Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

POV pushing again

From the lead para of the main article: "[T]he police subsequently stated that there was a strong hypothesis that she might be dead. They also confirmed that the parents were not suspects." Therefore, the statement by the McCann's spokesman today is factual and removing it is yet another example of POV pushing. It is even more important to restate it in case people get the wrong impression about the interviews. Until the PJ say formally that the McCanns are suspects, remains a fact. If editors can't put aside their declared POV when they are editing the article, they should refrain from making changes. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

DNA?

Quoting the article: "After DNA analysis, however, the UK Forensic Science Service in Birmingham concluded that the traces of blood did not come from Madeleine.[1]"

I was just consulting this article and found it odd that the old Times article that stated the blood-spots were not Madeleine's was quoted as fact, even though the PJ have for the last several weeks consistently stated on-record (in print and on tape, on several outlets: here's a VERY lesser example [2]) that the article was incorrect and no results have been sent from the UK, while the Birmingham Forensic Lab has also repeatedly confirmed that it has no results to send (as per phone-interviews given on tape, screened on Portuguese tv-stations).

Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy, writing about the long delay [3] on the 30th Aug, are also the authors of the original Times article [4]. In fact, reports dismissing the Times' assertions were quickly published a couple of weeks ago, right after the Times article was written [5].

(Of course, there's the usual bias. If the blood tests were being conducted in Portugal, the British media would be shouting and screaming about the unbelievably inept two-week-plus delay over the deadline initially given, and there would be dozens of articles to quote from; since it's a UK lab, not a peep is heard, and a two-week-old incorrect article - which mixed up reports about the DNA on the Belgian straw, with reports about the Praia da Luz blood - still stands as fact.) Mip | Talk 22:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (Edited by myself due to typo)

Good points; I'll rewrite the relevant passage. TerriersFan 23:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan 23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now updated it with the most recent reliable source I can find; The Daily Telegraph on 31 August here. TerriersFan 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Body in situ

The past tense is correct here. We are referring to a specific body that had been in that specific place, not generalising. To use "has been" in this context is to suggest that the body remains there. Thnk about the sentence, "He has been in his house for two hours." Clearly sniffer dogs aren't required to find a body that is still there. A body that had been in the flat for more than two hours would be detected by the dogs. A body that had been there for only 90 minutes clearly wouldn't have been. Harry was a white dog with black spots 12:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it works much better the way you changed it now anyway :-) The problem with the first sentence in past tense is that the first part was in present tense, and the two didn't mix well. But the first part of the sentence could have been changed to "would have picked up" or something, and it would have worked. But, I suppose, rather pointless to argue this point now that you've already changed it to something even better :-) Thanks for your tireless efforts in improving this article, by the way. And the same goes to everyone else who has contributed. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, I just re-read the current version, and it suffers from the same problem. I'm not getting into an edit war, however, so what does everyone think? Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lilac Soul. I think the current version is correct for the reasons that you said the previous one was! :-) The dogs could and still can detect the scent. It is countinuous. So the present tense is correct in terms of the capabilities of the dogs, and the past tense is correct in reference to a specific activity that they carried out, in this case detecting the scent of a body inthe McCann's apartment, and the fact that a body had been there, but is there no longer. It's a bit convoluted (perhaps becuase of the Latin) but I still think it's correct. Other views? Harry was a white dog with black spots 12:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I think the options are which could only pick up the scent of a body which had been in situ for more than two hours (my latest edit) or which can only pick up the scent of a body which has been in situ for more than two hours since we need consistent tense within the same phrase. TerriersFan 23:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need consistent tense within a phrase? Think of the of the sentence "John has a dog that had been brought to the shelter by its previous owners". In any event, the latest edit is OK. The main thing about this development is that the dogs picked up a scent of a body, and that the scent had been in the apartment for at least two hours, although we don't know if and when an actual body had been there. There is of course, the possibility that the scent was brought in by someone who had had contact with a body - hunting dogs are able to follow a scent that is dragged along the ground for them, so these dogs might have detected something similar. So it's not actually proof that a body was there. Harry was a white dog with black spots 07:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, excellent example! TerriersFan 16:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mother to be named as Suspect

This article is going to need a bit of a rewrite, as the mother is going to be formally named as a suspect this morning. --Fredrick day 07:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Is it citable? As of now she's just a witness. The Rambling Man 08:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is being reported by The Sun and now the BBC that she will be made an "arguido", but we can't add it to the article based on speculation. If and when it happens it will be added. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6982969.stm

Snowbunni 08:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, it is being reported on the BBC, but until it happens it remains speculation and can't be added. This is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news service. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has been adding this to the article using a rather unusual wording; I've tried to add it in a more neutral wording, citing the BBC article as a source. I think it's relevant enought to include, though I'm not sure where, so I used the location 'someone' has been using. SQB 09:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat yeat again, Wikipedia is not a breaking news service. An encyclopedia by definition only contains events that have already happened. Speculation, however well-founded, on events that may take place in the future have no place in an encyclopedia, if for no other reason than that the speculation will soon be overtaken by events. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

An Encyclopedia is not what an old Oxford dictionay wants it to be or what you want, any more. A redefinition or rather an adaptation to rapidly changing facts has to be accomodated. People come here to see a relation of facts, the latest, in some cases. Doesn't matter that they happened a few seconds ago. We can always change and make a more precise description of those facts later. Many of those who object to the way facts are reported or included, do so from an old-fashioned pre-Internet understanding of Encyclopedias, a sort of elitist intellectual bias which resists the innovation on which Wikipedia is based. --Savedor 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with that Harry. However, the way I worded it, it wasn't speculation on our part, but rather a report of the family's speculation that Kate McCann would be named a suspect. Furthermore, I wanted to take the wind out of the sails of the person who had been adding it in a rather accusational wording. On a side note, you reverted to the wrong version, replacing my neutral wording with the accusational one.193.172.180.130 09:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC) (That's odd, I could've sworn I was logged on, Well, it was I, SQB 09:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I subsequently reverted to the older version. I agree it's a problem that people want to rush to add the latest bit of news, especially if it is seen as a departure from what has been the status quo. However, I think it is best to think of Wikipedia as an "after the fact" resource. Quoting someone, no matter how well-informed, about what will happen is still speculation. This is particularly difficult when dealing with an ongoing, major news story, but it is precisely because of this that we need to be as disciplined as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still think it's better to add it in a correct way, making it clear who said what, rather than heving people add it anyway, in whatever way they please, but I'll refrain from adding it again. 193.172.180.130 11:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC) (Again, it was I, SQB 11:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC). Must remember to sign in).

