Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

GA review

I'll be reviewing the article and leaving extensive comments in this section. The Rambling Man 15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Strike out when completed, please. TerriersFan 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Have done a bit on the proseline for the first two sections, but probably still needs some work. Haven't done anything to Subsequent lines of enquiry" as I don't have time right now Harry was a white dog with black spots 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have converted the third section to a list which though not the best meets GA standards. TerriersFan 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here we go:

• The lead suffers from single-sentence paragraphs. The last three paragraphs are once sentence long each, so to improve the prose, flow them into fewer but larger paragraphs.
• Forgive my ignorance, but what's the difference between each of "...exceptional, extended, and extensive ..."?
• Section named Madeleine McCann needs renaming - WP:HEAD says the following: Avoid restating the subject or article title, or of an enclosing section in headings. The reader assumes you are writing about the same subject, so you need not refer to it again, thus, "Early life" and not "His early life".
• "...(a black radial strip reaching from the pupil out to the edge of the white) at "7 o'clock" position (i.e. about 30° clockwise from the bottom)..." - the parentheses detract from good prose, so perhaps attempt to flow the content into better prose.
• "3 years old" = "three years old".
• Before you go into the disappearance, you should provide context, i.e. they're on holiday, staying in a family apartment etc.
• Wikilinking parent seems a bit too much.
• What's the point of a typical timeline if there are a number of variations of such? Doesn't seem much use in nominating times to the nearest 5 minutes when there are a number of disputed versions.
• Investigation section is currently tagged as proseline, and it really is. This needs fixing for the prose to be acceptable.
• "5 days" - "five days"
• Ensure all citations are placed in accordance with WP:CITE e.g. [8], [10], [11] need to be moved to the right-hand-side of the full stop.
• 9000 -> 9,000.
• What's a "yellow notice"? It needs explanation beyond the citation.
• "...the girl..." - be specific, it should be "...McCann...".
• "Former classmate..." - of whom? Be specific because the Mirror reporter is mentioned between that sentence and the last mention of Robert Murat.
• "No arrests have been made." - this sentence kind of sums up a problem with the current(ish) events we're describing here. For decent prose, it should be something like "At this point, no arrests had been made."
• Why wikilink arguido twice in a single paragraph?
• Suddenly on May 16, 2007 you add the year back in. Think about doing this periodically to assist the article in keeping its context.
• Ref [27] and [28] should move in accordance with WP:CITE, and that sentence in particular is pretty long!
• "5 hours" - "five hours"
• "10 and 11 July" not wikilinked so may appear differently from all other dates which are wikilinked on some people's browsers.
• As per WP:UNITS, you need to have a non-breaking space between values and units, so instead of 178cm, you should have 178 cm.
• Possible sighting section has year wikilinked in on every date - not consistent with the rest of the article.
• Move [64] and [65] and [67] and [76] accordingly.
• Don't link external links in the body of the text (as in "An official web site...").
• Single sentence paragraphs in Response... section.
• Make the criticism section two major sections, "Of the parents" and "Of the police" are poor headings.
• "(Taking part were up to 180 Portuguese police officials and civil protection helicopters together with hundreds of villagers and holidaymakers, an effort never seen in the search for other child disappearances in the country.)" - why is this sentence in parentheses?
• See also section not required as the see also already exists in the main body.

There are several major concerns here, but because I'd like to see the article improve dramatically I'll put it on hold. Be advised, this is for seven days only, after which time I will re-review and pass/fail accordingly. All the best. The Rambling Man 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance section

