that any alternative possibilities which might explain her disappearance, or any controversy regarding her fate; the only mystery is the whereabouts of her remains. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Now removed [1] - 58.8.5.139 (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is a crucial "or" in the criteria "whose current whereabouts are unknown or whose deaths are not substantiated.". She meets the criterion "whose current whereabouts are unknown".--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes no sense at all to suggest that "current whereabouts" should apply in cases where a person is known to have been murdered.

I suggest that she also does not meet the criterion "people who have mysteriously disappeared". The cause of her disappearance is now known - she was murdered. She's clearly NOT a missing person - only her remains are missing. If the details of exactly how and where a person died were deliberately obscured by those responsible and held accountable for that person's murder, that alone doesn't constitute a "mysterious disappearance".

Only the whereabouts of her remains are unknown, and this list surely isn't intended to include people whose fate is known but whose remains have not been recovered. 58.8.5.127 (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but if her remains are missing then that makes her a missing person in my book -- especially since we don't how she disappeared. If you wish to modify and/or clarify the inclusion criteria then by all means let's have a discussion about that.--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Very strongly disagree. If a person fails "[death] not substantiated" for any reason other than extreme age, I think it's ridiculous to say "current whereabouts are unknown" still applies (and especially so if they are known to have been murdered). 58.8.5.127 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

But there's still a mystery attached to the disappearance. Where is she? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that she does NOT meet the "whose deaths are not substantiated" criteria? 58.8.5.127 (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is she? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful. Presumably you don't contest that she doesn't meet the "whose deaths are not substantiated" criteria. So, as she's a known murder victim, and therefore known to be dead, the question isn't "where is she?" - it's "where are her remains?" - correct? 58.8.5.127 (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many people who die or were murdered and remains were not found, but as long as detail about death are known, as is the case here, the person is no longer considered "missing". Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury

I have removed this entry, as the fate of the king and his heir (and brother) after being deposed and imprisoned in the tower of London is hardly mysterious. While the particulars are debated, it seems pretty clear and generally accepted by experts that the Princes in the Tower were murdered after the summer of 1483 at the order of Richard III to protect his hold on the throne. Alereon (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's obvious at all. There is actually quite a bit of controversy surrounding the deaths of the princes. Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This entry was put back today [2] and then removed [3] and then restored [4] again. As the Princes in the Tower article details the mystery of their disappearance and the particulars are unlikely to ever be confirmed, and their remains have not (as yet) been conclusively identified, I think they should definitely be included. 58.8.13.104 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Roberto Clemente

I propose that Roberto Clemente be removed, as Baseball Bugs suggested below. There is nothing mysterious about his disappearance, since he is known to have been in a plane that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. Many dead people's bodies are never recovered from plane crashes, war, burning buildings, bombings, and so forth; that does not make their disappearances "mysterious". —Mark Dominus (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Name change

The name of this page should be changed from List of People who Disapeared Mysteriously to List of People Who Have Gone Missing Under Mysterious Circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southconfederate (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not notables

Should the two entries under 2009, Claudia Lawrence and Brittanee Drexel, be considered notable disappearances and worthy of inclusion? --yonoid

They both currently have Wikipedia articles, and as long as that remains true (ie as long as there's an article about the person or the disappearance), they should only be removed if/when they are determined to no longer be missing (presuming the criteria for the list doesn't change).

The list presently has an almost exactly equal mix of people who were already notable before they disappeared and people who only became notable as a result of their disappearance. If you were to remove all the people who were not notable prior to their disappearance (ie all otherwise non-notable people whose disappearance merits a Wikipedia article), you'd need to delete about 65 of the listings - around 50% of the current total.

If you believe both the person and their disappearance to be non-notable, you should propose the relevant article for deletion. If the article is deleted, the listing here should then be removed. 58.8.13.201 (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting "all the people who were not notable prior to their disappearance" sounds perfectly sensible to me and would vastly improve this article instead of it turning into simply a list of missing persons as it gets towards the later years.--Libertao (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. It seems to me that somebody should define "notable" as it relates to this page. There are many people that go missing every year. Just because CNN covered their disappearance, or because there was a nationwide-search doesn't make them notable. As it is, this list is useless; it can't ever be complete enough to list all of the people who have disappeared mysteriously, and many of the people listed aren't notable enough for this to be a list of notable people who disappeared mysteriously. What's the point? -- Hoogamagoo (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

+1 on the deleting of non-notables (Brittanee Drexel being the most grievous example). When can we get started on that ? phrawzty (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Hale Boggs?

He was house majority leader. If anybody deserves to be on this list he does. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Was listed here previously, then removed 2009-06-13 with the edit summary "nothing mysterious about Hale Boggs' disappearance - it was a plane crash". It wasn't me that removed it, but I do agree it doesn't really qualify for inclusion. As the entry said: Nick Begich (40) and Hale Boggs (58), both American Congressmen, disappeared when their Cessna 310 went missing en route to Juneau, Alaska, from Anchorage. - exactly why the plane crashed is a mystery, but the fate of passengers aboard light aircraft lacking a distress radiobeacon that go missing while flying over Alaskan mountain ranges generally isn't. 58.8.8.44 (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If mysterious disappearances does not include Hale Bogg's plane crash, then other plane crashes should be removed as well, however prominent. I suggest that these should all be left in as the actual death or cause of death is unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean like, we don't know if they died by burning to death, because of the impact, because of freezing to death on the mountain, etc., that it's a mysterious disappearance? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

By that criteria, Glenn Miller and Amelia Earhart should be removed from the list as well. --User:SamDash95 —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC).

The Hale Boggs disappearance is definitely a mystery. Consider: There was no distress call, no trace of the wreckage was ever found despite a 39 day search by Navy, Coast Guard and Air Force, no bodies were found either, and no witnesses ever came forward saying they saw some sign of a crash. Add to that the (somewhat paranoid) suspicions that he was killed because of his connections with the Warren Commission, and you've got a classic example of what this article is for. The fact that a plane crash is the most plausible explanation doesn't detract from the element of mystery. Pleonic (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Miller

I propose that he be removed from the list. His plane disappeared over the English Channel during wartime, which doesn't seem "mysterious" at all. I think it can safely be assumed that his plane crashed in the water, and like countless other airmen during WWII his body was never recovered. Worldruler20 (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This sort of question keeps coming up. I say his disappearance is mysterious since we don't know the details and even the big picture is a guess. Perhaps we should raise an RFC to settle the generic matter. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a distinction between inability to recover a body vs. truly mysterious disappearance. I don't see Roberto Clemente on the list, for example. His body was never recovered, but everyone knows the plane went down. As I recall, same deal with Glenn Miller. I also question someone like D.B. Cooper, who parachuted into the forest and was never seen again. That's not really such a mystery. His chances of survival were minimal under the circumstances, and it's hard enough to find a crashed plane in the forest, let along some guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

---

As I recall, (and boy, I hate citing just my general memory for this), Glenn Miller was passenger in a light aircraft that accidentally flew under a flight of bombers that was unloading on its coastal French target, resulting in the loss of said light plane.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The most plausible explanation was that the UC-64 Norseman was flying low through an area over the Channel designated for salvoing unwanted ordnance, and an RAF strike returning did just that, causing the crash. There was at least one witness amongst the bomber crew. Mark Sublette (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus of Nazareth? Is this an awful joke?