I don't usually contribute to Wikipedia, but I'd like to direct you to here. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1283158,00.html 12:39, 7 September 2007

Yes, that's what the BBC reports now too. The problem is (I think) that this is still what the family says the police says. Once we've got a source that has it directly and officially straight from the police, we can put it in, seems to be the consensus. SQB 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"The parents of a British girl whose disappearance sparked a global search will be formally named as suspects, family friends said Friday, after the child's mother was questioned for 11 hours by Portuguese police." This is per the Associated Press, as printed in today's New York Times [6] and as reported yesterday and today on CNN. That the report of a statement by "family friends" was reported by the AP, CNN and other news services is a fact, not speculation, and as such the statement may be included in the article. The article should not report as a fact that the parents have been named as suspects, or that they will be named as suspects,per WP:BLP, just that "family friends" have told reporters they will be named as suspects. That event (the statement by "family friends") has already happened, and is attributable to multiple reliable and independent sources. There is no guideline which prevents including this material, carefully stated and clearly delineated and sourced. The exclusion of this material is POV. Despite the repeated claim that Wikipedia is not a breaking news service, there is no mandatory waiting period between when something is reported by multiple reliable sources and when it may be added to an article. When and if the statement by "family friends" is overtaken by events, such as a statement from the police, then the article will be revised. Wikipedia is not paper, and revising an article will not kill a tree. Edison 13:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, as you can see in the conversation I had with User:Harry was a white dog with black spots, see above. Consensus at that time seemed to be not to add it, however it seems that more and more are now in favour, so by all means, go ahead.SQB 13:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

All the sources I've read (BBC news website, BSkyB site) state that a family spokeswoman (Justine McGuinness) has claimed that Kate McCann is supsected by Portuguese police to be involved with the death of her daughter, not 'family and friends' or 'family friends'. The spokeswoman is speaking for the McCanns themselves. I think the fact that Kate McCann is a suspect in the case is quite verifiable. ITV news have just ran a 1 hour special program on the subject (between 17:00 and 18:00), and I suspect all the big (UK) news programs will lead with the story (ITV evening news will, and Channel 4 news have said it will be their top story, BBC news is on in 2 minutes). In addition, on the ITV special they have just reported on Kate McCanns fear that she will be charged. Also, just as I've been writing this the 'trailer' for Channel 4 News came on and stated that 'Kate McCann is a suspect in the case' or words to that effect. The actual program isn't on for another hour or so though. I don't think we have to wait until the Portuguese police announce her status, they aren't the ONLY reliable source on the matter when we have verifiable statements from the family spokeswoman.

BBC News have led with the story, and have stated that 'Kate McCann is a formal suspect in the case'. Malbolge 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's verifiable now. It just wasn't this morning before the police made the official announcement. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

One hazard of including a breaking news story sourced to non-print mediaa is that the story someone cited at 9 am may be revised at 10 am, 11, am, and noon, but the same link, such as [7] <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/07/madeleine.mccann/index.html|title= Madeleine's blood found in car - friend|date=[[2007-09-07]]|accessdate=2007-09-07|publisher=[[CNN]]}}</ref> that led to the 9 am version might now lead to the noon version, with greatly modified text. Is it possible to cite not only the day but the time of access? Please do not get upset with other editors if you look at a link and it says something slightly different from what it said when they talked abut it in the article. As an example, I am not at all sure that the "family spokesman" was earlier identified by name. On another issue: all the stories have been repeating the nonsequitor that the parent or parents are suspect because traces of the girl's blood were found in a car they rented 25 days later, leading to the absurd image of the parents carrying around a bleeding corpse for weeks while subjected to constant scrutiny, or hiding a body then moving it weeks later. Someone please find a story which somehow makes sense of this reported claim. One gets the sense right now of the press reporting nonsensical scraps of info because that's all the police or family spokesman have given them. Perhaps the police will hold a press conference and explain this. Per WP:BLP there must not be any conclusions of guilt beyond reporting something as a claim or classification by the police, and if the family presents exculpatory information that must also be included. Innocent parents have been falsely blamed by police many times when children disappear or are killed, such as the Azaria Chamberlain disappearance. Edison 17:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that the parents were already sueing a newspaper for stating that the police believed they killed their daughter, as stated in the CNN story of August 31, viewable at [8]? Edison 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is fully covered in the Response article - I am adding it to the summary in the main article - thx for the suggestion. TerriersFan 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "blood in the boot" claim on the grounds that it was not in the article cited, then an anon put it back without edit summary, then you removed it and protected the article. I Googled for the mother's name and "boot" and "blood" and found that apparently some blogs (never a reliable source) state this but that more credibly some British papers Timesonline Telegraph,7:40pm BST 07/09/2007 (state that blood was found in the boot and on a keyfob, but they in turn cite it to unspecified Portuguese papers. This seems to fail WP:BLP for so damaging a claim. So: Are there any editors out there who can check the Portuguese press and see if the statement is there and if it comes from a paper regarded as reliable? (I expect they have haoxy speculative tabloids like the rest of the world.) Other articles have said that the Portuguese police are forbidden to run to the press and try the suspect in its pages as is common in some countries, so any such facts would probably have to be carefully sourced, like the new reported arguida status of Mrs. McCann. As mentioned above, a cited source may change numerous times in a day for a story such as this. Edison 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Map

This article (referenced in our article) features a map on the bottom of it. It's likely to be copyrighted, but perhaps we can find or draw up something similar, as it really clarifies the situation.SQB 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Suspect?

The article is inconsistent at the moment. In places including the first para it says "arguida" means formal suspect. Later on, someone who sounds knowledgeable says "arguida" is not correctly translated as suspect. Maybe we could have a citation for the claim? 217.207.148.180 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"...police had claimed to have found Madeleine's blood in the boot of a car rented by the parents..." - has anyone seen the claim the blood was in the boot elsewhere? The BBC report only says "...traces of Madeleine's blood were in the McCanns' car..." SewerSide 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just been listening to Radio 4 for half an hour on this new development and not once did they say the blood was in the boot. Wherever they found it, it can't ahve been released yet. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

According to this BBC page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6657977.stm Arguida/o is status given to someone 'officially treated as a suspect in a crime'. According to a Portuguese lawyer "Arguido is the person who has been accused of being the perpetrator. This is just an accusation made exactly at the end of the investigation." Hope that helps. Malbolge 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, "arguido/a" is a concept in Portuguese law that doesn't have an equivalent in British law. It may not have a translation at all

The article arguido (created today) appears to have started off as a direct translation of the version on the Portuguese Wikipedia but needs more work to give clarity. Timrollpickering 23:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no British counterpart to arguido. It can best be explained by a progression:

1. Witness - Must answer all questions to avoid being charged with obstruction to justice.

2. "Assistant" - "Person of interest", "important witness", "has been helping police with inquiries", any one of these phrases would be adequate British descriptions.

