Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

What about a timeline of the events?

Would someone like to do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.217.118 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). TerriersFan 21:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

we will add in a timeline if that is ok with everyone else. KTPH (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't immediately add in a timeline because it is unlikely to be satisfactory in one editing session and it would be removed. For a timeline to be acceptable it needs to be:

• Accurate
• Complete
• Fully sourced.

Each item in the timeline will need a reliable source by it. I have created the page User:KTPH/Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - Timeline where you can develop the timeline and other editors will be able to contribute. Once it has been agreed it can be moved across. TerriersFan (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actions after protection ends

1. We are now getting some well sourced information.

These quotes:

• Kate: "The police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us."
• Gerry: "We are being absolutely stitched up." from here.

I think that the statement from the aunt should come out and be replaced by these quotes.

1. We have a confirmed statement from Pinto de Abreu that the so called deal was actually a misunderstanding. from here.
2. We also have clear guidance from de Sousa as to the next steps that should go in from here.
3. We should include "Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has said she is satisfied with the way Portuguese police have conducted the investigation." from here. TerriersFan 02:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I know this is pathetic nitpicking on my part, but "Olegário de Sousa" should either be referred to as "Sousa" (not actually acceptable, as per common practice) or "Olegário de Sousa" (in full), but not as "de Sousa" - refer to subsection "De Abreu?", above. Mip | Talk 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. (Gosh we are learning a lot about Portuguese law and culture.) His full family name is "de Sousa" but it's not considered correct to refer to him only by his family name? Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not normal to use his full family name. Mip is exactly right: take out the 'de' or use his full name. There are some examples of 'Sousa' in the article already; I'll alter the rest tomorrow if need be. Rothorpe 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias and rumour

"Unidentified experts are reported to be questioning the strength of the scientific evidence" This is not objective reporting. "Unidentified" and "are said to be" are just rumours or invention, an attempt to impose a biased point of view with no evidence. Wmck 09:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not "unidentified" and the article doesn't say they are in the section about the McCanns being suspects. The experts are clearly identified in the references. Harry was a white dog with black spots 10:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been changed now - "unidentified" and "are said to be" has been removed. However it is still propaganda rather than objectivity without names and qualifications of the "experts." Wmck 10:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that is the purpose of the source. Click on the little number at the end of the sentence. This will lead you to a link to a newpaper article. Click on that link and you will see that the article describes who the experts are. Harry was a white dog with black spots 10:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So the tabloid press are a reliable source? Thy article leads to reports in the notoriously sensationalist UK gutter press. For every "expert" view there is an equally valid contradictory one. Believe what you like, but it's still not objective reporting.Wmck 10:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is not "the tabloid press" and easily meets the criteria as set out under Reliable Sources. If you can find a well-sourced expert view that contradicts what is in the Telegraph article, it can be added for balance. Harry was a white dog with black spots 10:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence is not accurate, in part because it does not give notice to the fact that there has been a prompt cooperation of high-profile media managers in the Madeleine disappearance affair.

This is what Wikipedia wrote:

"The disappearance and its aftermath are notable for the breadth and longevity of the media coverage. This was initially due to the active involvement of the parents in publicising the case and to several awareness-raising campaigns by international celebrities and, latterly, to the interest that arose from the parents being named as suspects."

Well as you can read in the Portuguese weekly magazine Expresso today, 15 September 2007, "The British Government took care, in an unprecedented gesture, of the media management" (of Madeleine's disappearance case.) Accordingly to Expresso, Gerry and Kate McCann got support from Alex Woolfall, a 'crisis management' expert working for Bell Portinger. Woolfall and Portinger, initially working for Mark Warner, Ocean Club owner, were the authors of Madeleine media campaign. Nevertheless this media case went out of proportions only after Sheree Dodd and Clarence Mitchell (working for the British Government) entered the media Merry-go-Round. I am not editor of Madeleine's disappearance case (who is?) but I think that sooner or later you will have to take care of this side of the story in an "objective" account of it. OAM1952 23:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To substantiate my previous observation, please take care of the following:

The Scotsman, Fri 18 May 2007 Tireless PR keeps Madeleine in mind FERGUS SHEPPARD

"HER image is everywhere and her story has dominated news headlines since 3 May. On television, print, radio and the web, the hunt for toddler Madeleine McCann has captivated the emotions and interest of millions.

But in a world of 24/7 news coverage, even human trauma needs to be properly organised.

The journalists camped in Praia da Luz and the countless news outlets covering the story in the UK and elsewhere have been on the end of a sophisticated news-management machine designed to ensure that, as days pass with no word of Madeleine's whereabouts, the story does not fade."

(...)

"The media handling of the story fell to Alex Woolfall from the Bell Pottinger PR group. Set up by Lord Bell - known as Mrs Thatcher's favourite adman for his work for the Conservatives - one of the services Bell Pottinger offers is "crisis management".

"The holiday company Mark Warner - owners of the Ocean Club resort from where the four-year-old was taken - already retains one of Bell Pottinger's companies, Resonate, for ordinary PR. But when the scale of the story became apparent, Mr Woolfall, whose job title is "head of issues and crisis management", was immediately sent to Portugal with a support team.

"A Mark Warner company official told The Scotsman: "Alex Woolfall is very experienced and was a fantastic asset to the family. "What Kate and Gerry wanted to do was to get this on the news agenda and make this as big as possible, so that people don't forget."

"Mr Woolfall returned to London on Tuesday, and that night the Foreign and Commonwealth Office installed one of its own press officers as the McCann family's official press contact in Praia da Luz."

Tireless PR keeps Madeleine in mind OAM1952 01:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And more authorized sources on the same subject:

Telegraph.co.uk

Madeleine McCann's parents seek PR figure

By Caroline Gammell in Praia da Luz | Last Updated: 7:56pm BST 13/09/2007

The publicity surrounding their case has soared since they were officially named as suspects in disappearance of their daughter by Portuguese police and they are thought to have wanted a more heavyweight representative.

Until now they have been relying on the skills of former Liberal Democrat candidate Justine McGuinness, 37, who was appointed to head the find madeleine campaign in June.

She was employed through a headhunter hired by the McCanns but is due to stand down today, a move that had been expected.

The couple are believed to have been in talks with several big name players in the PR industry. They know the furore over their case will not die down until there is an answer to what happened to their daughter.

One of the leading contenders is the former News of the World and Hello! editor Phil Hall who has been in regular contact with the couple since Madeleine disappeared.

Now the head of his own PR firm, Mr Hall is understood to be considering taking over the mantle.

Madeleine McCann's parents seek PR figure

From The Times | September 8, 2007

How couple helped to build 'brand McCann' into global phenomenon

Skilful media handlers recruited celebrities and world leaders to a campaign driven by parents’ acceptance of the press as partners

Dominic Kennedy and David Brown

"Nobody could guess, when the news broke on May 3 that a British child had gone missing, that the riddle would eclipse any crime story of the internet age. What became “brand Madeleine” arose from a combination of brilliant media-handling skills and, for the first time, interactive websites telling editors how much the public craved such a story."

"Fortunately, the Mark Warner organisation that runs the holiday camp where Madeleine disappeared was represented by one of the best PRs in the business.

Alex Woolfall is crisis management head at Bell Pottinger, the public relations outfit headed by the original sultan of spin, Lord Bell. Mr Woolfall’s main clients have included that other global brand Coca-Cola.

For the first fortnight after Madeleine disappeared, he was on the spot in Praia da Luz, acting as gobetween for the family and the growing pack of journalists."

"In an unprecedented move, the Government took over news-handling on behalf of the McCanns. Sheree Dodd, a former Daily Mirror journalist and long-serving senior spokeswoman for the Government, was dispatched to Portugal. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced that she was being deployed as “press officer responsible to act as media liaison officer for the McCann family”.

After a couple of weeks, she was replaced by an even more prominent political figure. Clarence Mitchell, a former BBC News presenter now working as a senior government spin-doctor, became the voice of the McCanns. He was described formally as providing “consular support in exceptional circumstances”. His costs came to just over £6,000, and Ms Dodd’s are likely to be similar."

How couple helped to build ‘brand McCann’ into global phenomenon OAM1952 02:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

De Sousa's comments about closing the case

"De Sousa has stated that the investigation would only end when the case file was complete and the findings handed to the public prosecutor, who decides on any charges."

The ref on this quote is broken, and the quote itself seems a little odd to me. Is De Sousa really saying that once the case file is handed to the prosecutor, the investigation ends? In other words, that's it, and there will be no more effort either to find Madeleine or those responsible for her disappearance if neither the McCanns nor Murat are charged (as I understand it, they are the only three who could be charged at this stage)? We have learned a lot about the intricacies of Portuguese law, but surely the police won't stop looking for Madeleine, or other suspects if the prosecutor is not satisfied with the ones they have identified so far. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The investigation COULD only end (not WOULD) after evidence has been handed to the public prosecutor.

For clarification - upon receiving the evidence, the prosecutor can do one of three things:

1) Decide that there is enough evidence to prosecute (terminating the ongoing investigation)

2) Decide that there is no decent evidence at all, and drop charges

3) Decide that there is circumstantial evidence, and ask for further investigative action.

For some decent quotes, see [1]Mip | Talk 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but that's not what the article said, and we can't check the source as the link is broken. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I have now fixed the broken reference. TerriersFan 17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Well it does quote De Sousa as saying "will", not "would" It does seem odd, but something might have been lost in translation. Do we need to do anything to reconcile this discrepancy? Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find a decent article where he is quoted in Portuguese.Mip | Talk 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mip. I have now read every report that I can get my hands on, including translations of Portuguese reports, and it is quite clear that the police regard the solution to this case as lying with the actions of the McCanns. In the event that they are not able to successfully prosecute a case IMHO that would, for all practical purposes, mark the end of the investigation. TerriersFan 18:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that's how I read it too. "We are not pursuing any other lines of enquiry..." But there remains the fact of a missing girl, and I take that to mean they are not going to continue looking for her. Of course one would guess that if Madeleine wer found, the investigation would re-open, because in that event there would certainly be new evidence. But the police will stop seeking that evidence it seems assuming that no one is convicted based on the evidence they currently have. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now altered the 'would' to 'will' for accuracy. I also think, like you, that they will stop looking. For me, the problem with the theory that she might be alive is that there is £2 million of rewards out there and surely that would have loosened tongues? TerriersFan 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Swedish media says breakthrough has been reached. BBC and CNN still says nothing

Heads up! Swedish media says it has been confirmed that the blood that has been found in the rental car matches "to a great extend" the blood/DNA of Madeleine. The articles say the quality of the blood is good enough to raise suspicion but might not be good enough to convince the prosecutor to bring her parents to trial.

Swedish media has some times been faster than BBC and CNN. I'm telling you all this so you can be ready and start digging... not that I want someone to change the article and use these swedish articles as source.

PureRumble 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This has in fact been widely reported in various media around the world. But thanks for the heads up. I think the article currently says all it can on the subject. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No... blood was found, and they decided to investigate it. It was never closely linked to Madeleine. Now it has been confirmed (ACCORDING to the swedish articles). I was just watching www.dn.se and www.svd.se. First they said nothing about this at all, and the front pages were about something else. All of a sudden these articles hit top of front page. They would not do this unless it is something new. And BBC and CNN is still empty on front pages about Madeleine. I watched this just 30 seconds ago. PureRumble 21:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)

Have a look at the most recent edit to the article. SKY news is reporting this. It has been reported for some days now that blood/DNA that was Madeleine's was found in the car. What has changed is that police appear to have leaked some details. It doesn't add very much new, but it s fairly good confirmation of what had been speculation up to now. Feel free to edit the article if there is anything you feel you can add from the sources you are aware of. Harry was a white dog with black spots 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on this you are right. I missed Sky News article. They have already reported this, and the swedish SVD-article is in fact referring to SKY News. But I'm not sure on your statement that "it has been reported for some days" now that the girls blood was found in the car. If this is true, then how come the most recent BBC-article says nothing about this? All the BBC-article says is that the police suggested this to her mother during an interview, but not that it had been confirmed in any way. The last update on the BBC-article is "Monday, 10 September 2007, 17:33 GMT 18:33 UK". PureRumble 21:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PureRumble (talk • contribs)

Yes, there has been some confusion. Some sources refer to blood, others to DNA, still others to both! What has been reported for soome days is that Madeleine's DNA (presumably from blood but possibly from another source) was found in the hire car. What is new tonight is what appears to be definite confirmation from the police and their assertion that Madeleine's body was almost certainly in the car. Harry was a white dog with black spots 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Times of London is now saying

"A police file of evidence which allegedly proves that Kate McCann killed her daughter is expected to be handed to a public prosecutor in Portugal today."

"Detectives believe they have now collected enough evidence for Mrs McCann to be charged with the homicide of Madeleine by failing to prevent her death. The charge is equivalent to manslaughter in British law. She would also face a charge of concealing Madeleine’s body." Looks like the clock is ticking. Hermitian 21:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "British Law." There is very different English and Scottish Law. "Manslaughter" only exists in English law. Scotland, like most of Europe, has "homicide."Wmck 22:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Silver bullet?

It has always struck me that the police need to have a silver bullet in addition to the forensic evidence. It could be this "The files are also believed to include details from intercepted emails and tapped phone calls made between the McCanns and their friends." from here. However, I don't think we should add it to the article until the file has been handed over and we know what is actually in it. The BBC are reporting that that is unlikely to be tonight. Likewise with the social services visit - I think we should wait until a visit has actually been set up. TerriersFan 21:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Smoking gun trumps the Silver bullet. It sounds too speculative at this point. We have to resist the urge to be a tabloid filled with breaking news, scoops, spin, and rumors. The Portuguese law reportedly forbids the arguidos or the police releasing details of the investigation, unlike the common "trials in the media" in the U.S., where prosecutors seek to place the accused in a bad light with the potential jurors and the suspect's lawyer seeks to show he is innocent of any wrongdoing, is framed, is a "victim of circumstances" etc. Anything being leaked to the papers is likely to have a "spin doctoring" goal at this point. I have argued that statements by persons related to the case (the parents, their familial spokesmen and "close relatives", the police, the prosecutors) could be added to the article if carefully sourced to the speaker and not as objective facts, but some of this stuff is not sourced to any individual, and so falls below that bar, and seems to run afoul of WP:BLP's requirement that derogatory information must be well sourced. Vague and anonymous rumors printed in a well regarded newspaper do not seem "well sourced." A professor of mine used to say "I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food." When the newspaper articles preface claims of impending arrests or of evidence turning up with the passive voice "It is reported that.." I expect the old beetle's antennae quiver at maximum velocity. Edison 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no dissention with this which is why, as I say above, that the two matters to which I refer should not be included as yet. I have rewritten the 'DNA match' to clearly attribute it to Brunt since, as you suggest, he may have been subject to spin. TerriersFan 00:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This highlights the problem of rushing to add the latest development, no matter how well sourced. What the police were supposed to have said about Madeleine's body being almost definitely in the car was certainly well sourced, but it has been definitely contradicted. One of the aspects of Wikipedia is that "we are not on a deadline". We do not need to be the first to report every little twist and turn. And just because something is well sourced and verifiable doesn't make it accurate. Accuracy has to be paramount, especially when dealing with issues covered by WP:BLP. My professor called them alarms bells; you should never ignore alarm bells (but dung beetles is better!). It shouldn't be a question of how reliable a source generally is, but how reliable it is in each instance, surely. If a generally reliable source is quoting someone as saying something that is obviously bollocks - the NY Times reports, "John said he visited Zurich, the capital of Switzerland" for example - we should not rely on that source in that instance to change the Switzerland article to say "Zurich is the capital of Switzerland". Likewise for some of the things that otherwise reliable sources have been reporting in this case. We should definitely qualify anything that is not a directly attributable fact - "X believes that Y is the case" rather than "X says he knows Y is the case" or similar wording which implies knowledge that can't be independently confirmed. We should definitely be on the look out for dung, and be very, very careful. For most articles it's not really an issue, but this is certainly one of the most sensitive of the two million articles on Wikipedia, and a lot of work has gone in to making sure that it is not sensationalist or POV. Harry was a white dog with black spots 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still fairly POV

Many people in Portugal, the UK and elsewhere, are starting to realise that the British media chooses to disseminate to their readers the developments in this case under the guise of "slurs and smears", determinedly rubbishing the integrity of the Portugese police, people, national institutions and press. Obviously, UK's reporters don't know, or don't care to know the Portuguese legal system or the reputation of PJ, but they would be more wise if they had shown a little respect for these institutions. It is clear that Portuguese society tolerated and supported Madeleine's parents and the British media circus for too long, but for the other side, the couple left the country in the worst moment to do that. Many people are forgetting that the investigation's developments of Portuguese police which cooperated to some extent with the British police (a very common practice since the crime happened among British citizens and the two European countries belong to Europol) are not the most important thing. There was a little innocent girl who vanished from this world, and she was the reason for this article has started. Page Up 00:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the media in both countries can be fairly criticised. The UK media have certainly been too hard on the Portuguese police but OTOH the Portuguese media have been printing, almost on a daily basis, unsourced accusations {?"slurs and smears"} against the McCanns (hence their libel action). In the Response article we address the issue and say:

"The British media has been criticised for being heavily critical the Portuguese police and legal system. The Guardian noted that the British media compared the Portuguese procedures with British procedures unfavourably and unfairly. Likewise, The Times published an editorial entitled "Exactly how guilty are the Portuguese police?" and stated that there had been a rush to judge the Portuguese authorities."

TerriersFan 01:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The media in both countries can be criticized? How so? Coverage in the British media is rather favorable to the McCanns. The Portuguese press, on the other hand, hasn't nearly devoted as much ink to the case as the British has; certainly they didn't print "slurs and smears", and most certainly not every single day, as you allege. TerriersFan, you seem to know where those slurs are, could you point those out? The rest of the world mostly didn't care. The NY Times had one or two articles early this week, CNN had one report this Monday IIRC.