See also 2008 discussion at Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously/Archive 2#Jesus - 92.4.81.224 (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't even subscribe to Christianity, but to say that Jesus is a "missing person" is ludicrous and no doubt offensive to about one billion people. Almost all credible historians interested in the subject agree that Jesus was crucified (or, less specifically, put to death), most likely by Roman authorities, around the time of his agreed death early in the Common Era. All that apparently"disappeared" is his body, whether by natural or supernatural means. But as for disappearing bodies, raise your hand if you know where your great-grandmothers are buried? 173.21.106.137 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's got to be somebody's idea of a joke. P.S. I do know where my great-grandmothers are buried, but I haven't checked to see if their tombs are full or empty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition

An IP has recently added a group of people. None of them have an article. They are all referenced to a Danish TV show. There is no indication that they are notable for anything other than disappearing. I do not believe they belong in the list because they are not notable, any other thoughts? ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's an en:wikipedia article about the person (ie the person is notable, for whatever reason) or about their disappearance (their disappearance is notable), and the person disappeared mysteriously, and the person is still missing, then there should be a listing here. If there's no article about the person or their disappearance, the person/disappearance should not be listed here. See #Not notables & Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously/Possible additions. 92.4.81.224 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

List or essay?

I notice a tendency on this page to write huge slabs of text for each entry, which seems slightly inappropriate given this is apparently a list. In most cases we should have small 1 line entries if there is a link to a main article. What are people's thoughts? Jwoodger (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree the entries on this list are to long. They should be pared down to minimum facts and let the article tell the facts. If there is no article on the disappearance/person the entry does not belong on this page. Editors should be encouraged to write the article first. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

---

List of people who disappeared mysteriously → List of missing people who disappeared mysteriously — "missing" is a key criteria for this list - the lead paragraph limits inclusion to those "whose current whereabouts are unknown or whose deaths are not substantiated", and this is reflected in the content of the list, and in the consistent removal of entries for people who were missing but who are no longer considered to be so, and in general Talk: page consensus. However, people who are not missing are still being added to the list, suggesting that a more explicit page name would be helpful - hence this proposal to add the single word "missing" to the current page name. 92.1.93.82 (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed title is to wordy. The missing is unnecessary since someone who has disappeared is missing. If we know where they are or where their body is, they are not disappeared, they have been found. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - a famous mysterious disappearance is still famous and historically mysterious when the person is later found. Make it clear that this isn't for little things such as Mark Sanford's trip to Appalachia. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose whether a person is currently missing has no bearing on whether they disappeared mysteriously. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

mysterious disappearances that weren't

Parts of this list seem to have become "List of people who disappeared for common reasons" and their inclusion here is a stretch. What do other's think of

• Glen and Bessie Hyde - inexperienced rafters who vanished while on a long rafting trip.
• Disappearance of Brittanee Drexel - a standard "missing persons" case
• Jennifer Kesse - a missing person's case with an indication of foul play
• Sivasubramaniam Raveendranath - Peer was kidnapped, worked in a kidnap prone place, received threatening messages .... then disappeared - does not seem mysterious, just sinister.
• Joe Pichler- a standard "missing persons" case
• Donald Crowhurst - became unhinged, jumped overboard, died....how is that a mysterious disappearance ?
• Sean Flynn - there is no mystery at all about how he was taken - it is just unknown where to and how/when he died. Kidnapped by a known group at a known place.

There are quite a lot, especially in the 1990s+ sections that are just standard missing persons (perhaps with suspected foul play) cases, with no unusual mystery about them. Surely for there to by a mystery about the disappearance there must be something inexplicable about the event. A depressed person, with a long history of self-harm, vanishing at a popular suicide point is hardly inexplicable. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, perhaps notability of individual articles needs to be agreed upon here - such as wealth of information beyond a single news article, or perhaps the sources explicitly defining the case as mysterious or unsolved. Please note though that the name of the article only indicates mysterious disappearances, the entries don't have to be unusual. Also, I don't think we should assume anything about disappearances, such as a suicidal person vanishing at a popular suicide location, even if it may seems to add up in our own minds. For all we know, they may have been beamed up to an alien spacecraft and zipped away to Mars (I apologise for the ridiculous example, but I think it serves my point) Jwoodger (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think the criterion should be "people who we have almost no clue what happened to them." Obviously, Amelia Earhart went down over the Pacific and the plane is likely at the bottom of the ocean. But we don't know for sure. Anyone who it's reasonably certain what happened, we just haven't found the body yet, doesn't seem to qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, on that basis, even Amelia might not belong. Except that we don't have much information about her fate. I was thinking that if this were 1975, you could have put the Edmund Fitzgerald on the list, to be erased once the wreckage was discovered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The real issue seems to be that the premise of the list is not defined clearly enough. If that can be pinned down, the content should follow logically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think that if unsure of notability, then the sources should explicitly make the decision for us. If a source mentions that a person went missing while out at sea, they shouldn't be included unless it also mentions something mysterious about the case. Many current sources might be removable if the only thing stated was that the person went missing. Thoughts? Jwoodger (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was started about 6 1/2 years ago by an editor who is apparently still active.[5] It might be instructive to look at the original concept of the article and see which of the current entries qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jwoodger's first sentence and disagree with Baseball bug's first. Amelia Earhart's disappearance is repeatedly referred to by reliable sources as mysterious (whether this is correct use of the word or not is moot). I would see that the list would be most easily defined as

• Notable - we have an article on them or on their disappearance (or are likely to).
• Mysterious - reliable sources refer to the disappearance in this way - get around the whole original research problem that can be evident as lists evolve.

This way as long as a single reference can be produced that backs up that (a) they disappeared and (b) it is regarded as having elements of mystery about it (c) it's in the list. thoughts ? - Peripitus (Talk) 01:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds solid to me. Jwoodger (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. "Mysterious", or equivalent terms, such as "unexplained" or "baffling" or whatever. More to the point, not explained precisely. Obviously, Earhart went down over the ocean, and that couple was dumped from their boat in the Grand Canyon. And although guys like Judge Crater and Jimmy Hoffa were not seen by the general public, they were obviously seen by whoever it was that shot them and disposed of their bodies. What happened to them generally is not much of a mystery. What happened specifically is where the mystery is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, this approach means that all or most of the items at the top of this section DO qualify, provided the telltale verbiage has been used in connection with their disappearances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Providing that is. It would perhaps be a poor outcome if this became a list of all who had been pictured on milk cartons. There is often a mystery as to why someone vanishes as not vanishing is the normal state of being. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

I think we need to nail down the inclusion criteria so it is easy to point someone to the criteria when we delete an entry. I think this needs to be like a FAQ here on this page more than rewriting the lead because I think the sentence in the lead says it all.