3. Suspect

4. Arguido - Has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. "We kinda think that you kinda maybe had something to do with it".

5. Accused

6. Réu - the person who was taken to court, as the object of the charges. Mip | Talk 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

First names

Please stick to referring to the parents just by their first names. This is the protocol we have adopted throughout two articles and we need to be consistent. TerriersFan 16:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names,"other than for royalty and nobility (such as "Dame Judy"), "For other subjects, it is better to refer to the person by their surname and not their first name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant." So "Mrs. McCann" or "Kate McCann" is preferred to just calling her "Kate." This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article with a neutral point of view, not a support site per se. Edison 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read that section of the MoS just using first names should be allowed. "To disambiguate between siblings or other well-known relatives with the same surname, use the surname of the article header to indicate that person, and use first names or complete names to indicate siblings or others." It doesn't specify exactly how to handle married couples but my take is that you should use either "Kate" or "Kate McCann". Jeltz talk 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that using first names is anything other than a convenience. McCann is ambiguous and using both names is repetitious. However, if the agreement is to use the "Kathy McCann" style then it should be used for each and every instance of Kate, Gerry or Madeleine amd the article should be edited acordingly. TerriersFan 23:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If only Mrs. McCann is mentioned in a paragraph or section, she should probably be referred to as "Kate McCann." I could see some use of first names to disambiguate. It could say something like "The McCanns entered the station at 8 am, but only Gerry emerged to speak to reporters, saying that Kate was being questioned further" without sounding like they are the writer's next-door neighbors and closest friends. A paragraph or perhaps sentence only talking about one of them should probably use first and last name. Other articles about disappeared or murdered children naturally use the first name of the child. Edison 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It was announced - WHO announced it?

In the introductory section (I have no idea how to edit it, since there is no edit link to the right of introductory sections in Wikipedia) we can read:

On 7 September 2007, it was announced that Madeleine's blood had been found in a car her parents rented 25 days after her disappearance.

However the Portuguese Police have not announced anything in this regard (I am writing this on Sep 7, at 7:22 Portugal time) despite the BBC footnote (5) saying so.

It was announced is too vague. It should be say who announced it. More exact is "a family friend told reporters that police thought..."

Can anybody tell how to edit introductory sections in Wikipedia? --Savedor 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the lead para - are you OK with it now? TerriersFan 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Who's the family friend then? I think "it was reported" could be enough. For detail information can man follow the reference below. By the way, the article is protected in moment, it's not allowed to edit it. Sorry, it's not protected.--Mukdener|(Talk to me) 19:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing is permitted by registered users. What we have done is stop editing by IPs because they were adding misinformation and unsourced facts. Normally, that is not a problem but it was today since, because of the pace of editing, mistakes were getting established. This article is under media scrutiny and its vital for Wikipedia's well being that we keep it accurate. Onto the point that you made quotes from 'familly friends' and 'it was reported' are not acceptable. TerriersFan 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC are certainly reporting this now, though I'd have to double-check if they're using "the BBC has learned" formulations, or have actually attributed it to someone. Alai 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Aunt's claim

Madeleine's aunt has been interviewed and said "They tried to get her to confess to having accidentally killed Madeleine by offering her a deal through her lawyer - 'if you say you killed Madeleine by accident and then hid her and disposed of the body, then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less'".[9]. So far we have avoided including unsourced accusations and I think that this is not reliable enough to be included; if it had been said by de Abreu or McGuinness that would be different. May we have views, please? TerriersFan 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is sourced to the wire service report of what the aunt said. The wire service did not, and we must not, take the leap beyond what is sourced and state that the police really said what the aunt reported that Mrs. McCann reported that the police said. A relative acting as a family spokesman can be given some degree of credibility; it is not like "A blog reported that the police offered Mrs. McCann a deal.." If the President's press secretary reports the President is going to do something, we report what the press secretary said and source it to him. Same general idea. Edison 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair point; however a Portuguese newspaper editor has just said on the BBC that the police have no power to make this sort of deal and he thinks the aunt misunderstood what was relayed to her. My thought is to add this to the 'Criticism of the Portuguese police section'. This gets it in the article without interweaving facts with speculation. TerriersFan 22:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan 01:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I was told that the Portuguese Penal system doesn't work on the basis of deals - detectives would know that they can't offer deals, the lawyer (Pinto de Abreu) would know that he couldn't be offered a deal, and no judge would accept any deal that had taken place. Have no idea whether this is so: I just did some brief Googling, but honestly couldn't find anything on the Portuguese Penal code which was in the slightest bit enlightening.

I can only assume that in the morning some "citation-able" Portuguese articles will pop-up which either back up the "deal" deal, or elaborate on the legal-impossibility of any deal being offered.Mip | Talk 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Press Association reference given here and in the main article does not confirm Philomena McCann's statement as quoted. Reliable source? Also the same reference seems to include supposition material eg "Portuguese detectives appear to be working on the theory that Mrs McCann killed her daughter by accident and covered up the death by claiming she was abducted." Is PA considered definitive as to fact and supposition under Wikipedia guidelines, or should unsourced 'facts' and supposition be treated with caution in this case? UK local BBC reports this morning are confusing as to the veracity of the supposed deal (saying eg 'it has emerged' that a deal was offered.) Although so far it appears to be sourced from the family alone, today's press and BBC reporters are making a 'big deal' of it in the UK - and it's being used as implicit and sustained criticism of the PJ. So IMV it's important to get to grips with its exact status, as the family isn't disinterested as a source. The Suntoday reports a *one-year* deal on offer (as they put it: "police pressure mum with sick deal") Thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shojo (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC consider PA to be definitive, although obviously the Wikipedia view is likely to be different. 86.153.62.46 10:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news service which will report speculation and rumour. Harry was a white dog with black spots 13:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We have to be extremely careful in an encyclopedic context. My feeling is that we can include what is said by Mr Pinto de Abreu, because he is their official legal respresentative. The police would expect him to make announcements about things like arguido status, and would be quick to contradict him if this were not the case.

