Talk:List of solved missing person cases: post-2000

Orphaned references in List of solved missing persons cases

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of solved missing persons cases's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "linked":

• From Murder of Martha Morrison: Terry, Lynn (8 October 2014). "Clark County homicide from 1974 could be linked to missing Portland teen". The Oregonian. Retrieved 14 July 2015.
• From Murders of Kerry Graham and Francine Trimble: Tucker, Jill (8 February 2016). "Bones found 37 years ago linked to missing Sonoma County girls". SF Gate. Hearst Communications. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

2000s --> table format

I have changed the 2000s list to a table format so as to be consistent with the earlier entries. In most cases, small rewrites were necessary to suit the different format. I made almost total rewrites to the Alicia Kozakiewicz and Shannon Matthews entries because these either did not fully explain the circumstances or were misleading. I am willing to change the 2010-current listings to table format, but need a rest for a day or two. Please notify here if you start that task. Akld guy (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

2010-present --> table format

I have converted the 2010-present listings to table format. There were minor changes to most articles, mainly for sentence flow. More detail was added to the Elaine O'Hara and Kremers/Froon listings, as I felt they were incomplete. The Gui Minhai listing was substantially rewritten, and I'm still not happy with it, but telling the full story would make this entry rather large. Akld guy (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

murdered/murder

Is there a specific reason why before the 2000s it's "murdered" and after it's "murder"? If not, wouldn't it make sense to make it consistent?--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 14:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Etika

Should he be added here? I feel as if it counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:E77F:8500:B14E:DB95:A3FF:98E7 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"For a long time..."

The article lead states, "This is a list of solved missing persons cases of people whose mysterious disappearances remained unexplained for a long time..."

However, the list includes people who were "missing" for less than a week, or even just a couple of days. Some of the "disappearances" are also hardly mysterious; when somebody dives into a lake and doesn't resurface then it's reasonable to think they drowned in the lake, and that's exactly what happened. This is not the general public's understanding of a "missing person".

Low quality list that just seems to be about including every death of a notable person who was missing for more than a few hours after death.

TheBlinkster (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@TheBlinkster: I think what we need to do is decide the minimum length of time that would constitute "a long time". Linguist111^{my talk page} 18:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Davidgoodheart. Linguist111^{my talk page} 12:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed everyone who wasn't missing for at least a week. Linguist111^{my talk page} 14:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletion. As you yourself said above, "I think what we need to do is decide the minimum length of time that would constitute "a long time"". Your deletion was premature and a week has not been decided by consensus. Akld guy (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Akld guy: Okay. What do you think is "a long time"? Linguist111^{my talk page} 14:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about it. Your deletion after less than 24 hours didn't allow me enough time. There are many interesting entries that would be eliminated by an arbitrarily-set time limit. One solution might be to delete the criterion "for a long time" and keep the list as it is. I don't need to be pinged; article has been on my watchlist for years. Akld guy (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Akld guy: Yes, I agree keep entries, but remove "for a long time", I was also thinking that it doesn't need to say that as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Linguist111: I don't think we should remove entries that weren't unexplained for a long time, as long as their disappearance was notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem may lie in the wording of the statement at the top of the article:

• This is a list of solved missing persons cases of people whose mysterious disappearances remained unexplained for a long time, but were eventually explained by their reappearance or the recovery of their bodies, or the conviction of the perpetrator(s) responsible for their disappearances.

I'd like to suggest a change to:

• This is a list of solved missing persons cases of people who went missing in unknown locations or unknown circumstances that were eventually explained by their reappearance or the recovery of their bodies, or the conviction of the perpetrator(s) responsible for their disappearances.

The "in unknown locations" part is meant to address entries such as the very first in the article - the disappearance of Captain Willoughby. There was nothing mysterious about his disappearance, nor were there unknown circumstances - he sailed into uncharted territory and perished. What makes this a valid entry is that the location was unknown until discovery of the wreck. Akld guy (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Akld guy: I agree with your idea, by all means lets do that if possible. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

A new column?