"This is a list of notable, historically testified people who mysteriously disappeared."

My interpretation of this sentence is that if we looked at the person and disregarded the disappearance and we could still write a viable article about them, then they belong. If the only reason there is an article about them is because they disappeared then they do not belong on this list. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont agreee with you, what is the difference between the two 2009 articles that you want gone in comparison to Kristin Smart for example? Just because a certain disappearance is more fresh and you might have your personal concerns because of that, also because it has been in the media alot.doesnt mean it should be deleted. This is a List of people who disappeared mysteriously both these people have done just that. The list should and shall only include articles on people who has disappeared. For example Brittanee Drexels disappearance has been the subject of numerous news media reports and has also been the subject on Dr Phil show. Cheers.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Claudia Lawrence also fits in this list because of the huge media interest in her case. Also it is an ongoing case whcih is currently in a critical stage. It has also been on the news in other countries sutch as mine.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any difference between the two I got to before being reverted and asked to take it to the talk page and Kristin Smart or Natalee Holloway (I do not know how many more). None of these 4 entries are about "notable, historically testified people who mysteriously disappeared," they are about notable disappearances. If these entries and others like them stay then we need to be discussing rewriting the lead. So IMO we either need to rewrite the lead (not what I think needs to be done) or cleanup the list so it has only those entries that match the lead (what I think needs to be done). What does media interest or being at a critical stage have to do with whether her notable disappearance belongs on this list? ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We could twist these arguments around until the day we die. It still is a list of List of people who disappeared mysteriously Natalle Holloway, Kristin Smart and Claudia Lawrence all ahve done just that and should thereby be on this list.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Non of the articles mentioned should be deleted.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we are not going to be convinced by the others argument, I guess we need to wait and see what others think. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that more recent cases should be left until more is known, or at least until we know with reasonable certainty that we will not know. This is because we are unaware of the circumstances, we do not know how the families feel and the police don't tend to release full details of these things at first. I think this is more important for 'ordinary' people; that is, people who would not be noteworthy otherwise. This is a sensationalist article if we are talking about young people lost to unknown fates and as such we should be responsible and attentive to the sensibilities of those involved; some of this is current after all. If they are a media figure or some such it could be viewed differently, although I'm dubious about that logic too.86.162.37.228 (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the IP. These articles is afterall about people who mysteriously disappeared. And we cant in todays date remove them on the grounds previously stated. Cheers.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be inclusion criteria for this article, or else the 'mysteriously' should be removed. The differentiation is that between a disappearance and a mysterious disappearance - if your body isn't found but you were swimming in a rip tide like Harold Holt was, then I wouldn't say your disappearance is particularly mysterious. On the other hand, that of Victor Grayson is at least somewhat mysterious. I'd be inclined to suggest an article split into List of People who Disappeared and List of people who Disappeared Mysteriously which would link to eachother but where the latter had circumstances in which the involved individuals were not in obvious situations of life-threatening danger. That would be the defining criteria for me. People would argue about details, but it would be more accurate than branding as 'mysterious' disappearances that aren't. In the case of people presumed murdered, I'd say those were mysterious unless someone had been convicted uncontroversially. The idea's not exactly perfect, but again, I think it would be more accurate. We have to remember what 'mysterious' means. 90.194.162.239 (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. I agree. I don't think I will invest the time in carrying out that plan, since my interest in this article is only in passing, but I think that it should be done if anyone feels motivated enough to do it. As long as it was done correctly, it would be kind to newbies and give them an opportunity to make their contribution in one place or another (as opposed to biting them and telling them that their contribution must be erased because there's no appropriate place for it). For example, when someone thinks to add a list entry like Joshua Slocum, the "degree of mysteriousness" of whose disappearance is in the eye of the beholder, they will have an appropriate place to add the entry, one way or another. — ¾-10 19:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Fitzgerald

Why is this included? There's no mystery; the ship went down, and all aboard were lost. That their bodies were not recovered doesn't create a mystery at all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong, and I see someone has since removed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sebastian of Portugal

Sebastian of Portugal should be on this list. --184.91.89.240 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sebastian has been removed from the list a few times under the rationale that "Inability to identify battlefield corpse is not a form of mysterious disappearance." This is somewhat disingenous though since this was not a common soldier's corpse but a royal with all his accompanying paraphernalia: Special clothes, better armor, better weapons, etc. It is improbable that a corpse like that would not be found if it was there. In fact, the Wiki article on Battle of Alcácer Quibir mentions that his body was identified by some "close companions" (although there's no citation given). A better argument for deleting him, if one is desired, is the fact that Philip I reclaimed a body several years later that he believed to be Sebastian's. One would suppose the corpse came with some vestiges of Sebastian's regalia to verify its identity -- to Philip's satisfaction, at least. Still, since the event does have a mysterious, legendary quality to it I am restoring it for the time being. Pleonic (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Disappearances during wartime

Quite a number of notable World War I flying aces vanished; usually, they just never returned from a flight. The most famous examples is Georges Guynemer. Is he eligible for this list? Are any others?

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Disapperances as the result of reasonably expected enemy action should not be included. Millions of people went missing throughout history's wars. Just because they were famous for being aces or authors etc should not make them eligable. That said, I do think that Glenn Miller should be listed, his disappearance was not the result of enemy action and the reasons are unknown and subject to much speculation.--Dmol (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Miller was listed, but some arsehole removed him. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lyle and Marie McCann

Why was the 2010 2 July reference to Lyle and Marie McCann removed? This is no more or less notable than the Kristen Smart or the Natalie Holloway disappearance, other than US television made the latter two :notable" and Canadian television (see references) made the former notable. It seems that Wiki is displaying a US bias to notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.160.153 (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question was given in the edit summary when it was changed. It was because it is "an entry with no article, no indication they are notable".--Dmol (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On Joshua Slocum: No mystery really

He was lost at sea, which means that it's very likely simply that a bad storm or rogue wave got him. — ¾-10 03:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

True this 'may' of been what happened, however, considering Slocum sailed around the world, by himself, a trip from Martha's Vineyard to the Amazon Rivers shouldn't end in desastor. Plus no wreckage or any sign of him since taking off, counts as a mystery to me.Peacekeeper 1234 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a long ways from New England to Brazil, and the fact that no wreckage was found is not at all surprising. It's a big ocean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally get your point, Peacekeeper (which is why I don't feel the need to be a party-pooper who removes Slocum from the list), but the reason I feel that it's not really a mysterious example of disappearance is what Bugs said. Every time anyone goes hundreds of miles out to sea, even masterful captains, it's no mystery what may go wrong. But I'm OK with leaving him in the list. I guess my comment boils down to one of those "I'm just sayin" kind of things. Maybe just one of the less mysterious list entries. Happy new year, everyone! Cheers to landing safely every time. — ¾-10 00:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say something about the French team that was trying to cross the Atlantic before Lindbergh, but I see they're already listed. Maybe the problem is the somewhat-colloquial article title. That they disappeared over or on the sea is a known fact. That something bad happened is a reasonable assumption. The mystery, as with Amelia Earhart, is that we don't know precisely what happened. But even supposing we find Earhart's plane and remains, that may not explain the precise details of what happened. However, it would probably be enough to take it off this list, based on the "primary" mystery being solved by "the plane crashed". I'm not sure they ever came up with anything more than theories as to why the planes carrying Buddy Holly and JFK Jr went down, but they did find the wrecked planes and the bodies, so the mystery becomes strictly technological. They don't know why the Edmund Fitzgerald went down either, but there's no question that it did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Stacy Peterson

The Stacy Peterson blurb under 2007 needs to be edited. The statement "Drew Peterson was subsequently indicted for her murder" is false. Drew Peterson is certainly suspected in her disappearance but has not been indicted for anything re: Stacy. He's been indicted only for the murder of his third wife Kathleen Salvo. 208.100.195.183 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Winslow Peck (Perry Fellwock)

He worked for NSA. He leaks Echelon in June 1976. He disappeared in December 1976.

