Talk:List of people who have disappeared

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 15, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1 (pre-2008)


Contents

[edit] Possible additions

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1619292006

features:

Thanks. Samantha of Cardyke 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7290572.stm

features:

  • 1981 - Katrice Lee
  • 1996 – Damien Nettles
  • 2004 - Eddie Gibson
  • 2005 - Steve Cook (need to disambiguate)
  • 2006 - Luke Durbin

Samantha of Cardyke (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

More possible additions that don't yet (at the time they were added here) have an article about the person or about their disappearance:

  • 1949?/1950? - Dorothy Forstein, wife of magistrate Jules Forstein, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, whose abduction from her own home on October 18, 1950 and subsequent vanishing remains unsolved and unexplained. [1] [2] 58.8.10.69 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 1950 - Raymond Maufrais was a French journalist and explorer. He disappeared in the jungle at the feet of the unexplored Tumuc-Humac Mountains, on the border of French Guiana and Brazil. He parted from a group of hunters on Dec 11th, 1949. His belongings, including his diary were found abandoned on a riverbank in the interior of French Guiana in February, 1950. Despite numerous searches initiated by his father, and reports of a white man who had lost his memory living in the company of an indian tribe in the jungle, he was not heard from again. His harrowing diary, complete up to the point where he abandoned his last meagre supplies and determined to try to reach assistance downstream, was published in an English translation as "Journey Without Return", William Kimber, London, 1953. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.129.129 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 1971 - Lynne Kathryn Schulze, a 17-year-old freshman student at Middlebury College, Vermont, USA, who vanished on December 10, 1971. Lynne, of Simsbury, Connecticut, USA, was reportedly seen hitchhiking on US Route 7 south of Middlebury shortly thereafter, but this possible sighting is not confirmed. Her case, which remains open under the auspices of the Vermont State Police, has never been solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.198.216 (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 1986 - Juan Pedro Martinez, aged 10, disappeared when the truck in which he was travelling with his family was involved in a multiple car accident near Somosierra, Spain. Both his father and his mother died, but no trace of the son was ever found. As the truck was loaded with sulfuric acid some investigators proposed that the child could have been completely dissolved when the acid was released but scientists later ruled out the idea[1]. Witness of the accident claimed that a van stopped near the overturned truck shortly after the accident and then departed. No evidence has been found.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.129.129 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 1987 - David Guerrero, a child prodigy with a great talent for painting, disappeared in Malaga, Spain while en route to open his first art exhibition. Police suspected of a 70 years old Swiss man residing in the city at the time, but no real evidence was collected before the death of the suspect in 1990.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.129.129 (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 1993 - Antonio Anglés, kidnapper, rapist, torturer and murderer of three teenage girls from Alcasser, Spain in 1992. Avoided capture fleeing to Portugal and then boarding an Irish fishing ship named City of Plymouth, where he was discovered by the crew and imprisoned in a cabin. However, when the ship arrived at Ireland he was no longer there. He is in the Interpol list of most wanted criminals.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.129.129 (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 1995 - Publio Cordón, Spanish businessman kidnapped by the Marxist terrorist group GRAPO when leaving his office in Saragossa. His family paid 300 million pesetas as ransom after which the terrorists (all currently in prison) claimed to have released Cordón, but he was never seen again.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.129.129 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable people only

Per WP:BIO#Lists_of_people I'm removing non-notable people. People should have their own article before they are listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonearles (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 June 2007

Please sign your postings by striking the tilde key (~) four times. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Graham

I had added Robin Graham to 1970 disappearances; I'd also created a Wikipedia page for her detailing in some depth her disappearance. As her case changed the way the California Highway Patrol deals with stranded women motorists at night, I think it's significant. I notice that her individual page has been removed - can anybody enlighten me as to why? Thanks LynnMaudlin (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was removed 08:24, 22 October 2007 by user:Jeandré du Toit - the edit comment was "rm NNs per WP:BIO#Lists_of_people".
It's in place now and I've just revised it to mention that the circumstances of her disappearance resulted in CHP policy being changed.
If the Robin Graham article (or an article dedicated to her disappearance) remains, so should the listing here. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wouldn't it make more sense

...if only people who were notable before they disappeared got listed here? We have a bit of a mash mash here:

  • People who vanished from the historical record, but may not have disappeared to their peers at all
  • Notable people who disappeared, such as Steve Fossett
  • People only notable for disappearing, generally murder/abduction victims
  • People not notable at all