I have reverted my edits to this section, namely, to re-insert the word 'neighbouring'. The appartment in which the McCann's were staying was NOT inside the Ocean Club complex. It was in fact a privately owned apartment in a building adjacent to (or neighbouring) the complex, which the resort routinely rented for the use of Ocean Club guests. Subsequent to Madeleine's disappearance, it was sold by the owners. See http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2005320001-2007280253,00.html There is a photograph illustrating the precise relation between the Ocean Club resort and the appartment here http://bp0.blogger.com/_mXbRBcSh0gs/Rln0qZfs4UI/AAAAAAAAAYg/3HXIqXyLfbA/s1600-h/CrimeScene02.jpg. Please do not undo edits without confirming the facts first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowbunni (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but the Sun and a blogger are not reliable sources. I am reverting the "neigbouring". If the villa was owned by MW it was part of MW resort. They were staying at the MW resort, and the word neighbouring is a weasel word to suggest that the parents went farther than they did. Please do not reinsert it. In any event, if you believe The Sun, the reference doesn't even back up your assertion: "Estate agents denied the price of the Ocean Club apartment in Praia da Luz..." .The Ocean Club Apartment - not "the apartment neighbouring the Ocean Club". Please, please, please, stop trying to push your POV on this article. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have gone back to the original wording as a compromise. 'Neighbouring' is undoubtedly a weasel word and the Sun is not a RS. OTOH we have no reliable source as to whether the parents were staying within the MW resort - the original Yahoo reference is now broken. There is no doubt that the apartment has been sold privately so that indicates that it is outside the resort (though I can't RS it). Please leave the original wording until a new RS can be provided. TerriersFan 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. It has always been clear that the McCanns were staying at the MW resort and had access to its facilities. Indeed, one of the criticisms is that they did not avail themselves of the facilities for childcare that evening. It's not uncommon for resorts in that part of the world to actually be a collection of various flats and villas, some of them leased to the resort by their private owners. They don't have to be a compound. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The above compromise seems reasonable.

Harry was a white dog with black spots, the 'not reliable blogger' you refer to is in fact Paulo Reis, a respected Portuguese journalist, and the former Editor-In-Chief of two Portuguese National newspapers. Whilst I agree that the Sun is not a RS, the fact that the appartment was rented by Mark Warner for the use of its guests and was OUTSIDE of the resort proper is supported by other sources. The apartment could be easily accessed by anyone passing along the street, whilst those within the complex could not. An important distinction, IMO, and worth pointing out. Snowbunni 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The photo that the blogger whoever he may be has posted purports to show a compound which contatined a pool and a tapas bar that were only accessible to guests? Was the whole complex in that compound? Clearly not, because an arrow points to "reception" which is clearly not within it. Also there is no mention of any residential units in that compound, but there appear to be plenty outside it. The reason that there was security around that area was to prevent unauthorised people from using the facilities. I would question whether the blogger has a NPOV. This is not the first you have posted a source that you claim says one thing and then have had to back down when it is pointed out that it didn't say what you said it said. The MW resort is not one giant compound. It is a complex of buildings, some leased on an as need basis when demand was high. It is still part of the Ocean Club.

Oh and please stop using throwaway lines like "supported by other sources". If reliable sources exist, please quote them.

Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There are enough straw men in the above to start a bonfire. Perhaps you should address your own POV? Snowbunni 08:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Snowbunni, I am not going to let you get away with that aside. Please show me exactly where I have been pushing my POV on this or any other article. Specific examples.

OK, here is something concrete that destroys your entire premise. If you live in the UK you will have seen the adverts for Polaris World resort with Jack Nicklaus urging you to buy a property there. It is perfectly possible for private individuals to buy properties in resorts and use them themselves, rent them privately, or lease them back to the resort to rent to their clients. That is what happened in this case. The McCanns were in the resort, not neighbouring it.

You seem to be trolling the internet and looking for things that you can twist to show the McCanns in a bad light. If you posted positive or neutral things about them I would take you seriously, but you have convinced me (not just on this article) that you are a POV pusher, and if it continues I will look to have you blocked.

I will also not engage in any further discussion with you. I will simply revert any edit I feel need reverting. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article says: "In some reports these times differ, for example having Gerry making his final check at 21:30, ..." If there are reports that differ, then the article should be exact about what report and what its says -- "for example having Gerry making his final check at 21:30," what report is that from? If this is major discrepancy it should be reported as such, or else it doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmathu (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bolding title in lead

Copied from my talk page for information. TerriersFan 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys, in my opinion (humble or otherwise), the manual of style most certainly says no boldfacing if the article name is "descriptive-like". I guess we're dealing with that situation so, in strict MoS style, it ought not to be emboldened. However, to pass a Good Article review, 100% compliance with the MoS is not mandatory. However, should the article go further (e.g. FA) this will crop up again. From my point of view as a GA reviewer, I 100% cannot fail it on that, even if it was 100% contradictory to WP:MOS so don't worry about that. I personally think it looks better emboldened, but that contravenes the guidelines. Funny old world, isn't it?!