I'd propose that the section in the article should be called "Criticism of the Portuguese police in the British media. 70.16.220.156 01:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Prosecutor To Hand Over Files To Judge

The BBC are reporting that the Public Prosecutor has unexpectedly decided to pass the Police files to a judge after only a few hours: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6989960.stm. Apparently, this is a significant development. Shouldn't the article be updated ASAP ? I would do it myself, but I don't wish to tread on anybody's toes, least of all the regular editors of this excellent article. Wiganwoking 19:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Already updated but many thanks for the alert. TerriersFan

It has just been by TerriersFan. Don't worry about stepping on toes. All well-sourced, relevant edits are appreciated. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, my right big toe has always been a bit sensitive but we won't go there:-) There is some good stuff in the latest agency wires but I need to wait for them to get added to the major media sources before I can add them to the article. (The web sources for the wires go on temporary pages.) TerriersFan 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Biography section

At the moment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate McCann is ongoing with recommendations all over the place. Whatever the result, I think that we need to take a view as to whether we should split the Biography section, since the question of a Gerry article will still be open in any case. At the moment, this section is solely a bio of Madeleine but could be readily split into three sub-sections with short bios on each of the three key family members. May we have views as to whether this is a good idea, please? TerriersFan 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea. Rothorpe 13:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Are they in the UK or in Portugal right now?

This Monday, September 10th, German Der Spiegel (print version) reported that since Kate McCann has been officially declared a suspect on Friday, the McCanns are not allowed to leave the country anymore of their own free will, and that a judge has 10 days to decide whether he'll change their temporary house arrest in the Agarve lasting since her declaration as suspect into a permanent one. On the other hand BBC says they flew back to the UK on Sunday, September 9th. So where are they? --Tlatosmd 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

They are at home in England - the TV had footage of them arriving back in the UK. TerriersFan 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So either they violated their current legal restrictions, or somebody got something wrong about their legal status since Friday. --Tlatosmd 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When the police applied arguido status to the McCanns the police could have asked the courts to restrict the McCanns' movements/residency but they didn't so they were free to leave. In the present process a judge has 10 days to take various actions that could involve ordering them back to Portugal but that may require a European Arrest Warrant to enforce. TerriersFan 22:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Spiegel, it was officially announced on Friday that they have no right to leave Portugal. --Tlatosmd 22:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case they were wrong, see here; remember - get your facts from Wikipedia, the source you can trust :-) TerriersFan 22:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That link provides no more than the definition of the Portuguese arguido which you can also find under arguido in Wikipedia. That BBC link would be a stronger case at least for their arrival in the UK. --Tlatosmd 23:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

there are 100s of links to that effect - Spiegel was clearly wrong - otherwise, I'd have to wonder about the police escort they had to the airport.. (and the one they had the over side back in england) plus the fact that nobody/not a single source has shouted "bailjumpers!" --Fredrick day 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to the disappearance / Gordon Brown

Clarence Mitchell, the Foreign Office liaison officer for the McCann family, told the following to Times Online, May 27, 2007:

“I can confirm that approaches have been made to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and to the British ambassador to the Holy See and we are certainly exploring the possibility of Gerry and Kate McCann visiting Rome to meet the Pope in the near future.”

He also said, accordingly to the same Times Online edition that Portuguese detectives

"only released the description (of a suspect of abducting Madeleine) after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister in waiting, intervened with the Portuguese authorities last week."

From here one should stress that criticism should also be pointed out to high-ranking politicians in Great Britain, like Gordon Brown (to whom Gerry McCann has called more than once), as far as the Madeleine McCann case concerns. The danger of a global media fiasco is in part due to a precipitated envolvement of the now Prime Minister of Great Britain in a police case.

The following commentary, posted by a blogger to Mirror.co.uk, deserves attention as well as an adequate reference in Wikipedia. Author: Missy

"One question that repeatedly strikes me when reading about Team McCann - is the fact that everyone is asking why our media have been so coy about being critical about the McCann's or their negligent behaviour.

I am really beginning to wonder who is behind gagging our press and I am increasingly suspicious about the role of Clarence Mitchell, who in some reports is described as the McCann's press officer but in other reports is described as a FORERIGN OFFICE OFFICIAL.

If Mr Mitchell is a foreign office employee, who is acting as a press officer/Spin doctor for Team McCann then does this mean that we mugs...i.e. the British Taxpayer are footing the bill for Team McCann's media circus. Shouldn't they pay for their own spin doctor via their holiday fund (sorry meant fighting fund)?

Furthermore, you may be interested to know that the last job which I found that Clarence Mitchell held was director of the Government's Media Monitoring Unit - could this explain why the press have been gagged? -after all this man, who can be seen in most Team McCann photo shoots, obviously holds alot more significance with the media and the government than we perhaps realise.

Now I know that it is terrible that a child is abducted but why have the government leant out their top media man to act as a spin doctor?....am I becomming paranoid or is something just not right here?" -- Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: McCann Circus - Who is paying Clarence Mitchell's Wages?

OAM1952 11 September 2007.

In the subsidiary article we mention both the visit to the Pope and the involvement of Brown. We don't regard the Red tops, though, as reliable sources and certainly blogs aren't. The Portuguese papers have been vociferous in their criticism of the McCanns but apparently based on leaks from unspecified police sources. The British papers have been more reticent simply because of the dearth of sourced material - every official utterance by the Portuguese authorities gets reported. Whether there is a cover up I can't know (presumably a cover up gets covered up?) but I have monitored the media closely, on a daily basis, and I see no evidence of it. Once the Portuguese authorities disclose the nature of the accusations against the McCanns I am sure that they will get fully reported. TerriersFan 00:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Clarence Mitchell, the Foreign Office liaison officer for the McCann family, mentioned? Wouldn't be relevant to mention it anyway? OAM1952 12:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the link between Mitchell's role as a government officer and as a McCann spokesman can be reliably sourced then, yes, it should go into the response article. TerriersFan 11:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed comments as per WP:BLP. This is speculation at best. You cannot make unsubstantiated allegations. Please visit WP:BLP and acquaint yourself with the contents. If you restore this section again, I will no longer assume good faith. Also removing edit in Portuguese. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry seems to be not a white dog, but a MI-5 agent! Stop erasing constructive comments!!

OAM1952 21:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making unsourced allegations against a living individual in violation of WP:BLP. The fact that some of phrased as questions are irrelevant. Because they are unsourced, they would not be used in the article anyway, so they are not suitable to be discussed on the article's talk page. I will now place a second warning on your talk page. If you ignore that warning, you will be reported. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that we have all got the message from OAM1952 now. A sourced denial that McCann met Murat is in the article so that clearly raises and records the point in a sourced manner. We can only put in the suggestion more specifically if clearly backed up by reliable sources. Please note that in the UK a tough line is taken on libel. TerriersFan 20:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased style of reporting - "Murat" "Kate" and "Gerry"

There are thee suspects, Robert Murat, Kate McCann and Gerry McCann. However the article shows bias by referring contemptibly to the first as "Murat," second name only and to he other two in a more friendly fashion by their first names, Kate and Gerry. This is not objective as it shows hostility to the first and sympathy to the other two. "Mr." or "Robert" Murat should be used, as should "Doctors" or "Mr. and Mrs." McCann to give them equal dignity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmck (talk • contribs) 09:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts.

This has been discussed at length on the talk page, and a consensus has been established after much debate. Please go back over the archive. Basically, we decided on this formulation because a) we have decided not to use titles in the article and b) there are two suspects named McCann, both of whom are medical doctors, and who would be referred to as Dr. McCann in any case, leaving the reader confused as to which was meant. We therefore use first names to differentiate these two suspects from each other. This is not necessary in the case of Murat, as there is only one suspect with that last name. It is not bias, or showing "sympathy", it is simply a practicality to avoid having the article riddled by Dr., Mr., Insp. etc. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is normal on Wikipedia, after the first reference to refer to the person simply by their last name. If you look at Tony Blair you will find, below the contents, several paragraphs that start "Blair ..." This is not "referring contemptibly"; it is normal Wikipedia practice. In this article most participants are referred to by their last name after first mention, not only Robert Murat but, for example Justine McGuinness, José Cunha de Magalhães e Meneses, Olegário de Sousa and so on. The reason why we refer to the McCanns by their first names is not to be friendly but to disambiguate - there are three main players all with the same last name. When we collectively refer to them then that is as 'the McCanns' not as Kate and Gerry. I hope this helps. TerriersFan 10:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dawn, Jennifer and Robert Murat are all mentioned, so why not refer to them by first names like Madeleine Kate and Gerry? It is treating them differentially. Apply the same rules to both. Using a surname only is disrespectful. especially when done differentially as here.Wmck 13:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As explained, please read the explanation in the archived discussion. There is nothing disrespectful about it and there are valid reasons why it is done. It is clear in the context when we are referring to Robert. There is no posibility he would be confused with Dawn and Jennifer, who are not suspects, and mentioned only briefly (Dawn is mentioned only once, as "Dawn Murat"). Both McCann's are suspects, and this is the easiest way to distinguish between them without confusion (because both have the same title and last name) while still abiding by Wikipedia policy. Harry was a white dog with black spots 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the way naming has been done in the article, but I think part of why the article's tone towards the McCanns seems informal is because the name Gerry is a diminutive of his given name Gerald, which would be the name on, say, his passport or court papers. I'm not saying this is wrong; he's not known as Gerald, and to do so would be as eccentric and pedantic as to refer to Tony Blair as Antony Blair, but it does affect the tone of the article, because diminutives, like first names, have connotations of familiarity. Swirus 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann (Protected redirect?)

How could we make a page for "Madeleine McCann" if it is protected redirect? (This is not a bio page .. so the inf box was removed) Elmao 10:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

When this article was created it was originally called "Madeleine McCann". That page was immediately nominated for deletion. It was argued (correctly IMHO) that a bio article on the girl did not meet Wikipedia standards, but an article about the events and media coverage surrounding her disappearance did. The result of the AfD discussion was that this article be created, and "Madeleine McCann" be redirected here with a protected redirect. Obviously, if some time in the future Madeleine becomes notable for something other than having disappeared, the matter will be reconsidered. Harry was a white dog with black spots 10:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see :) thx Elmao 10:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's horribly picky. There are several random people that were murdered and or had unsolved kidnapping cases that are on here that aren't even as famous as her name has become. She shouldn't have to die to get her own page. It should be made all about her, so people can reference about the little girl that got kidnapped, not just some excerpt. It is proven that with pictures and information one will feel more compassionate and hopeful for her discovery.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.118.30 (talk • contribs)

Missing references

(Section deleted by User:Rrburke per WP:BLP concerns)

If the allegations (incorrectly presented by another editor as referenced facts) are removed from the talk page (as you did) which is permissible under (WP:BLP)) then there is no need to have a comment (such as mine) criticizing them and explaining BLP policy. I feel there could be discussion of allegations on the talk page (qualified as allegations) if they were sourced to the public prosecutor, the police spokesman, or if the accused or his spokesman or lawyer commented on the accusations to the press, or if they sued someone for saying it or printing it. That is sometimes how rumors or allegations become news. In some circumstances, the allegations could be included on the article page, with the clear qualification that they were only allegations, and sourced to multiple reliable and independent source such as a wire service reporting one of the above events. My view is that even with multiple wire service reports of an allegation, we should know who made the allegation, screening out anonymous whisper campaigns and spin doctoring. We need the talk page available to determine if there is a critical mass for including derogatory info on the main page of the article. If not here, then where? Anonymous acccusations per se do not belong in an article, but there was extended discussion of anonymous allegations on the Larry Craig talk page (now archived at Talk:Larry Craig/Archive 1). Policies such as BLP are largely influenced by what happens in AFDs, in DRVs, in actual article editing, and in dispute resolution, as much as by editors acting as a deliberative body debating on the talk page of the policy. So we do not always scrub all discussion of allegations from the talk page, even if they are too weakly sourced to go on the article page, as long as it is kept clear that we are discussing allegations which have been reported in a reliable source (as allegations) and whether they have gained enough secondary discussion in the mainstream press, for the purpose of improving the article (and not acting as a gossipy blog). There are probably cases where even the discussion should be cleaned out by office action, but that is not always the practice. AFDs and even Requests for Adminship have been similarly scrubbed. Some experienced editors or admins would doubtless set a different standard. An explanation should be left on the talk page of the person who posted the allegations, referring him to WP:BLP, since he will find that the contributions to the talk page have disappeared and might repost them without searching the page history. Everyone was a new editor at some point. If admin assistance is ever needed, as in a WP:3RR situation, the matter can be posted at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where other opinions or assistance can be solicited. Edison 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, removing allegations as above. Let us be clear: There is not one shred of evidence for the allegations being made. They are conjecture and supposition, and clearly do not meet WP:BLP. The sources quoted either make allegations with no evidence to back them up, or report that the allegations are being made but that there is no evidence to support them. Either way, to include those allegations here is libellous. Harry was a white dog with black spots 12:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to go beyond WP:BLP to forbid editors such as Mechanismo from even discussing here a newspaper article in the Daily Mail which makes statements attributed to "senior Portuguese contacts." Is the Daily Mail considered a completely unreliable source, so that nothing in it can be taken seriously, such as the Peter Allen story of September 14[2] which was deleted from this page by User:Harry was a white dog with black spots? The Wikipedia article on the paper indicates it is the second largest selling British paper and does not indicate it is a satirical or fictional publication such as The Onion or that it is a wholly unreliable tabloid scandal sheet. The article seemed balanced, quoting the parents as well as British forensics experts. The major British paper The Daily Telegraph published their own story [3], also based on the French paper. Some credence should be given to the editors of these two papers in deciding how reliable the sources and evidence are. How about the French paper "France Soir" from which they got the story? It is, per the Wikipedia article, "France's first proper tabloid newspaper, in the vein of the British newspapers, The Sun and The Daily Mirror." The French paper did not characterize their front page story as based on "conjecture and supposition," but said "This is not a theory, but a fact contained in hard evidence in the hands of the Portuguese authorities." I would prefer for such claims to be cited to a particular identified source, as I have stated here, but this page is a suitable forum to discuss whether a major newspaper's coverage of the disappearance and investigation has reached the point it can be included in the article, and to evaluate the reliability of the papers reporting and the sources they themselves cite. If not here, where? This could be discussed at the BLP page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get others familiar with BLP policy to add their interpretations. Edison 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Edison read what I removed. It was not the link itself, it was the allegations that the editor made in relation to that link which went way beyond what the link was saying, and even if the Mail had been saying what Mecanismo said it was, it would still raise serious WP:BLP issues. You can't use a source that reports speculation and claim that it definitely says that what is being speculated about occurred. I removed them for the reasons above. Yet again I repeat, there is not one shred of evidence for the allegations being made. They are conjecture and supposition, and clearly do not meet WP:BLP. Until there is hard evidence to back up the claims made, they must be removed. Quite apart from that, Mecanismo was making various accusations against other editors which should not be allowed to stand. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that here is the place to discuss coverage such as the Telegraph and the Daily Mail have given to the supposed evidence? The editor may have gone beyond the evidence and assumed the allegations were true, which would be a BLP violation, but the fact of their being given major coverage in reliable sources can be discussed here, in preference to editors having edit wars in the main article. We are not the judges of objective truth, or the deciders of when the evidence is hard enough. Mr. McCann has responded to the allegations,[4] according to the (Australian) Daily Telegraph story September 15 12 am, and according to the BBC [5] and that moves the allegations in the direction of being includable. Edison 18:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and if Mecanismo had stuck to doing that it would have been fine. But the provisions of WP:BLP are clear in that they apply to talk pages too. This is to avoid editors being free to make unsubstantiated allegations or pushing POV in a way that they would not be able to in an article under the guise of "discussing" the article. I took the view that this was what was happening here, so I removed the section. Other editors seem to agree, but if there is a consensus that what Mecanismo was claiming (both about the McCanns and other editors) should be restored, then it can be. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed yet more speculation. If you want to speculate, there are plenty of forums ans messageboards out there that seem untroubled by facts or libel laws. Unsubstantiated reports in various newspapers, rumours and gossip have no place on Wikipedia. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Being bold?