I also think that we should consider anything that Kate and Gerry say directly, and things that their official spokeswoman says. However, I don't think we should be including any speculation by "family and friends", including things that the family and friends say they have been said to say by Kate and Gerry, wherever they are quoted. There is clearly a lot of lobbying and spin going on, and Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for that. Once the case is resolved one way or another, the article can be amended to reflect the lobbying etc. that was taking place in the context of the facts that will have come to light. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Source broke overnight so I rm pending better sourcing. TerriersFan 10:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. there have been many reports of police lying to suspects, saying things to a teenage robbery suspect like, "Just sign the confession, then you can go home to your Mama. Sign the confession, then the judge will see you are remorseful and give you probation.Sign the confession, and we will help you." All lies. Some Portuguese paper stating that the police lack the claimed deal-making power does not mean they did not say words to that effect to get an admission from a suspect. Edison 02:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

De Abreu

I am going to edit all instances of the use of "de Abreu" in the main article - the lawyer can either be called Mr Abreu, or Mr Pinto de Abreu, but never Mr de Abreu (as described here). In this case, since his professional name is "Firstname Pinto de Abreu", the proper way to refer to him is "Pinto de Abreu".

Calling him "de Abreu" would be as incorrect as calling the parents "Mr and Mrs Cann" - you can't drop the "Mc" any more than you can add the "de". Mip | Talk 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Mip | Talk 01:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• If he can be called Mr Abreu, why can't we use just Abreu? TerriersFan 09:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no real grammatical reason to not use just plain "Abreu" - it's just a question of common practice, when someone uses a compound-surname professionally. As an analogy: people don't write about "William Gates", though that is grammatically just as correct as calling him "Bill Gates" or "Mr Gates". Mip | Talk 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

British spelling

Please note that since this is a British girl we use British English. TerriersFan 09:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct. This is backed up here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. British English should be used due to the strong national ties to the topic, and to continue with the original form of English already present in the article. Abc30 17:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a diff when comments like this are made. Edison 02:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Removing speculation" used as an erroneous rationale for deleting well-sourced content

Virtually all the information that's come out over the last few days has been from McCann family friends or spokespeople, as the police are withholding comment, so unless editors are planning to remove all of that as well, there is simply no basis for removals like this one and its twin. These reversions appear to proceed from a fairly basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The source for the quote in this case is Philomena McCann, Gerry McCann's sister, who told reporters:

• "They are suggesting that Kate has in some way accidentally killed Madeleine, then kept her body, then got rid of it."

This is not "speculation," it's a newspaper report quoting a source closely-connected to the case, who presumably got her information from the principals. The report that she said that is not speculation, it's a fact. That fact is highly relevant to the case, and it appears in a respected newspaper with a reputation for scrupulous fact-checking. It satisifies Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources: there is no basis for removing it, nor has a credible one been cited.

It's a common error to think that material has to be "true," and editors have to wait until "the truth is known [before] it can be added." The fact of it having been reported in reliable source meets this threshold for inclusion, and calling the actual substance of the quote "speculation" is no basis for excluding it, provided it satisfies Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources -- which this amply does. If it were a basis for exclusion, no quote from anybody could be included unless the truth of what they say could be conclusively proven. Wikipedia doesn't work like that -- because it couldn't, and wasn't meant to.

Moreover, removing this material renders the section unintelligible, and so damages the article: the fact that police have focused attention on supposed blood evidence in a car not rented until 25 days after the girl's disappearance makes little sense unless coupled with the police theory that the evidence got there when the couple supposedly moved the body.

It appears some editors may be attempting to police the article, and may wish to take a moment to review Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the above section on the Aunt. I will repeat what I said in that section for ease of reference.

We have to be extremely careful in an encyclopedic context. My feeling is that we can include what is said by Mr Pinto de Abreu, because he is their official legal respresentative. The police would expect him to make announcements about things like arguido status, and would be quick to contradict him if this were not the case.

I also think that we should consider anything that Kate and Gerry say directly, and things that their official spokeswoman says. However, I don't think we should be including any speculation by "family and friends", including things that the family and friends say they have been said to say by Kate and Gerry, wherever they are quoted. There is clearly a lot of lobbying and spin going on, and Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for that. Once the case is resolved one way or another, the article can be amended to reflect the lobbying etc. that was taking place in the context of the facts that will have come to light.

The only thing verifiable is that the aunt told something to a newspaper. What she said is speculation or opinion, especially when the aunt is saying something that is at third hand. She is attributing to the police something that she can't possibly know at first or even second hand. So we shouldn't include it.

No one is trying to "police the article". This is a sensitive article, with lots of issues surrounding it. It is important that we stay as factual as possible, and agree a consensus on important issues. Ensuring that editors follow that consensus is not "policing". Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the consensus you refer to is false one rooted in a fundamentally flawed understanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and ought to be reviewed once the misunderstanding has been removed: there appears to be a basic confusion of verifiability of the facts with verifiability that something has been published. Wikipedia:Verifiability refers only to the latter. There is no requirement that the facts connected with a quotation be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before the quotation can be included in an article. If there were, half the content of Wikipedia would have to be erased overnight. That's an absurdly high threshold for inclusion, not to be found in any Wikipedia and policy not observed in other articles, and one that seems rather more like a contrivance for keeping out unwanted material. To quote the policy directly, "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." That's all it means.

What is the rationale for sticking only to reports from sources designated "official"? Your objection seems to be that this would subject the article to "lobbying and spin," as if conferring the title "official spokesperson" on somebody somehow rendered them immune from spinning and lobbying. You can't really believe that. In fact, by excluding the statements of others closely-connected with the case, you're guaranteeing that the lobbying and spin of the "official spokespeople" is all that appears in the article. I'm for treating readers of the article like adults, perfectly capable of negotiating a thicket of widely-varying statements and coming out safely on the other side, having formed their own opinions about such statements' relative credibility. I'm not for restricting quotations to "official spokespeople" who are as likely as anybody to trying get their own partial and biased message out. In fact, the unguarded comments of those not staying carefully on-message may turn out to be the most revealing. I'm not talking about including wild speculation from people selected at random in the street, but widely-quoted comments from people closely-connected with the case.

I cannot see how restricting the content of the article to virtual press releases from "official spokespeople" can be equated with "remaining as factual as possible." I don't even see that they really have anything to do with each other. It might have been more defensible when the McCanns were merely seen as victims and witnesses. But now, statements from their "official spokespeople" ought to seen for what they are: comments from heavily-interested parties no doubt attempting to massage the information coming out so it casts them in the best light. The police, who are also under intense pressure and facing widespread criticism, are also no doubt trying to cast themselves in the best light by their official statements. All you're doing is restricting whose spin and lobbying Wikipedia readers get to read about. Who thought that was a good idea? --Rrburke^(talk) 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You know Rrfburke, sometimes short is sweet, so I will answer your long post simply. I will emphasise my answer though. What the aunt is reported as saying fails verifiability because it is third hand. It really is as simple as that. It is not to do with "official" sources as such, but trying to avoid conjecture and opinion, which is the risk you run if you allow people at arms length from the investigation to be considered valid sources. The aunt simply does not reliably know what the police think, so it is not appropriate to add her conjecture or speculation on that point. If you can find first or even second hand sources (as you say you can) as to what the police believe, then by all means add it. Otherwise this debate is sterile and the consensus, which ensures that only first and second hand sources are quoted, should remain.

