Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Review Good Article status

Real life issues have meant that I have not followed the development but am shocked what has happened. This article has moved from an objective account of the disappearance to one that has taken a clear position. The loss of objectivity means that this article no longer merits a Good Article status which should now be reviewed.

I don't know where to start but Kate McCann's own book is used extensively as a reference, for example, when it is clearly not an independent source. Large amounts of reliably sourced information has been removed with comments such as 'not true' with no talk page justification. TerriersFan (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi TF, the version as of 6 May was a BLP violation, and not well-written. The view that Madeleine died in her room and her parents covered it up is now seen as a fringe conspiracy theory that no reliable source proposes, yet this article was written as if to leave it open. I'm sorry for listing all these objections, but these really are just a sample of the problems:

• 1. The lead said (of whether she was abducted or died in her room): "The investigation has so far failed to show which of these possibilities is true." This was added as recently as 7 February 2013 by Harry the Dirty Dog, sourced to newspapers from 2007.

• 2. The article relied in places on personal websites, in violation of WP:BLPSPS, one of which appears to be an attack site. You added it yourself to the External links section on 15 November 2012.

• 3. It relied a lot on tabloids, in violation of WP:BLPSOURCES, and prominently repeated claims made only in tabloids, and made by them only in 2007.

• 4. It made no mention of the crucial 3 September 2007 email to Portuguese police from the Birmingham Forensic Science Service that said the DNA analysis was inconclusive. Newspapers have been writing about this since at least August 2008, yet our article still didn't mention it in the correct context as of 6 May 2013.

  On the contrary, our article said (as of 6 May, this section, paragraph five): ""Examination of the scientific evidential material is continuing and initial findings, described as "significant", were sent to Portugal around 4 September," as though this is ongoing. And the findings were never described as "significant" that I'm aware of.

  The article did refer elsewhere to an inconclusive result from Birmingham, but out of context, making it appear to refer to other tests (e.g. the tests on the McCanns' hair; see 6 May version, this section, ninth paragraph).

• 5. It made almost no mention of Operation Grange, the Scotland Yard review of the case, started in 2011 at the request of the Home Secretary and apparently the Prime Minister, and still continuing (see this section of the current version). There was one oblique reference to it in the 6 May 2013 version (this section paragraph three), without naming it, and implying it was over: "Following the review, on 25 April 2012, which to that date had cost British taxpayers £2 million, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood ... said that they believed that there was a possibility that Madeleine was alive."

• 6. It made no mention of the testimony given at the Leveson Inquiry in March 2012 by Matt Baggott, the former chief constable of Leicestershire police, where he confirmed that British police knew the Portuguese had the DNA analysis wrong, but felt unable to intervene for political/diplomatic reasons (see current version, this section, fifth paragraph).

• 7. There was a lot of weasel wording, such as "The McCanns said that they were taking turns checking on their children," rather than they were taking turns, and (double distancing here), "Madeleine's parents said they believed she had been abducted ..." rather than they did believe it, or that she had been abducted.

• 8. It relied on media reports that contained or reflected material shown to be defamatory (or simply false) and which the newspapers had removed from their websites for that reason. Yet editors here continued to rely on them without qualification, as though the libel trials had not taken place, and as though the Portuguese interpretation of the DNA analysis had not been shown to be false. The DNA analysis was not the only issue. The article also included minor issues such as newspaper A saying that friend X had said something, where it turned out friend X had not said it, and the newspaper withdrew the claim. But this article continued to maintain it, with editors retrieving archived material without checking it against other sources to find out why the newspapers had removed it from their websites.

• 9. In general it was written as though little had changed since 2007; it included old sources and details long shown to have been in error or irrelevant, and which were examples of WP:RECENTISM when they were added six years ago. There was often no narrative flow, making the events and chronology hard to follow. Things that didn't matter (even at the time) were given prominence, while things that mattered a lot were absent, buried, or presented out of context.

Per NPOV, the article has to reflect the majority and significant-minority views of reliable sources writing in 2013, in rough proportion to their appearance in reliable sources, per UNDUE. It shouldn't reflect tiny-minority views, although of course it can include them to say that those views were reported by reliable sources at time T. It's obviously necessary to do that here, and the version I'm writing tries to explain what happened.

I won't object if you petition to have the GA status removed. Whether it should have been given it in the first place, I don't know; I'm not familiar with GA standards as of August 2007, but I think awarding it so soon after the event may have been premature. But certainly with every year that the article became more outdated, GA status became more inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: 1. "The lead said (of whether she was abducted or died in her room): "The investigation has so far failed to show which of these possibilities is true." This was added as recently as 7 February 2013 by Harry the Dirty Dog, sourced to newspapers from 2007."

Sorry is this not factually accurate? A defence to any BLP violation is truth, and this statement is factually true. One of three things must have happened: She was abducted alive from the room and is still alive; she was abducted alive from the room and has since died; she died in the room and her body was disposed of. All these scenarios involve person or persons unknown. That is all we can state as fact at the moment until the investigations provide us with more facts. I really don't see how it's a BLP violation. It doesn't accuse anyone of anything. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The sentence implies that the parents might have been involved, but this is a fringe position. We describe how that view emerged in 2007 because of a misunderstanding in Portugal regarding the British forensic work, but it is long discredited, as the sources explain. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: 3. "It relied a lot on tabloids, in violation of WP:BLPSOURCES, and prominently repeated claims made only in tabloids, and made by them only in 2007."

Again, historical fact. If those claims turn out to be untrue, that should also be stated in the article. But for Wikipedia to be of any use, it shouldn't whitewash history. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The article gives examples of what the tabloids said, and explains that they withdrew the claims, apologized and paid damages. But they can't be used as sources, per BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism," and "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly improvements can be made to bring it up to date. But whitewashing is not on. If things happened and were said, even if those things were subsequently superseded, they should not be removed from the article because things of changed. They should remain as a factual historical record with the new reality added. Iagree with TF. It was a good article, if in need of updating. It isn't now. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was entrenched in the mistakes of 2007, so updating it is a major task, not a question of just adding a few sentences. It also had no narrative structure and was very repetitive.

I suppose I'm wondering how so many edits could be made – the top three editors (you're number two) have made 2,135 edits to it – with an intense focus on detail on the one hand, while leaving out major issues on the other. Examples of omissions: the email from the British forensic scientists that showed the Portuguese police had misunderstood the DNA results (now in the third paragraph of this section), and the setting up of Operation Grange (now in this section). The email was released in August 2008, so it's not a recent development. Operation Grange was set up in May 2011, and Matt Baggott's statement about the DNA analysis to the Leveson Inquiry was in March 2012. Those omissions meant the whole thrust of the article was misleading.