So, my conclusion, leave it in compliance with the manual of style but be prepared, other editors who aren't up to speed with that paragraph will urge you to change it. Either way I won't let it affect my assessment of the article for GA status. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is the policy, then I think Madeleine McCann should be in bold, but that "Disappearance of" should not. Her name is not a description. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 08:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. The Rambling Man 08:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I know its pedantic and meaningless, but the example given in the MoS leaves every title word unbolded, even though Hurricane Isabel is a name and not a description. As I said, its unimportant so if the consensus is for an exception to be made, then I'd go with that. I shall go back to my den of pedantry now. chgallen 11:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am with chgallen above. Madeleine McCann is not the title - it was moved from that since it is not a bio article. I see no reason why this should not become a featured article so it needs to comply with MoS. I agree that bolded looks better but the answer is to get MoS changed, if required. Bolding the girl's name is the worst of all worlds. We should either bold the full title or nothing. TerriersFan 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I just stupidly did it without looking here first. My bad SGGH ^speak! 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem; it was news to me too! I have now added a 'hidden comment' to clarify the matter. TerriersFan 01:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing White Women Syndrome

I have removed a link to this. As discussed before, there is no reliable source making this link and there have been other, previous, media blitzes eg Disappearance of Ben Needham. The, possibly excessive, media coverage is more related to the skilled campaign by the parents and their excellent connections. TerriersFan 15:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The literal term "missing white girl syndrome" seems to be used to describe this disappearance and its associated media coverage on blogs and other online sources perhaps not meeting WP:A such as [1]. However I found "Was TV coverage right for Madeleine?" by Raymond Snoddy. Marketing. London: Jun 13, 2007. pg. 20, 1 pgs. (Proquest: subscription. Source type: Periodical. ISSN: 00253650 ProQuest document ID: 1297467781 Document URL: [2]). This reliable and independent source said "To what extent has all this coverage been kept afloat for so long because the child is white and photogenic, and has articulate, resourceful parents? Of course, the news value of the story was also enhanced by context-everyone's worst nightmare,a child snatched from an apparently secure apartment in an upmarket holiday resort. But the sad truth is that if a black child had been snatched from a sink estate in Liverpool or Glasgow, the chances are you would not know their name." This is in fact a definition of missing white girl syndrome, and it could be used to document the substance of the criticism if not the neologism itself. Edison 16:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Useful analysis thank you. However, much of the media attention, initially, came about because the parents, both doctors, used their excellent medical contacts to orchestrate the campaign. If they had been equally well connected black doctors I see no reason why it would not have also taken off - all 3 year olds look cute. I agree with the sink estate point but I think that goes to connections, media savy, parents being articulate etc not colour. I think that Snoddy's would be a good comment to add but it should go here. TerriersFan 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there clearly needs to be a mention in the main article. It's much too important to restrict it to the sub-article (which is basically a drawn-out way of saying MWWS). -Mysekurity 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Find a source that mentions MWWS then it can go in, otherwise there is no need for a claim of racism by the entire british media and public. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite. I am going to add the Snoddy material, now, to the Response article because I think that it is a useful view to add balance and that is where it belongs. The Response page is not a "drawn-out way of saying MWWS". People like labels hence the urge to use MWWS and such-like tags. However, as I allude above, the issue is far more complex than that. If the exceptional media response was shown to be due to MWWS then a main article mention is right but while the motivation remains unproven then Response is the place for sourced opinion so that it can be read in the full context and not as a form of short hand. TerriersFan 02:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Further GA comments