Don't forget, we are dealing with living people: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." The "source" in the case of what the aunt is saying is the police, not the newspaper. What the newspaper is reporting is the aunt's conjectural interpretation. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It is decidedly not as simple as that, because your understanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability is fundamentally flawed. I don't mean to go on repeating myself, but I don't know how to put this any more clearly: "verifiable," as it's used on Wikipedia, doesn't refer to being able to verify the facts; it refers only to being able to verify the prior publication of the material being added. Readers must be able to verify that the material has previously been published, not that the facts are accurate. In this instance, it means readers must be able to go to the source and verify that Ms McCann actually said what she's quoted as saying. It absolutely does not mean that the truth of what Ms McCann says has to be verified before it can be included. It has never meant that, as a quick look at Wikipedia:Verifiability will confirm. When editors on Wikipedia say that something fails verifiability, they mean, in contrast to the way you used the phrase above, only that a verifiable source for the prior publication of the material in question is absent. It has nothing to do with whether the fact are accurate -- and never has. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It decidely is because my interpretation is not flawed, especially in light of WP:BLP. I am talking about "verifiable" as used in that context, which goes beyond the basic verifiability required by Wikipedia. "Jimmy Wales has said it is better to have no information at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity." Conjectural material in reference to a living person has no place in Wikipedia. In fact, the flaw is in your argument, because you keep referring to what "Ms McCann" says. But we don't know what Ms. McCann says. If she were saying it, either out her own mouth or through her official spokeswoman, that would be an entirely different matter. But she is not. It is being said by a third party. And since we are dealing with something potentially defamatory (an accusation of murder) we have to be extremely careful. But we could debate this all night. Let's see what others think and if a new consensus emerges. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, by Ms McCann I mean Philomena McCann.

"Verifiable" is not used in any special way in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so I don't know what you mean by "'verifiable' as used in that context." It's used exactly as it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, to mean that readers must be able to verify that material being added has previously been published a reliable source. It never means anything else. Wikipedia:Verifiability is cited five times in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and in none of those five instances is any new, special definition of "verifiable" introduced, one that "goes beyond the basic verifiability required by Wikipedia". I'm sorry, but that's false, and a misrepresentation. It means what it always means on Wikipedia.

The only difference is that in cases of living people, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons enjoins editors to make doubly certain that policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability are observed carefully and precisely, and that special care be taken to make sure the sources are especially high-quality. It is always preferable on Wikipedia if the same material can be corroborated from a number of sources. If you dislike my source, I won't be offended: try any of these. I think they include The Times, The New York Times, The Guardian, CTV...

Furthermore, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons makes no mention of "conjectural material". It tells readers to avoid "conjectural interpretation of sources", which would constitute original research. The material in question is not original reseach: it is well-sourced and verifiable and the grounds for excluding it are specious.

One of the particular concerns with articles involving living people is that inaccurate and damaging information might expose Wikipedia libel suits. Wikipedia is not going to be sued for accurately repeating what someone's sister was quoted as saying in dozens of media outlets.

But if you believe there is operating in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons a special definition of "verifiable" that "goes beyond the basic verifiability required by Wikipedia," I ask you to point me and any other interested readers to the passage where that special definition is offered.

And if you believe there is a passage in Wikipedia:Verifiability that will confirm your assertion that "verifiability" refers to the need for facts to be verifiable before being included in an article, and not merely that their having been previously publish needs to be verifiable, I would ask you to point us to that passage as well. --Rrburke^(talk) 20:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now this is getting funny. You say that verifiability is used in "exactly the same way" in WP:BLP and then list a difference! Which is it? In fact, there are several extra mentions concerning verifiability in WP:BLP.

"Furthermore, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons makes no mention of "conjectural material". It tells readers to avoid "conjectural interpretation of sources", which would constitute original research. The material in question is not original reseach: it is well-sourced and verifiable and the grounds for excluding it are specious."

And what is the orignal source for what the police believe? The police! Anything that is not related directly by them, or reported by a source that has direct contact with the police is by definition "conjectural interpretation." It is especially important, in Jimmy Wales' own words, to avoid this, and to leave out anything that is a conjectural interpretation. "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims." What happens if the aunt was misquoted? She is not a reliable source as she does not have direct access to the police and their beliefs. It is better to leave out her comments for now, as Jimmy Wales enjoins us to do.

We have both had three goes at this now. It is time to let others weigh in if they want.

In any event, I have added some quotes from McGuinness whch contextualise the quote about finding the blood. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is being used in exactly the same way: WP:BLP merely requires that it be applied with a more exacting standard of care, not that the definition be changed at all.

You're misunderstanding "conjectural interpretation of sources." The context for understanding this passage is WP:OR, which it refers to and enjoins editors to avoid. It does not refer to conjecture on the part of the person quoted; it tells editors to avoid teasing out implications or making synthetic inferences from published material and to stick precisely to what is directly asserted in the published source.

You're also misunderstanding "source". It doesn't mean the person who was quoted or the person or persons from whom the information originated. It means the organ of publication in which they were quoted, in this case a newspaper. Direct quotations of parties closely connected to a case are not "conjectural interpretation of sources" under any definition. There's no interpretation necessary: they're being directly quoted. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources or WP:SOURCE.

You're right: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully." This material is. It's sourced from at least a dozen highly-respected media outlets. It doesn't violate WP:OR or WP:V. It satisfies them easily. As I said before, Wikipedia is not going to be sued for accurately repeating what someone's sister was quoted as saying in dozens of media outlets.

But I've asked several questions directly which go to the heart of your rationale for reverting my additions. As you haven't answered them, I'll pose them again:

• How does only allowing statements from "official spokespeople" protect the article from "lobbying and spinning" when "official spokespeople" are just as likely to lobby and spin?
• Where in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a special definition of "verifiability" that, to use your words, "goes beyond the basic verifiability required by Wikipedia"
• Where in Wikipedia:Verifiability is there a passage demonstrating that "verifiability" means anything besides the requirement that readers must be able to verify that material being added has previously been published a reliable source?