Can you shed light on why you left them out? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made substantive edits to this article in ages. I don't have time. My edits have mainly been to revert vandalism. There has been a lot of vandalism to this article, which is why I am number two. I have no doubt the article can be updated by someone who has time, but it seems to me that whitewashing and POV (whether from people in Portugal who don't like criticism of their justice system or people who are pro or anti the parents) has been the major problem. I say again, whitewashing will not help this article retain GA status. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You added to the lead as recently as February this year that her parents "said they believed she had been abducted" (implying they didn't believe it), and that, "The investigation has so far failed to show which of these possibilities is true," regarding whether she was abducted or died in her room. This is the kind of thing that can be found on some very unpleasant websites. But it is to misunderstand the evidence.

There was never any evidence that she had died in her room, or anywhere else, or that the parents were involved in anything. It's not that there was some evidence, but it was superseded by something else. There was never any evidence. This is the position of all reliable sources, including academic sources, forensic scientists, senior police officers, the Leveson Inquiry, and high-quality news sources. Suggesting otherwise was a BLP violation, as was failing to mention that the forensic evidence had been misinterpreted (assuming good faith) in 2007 by a few police officers in Luz who misinformed the press.

Something went wrong here that a prominent page was effectively preserved in aspic for six years. Anyway, the point now is to bring it up to date and place the previous misreporting in context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The addition to the lead was in response to inappropriate edits that were trying to introduce POV to the article and the first substantive edit I have made in ages. It was an attempt to reach a compromise with a determined editor after discussion (see the talk page archives) rather than just revert which I would normally have done.

And excuse me, but the sources say the the parents told the police that they believed Madeleine had been abducted. That's what the parents said. How could they say anything else??? They were not witnesses to what happened (accepting that they were not involved). They do not know that she was abducted. They hope she was because the alternative is that she was murdered. There is no conclusive evidence that she was abducted either since there are no corroborated witnesses to anything. So let us quote the sources accurately as we attempt to create an accurate historical timeline and not rewrite things and extrapolate from the sources. The sources say what they say. Period. Little has changed because sourced historical fact remains sourced historical fact. I agree that as things move on the article should be added to, but to rewrite history is not what we should be doing. It remains a fact that the three scenarios I describe are the only ones possible. That should be reflected in the article. But we should not be taking the parents' supposition (which is all that it is since they didn't witness the event) as the only truth in this case. We should accurately reflect what the sources were saying at the time, and at the time the parents said they believed she had been abducted. To say anything else in the article is to rewrite history and in fact introduce POV. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Toc right

Rothorpe, perhaps it looks different on your browser, but on mine tocright pushes the first two images out of the first section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine on mine, still... Rothorpe (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like the white space, this would work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be better. Rothorpe (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case would you be willing to add your name to the survey (above) in favour of the infobox? I'd like to add it, but have to wait for consensus to form. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I was in a hurry last night and now see I supported an infobox for aesthetic reasons. I take your points, but the objections seem reasonable too. I remain on the fence. What I know of the case is mostly from this article. Though if we are to have an infobox, demoting the details of the child seems mannered. Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tried moving the TOC again---hope it looks OK on other monitors. Rothorpe (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Er...it doesn't. Sorry. Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It still has the problem of pushing the images lower down the page, and out of their sections. Also, the most recent way you did it would make it harder for readers to find the toc, which doesn't appear until the second section (the third if you count the lead). The point of the usual toc placement is that it isn't inside the text, so it's not using up valuable real estate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was very low down. Looks as if the great white space will have to stay. Rothorpe (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC on whether to add an infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article contain an infobox? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
(fair-use image made invisible) Left: Madeleine, aged three; right: how she might have looked in 2009, aged six How she might have looked aged nine.
Name	Madeleine Beth McCann
Born	(2003-05-12) 12 May 2003 Leicester, England
Parents	Kate and Gerry McCann
Date of disappearance	3 May 2007
Place of disappearance	5A Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, Praia da Luz, Portugal
Coordinates	37.0886565°N 8.7308398°W / 37.0886565; -8.7308398
Distinguishing features	Straight blonde hair; blue-green eyes; right eye has a distinctive spot on the iris; small brown mark on the calf of the left leg
Investigating forces	Polícia Judiciária Leicestershire police London Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard
British case review	Operation Grange operation.grange@met.police.uk
Reward	£2.5m ($3.8m)
Campaign	Findmadeleine.com

Survey

• Yes to infobox. My addition of one (see this version) has been reverted, I believe on the grounds that the article is not a biography. [1][2] But having an infobox doesn't make it a biography; and it's a generic box, not infobox person. The benefits are that it offers an overview that readers might find helpful, including date and place of birth, date she disappeared, the address from which she disappeared, link to findmadeleine.com, distinguishing features, and a link to the most recent age-progression image. The latter two are important given that the article is reasonably high-profile (48,000–97,000 hits a month between Jan and April this year). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Updated link to proposed infobox. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• No It's hardly a "generic infobox". While it is titled "Disappearance of Madeleine McCann" the contents are mostly about Madeleine McCann the person, not the event which the article is about, which makes it an infobox person. Disappearances don't have birthdates, parents or distinguishing features. It is the longstanding consensus here that as an article that is about an event, not a person, it should definitely not have a person infobox. If it it must have an infobox it should contain information about the disappearance and subsequent investigation, not details about Madeleine. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's a generic box so we can add extra parameters about the investigation, but a description of the person being searched for is obviously part of the investigation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's mostly about the person. The article is not. The infobox if there is one should reflect that. The proposed one does not. It would save a lot of time and debate if people read the archives of the endless discussions we have had on this. If there is something new and compelling to add the consensus can re reconsidered. But so far I haven't seen anything to make me change my mind. That said I wouldn't object to an infobox that listed the details of the crime with a section about the victim listing her as such if people think that would help people understand the article better. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm here as per RfC; but I can see there's about as much chance of reaching consensus as there is Gerry McCann walking into a restaurant and ordering a table for five... Basket _Feudalist 10:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Good luck though. As per the actual request, I !vote no to an info box re: WP:EVENT. Cheers! 10:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Dunno yet. There seems to be a consensus that an infobox isn't a bad idea in and of itself. I'd agree with that, but also that the one to the right doesn't quite match up to the topic of the article (i.e. it's about a person rather than a disappearance). Would it be possible to see what it might look like if, per SlimVirgin above, more parameters were added dealing with the disappearance/investigation? I think that would be useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what Harry had in mind, but the current box contains date of disappearance, address from which she disappeared, distinguishing features, link to age-progression image, link to the campaign to find her. These are all about the disappearance. We could also add links to the police forces who are looking for her, to her page on Interpol, and to the £2.5m rewards for information leading to her safe return. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Arms & Hearts, I've added one with more parameters (see above right); you can see it in situ here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think this mostly solves the problem. Changing to yes to the infobox linked above (or one with even more information pertaining to the disappearance rather than the person). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, it still give precedence to the person (which the article in not about) rather than the event, which it is about. If there must be an infobox, it should be about the event as the article is, with any people involved being listed much farther down if at all. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Surely it'd be really difficult to have an infobox about the event which doesn't mention any people involved? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
(fair-use image made invisible) Left: Madeleine, aged three; right: how she might have looked in 2009, aged six How she might have looked aged nine.
Place of disappearance	5A Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, Praia da Luz, Portugal
Coordinates	37.0886565°N 8.7308398°W / 37.0886565; -8.7308398
Date of disappearance	3 May 2007
Investigating forces	Polícia Judiciária Leicestershire police London Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard
British case review	Operation Grange operation.grange@met.police.uk
Reward	£2.5m ($3.8m)
Victim	Madeleine Beth McCann
Parents	Kate and Gerry McCann
Distinguishing features	Straight blonde hair; blue-green eyes; right eye has a distinctive spot on the iris; small brown mark on the calf of the left leg
Campaign	Findmadeleine.com