• de:Winslow_Peck (german) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.26.91 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only mysterious disappearances

They were/are not only mysterious, theyre also popularly known. Maybe the article should be renamed to "List of popularly known mysterious disappeearances".--Bachi (speak to me) 19:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Need serious revision/attention

I'm sorry, but if the description of the "disappearance" says their car was found near a bridge or a dam... that's not a mysterious disappearance. If the description says the police think the dingo got your baby or the police arrested and convicted someone for the abduction of this person... also no longer a mystery. Why does this list have the name of every Australian ever known to not come home on it? Also, not to be cold hearted, but child abductions should not qualify for this list. If they do, then where are the other hundreds of thousands of child abductions that have happened world-wide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.17.68 (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Judge Crater Conflicting information

The information given for Judge Crater in this article directly contradicts the information on his own Wikipedia page, specifically that he was last seen getting into a cab and that his mistress disappeared a few weeks after he did, both points that are specifically refuted on his main page. Don't know which is correct, don't even know how to do what I'm doing here, but thought I would point it out so experts could change if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.73.56 (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus.

I removed Jesus from the list, mostly because I thought it was a joke. But seriously, even the existance of Jesus is not proven, so claims of big rocks blocking the tomb, his resetting the years from 0, or Roman guards are just ancient tales. Splitting the possible outcomes those who believe in devine reserection and the claim that he disappeared mysteriously is a typical "false dichotomy" argument that ignores other possiblities. The claim that the Shroud of Turin supports this mystery is rediculous. About the only thing proven about the Shroud is that is is a hoax from the middle ages. There is no justification for including Jesus in this list, whatever your personal religious belief.--Dmol (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Jokesters and/or ignorant users will occasionally add Jesus to the list, and once a legitimate editor notices it, it gets removed again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Amy Fitzpatrick

This young lady's entry under 2008 was removed today due to non-notability. I'm restoring it (at least temporarily) because her disappearance is 1.)mysterious, and 2.) notable enough for it to have had its own Wikipedia article since 2009. So it's either notable enough for Wikipedia or it's not but it shouldn't be notable in one place and not in another. Pleonic (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion started below conserning inclusion of this and similar articles.--Dmol (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability criteria.

I'm restarting the discussion about our notability criteria for this article. There have been several discussions about the criteria over the last few years, but no consensus has been reached. There is some support for not including people who were not famous prevoiusly, and this is what I would like to propose.

• Historically famous people, who later disappeared mysteriously, should be included. An exception has been suggested that wartime disappearance should not be included.
• Persons who were not famous before their disappearance should not be included - unless their disappearance recieves notable national or international media coverage over a period of time. Eg,Madeleine McCann. News coverage is not enough.
• Merely having a Wikipedia article for a missing person should not qualify a person for inclusion, even those whose article has survived AFD. (Which is currently being used as a reason for inclusion)

It is a sad fact of life that vast numbers of people are reported missing each year. I've seen figures as high as 10,000 annually for the USA alone. We can not gum up an otherwise good article by becoming a wiki version of Amber alert or a missing persons database.--Dmol (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to argue the other side: 1.)This list currently is merely one for people that have disappeared mysteriously, period. Nothing in the introductory paragraph specifies historicity or "international coverage." 2.) Full-fledged Wikipedia articles are subject to greater scrutiny for their notability than the entries in this article, and have formal procedures to get rid of them if the community judges that they are not notable. 3.) Hence, as it stands now, the burden is on the list to show why a mysterious disappearance that's notable enough to merit an entire Wikipedia article is not notable enough for this list. 4.) In addition, the concern has been raised that including disappearances notable enough for an article but where the people weren't famous first or haven't gotten a lot of press (a rather subjective criteria, it seems to me) will have the effect of turning the list into a wiki Amber Alert. But in fact that is not so much a problem with the list as it is with Wikipedia. In other words, if it is valid to make this criticism, it is a criticism of Wikipedia notability policy, not of the list, which is, after all, just a synopsis of information found elsewhere in Wikipedia.

It seems to me there are two main options here: Either change the purpose of the Mysterious Disappearances list to Famous Mysterious Disappearances, or leave the list as it is (with perhaps the requirement that there should be an article for it) and address any perceived problems at the level of Wikipedia article notability.

Personally, I much prefer the second. Pleonic (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

sebastião I de Portugal

please name source to the information "disappered in the fog of the batle of Alcacer quibir". the poems about him from Bandarra say he would apper on the shore some foggy morning, but i never heard that he had disappered in the fog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.143.135 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Spartacus

Spartacus was recently removed as just a case of "inability to identify battlefield corpse," and therefore non-mysterious. But it seems apparent to me that he belongs in this list. Here's why: The Roman sources are clear that they considered his disappearance mysterious, even though they hoped he died. Spartacus repeatedly humiliated Roman forces, embodied the Roman bogyman of slave revolt, and (at least in the tabloid news of the time) was widely believed to threaten Rome itself. The Romans had a vested interest in finding and displaying his body, but could not. And this despite the fact that Spartacus was known to wear captured armor to stand out as leader (and therefore was not a common "battlefield corpse"), that the Roman military routinely located the corpses of enemy leaders and paraded them about, and that they had thousands of his fellow-combatants to torture concerning where their General fell.

In addition the stories that were told about his death varied wildly, the only common element being that he was killed somehow by Romans while fighting bravely. This indicates that there was no one common story on how he died. Just to name one inconsistency: If one of these tales is true and (to pick one) certain soldiers claimed that Spartacus fell after taking an arrow in the leg and perished when they set upon him, why could they not point out the body later on?

We should also note that close to the final battle Spartacus attempted to negotiate a settlement with the opposing Commander. And there is evidence from Plutarch that his overall but thwarted goal had been to cross the Alps and live free in Gaul. This indicates that motivation could well have been present to escape the battle rather than fight to the death.