I see the bolding in the lead has been reverted again. It might be best to have the discussion that a couple of editors have been having on their talk pages here. In any event, if the consensus does become to bold the sentence the way it is written now, we need to remove the hidden note. I have no strong views one way or t'other BTW. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Its fine in bold, just standard praqctice, SqueakBox 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it looks good and I also thought consensus had been reached not to bold it -- hence the comment. But I won't unbold it again; let's hear what others have to say. SQB 18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus not to bold the lead with this reasoning "The lead is deliberately not in bold per WP:MOS#Article_titles and WP:LEAD#Bold_title since it is 'descriptive-like'" until an editor started to bold it again. My view is to unbold so we can sharpen the lead sentence and put it in the form "Madeleine McCann disappeared on ..." which converts the passive voice to the active voice. TerriersFan 19:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And that's how it used to begin, unbolded, unrepetitive & unpompous. Rothorpe 19:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No further comments? Rothorpe 13:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No bold. The Rambling Man 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles do not have to start with the exact phrasing of the title. The words Madeleine McCann - should be bold as this is a key redirect. The article of the murder of James Bulger works in this way. Jooler 22:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case bolding Madeleine McCann has a fundamental defect. We have agreed on here that this is an event article not a bio article and bolding the name incorrectly emphasises the individual over the event. TerriersFan 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is WP:MoS issue. There is (or perhaps used to be as I can't find it) a requirement that key redirects (like Jon Venables and Robert Thompson in the Bulger article) should be bolded. In this case 'Madeleine McCann' is a key redirect and serves as a sensible candidate for bolded text in the lead without having to shoehorn the lead into using the actual article title. The MoS mentions that descriptive titled articles may begin without a bold title, but this is very much the exception rather than the rule. Jooler 00:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the bolding of redirects used to be mentioned here Wikipedia:Redirect#What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects? - but it no longer appears to specifically mention bolding although in the example it uses does show a bolded alternate title. Jooler 01:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

MoS is a guideline and as with all guidelines it "should normally be followed, but it has exceptions". Except for cornerstone policies such as verifiability, the ultimate authority for the application of guidelines to a specific article lies with the talk page of that article and I will defend the consensus of the talk page whether or not I agree with it. TerriersFan 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is this consensus? In the archive I see the suggestion of bolding the name alone put forward by Lilac Soul and supported by Rambling Man and here we have myself and Squeakbox supporting the idea of bold in the title. Without intending to get into a fight here, is there really a larger support for not having anything bolded? Jooler 01:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My count of the latest discussion is 4-2 against bolding with 1 abstain. TerriersFan 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is ignoring all those who have put bold in the title and not come to the talk page of course. And ignoring Rambling Man ( ahhh I see he changed his mind) and Lilac Soul from the archive. Indeed the more I look into the history the more people I see people making good faith edits and putting bold in the lead the article and then being reverted and told off for it and I would hazard a guess that they outnumber those in the other camp. The Jamie Bulger example is a good sensible example to follow for the reasons stated above. Bed time. Jooler 01:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it got easy to loose track of who said what, and you make some very sensible points, which is why Harry .... suggested a fresh round of discussion. Frankly it is simply not important enough to spend much more time on this and as I say above, if folks feel strongly enough, they should come here and I am happy to go with the majority. TerriersFan 02:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I support bolding the name. Abtract 10:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as the article begins with her name (as it should) I see no reason for bold. Rothorpe 15:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC) - And looking at the Bulger article, it starts like a bio, with dates. Need I say more? Rothorpe 15:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

But where, in all of the above, is the pressing need to break from convention? At this point, lead bolding is surely above 99% on Wikipedia and it seems so odd to bend over backwards to avoid it here. And "descriptive-like" makes no sense—two nouns are no more descriptive-like than any other construction. Marskell 17:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would, incidentally, support the Bulger compromise. I don't know why we need a blanket embargo on having bio-like aspects. Marskell 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

...Today, in contrast with previous intentions, the McCanns have announced (Sky News) they will only be going back if police summon them. They will continue spending a lot of money, of course - but that is a big change. Rothorpe 18:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that changes this issue?

Jooler is right. Here are six instances of people bolding in the last thousand edits:[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. (There are others in the preceding five hundred but I got tired of comparing diffs.) That's multiple good faith edits. Marskell 18:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the McCanns' decision not to return is rather a turning point, don't you think?

What, by the way, is the 'Bulger compromise'? Murder of James Bulger begins just like a biography. Rothorpe 19:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Would a compromise not be Madeleine McCann disappeared...? It gets the lead bolded but also emphasises the disappearance rather than the person. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter if the person is bolded? This is about her. This is Madeleine McCann's page. And all of this is bizarre. There's two illogical points supporting one another. For some unclarified reason we can't edit as if it's a bio; and for some unclarified reason, because of first, we can't bold in the first sentence. Thus we do what virtually no other Wiki page does for no good reason.

And there isn't consensus. There's editors exercising WP:OWN—no more or less. Marskell 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for us all to focus on making the article good rather than arguing over whether we should make three, four or more words bold? Come on everyone, get a grip... The Rambling Man 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't edit as a bio because the decision was made right at the start that this is not a bio article for several reasons, notability (apart from this single event) being the main one. The article was originally created as a bio article and was immediately and correctly nominated for deletion. It was decided as a result of the AfD debate that an article about the event would be created. Therefore it is by definition not a bio article and should not be edited as such. This has nothing to do with WP:OWN but is the result of the AfD debate on the bio article. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Therefore it is by definition not a bio article." Ah, see, there you lose me. Let's say you have a de jure argument—de facto this page is about one human being and everything that has attended to the one newsworthy thing in her life. This is the page on Madeleine McCann. Why, for example, is it bad to list her birthday in the first sentence? Because of some idiotic definition of not-being-a-bio? C'mon.

As a last argument, this obviously won't stop. Someone walking by is going to bold the first line once a week and someone who realizes how silly the reverts are, is going to drop onto talk once month. I suggest we do what's done on Bulger. In keeping with practice and still tight and direct wording. Marskell 20:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was about to suggest it, only to discover the three words already bolded. A perfect compromise.

I was looking at the other languages. German has: Das Verschwinden von Madeleine Beth McCann... Portuguese on the other hand has: Madeleine McCann (Leicester, 12 de Maio de 2003)... Say no more? (Some hope.) Rothorpe 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If the original article was deleted because a bio article was not appropriate (a decision taken as a result of a properly conducted AfD debate) how can the article that resulted from that debate possibly be a bio article? If it is therefore an article about the event, that (the disappearance) takes precedence. Her birthday is not a primary feature of the event (she didn't disappear because she was a specific age, although it might have been a contributing factor) so while her age is highly relevant, it is not the most relevant thing about an "event" article, as it would be in a bio article. Not mentioning it until a bit further in helps to clarify that we are talking about an event, not a person. In any event, I think my compromise addresses both the concern of not just having the name bolded (because it's not a bio article) and your concerns about not having it bolded at all. Harry was a white dog with black spots 21:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, again. Really Harry, is anyone going to be confused that, in the main, "we are talking about an event, not a person"? Is anyone going to come here thinking that Wikipedia believes every three year-old girl is notable and that we just happen to have a longish page because, in this case, the girl disappeared? No. At best, you're arguing a distinction without a difference. Of course, we are actually talking about a person—one who's been subject to a notable event. Why don't we just bold the name? I mean, really? I'm being told not to get uptight about bolding the title so why be uptight about this weird bio/non-bio definition? If nothing else, you won't have to talk about it with another editor a week from now. Marskell 21:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not uptight. As I said before, I really don't have any strong views, but we do need to get it sorted. It's not a question of confusion so much as style. I have had a quick look at the other languages, and all but two or three have the name and the equivalent word for disappearance bolded in the lead. I think that's a good compromise, because that's what the article is about. It's not about who Madeleine is as a person, her accomplishments, her interests etc. It is about the event. I am simply trying to seek a workable compromise so that your concern about someone coming along and finding the lead not bolded and wanting to change it is addressed. Harry was a white dog with black spots 21:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is not a bio article but, in view of all this unnecessary unpleasantness, I don't care any more. TerriersFan 21:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to be a complete ass for a moment and make a very pedantic but very basic epistemological point: this is an event about her. That's what it is. You can't separate person from event or event from person. You can't. It's not wrong to bold her name because this page is, and always will be, fundamentally about her. (I will certainly say I have not found User:Harry the most uptight here—I was speaking generally.) So yes, a workable compromise. Simply bold her name. The tightest wording with her name bolded. Really, it will save time down the road. Marskell 21:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference Reduction

The list of references is, like the article itself, getting quite long. Wouldn't it be possible to use several of the overview style articles that have been published, like this one by the BBC, to reduce that list, pointing to that article instead of all the different ones? In my opinion, the references need to be there so that people can verify where the information came from, they also need to be diverse enough to show the article is not just a rewrite of one specific referenced article, but beyond that, I don't think it's necessary to have links to several different BBC articles when one or two would suffice. Your opinions please, before I start chopping down the list. SQB 18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry we must not tinker with the references, that's the way that they get broken. Overview articles change and if an overview article, that has a whole bunch of references linked to it, changes then there would be a huge workload in checking the consequential changes. The other point is that individual reference frequently need updating. Sure the list is long, but we had it in a scrolling format to deal with that before we were stopped by a policy wonk. We shall just have to live with it - the benefits are frankly slight and the risks, and subsequent workload, far outweighs them. TerriersFan 19:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not just sprinkle references in an article like dropping croutons on a salad. The specific fact or statement must be supported by or contained in the reference. Re-referencing is a lot harder than it might in prospect seem. It would in general require re-writing, to make sure that the new references said everything they were required to establish. When the case is history, and books have been written about it, someone may want to substantially rewrite the article. It would be premature now. Edison 19:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the last two contibutions. I argued for the scrolling list (how many people read the whole list as opposed to jumping to the one they are interested in?) but we have to live with what we have. One of the reasons for GA is that it is so carefully sourced. We need to maintain that standard I feel. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your points. However, I think some of you may have misunderstood what I tried to say. I don't want to remove references, just refer to the same source multiple times. This means we have fewer referenced sources to check and a shorter list of references. I don't think that overview articles change any easier or any more often than other articles, but I can't prove or disprove that. Of course we should be careful in picking the articles we'd be refering to, but we have to be careful in doing that anyway. I was hoping that a couple of well chosen sources could be referenced throughout the article. We would need a (partial) rewrite, however I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea -- the article is quite long as it stands. SQB 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are offering, each time that an overview article changes (which can be more than once a day) to check the relevance of the changes to each referenced statement? No, of course you are not. The aesthetic benefits are slight compared with the consequential work - forget it. The article is not yet too long. We split the article when it reached 80 kb and we can consider a further split when it approaches that again. The likely extraction would be the McCanns as suspects section which is where future growth is likely to come but we are not there yet. TerriersFan 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to find a nice non changing overview article and use that. But I won't push it any further. SQB 20:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most mainstream press with online versions change a breaking story during the day as new info comes out, but don't they freeze it after a few days and have a new story? And then all too soon the link breaks and you have to use the internet archive [12] to fix it, or pay the newspaper $3 to see their old article? Other than a few Brave New World government agencies, most news services leave history alone and do not keep editing it. Edison 03:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Next article split - a forward look

Another article split is not yet imperative but it is worth taking a forward look at the options. The present investigation of the McCanns appears, now, to be the only line of inquiry. In the event that the McCanns are not charged then matters may subside. However, if the McCanns are charged then this will drag on for months, at the very least, producing considerable material. Consequently, I suggest that if/when charges are laid then we should carry out an article breakout. The problem with a Prosecution of ... article is that it may fail NPOV. My suggestion, therefore, is that we split out a Suspects for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann; hardly snappy but at least in the same 'house style' as the existing two articles. The new article would contain the Murat material, the 'McCanns as suspects', the 'Other suspects' together with forthcoming material on the putative prosecution. Naturally a good textual summary of the removed material would be placed in the main article. There is no reason for a split to affect the GA status on the grounds of 'instability'; we have plenty of precedents. I should welcome thoughts, please. TerriersFan 22:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I had gone to bed last night before you posted this, and woke up this morning wondering whether it is time to split out the suspects and thought of the same title. I agree its not quite the time, as it's entirely possible that Murat and the McCanns wil stop being suspects in the next few days and the matter will be moot. If charges are brought against any of the three suspects, we should definitely split the article, as most activity in the ommediate future will surround the any court case. Harry was a white dog with black spots 07:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than another split, I'd support condensing the information on Murat and other possible suspects, since the focus seems to be on the McCanns at the moment. If and when that focus shifts, we can dig older versions out of the history if needed.

I think there are other sections that could be smaller as well, see below.SQB 11:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Shrinking sections at this stage is not the answer; even if the McCanns are charged they may not be found guilty. When the whole event is concluded then the article will need a rewrite but for now it is not possible to say what will prove important. TerriersFan 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sightings

Since none of the (supposed) sightings produced any leads, I suggest we shrink that section down to a single paragraph, mentioning that there where sightings, that nothing came from it and providing references to them. I think sightings always happen in cases such as this, but unless one of them turns out to have been correct, I don't think we need to devote much space or attention to them.SQB 11:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. In fact, such a strong fixation on an alternative scenario that is both baseless and without a single shred of evidence to back it up can be seen as POV --Mecanismo | Talk 12:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. The sightings are an important part of the story and hardly take up much space. Radical reduction could look like WP:POINT. We are making an encyclopaedic record. They should be kept even if the child is subsequently proved to be dead (which she has not been) - the sightings were widely reported and fixated the public and media for months. TerriersFan 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree as well, for the reasons cited. Not only that, but they are part of the agreed historical record of the story of the disappearance (which some of the other things people are arguing to be included are not) so they retain their relevance no matter what the outcome of the case. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see where or how WP:POINT fits in. Other than that, I'm not suggesting to remove them altogether, but rather to reduce the section, or to fold the section into the general section about the investigation. For instance, we could mention she was sighted in Portugal itself<ref><ref> as well as in Spain,<ref><ref> Morocco<ref> and even Belgium.<ref> Then we can conclude that non of these sightings provided any leads and that in some cases the sighted girl was proven not to be Madeleine.<ref to Belgian case> I agree that we're making an encyclopaedic record, however I do think we can and must use common sense in editing the article. It's not to be a dumping ground for every little tidbit we can find on the case, but rather an overview, with enough detail to understand the issues at hand, but also with pointers to source that can be perused for further information.SQB 14:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements like "dumping ground for every little tidbit" are, frankly, offensive to those editors who have carefully edited this article. Most sightings are either not recorded or, such as the Malta sightings, grouped together. The sightings itemised are those that have resulted in significant media attention and some, such as the second Belgian sighting, have had wider implications (in that case a flaming row between the BBC and ITN. The coverage of the sightings is wholly in balance with the rest of the article. TerriersFan 15:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend any editors; if I did, I apologize. I just meant to say that while the sightings may have been important at the time, they now seem to take (to me) more space than they deserve.SQB 15:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Juíz de Instrução Criminal

I wonder what the reference is for the translation of "juíz de instrução criminal" to "learned criminal judge"?

It seems like a translation done on Babel Fish by a reporter who is not familiar with the Portuguese language nor with the Portuguese legal system, and who has interpreted "instrução criminal" in some loose literal sense, instead of as what it is: a specific phase in the Portuguese investigative process.Mip | Talk 13:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase turned up translated as 'Criminal Instructing Judge', I think it was. When I googled it, I was struck by the absence of capitals, which led me to regard it as a description rather than a title. For example, from TVI's website: 'O processo do caso Madeleine foi remetido ao juiz de instrução criminal de Portimão.' [13] 'The papers in the Madeleine case were given to the...' After discussing it with my Portuguese wife, here in Esposende, I suggested 'district attorney', & she agreed that was a good translation. In that case, the word 'judge' will have to be changed throughout that part of the article. Your helpful comments, please. Rothorpe 15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is a position similar to a "juge d'instruction" in France. In France, once the prosecutor opens a file, it is passed to the juge d'instruction who is charged with investigating the matter and deciding what if any charges should be brought. The Police Judiciaire (I guess the equivalent of the PJ in Portugal) is one way the juge can gather evidence. Basically, the judge makes no "judgement" on the case but merely reviews it to see what, if any, charges the evidence would support. In France at least, the juge d'instruction can also decline to investigate if there does not appear to be anything to investigate. Once the juge d'instruction has made a ruling, the case either dies, goes to court, or goes back for further investigation. It is a way of providing an independent assessment of the evidence before the expense and personal trauma involved in a trial. Does the system in Portugal work in a comparable way? Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem to, Harry. In fact, I was taking out the translation just as you were writing that! The role of the judge is explained earlier in the paragraph. Rothorpe 17:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry's description pretty much applies to the Portuguese system, as well. To use a very simple analogy, the "Juíz de Instrução Criminal" is pretty much a sieve through which all evidence must pass, to avoid overcrowding courts with (and spending resources on) cases which don't have a snowball's chance, due to inadequate investigative procedure.

The "Juíz de Instrução Criminal" can, on a very basic level, be thought of as the Portuguese equivalent to the British Coroner (UK-coroner, not US-coroner, as the two are quite different). Mip | Talk 14:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about a section where it is listed what we DO KNOW, i.e. information directly from police sources regarding forensic findings, public statements from the police about the current state of the case, why these three people are suspects, which lines of inquiry the police is currently looking at etc. Since the whole story is so majorly confusing in the media, with completely contradictory things somethimes stated by different papers in one day, many turn to Wikipedia to get an unbiased picture. But I just read through the whole article and must say that I'm still somewhat confused about WHAT the police actually have gathered that they view as evidence. I know, they don't give many public statements (which is the reason why there is so much speculation and confusion), but it would maybe be helpful if the little they DO publicly announce would be listed in a simple list, so that one can get a picture of the cards that are already on the table. Not sure, if I'm making myself clear? 121.247.55.191 17:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

An example of the sort of thing you are suggesting appears at the end of today's Guardian article.[14] Perhaps you'd like to start from there. Rothorpe 17:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But even that is super thin and confined to "Police have confirmed that they have tested a sample of blood from the McCanns' hire car." The rest brings us back to "There have also been reports of ...", "It is believed ..." etc. Not enough for a section :-( TerriersFan 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph of Madeleine's Disappearance article is revealing some ideological prejudice related to Portuguese media. So instead of writing this:

"Madeleine McCann disappeared on the evening of Thursday, 3 May 2007 in the resort of Praia da Luz in the Algarve, Portugal. The event has since generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents."

Wikipedia should write this:

"Madeleine McCann disappeared on the evening of Thursday, 3 May 2007 in the resort of Praia da Luz in the Algarve, Portugal. The event has since generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation, the media coverage around the world and the actions of Madeleine's parents." OAM1952 21:05 15 September 2007

Sea

What about the dumped in sea "theory"?