• I mean that the infobox is about the person, not the event, which is what the article is about. If we must have an infobox it should look more like this:. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• It would look a little creepy to put the child at the end as an afterthought. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• In your opinion. Infoboxes are about the subject of the article. I repeat, Madeleine is not the subject of this article. There is nothing wrong with listing her as the crime victim (which is what she is) after listing the details of the crime. In fact it's pretty standard. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any huge problem with this one either. Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I think there's a broad consensus for an infobox with certain specific parameters, so I don't see much value in continued discussion as to the value of an infobox or vaguer ideas of what focus it ought to have. The only questions remaining are more concrete and relate to the relevance of a small number of specific parameters and the order they're placed in. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I hate infoboxes. I never add them to articles I edit, and I remove them if anybody has added them. See WP:Disinfobox In this case, though, I would say yes to an infobox. This piece practically screams for one: The article is so long and cumbersome. As a WP:compromise, we could start by removing the image (although I personally favor it there). We could add more lines to the box, viz.: Police agency in charge. Persons accused or interrogated. Leading writers on the subject. Timeline of the case. Be creative. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• No. I see no need for one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• The need for one is that the material is hard to find in the article otherwise, and this is an issue of some importance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - Although info is in the article it's not directly easy to view, Having the infobox would solve some issues (IE finding/reading info) without having to go through paragraph after paragraph. (Although I originally said No I was infact undecided - Apologies for the confusion!) - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. My usual method is to ask myself whether it would help an eleven-year-old who's working on a project for school. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• No on the event not the person. TerriersFan (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes support infobox. Infoboxes are useful to summarize and centralize the most pertinent facts. Also I took a look through our existing best-quality articles on parallel topics and found they are generally preferred by Wikipedia - Infoboxes are used on the following similar-style FA articles: Death of Ian Tomlinson, Death of Jimi Hendrix, Moors murders, Murder of Joanna Yeates and GA articles: Murder of Celine Figard, Murder of Ross Parker, Case of the Hooded Man, 2011 Tucson shooting, Ipswich serial murders, Murder of Russel Timoshenko, Kauhajoki school shooting, United States Capitol shooting incident (1998). Not saying they're used in 100% of the cases I looked at but they were definitely in the majority, maybe 70-80% of the similar GA and FA quality articles I looked at. It would be unusual for a GA Wikipedia article on a subject like this not to have one, and a good reason would have to be provided to have this article be such an exception. Zad68 00:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. We seem to have rough consensus and, as GeorgeLouis says, the article is screaming out for one, so I'm going to add it for now. I'll leave the RfC open for a bit longer in case others comment, and we can reassess consensus once it's closed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. It does not take away from the article's encyclopedic quality and potentially improves readability. There is no guideline of which I am aware stating that infoboxes should only apply to biographies, so I see no overriding reason to remove it. I also see the question of what to include in the infobox as separate and subsequent to the question of whether to keep it. Once consensus is reached, if the decision is to keep the infobox, we can then discuss the content. Factchecker25 (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. I find Zad68's comments on infoboxes in existing, similar FA/GA articles to be persuasive. I also believe an understanding of the kidnapping and the ongoing investigation would be aided by a summarization of the main facts in an infobox. While it is true that an infobox here will necessarily resemble a biographical infobox, the notability guidelines do not prohibit us from including, in an article about a crime, details about the subject of the crime that are relevant to the crime itself. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yes to infobox. I also don't see a big difference between the two infoboxes provided, except for a date of birth, and several of the examples provided by Zad68 included the dates of birth. I like infoboxes. They help some people.174.63.103.38 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

wrong date

"The officer in charge said in July 2012 that the team was collaborating with Portuguese police, had drawn up a list of 38 persons of interest, including 12 British nationals, and believed Madeleine may still be alive.[4]"

Should be 2013 according to the news piece cited in [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1049:c:5162:6c30:e906:7dc3 (talk • contribs)

Fixed, many thanks! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Photographs

,

I think a more up to date photo can help her article, As the photo is showing what she looked like when she was 6 as she is now 10 a photo of what she may look like aged 9 could help. The photo on this article could be helpful for this article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9226178/Madeleine-McCann-Police-release-new-age-progression-image.html (W-E (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

We do have that photograph in the article in the first section. But I agree that it would be helpful to move it into the infobox, along with her as a three-year-old. I'll work on doing that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2013

After the sentence about the EFit images, which ends: 20-40 years old, medium build, medium height, and clean-shaven.[10] Add the following text: Animated caricature versions of these composites, which have been shown to be better recognised, are available. and give reference to the link, which is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjbhancock (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for suggesting this. I think to add this to the article we would need an independent source that had mentioned these animated versions, or we would need to know that the people who created them were experts in this area, or involved with the investigation in some way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Celuici, could you say why you keep removing material, rather than continuing to remove it? The link to the age-progressed image is there because we can't upload the full size one under a claim of fair use. Efit is written that way because that's how the Guardian writes it, so I just copied them (efit as in email). If you want e-fit, that's fine, and I've changed it, but there's no need for E-FIT. And the last sentence in the lead is there to follow on from the reference to the Leveson Inquiry; the case was indeed seen as a wake-up call, which is why the McCanns were invited as core participants. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I missed this comment before beginning the section below (not sure why a comment to me is a second order comment in an unrelated section). But you can consult that section, and my summaries, for my rationale. Celuici (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of this article

The purpose of this article is not to promote recent developments in the police investigation. This should not be the primary influence on how the article is written or presented. For this reason, I have made the following edits, which were reverted without rationale:

• removing an inline link to the full-resolution image of McCann aged nine. This should be in the reference, if anywhere, since hotlinking the full resolution image contributes nothing to the article.
• the mention of 'e-fit' in the introduction should be wikilinked to E-FIT. This is a technical term and readers may want to consult the article -- the words should not be an entirely unnecessary internal link to the section of the article containing the image. There are, after all, plenty of other places in the lead that could be internally linked to their relevant section. But standard practice is not to do that.
• using the date of birth template that calculates her age is unnecessary. We don't know whether she's actually alive, and the whole thing looks speculative.