Given that this was war, the greater probability naturally lies with Spartacus dying in battle. But given the reasons -- pointed out above -- that the Romans historians themselves considered his ultimate fate unknown (i.e., "mysterious"), the inconsistencies, and the evidence for Spartacus' own motivations, there remains a significant probability that he just slipped away and lived out a quiet life somewhere. Not as noble as we might like, but eminently possible. Either way, there is more than enough mystery to keep him on the list, so I am restoring him. Pleonic (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The rpman sources all wrote over 100 years after the 3rd Servile War, thier accounts are vague and contradictory, and they are not to be considered relaible as what happened to Spartacus' body. Pleonic's fanciful speculation is suitable for fiction, but not for encyclopedic entery. I will undo his reversion accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCDane (talk • contribs) 14:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if we take the point about reliability of sources to its logical conclusion, we'd know nothing of Spartacus at all. The fact of the matter is that historians feel the surviving sources are fairly reliable and we are able to obtain a good account of the Slave Wars -- including what was known of Spartacus' fate -- using the usual canons of historical criticism. I recommend Spartacus and the Slave Wars: A Brief History With Documents by Shaw (2001, St.Martin's Press) for information on this.

One of the things modern historians accept is that Spartacus' body was never found. And this is regarded as mysterious enough that Barry Strauss in The Spartacus War (one of the best recent books on this) felt it necessary to explain how the body of such a well known figure could be lost (His reasoning centers on Spartacus possibly not wearing special armor, as I also discussed). The entry to this list on Spartacus summarizes the consensus of historians: Most likely killed, but body never found and fate at least moderately uncertain. To my knowledge no scholar has tried to prove Spartacus lived happily ever after, but most of them have had to deal with the mysterious quality of his final end.

We are Wikipedia editors, not historians. Though it may be easier to pass judgement that every battlefield disappearance was ipso facto killed and mutilated beyond recognition, this is far too simplictic. And, in a sense, it's a form of the 'original research' we shouldn't do. The ultimate fate of Spartacus was and is "mysterious," therefore I am restoring his entry to the list. Pleonic (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Raj Kiran

Why is Raj Kiran on this list if he's been found? Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 23:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edward and Austin Bryant

Shouldn't they be listed as missing in 2001 and 2003 respectively. After reading there page it looks like by all accounts Edward went missing in 2001 and Austin went missing in 2003 so why are they listed has having gone missing in 2011.

Here are there rewritten sections

• Edward Bryant(9) from Monument, Colorado, United States. Edward was adopted by Edward Eugene Bryant and Linda Bryant in March 2000 along with two other biological brothers. On January 22, 2011 El Paso County, Colorado, authorities were notified by a former foster child of Linda Bryant's daughter, of his brother Austin's suspicious disappearance who was last seen between 2003 and 2005. During the investigation of his brothers disappearance it was discovered by authorities that Edward was also missing having been last seen in 2001.

• Austin Bryant(7-9) from Monument, Colorado, United States. Austin was adopted by Edward Eugene Bryant and Linda Bryant in March 2000 along with two other biological brothers. On January 22, 2011, El Paso County, Colorado, authorities were notified by a former foster child of Linda Bryant's daughter, of his suspicious disappearance; he had last been seen sometime "between 2003 and 2005." During the investigation of his disappearance, authorities discovered that his brother Edward was also missing having been last seen in 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.114.70 (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

John Christopher Inman, Blake Wade Pursley, Dainiel Yuen

Why were they removed? There were articles attached. We are talking about 3 minors missing from the same boarding school possible because a serial killer had free access to all the children on the campus. Their mysterious destiny are used today to warn parents against the use of boarding schools in general because precaution against hiring the wrong people would make boarding school operations uneconomical.

Here are one the sources. Please notice that he never confessed to killing them nor are their bodies found.

• Sad news (but unsurprising), The Charley Project Blog, 2009-11-14
  Covergaard (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

More Omissions

Romulus, Founder of Rome

Lord Franklin, 19th century Explorer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.244.193 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Lindbergh Baby http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lindbergh_kidnapping given that a few of the others disappearances are ones that have been solved, the Lindbergh case was a huge news issue and continues to influence popular culture 86.144.25.248 (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ambrose Small

1919 – Ambrose Small (56), Canadian millionaire, disappeared from his office. He was last seen at 5:30 pm on December 2, 1919, at the Grand Theatre in London, Ontario. [6]

The Grand Opera House in Toronto, where Small was last seen [7]

Which one is correct here? London, or Toronto?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Ambrose_Small

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.198.141 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Nefertiti and Ankhesenamun.

I don't Nefertiti and Ankhesenamun really belong here. No having anything recorded about you does not mean you disappeared. In a male dominated society, it is not unusual for the wives to be relegated to the sidelines on the death of their husbands. I'm sure there's not a lot written about the wives of contemporary Roman emperors either. In the case of Ankhesenamun, her mummy has been found, so what is mysterious about her.--Dmol (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed Ankhesenamun for reason given above. Pleonic (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken out Nefertiti as mentioned above.--Dmol (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Belgrave Edward Sutton Ninnis

I don't think he belongs in this list. According to his Wikipedia article:

"Ninnis was part of the three-man sledging team, the Far Eastern Party, with Mawson and Mertz who headed east on 10 November 1912 to survey King George V Land. After three weeks of excellent progress the party was crossing the Ninnis Glacier, when Ninnis fell through a snow-covered crevasse. Mertz had skied over the crevasse lid, Mawson had been on his sled with his weight dispersed but Ninnis was jogging beside the second sled and his body weight is likely to have breached the lid. Six dogs, most of the party's rations, their tent and other essential supplies disappeared into a massive crevasse 480 km east of the main base. Mertz and Mawson spotted one dead and one injured dog on a ledge 46 metres (151 ft) down but Ninnis was never seen again."

There's nothing mysterious about his death.

NotGaryStu (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

John Favara, and when we consider a death to be "unsubstantiated"

Dmol reverted my addition of him (John Gotti's neighbor who was last seen being shoved into the back of a van three months after he ran over and killed the Gottis' 12-year-old son, and who had apparently failed to show any contrition; he was declared legally dead three years later) on the grounds that his disappearance is not a mystery as he was "kidnapped and killed."

OK, I don't doubt the "kidnapped" part, as there were witnesses (as I believe the Gottis wanted there to be, otherwise any witnesses would have been told very bluntly at the time that they didn't see nothin' and threatened as reinforcement) to the abduction. And I agree that it's probably a reasonable, non-ORish assumption that if you are kidnapped like that when it is known that you have offended a powerful organized-crime figure's wife by not even bothering to get the car fixed that you ran over and killed her son with after you ran a stop sign while speeding down the street, you have been killed. Especially when you get declared legally dead three years later (I don't know ... maybe things were different then, but I thought in New York you have to wait five years from the "last seen" date before seeking to have a missing person declared dead in absentia).

But ... the only evidence beyond this admittedly reasonable speculation that Favara did not long survive the abduction are accounts by other, sometimes unidentified wiseguys (a group of people not known for their commitment to veracity and truth, especially when in federal custody or the witness-protection program) to journalists or other investigators that state that he was killed. However, as noted in the article, they differ widely on how that was accomplished, and what was done with the body afterwards.