Source: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007421064,00.html - Jigsy 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sun is not a reliable source. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only that but the police, as with everyone else, haven't a clue where the body is, if indeed Madeleine is dead which is unproven anyway. TerriersFan 19:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Forensic tests

Do we really need to say 'forensic science' every time'? I know 'forensic' refers to the law, but doesn't normal usage take the science bit for granted? Rothorpe 23:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Any comments? Rothorpe 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno about 'normal' usage, I'd agree only that sloppy usage and pub-speak (including my own) takes the science bit for granted. That's not a reason to write sloppy pub-speak in a reasonably serious article. More accurately, incidentally, I would say 'forensic' refers to the law courts, rather than just 'the law' - a forensic argument, a merely forensic point. All evidence gathered for use in a court is 'forensic' evidence. I don't think that normal conversational usage should be the style guide here. Ironman1104 15:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am convinced. Rothorpe 15:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

António Toscano claims

Reading over the article again, this section drew new meaning in light of recent events:

In early June, Spanish investigative journalist Antonio Toscano claimed that two people hired a convicted paedophile to kidnap Madeleine and that the man was seen in a bar in Seville a week before Madeleine disappeared.[68] Then, on 28 June, Toscano claimed that Madeleine was alive and well in Europe but Madeleine's parents refused to meet with him.[69]

If any sources has new information with regards to these claims, it should be added to section about the parents. --213.237.107.120 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted unsourced and disgraceful speculation. Ironman1104 16:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Put to bed

Do we know what time they claim to have put her to bed? First ref to Daily Mail doesn't really support the sentence. Also, "Her parents' account was that they had..." is a past simple to past perfect shift. That's fine, but the initial past should be specified: "Her parents' initial account to police/reporters/etc. was that they had..." Marskell 07:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The daily mail is not a reliable source? (according to a number of recent edits)? I think the mail is a rag of a paper and I wouldn't have it in the house but when I think about some of the sources that wikipedia does allow... --Fredrick day 14:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A guide to what constitues a reliable source can be found here. Certainly the "red tops" are not reliable, but other "tabloids" may be, especially if what they are printing is in other publications. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That page it doesn't say anything about tabloids (althought I think it did a couple of years ago). The only things it says are In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. and also Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. so unless someone is going to present sources that indicate that either the sun or the daily mail are not mainstream newspapers then they are reliable sources (not that I would use the sun myself) as that page is currently written. that's how I read it anyway. You could argue that they are not "respected" and I'd agree to a large degree about the sun but only within the *context* of certain news areas. --Fredrick day 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with the reliability of their fact-checking, which is also mentioned on that page. Because of their tendencey to sensationalise, their track-record over time has not been good. I would certainly be wary of basing any contentious claim on something that was published solely in the Sun, the Mirror or the Star without further sourcing. "Exceptional claims [and we are dealing with quite a few of those in this article] should be supported by multiple, independent, high-quality reliable sources (not the same wire story repeated over and over), especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that we have agreed on here that the 'red tops' are not reliable sources but some content from other papers also need to be treated with care. When responsible papers categorically say that a named police sources says XYZ that's fine. But even the heavyweights cannot be taken to be reliable when they quote unnamed sources or, for example, they quote France Soir or 24 Hours quoting an 'unnamed senior police source'. TerriersFan 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that we should take care with "police source" quotes, even if quoted directly. I have noticed that, regardless of who is writing the article, the sources are always obscurely labeled under the catch-all term - "police".

• There is never any indication if the sources are from the Portuguese police or from the British force.
• There is never any indication which branch of the Portuguese police the sources belong to: the PJ, the PSP or the PM. Even the GNR (the Portuguese "gendarmes") are frequently called "police" by the foreign press. (In a nutshell, it´s a bit like saying "law enforcement" in the US - you could be referring to the the local PD, to the FBI, to the DEA, and so forth...)
• There is never any indication how close to the investigation the "sources" are. Only a handful of PJ officers are connected to the case; any another PJ officer is as reliable a source as you and me. (Another analogy: you wouldn't count on a police officer in Anchorage to give you reliable information regarding a case being investigated in San Diego.)

Det. John Doe, a PJ officer from Lagos, would probably be a reliable source. Officer Janet Doe, a PSP officer from Lisbon, would necessarily be speculating. PC Sean McDoe, of the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, would also be commenting on hearsay. And yet, all three could be described as a "police source".Mip | Talk 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is agreement that "The Sun" is not not to be considered a 'reliable' source, then shouldn't all claims that rely on the unreliable source be removed? Specifically I refer the the sentence 'Attention switched to Morocco, on 4 June, after GCHQ in Cheltenham picked up phone intercept messages in Arabic referring to "the little blonde girl", a German man, and a ferry from Tarifa in Spain.' Currently this statement is referencing reference 71, which is The Sun article that can be found here - http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2005320001-2007250657,00.html

To myself, the phone intercept information does seem quite 'exceptional', and in the Sun article there is no mention of a specific source for the claim itself, only an anonymous 'source' who claims the information is being treated seriously and could be significant. Unless anyone knows of further reliable sources for the claim, I feel it should be removed. A Google of Madeleine + McCann + GCHQ gives about 520 hits, and no 'news' hits. The only other 'news' establishment I have seen linked to the story is 'The Sunday People', which, like the Sun, is far from reliable. Further, any journalist actually reporting this (if it where the case), would be in quite a lot of sticky ground involving the Official Secrets Act... as would the GCHQ employee or source who provided the information to the two papers. I'll leave the claim for just now, but will probably be bold in a little while and remove it. If a further, more reliable source can be found, the claim can be returned. Malbolge 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have looked for a source other that The Sun and couldn't find one readily, so I have removed the section until a better source can be found. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added it back - a quick Google search produced a good reference in the first item here. TerriersFan 15:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Another point of view

To se how the case is followed in Spain go to www.elpais.com http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/cuidada/puesta/escena/McCann/elpepuint/20070913elpepisoc_2/Tes

The meaning of "Cuidada puesta en escena" is similar to "Careful Staging"

Done: Luisa from Spain 5:27, September 19th 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.203.175 (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not notable

Thousand of kids are made disappear and murdered every day. Should we make an article out of every one of them? Why es this particular child more important? Because she's blonde? Because she´s from Europe? --Damifb 16:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

She's notable because of the massive search, and the big campaign in media Elmao 16:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Thousand of kids are made disappear and murdered every day"??? I don't think so! I agree, she is not notable. The reaction to her disappearance and the events surrounding it are. That is why the article is about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and not the girl herself. Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Elmao: And why is the campaign in media notable? Why there is no campaign for every kid dissapeared in Congo? They are thousands, you know...

Answer to Harry: If you don't "think so", I'm sure you live in some cozy place in the First World, not aware of what is going on in the rest of our planet... (not a personal attack, just being realistic) --Damifb 16:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thousands of kids die everyday from all sorts of things. But thousands of kids are not kidnapped and murdered every day! That is what you claimed. Certainly not in Western Europe. So this is an unusual occurance to begin with for somewhere like Portugal. And yes, when children do go missing there is rarely such a big media and public campaign. That is why it is notable. Anyway, this debate has been had several times, and the consensus is that this article more than meets Wikpedia policy. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's let it be then. Thanks for answering. I'm going to check my numbers on disappeared and murdered. --Damifb 17:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. BTW I actually know firsthand what is happening in the Congo. I have a good friend called Mkoko Boseka who I saw just a few weeks ago, and who works in his country with the refugees of the war in Congo. Lots of people, including children, were massacred there during the recent war, but it is unfair to Congo to suggest that thousands are kidnapped and killed on a daily basis. They really are working hard for peace and reconciliation. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I was saying "thousands" worldwide, there are over 200 countries, so a couple of couples of dozens in Congo will do it.--Damifb 18:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that there are many missing children worldwide so that alone is not what makes this article noteable. The reason this article is noteable is because of the remarkable worldwide media attention this case has attracted and the subsequent events which have occurred as a result. Also every media agency reports from a different point of view. The article here is largely based on what the mainstream media have reported to us which may or may not be true or accurate. So although an article simply describing a child who disappeared is not notable, the significant media coverage surrounding the incident is as not many missing peoples cases get so much continued publicity. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. What I contend is why the media decide what is notable for Wikipedia. I work for an international news agency and think that the criterion for choosing to make a high profile case out of any of the thousands of cases out there is not notable for an encyclopaedia... the media, we, work with a different idea of what is notable, and Wikipedia should have a better criterion than ours, because Wikipedia is not for sell, we as wikipedians should know better. The joke goes on in any redaction I know: the thing is, she's rich (for most of the world standards), she's blonde... --Damifb 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia don't decide whats notable by looking at what the media are reporting. Wikipedia decide as a community what's notable by looking at what the thoughts of the general population of the world. The McCann case is a common subject for discussion worldwide and has prompted a large media attention. Take a look at WP:N. Whether the media should pay attention to this case or not is another matter and has nothign to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedians should always follow a Neutral point of View. Most importantly Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news agency. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think media is not "another matter": "the McCann case is a common subject for discussion worldwide", as you said, precisely because of the media attention. Otherwise people would not even know about it. To say that Wikipedia is not a news agency is precisely my point.

--Damifb 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. Take a look at the policy WP:NOT#NEWS and at the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Editors seeking to sell more newspapers or to increase viewership of a TV show have different goals from those of encyclopedia editors. Edison 07:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. The girl and her disappearance haven't done anything novel and relative to the world it's just not important. Of all the things it could be possibly relevant for any given person to know, this isn't one of them. --Jammoe 01:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This case might be notable because of the media attention etc., but that doesn't warrant this huge article. I came here to read a quick description, not to parse through paragraph after paragraph. The article should quickly state what happened, a few sentences about the media attention, and a little bit about the current status of the case. And the media attention should be the main focus of the article since it's why it's notable, not the events themselves. The size of this article really shows that it's wikipedians fascinated with the case itself, wrapped up in the "media circus", who are writing it. Think about it, is this huge article warranted in 10 years? 30 years? If not, isn't Wikipedia functioning as a news agency? 193.91.181.142 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (Nick)

This article has just been nominated for peer review (see tag at top of this talk page). There's perhaps an opportunity in that review to re-state your prefectly reasonable argument. This article has been troubling me for some time regarding the apparent obsessive nature of some of the editors. 82.20.28.142 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments from a mother in a similar case

Where can this be added, commentary on this case by the mother in the "Dingos ate my baby" case? [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20891272/site/newsweek/} Edison 08:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You can create a new page on this. But have to pass WP policy. But first consult this page. Elmao 08:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I was not seeking info on how to create a Wikipedia article (I've done that a number of times). The question was relative to comments the subject of the cited article (who was wrongly convicted of killing her own daughter) had made relative to the ongoing experiences of the McCanns. Edison 14:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

oh, sorry, i didn't viewed your profile :) Elmao 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Peripheral, could be External links, but I think it's interesting enough, with regard to Kate McCann's demeanour, to go in the Criticism of the parents section. Rothorpe 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Like Oz's band in BtVS? Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Celebrities

I would like to see more discussion in the article of the various celebrities who have endorsed the McCann's campaign. I think most people who know about the case have heard about it because someone like J.K. Rowling issued an appeal or something, and it would be nice to have all the information about which public figures have made such appeals. (My understanding is that for some of them, this is the first public appeal they've ever made.) Sxp151 14:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This information is in the "Response" article. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Murat to be cleared by Portuguese Police

It appears (according to several News reports from today and over the weekend - http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&scoring=n&q=robert+murat) that Robert Murat has been cleared of involvement in the case, or has been told privately by the Portuguese Police that he has been/will be cleared. There is no official confirmation as yet, but then in this case there has been ALOT reported without there being official confirmation (GCHQ intercepts, face-to-face meeting between McCann family friends and Mr Murat etc. btw... just checking the reference for that claim, currently no.37 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1274738,00.html and it makes absolutely NO mention of the McCann Family friends being brought face-to-face with Mr Murat).

I believe this should be added to the article and the section on Mr. Murat, possibly along the lines - "According to News Paper reports (refs) Robert Murat was informed by Portuguese Police over the weekend of/on the that he is no longer considered a suspect in the case" or similar. I'll leave it a while before adding the information to the article later today. Malbolge 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking a little more into the claim that McCann family friends were brought face-to-face with Mr Murat, as I say above ref no.37 does not verify the claim. Ref no.38 should lead to an article by Haroon Saddique in the Guardian, titled "McCann friends confront Madeleine suspect"... but it doesn't. Instead it leads to a Daily Express article, "My Son is Innocent says Mother of Maddy Suspect", which makes no mention of the meeting, and is also ref no.39. Someone should probably look into that, either restoring the link to the Saddique Guardian article (provided it is real and verifies the claim of the face-to-face meeting) or find another verifiable source for the claim. Malbolge 14:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The speculation about Murat being cleared must, most certainly, not be added. We have known of this likelihood for weeks and it is not new. We have resisted adding speculation to the article, and we should continue that policy. Thank you for your points on the references which I will sort out. TerriersFan 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now fixed the references. TerriersFan 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Last Reported Image of Madeleine/ CCTV

Here is there relevant quote from the source. Please tell us where it says the pictures were taken by the family. The only mention of pictures are CCTV.

"A restaurant manager in Praia da Luz said the family were at the beach at around 5pm, while the couple insist Mr McCann was playing tennis as Mrs McCann gave the children supper at the Ocean Club resort, where they were staying.

Miguel Matias, who runs the beachside Paraiso restaurant said he saw Mr McCann dancing with his daughter as the family ate a meal on the terrace in the early evening.

Several days later he contacted police and handed over CCTV footage: "We would not have handed the CCTV if we were not sure. They have taken it as evidence."

A Portuguese police source confirmed the footage had been received but could not comment further because of the country's strict secrecy laws.

However, Mr and Mrs McCann insist witnesses saw them on the tennis court and at the Ocean Club restaurant with their children.

The last image of Madeleine was taken at 2.29pm of the little girl sitting by the side of the pool with her father.

A source close to the couple said: "Madeleine went to kids club in the afternoon, after the photograph was taken at the swimming pool. There are records for that, written records, and witnesses."

It seems that the CCTV evidence may contradict what the McCanns are saying, but it does not say anywhere that there is a photo taken by the parents. They are relying on "written records, and witnesses" to back up their version, not a photo. The photo was taken at 2.29pm by a CCTV camera. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The last reported image of Madeleine was a photograph, taken by her mother Kate on her own camera and released to the media some 3 weeks after Madeleine's disappearance on May 24. The McCann's have claimed that the photograph, which shows Madeleine beside the pool with Gerry and her sister Amelie, was taken at 2:29pm. There have been no reports of CCTV footage of Madeleine at that time. Furthermore, the referenced article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/21/nmaddy521.xml) makes this clear.

"The last image of Madeleine was taken at 2.29pm of the little girl sitting by the side of the pool with her father.

A source close to the couple said: "Madeleine went to kids club in the afternoon, after the photograph was taken at the swimming pool. There are records for that, written records, and witnesses."

There have been numerous other references to this 'last photo' in the media, another example can be found [15] at the Times Online.

"The picture was taken at 2.29pm on May 3 - Mrs McCann’s camera clock is one hour out so the display reads 1.29pm."

The 'CCTV' footage referred to above relates to the supposed sighting at 5pm, but this footage, if it exists, has not been released to the media. I'll refer you back to your own quote...

"A restaurant manager in Praia da Luz said the family were at the beach at around 5pm, while the couple insist Mr McCann was playing tennis as Mrs McCann gave the children supper at the Ocean Club resort, where they were staying." Snowbunni 19:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But the ref attached to the section makes no mention of Kate's photograph. It says a photo taken at 2.29 without saying who took it. Until you attach a ref that says what you say it does, please don't change it back. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Have changed the ref to the Times which makes it clear the 2.29 photo is Kate's. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Morocco photo

I have removed the photo. Its licensing is questionable and it has obviously been manipulated. It is also unecessary to have it on the article as it is included in the source link. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that I created the image (using Adobe Photoshop). I have now stated the sources of the two photographs used to create the image. If this makes the image more appropriate for use, please feel free to add it again to the article.

- Image:Possible Sighting Of Madeleine McCann In Morocco.jpg -

Paul S UK 13:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The image now has an improved licence. I am not an expert in licensing and I am sure that the licence will be reviewed by those who are. Meanwhile, it seems relevant and I think it should go back. TerriersFan 14:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is pre-empting the expert analysis. The comparison as depicted in this photo is speculation, and it has been manipulated in Photoshop anyway. I think it is sufficient to have the photo in the ref link, and then report the findings of the analysis when it is known. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC is now reporting that it is not Madeleine in the photo. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's good enough for me. TerriersFan 15:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Judge/Jury

I have noticed on several occasions that one of the things that seem to worry "onlookers" (ie, all of us not involved in the investigation) is the impact that the media reports have on the potential jury (eg, see the interview with Lindy Chamberlain, linked above).

I am wondering if there is a spot on the article to mention that trials that take place in Portugal aren't trials by jury (trials by jury take place under common law systems) and, therefore, there can be no such influence. Mip | Talk 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Neat point. I think that the best way forward is to weave in a mention of the Portuguese legal system and include the prosecution/court process there. That article is badly in need of sourcing and expansion, though, before it is useful to make the link. TerriersFan 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Belgian girl

In the "sightings" subsection, regarding the little girl in the Belgian café, the current version states the girl's name. (Quoting from memory, it says something along the lines of: "it turned out to be Sjanneke Hofstede, the 4 year-old daughter of a Belgian man".)

Weighing the risk of invading a little girl's privacy, against the extremely marginal benefit of providing that information, and considering that her full name is quite irrelevant to Madeleine's disappearance, I believe that the girl's name should probably be left out.

There is absolutely no loss in relevant information in saying "it turned out to be the 4 year-old daughter of a Belgian man". If nobody disagrees, I'll change it later on. 81.84.128.223 14:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the Moroccan child was removed for the same reason. Rothorpe 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree and done. --Van helsing 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, considering that we just removed the name of the Moroccan girl, I don't see a problem with this proposal. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good decision to take the names of these girls out. However, if you keep the name of the Belgium girl on this Discussion page people still have easy access to it. --- Just a thought :) ... 121.247.54.26 20:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To do it thoroughly would entail deleting this entire section, which is fine by me. But what sort of person would seek out a talk page just to discover a minor player's name? Rothorpe 21:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh! The name is in the reference anyway! This is getting a touch silly ... TerriersFan 22:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I often look at the talk page of an article because there are sometimes information and links which have not been included in the article but are nevertheless very interesting. Regards 121.247.54.19 14:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review — kept

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 10:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Who investigated?