Celuici (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Another revert. [3] With respect, you're making a mess of it now, with e-fit and E-FIT in the same sentence in the lead. I'm going to fix it again, and restore the age and links. Please do not remove them again. See my note to you above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Celuici, I'm trying to write the article so that it could in theory be submitted for FA status. Pleas read your edit to the lead: "As of October 2013 they had drawn up a list of 41 persons of interest, including 15 British nationals, and that month released several e-fit images of men they want to trace, including E-FIT away from the resort that night." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the E-FIT error, it has been fixed. Regarding my third bullet point, I'd be happy to concede that point since it's a matter of opinion. But am still opposed to the inline link. Celuici (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would you be opposed to linking to the efit, and linking to the full-size age-progressed image?

Also "The McCanns ... were critical of the treatment that they had received from the press" is a little milquetoast-ish compared to what they said, and also stating the obvious given that they were Leveson Inquiry core participants. Their case is regarded as a watershed in the UK. The lead should say that. Leads are supposed to explain why we mention the material that we do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm no longer opposed to the way you've edited the e-fit section. My problem with the 'wake up call' comment, aside from non-attribution, was that such a phrase is obscure to the point of being meaningless. Who did it wake up? What was at issue? How did it change their behaviour? It's not at all clear to me what the phrase is supposed to mean. If we can find a reliable source in which a notable person explictly states that the press have been criticised for their reporting of the McCann case, then that would be ideal.

As for the inline link (to continue discussion from the Confession section) -- why can't this go in the reference, or why can't users find it on the image page? Most users wanting the full-size image will click through to the image page anyway. It really does seem as if the infobox, in particular, is written to promote the investigation. At best it just looks cluttered. Celuici (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: "If we can find a reliable source in which a notable person explictly states that the press have been criticised for their reporting of the McCann case, then that would be ideal."

Are you not familiar with the extensive criticism and the Leveson Inquiry (not to mention the sections about them in this article)? Or do you mean something more specific? The lead is meant to sum up the article. That part of it sums up the section about the media and the response to its reporting. The journalist I linked to called it a wake-up call, which is a well-known expression. Readers will know it means.

The link to the age-progressed image is completely harmless. It is there, as I said, because we're not allowed to host the full-size one. Most readers won't click through. I can't see why anyone would object to that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm familiar with Leveson. My point is that the McCanns' appearance at Leveson is so well-known that there is very likely a better source, with a clearer statement of condemnation, than the 'wake up call' video. This one might be ideal. The fact that 'wake up call' is well-known does not mean that it isn't vague -- also it's best to avoid idioms given that a significant proportion of readers are non-native speakers. It seems to me that the best resolution here would simply to try to reword the sentence and find a new source, rather than argue about semantics, since I don't have a problem with the overall intention of the sentence. I don't agree with you regarding the inline link -- it's an image caption and should be concise. Celuici (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your sentence doesn't do justice to how shocking this was. For example, they were accused at one point, in headlines, of having sold her. The case really was a wake-up call/watershed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully my "totally violated" edit will suffice. I think that does better justice than a metaphor about hotels. Also, it's worth making a distinction between (a) the McCann case, (b) the reporting of it, and (c) the McCann's testimony at Leveson, and ensuring that the lead makes clear what is being referred to. The original 'wake up call' sentence was a little vague since it seemed to refer to (a) and (b), but following a sentence about (c). It wasn't clear, to extent the metaphor, at exactly what time the wake-up call occurred. Celuici (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not about what the McCanns said. It's about what academics and journalists said (but please don't quote them either; I'd like to avoid the usual WP quote-farm situation). It's meant to be a brief summary of the sub-sections about the media, which is what the lead does, per WP:LEAD. I'll take a read through those sources later, and will try to find something more scholarly that you might agree with.

I don't follow your point about when the wake-up call occurred. The reporting of the case (all of it) was a wake-up call for journalists, as in "look how bad things are." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusing

The article is still confusing when it comes to the latest events. Were the two witnesses believed to have seen the same man at 10 pm independent of each other or did both of them belong to the Irish family? Or was the second witness Jane Tanner, who saw a man that according to this article [4] (October 14, before Crimewatch) has never been traced, on the other hand according to this article [5] has been identified as an innocent British holidaymaker? Were both efit images released on October 13? Isheden (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Isheden, I hope it's clearer now. The two witnesses were both from the Smith family. The man Jane Tanner saw was probably someone else (the British holidaymaker who stepped forward), and so that sighting is ruled out now as a red herring, although not with 100 percent certainty. Both efit images (of the man the Smiths saw) were released on 13 October. Is the text clear now, or are parts of it still confusing?

Yes, now it's a bit clearer. Some confusion remains, though. Part of the image caption reads: "Both images are believed to be of the same man." It would seem to me that this is not completely certain. Are the two facial composites based on observations from two separate witnesses in the Smith family? Did they spot the man together at the same time or at two different places? Isheden (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Yes, it's certain that it's the same man being described. He was seen once by the Smith family (by four members of the family, as I recall) around 500 yards away from the McCanns' apartment, walking toward the beach carrying a child. The family offered descriptions to the Portuguese police in 2007, but I don't know what came of that. In 2008 two members of the family offered descriptions to private detectives working for the McCanns, and the detectives arranged for these efits to be produced. My understanding is that one efit is based on information from one family member, and the other is based on information from the second, but no one has spelled that out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2013

Hi, the correct name of the German crime programme is "Aktenzeichen XY... ungelöst". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktenzeichen_XY_%E2%80%A6_ungel%C3%B6st Your source (No. 143) provides the false name, too.

Julian ju.koegel@gmail.com 88.65.193.4 (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Many thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Mangled e-fit content

I removed the following because the format was defective (was spilling across page in my iPad):

{{anchor|efit}} images released by [[Scotland Yard]] on 13 October 2013. Both images are of the same man. A family from Ireland saw him carry a child in the direction of the beach around 10 pm on the night of the disappearance.<ref name=Laville14Oct2013>Sandra Laville, [http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/14/british-detectives-efits-madeleine-mccann-suspect "British detectives release efits of Madeleine McCann suspect"], ''The Guardian'', 14 October 2013. * [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24513267 "Madeleine McCann search: E-fit man 'was seen carrying child'"], BBC News, 14 October 2013.</ref>]]

Presumably it's to do with the e-fits released in October 2013. I don't know what exactly needs fixing.--A bit iffy (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, that happened because another editor removed the e-fit but left the caption, so the formatting was broken. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

E-fits

Werieth, please don't remove the e-fits again. They were released by Scotland Yard precisely so that they could be disseminated, and they've been widely discussed in the media. Readers will expect to see them in this article. If you disagree, please nominate them for deletion. But they shouldn't be deleted by the back door by leaving them as unused fair use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually just because they are out there doesnt mean we should include them in the article. We also dont need 3 of them. Ill give you a day or so to figure out which one you want to keep, but WP:ILIKEIT doesnt meet WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please nominate them for deletion if you think they're being used inappropriately, but please don't keep removing them over an objection. By doing that you're trying to have them speedy deleted, even though you know someone is objecting, which is very poor form.