I'm afraid the prose still suffers badly from proseline. I'll tag the article which will soon fail the current GA nomination unless this is rapidly addressed. The Rambling Man 14:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, a large number of single-sentence paragraphs are outstanding and need attention. The Rambling Man 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors will wish to be aware of the comments that I have placed at User talk:The Rambling Man#Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (2). Perhaps we could have other views, please? TerriersFan 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to accept that my criteria for GA are possibly more stringent than those defined at WP:GAC. If you believe my reviewing technique to be questionable, I'll happily put remove my "ownership" of the review and allow someone else to review it. It's a touchy subject and I feel that it's one of those articles which may, sooner or later, attract a lot of attention. Perhaps the best approach, if you're determined to push the GA through, is for me to remove myself from the review and allow another editor to examine the article. Please let me re-assure you that I have no intention of "shifting goal posts". Let me know what you think. The Rambling Man 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no agenda "to push the GA through"; I did not apply for GA status for this article in the first place! However, since it is being reviewed I have cooperated with other editors to try to achieve this status because I think it would reflect the quality of work that has been put in in achieving IMHO a high standard article on a controversial subject that has attracted some passionate editing. I suspect that GA status would be easier to achieve on The mating habits of the Panda Moor goldfish since, with few editors interested, it would be possible to sit down and source and polish such an article at ones leisure. But I digress; perhaps I was alone in this view but I had assumed that when we met your shopping list then you would promote it to GA status, not come back with a further section that required prosing. I am doubtful whether changing reviewing editor is going to help since a new editor might well come back with a whole new list of requirements! I think that we now need some other views on the way forward. TerriersFan 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then I'll wait and see. My shopping list is intended to be a bit more in depth than a typical GA review, before this I was much more accustomed to WP:FAC so I get swamped in the detail. Let me know when and if you'd like me to take another look. The Rambling Man 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

With nothing further discussion forthcoming, no changes made to the single-line paragraphs and the article being on hold now for over a week, I'm having to fail the GA for the time being. It can easily be re-nominated. The Rambling Man 10:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GA revisited

Okay, the complete rewrite was well done and besides a few misplaced citations which I've fixed, the article now meets my intepretation of the good article criteria, so I'm promoting it. Well done to all involved. The Rambling Man 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. TerriersFan 15:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions that Madeleine was murdered

I have reverted unsourced speculation that Madeleine was murdered. Plainly the police consider that this is a possibility hence the search of the grounds of the Murat villa. At the moment the only source I can find is here which doesn't meet WP:RS. It can be added back if a reliable source can be found. TerriersFan 15:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this source would probably suffice? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=473408&in_page_id=1811&ct=5 Snowbunni 13:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's speculation, not encyclopaedic. Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now added in blood being detected, from a primary source.

fallacious communist (the first poster)

Criticism of the media

I'm going to add a criticism of the media section, given the criticism schtik of teh current article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.69.12 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts.

I have removed the criticism of the media section as it is duplicated from the "Reaction" article. Do we need to move all the criticism sections to that article, as they are reactions to to the disappearance? Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This section was correctly removed - the Criticism sections are in the articles to which the content relates. TerriersFan 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have given this article short-term protection. Vandalism is getting missed and this is a high-profile article where unsourced material gets commented on, damaging Wikipedia's reputation, (<-- Since when Wikipeedia has reputation???) and has BLP implications. This was the reason for the previous long-term protection. Removing long-term protection was a good shout but the article needs targeted protection during times of high media interest . TerriersFan 16:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cadaver dog

I have removed this sentence. The source says "The “cadaver dog” is reported in the Portuguese press to have discovered a trace of Madeleine’s body in her bedroom, meaning that she would have been dead in the apartment for at least two hours, which does not fit with official police reports so far.". The Times reporting what the Portuguese press says is a secondary source at best. My view is that it should remain out until a primary source can be found. I welcome views, please.TerriersFan 19:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It has also been reported by being called a body dog in several newspapers in the UK with no mention of the Portuguese papers. I'll list more refs here when I get a chance. Here's a few:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15785 - especially Two dogs were sent into the McCanns’ apartment last week. One of the spaniels is a “blood dog” which can detect tiny blood specks invisible to the human eye that could be months or even years old. The other is a “body dog” specially trained to locate and unearth corpses. http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2005320001-2007360335,00.html http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=64264 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2218171.ece http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=8102 http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15722/MADDY:-Sniffer-dogs-back-at-suspect's-home I would welcome assistance in finding more sources. Tamatisk 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this research. However, of the reliable sources, crucially the Times said "Experts also cast doubt on claims that a British dog trained to track bodies had detected a scent in the bedroom. The body would have had to be in the room for at least several hours before leaving a detectable trace." and the Express simply relays from other, unnamed sources, stating "Reports in Portugal said one of the spaniels detected the traces of blood in the apartment, while the second picked up the scent of a dead body." Neither the Sun nor First Post would be considered reliable sources. TerriersFan 22:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting this edit