In the dissappearance page I can read :

"The initial investigation by the Guarda Nacional Republicana, the first police to be called to the crime scene, concluded that she had been abducted".

I am portuguese and as far as I know Guarda Nacional Republicana does not conduct such kind of investigations.

In the BBC news article cited in wikipedia one can read :

In the first official briefing on the case, Guilhermino Encarnacao, director of the judicial police in the Faro region, said officers are working on the assumption she is being held between 3km and 5km (1.8 and 3.1 miles) from the resort.

One must conclude the first briefting was done by policia judiciária not (as it written ) GNR.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6627605.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter42y (talk • contribs) 12:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right - now fixed. TerriersFan 15:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A timesonline article however states that it was in fact the GNR that arrived first on the scene. Quote from the article "Two officers from the GNR local police arrived at 11.10pm, nearly an hour after the call." Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2414796.ece 121.247.54.19 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The GNR were the first on the scene but they did not carry out the investigation; that was the PJ who made the statement about her being abducted.TerriersFan 16:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of British Police

I have added references to the reports of Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral criticising the British Police and his subsequent removal. I feel that it is important to state that both the British and Portugese Police forces have been criticised. Hopefully the regular editors will agree. Regards, Wiganwoking 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The addition is entirely appropriate but in future please take the time to follow the established style for editing and references . TerriersFan 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops - sorry, an honest mistake by me. Many thanks for correcting & re-writing the addition. Will try harder in future...Wiganwoking 04:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Olegário de Sousa lunchtime?

Pardon me, but what is the relevance of the following excerpt taken from the "Criticism of the police" section:

"There was criticism that, on 6 June, two of the senior police officers involved in the case, Olegário de Sousa and Gonçalo Amaral, the head of the regional Polícia Judiciária, took a leisurely lunch and an observer commented that they laughed at what seemed to be an in-joke as the McCanns appeared on a television news broadcast."

As Olegário de Sousa said(Times article), they were having a private lunch while off-duty, on their free time:

"When told that he had been seen drinking whisky and wine with colleagues, he replied: “I still say to you what I do in my free time is only responsible and in my interest. It is my lunchtime. What does it have to do with you what I drink or what I eat? Have you seen anyone drunk? Have you seen any action deterred by that?”"

Regarding the laughter, as one of the reader's comments on the Times article points out, what proof exists that they were laughing at the McCanns? In fact, at lunchtime, all of the 3 generalist TV channels broadcast news and, on that date, 6th June, a large amount of the air-time was devoted to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. So, if they were going to laugh at something, it would be hard for them to do so while the McCanns were not on the TV.

I think this is wild speculation and it seems like content more suitable for tabloids. Unless someone can enlight me on why it is of importance, I suggest the removal of that excerpt.

Luder 02:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a quote from Olegário de Sousa defending the lunch, but the criticism is highly relevant. The criticisms were made, and it is not up to us to decide whether they are valid or not. They are well sourced from a mainstream broadsheet, and so it is encyclopaedic to include them. It has to be said that according to the report the officers asked for the TV to be turned on and were watching the press conference intently. Of course they may have been laughing (in public mind you) at something else, but in the circumstances, I think a better explanation should have been forthcoming to put people's mind at rest that they were not laughing at the McCanns. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In the UK if police officers were seen drinking alcohol at lunchtime that would be an immediate disciplinary matter. If the two most senior officers investigating a high profile case were seen drinking at lunchtime that would cause significant public concern. I accept that lunching practices may differ in Portugal but it doesn't matter what country you are in; drinking alcohol impairs performance and clouds judgement. TerriersFan 16:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"McCann Children 'not alone' in apartment" and "looking after unwell daughter" claims

According to the Times article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2621809.ece) there are claims that it was not only the McCann children present in the apartment at the time of the 'disappearance', and also the claims made by one of the McCann's party (regarding his whereabouts) are contradicted. These appear to be well sourced and from a mainstream broadsheet, thus it would be encyclopaedic to include them. Any thoughts? Malbolge 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just claims by the tabloid 24 Horas (& the Times may be mainstream but it is no longer a broadsheet). Rothorpe 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the claims are insufficiently well sourced for inclusion since these merely repeat one of numerous unsubstantiated claims coming out of the Portuguese press. In passing, The Times is now a Compact (newspaper), regrettably in my POV, but it is still a reliable source. TerriersFan 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but draw a parallel between the sourcing of these claims and the sourcing of the 'GCHQ' claims. They both appear to be equally poorly sourced, yet the the 'GCHQ' claims are in the article and these claims are not. Malbolge 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We have to deal with each event on its individual merits. If the GCHQ report had been false they would have required it to be removed from the website well before now. In this case it is one of numerous 'police believe' reports that have been filling the media since the disappearance. There are not authoritative, and rarely prove to be soundly based, and usually stem from kites being flown by unattributed members of the PJ. We have, rightly in my view, a policy of not including them until they can be attributed. TerriersFan 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Foresnic results latest

I have removed the following: "On 9 October, The Times confirmed that the latest released report of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) laboratory in Birmingham failed to prove that Madeleine is dead but that the results were considered significant. On the same report The Guardian said that the "results reportedly suggest DNA evidence found in the boot of a car hired weeks after Madeleine disappeared came from the missing girl and was not transferred by clothes or toys"."

Whilst this is sourced, the reports are not based on any official statements nor do they name any police or forensic sources. Indeed, they seem to be based on leaks. I should welcome views, but I think it should stay out. TerriersFan 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the information is correct there is time enough to reinsert it. As I have said before, this is not a breaking news service, and we are not on a deadline. We don't have to include every development as soon as it happens unless it is definitely confiirmed. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Murat nationality

An editor seems intent on replacing the description of him as a 'local man' with his dual nationality, in the lead. I have added his dual nationality, together with the source, to the relevant section. However, the lead provides a summary and does not need to dot the 'i's and 'local man' is sufficiently accurate. Murat lives in the village and his father was a local Portuguese man so I think that the description is fine. TerriersFan 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be tagged as "current event"?

Given the extent of media coverage, shouldn't the article be headed by a tag explaining it describes events that are the object of ongoing criminal investigation?134.36.37.100 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy is that the 'current event' tag is used for articles edited many times a day. At the moment the page does not qualify. During periods of high activity this tag is added. TerriersFan 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, right after I posted this topic, I had removed it, because I realised the subject had been addressed before (in one of the archives). But somebody else undid my removal.134.36.37.100 19:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tavares Almeida

I'm surprised to see no mention of Tavares Almeida in reference to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/08/nmaddy308.xml Jooler 18:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No? Jooler 22:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes? Now added. Please note that I haven't inserted with what he has been charged for WP:BLP reasons. If we give details of the alleged offences then we should have to balance them with his side of the story; not a road we need go down. TerriersFan 00:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What specific section of WP:BLP are you referring to? Jooler 09:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have undone your addition of the alleged offences. WP:BLP requires a NPOV which would mean that we should add his side of the story. Further, the detail of the alleged offences have not been substantiated by any Portuguese police source. TerriersFan 16:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, what specific section of BLP are you referring to? Your interpretation of WP:NPOV in relation to this addition is incorrect. Specifically from that page "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." Reporting that someone has been charged with a crime is neither sympathetic or compassionate to the subject, it is simply the reporting of a fact reported in more than one reliable source. To suggest that this can't go in unless we have his side of the story is frankly ridiculous. I do not like analogies but one wonders whether you would similarly censor the article on Steven_Gerald_James_Wright. The Times, which we must accept is a reliable source states that "Leaked court papers reveal that Tavares Almeida is one of three officers accused of beating Virgolino Borges, a railway worker, during nearly eight hours of interrogation." here. Jooler 00:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious and potentially damaging allegation. We don't base article content on 'leaked papers'. We do not know what the 'leaked papers' are, whether they are definitive or reliable, nor do we know whether they are current (charges made get dropped with some regularity). In my view to insert potentially libellous details we need a stronger justification. However, we edit here by consensus and more views are needed. I am happy to go by the majority view. Until there is one, in my view, the safety of the Project takes precedence. Talk of censorship is silly - the alleged charges can be seen in the source - it is a question of dealing responsibly with a matter that is peripheral to this article. This text should stay out until/unless there is a consensus for it to go in. TerriersFan 01:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We know is that The Times has enough confidence in the source to report that he has been charged with torturing a suspect. Whether it's a leaked source or an official source is irrelevant. Are you suggesting it might be some kind of forgery? The alleged victim's lawyer has commented on his client's experience. I fail to see how echoing the reliable report of a reliable source in they way it was written in the article is "potentially libellous". You still do not refer to anything specific in WP:BLP. Jooler 02:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are we relying on "leaked papers". Surely if charges have been laid, that is a publicly known fact (except on some very limited circumstances involving national security for example). If it is an official source, it should be in many different publications. I would be very wary of including something like this in the circumstances. Charges may be being considered, but there will be an official announcement when they are brought, surely. Failing that official announcement we should not be including information about "charges" against any individual. (We went through the same debate in the lead-up to the McCanns being named arguidos.) Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are we relying on "leaked papers"? - because that's what the original source used by the British press was. I do not speak Portuguese, so I have to rely on the British press and The Times and The Telegraph printed the story from their sources when the story broke. One would not expect them to print a follow-up story to say "we can now confirm that what we printed from our reliable leaked source has now been confirmed by official sources". Now I have been trying to confirm this story I have been searching for "Tavares Almeida" using Google and not coming up with much. But I was inspired enough this afternoon to search the website of Jornal de Notícias which is a Portuguese newspaper of record and I found what I was looking for. His name is actually Tavares de Almeida and here is their story about him being charged with torture. They specifically use the word "torturas". Google's translation says -

"[Tavares de Almeida] ... is one of three inspectors of the Judicial Police (PJ) pronounced last week for the crime of torture, in a case seven years ago in Lisbon, described by JN before yesterday ... The decision of the 3rd Judgment of the Court of Criminal Procedure (ICT) in Lisbon in order for trial Tavares de Almeida and two more inspectors from the directory of the Lisbon PJ ... Tavares de Almeida and the other two defendants are already aware of the decision of the judge, but must be notified in writing this week."

I think the point is proven and I am going to re-instate the text. Jooler 16:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the rush? Until they (and we) are officially notified it should not be in the article. Until then it is just speculation. I am removing it pending charges being officially brought. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That article was written two weeks ago! Jooler 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"That article was written two weeks ago"... speculating about charges that have not been formally brought. I am sorry, but until charges are brought, we should not be including the speculation. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

<after edit conflict> - :::That article was written two weeks ago! He HAS been charged. The Judge announced it. It says that the accused will be informed by writing. What exactly are you expecting to be confirmed here? Are you expecting Almeida to report that he has received a letter? Jooler 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be breaching WP:POINT Jooler 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I expect to see something more official about charges being laid in Portugal than a speculative article in a British newspaper. Can you not find a reliable source that actually confirms that the charges have been laid, because this one doesn't? The Times merely quotes some un-named source. Surely when charges are laid against a senior Portuguese policeman it will be front page news in the Portuguese media. If it is, source it properly. If it isn't, it should not be included. 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk • contribs)

And what about the Portuguese source? Jooler 22:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok here is another Portguguese source - [16] - Google translation says

"Tavares de Almeida, direct investigator in the case Madeleine McCann, was pronounced Friday for the crime of torture for extortion of testimony in a case related to an alleged theft practiced by an official of the CP from Rio de Mouro, county of Sintra, as was the Directorate Central to Combat the Banditisme (DCCB), which had been filed by prosecutors "

Do you think this is speculative!? Jooler 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm both sources reliable & correct translation (pronunciado = indicted). Rothorpe 23:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Article

Robert Murat is described this way in a biography by The Times: "Mr Murat was born on November 20, 1973, at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, Hammersmith, west London - the elder son of John Henry Queriol Murat, a company director, who is Portuguese, and Jennifer (nee Eveleigh), from Sidmouth, Devon." (and it continues with more details). [17] His Portuguese ancestry, even in the paternal line, has dubious precision, although having the citizenship like his father. He is as local in London where he was born or in Norfolk where he lived and worked, as he is local in other Algarve’s villages where he stayed or Praia da Luz, where he was living with his mother when the English girl disappeared.

Dozens of other newspapers portray Murat as an expatriate or a British-Portuguese dual citizen, never as a “local man”. But this article states that Murat is an ordinary "local man". I can understand editor’s opinions and the reasons behind them, though I think they are totally inaccurate and unfounded. This article has been a hallucinating passerelle of rumour and half-truths, with a total disrespect and lack of understanding for the criminal investigation work.

Since people love opinions in this corner of Wikipedia, I give my opinion too (and I don't even try to add a totally disputed tag because it would be removed by ""consensus""): This article is a dull collection of bad journalism, selected tabloid citations and England-centred biased opinions and point of views.

It would be simpler to create an article of Criticism of the Portuguese police in the Madeleine case, and saying that in the Banana Republic of Portugal the police is inept and there is no rule of law. The investigators are not serious because they watch TV, drink and laugh while having lunch. You would be more than happy for finalizing the article stating that any British citizen who has earned the privilege of being personally aided by the British media and political power can’t be a suspect of any crime in Portugal, Uganda, Scotland or any other third world country. This would be proudly assured while hundreds of disappeared children, abductions and other unsolved crimes which are forgotten every year in England, wouldn’t be mentioned at all.

Continue your mission and go ahead with the open policy of defend the arguidos at any cost while suspecting everybody wearing a police badge. But calm down, an arguido doesn’t need public opinion’s unconditional support because he is not a convict. Your conspiracy theories are bizarre but fun as a sociological distraction. Contrary to what has been told, the Portuguese and the rest of the world have confidence in the police. Most people believe the truth will eventually prevail (and by this no one is saying the McCanns and Murat are guilty or not; outside England – in the rough countries – citizens wait until the end of the investigation and let the authorities work with no disturbances).

And by the way, for the Portuguese police, the McCanns are suspects since an early stage and Madeleine is believed death since the beginning; this has been reported several times in the Portuguese media while this article and the majority of the British media have insisted they were not suspects at all and that the unfortunate little girl was alive in Morocco or Spain. Miguelzinho 21:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Murat is not a 'local man' in the usual sense, a fisherman or hotelier, say. But I also agree with TerriersFan that there is no relevance in proclaiming his dual nationality in the opening. How to word it neutrally? A local expat? No, that ignores his Portuguese side. How about 'a local resident'? Yes, that suggests he may be a non-native. I'll change it to that - & sleep on it. Rothorpe 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Neat compromise - I agree. I have previously put the dual nat in the Murat section so I think this covers all bases. TerriersFan 22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction

I have moved the reconstruction theory to the Response article. It is well worth recording but it is just one of many theories by many experts and therefore needs to be put in context. The main article should be for what we know not for speculation. TerriersFan 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Branson Quote

In the "criticism of the police" section, I think that it might be better to perhaps provide a direct quote by Branson, instead of using indirect speech. As the sentence currently stands, it's quite ambiguous:

• Did he criticize the police for having suspects? - Criticism of police procedure

• Did he criticize them for publicly naming their "arguidos"? - Criticism of the Portuguese legal system

• Did he criticize them for suspecting someone of killing Madeleine (instead of focusing on the "abduction" theory)? - Criticism of the investigation

• Did he criticize the police for suspecting the McCanns (and not, eg, the Smiths)? - Criticism of... ...I'm not quite sure what of. Mip | Talk 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the link to the Telegraph article, it's clear there are elements of all these, though his main thrust is to defend the McCanns. You might like to rewrite the sentence to include the press as well. Rothorpe 15:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As an independent spectator who didn't watch the interview, I'm afraid that the Wikipedia article wasn't quite clear for me. This summary of his criticism as a loose "overstepping" of a looser undefined/undefinable "mark" read a bit like a kid saying "I don't like it just because". ;o)

Unfortunately, when I accessed the Telegraph article for further information, I realized that, in fact, that was pretty much what it said, as well.

So what I was actually wondering was whether anyone had direct access to the full NBC interview that the quotes were taken from. The Telegraph article, extracting statements, suggests that the "mark" Branson believes should limit police behaviour and was overstepped is an "I know for a fact that the McCanns are innocent" mark (as opposed to a procedural mark, a legal mark, a criminalistic mark or even a moral mark).

I just find it strange that such a seasoned Media mogul would produce statements whose full-extent are "a foreign country's police force sucks because they suspect someone whom I believe to be innocent". I think it might be worth confirming if the Telegraph quotes are, in fact, all he said, or if it's just a question of context - ie, if during the interview he did mention some procedural, legal, criminalistic or moral mark that he believes was crossed, and it was simply deemed not very "quotable" by the Telegraph.

I guess it's back to that old "he said that she said that he said" issue that's been discussed before on this Talk Page.

I would be pleased to suggest changes myself, but as I said, I didn't watch the interview (and have no access to it), so all I can offer is the effect this sentence had on me as a reader unfamiliar with the quote. Mip | Talk 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no access to the interview either, but I have pointed up Branson's remarks, which are, I think, quite typical. Rothorpe 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

On the MSN Video web site, you should be able to view a recording of Sir Richard Branson's interview with The Today Show's Matt Lauer. Apart from the parenthesised word "sources" qualifying "they" (presumably added at Branson's request), the Telegraph article quotes him pretty accurately. From the article's opening paragraph alone, it might be inferred that Branson's comments related primarily to the naming of the McCanns as suspects. But from the directly quoted passages, as well as those from earlier reports during September, his criticism appears to be directed more towards the intense media speculation, reportedly fuelled by unnamed police sources, about the role of the McCanns in the case.