I don't know what you mean by "we don't need three of them." The police have released images of (at least) three men. Are you saying we should show one of them, and ask readers to imagine the other two? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe that the e-fits are subject to copyright restrictions? What is this discussion about? Of course all of them are relevant for the article. Isheden (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the three e-fits (each showing two images) and the artist's impression were created in 2007–2008 by private investigators working for the Find Madeleine Fund, so the copyright is probably held by the Fund. Scotland Yard recently re-distributed the images and asked the public if they recognized the men.

The images haven't been released under a free licence; I assume this is because the Fund needs to be able to take legal action against people who misuse them. But everyone involved wants the images to be distributed, so there are no legal issues for us or for anyone copying our content.

The images have been widely discussed by the media (do they show one man or two, does anyone recognize them, why weren't they acted on earlier? etc), so they satisfy the "subject of commentary" rule in Wikipedia:Non-free content. Also, per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, they "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Our article would look odd discussing the images but not displaying them, given how widely they've been distributed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

By definition the e-fits, "Have you seen me" posters and close-up of the eye are free content. They are available for download on the findmadeleine page, with the words "We are extremely grateful therefore to everyone for downloading and displaying a poster..." If that doesn't give permission to use the content freely I don't know what does. Wikipedia will not be sued for copyright infringement for displaying these images. Whether they shouldn't be included for other reasons is another matter, but Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is a non-starter. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see which images have been removed (perhaps someone could make list of the contested images?), but the close-up of Madeleine's eye should certainly be restored to the article. It is a unique distinctive physical feature that is constantly referred to in the media, and meets the criteria of being the "subject of sourced commentary" so I don't understand the logic behind removing it. The argument is less convincing for the Tanner image if the police are no longer looking for the person who fits this decription (do we really want to mislead readers about the potential appearance of the suspect?), but it has still comprised an important component of the investigation so probably warrants inclusion in that respect. If there is a feeling the article is overloaded with images personally I would start by culling the decorative ones like the church rather than images that been integral to a criminal investigation. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

To my understanding, the contested images were removed with this edit: [6] Isheden (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Description of fair-use images

This is a list of the fair-use images that were removed, in order of their placement in the article. Werieth removed all five during his first and second removals, and nos. 1 and 3 during his third and fourth. He said he would return to remove two of the three e-fits (nos. 2, 4 and 5) because "we ... don't need 3 of them." Further discussion here.

1. File:McCann right eye.jpg:

   This illustrates the section Madeleine McCann, which discusses the distinctive mark on her right eye, the primary means of identification. The image is cropped from one that was distributed by her parents.

2. File:Scotland Yard efit image re Madeleine McCann (1).jpg:

   This e-fit illustrates the section Apartment 5A. The e-fit was created in or around 2008 by investigators working for the Find Madeleine Fund, and is based on witness descriptions of two black-haired men who were seen near 5A, the McCanns' holiday apartment. One appeared to be collecting for charity on the day of the disappearance; the second approached someone standing on 5A's balcony a week before. Scotland Yard distributed the images this month and said they want to trace the men in case they were engaged in reconnaissance for a pre-planned abduction.

3. File:Artist's impression, Madeleine McCann disappearance.jpg:

   This illustrates the section Tanner report. The image was commissioned and distributed by the Find Madeleine Fund. It is based on a description by Jane Tanner, a witness, who saw a man carrying a child near the McCanns' apartment at 9:15 pm, 45 minutes before the disappearance was reported. Scotland Yard said this month that they now believe this man was not involved; a British man who was carrying his own daughter that night has said he believes the image may be of him. But the police are not certain, and the image remains an integral part of the story, in terms of who saw it, when it was reported to the Portuguese police, what they did (or didn't do) with the information, and whether it is related to the Smith family report (see below).

4. File:Efit images of Madeleine McCann suspect.jpg:

   This e-fit illustrates the section Smith family report, which is juxtaposed with the Tanner report. The Smith family from Ireland saw this man – a few streets from the McCanns' apartment – carrying a child at 10 pm on the night of the disappearance, which is when Madeleine was reported missing. The e-fit was created by investigators working for the Find Madeleine Fund. The Smith report was neglected for years because people assumed the 9:15 pm Tanner report to be a sighting of the abduction, and it made no sense for the abductor to be just a few streets away 45 minutes later. So the Smith report was seen as mistaken or unrelated. Scotland Yard now believe the Tanner report may have been mistaken, and that the Smith report is the relevant one. They have therefore redistributed it and are anxious to trace the man.

5. File:Scotland Yard efit image re Madeleine McCann (2).jpg:

   This e-fit illustrates the section titled New investigation. This was also created by investigators for the Find Madeleine Fund, and redistributed by Scotland Yard in October 2013. The image shows two blonde-haired men who were seen watching the McCanns' apartment on or around the day of the disappearance.

All the images are discussed in the sections in which they are placed. All have been the subject of extensive discussion in the media, which satisfies the "subject of commentary" rule in the non-free content guideline. Per the non-free content criteria policy, they "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding." We can't describe in words alone what a witness saw. Text alone could also not replace the close-up shot of Madeleine's eye.

The copyright holder is the McCann family or the Find Madeleine Fund. They can't release the images under a free licence because they need to be able to take action against people who misuse them. But they want the images to be widely published, so everyone (Wikipedia, readers, family, police) benefits from their use and no one is harmed legally or financially. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

File:McCann right eye.jpg

Werieth has nominated the above for deletion here in case anyone wants to comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

He has done the same with the artist's impression. [7] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2013

Please mention the age of the siblings in the second paragraph as follows: "Madeleine and her siblings, who were two years old at the time, had been left . . ." or if this construction is at all grammatically ambiguous, then "Madeleine and her siblings who were two years old at the time had been left . . ." or "Madeleine, along with her siblings who were two years old at the time, had been left . . . " or "Madeleine and her two-year-old siblings had been left . . ." To not give the age of the siblings gives the impression that there is biased suppression of a relevant fact (the only mention of their age seems to be made indirectly in the information on the photo taken of Madeleine--"Kate took the last known photograph of Madeleine by the pool that afternoon, sitting next to her father and two-year-old sister"). Such a highly relevant and basic fact is not accusatory and should not be omitted simply because it reflects negatively on the McCanns. Its omission could also mislead some readers into believing that the twins were older than Madeleine. The fact of the twins' age was certainly relevant in the investigation of the crime and also relevant as to why there was an outcry that the McCanns be investigated by social services, as mentioned in the article. Aroneus (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the specific age of the siblings is relevant. I have changed it to specify that they are younger. Indeed, had they been in their teens there would have been no issue about Madeleine being left alone with them. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: I agree with that and I also note the assumption of bad faith in the request. @Aroneus:, please just propose improvements, without impugning editors' motives. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and we work together best when we observe it. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary Images

Per my reasons in the edits:

1. Content is a higher priority than aesthetics, an image "breaking up the text" is not a valid reason for inclusion: it actually suggests a problem with the brevity of the text, if anything.
2. The map has little to do with the subject matter: if people don't know what Portugal is, they'll click the wikilink when they see it.
3. Per the MOS: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic," as well as "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information": a picture of Portugal, and a picture of Scotland Yard do nothing to inform readers about anything except where Portugal is (which can just as well be found by clicking the wikilink), and what the sign at Scotland Yard looks like.