--kingboyk 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For whatever its worth, I tend to agree...but with the caveat that limiting to "notable people" be reserved for the addition of modern disappearances. Here's my reasons: there may not be much 'notable', in modern times and to a modern reader, about the French explorer Perouse. But he was a significant man in his time, and his disappearance is more of a mystery than, say, Ms Gainey listed below (meaning, yeah, she disappeared too but for all practical purposes we know what happened to her. Another example is Natalee Holloway)....I guess partly what I'm getting at is we have to define what constitutes a "notable" person, and what constitutes a "disappearance", if that makes any sense(?). I'd personally want to include any historical explorer no matter how obscure, versus, say, a Steven Fossett...but I certainly agree with your point that the mish-mash could get wildly out of control:)....Engr105th (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Such like Maddy (media bubble) and ordinary peoples should not put in that list, or i will put here over hundred persons missing without trace in past ten years only in estonia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.196.67 (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the most logical thing to do would be to list anyone who has a Wikipedia article devoted to them, and who disappeared. If they are deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, they belong here as well. Personally I doubt that Etan Patz and some of the other persons here are notable enough to have their own articles, but if they DO have their own articles and they disappeared, they should be on this list. Vidor (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ships?

There is a separate category for disappeared ships. Some of those ships are on this list and some aren't. We should either include all of them or none of them, right? Vidor (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that this list shouldn't include all disappeared ships (or just all famous disappeared ships, or all mysteriously disappeared ships, or even all famous mysteriously disappeared ships); likewise missing aircraft. So I think it probably shouldn't include any. So I've removed the following:

ships:

aircraft:

All four missing ship articles (but not "Island Queen" or Carroll A. Deering) are already included in both List of missing ships and Category:Disappeared ships. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC) & 58.8.5.244 (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul America

The listing of Paul America on this page states that he disappeared without a trace; the page for Paul America states he was killed in an auto accident, but there's no reference for same. Anyone know for sure? Hue White (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing was removed 17:25, 29 January 2008 by 90.152.38.198.
I just added a {{fact}} tag to the relevant line of the Paul America article. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change to the lead

I propose adding the word 'notable' to the lead. i.e. The following is a compilation of notable people. Currently the criteria could include anyone. --neonwhite user page talk 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK --Michael C. Price talk 09:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently the list seems to be getting pretty aimless.--Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

-

I'd like to propose the following:

“ This is a list of notable people who mysteriously disappeared, and whose current whereabouts are unknown or whose deaths are not substantiated. ”

Any objections or better suggestions? 58.8.5.244 (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I just added the bold emphasis to the above suggestion. If there are no objections I propose to go ahead with this change. I'd also like to start a discussion (in a new section) about the intended scope of this list and inclusion/exclusion criteria, with a view to further improving the lead and possibly a #Name Change. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does there have to be evidence that they were real people

I'm a bit bothered that for some of these people we don't know for sure they were real. Madoc is a relatively recent example.--Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Legends have a basis in fact and shade continuously into historical characters. Mythological characters we should be more wary about. In that respect I would say that Madoc is legendary (his father is an historical character).--Michael C. Price talk 00:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he is not mythological. But although his father existed, he may not have. And if the story was made up by the Tudors, does that make him legendary? And just to confuse things more, there was a Saint Madoc (Maedoc, Aidan, other spellings) or maybe 2, or even 3. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09520a.htm and at http://www.britannia.com/bios/ebk/madocapn.html he is called Prince Madoc. Also see http://www.mail-archive.com/celt-saints@yahoogroups.com/msg00081.html I need to put something about this in the Madoc article, don't you think? Romulus seems legendary, by the way.--Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do add to the Madoc article. And yes, Romulus is legendary. But quite plausibly he might have existed. --Michael C. Price talk 08:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that Madoc didn't mysteriously disappear, either in reality or in legend - please point me in the right direction if I'm wrong. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I just added [[Category:Disappeared people]] to the Madoc article and it was promptly removed [12] with the comment: "not an historical person so couldn't have disappeared". 58.8.5.244 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King Sebastian of Portugal

Last seen battling by himself in enemy lines, how would his disappearance be mysterious? And his body may have been found according to the Wikipedia article. Surely this doesn't belong?--Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article suggests he was almost certainly killed in the battle. Hardly a disappearance. • Anakin (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Likewise Spartacus. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another nomination for deletion, and an idea

This article has again been nominated for deletion; as of March 16, 2008, the general consensus seems to be Keep. However, one of the ideas under discussion is to split this article into two categories, which roughly described would be something like: historical disappearances (people who have disappeared but would likely be too old to still be alive) and contemporary disappearances (people who have disappeared but might conceivably be alive, although quite aged). So, with good intentions may I ask this group: What do we think about keeping this article as is--or splitting it up? Take care. ProfessorPaul 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As the list is in chronological order, the historical/contemporary proposal sounds to me like it wouldn't make any useful difference. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletions

Any objections to any of the following deletions:

strike = now deleted from list [13] 58.8.10.69 (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC) & [14] 58.8.10.69 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC) & [15] 58.8.10.69 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC) & [16] 58.8.15.18 (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

remainder:

I object to many of these deletions. The first one I checked, William Hare is mysterious since no one knows what happened to him, Etc etc etc etc. Please stop this wholesale deletion until consensus is reached. I am probably going to do a wholesale revert. --Michael C. Price talk 11:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
My opinion: nobody knowing what happened to someone isn't necessarily a mysterious disappearance. Likewise when a body is lost at sea, down a crevice, in a huge explosion, etc, it's not necessarily a mysterious disappearance. A mysterious disappearance is someone going missing in mysterious circumstances.
Which of the others don't you agree with? 58.8.5.244 (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
BUMP! If there are any others you don't agree with, please list them here - thanks. 58.8.10.69 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

-

I propose to delete the 10 listings shown above with the year of disappearance displayed bold on the basis that they are all non-controversial - in each case, their fate is known (they died when they disappeared and their remains were lost to the elements) and not disputed, the circumstances of their disappearance are known (they all died while doing something dangerous in locations where it's not unusual for bodies to go missing) and not disputed, and there is no suggestion whatsoever of any mysterious circumstances. Any objections? 58.8.10.69 (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC) - done [19] 58.8.15.18 (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

-

This is the list of disappeared people, not the list of mysteriously disappeared people? Apart from the Romanov's I would object to all these propose deletions. Perhaps a separate list should be created. I think the article name should be changed to List of people who have mysteriously disappeared--Michael C. Price talk 08:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's put the suggestion out for a vote. --Michael C. Price talk 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Disappearances do not have to be mysterious for inclusion. trying to vote on deletion of various entries sounds a bit odd and impractical. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The intro says ...compilation of people who have mysteriously disappeared... 58.8.5.244 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with 58.8.5.244 here, but not with the narrow way mysterious is being interpreted. --Michael C. Price talk 11:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
How should it be interpreted? 58.8.5.244 (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change

Should the article be called List_of_people_who_have_mysteriously_disappeared? It would seem to be a more accurate. Any objections? Better names? --Michael C. Price talk 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mysterious" is pretty vague and would only confuse things, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObiterDicta (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 May 2008
Any reason not to include "mysterious" and clarify the meaning in the intro? 58.8.5.244 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Errr, because I don't think it would "clarify the meaning." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is, any reason not to include "mysterious" in the article name, and then, in the intro section of the article, clarify the meaning of "mysterious" for the purposes of this article (ie inclusion/exclusion of people/events). 58.8.5.244 (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What language would you propose? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
English? (sorry, couldn't resist)
Suggest we first somehow arrive at a consensus on exactly what we intend it to mean (ie define the criteria for inclusion/exclusion), and then consider how best to explain it. 58.8.5.244 (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

I think this will be pretty easy to take care of. Jesus was readded with the edit summary "His body disappeared. Hostorical fact. Why is another story. Note that Muhammad al-Mahdi has an entry"

First, I would dispute that it is simple as calling the disappearance of the body a "historical fact." the only real evidence we have for the disappearance of Jesus's body is the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, three of which were written several decades after his death and the fourth even later.

However, the real reason why this entry is inappropriate is that in the Gospel accounts Jesus really doesn't disappear according to the criteria of this list:

“ The following is a compilation of people who have mysteriously disappeared, who were famous or became famous because of their disappearance, whose current whereabouts are unknown, and whose deaths are not substantiated. ”

If you accept the NT as authoritative for purposes of Jesus's body's disappearance from his tomb, it should also be authoritative for his subsequent reappearance and ultimate departure. ...seated at the right hand of the Father...yadda, yadda, yadda.

The comparison with al-Mahdi, who was mentioned in the edit summary, is instructive. Shia Muslims believe he is the Twelfth Imam, who disappeared at five years old, while he was reciting his father's funeral prayer. Unlike Jesus there were no claimed subsequent sightings. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And as you should be aware, some of the early gospels only mention his disappearance without mentioning his reappearance.--Michael C. Price talk 11:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Michael. As an initial point, it is probably important to remember that simply because a specific text does not mention that an event happened, that is not evidence that the event did not happen. The author would need to include an affirmative statement that the event did not occur.
All four of the canonical Gospels describe Jesus's reappearance after his crucifixion and burial, so I assume you are referring to a noncanonical gospel. If so "Gospels" would normally not be capitalized in the plural as it was in you preferred version and reference be made to specific noncanonical gospels rather than a generic reference to "the Gospels."
I fully admit that I could know more about the noncanonical gospels. The only complete noncanonical that I am familiar with that purports to be a life of Jesus and mentions his disappearance, but does not mention his subsequent appearances to the Apostles is Gospel of Nicodemus. However, this is not an early gospel, so that does not appear to be the noncanonical you are describing. Even if it was, Jesus does not actually disappear in that gospel, but goes through the Harrowing of Hell. In any event, saying that the omission of his subsequent appearances in this particular gospel means that they did not happen, is original research, which we cannot do here. Relying on gospels that have not come down in complete form for your assertion is obviously not on.
However, what I believe you are probably thinking of is the purported letter from Pilate to the Emperor Claudius that forms the last part of Nicodemus. You would be correct that this mentions Jesus's disappearance but does not mention any subsequent reappearances. However, it would be mistaken to assert that this is evidence that Jesus's disappearance is "historical fact," as its authenticity is extremely dubious.
If there is some Gnostic (or other early Church) tradition that I am unaware of that asserts Jesus's disapperance from the Sepulcre, but denies his subsequent reappearances, this might be worth mentioning in the list, however, it would need to be explained as such. Once again, a comparison to al-Mahdi is instructive. If it is proper to include him on the list, it is because Twelver Shias believe that he disappeared and remains hidden. However, we would need to mention the specific tradition or early sect that believed that. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
After doing a bit more research on this, I'm unable to find an early noncanonical gospel to match your description, Michael. If you're not simply thinking of Pilate's supposed letter, could you clarify this for me? Thanks, ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many deletions