None of these, as far as I know, has ever been given as sworn testimony directly stating as such, or even as part of the official record of any investigation that has been made public. And there's a good reason for that—the case has never officially been investigated as a homicide. No one has ever been charged or publicly identified as a suspect in the disappearance.

I raise these issues because we have plenty of other entries where people have actually been convicted of the murder yet the body hasn't been found, in which case IMO the circumstances under which they actually were last seen are irrelevant to whether they "mysteriously" disappeared. If we have Thomas and Jackie Hawks, certainly we could have Favara. Can we consider coming up with some of sort of criteria for what makes a death claim "unsubstantiated"? Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The key word in this case is mysterious. There is nothing mysterious about a guy being shoved in a van by mobsters and never seen again. Even if the details are unknown, it's pretty obvious what happened to the guy. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

To me that's speculation bordering on original research. It also gets to a larger problem with this list—the word "mysterious". Many other disappearances here aren't mysterious either—the list of people who disappeared while at sea should really be spun off into a separate list, as most of them sailed into or through large areas of vacant ocean where they wouldn't be expected to be heard from for a while anyway. And it's pretty obvious most of them met with some mishap that took them and/or the craft straight to Davy Jones' Locker ... I mean, look at the Kaz II, no bodies found, and no direct explanation for their absence, but the theory proposed fits the facts neatly and I don't think (the last section of the article notwithstanding) that there's much to hang any alternate theories on (There are exceptions, like the cruise ship disappearances). Ditto with those who disappeared on planes ... in fact, we have another list for that (Again, exceptions exist, like Andrew Carnegie Whitfield, whose plane by rights should have been found, assuming he either met with an accident or killed himself, but hasn't been in over 75 years).

"Mysterious" is a very subjective term. Perhaps calling them "unexplained" would be better. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom and Eileen Lonergan

I propose adding this couple, who vanished at sea after they were mistakenly stranded in January 1998 while on a scuba diving trip. Any thoughts on this? If no one bjects I'll do it in a couple of days or so.Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Only if there is a Wikipedia article on them, as per consensus - which there is - that they are notable and the disappearence is really considered "mysterious"?. To me it is not really a mystery, they were lost at sea. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Chhanda Gayen

Disappearing in an avalanche...is that really mysterious? I think the only logical conclusion is that she was killed by the avalanche. Bali88 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I have deleted entry. David J Johnson (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Gerry Roufs

Gerry Roufs was a competitive sailor who disappeared in 1997 while taking part in a round-the-world race, without warning and/or explanation. --Adbar (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

I noticed it was deleted and was wondering what the reasons were. I certainly think it's highly likely that they crashed into the ocean, but the extensive speculation about the pilots intentionally taking the flight somewhere else or someone else hijacking the plane put it firmly into the camp of a mysterious disappearance. Thoughts? Bali88 (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It should absolutely be included, no one knows the whereabouts of the plane or its passengers as of now. 69.156.171.5 (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, this is not the appropiate page and has already been discussed before (see history 7 April 2014). Flight 370 already has its own article, which covers the disappearance of the aircraft and passengers. This article is for individuals or small groups of people. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Jesus of Nazareth should be on here

The only reason he isn't is due to an irreligious bias on Wikipedia. There are four written accounts saying his tomb was empty after he'd died.--Ordessa (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking from a Christian viewpoint (which is my viewpoint), Jesus can't be said to have disappeared or to have done so mysteriously. Christians claim to know what happened to him and where he is now. Saying he "mysteriously disappeared" is actually the more "unbelieving" or agnostic thing to say. I never object to removing those entries for that reason -- that and because they're usually a joke entry by High School students who think it's scandalous to put Jesus in the same category as Judge Crater. Pleonic (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Atheist here and on the one hand, we have the viewpoint that he resurrected and all that, and sure, maybe he disappeared after resurrecting. But the idea that his tomb was empty after he died...even if people legitimately did find his tomb empty, he definitely didn't disappear until after he died and I don't think there's any reason to interpret this article to include people whose bodies disappeared postmortem. He didn't disappear while he was still mortal, doesn't count. Write a "missing undead" article and we'll include him. lol Bali88 (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Princes in the Tower

According to their Wikipedia article, two skeletons of boys have been found at the Tower of London - and thus they have not disappeared, and should be taken off the list. The current wording makes it seem like they were never found.Catherinejarvis (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I lean towards the bones found in the Tower being the boys. Since they haven't been positively identified via DNA though, and there are the other remains in Edward IV's tomb, maybe keeping their entry but rewording it would be a better choice for now. I'd suggest changing the last sentence to something like, "Although four possible sets of remains have been found, none of them have been positively identified as being the princes. Their ultimate fates are still a mystery." Pleonic (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of entries without article

I am a little concerned by the current batch of deletions of persons that have no article in Wikipedia. Surely it is better to leave these names in as they are still persons who have disappeared mysteriously and may be the subject of a article in future? David J Johnson (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Approximately one million people go missing around the world every year. Most are not notable enough for an article, and are not likely to become so. We can't clog up an otherwise good articles with an endless listing of every missing person. The rule about only including people with articles seems to be a long running consensus.--Dmol (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you say and am the last person to want everyone who disappears to be cited. However, some persons - including your last deletion - appear to me to be important as they could be related to other cases. With this in mind, I would ask you reconsider - although I'm not making "a big thing" of your edit. With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Having an article subjects the entry here (as well as the subject of the article) to Wikipedia's notability criteria WP:N -- important for distinguishing it as an encyclopedia as opposed to, say, a missing persons bulletin board. If you believe this case merits being listed here you may want to write a Wiki article demonstrating its notability. Then, assuming it's not deleted for non-notability (it happens), come back and make your entry here. Pleonic (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't realize this was a consensus. I should have checked the talk page. My apologies.158.15.255.228 (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Recently solved section?

Occasionally missing persons cases on the list will be solved and then removed from the page. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be interesting for our readers if instead of simply removing the cases, we create a specific section at the bottom to house recently solved cases. Off the top of my head, I know that Holly Bobo and the McStay family were recently removed from the page after their remains were found. People who love mysteries also love to see those mysteries solved. We could leave them in that section for a few months, then remove them. I think it would make a great addition to the page. Bali88 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think this would be a good idea. Having mysteriously disappeared people "mysteriously" disappear from the listing is rather odd. It would be better to redirect or indicate some aspect of why they are no longer eligible for the page. Even something to indicate that they were once on the page would help too and prevent multiple re-listings if things don't turn out as expected. eg. remains found and presumed to be X but they turn out to be Y. If X is just removed from this list no one knows there was even an issue to start with. KBR (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I'll implement it. Bali88 (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

additional missing person

There is an additional case of a missing person. Shelley Lynn Jones Mook went missing in Bedford County, Tenn. on February 28, 2011. Here is a hyperlink to a website about it: http://www.findshelley.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.22.174 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are many many missing people so we have to cap it at only including people with wikipedia pages. If Mrs. Mook is added to wikipedia in the future, she may be included at that time. Bali88 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

New entry

[8] The disappearance does not seem to meet the list criteria as there's nothing unique to differentiate it from the hundreds of disappearances that occur every day. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Why are the two missing USA navy airmen Cody and Adams (disappeared since August 16, 1942) and the five American Sodder Kids (disappeared since December 24, 1945) not mentioned in this list? (212.64.81.81 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC))

• Neither case has an article, although I think both cases are notable enough to have one. Cody and Adams are mentioned in the L-8 article, and in the List of aerial disappearances. There's been a consensus against wartime disappearances being added here, but the fact that they were not involved in battle at the time, as well as there being a board of inquiry suggest this is notable and unusual. Feel free to start an article, based on the disappearance and not on the individuals. As for the Sodder kids, is it a genuine mystery or is it just surviving family claiming it is so. --Dmol (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Mysteriously?