I can see how the Portugal picture might be useful, but not the Scotland Yard picture. In light of this, I have removed the latter. I think we should discuss the inclusion of the former.

Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the NSY photo is entirely decorative, in that it doesn't impart any relevant information to the reader. However, I think the Portugal map should be retained; sure you can click on the Portugal link, but there isn't a fair use issue here and it gives the reader an instant visual locale in a global context. Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A map of the apartment block in the Ocean Club resort or of Praia da Luz with the Ocean Club marked would actually be useful. Not a map of Europe with Portugal highlighted, though. Isheden (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Knowing where Portugal is does little to enhance the knowledge of the reader. Inanygivenhole (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of readers who won't know where Portugal is, so I think that map is really helpful. I like the NSY photograph to break up the text; that does matter for readers. Blocks of text aren't easy to read. I'd love to get hold of an image of the apartment block, but we'd have to claim fair use and given the objections to the e-fits etc, it would trigger more complaints. But I've never seen a free one. Ditto with a map of the resort. There is a good BBC map of it and a timeline (at least I think it was the BBC; I'm writing from memory), which I'm thinking of linking to in the text as an external image. It gave a good overview of where each of the buildings were, and where the suspects were spotted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

But the rules don't care about "breaking up the text." I'm sure we can find a more helpful image to do that anyway, but Wikipedia isn't a picture book. In addition, I don't think that the block of text is all that large, and even if it were, we're an encyclopedia. Inanygivenhole (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No matter what the rules say, we now have no images between the "Investigation closed" section and the two efits in the final section. That's a wall of text and it's well-known that images make text like this easier to navigate. If you know of a more helpful free image for the Operation Grange section, by all means suggest it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a picture book. If you have suggestions for a more helpful image, by all means, add it. Until then, it's pretty clear what the consensus on the map of Europe is. Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to second IAGH, the majority of the images in this article are absolutely useless. If there's not a WP:NOTAPICTUREBOOK, there should be. felt_friend 00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Either way it's pretty clear that we have consensus to remove the map of Europe, and I second Isheden's idea to add a more localized image. Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You wanted the image of Scotland Yard to be removed, so that's gone. But there's no consensus to remove the map showing where Portugal is; BettyLogan and I both find it useful. Can you say why you're so opposed to it? (I see you even requested unprotection, perhaps so that you remove it again.) Lots of readers will come here not knowing where Portugal is, and it's quite common in articles to show people the basic locations. It seems an odd thing to object to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

felt_friend, myself, and Isheden don't. Isheden and I both agree that a more specific image would be much more useful. I don't know how to do that sort of thing myself. Lots of readers will come here not knowing where Portugal is, and be helpfully presented with a wikilink. Why not a map with the town's location on it? I wouldn't find that useless at all. But using an image to show users a very general fact having little to do with the article is. The incident took place in that country, yes, but showing the town's location would be much, much more helpful: showing them an enormous plot of land and giving no context as to where to incident took place in it is not. I wish to have the article unprotected because it does not need to be protected. What ever happened to good faith? There is no issue here that can't be worked out on the talk page, and a full protection is a very harsh way to go about solving that issue. What will happen after the 5th? Nothing that can't be worked out on the talk. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

We're limited in what images we can use, because most of them have to be freely licensed. A map showing Portugal's location is useful because there is talk in the article of Madeleine having been taken to Morocco, and the border with Spain not having been alerted, so it's useful to show readers where Portugal is in relation to those countries. The purpose of the article is to inform readers as much as we can, rather than make them click through to other articles.

The article was protected because another user was adding BLP violations and reverting when they were removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think providing a visual location for the crime scene is helpful: at a local and global level. The curent map is better than nothing, but I think it's possible to replace it with something more useful. The inset map at the BBC timeline does it very well and perhaps we could reconstruct that using PD materials. The CIA Factbook (published by a US government agency and therefore in the US PD) provides two basic maps of Portugal similar to the BBC insets that we could use: [8]; we could crop the larger one and mark on Praia da Luz ourselves. Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The CIA map has indeed already been uploaded to Commons: File:Po-map.png and there is a Portugal locator at File:LocationPortugal.png. All we need to do is add Praia da Luz and it's good to go. Betty Logan (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm fine with that if someone can figure out how to combine those images and add Praia da Luz. My only concern is that we have some sort of map showing where Portugal is in relation to Morocco, Spain and the UK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking something like this: [9]. It's pretty basic (I'm no whizz at image editing) but it's constructed entirely from PD images and shows a more exact location. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's very good; thanks for making it. I'd be fine with that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As would I. Inanygivenhole (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If everyone is happy with this as a replacement, can someone with admin privileges replace the current map with the new one at File:Praia da Luz map.jpg. The article is protected so I am unable to do it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have uploaded a map to Commons showing the location of Luz at File:Praia da Luz map.jpg. I've tried to model it on the BBC map using the PD maps we have on the Commons. If people are ok with this then we can get it into the article. If not (or someone else can do a better job of it) then let us know. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Very nice. Rothorpe (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• I requested unprotection and added the new map here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sunday Times article

Just noting here that I moved the material Arbil44 added to the tabloids and social-media section [10] (not sure why it was added there) into the Smith report section, where we discuss the Tanner versus Smith reports. Once I've read the whole article, I'm also going to add information to the private detectives section where we discuss Oakley International, who produced the Smith e-fit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So this is now explained in the section about the Smith report, and explained some more in the section about the private investigation (currently in the second paragraph of that section). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A bit biased

Considering the huge involvement of the British establishment and media, I wasn't expecting much different, but I don't find this very balanced - in a global sense. It's very much the British medias version.

It's not chronological. It insinuates they were only arrested because of a misunderstanding about DNA - I haven't seen any evidence for this. I read they were arrested on the advice of the British Police, and it was based on several things.

Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't they change their story? Didn't they refuse to answer police questions? Wasn't it the British Police who originally advised they be charged?