As already noted from the stv.tv article, Professor David Barclay's comments support the consideration of Madeleine's parents as suspects. Moreover, according to a more detailed commentary on the Channel 4 Dispatches broadcast in which Barclay appeared, all five experts reviewing the case felt that, by neglecting to immediately interview the parents and seal off the apartment for forensic evidence, the Portuguese Police had failed to manage the early part of the investigation effectively. Error -128 (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tavares de Almeida

Should this article show that Tavares de Almeida has been charged with an alleged torture offence?

In what way is it relevant to Madeleine's case? To be charged is one thing to be found guilty is another very different thing. No one complained being tortured in Madeleine's case. If police abused their authority on another case, it may have happened, yes, the other side of their stressfull work can be seen when one reads a policeman commited suicide. What message do you want to get across in this article? That he is a bad policeman? Are you sure this was not his car: "An attendant at a car park in Portimão pointed to a car driven by one of the officers directing the case and said that it had not moved for days. “They sleep at the police station now,” he said." [18] My oppinion is no.Topodegama 19:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good sources and bad sources

Hi Harry was a white dog with black spots,

1- The information added was erased because you say the Mirror is not a reliable source. Can you provide a list of sources that will be automatically erased ? It would save us time.

Look at WP:SOURCE. Harry was a white dog with black spots#

It is impossible to know that the Mirror is not a reliable source unless I am used to read it.

I agree the comments made by an unreliable news paper should not be added but the Mirror was quoting and naming all the sources. Other sources like the Times and Portuguese JN were also erased, why? are they not reliable too?

For the comment on "Early stages" section we can also add this source from the BBC : "Officers sealed off the area of the apartment for forensic checks and extra police teams were brought in from Lisbon" [19]

The Portuguese news paper DN confirms the apartment was sealed and fingerprints and footprints searched.[20] The information on the Mirror is the same as in the others papers.

I can add these two sources instead. Notice there is almost a two hours gap between the time Madeleine was found missing and the time the police reported being called. That gap is the source of much speculation about the work of the PJ. The evidences were already compromised before any police source arrived.

For the comment on the "Criticism of the police"section: They did cite and quoted their sources. I found two other source to back it up, it can be re-written not to use the Mirror:

"Forensic expert defends Portuguese police involved in Madeleine case"They have been much criticised, but Professor Barclay says it has been unfair and detectives are right to consider Maddy's parents, Kate and Gerry, as suspects." [21]

This is all speculation. We have to be very careful given WP:BLP issues. This person has investigated the case to some extent, but we have to rely on official sources only regarding who may have done what etc. to avoid falling foul of WP:BLP

Ok, should I then start erasing all the information that criticizes the Portuguese police?

Shall I give you some examples? [133][134] ::[136][22][23]

[24][25]

Just on the first few lines you have the Mirror as a source and comments of people that have never been in the crime scene and never investigated the case. It is all speculation. The British official that were in the crime scene cooperating with the PJ and helped in some way with the investigation made no comments until now. All the rest never got even close to the crime scene.

"Portuguese police were justified in scrutinising Kate and Gerry McCann in the investigation into their daughter's disappearance, British police sources have claimed." "Sources said the investigation is focusing "where it should be","[26] Topodegama 18:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Much of what you added doesn't add anything to the article. Whether the police are or are not justified in considering the McCanns suspects may or may not be known in the fullness of time. The only fact that we can report is that they are suspects. Harry was a white dog with black spots

But it is not what written in the article is it? There are only bad critics most from the media

and none reliable. "criticism: when you give your opinion or judgment about the good or bad qualities of something" (dictionary) He gave his opinion, like everyone else, he has no access to the investigation.

I am assuming you have no real reason to revert my edit, I provided sources as good as any other.

Topodegama 21:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Most recent edit by Topodegama

I have reverted the most recent edit. Up to now this has been a well written article but these additions are badly written, poorly structured and detract from the flow of the article. Parts of the addition duplicate the previous section. Simply because something is sourced doesn't mean it should go in - we synthesise much sourced material to extract the important. The one key thing that I take from the new material is the contamination of the scene - I shall work on this to incorporate suitable new text. TerriersFan 22:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I have reviewed this addition. As I say above, the point about the contamination of the crime scene is well taken. However, though the sources may be RSs, there is no clear attribution. I have, therefore, moved a paragraph up from later in the article where Sousa makes the same point. This is attributed and by moving it up to this section it gives it greater prominence. I have problems, though, with two key aspects of your edit. First of all you say that the GNR arrived at 23:30.This does not correlate with other accounts.

the GNR was called at 23h50 as I said bellow, the source is the PR of the GNR, Tenent-Colonel Costa Cabral. He is the person in charge of giving information to the media.

The role of the GNR, as I understand it, is security and uniformed policing. The GNR arrived first to secure the scene and carry out the search.

They are a military police but they are not crime investigators. They have different Brigades,(e.g.) the high way brigade.

The PJ, the investigative police, were contacted later and they allocated detectives to the case. You also imply that the child was found to be missing some two hours before the police were notified (which we know to be after 22:00). This is not confirmed by other sources. If true (and obviously I can't say it is not true merely that it is not confirmed) it would go to the heart of the credibility of the McCanns so we need to be sure about it.

Police was notified at 11:50 not 22:00, this is the official version which was released to the public by the GNR Spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Costa Cabral. The alarm in the resort was raised at 22:00 or 22:15 according to different sources. But one thing is to give the alert in the resort another is to call the police.Topodegama 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I can show you several Portuguese online newspaper that reported she went missing at 11:50. As you can see it is a very old information that started to be released right on day 04-05-07.

• (News released 04-05-2007)[27]
• (News released 05-05-2007)[28]
• (News released 08-05-2007)[29]
• (News released 08-05-2007)[30]

This is the only news paper I found in English : [31]Topodegama 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To mitigate some of my earlier comments might I say that I appreciate your interest. However, it would be helpful if you would add references in the 'cite news' format and make sure that the additions are properly integrated into the page. TerriersFan 23:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Where does it detract from the flow of the article and duplicated the previous section?

• 1- It does not say the police was called almost two hours after she was found missing, the previous section implies the police was late.The police was called at 23h50. I provided sources: Lieutenant Colonel Costa Cabral from GNR. Notice that there is a gap of almost two hours, there was more than time to compromise the crime scene.
• 2-In the entire article there is no mention that the improvised search party damaged evidence before the arrival of the police. I provided reliable sources: PJ Olegário Sousa.
• 3-The article says the police failed to secure the area, I provided reliable sources in two languages saying otherwise. BBC and Jornal de Noticias.
• 4-If you found it badly written and poorly structured I am sure you could have improved the style without having deleted the information.
• 5-What I wrote contradicts the the flow of the article, yes, much of the critics in the article are based on the fact police failed to seal the area.

Topodegama 23:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, we had an editing conflict - you wrote this as I was writing by second response above. Just to confirm the key points. The police were alerted by 22:40 at the latest, see here. I have already inserted the Sousa account of the contamination. The failure to secure the scene is already in the article, in the 'Criticism of the police' section. TerriersFan 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not say police was alerted at that time. (Date of disappearance: 03/05/2007, about 22H40).

It is the time the police was told she was missing not the time they arrived. Notice they wrote ::"about", they must have been told different times by the people they interrogated. The entire ::information on the PJ's webside was provided by someone very close to Madeleine. He/she gave the ::information about the time and her eye color.

While you write in the article that the police failed to secure the area I wrote and gave sources ::that the police did secure the area.[32][33]

Topodegama 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Professor Barclay and police sources rebuttal

OK, the Professor Barclay rebuttal is a good addition - given an hour, I shall incorporate this into the article with the sources properly structured. However, the unspecified 'police sources' are not. I have seen these before and they cannot go in because the sources are unattributed. Just because material is included in reliable sources (Telegraph/Times etc.) doesn't mean that it should go in the article. We have avoided including unattributed material, even when in RSs, until independently confirmed. TerriersFan 22:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, I have now rewritten this as a balancing rebuttal. I have also added the material to the Response article where it also goes well. TerriersFan 23:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The billboard photo up for deletion

Hi. The billboard photo of Maddy and the number to call is under consideration for deletion on Commons and thats not good since most other madeleine pages has that picture. Then all the articles will loose mutch of its interest (atleast in my opinion) so I rather see the picture not being deleted or that some other photo gets loaded up for use.--Zingostar 15:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maddie 129, The first book about the case

We need to add a section dedicated to the first book by two Portuguese journalists. It is called Maddie 129. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.168.141 (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I'll add a section to the Response article. Does anyone have the ISDN? TerriersFan 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Drugged by the parents?

There's been a bit of speculation in the media about whether the McCanns drugged the children, and I think also this could be the accidental cause of Madeleine's death. However, this article doesn't seem to mention any of this. If this is just speculation, it'd be nice if the article stated so. kzm (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There is simply no sound basis for this claim. It is one of many scenarios speculated on by the Portuguese media. We have a clear policy of only recording what can be stood up with reliable sources. TerriersFan (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism in the lead para

I think a summary of the various criticisms is needed in the lead. I am going out for a few hours but will draft something for comment tonight. TerriersFan (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Now done. TerriersFan (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Rejection of petition on Downing Street website

The wording of this is very biased. After reading the petition information, there is no offensive or inflammatory language in it, so surely it would be more appropriate to have something like "The petition was rejected, with the reason given being the language it contained". Whilst I understand that the following comment I am about to make would never be allowed on wiki, I would argue that there are a number of reasons why the petition was rejected, and that the language explanation is an excuse. The number 10 website would never allow a petition of this nature to be accepted, as this case has split public opinion so much that they know it could be a potential vote loser to allow it, and whilst I am not suggesting this opinion should ever be allowed on the wiki page, the current wording on this article's main page is misrepresentative of the wording on the petition on the number 10 website. In case there is any doubt in this, I have included the text:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to request that Leicestershire Social Services fulfil their statutory obligation to investigate the circumstances which led to 3 year old Madeleine McCann and her younger siblings being left unattended in an unlocked, ground floor hotel room.

We ask that the Prime Minister do this to reflect an evenhanded approach to the important issue of child protection.

We also wish to ensure that no parent will ever be able to evade responsibility for the safety and welfare of their children by citing the example of Mr and Mrs McCann, whose negligence is unreasonably being discounted in the tidal wave of sympathy brought about as a consequence of their media campaign".

Please explain where there is anything that is actually unreasonable in there - granted it could be construed as heartless, crass and insensitive by some, but it is a FACT that the McCanns did leave the children unattended, and in their home country, leaving children under the age of 12 without adult supervision somewhere in the building they are in is illegal.86.144.86.167 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have amended the wording along the lines that you suggested. TerriersFan (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the petition in question quickly degenerated into a www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?June2007 (blog-style discussion), which undermined its credibility as a petition. The language referred to as "offensive, intemperate, or provocative" relates to comments made by numerous signatories, rather than to the initial wording. Error -128 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about that. The official response said "This petition has been rejected because: * It contained language which is offensive, intemperate, or provocative" which clearly points to the wording of the petition. I think our wording is OK. TerriersFan (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the note was intended merely to add a little more context, rather than to suggest any change to the current wording - which I agree addresses the concern raised (however the response is interpreted). Apologies if this just muddied the waters. Error -128 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection

Why is this article still semi-protected? If I didn't know any better I might come to the conclusion that someone was trying to exclude IPs from contributing, permanently. 82.2.80.164 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I totally disagree but for you personally there is one easy solution. Choose anonymity. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And what, pray, are you totally disagreeing about? As for me personally, I already edit using an account, including editing this article. I also edit anonymously when it suits me, except of course, for this article, where it seems you need permission to do so. 82.2.80.164 21:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been several periods of unprotection and each time protection has had to go back because of damaging edits. We still get unpleasant attack edits from established accounts but we can be more effective in dealing with those than with IP edits. The overriding consideration is the protection of the Project and we must take all practicable steps to reduce the sort of defamatory edits that get attracted to this article (and yes, semi-protection does reduce these). TerriersFan 01:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So it's permanently semi-protected then? 82.2.80.164 10:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the only article that seems to have permanent or semi-permanent semi-protection. I agree with the move in this case. If you look through the history, the majority of anonymous edits have been unhelpful/vandalism. As TerriersFan says, unprotection has been tried several times, resulting in a flood of such edits. Harry was a white dog with black spots 11:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So I'll take that as a yes, then. 82.2.80.164 13:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I am not an admin, so I don't have the power to unprotect it. But if it were up to me it would remain semi-protected for the reasons above. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no official status of 'permanently semi-protected' but for a number of articles removing the protection is unlikely to be sensible. George W Bush is probably the classic example! Wikipedia in the UK is under a lot of media scrutiny at the moment so all we need is defamatory edit that gets missed, or is not reverted quickly, and we shall get a whole bunch of criticism. Anyone who wants to edit only has to created an account and wait a few days; not exactly a hardship. 86.135.251.144 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So why is it Wikipedia policy - right from the top - to allow IP edits? 82.2.80.164 15:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There are exceptions to that policy. That is the very reason why semi-protection (and indeed full protection) exists. And in certain cases, as 86.135.251.144 notes, history shows that it is unwise to remove that protection. History has shown it to be the case with this article. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability

How is this girl notable? There are millions of lost children just like Madeleine and they don't have articles.Explain. IslaamMaged126 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The girl is not notable; her disappearance is because of the extensive media coverage. See WP:N. This has been discussed on here many times. TerriersFan (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But so many other children are missing-just like madeline-and what makes her disappearance so notable? IslaamMaged126 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"...because of the extensive media coverage. See WP:N." Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that I am wondering;Children like Estelle Mouzin or Georgine Kruger don't have articles, and they are missing.I know that because of the extensive media coverage that is why she is notable, though.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For an article to exist, first and foremost it requires an editor interested enough to create one. There is no sign that articles on either of these girls has been deleted so it looks as though no such an editor has not been around. If you consider that either should have a page then feel free to create one. If you do create one then name it after the event e.g. Disappearance of ... not the child. Whether the article survives deletion scrutiny will depend on your sourcing it as an event with long-term interest and compliance with WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Estelle Mouzin has an article on French Wikipedia, so that might be a place to start from. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, she's not notable per WP:BIO. The disappearance is, however, given the massive (and in my opinion, observing WP:NOT#FORUM, quite disgusting in utilitarian terms - she's just one child - the money spent covering her disappearance could have saved the lives of thousands of children in the third world by providing them with clean water, food and shelter) news coverage.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Paedophilia/Child sex abuser/Child sex offender

Definitions:

• Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, in a person over the age of 16. It usually does not involve the commission of criminal activity.

• Child sexual abuse is the sexual abuse of a minor. If Madeleine has been abducted by a ring using her for prostitution, that is child sexual abuse. The people who control such rings would not necessarily meet the criteria for a diagnosis of pedophilia.

• A child sex offender is someone who has been convicted of a sex offence against a minor. This is the correct term for "convicted pedophile". A person who commits sex offences against minors does not usually meet the criteria for a diagnosis of pedophilia.

Using obviously incorrect terms, outside of quotes, makes Wikipedia look like a tabloid newspaper rather than an encyclopedia. Barry Jameson (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Barry, thanks for the clarification. It's clear from your recent edits that you're after a very accurate and unambiguous definition in this sensitive area to be applied across a number of articles here in Wikipedia. That's fine. Hopefully now I've used the quotation in this article it no longer falls foul of being incorrect. I think you've got a lot of work on your hands to convert all misuses of "paedophile" to "convicted child sex offender", but good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Barry's definitions are accurate. However, we have no way of knowing if Madeleine has been sexually abused. Therefore, without any other evidence, to term her abductors (assuming she has been abducted) as child sex offenders or being engaged in child sexual abuse is not encyclopaedic. The police have referred to leads involving paedophile networks, and we should use that terminology until there is evidence that sexual abuse has in fact taken place. The point is precisely that one can be a paedophile without committing sexual abuse. There is no evidence that abuse has taken place in this case, and the police have made specific reference to a "paedophile network" in the source quoted, so we should not misquote the source. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of the police statement is obvious: they believe that Madeleine was abducted by a child sexual abuse network. The police frequently use the terms "paedophilia" and "child abuse" as synonyms; I don't think that they really believe that the girl was abducted simply because paedophiles wanted someone to talk to. If an international network of any kind abducts a child, they clearly have sinister motives.

So, one can confidently say that the police believe Madeleine was abducted by a child sex abuse network, yet they're making the mistake of using the term "paedophilia". As such, it is appropiate to correct this mistake for an encyclopedic article. Barry Jameson (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, in en encyclopaedic article we cannot assume what the police meant. We have to use the words they used, even if they are incorrect. And indeed, legally, we do not know if sex abuse has taken place. Encylopedias are not about "confidently saying" what anyone believes. It is about recording the facts as we know them, and quoting accurately what has been said. The police have said that Madeleine may have been kidnapped by a network of paedophiles, but they do not say why they think that, or speculate on what the paedophiles may have done with her subsequently. We must avoid speculation. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, you cannot second guess what various sources mean when they say "paedophilia". It's certainly not up to us to re-interpret and speculate what various sources "really meant to say". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I also concur. TerriersFan (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there is nothing "unencyclopedic" about the term "paedophile network". Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Factual error? - NOT a coloboma

According to the official description of Madeleine on the Policia Judiciaria website [34], her right eye is described as "green with a brown spot on the iris".

This would suggest that it is NOT a coloboma, but is in fact sectoral heterochromia, or heterochromia iridis - in this case, a hyperpigmented mark on the iris. See the image on Wikipedia's entry for sectoral heterochromia - [[35]]

Is there an authoritative source for the assertion that it is a coloboma? I have seen some newspaper articles that refer to it as a coloboma, but is that journalistic presumption, or can the journalists cite an original source for this?