I have reverted this edit:

News about the possible death of Madeleine first appeared on Saturday, August 4 2007 in Sol newspaper. On Sunday and Monday, several other Portuguese newspapers followed the same line, giving more details. Jornal de Notícias (JN), a leading daily newspaper, wrote that “traces of blood from a dead body, presumably from young Madeleine” were found at the Ocean Resort apartment from where she vanished.

The reasons are:

• The status of the apartment has not been sourced - it is situated outside the Ocean Club and its status has varied - this needs sourcing.

Actually, it is not outside the Ocean Club, as your carefully sourced description makes clear, and as I have stated before. In fact, it is in a central position in the Ocean Club. The fact is that Mark Warner does not own all of the Ocean Club, and that is where the confusion has come in. It is perfectly possible for private individuals to buy properties within resorts. We know that this apartment was privately owned (and has since changed hands) and was leased back to Mark Warner to rent to its guests. Harry was a white dog with black spots 06:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• We have not accepted Sol as a reliable source. The DNA tests on the blood are not yet available so whether it is Madeleine's is still speculation. Further, there is no reliable sourcing for it being from a 'dead body' and The Times, above, have explained the unreliability of the suggestions thus far. TerriersFan 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and was, in fact, in the process of reverting as well, but TerriersFan beat me to it. ElinorD (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We can not erase investigation developments and fresh well-sourced news just because some people have doubts about them. In this affair everybody has a lot of doubts about everything. This article is not about the truth because nobody knows the truth yet. This article is about the investigation and all kind of developments (plausible and less plausible) concerned with the case. Page Up 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We have over-riding WP:BLP considerations not to make suggestions that cannot be substantiated. I am sorry, but this is a bad paragraph which is not based on primary sources. As you state yourself: "quoting unidentified police source", "No source is quoted to substantiate those informations, the journalists just mention that Jornal de Notícias". TerriersFan 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You in the UK are living in one planet and we in Portugal are living in another planet. Two realities for the same story, and one sole article with the first planet's version. That's all. Page Up 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a sourced description of the status of the apartment. We are fully aware of the difference of emphasis on the story by the media in the UK and Portugal. The problem is that, due to Portugal's laws restricting what the police can say on the progress of an investigation, papers in both countries are seeking to fill the vacuum with, more or less informed, speculation. The two key pieces of information on which we await confirmation are (a) the ownership of the blood and (b) whether a 'dead body smell' was detected by the sniffer dogs. Until these uncertainties are resolved the speculation by the Portuguese press remains just that, speculation. In my view we should not include speculation. However, we edit on here by consensus so it would be interesting to hear more views. TerriersFan 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

An interesting analysis has been published here by The Independent. I accept, though, that this is from the perspective of Planet UK. Whether this analysis takes us much further is, I think, doubtful and simply reinforces the need, in the absence of any clear statement by the police, to await hard new evidence. TerriersFan 23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Murat no longer a suspect

According to this Times article Murat is no longer a suspect and Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa, of Polícia Judiciária, said: “Police are following a new lead.”. I think we should wait until this is confirmed by another source before adding this the the page. Nlwiki 07:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

'Suspect' status of parents

The article currently reports that the Portugese Police have 'definitively' stated that the parents are not suspects. In fact they said that the 'official position is that they are not suspects'. Since as we well know in Portugese law there is a category of official suspect all the Police stated was what we already know. They did not state that the McCann's are not under investigation and indeed it appears that they are. At the very least the tendentious and unsupported claim that they are 'definitively' not subjects should be removed and if possible a correct wording supported by a citation inserted. Uh - someone got there before me! 129.12.22.72 12:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Charles Avis