Is there really anything mysterious about the disappearance of František Gellner in Galicia in 1914? The Austro-Hungarian Army took atrociously high casualties in the first months of the war. Some 6 million from all combatants were listed as missing in action by the end of the war - Gellner's fate was hardly uncommon or mysterious. Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed this entry as no objection has been raised here. I've also cut mention of Maurice von der Pfalz, as his disappearance is also not mysterious. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

D. B. Cooper???

Why is D. B. Cooper listed? D. B. Cooper isn't an actual person who disappeared. He was an unidentified man that law enforcement has never been able to find, or ID. That doesn't mean the man who was Cooper was never seen by family or friends again. Their is no evidence that the man who was D. B. Cooper mysteriously disappeared simply because nobody knows who he was. Therefore we must assume the man never went missing. Rawboard (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

True we don't know who he really was, but he was an actual guy who jumped out of a plane with a bag of money and vanished -- may have survived, may have died, but has never been found (tho part of the money was). There may be a person somewhere who knows his whereabouts and isn't telling but at the present time no one has been able to write the final chapter on "D.B. Cooper". That's virtually the definition of a person who "disappeared mysteriously." You could say similar things about Judge Crater.

Pleonic (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that his ticket was in the name of Dan Cooper so D.B. Cooper wasn't the name of the person who disappeared.

Strange that there's nothing on Elizabeth Smart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.170 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

MH370

I'm assuming that mass disappearances ie entire planes vanishing without a trace are on another page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.46 (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously on this very talk page Palmtree5551 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an entirely separate page for the many incidents where aircraft and those aboard have disappeared without explanation. See List of aerial disappearances—MH 370 is the most recent entry on it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"to this day" is ambiguous

I propose that the phrase "to this day" (and similar) should not be used in wikipedia (it is used three times on this page). Which day is being referred to -- the day of writing or the day the material is being read? If the latter, how can the writer know that the statement will still be true when it is read N years later? Instead, I would propose that the wording be along the lines of "As of <date>, the whereabouts or fate of Zaphod Beeblebrox were still unknown."

Tbarron (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree totally; perhaps it should even be added to the "words to avoid" list. My bugaboo about is chiefly its use in describing aspects of historic buildings—"The garage still remains extant to this day." ... great, you just said the same thing four different ways when only one is necessary.

But aside from that, in a situation like those recorded on this page it is overly melodramatic and (I daresay) unencyclopedic. It suggests the writer has spent too much time reading too much overwrought journalism. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: "As of <date>" is a good idea, and I think the {{As of}}template may be useful in this case. If there is an 'update' to a disappearance, or new information is reported, then you can use that. It will also categorise the page into 'Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements' for future attention (Hmm, over 16 thousand pages!) Template {{When}} for tagging ambiguous time related statements too.
Ironically(?), after the above comment Tbarron has apparently joined the List of WP editors who disappeared mysteriously. And you seem well qualified to tell me if it is in fact 'irony' that Tbarron edited this page about disappearances and then, ... 'disappeared'. 220 of ^Borg 02:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: Sounds fine. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

2014 Iguala mass kidnapping

Should this be included? Currently no one has yet found a body that has been positively identified as one of the missing students, and I can't think of any other (non-aviation) case where 43 people have simultaneously gone missing and not been found after five months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.40.44 (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

We know they were kidnapped, so their disappearance isn't particularly mysterious. If they had just 'vanished' then more notable. However, I see (on actually looking at the page) that it's a bit more than a kidnapping. Perhaps the page should be moved to 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping and disappearance? 220 of ^Borg 10:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

1940 through 1943

What happened to these cases. The list breaks with 1939 and restarts with 1944. Somehow the cases between got lost. --WAG57 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, those were the war years in much of the world. There were a lot of disappearances that were at sea, in the air or on the battlefield that were perhaps presumed to be combat-related and not investigated seriously enough (couldn't have been, given the circumstances, really) to determine that that was indeed the likeliest explanation. If you come across any that meet the criteria, please create an article (or a section of an article) and include them here, with a source or two. Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Update

Why hasn't this page been updated since 2012. I'm sure many people have mysteriously disappeared in the last 3 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.1.246 (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

We limit it to disappearances that have met the notability criteria—i.e., coverage in reliable sources. Many disappearances are either of primarily regional interest (I'd love to write an article here about Audrey May Herron, who hasn't been seen since she left work after her evening shift was done almost 13 years ago (and, unusually, neither has her car), but confounding as the case is it has not gathered much interest outside the Hudson Valley) or resolve themselves before we can write an article (I will still be writing an article at some point about the late Wall Street Journal reporter David Bird, since he was still notable, but now that his body has been found it's not a missing-persons case anymore). Or both (like the overwhelming majority of missing-persons cases). Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: If you want a page to write, though maybe not of particular interest to you, try Disappearance of Michelle Pope and Stephen Lapthorne. Last seen on 25 August 1978 leaving Lapthorne’s home in West Pymble, New South Wales, Australia. They were travelling in a lime green Bedford van that has also not been located since then. Almost 35 years. 220 of ^Borg 10:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

{{reply|220 of Borg}] The answer is that if you feel so strongly about this case, then you should initiate an article yourself and not expect other editors, unfamiliar with the case to do so. David J Johnson (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: (Thats Borg, not Bourg) WP:AGF I am not expecting anyone to do anything, that is entirely your assumption. There seems to be very little discussion of the issue on this page. It's not as if I added people without reliable sources, in which case any names added should be removed per wp:BLP.

wp:REDLINK says "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." These two peoples' disappearance is both notable and verifiable. 220 of ^Borg 11:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Then simply write the article and stop going against long established convention on this article. See Wikipedia:Write the article first. David J Johnson (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD I am not going against "long established convention" (I though you said there was consensus?) If I was edit warring then I would be going against consensus/convention. I have not done so. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 11:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD and WP:WTAF are both 'only' essays anyway! 220 of ^Borg 11:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In this vein, should we include the very recent disappearance of Natalia Molchanova (probably died in a free diving accident, but since it was at sea off the coast of Ibiza, her body has not been found)? Or should we wait on it a bit, even though the search has been called off? Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Her disappearance is not at all mysterious - and not even a disappearance in the context of this article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am still looking for a clear 'consensus' or "long established convention" as has been claimed above for only including those with a pre-existing WP page. "List of ..." pages (or sections of pages) similar to this are in my experience also used on WP where there is not an existing page about a particular 'mysterious' disappearance or other topic area, (whether it just needs writing or the event/person or whatever is not 'notable' enough for a stand-alone page), but the event/person etc is reliably sourced. There's a huge difference between 6 days for Molchanova, and few days less than 35 years for the Pope/Lapthorne disappearance! - 220 of ^Borg 19:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sharif Mobley