I don't agree with many of the deletions that have been going on. Jesus, Laozi, Spartacus etc deleted on the grounds that someone (without discussion) thinks they have an explanation. Please discuss things more and reach a consensus first. --Michael C. Price talk 11:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Which deletions do you disagree with, and why?
I agree that Jesus probably should be included (I didn't delete it).
Laozi - I didn't find any mention in the Laozi article of him going missing (but maybe I missed something?) so didn't think that deletion could be regarded as controversial (see edit summary).
Spartacus - I provided a reference for him being known to have died in battle, so didn't think that deletion could be regarded as controversial either (see edit summary). 58.8.5.244 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you reread the Laozi article.
Since his body was not recovered (and the Romans would have sorely liked to recover it), he could have slipped away. Why did the Romans not recover his body? -- that in itself is a mystery.--Michael C. Price talk 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Laozi: I've reread the article, found nothing.
Spartacus: if it had said that in the article, I would have reworded, not deleted - but it doesn't. The reference I provided says "he and the great mass of those with him were surrounded and slain". Alternative account: "he stood alone, surrounded by a multitude of foes, and was still defending himself when he was cut down" (I've added a {{fact}} tag to the Spartacus article where it says "his body was never identified"). 58.8.5.244 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the 14 that I deleted, edit summary in italics (excludes 8 ships & aircraft - see #Ships?):

58.8.5.244 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2008 & 58.8.5.244 (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To much detail

The details can be read at the subjects' pages. Too much detail here was one of the complaints raised during the AfD process--Michael C. Price talk 11:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are the two AfD discussions: 1 2 - where exactly are the "too much detail" complaints? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.5.244 (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The list contains large amounts of speculation as to the means, reasons, or causes for the disappearances of these various people, and all but a handful are completely unreferenced. Keep the speculation, theories etc for the subjects' articles.--Michael C. Price talk 14:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
But that's from the second nomination - nobody agreed, and the nominee then said he wished he could withdraw it 58.8.5.244 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't invalidate the point (nor does it mean that people disagreed with it). Wikiguidelines say that, generally, we should not copy information from one article to another, rather we should refer to the original article.--Michael C. Price talk 09:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fugitives

I removed the following because they are known fugitives:

In a nutshell, similar reasoning to the #Ships? discussion - either these should be deleted or else all (notable) fugitives (whose whereabouts are unknown) should be listed here. 58.8.10.69 (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Madeleine McCann

"The Sun, a UK tabloid newspaper, issued an official apology (along with several others) in February 2008 with regards to suggesting that they were involved in their daughter's disappearance."

This sentence should be removed, it seems to suggest that the parents of Madeleine McCann are innocent indeed. Since when is the opinion of The Sun of any importance? There are lots of people what different views on this case out there and they are not included. There's enough room in the main article to discuss this matter, but it doesn't belong in a summary of the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sneha Anne Philip

I think this listing should probably be removed (again). Although no physical evidence confirming her fate has ever been found, in 2008 she was officially/legally declared a victim of the 9/11 attacks so I don't think this qualifies as a "mysterious" disappearance. According to the Sneha Anne Philip article there's absolutely no evidence to contradict the court ruling, and all the speculation seems to cite a single source. 203.189.129.129 (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed again, 9 June 2008 [34] 203.189.129.129 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wartime disappearances

I propose to remove the following as they are wartime deaths in circumstances where the fact that their bodies were not recovered/identified isn't significantly unusual or mysterious. In each case, there is no evidence that their disappearance was not the direct result of their death, and no evidence of any mysterious circumstances:

203.189.129.129 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed the above four, 9 June 2008 [35] 203.189.129.129 (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)