All of this is citable.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Cjmooney, please don't remove material from the article. All this is extremely well-sourced; see the Leveson Inquiry sources, for example, where it was made clear that they were named arguido because the DNA evidence was misinterpreted. No, they (the McCanns?) didn't "change their story." No, the British police didn't advise that they be charged. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello - the Levenson evidence is one POV. It's not factual. In the recent Portugese libel trial the police went into great deal about the reasons for arrest. They also claimed that the arrest was agreed with the British Police. This is another POV.

As for anything I've changed, it's only very minor things - as in the use of the McCann's version of events, without attributing them to the McCanns.

There's several citable articles (from proper sources) for the above. Particularly the refusal to answer questions. I haven't added it, as I feel no need to, and was just using it as a demonstration.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The evidence offered at the Leveson Inquiry included correspondence from the scientist who conducted the DNA tests, and from senior British police officers. Portuguese police have recently made it clear that the McCanns are not suspects in their view either, so there are no reliable sources that would support you. Please revert yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the repeated use of "She said" is introducing loaded terminology into the article; it implies she is not telling the truth. If you want to make it clear that its Kate's account of what happened it only needs to be made clear at the start of the account e.g. "Kate recalls going to check at around 22:00. She entered the apartment through the patio doors..." and so on. Therefore I am going to revert your changes, but I will support a more subtle approach that differentiates between personal accounts and the factual elements of the case. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - believe it or not, I have little real interest in the case. I just came on to read about it after seeing the news. My interest is that it's written in a way that's quite misleading. There is a lot of implication, and POV presented as facts and events.

Levenson refers to the investigation of the media. And the habit of police leaking things to the media to possibly hurt people. That was the context of the testimony. Not why they were arrested. The police possibly leaked the DNA quote to the media, but there's nothing saying that's the sole reason they arrested them which is what is implied. The Portugese Police actually stated to the media soon after that the claims that the DNA was a 100% match were false.

As for listing someone's version of events, as actual events, this is wrong. The context needs to be clear. The only alternative of doing this, is posting everyone's version of events for balance..........

I plan to make sensible, minor changes again. If you insist on reverting back to the original, then I suggest we send the entire article for review and debate with experienced editors. Let me know 80.254.147.156 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This article follows the higher-quality reliable sources very carefully. If you read the footnote after the lead sentence that you removed, you'll find, from The Guardian: "It was, the [Portuguese] attorney general found, largely due to a catastrophic misinterpretation of the evidence collected by these officers [Leicestershire police] that the Portuguese team came to suspect the McCanns in the disappearance." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I just think there is a difference between quoting sources and citations, and making implications about sources and citations. This is simply POV. As for the citation, I don't see how that implies that they were only arrested because of not understanding DNA - the quote (even if reliable) implies that they were arrested for various difference types of evidence (whether misenterpreted or not).

I actually also think you're on quite shaky grounds with the validity of the citation you just posted anyway. The citation is from an opinion piece by a UK newspaper on what is their interpretation/POV of a supposed attorney general speech - not a news story on it. What's more I can't find any evidence online that it even happened - searching for quite a while on the attorney general's claims,the only source is this opinion piece. And the opinion piece is not on these supposed claims - it just makes brief reference to them. And if you dig it a bit deeper, the claims only crop up again in a previous opinion piece in the same paper from a few years earlier. If you google the claims the AG has meant to have made, it only appears here, and on the opinion pieces in the newspaper. There is no other reference to it anywhere.

Anyway, as discussed, my other issue is posting of a witness' version of events, as actual events that factually happened. Without making it clear that you're referring to a witness version of events. And also a general lack of balance.

I think it best that I refer this to 3rd party/community help/editor opinion sections so they can decide on all of this. I'll do this tomorrow.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Daily Telegraph: "Mr and Mrs McCann were never arrested but were declared arguidos - persons of interest to the investigation - last September on the Portuguese police's belief that DNA evidence provided by the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham linked them to Madeleine's disappearance. But further tests showed that evidence to be inconclusive."

• Evening Standard: "Two key blunders led to Kate and Gerry McCann being declared suspects in their daughter Madeleine's disappearance, a leaked report claims today. One of the mistakes relating to DNA tests on samples collected in Portugal was made by the British Forensic Science Service, the Portuguese document said. The report, prepared by Portugal's attorney-general, Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, claims the two crucial errors led to the doctors from being made 'arguidos' in the case. ... The second error was that when 'cadaver dogs' smelled the scent of death in the apartment where Madeleine disappeared, detectives did not take into account that Mrs McCann, who is a GP, had come into contact with six patients who died before she went on holiday. ... Mark Williams-Thomas, a former police officer and a child protection expert, who has knowledge of the report, which dedicates 50 pages to the DNA evidence, said it was 'damning'."

• Guardian: "It was, the attorney general found, largely due to a catastrophic misinterpretation of the evidence collected by [Leicestershire police] that the Portuguese team came to suspect the McCanns in the disappearance. A blinkered investigation, prejudicial police leaks and a rash of misjudged headlines followed. Last month, Matt Baggott, at the time chief constable of Leicestershire, admitted to the Leveson inquiry that he had known the Portuguese officers, then heavily briefing reporters that the McCanns were guilty, were wrong on crucial DNA evidence."

• Daily Mail: "The Portuguese newspaper Expresso claimed to have a leaked copy of the police's final report, which was handed to prosecutors last month. The newspaper said the 57-page report provides details of the chain of events which led to the police decision to name the McCanns, of Rothley, Leicestershire, as arguidos. The report said detectives had acted on the belief that forensic tests in the couple's apartment and hire car supported 'the possibility of a corpse'."

• Daily Mail: "Attorney general Jose Cunha Pinto Monteiro's announcement yesterday raised immediate questions about why the McCanns were forced to endure months under the cloud of suspicion, and to live with the constant threat that they could face charges over the disappearance. Yesterday it was claimed that forensic evidence which led to the McCanns being named as suspects could have been misunderstood by Portuguese police. Detectives wrongly believed the evidence supported their theory that Madeleine had died in her parents' rented holiday apartment when in fact the DNA analysis was inconclusive, it was suggested."

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The only source that matters is the PJ files, which completely contradicts the lies told by the papers that this article is based upon. And no, the McCanns were never cleared of involvement. The Attorney General report said there was no decisive evidence. That is not the same as being cleared of suspicion. The article as it stands is clearly biased and in violation of the NPOV rule. It needs to be completely rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.182.214 (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Quit it with the filibustering. The investigation files are a primary source and editors are not permitted to sift through investigation files and provide analysis and insight. If there is something specific that is incorrect in the article (rather than just your personal objection to the perspective offered by secondary commentary) then tell us what it is and we will take a look. Telling us to "re-write" the article won't get us anywhere because it's not going to happen. Betty Logan (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@80.44.182.214 The article has to be framed by reliable secondary sources, in the sense that it has to reflect their views. But the final Portuguese police report does say what the secondary sources are saying. See here, p. 40, second paragraph. That states that the McCanns were given arguido status because of the British forensic-test results and dogs, and not for any other reason as you implied above. The scientists and police involved in those tests have since made clear that the Portuguese interpretation of the tests was mistaken. This was established years ago.