I think this needs to be clarified. Unless there is an authoritative source for it being a coloboma, I think perhaps it may be better to go along with the official PJ description of it as "a spot on the iris", which can reasonably be inferred as a lay description for heterochromia iridis. As noted, a coloboma is a structural defect or split in the iris - which is very different from being "a spot".

Certainly I don't think it is possible to state that she has a coloboma of her right eye, unless an authoritative source for this information can be found, and I feel the article should be edited accordingly. Whimsical Oracle (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Portuguese seem to mean many things by 'coloboma': anyway, TerriersFan has now reworded it - Rothorpe (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; a helpful analysis. The fact that the PJ release does not describe the mark as a coloboma is probably not significant. I don't know how well coloboma translates into Portuguese but here in the UK I doubt if 99% of people would know what a coloboma is (I for one didn't until this came up). Hence the decision of the PJ to use descriptive terminology that everyone will recognise, rather than a medical term that will be little understood, seems simple common-sense. Having said that coloboma is a medical term that we can't reliably source so I agree that avoiding the use of the term is a good idea. However, replacing it with 'sectoral heterochromia' would be changing one unsourced term for another. I have rephrased the article so that it is purely descriptive and can be verified from the photograph. It also reflects what the image source says. TerriersFan (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I have short-term protected the page because of damaging edits such as this which introduces a factual inaccuracy, unsourced speculation and a negative statement about the two investigating agencies, which is not being immediately reverted. TerriersFan (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous argument to protect a page from being edited. I do not know how you have the nerve to use words like "factual inaccuracy", "unsourced speculation" and "negative statement". The article is full of factual inaccuracies, made by "experts" which are not working on the case and do not have access to the police files, as it is an ongoing investigation still under the secrecy law. The "unsourced speculation" is just a joke if compared with a xenophobic statements like this : "Olegário de Sousa and Gonçalo Amaral, the head of the regional Polícia Judiciária,took a leisurely lunch and an observer commented that they laughed"[...]. Congratulations, you just made a fool of yourself! The "negative statement about the two investigating agencies " can not be compared with the statement by an anonymous expert:"The nature of the Ocean Club may have contributed to the disappearance of Madeleine...[]". FActFactual inaccuracy is another name for this biased article.

A good advise, do not accuse others of damaging edits for doing the same precise thing you are doing in this page. If the sources that have been used to write this article are good then the ones I used are excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.12.61 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For too long now TerriersFan has been abusing his position as an admin by locking out IPs who don't agree with him. In this particular instance he hasn't even entered into discussion on the matter. Have a look at his Request for Admin and you'll see some editors were opposed to his appointment on just these grounds. This guy needs taking to task. Unfortunately as an IP you can't do it because you need to create a page to report the problem - and as an IP you can't create a page!! I might set up a throwaway account to create the necessary page to report him. 86.27.63.49 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You can report an admin using an IP account. But as I have told you before, I would personally dismiss any IP report, unless the IP gave a compelling reason for not using an account, because it would be an attempt hold someone to a greater level of accountability than the complainer is willing to be held accountable to. It was actually me and not Terriers Fan who removed the item about the private investigation. It was poorly written and poorly sourced, presenting selective quotes from the article cited. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've reported him. You are talking rubbish about dismissing IP reports. In this case the facts are there for all to see. The rogue admin has on this occasion SPd the article for absolutely no other reason than he doesn't agree with the IP edit content. He hasn't even discussed it. 86.26.241.151 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before (look a few inches up). The vast, vast majority of IP edits on this article have been either vandalism or unhelpful. Any time that semi-protection has been removed, the same thing has happened. Unilateral action sometimes needs to be take quickly, especially when WP:BLP concerns are in play.

BTW, it is hilarious that you mention his request for admin! One person made reference to his alleged refusal to accept consensus, and that was quickly countered by other editors, and shown to be a reaction to a warning Terriers Fan gave. Come on, sign in if you are going to make accusations like this. Your IP trolling is simply making you look silly, and I am no longer taking your "experiment" seriously. The only "facts" that "are there for all to see" is that you appear to be engaged in some kind of vendetta, hiding behind IP addresses to avoid having to take responsibility for your accusations. Most people would call that cowardly. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to remove the protection from this article, under the following conditions:

• The edits are NOT readded by the IP user. Most of the edit is speculation and personal analysis, such as this statement added by the IP user: "Now,In southern spain...a girl named Mari has disapperes since 13t of January 2008,the police are in the middle of trying to find her.They are suspicious that Madeleine Mc Cann may be still alive in Spain,and trying to find out if the two Dispearances are linked together,further update later." Also, the section that DOES have a reference is being challenged as to its relevence to the article. That it has a source or does not have a source is IRRELEVENT. The edit is being challeneged and thus should be discussed and consensus reached on the talk page before readding it. The appropriate way to handle challenged edits is to discuss on the talk page so all sides can make their case fully, and consensus can be reached.
• Alternate forms of mediation, such as WP:3O or WP:RFC are started. Where two camps are at an impasse, bringing in uninvolved help is the best way to handle it.
• Terriersfan is a good admin in good standing, and should not have his name besmirched. Discuss the article and not the people involved in editing it. Part of the reason I am removing the protection is that he is too involved in this article, and should probably seek an uninvolved admin in the future to handle protecting this article. That I noted this minor lapse in judgement does not give anyone the right to needlessly attack him or start frivolous reports about his behavior. Get back to reaching consensus on the article, and stop trying to discuss him. Mistake made, mistake fixed. Move on.

If these conditions cannot be met, expect the protection to be returned.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit that was poorly writen, poorly sourced and had selective quotes. Is it a joke?

No. Let's see poor English in the first sentence. Quotes from the source that are negative about the agencies but none from the principals of those agencies refuting those statements. (Both sides of the "Lunch criticisms" are presented in the article for example, but we shouldn't pretend that the police officers weren't criticised.) The article from the Express is just a sensational piece that adds nothing to the article. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All the poorly sourced with selective quotes, or should I say: hillariously xenophobic quotes like the one of a police officer who had to defend himself saying why he has te right to eat and drink according to the costumes of his own country, should be erased from this page. The edits that imply that the police officers are guilty just because they were accused by a convicted murderer and have nothing to do with Madeleine McCann. The edits that do not have a named source. And finaly stop the obsessive edits about Madeleine in every related place with this case like in Praia da Luz, (notability? ask the local people! They call it a bad image.), Tal & Qual, Murder of Joana Cipriano, Figueira (Faro) The portuguese police name on every unrelated page:Murder of Nathalie Mahy and Stacy Lemmens, Facial recognition system.What is this for? Should the same be done for every missing child in the UK? Really, there are administrators that should be substituted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.75.160 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there will be Portuguese people who are upset at the publicity that this case is bringing to their country. That doesn't mean that we should compromise the quality of this article. All the issues that the IP editor mentions above have been thoroughly discussed in the past (and that discussion has included several Portuguese editors) and consensus has been reached. Where sources are quoted, they are quoted accurately and in context, not selectively. There is a reason for each inclusion (some more controversial than others) and perhaps the IP might wish to go over the five pages of archived discussions and get a feel for the history of this article and the debates that have already taken place. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I clearly advise you to check the statistics related to missing children , the average amount of time the British police takes to solve a case (one year) and the number of unsolved cases reported in the UK, before you make comments such as these. The only thing that all the publicity can do is harm to Madeleine, if she was abducted. The police warned about the risks. This is an encyclopedia, not a publicity campaign. It has nothing to do with the publicity of news papers, (Portugal has a very low number of missing children compared to the UK), but with the amount of nonsense published which you insist in replicate. The quality of this article is of a tabloid. The above mentioned are good examples of not named sources , selective and not in context quotes, whatever your reasons to support them:

The source: A fellow diner.... who dinned for two hours.

1. What he said: "The party shared a bottle of white wine" …….One bottle for four! Or was it a five liter bottle? They drank it all, or just half the bottle?
2. "there was what appeared to be a bottle of whisky" Then could it be milk? water? soda?
3. "I thought that laughing like that in public was in really poor taste." Police officers can not laugh on their free time! Great source!

The editor's excuse to insert the reference of the fellow dinner as a reliable source: "I accept that lunching practices may differ in Portugal but it doesn't matter what country you are in; drinking alcohol impairs performance and clouds judgement."

1. Fact: Portuguese police officers have two hours unpaid free time at lunch time.
2. Fact: “Most people's bodies will process one unit of alcohol per hour, so one hour after drinking one unit your Blood Alcohol Content (Bac) will return to zero or near zero. Drinking two units will take two hours and so on.” [36]
3. Fact:Blood alcohol content allowed to drive ( before it clouds your judgment and impairs performance):
4. The legal limit in the UK is 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.
5. The legal limit in Portugal is 50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

1. Fact:“If you've been out drinking you may still be affected by alcohol the next day. You may feel OK, but you may still be unfit to drive or over the legal alcohol limit.”[37]

A British police officer can go to work still under the influence of alcohol from the night before (no one counted how much he drunk), but can not drink at lunch time because he has not two hours to process the alcohol and people will see him drinking. It is perfectly acceptable that a police officer drinks wine at lunch time along with food as long that two hours is time enough to process the alcohol. The objective to condemn a cultural aspect through the limited views of your own culture is xenophobia. The judgment of the Tapas nine....with the reported 14 bottles of wine ( by a waiter)was not mentioned in the article. Their information, a vital part of the inquiry, was given under the influence of alcohol ( more than a bottle for each). They did not have time enough to process the wine before calling the police. Not time enough for more than a bottle each!

Another example of the lack of impartiality of the article:

Critics allege that the scene had not been secured as tightly as it would have been in the UK[...]

1. Source: A not named expert who says:
2. "What about the police investigation? Again, it appears unsatisfactory. The scene has not been secured as tightly as it would have been in the UK".

Really, not even 10 pages of discussion could convince me that this not the comment of a busybody, without any knowledge of the police work, selectively chosen to prove that the British police secure crime scenes more tightly than the Portuguese. Let's clap hands! The British police secures the crime scene more tightly from nosy British reporters than the Portuguese police. The Portuguese reporters do not damage window shutters from a crime scene to get a photograph, they know the law. I do not care if consensus was achieved in the past, what matters is that now the neutrality of this article is being disputed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.23.124 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear me! You might want to note that the complaint about the police had nothing to do about alcohol or a long lunch hour. It was that the two senior policemen on the case were seen to have laughed and joked while victims/suspects were giving a news conference. Is it acceptable in Portugal for policemen to joke about the cases they are investigating? I think it is a valid criticism.

Wikipedia works by consensus. Clearly you are upset at the coverage of this. But this is a factual, accurate article about this disappearance, built by consensus over many months. Please look at the various policies including Wikipedia:Consensus. It's always good to review things from time to time, but there is nothing in this article that is not backed up by a reliable source Wikipedia:Source. There is no question that this is a neutral article. I am neither British nor Portuguese, so in that respect I think I am a good judge. But many others agree with me. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, without your comment I would not be able to take note that it had nothing to do with alcohol! Let us follow your helpful guide lines:

1. The source: A fellow diner who said: hey asked for the Portuguese TV news to be switched on [...]"“The police were laughing and joking among themselves while it was on. They seemed to be sharing some sort of in-joke”
2. “The Quotes […]from the principals […] refuting those statements” : "The persons are in charge in the day, they are working in the day but they must eat and drink, it is normal. I drink what I want to drink when I can drink." Great choice of quote!!

1. Your question: Is it acceptable in Portugal for policemen to joke about the cases they are investigating?
2. My answer: Really! What was the joke about? What case? Maybe we can all have a laugh! Were they laughing and joking "about the case" during the afternoon news while working? And when they repeated the news conference at night during their free time? And during the every hour news? But you must know a lot more than me.... You say they joke about the cases. Where did you read that? I hope you can back up your accusation with a good evidence!

No, I didn't I asked if it was acceptable that they should do so I said that they were seen to laugh and joke while the news conference was on TV. I would certainly criticise any policemen in any circumstances for doing that when the victims/suspects of a crime were on TV. Clearly you haven't read the source attached to the entry that you are objecting to. Perhaps you should do so before commenting. [[38]] The point is the criticisms were made, the police defended themselves, and both sides are presented in the article. That is called balance. But we shouldn't pretend it didn't happen. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

YOUR QUESTION:"Is it acceptable in Portugal for policemen to joke about the cases they are investigating? Your question implied this was what they were doing.Don't try to say otherwise.

The news is relevant to the article because you would also criticize a policeman if he was laughing and joking in his free time because a "victim" appeared on the news? Is this what you mean?

My friend I can only tell you it goes in clear contradiction of the most basic Human Rights. Article 24: 'Everyone' has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. The article is a clear case of intolerance towards another culture, more fit for a tabloid. What about not pretending that it was not reported that the McCanns already hired three private detective agencies?

In Portugal the workers have the right to free time and to laugh and joke in their free time.

What is the problem with you? I really do not know how you can consider yourself a good judge!

"there is nothing in this article that is not backed up by a reliable source"

Yes? How is this backed with a reliable source:

Article:"It has emerged that the police failed to ask for surveillance pictures of vehicles leaving Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine's disappearance[...]."

1. The source: "Authorities revealed [...]." UAU unnamed authorities!

1. “The Quotes […]from the principals […] refuting those statements” : None

1. My evidence, a local news paper [39]not cited in the article:

1. Euroscut spokes woman:“The cameras monitor images of the motorway between 9am and 6pm, but only record for an hour or two a day,” she said.
2. Maddeleine disappeared between 21:30 and 22:00!

Yes, it's always good to review things from time to time,why don't you have a look at: Wikipedia:ConsensusThe original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. Read also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Check your facts,Wikipedia:Verifiability.

It is obvious this article is not neutral. You are not a good judge just because you say you are not Portuguese or British! Do not ask others to follow rules which you do not follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.126.210.14 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the article not the nationality of the editors. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The point that you are missing is that these criticisms have been made in reliable sources and have therefore been included in the article. There have been many, many other criticisms of people and organisations, both Portuguese and not, that have not been included because they were not reliably sourced. Please read WP:SOURCE and understand what a reliable source is, and how to quote it, before commenting further.

The "original group" (there is no such thing, just editors who have contributed at various points) are not trying to "block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision". That is not how consensus works. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. Once a consensus has been reached, it can be overturned, but a new consensus must be reached first. Until then, no changes are made.

I am sorry, but you appear to be upset that this article says negative things about the Portuguese police. It also says negative things about other people and groups, as well as positive things, including about how the Portuguese police have carried out the investigation. Deleting sourced criticism of the Portuguese police will make this article less balanced, not more . Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"The point that you are missing is that these criticisms have been made in reliable sources and have therefore been included in the article." Is that your only excuse not to have the quotes from the police defending their side?

The point you are missing is that you deleted the information I added to the article, about the three detective companies that have been reported to have been hired by the McCanns, that had sources:The Telegraph, Daily mail, Sunday express, sources that are used several times as reliable in the article. I was accused of "damaging edits", and you mentioned a rule as a reason for deleting my edit which I just proved is not being followed: "Quotes from the source that are negative about the agencies but none from the principals of those agencies refuting those statements."

Where did I say to delete sourced criticism? What I say is make use in the article of the rules you tell others to follow, don't use them to delete only what does not please you.

What is found on the article are the real rules of "good procedure", like these few examples:

1. The list of reliable sources is already provided in the section notes...
2. The use of unnamed sources: "The nature of the Ocean Club...", "critics allege"....
3. The lack of "...principals [...] refuting those [negative] statements"
4. The use of a reliable source but with contend with clear intolerance towards other culture.
5. The unbalanced use of the news that stay in the Madeleine main article or goes to the "Response to the disappearance...."
6. The use of unrelated cases without "...principals [...] refuting those [negative] statements"

and so on... You make rules based on precedence.

Would you please read the article before you comment further. You are doing your cause no favours. As I have already stated at least twice, the quotes from the police defending their side are there. Shall I put that in the bold you seem to favour: The quotes from from the police defending their side are there. Read the article. As for for your edit, several other editors have agreed that they are inappropriate, including one with no history editing the article. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Try to identity the difference between comment, conjecture , misleading statement, and fact, before you tell me to read the article.

I gave you several examples where your quotes are not refuted by the principals:

1. The quotes of the Ocean club refuting “The nature of the Ocean Club may have contributed to the disappearance of Madeleine…[]”

1. The quotes of the police defending their side, as why they have the right to eat and drink during their free time, are there. Not why they were joking.

1. The quotes of the police defending their side, from the critic: Critics allege that the scene had not been secured as tightly as it would have been in the UK[...]. Where is it being refuted?

1. The quotes of the police defending their side, in the article, where it says that " the police failed to ask for surveillance pictures of vehicles leaving Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine's disappearance".' Where is it being refuted? The surveillance camera only records one hour a day from 09:00 to 18:00. Or you also want to imply that Madeleine disappeared between 09:00 to 18:00?