Finally, I just couldn't let this pass without comment: "Jimmy Wales enjoins us to... leave out her comments for now." Please, Jimbo does nothing of the kind. --Rrburke^(talk) 21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have answered all your questions but obviously not to your satisfaction since you seem to have some particular attachment to your edit. I am talking about reliability. The source is the police. I am mates with the morning presenter on BBC Radio Leicester. I could easily get him to put me on the radio and I could claim to know what the Portuguese police are thinking. Does the fact that what I say is broadcast on the BBC and appears on their website make it reliable? Of course not. Should it appear in Wikipedia? Of course not. So why should what the aunt says, who is very much at arm's length from the investigation, be any more reliable? She has not talked direcly to the police. She has perhaps talked directly to the McCanns, but things could have been misunsterstood. If Wikipedia is going to have any kind of reputation for encyclopedic integrity, we have to be very careful of these sorts of she said he said they said types of things. Official spokes people or people directly involved can be assumed to be reliable in what they are saying.

It's perfectly OK to say "it was reported that..." which is what the article now says, and the source for that are the media outlets that are reporting it. It is not OK to make any factual judgement on those reports and the speculation they contain.

I gave you the direct quote from Jimbo when it comes to how to handle these things in light of WP:BLP. ""Jimmy Wales has said it is better to have no information at all than to include speculation..." That says exactly what I said it says. If and when what is being said stops being speculation it can be included. I am sorry, but the bottom line is that what Philomena McCann says about the PJ remains third hand speculation and we have to handle it carefully.

If verifiability allows Wikipedia to present speculation, rumour and innuendo as fact (rather than just noting that people are engaging in those things and highlighting them for what they are), then we need to serious review the policy, or Wikipedia becomes no better than tabloid journalism. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I have no particular attachment to my edits. I am always happy to have my work improved. What I have is an aversion to an inexperienced editor trying to assume the role of article gatekeeper, obstructing the improvement of the article due to -- I cannot stress this enough -- really basic misunderstandings of key terms and core policies, misunderstandings he or she is unwilling to examine. Everybody has these confusions about such things in the beginning. If you look at earlier portions of my talk page archive, I'm sure there it's full of messages from more experienced editors trying to make me aware that I've misunderstood guidelines, policies and common Wikipedia terms. The difference it that in each case I would actually go and look at the policy in question to see precisely where I went wrong, and not stick stubbornly to my misinterpretation -- or evade the issue, or selectively ignore salient points, or change the subject, or shift ground...

You've so far shown none of the requisite humility a new editor needs to practice in order to feel their way toward a better understanding of these issues, not even to the extent of being willing to actually consult the plain text of a policy when it plainly contradicts what you're saying and concede your error. If you had been willing to do that, the issue of "verifiability" meaning nothing besides being able to check that material has already been published in a reliable source could have been settled immediately, and would never have taken half-a-dozen back-and-forths that even then still left you unconvinced (or, at any rate, unwilling to admit) you'd misunderstood, even though the policy says plainly an unequivocally: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." --Rrburke^(talk) 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how much this note will help because I am saying, in effect 'it all depends'. I am cautious about all third party statements that don't come from either the police or the McCanns. I am uneasy about giving additional credence to the spokeswoman's statements over those of the aunt because we don't really know the status or qualifications of McGuinness. If, for instance, she is a professional advocate then we can rely on her to accurately represent the views of the McCanns since she will be skilled in challenging back what the McCanns say to her to check that McGuinness has the story clear. A relative or unskilled advocate would not be able to do that and their reports may be confused or based on a misunderstanding. I accept that if we eliminate all the statements from the family the article will be denuded of vital information. Consequentially I am inclined to say that we should include statements from named family members provided that they are sourced in a way that shows they have been accepted by reliable sources as accurate. For example, the aunt's claim of a deal being offered should not be reported on the basis of The Guardian report because The Guardian here states "Claims of a "deal" could not be confirmed with either Portuguese police or the McCanns' representatives tonight." Whereas McGuinness's statements about blood in the hire car can be included since a whole range of responsible sources, known for their fact checking, have reported it. In short, we should not immediately add sourced comments by aunts or spokeswomen but wait until they have been established as reliable by multiple reporting from a range of reliable sources. Equally, we can add the 'aunt's deal claim' once the BBC or major broadsheets accept that it is sound. HTH. TerriersFan 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"For example, the aunt's claim of a deal being offered should not be reported on the basis of The Guardian report because The Guardian here states "Claims of a "deal" could not be confirmed with either Portuguese police or the McCanns' representatives tonight." But that's just it. None of the aunt's claims has been confirmed by the PJ or the McCann's spokesman, so why would one thing she says be considered reliable and another not? Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If a newspaper or wire service which is generally considered a reliable source, prionts a story stating that Philomena McCamnn said something, it is permissible to state in this article that Philimena McCann said that thing. Whether the thing is objectively true, or whether the police said it, is not the criterion, as long as we are careful to correctly attribute the statement to the speaker quoted by the paper or the wire service. Edison 02:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But what purpose is served by reporting as fact something that we don't know to be objectively true? That is the crux of my argument. The way the entry was originally presented, it indicated that what Philomena said was true, when in fact Philomena has no direct access to the PJ to know what they think. This is not presented as her opinion. She is attributing thoughts to others which may or may not be true. We can say that this is what she thinks, or that it is being reported, but no more than that. She doesn't accurately know what the PJ think any more than you or I do. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a distinction made between how we treat reported statements from Philomena and such statements from Joe Public (say, eg anonymous speculation on Mrs McCann's use of sedatives in respected Portuguese media), and if so why should such a distinction be made if objective truth is not to be a criterion? TIA--luke 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• "But what purpose is served by reporting as fact something that we don't know to be objectively true? That is the crux of my argument."

And it's precisely the crux of your misunderstanding: Wikipedia is full of things "that we don't know to be objectively true", because "objective truth" is not a standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, and so is not a basis for excluding anything. You will not find "objective truth" referred to in any policy or guideline. If Wikipedia were restricted to things we "know to be objectively true," there wouldn't be any Wikipedia anymore. If you believe there is support for the the use of such a standard in any Wikipedia policy or guideline, I ask you again to point us to the passages in question.