There are no reliable sources saying that the McCanns might be involved, and there haven't been for several years. Both the British and Portuguese police are following other leads. For legal, ethical and policy reasons – see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages too – this article can't say anything that suggests their involvement, or that their version of events is suspect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The section about the Oakley-report appears like an excuse for keeping the e-fits of the Smith-sighting secret for 5 years.

And about the sightings: In his book, Gonçalo Amaral emphatically points to the significance of the Smith-sighting - in 2008 ! This is relevant, no matter what one thinks of Amaral. He pointed to it in 2008, that's a fact.

So it is pretty much doubtful, that the police in Portugal, the police in GB and the Madeleine-Fund, everybody apart from dismissed Amaral ONLY concentrated on the Tanner-sighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.241.150 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 2 November 2013

Unblock article

In view of the breaking news [11][12][13] the article really needs to be unblocked. Isheden (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've written the new claim up offwiki, along with other updates, ready to add when the article's unprotected. Don't be too swayed by breaking news in tabloids; the police have not commented directly and we've seen this happen many times before. I've left a note for Cjmooney9/80.254.147.156 asking him to return to the discussion, because the point of protection was to force discussion rather than reverting to inappropriate edits. If he doesn't return soon we can request unprotection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 02 November 2013

Not done:

Oakley-report: Is there a source for the claim "something Smith came to accept" (sighted man couldn't be Gerry McCann)? Because the statement of Mr Smith here from 2013 www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328 suggests the opposite: “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting. “Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”

Next point: All this talking about a "new timeline" sound like complete rubbish. You cannot draw a timeline from the sighting of ONE suspect - the more, there was another suspect. And maybe both are innocent? Which Police works that way? If Scotland Yard say, they have a "new timeline", (because of now simply switching to another suspect, o.k., have it quoted, but obviously, this has to be examined further. There must have been a time frame, a "window", not a line. Everything else is stultification, in my view.

Look: In his book, published in 2008 (!), Gonçalo Amaral, the dismissed portugese chief-investigator, emphatically points to the significance of the Smith-sighting. This is relevant, no matter what one thinks of Amaral. This casts a light on the NEW LEADS "revealed" by Scotland Yard. Maybe somebody puts this in.

And then the detectives, the former MI5-guys hired by the McCanns investigated the Smith-sighting and fabricated the e-fits in 2008 (!) as well. THEY took this sighting seriously.

So how come, the e-fits have been locked away for 5 years by the McCanns? If Gery McCann can be ruled out so properly, as the man that Mr Smith saw, then it should not have been a problem, that one of the e-fits has an alikeness to him. However, the explanations given in the Oakley-report-section here go far beyond the sources! Has the Madeleine-Fund given an authorised explanation?

About the use of the term "conspiracy-theory" in this section: I think this article should stick to the facts. Crime-investigation has to go in any possible direction. I cannot see, that an involvement of the parents can be logically excluded. How? That the portugese prosecutor closed the case temporaryly does say a lot about evidence and very little about suspicion. The abduction is a theory as well.

The facts should speak for themselves, at least in wikipedia, not doubtful judgements, echoed in the media or even worth: judgements by the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.200.72.248 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 4 November 2013

Actually there is nothing inconsistent in what Smith says. Note that he said "what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add." "At the time" was in the hours after the disappearance. His mistaken recognition of Gerry McCann happened four months later. Thus what Smith is in fact saying is that he has retracted that recognition, since it obviously couldn't have been Gerry he saw as many witnesses placed him elsewhere, and what he told police in the hours after the disappearance is all he has to say. Anything he may have added since then he has retracted. I would like to see a reference for the "something he has come to accept" assertion though.

For a variety of reasons the police have excluded the parents as suspects at this time. That is how things are now and the article should reflect that. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The source for Smith accepting he made a mistake regarding Gerry McCann is the 27 October 2013 Sunday Times article in the footnote after the paragraph: "There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had 'recognised something' about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz. Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That bit of the Sunday Times article is behind a paywall unfortunately. As I said it is clear from his statement that he does not now believe that it was Gerry, but if there is another source it would be good. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz2jn9lBrSF

Quote: One detective said he was ‘utterly stunned’ to see his five-year-old dossier suddenly presented as new on TV.

The investigator told a Sunday newspaper: ‘I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme... it most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things... and those E-fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours.’

And at the time the e-fits were produced, the Tanner-sighting has most likely been fully investigated. So how weak, how strange is the 'explanation distraction from the Tanner-Sighting'?? You don't have to wait 5 years until a lead is definitely dead until you follow another. (And this suppression of hints, from the people that doesn't stop to criticise the Portuguese police?)

But the Oakley-section of the article does not reflect this. It is more like some tale, trying to explain the extraordinary. The pure facts, would be more useful here.

A detail: The phrase: "This was a sensitive issue," (the questioning of Mr Smith by the detectives). From whose perspective is that written? Sensitive because Mr Smith said before the man looked like Mr McCann? But again: If Mr McCann can be properly ruled out, then it must have been somebody looking similar. So what? "Sensitive"? Keeping e-fits private for 5 years?

If he can't be ruled out it might be sensitive, but the victim is Madeleine, not Mr McCann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.148.20 (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all you need a better source than the Daily Mail. Secondly, it is a new timeline in the sense that it's the first time it has been made public. So it is new. Lots of things in police investigations are kept under wraps. The information isn't new to the police, but it is new to the public when it is finally released.

The bottom line - the pure fact - is that Gerry McCann is not now a supsect. That is the current reality. We cannot put poorly sourced innuendo into the article suggesting that the police are wrong to say that. There is no dispute that at the time Smith saw the man with the girl Gerry McCann can be placed elsewhere by several witnesses. That means he could not have been the man Smith saw, despite any statements that Smith or others may have made subsequently. That is what the police say, and we have to take that at face value in the context of a Wikipedia article. Everything else is speculation and extrapolation, which have no place in a Wiiikipedia article. If you want to speculate, write a blog. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Smith sighting section (slight inaccuracy)

There is a mistake with the conversions, if someone knowledgeable enough could modify this sentence:

"They described the girl as 3–4 years old, wearing light-coloured pyjamas, with blonde hair and pale skin. They said the man was mid-30s, 5 ft 7 in – 5 ft 9 in (1.75–1.80 m) tall, slim-to-normal build, with short brown hair, wearing cream or beige trousers."

In actuality:

5 ft 7 in = 170 cm

5 ft 9 in = 175 cm

5 ft 11 in = 180 cm

I am not sure whether the approximate height given in inches or the one provided in m is the correct one, but they don't match each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.42.14.151 (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll take a look soon at the sources and fix it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)