I think an additional column would add value and utility to this table. I propose that it be called 'Time Spend Missing', and it would allow readers to sort on the duration of the disappearance, making it easier to locate the extreme cases, for example. The issue is how to code the duration. I presume only one value would be sortable. As it would likely need to be days, a very long disappearance would look odd written in days. Any thoughts? Verne Equinox (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of such a column, here is a possible solution for the coding. When editing the article, an instruction for age-sorting is displayed. The instruction is as follows:

• If any person went missing below the age of 10 (i.e. single digits), please use data-sort-value for those persons on the date value to ensure that it is kept at the top. e.g. for an age of 8, use data-sort-value="008"
• If any person went missing below the age of 1 (i.e. they were X weeks/months old), please use data-sort-value for those persons on the date value to ensure that it is kept at the top. e.g. for an age of 9 weeks, work what proportion of that age was in a year:

     * Use the formula for age in months (assuming equal length of months):
           (age in months)/12
     * Use the formula for age in weeks (assuming 4 weeks in a month):
           (age in weeks)/(12*4)
     * Use the formula for age in days (assuming 4 weeks in a month and 7 days per week):
           (age in days)/(12*4*7)

• If any person in the table was missing above the age of 100, please ensure that ALL of the other dates use data-sort-value. e.g. for an age of 50 use data-sort-value="050"

• This ensures that ages are in the right order.

It seems to me we could use the same method. Akld guy (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Akld guy - That method works just fine. Thank you! I have taken one table and modified it per this method. If there is no objection, I will complete the others over the next week or so. I do feel the added column adds interest and improves the utility of the table overall. (I also added the Lindbergh Kidnapping, a very famous case in the 1930s Verne Equinox (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

John Darwin

I'm astonished that John Darwin, probably the most famous British solved missing persons case of recent years, isn't on this list. John Darwin disappearance case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.68.176.117 (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

At my request John Darwin has been added to the List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought as he was a fugitive who was evading the law who was later captured. Darwin would not belong on the List of solved missing person cases as he did not disappeared mysteriously when he reappeared after disappeared. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Due to what I have seen that claims: "Darwin wasn't sought by law enforcement in relation to a crime. He faked his own death. That was the crime and it was undiscovered until his reappearance", he was now been removed from that list. And now at my request Darwin has been added to this list. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

George Mallory

Would George Mallory qualify here? I know there was a discussion on the talk page for his article years ago about whether he should be considered “disappeared” or “formerly disappeared” as his body had been found 70-odd years after his disappearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.107.189 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, since George Mallory's body was found years after he disappeared he would belong on this list and should be added as soon as someone chooses to do so. And in fact that's just what I decided to do, yay! Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Jodi Huisentruit

I believe she should be on this list. Jodi Huisentruit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.29.67 (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Jodi Huisentruit was never found after disappearing. Since that is the case Huisentruit would only belong on the List of people who disappeared, which she is already a part of. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting this article

This article is currently way too long, at 429,299 bytes. I suggest splitting this article by into List of solved missing person cases (before 2000) (which would be 209,823 bytes) and List of solved missing person cases (2000-present) (which would be 217,185 bytes), which is an almost perfect split in half). Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with you, difficult to navigate through NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I split the article. Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Gabby Petito

The cause of death is listed as "Murdered", but no one has been convicted of murder yet. The current official ruling is "homicide".

Savanna LaFontaine-Greywind Should be added. She is mentioned on the "fetal abduction" page of Wikipedia. She was originally a missing person and her body was later found in the red river, wrapped in plastic and duct tape.

2017 In Fargo, North Dakota, William Hoehn (32 years old) and Brooke Crews (38) were charged on August 28, 2017 with conspiring to kidnap and murder pregnant Savanna Greywind (22) and to kidnap her baby. Greywind's body was found in the river 8 days after she disappeared on August 19. The newborn, named Haisley Jo, survived. Crews pled guilty and said Greywind was still alive when she performed the cesarean on her.[53]

Purdynerdy (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Breaking up tables

I was asked to break up the extremely long tables, which I did into year tables. (I know, this removes some of the functionality. It's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. I have no strong opinion on the matter, & won't kick a fuss if this is reverted.) Looking at the result, the date column appears redundant; if the division into year tables meets a consensus approval, that column could be replaced with one providing the day & month the individual(s) was last seen. -- llywrch (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Last names vs. full names in "circumstances" box

I'm aiming to clean up a few grammatical errors in this article and noticed an inconsistency where some victims will be referred to with their full name, while others only by their last name. Is there any consensus on using one over the other?

I'm not planning to go around changing this until I get some other opinions, but was curious. I can't find reference to this phenomenon on the Wikipedia style guide, but may be using wrong search terms.

10millioncats (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I've now realized there's a third category of entries where the victim's name isn't mentioned at all.

10millioncats (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Use of Hamas "terrorists" (biased)

Under Shani louk (year 2023, 22 years old) "hamas terrorists" should be changed as Hamas is only recognized as terrorists by certain countries and not by the UN so this label is biased

Listing Luke Davies and Jessie Baird separately

Luke Davies is currently only listed in the description of Jessie Baird's disappearance, however they are both individuals who went missing together and therefore should be listed as two people, not with Luke as an extension of Jessie.