Moreover, what have the statements of McCann spokespeople go to with "objective truth" anyway? If that's the standard for inclusion, then every statement from them will have to be gutted from the article. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the crux of your misunderstanding! Those other things that are included that are not objectively true are opinion, interpretations, different sides to an issue. They are not presented as statements of fact, as this is by someone who has no way of knowing first-hand whether it is fact or not. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please point to a reference to "objective truth" being cited as a standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you present something as fact, you have to objectively be able to demonstrate that it's fact. That is the standard for inclusion of facts. Anything that is factually incorrect, or that you can't show to be factually correct, should be removed. If you allow things to be presented as fact that cannot be objectively demonstrated to be so, Wikipedia comes into disrepute. That is why The Fact Project was set up. In this case, we are quoting someone as saying something is fact when she has no way of knowing firsthand that it is, and we have no way of corroborating what she is saying from official sources. All I am saying is that we have to be very careful when we do that.

This is getting really sterile. You clearly have your interpretation of what the guidelines say, others have theirs. That is why it is important to develop consensus as to how things are handled. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't retreat behind the "everybody has their own interpretation" dodge. This is not about interpretation, but about what the policies and guidelines say in plain English, about how "source" and "verifiable" are defined on Wikipedia. They do not say anything anywhere at all, not even a little, about "objective truth". And WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, which is what project is actually called, is not about achieving "objective truth," but about bringing articles up to the standards set out in Wikipedia:Attribution, which has nothing to do with "objective truth" either: Wikipedia:Attribution summarizes two core policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability -- neither of which refer to "objective truth" either.

• "If you present something as fact, you have to objectively be able to demonstrate that it's fact."

"You absolutely do not "have to objectively be able to demonstrate that it's fact," because Wikipedia articles do not attempt to "present something as fact," but rather to summarize the variety of perspectives on given topic that have already been published in reliable sources. Wikipedia a tertiary source. Wikipedia does not dispatch people to go and verify whether it is "objectively true" that the police found blood evidence in the McCann's rental car: Wikipedia cites reliable, published sources that say that the police found blood evidence in the McCann's rental car. Wikipedia does not include quotations from people closely-connected with an event simply because they are closely connected with the event, but because the quotation of the closely-connected person has already been published in a reliable source. Wikipedia does not quote people, it quotes reliable, published sources. Wikipedia is not in the business of establishing facts, but of summarizing what reliable, published sources say about the facts.

Again, please point to a reference to "objective truth" being cited as a standard for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. --Rrburke^(talk) 16:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And really, what have statements from McCann family designated spokespeople got to do with "objective truth" or demonstrating "objectively" that something is a fact anyway? What you can demonstrate "as fact" is that it's a fact they made statements to reporters. That's no more or no less than you can demonstrate about any statement made by any other other person who has been quoted about developments in the case. The content of their statement fails your test of being able to "objectively... demonstrate that it's fact" -- which has never been a standard used on Wikipedia anyway! --Rrburke^(talk) 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that objective truth is the standard for inclusion in Wkipedia. I am saying that objective truth is the standard for including anything that the editor (or the source that he or she uses) claims to be fact. I am sure that you can see the difference. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be riddled with things presented as fact that simply weren't true. I guess you are then happy for that to be the case, and I can go ahead and edit the article on Canada to say that it is south of the USA. I am sure you would quickly revert any such edit. Why? Because it can be objectively demonstrated not to be true!

We can assume that things like the blood being found are true because the sources quoted have direct access to the case. The problem with your edit which was reverted was that the person making the claim had no direct access to the case, and so was in no position to state what was fact or not, much less what the police is thinking. In fact, Philomena has just been on the BBC saying she has "no idea what the police are thinking"! So there is a contradiction there. The problem with your edit was that it presented her claims as fact. It did not qualify the claims in any way, and we have no way of knowing whether Philomena's claims are true are not. Therefore, if we are going to include them (and the consensus is that we should, and I accept that) then we must highlight the fact that these are only claims. What is wrong with that? As I said, because I know people at BBC Leicester, I could easily go on the air and claim things that were totally false. Should we include my claims as fact on Wikpedia just because they have been aired on the BBC and presumably picked up by other media? I think not!

Through the process of consenus we have now got a version that people seem to be able to live with. I take it you are happy with the current version. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not present her claim as fact, but as having been published by a reliable source. This is a fundamental distinction you are going to have to master or you are going to spend a disproportionate amount of the time and effort you devote to Wikipedia arguing with editors who grasp this simple distinction easily, but who are, for reasons which escape me entirely, totally unable to convey it to you. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Her speculation must be identified as that when it is quoted, as it currently is, and as you didn't do. A claim quoted by a reliable source is still a claim, and it should be highlighted as such. The fact that you haven't reverted the current edit shows that you accept this and the current consensus on how Philemona's speculation should be included. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:V. WP:A and WP:RS do not state that Wikipedia should only contain things that are objectively true, or that are true "as God sees it." Things that are reported by reliable, independent sources may be included in articles, properly attributed to the speaker. Time has a way of rendering some of these content disputes moot. As an exercise, cast your eye to Lindbergh kidnapping, the sad story of the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh Jr. At times there was speculation the father had accidentally killed the infant. A stranger was eventually convicted and executed. Take it as a model in writing and revising this story. There are many turns before the thing is done. Rrburke has a better understanding of WP:V than some other disputants, but I can certainly see merit in all viewpoints. Strive for a neutral point of view, neither convicting nor exonerating anyone. Model the coverage after the wire service style and the article should be reasonably encyclopedic. Try to make this a model of collaborative editing, not an "I win, you lose" game. If you start to see red, step away from the keyboard and do something rewarding in the real world for an hour to allow emotions to subside. Do not try to "have the last word." Edison 21:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate McCann

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate McCann about how best to handle bio information on the McCanns. Since this would affect this article, views from editors are invited. TerriersFan 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted material

I have reverted this edit, with this explanation to the editor, on which any comments are welcome:

"Hi, thank you for your interest in Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The Portuguese media have been discussing, for several weeks, various scenarios, some in lurid detail, and most negative to the McCanns. We have had several discussions and decided not to include them since they are based, in the main, on non-attributed, police sources of unknown reliability. We have also agreed that The Sun is not a reliable source because it has no record of fact checking and more background can be found on The Sun's WP page. We have an over-riding duty to comply with WP:BLP, with which your edit may be incompatible. I am therefore reverting your edit and posting the diff on the talk page to enable other editors to take a view." TerriersFan 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Terriers, lets just wait and see what (if anything) happens, SqueakBox 02:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. It's not like we can't add the information later. Hermitian 02:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the press

I am surprised there hasn't been any criticism of the press included in this article. There are many who are very sceptical of the Portuguese, British and European press in general. Especially, the British press's seeming inability to believe they (The McCann's) could've done wrong 90.197.137.123 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's included in the Reaction article. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't all criticism/reactions be in the same place? I may be wise to move all three sections together in one of the two articles. Codik 10:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Philomena McCann, Gerry's sister, told the media...