The listing for Sharif Mobley was removed and the citation for removal was: "Does not appear to be missing. Spoke with officials recently. POV push." by Dmol 06:17, 23 August 2014‎. I don't know what POV Push means but there is no proof at all that the US Officials actually spoke with Mr. Mobley. The US Embassy Officials who reported that they had spoken to him refused to reveal his whereabouts and refused to assist his lawyers in contacting him. His lawyers have not spoken to him in 6 months+ and he has not appeared for the last 4 court hearings where the judge demanded that the prison authorities that he be present. All that is known is that the Yemen prison authorities say he is no longer in their custody.

I think this should satisfy that he is among the missing.

I don't know the proper etiquette for reversing the change and would appreciate it if someone would do that for Mr. Mobley's case. KBR (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for bring this to the talk page. The article still says he is in custody, although the page is tagged as out-dated. Can you provide reliable sources for the claims you make about him being missing and add that to the article. It may then be suitable for this list. As it stands at them moment it doesn't. --Dmol (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources section (restored) of discussion that was removed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here are some articles that reference Mr. Mobley's situation. Summary of the articles: His next court date is 09/10/2014. Last seen by his lawyers on 27 February 2014. William Lesh is the US Official who claims to have spoken to Mr. Mobley but according to the articles Mr Lesh refused to make any other comments other than "[US] the Embassy will not disclose where Mobley is, nor would it facilitate lawyers’ access to him [Mr. Mobley]." The article from 07/25/2014 details the 4 court appearances Mr. Mobley has missed and the confusion concerning his whereabouts. He is not located at any of the places/prisons he was supposed to be held at. The Yemeni Judge Abdelwali al-Shaabani (sp) tried to force the prison officials to bring Mr. Mobley to his trial. This included ordering the Yemeni attorney general Ali Alwash to bring Mobley to court for the next session in Mobley's trial, scheduled for August 20 [2014]. Mr. Mobley was not presented on that date. Yemeni officials fail to produce 'disappeared' American for fourth time Sharif Mobley, from New Jersey, is facing murder charges in Yemen but his lawyers have not seen him for six months Spencer Ackerman in New York theguardian.com, Thursday 21 August 2014 15.39 EDT US diplomats admit contact in Yemen with missing citizen Sharif Mobley Embassy ends silence but refuses to reveal location Attorney: 'US officials are mixed up in this detention' Spencer Ackerman in New York theguardian.com, Friday 25 July 2014 14.41 EDT Yemeni judge orders that 'disappeared' US citizen be produced in court Yemen attorney general ordered to bring Sharif Mobley, who lawyers say has been disappeared, to court for murder trial Spencer Ackerman in New York theguardian.com, Wednesday 25 June 2014 15.01 EDT I hope this helps to get Mr. Mobley's situation listed. I'm not very good at this and I don't know how to change much on the wiki. Anyone that can help fix Mr. Mobley's page so he can be included would be of great help. KBR (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC) ---

Cleaning up this section of references about Sharif Mobley as they are now located on the Sharif Mobley page. KBR (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I have undone this 'cleaning up' and 'hatted' the sources. Generally not a good idea to remove this, even though it wasn't directly under discussiuo220 of ^Borg 19:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

09/15/2014

Mr Mobley was able to contact his wife via phone. While his actual whereabouts are in question, there is some suggestion that he is in a secret prison on a military base on Haddah Street in Yemen’s capital, Sana’a.

References

So at this time, Mr Mobley does not belong on this list 05:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of unexplained human disappearances. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630110556/http://www.americanheritage.com:80/articles/magazine/ah/1960/5/1960_5_24.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1960/5/1960_5_24.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071204104233/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/635.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/635.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting people on the list who do not have Wikipedia articles

There is no reason to remove and delete the two people I listed on the list because they "do not have articles" I have been told that not very many people rate to the level of having articles about them, but I am happy to create an article for that person. However, in the case that I do then it will be marked for delete as that person is unworthy, unless they have tons of media coverage and are famous. I am sorry this was post at first under the last section instead of a new section, but I correcting and changing the error now. Apriv40dj (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC) I attempted to undo the edit, but since he deleted the other name I added to 2013, as there was no one on the 2013 year, and now I can't undo to get back to the 2014 so now I have to redo the entry and link to the article I made about Robert Davis. I have to state it is important that we pay attention to our elders and veterans and delete them for the sake of efficiency or because we are slaves to rules. Robert Davis fought in World War two and was decorated. I am adding more info as I get it from the family. Apriv40dj (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. I had my paragraph on Catherine Winters deleted for the same reason. Miss Winters' disappearance in 1913 was as highly publicized as that of Elsie Paroubek two years earlier, if not more. I suspect that it would have been deleted even had I provided references to period newspaper accounts. Actually, I intend to find a few and put Miss Winters back in.

Instead of deleting material that "has no article", why not create one? It would be easy to create an article for Miss Winters, since she was from a middle-class family and received even more publicity and attention (including a song) than Miss Paroubek. --Bluejay Young (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The policy that applies here is Wikipedia:Write the article first. If you want to go ahead and write the article, please do so.--Dmol (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That is an essay, lists are supposed to have redlinks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Auto archiving

I have setup auto archiving and just moved the previous archives which were still titled by an older list name so that they conform to the archiving scheme used by the archiving bot. There is still a link for proposals above but that is titled to yet a different list title. A search box on the proposals won't work so you have to click through. That particular page should probably either A.) be left without changing the title or B.) be folded into the archives. Formerly, Miszabot would often fail when there were subpages that were not titled according to the scheme. Archive 1, Archive 2, etc. I don't know if Lowercase sigmabot will handle this the same way or not.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Publicly unexplained vs. privately unexplained

Publicly unexplained vs. privately unexplained. I do not understand why the title is "publicly unexplained". Do the Illuminati explain the human disappearances in private only? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Until October the page was called 'List of People Who Disappeared Mysteriously,' which strikes me as a much more appropriate name. I may be missing it but it doesn't look like there was any discussion of this change on the talk page. I suppose someone was annoyed by some perceived vagueness in the word 'mysteriously' but, as you point out, 'not publicly explained' has its own vagueness. Pleonic (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there was no discussion that I know of, and I think the new title (with or without "publicly" is very wordy and vague. I propose that we return it to the long-running title of 'List of People Who Disappeared Mysteriously'.--Dmol (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree "mysterious" is poorly defined. "Unexplained" stops people from deleting the ones that aren't mysterious enough. Mysterious is in the realm of supernatural. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)