Delete article

This doesn't deserve its own page. A lot of children go missing and they don't get their own page. What makes this case any different? jm4847

The difference is the enormous publicity this disappearance has engendered. Note; no-one on here is defending the publicity merely reporting the fact. Subjects don't get their own page because they deserve it; they get their own page if they meet WP:N. TerriersFan 18:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps when the case gets resolved we could put it up for deletion, especially if, as we all hope, she is alive, SqueakBox 18:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What happens if she is never found? It's her parents' fault that this happened. Andrew Eng 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion. This is an encyclopaedia where most of like to stick with fact. The Rambling Man 18:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that the publicity this case has garnered slightly increases its Importance, that this story (and others like it) are more important than the many pages we have about fictional entities that only exist on TV or in comic books.--SallyForth123 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

I reverted a new timeline section because it was selective, badly written and unreferenced. However, it was a well-meant attempt in which some time has been invested, and there is a case for a timeline table. Consequently I have added the material to a new page Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Timeline. If there is to be a timeline I suggest it should be:

• A new article not stuck in the middle of the existing article because it would both disrupt the flow of the main article and enlarge what, despite the split, is likely to grow to be quite large.
• Complete.
• In the form of a table.
• Referenced by each item.

If anyone agrees please feel free to develop this new page. However, I suggest any development be confined to the new talk page and nothing be created before it has been fully developed and agreed. TerriersFan 20:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with your edits, I notified another longterm editor of this page that a good faith editor had added such. Keep it out for now, the prose description of current events is the way forward. The Rambling Man 22:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"The apartment had been rented by Mark Warner"

This comment was removed as 'overly detailed'. My view is that it should remain. There have been lots of suggestions that the family were staying in the Time Warner Ocean Club whereas this sourced sentence makes it clear that they were in a Time Warner rented apartment but outside the Ocean Club complex. This is not a trivial point since it goes to issues of security. The fact of them being in a Time Warner apartment is also important because it enabled them to have access to Time Warner child minding arrangements; also significant. Can we discuss this please, and gain a consensus? TerriersFan 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As it is, there's no information in the article about why Time Warner / Mark Warner is important. The two issues you mention are certainly relevant, but then they should be in the article, if you can find reliable sources for it so it doesn't become original research. It should probably all be in the Criticism of the parents section in that case. If not, I think the Mark Warner bit is overly detailed. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 05:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lot of confusion about this but it really is quite simple.

The Ocean Club is a large resort within Praia de Luz. Some properties in that resort are owned by Mark Warner, some by private individuals. But whoever owns them, they are all within the resort. Mark Warner has other facilities in the resort that are for the exclusive use of people who have booked holidays through them (as opposed to people using their own flats or renting directly from the owners). Those include restaurants, pools etc., but it is misleading to suggest that there is somehow any difference in security for people staying in MW owned accommodation and those stay in flats owned by others. The security is around the common areas that are reserved for MW guests. Harry was a white dog with black spots 11:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My point simply is that the article doesn't currently make any hints as to why it might or might not be important that the apartment was rented from Mark Warner. It is merely mentioned as a factual, non-interpreted sentence. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good points; its a question of how best to weave this into the article. TerriersFan 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have had a crack at it - any thoughts, please? TerriersFan 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead paras

An editor has attempted a radical rewrite of the lead paras, which has been carefully edited to reflect the article and sourced content. As always, comments here are invited. TerriersFan 00:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

I have abridged the lead section to state the facts of the case. Those facts do not include

• The opinions of celebrities
• The current outlook of the parents that their daughter might be dead
• How much cooperation occurred between police forces if that cooperation was nominal and as expected.