"Philomena McCann, Gerry's sister, told the media that the Portuguese police suspected that Kate may have killed her daughter by accident and then hidden the body." I say again, how does she know, first hand, what the Portuguese police believe? And why do we believe this part of what she said and not the part about the deal being offered? Anyone can say anything they want to the media, and it doesn't mean that they know what they are talking about or that it's true. In any event, people can read the source. It doesn't need to be in the article

All we should be saying in an encyclopedia is that it is being reported that the Portuguese police suspected that Kate may have killed her daughter by accident. This is especially important now that the McCanns have arguido status and are prevented by law from saying anything. Should we be party to them trying to circumvent this by using others to spread their version of events when the PJ have no right of reply? There will be time enough for all the facts to come out, and we should wait. Let the media speculate. We don't need to.

I thought we were clear that this article is not part of the campaign to find Madeleine, nor is it a soapbox for those involved in the case. It is about setting out the facts of the case as it occurred in an historical context, nothing more, and we have to be consistent and not slide into speculation. We have an article with a great level of integrity, which is a credit to Wikipedia especiallly given the sensitive nature of the subject, but if we are going to allow standards to slip, I am done editing it. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You make some great points and, actually, I mostly agree with you. My preference is for all the quotes by Philomena McCann to be removed. However, if the bit that the Portuguese police suspected that Kate may have killed her daughter by accident and then hidden the body. is to be in it is better to attribute it (which all the media reports are doing) so that it can be evaluated rather than stating It is reported which is needlessly vague. As I say, I agree with you that we should avoid being a mouthpiece for the family so, if you are not happy, take out all the stuff that has come from Philomena McCann and you have my support. TerriersFan 15:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be OK in this instance. The problem is that what Philomena says is almost certainly true, but she is not the best person to say it in this instance. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you removed the "claim" from what Philomena said TerriersFan. If we can accept claims from someone who can't know something first hand as fact, then Wikipedia will become even more of a laughing stock than it already is. If the standard of "verifiability" of facts can include claims along the line of "he said that she said that they said" and consider that factual and encyclopedic, then Wikipedia is useless. We have to be clear that these things are claims from someone who may well know, but is not in a postition to know for sure what the police are thinking. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave a long explanation of my position in the section above. Let me clarify. The 'claim' is being regarded as dubious by responsible media. The Guardian states it cannot verify the claim, other sources are referring to it as the 'alleged claim', and a newspaper editor in Portugal states that the police have no power to make deals. The other quotes by the aunt are being accepted as valid but since they cannot be verified are being attributed to Philomena.

We have three levels of reporting:

1. The RS says XYZ - that means it can verify the story
2. The RS says Mr/Mrs ABC says XYZ - that means it is probably true but they can't verify it
3. The RS says Mr/Mrs alleges XYZ or claims XYZ - that means it is unreliable.

Surely that's a reasonable and clear position? TerriersFan 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But what I see is a situation where Philomena says the McCanns said the police said... Now I am pretty sure that what Philomena says is accurate, but I don't see that scenario covered by the above. Surely unless the police are saying directly what they think, anyone who says they know what they think is making a claim. It is perfectly acceptable to report what a third party (Philomena in this case) understands to be the situation, but it should be made clear that she can't know for sure what the situation is. That is why the word "claim" ("allege" is used in other circumstances) is important I feel, but I will bow to your greater experience. Harry was a white dog with black spots 22:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified one point. That is that we report scenario 1, we report scenario 2 attributed, but we don't report scenario 3. However, I have made an alternative suggestion, to try to pick a path through this, and that is to put both scenarios 2 and 3 in the Response article and scenario 1 in the main article. TerriersFan 22:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Order of sections

Nothing in the article is strictly chronological. We need to balance chronology with sequencing the more important events. Therefore, though the McCanns were suspected after other suspects, the important sequences are Murat as arguido, McCanns as arquido/arguida, and then other suspects who are not arquido. TerriersFan 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with family statements

We need a consistent approach to dealing with family statements. Pragmatically, I think that we should accept statements by the McCanns lawyer or by McGuinness as authoritative and deserving of a place in the main article. However, statements by the family, including Philomena McCann, are of uncertain reliability. My suggestion is that we put all these family statements in a Response by the family section in the Response article and link to them from the summary of the Response article in the main article. Is that a reasonable way forward? TerriersFan 21:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was what we had already agreed as a consensus, which is why I reverted Rrburke's edit until we could confirm or otherwise what Philemona was saying. I found it odd in the light of the fact that the McCanns are (presumably still) suing a Portuguese newspaper for saying almost exactly what Philemona said (ie the PJ believe that the McCanns killed their child etc.)

My main concern is that Philemona was attributing things to the police that she had no real basis for knowing (and some of which as you have noted has since been contradicted). This morning she is on TV saying things like "I am furious" and "the rest of the family are furious". That is the distinction. She knows how she feels. She doesn't really know what the PJ are thinking, and to include her speculation in what is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia without any qualification seems odd to me.

But yes, a separate section is an excellent idea. That way the material can be included, but people can make up their own minds as to reliability. Harry was a white dog with black spots 05:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the parents

Why is there no mention of the fact that the parents clearly neglected this child? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.181.93 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the parents in this regard is contained in the article. Whether their actions amounted to neglect is a POV and we don't make unsourced allegations. TerriersFan 22:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What planet are you from neglect - "unsupervised" same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.181.93 (talk • contribs)

'Unsupervised' is a fact; 'neglect' is a legal judgement. The authorities have investigated and no action for 'neglect' has been brought (the authorities investigation is in the article). TerriersFan 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and please take some time out to read WP:CIVIL. TerriersFan 22:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Blood

Hi. I thought I'd ask here as you regular editors of this page will be most knowledgeable about this. On the Kate and Gerry as suspects section, it says blood was found in the car but yesterday's Independent (9th Sep here in the UK) stated that it was DNA and not confirmed as blood. Was it blood that was found or DNA? It's a confusing issue because there are so many sources. Thanks. Seraphim ^Whipp 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is almost certainly either blood or other body fluids. What has happened is that the Birmingham lab has extracted DNA from the samples. You can't find DNA; you find something from which the DNA can be extracted and typed. The debate at the moment is whether it is possible to accurately extract DNA from samples so old and whether, in any case, the car could have become contaminated. I'll look out the Indie website and come back here if I need to correct/clarify anything in the light of its reports. TerriersFan 23:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response and excellent explanation. :-).

Seraphim ^Whipp 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have dug out the Indie source here and where it refers to DNA samples I am still going with my reading, above. TerriersFan 23:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)