As for for my edit, the above comment of an editor was about "this statement added by the IP user: "Now,In southern spain...a girl named Mari" I did not write about Mari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.55.189 (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We started off talking about long lunches and drinking. Those are the allegations where the police have put their side. If you can find reliable sources that dispute the other critcisms you mention, by all means add them. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 11:57, 28

January 2008 (UTC)

Yes we did, and it was because I wanted to prove to you that you had no reason to remove my edit about the private agencies. I gave you evidence that you were not following the rules you used as an excuse to erase my edit. Three private agencies have been reported to work for the McCanns and to have been paid with the donated money. There is nothing about them and their work on the page. And what is the Real reason for having erased the edit? And by your own rules the edits criticizing the police should not be in the page in first place, that is, until there is a reliable sources that disputes the criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.47.66 (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what a reliable source is our how to quote it. The Times, which reports about the police and their lunch, is a reliable source, and both sides of the story are quoted from it. Your addition was not properly sourced, as other editors have agreed. What was your real reason for adding what critical comments about the agencies without also quoting what the agencies said in their defence (which basically negated the criticism)? Wikipedia is about balance and NPOV, especially when we are talking about living people and their reputations. Harry the Dog (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? The article is full of reliable sources and examples on how to quote them. Pick one. They are all there, unless you want to start erasing all the quotes that are not from The Times. My real reason? Why?The editors here have real reasons behind those they say they do? How smart! My real reason for adding that critical comment... was to balance the article. You see, there was nothing about the detective agencies, which was a very big gap. They are paid with the donated money. (Maybe you can also add some useful information, like how much the detective agencies are paid and how much the police detectives are paid... )

And then I just followed your line of work , basically, I just did what you have been doing. If there is something for you to criticize is your example. Yes, detective agencies are... living people...with a reputation. I should assume that the Ocean club is not included among the living people with a reputation. And the police officers are a completely different life form... amazing that they eat, drink and laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.88.35 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, read up a bit on Wikipedia policies before you comment further. Your questions about verifiability and reliable sources are all answered in links already given. And indeed, the fact that PIs are being used is mentioned a couple of times in both articles. And the police's side of the story is covered in the article, as I have said before. You did not quote the detectives' defence of their involvement. Harry the Dog (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly disappeared

She was last seen in the flat, so she disappeared from it. 'Supposedly' is nonsense: where else might she have disappeared from? Rothorpe (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's a reasonable argument you're putting forward. Let's just collect one or two more views before agreeing, or not, on the inclusion of the word. Other editors should not revert edits simply because in their opinion they are "unhelpful". 80.187.146.16 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is unhelpful because there is no evidence. If you wish to make a change to an article, you must source it properly. Where is your evidence? Where is the police (or any other official or witness) statement disputing that she was in the flat. Until you can produce this, you should not make the change. This has been discussed several times before. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be an attempt to introduce new ideas without any source. Wikitumnus (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but you can forget the discussion. The editor above you has already reverted. He seems to always know best here. 80.187.146.16 (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to make a change you should discuss it first and present your source. You have done neither, therefore reverting the edit is perfectly justifiable. Show me the evidence for your statement that she might not have been in the flat and the edit can stand. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise you controlled the content of this article. I'll be watching you from now on. If you make ANY change to this article without first discussing it here I'll immediately revert it on the grounds you've used. 80.187.146.16 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean any unsourced change. In all of this, I am still waiting for the source of your claim that she wasn't in the apartment! Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And now its protected

The most recent version of the article has been protected to do a massive revert war. This is no statement as to who is right. The page will remain protected UNTIL someone files a report at Requests for Comment or Requests for Third Opinion, and uninvolved editors have commented as to which version they would support. Please achieve consensus here on the talk page with the help of uninvolved editors as explained. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was explained the last time, when protection was lifted (see above). That apparently no one has taken this seriously, and no dispute resolution has been attempted is why the protection is back. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This has also been discussed on Jayron's talk page, but he did not respond to my last comment:

I agree that there is a lot of vandalism on Wikipedia. But most of the vandalism doesn't involve WP:BLP. Wikipedia could be sued for the instance above, and for this subsequent one. In order to mitigate its liability, Wikipedia would have to show that it did everything possible to stop the libelous contributions. Immediate reversion is good, but it doesn't always happen. If it can be shown that IP editors are responsible for the vast bulk of the vandalism on a given artice, preventing them from editing the article would show that Wikipedia is taking its responsibilities seriously. There is good precendence for this on other articles. Where libel issues are concerned, one instance of vandalism per day is far too many. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is definitely one of WP:BLP, and no dispute resolution is needed to revert libellous material. Indeed, it should be reverted immediately, and the 3RR rule does not apply (so Jayron is not correct in suggesting there was a revert war). In this case, the McCanns have said that they left Madeleine in the apartment, from where she was abducted. No one has seriously disputed that, and it is the established version of events. The police have not stated any different, and there are no witnesses to the contrary. Therefore, to state, without evidence, that Madeleine might not have been abducted from the apartment is to suggest that the McCanns are liars at the very least. The implications of the suggestion are even worse. I hope that people can understand this concern, and the sensitivity on this and other articles where criminal charges might arise and where lawsuits are a definite possibility.

So I am glad that the article has been reprotected to help avoid as many of these damaging edits as possible, but semi protection is all that is needed. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing vandalism with good faith edits that you, personally, consider to be unhelpful. I hardly think the material you refer to is libellous. It seems to me that you just want it all your own way at this article. 80.187.158.70 (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone in effect a liar with no evidence to support that assertion (especially in a criminal case) is not libellous? It certainly is in the UK. And it's not just me. Several other editors agreed, both in this instance and in previous cases where editors tried to insert the same or similar wording. Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"In effect" being the operative words here; it's a matter of opinion. The problem we have here is that every time someone adds new material you immediately revert it, claiming various reasons including lack of discussion. You are excluding just about everyone from contributing to this article. By the way, it wasn't me that first introduced "supposedly". 80.187.158.70 (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly a matter of opinion. "In effect" means that's what you are doing without actually using the words "they are lying". If you are going to say that or even imply it, you must have evidence. I have asked several times for any evidence, any at all, that Madeleine might not have been in the apartment and wasn't abducted from it (to support the implications contained in the word "supposedly"). Until that evidence is forthcoming, it is not a matter of opinion; the edit is unhelpful and contrary to several Wikipedia policies. You also don't do yourself any favours by stating things that are not true. I certainly do not revert every edit. I don't revert the vast majority of them! Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

'Winding down'

In today's Guardian, 'the search...is winding down...the Portuguese authorities said.' I'll leave other editors to decide where this should go in the article. Rothorpe (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this was reported on the TV news this evening. I have now added it. TerriersFan (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - cheers - Rothorpe (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Would the editor who inserted cite tags in the middle of some sentences, despite the fact that in every case there is a reference at the end of the sentence, like to explain their reasoning? Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The attribution tag is not asking for a reference, but for a named source:

According to the opinion of daily Mail reporter Dan Newling the nature of the Ocean Club may have contributed to the disappearance of Madeleine. Obviously it is one opinion without any expert knowledge. I want to know what an expert thinks not an opinion of a reporter masked as a fact.

The 'family-friendly' holiday firm ", BBC News article given as a source for "The parents have been criticised[attribution needed] rtin Fricker and Stewart Maclean of the tabloid Daily Mirror. There has been extensive criticism of the Portuguese police in the British media by the family and the British reporters.

attribution tags are for you to give named sources not weasel words. Reporters are not experts and should not have their opinions as such desguised with weasel words.

Should I give you more examples?

You need to read and understand WP:SOURCE. Harry the Dog (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.5.44 (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, try this and then tell us exactly how the sources that you are objecting to fail the Wikipedia policy. Not what you think the policy should be, but what it actually says. Quote the policy and say, "This source does not meet that". If you can't do that you have no argument. Harry the Dog (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read it yourself:

"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly."

"Attributing and substantiating biased statements."

"A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable."

"Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion."Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

"The word "source," as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability."

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"

"Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources;"

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."Wikipedia:Verifiability

The most incredible thing is that you have been preventing other editors from editing on this article with arguments that you do not follow.

Please learn the difference between fact and opinion and between reliable author and reliable editor.The tags were correct and following wikipedia policy.

Lighten up mate - this is a good, well sourced article. Indeed, its probably over sourced! Anyone reading the references can form their own judgement and don't need their hand held! It seems to me that you must have an agenda - care to explain what it is? 217.41.228.77 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Quantity is not quality.

Please do as I ask. None of the sources in the article fall foul of any of that. Please show precisely which source fails which test. And please sign your posts. Harry the Dog (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have much time for this. We start with the first.

Wikipedia:

“The nature of the Ocean Club may have contributed to the disappearance of Madeleine since…”

Who is your source?Editor: Daily Mail, The creator of the work: DAN NEWLING. Who is his source? His opinion!

Your source is a crime Investigative journalist? What kind of articles he writes?

“But they appeared every inch the couple in love as they spent Saturday meeting friends, drinking and buying each other Christmas presents.”[40]

(rumors, personal opinion)

"Although restaurant staff are convinced they are right, it is possible they got the day wrong or simply made a mistake in identifying the McCanns during a busy week when the resort was full of British families."[41]

(personal opinion- it is possible everybody is mistaken)

According to the newspaper, the Portuguese have "hundreds" of questions they want to ask. Among them, these 14 will surely be of the utmost importance."[42]

( personal opinion-Fiction writing)

You used his personal opinion as a source as if t was of a security expert or police officer. Who said it was an outside job?( what about adding this: The nature of a car may also contribute to the disappearance of a child since, because they can be spread out across a village, anyone can wander round a car...[43])

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."Wikipedia:Verifiability

Now, let me know why his personal opinion is a good source and encyclopedic to source yours. 89.181.106.234 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (this ip is shared with someone else, the edit history is of someone else so don't bother erasing edits in other articles thinking they were mine)

Please understand that the source is not what is in the article, it is where the article is published. A reliable source can and will publish opinion and information from unnamed sources. How relaible the publication generally is (in other words is it a publication that you can generally rely on) is all that matters. You have not shown why the Daily Mail is not a valid source under Wikipedia guidlines. How does the Daily Mail as a publication fail the reliability test? It is not a publication that relies heavily on rumors and personal opinions, certainly not in its news reporting, and therefore it passes the test. Harry the Dog (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean there was an unnamed source?How do you know? An unnamed source with an unnamed field of work? His unnamed source could be the gardener.

What you say is it does not matter what is the content of the article or who wrote it. (I will keep that in mind). What wikipedia says is "The word "source," as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability." Maybe we can change to "only the publisher of the work

affects reliability".

Journalists often receive information on a confidential, not for attribution basis. Protecting one's sources is a prime tenet of journalism, and reporters will go to jail rather than divulge a source. So when you are looking at relibility, in a situation where an undisclosed source is used, if the publication is generally reliable, that is acceptable in Wikipedia, because the editor would not have published unless he was satisfied of the accuracy of what was said. Only in very extreme circumstances (and none of those listed above are extreme) would more caution be needed.

I think your ulterior motive is to purge this article of anything remotely critical of Portugal. Well that is not likely to happen. Valid criticisms have been made, and they should be included in an encyclopedic article, whether they inlvolve the Portuguese police, the McCanns, or any other aspect of this affair that has been the cause of criticism. Harry the Dog (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are guessing?You mean a British citizen could go to jail ...in Portugal, for publishing in the UK press? For that (des)information/opinion? It would be a first.

"the editor was satisfied" but it had 969 Results in the PCC for Daily Mail, many people were not satisfied with the editors satisfaction: [44]

"I think your ulterior motive ...." this is your opinion not a fact, spare us. The Ocean Club was founded by British, is ruled by British [45] and it is a British company, the holiday company Mark Warner, that is responsible for whatever criticisms of the resort, not mentioning there is a British architect responsible for the architecture. He was not criticizing Portugal even remotely, he was criticizing the Ocean Club, a British run resort. The safety measures were all British responsibility. Madeleine was her British parents responsibility. Unless you have an expert source saying that living in an apartment, with doors and locks and window shutters can cause your child to be kidnapped because it is in the middle of a quiet village, your edit is unreliable.89.180.84.68 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's in Portugal, supporting the Portuguese tourist industry, and any criticism of it may deter people from coming to Portugal. The quote about the resort is pretty obvious. It is being compared to other MW resorts which are in secure compounds, and therefore only authorised people have access to it. Since this resort is different, and anyone can have access to it, that would be a contributory factor to the disappearance. It really is simple, and not a matter of opinion. Since you have not stated why you are objecting so strenuously to some aspects of this article despite the fact that they conform to Wikipedia policies, I am entitled to my own opinion as to why you are flogging this dead horse. Harry the Dog (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Another of your opinions? Here comes the Portuguese tourist industry as an excuse!

A criticism to a British run resort would cause tourist not going to British run resorts. People would not go to Mark Warner resorts. Who would take a resort for a country?

What it did was to cause an increase of British tourists in Portugal in 2007. It is official, a record high of tourists in Algarve and the rest of the country. Explain that!

This resort is in a quiet village where nothing used to happen. Are we now only going to protect the resort? And the local kids that live in the village? What about transforming the village in a fortified village? I stated why I objected: your source is unreliable,it does not conform to Wikipedia policies.

"The word "source," as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability."

All three have been questioned. The publisher of the work has 969 complaints in the PCC, the writer has no source, not even an unnamed one: "an authority said...", it is clearly his opinion. His former works rely on rumors, on his opinions or someone else's.

It also does not conform to:

NPOV policy

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"89.180.231.170 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You really don't understand the policies. Maybe someone else can explain them to you better than I can. You are mixing and matching Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is the only one that matters in this case:

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.

Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

What you are doing is interpreting primarary source material for yourself. That is contrary to the above polciy. In any event, despite all of this, you have not achieved consensus for the insertion of the tags. Harry the Dog (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are proposing an approach to sourcing that is different from Wikipedia policy and you should get the policy changed if you are not happy. The sources indicate where material came from and enable the reader to judge their reliability. Nowhere in policy does it say that sources must be based on expert views nor that we must specify the author by each statement. Indeed, to do so would make Wikipedia hopelessly unreadable. Finally, though we don't interpret sources we do summarise them. You are arguing a hopeless case for which you have no support. 86.150.92.240 (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? The above quote under the heading "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible" comes directly from WP:SOURCE. That is official Wikipedia policy. If the article's sources were so contrary to Wikipedia policy, the article could hardly have achieved GA status! It is you who is proposing something different, as far as I can see a subjective interpretation as to whether or not the given source meets your POV. It is you who have no support for your POV pushing. You are not coming clean about your motives for wanting these changes, and you have not achieved consensus. Harry the Dog (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the above comment was added by a different IP who is supporting your position and replying to the first IP. This is all getting a bit confusing!Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well-spotted Pawnkingthree! Far too confusing! Harry the Dog (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct with regard to the "family friendly holiday firm" reference, as it did not mention the parents, only the the babysitting service and creche, so I have added another reference to support the first part of that sentence.Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to this; I had missed it due to an edit clash. The tags are unnecessary and have been reverted by several editors. They should not be reinserted without agreement here. TerriersFan (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they didn't adequately explain their reasoning, except for some bullshit typed in ALL CAPS, like that makes it any more valid. Anyhoo, the page is semi-protected. That should keep it quiet for a month. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nature of press coverage

Would it be useful to have a section on the article about the bizarre behaviour of the British Press surrounding this case. That seems to be one of the more interesting features of this disappearance. Treeturtle81 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the coverage by the British press is already included in here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC?

Tried to give this a PR in order to try and give this a final puch to FA status but nothing happened. Does anyone want to suggest anything that need to be done before it is nominated? Buc (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of media reactions to McCann and Matthews dissapearances

Two interesting articles here comparing the media reaction to the dissapearances of Madeleine McCann and Shannon Matthews. In summary they are saying that the McCann case received more attention because she comes from a more well to do family, and she (and here mother) are more photogenic. Think this probably deserves a mention, though I don't know if it would be better here, or in the "Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann" article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/missing-the-contrasting-searches-for-shannon-and-madeleine-790207.html

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/2008/03/why_is_missing_shannon_not_get.html

Malbolge (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good catches, thanks. We are already covering the issue in the 'Response' article and I'll add these as a contribution to the debate. TerriersFan (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Now done. TerriersFan (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Libel action against Express Newspapers?

I have added the Private Eye report to the 'Response' page and a brief summary here. However, I am not at all comfortable about it. I don't think that Private Eye can be regarded as a reliable source and I cannot source it from anywhere else. I am starting to think it should come out. May I have other views, please? TerriersFan (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably. But I await with interest my copy of the Eye... - Rothorpe (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really surprising that there's no other source yet. Private Eye are usually first with this sort of thing. Don't see why we can't just have a brief mention that they've reported it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now replaced the Eye account with a reliable source. TerriersFan (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up

• "Damages due over McCann stories"

Many thanks for this. TerriersFan (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Express Newspapers forced to apologise to McCann family over Madeleine allegations". Fred Talk 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

McCanns' libel action against Express Newspapers

Please note that there is good coverage at Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Libel actions, with a summary on this page. TerriersFan (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The main article needs to be updated regarding this libel action - a number of the external links do not link to active pages anymore. VenusLoon (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Those may be the Daily Express references. The Express pulled all references to Madeleiene from its site when there were suggestions of legal action. However, the references can remain as they are since they are reachable through various archive sites. TerriersFan (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion forum

There appears to be a campaign to link a discussion forum from the article page - see here. My view is that adding a link to this forum is quite inappropriate. TerriersFan (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The 3Arguidos site can be 'heated' - this is an emotive case; there is a mix of insightful discussion and rampant speculation. However, the McCann files site - "www.mccannfiles.com" - should probably be included as it appears to be the least biased source of information which isn't a McCann spokesperson VenusLoon (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the page. This will prevent new users from editing it for 4 days. Hopefully things will calm down by then. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

We need to agree a position for when SP is lifted. The options are:

1. No external links
2. Official site only (current position)
3. Official site plus www.mccannfiles.com
4. www.mccannfiles.com only

I am assuming that a link to www.the3arguidos.net is completely unacceptable. May I have views, please? TerriersFan (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Option 2 sounds about right. I agree with you all the way though. Reading through that thread the readers there are ignorant to the polices regarding external links here. Plus if they can add a link to their forum then other forums will assume they can do the same. Gwandoya ^Talk 18:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst a link to the official site is necessary, I feel compelled to remind you that the official site is the mouthpiece of two of the three arguidos in this case. Whilst you may believe it to be the truth, it is but a truth; the www.mccannfiles.com site is significantly more objective in it's reporting. VenusLoon (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)