In particular, if that latter aspect is not remarkable, then pls do not waste the reader's time trying to figure it out. Pls ensure that the lead section informs the read about the major aspects of the case that are known.--SallyForth123 00:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I shall look at the detail of the wording but the essence of the lead accurately reflects the article. All the points you highlight are covered by sourced content. TerriersFan 00:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the second paragraph is that it does not describe the case: it merely elaborates on the buzz around the case. (BTW: That does not necessarily make the case more or less Important in the long run. Publicity like this has a way of evaporating into being "of no Importance" two years down the line.) In my book, publicity should get one sentence in the lead, if that.--SallyForth123 00:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You have removed sources and the clear shift from the initial investigation to the police accepting that Madeleiene may be dead. TerriersFan

I moved the sources down into the sections. I give up on the second para for now: At least the first para now tells me what is going on.--SallyForth123 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed "but they later accepted the possibility that she might be dead." which is an important qualification for the police's initial investigation". I am reverting this removal. If you remove it again it will be the fourth time and you will have breached WP:3RR. As a compromise I will add in your point about the parents not being suspects. Other editors can clearly see that you wish to remove "but they later accepted the possibility that she might be dead." so please await other views. TerriersFan 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you may have misunderstood the sentence "The initial investigation by the Portuguese Police concluded that Madeleine, who had been left unsupervised in a ground floor bedroom with her two-year-old twin siblings, had been abducted but they later accepted the possibility that she might be dead." thinking the latter part referred to the parents. I am going to clarify this as follows "The initial investigation by the Portuguese Police concluded that Madeleine, who had been left unsupervised in a ground floor bedroom with her two-year-old twin siblings, had been abducted. The police later accepted the possibility that she might be dead and stated that the parents were not suspects." I think that this meets your point. I am omitting the 'clear leads' reference as this comes in the second paragraph. Are you happy with this? 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I mistook that sentence to mean that the opinion of the parents was being expressed. In that sense I was wrong. What the police are doing is changing the status of the case to "presumed dead" for, I assume, the purposes of setting priorities. I created a section called "presumed dead" and made it clear that the police are making this assumption. If we put it back into the lead section, it should be as a separate sentence and properly qualified. Perhaps it would be more effective to say that the case is getting cold — just to emphasize that there is no new conclusive evidence.--SallyForth123 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll move the lack of clear leads into the first para. The 'presumed dead' bit is too strong - remember that we only put in what is sourced. If it still doesn't meet your needs please raise it here since that is the way we do business, and I'll relook at it. TerriersFan 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, done that. Actually, it is an improvement over the original version, so thanks for that!. Now; para 1 is disappearance, para 2 is investigation and para 3 is notability. Let me explain para 3 - this is needed because we agreed, after comments by other editors, that the article must state why this disappearance is notable. This we do here, and it satisfies those editors who had concerns so we should not change it without good reason. The three themes are reasonable interpretations of sourced material - cooperation (this article), publicity (Response article) and celebrities (Response article). You may not be keen on the celebrities but their involvement has been hugely notable and it needs to be here. TerriersFan 02:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed Presumed dead

I have removed the Presumed dead section as it is not a correct interpretation. The Independent report is more carefully worded than that in the the Daily Telegraph. The fuller Independent article quotes the police chief as saying "The hypothesis (that she is dead) is perceptible for everyone. Although it's true that it's a strong hypothesis and there is always that possibility, we cannot say that she is dead." This doesn't stand up a Presumed dead heading. We should avoid emotive headings. I have moved your source to a position next to the Independent in a better place in the article. TerriersFan 03:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed unofficial sites

I have removed the unofficial sites from 'External Links' - we have a well established policy of limiting external links to the official site. TerriersFan 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Disappearance section

I have restored the variation in times. It is essential to record the possible inaccuracies in the timeline. TerriersFan 03:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro style

For that second paragraph in the intro, please stick to short, direct sentences with no attempts to join them or to assert causal relationships between them.--SallyForth123 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your point about not implying causal relationships but I couldn't disagree more with your suggestion of short sentences. Several short, staccato sentences are awful to read. What we have been aiming at is reasonably flowing prose. However, I have produced a redraft that seems a reasonable compromise; in particular I have split the various relationships. Don't use weasel wording such as 'nearby' - say how far away the parents are and the reader can decide if that is nearby. Please stop removing important information in your edits, such as 'the police then stated that there was a strong hypothesis that she might be dead'. Finally, I have moved the second villa search back. It is more important for the reader to read the second villa search in context. TerriersFan 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP issues

I have also removed the details of the charges against Gonçalo Amaral and others. The details are not needed in this article and quoting them out of context raises BLP issues. TerriersFan 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)