Talk:Kidnapping of Shannon Matthews/Archive 1

Archive 1

Home address

We don't really need the family's home address, do we? I have removed it from the Disappearance section, leaving the general area in place for context. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left an inline note explaining that whatever the News may do, WE do not give out personal details of minors. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well?

I don't think we should say Shannon is 'well' until we get an attributed quote. The generalised statement in the BBC source that "officers confirmed that she was OK" doesn't seem enough to me - police officers are not medically qualified. BlueValour (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As the person who included it I say if that is what you feel that you should remove it, I won't oppose, and indeed I wont edit war anyone removing material, and applaud the conservatism I am seeing here. Though really all they are saying is she isn't really ill, its like when they say someone is comfortable in hospital (I have been there) they don't mean comfortable, they mean their life is not in danger, and that is all I was trying to express. Thank God she wasn't wheeled out in a stretcher and perhaps we should say she looked composed and left in a police car, which would convey the same thing and is certainly a tribute to her (I know we don't do tributes but re[porting the facts.... Thanks, SqueakBox 20:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

I have removed the name of the man who was with Shannon when she was found. Though the name has been widely reported I think we should wait until the name is officially released before including it - this has been our usual practice with other articles. BlueValour (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bolding the lead

A small point, but which is nearer to the MoS, please, Shannon Matthews or Shannon Matthews disappeared? My preference is the second since this is a page on the event not the person. See also Disappearance of Madeleine McCann for a precedent. BlueValour (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The latter is better as the article isn't about her, its about her disappearance and subsequent re-appearance. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Biggest search

The article says it's the biggest in the area, or in the country since the Yorkshire Ripper - based on the following quote: "It's the biggest investigation of its kind now, it's certainly the biggest missing persons inquiry since the Yorkshire Ripper which I also worked on." I would say that this is not enough to justify the "in the country" claim. Rich Farmbrough, 16:38 7 April 2008 (GMT).

It's bound to be out of date at some point, so I will recast it in more general terms. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Donovan's 'self harm'

I am not particularly comfortable with the inclusion of this sentence. Whilst it is sourced and undeniably accurate it is also irrelevant to the subject of the article and the matters he is being charged with. May I have views, please? BlueValour (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit "tabloid", and this article sometimes looks like a blog at worst and a newspaper at best. Wikinews is for that sort of thing, but editors seem to want to put every little detail in, because they can. Same thing happened when the Madeleine McCann story broke, and the Sudan "teddy-bear" issue, and who remembers that these days? We should remember that WP:BLP applies to anyone living, and my view FWIW is that this snippet tells us very little about the actual disappearance, which is what the article is about. The whole thing is turning into a circus anyway. No need for us to do the same. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll support your proposition, BlueValour. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I seriously don't think the alleged kidnapper attempting suicide is 'every little detail'. This article now encompasses much more than just the dissappearance, see the below section, so I really don't understand the logic of this removal (i.e. who are you claiming to be protecting under BLP? as it is a public domain sourced fact), thus looks like censorship, as it is highly relevant to the article. If this edit is being made on the basis of the article name then perhaps a rename is in order. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is that his self-harm (it may have been a suicide attempt but that is a deduction and not officially confirmed) is simply not relevant to the charges against him. This is not censorship; the objection is with regard to relevancy - this article deals with Shannon's disappearance and subsequent and connected events. Renaming the page is always an option but I am not seeing a better title at the moment. BlueValour (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

An attempted suicide while in prison on charges relating to the article is not relevant to the article? I'm realy not seeing this at all. I suggested a rename as it appears your only objection is that its not relevant according to the title, which ignores the much more irrelevant details by your interpretation, such as the unrelated arrest of her stepfather. MickMacNee (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How to incorporate recent events - this is much more than a "missing person" case

Reading the article for the first time (8 Apr 2008), I was struck how dated it is. The general gist of the article is; girl abducted, girl found, kidnapper arrested, case closed. What reflection there is, is mainly a class-war comparison of this case with that of Madeleine McCann.

However, there are now several strands of evidence which point to this case being far more than an abduction. The first emerged within days when the alleged abductor was charged with kidnap and false imprisonment. Like Sherlock Holmes dog in the night, the interesting fact was what he was not charged with - namely any form of assault or abuse. The request for cash from the Madeleine McCann fund and the charges against the aunts and then the mother for various offences relating to misleading the police investigation now start to point to the whole thing being a put-up job.

I understand that the conclusion of this is conjecture, but the basis (criminal charges) is pretty solid and I think it is now clear that this was certainly not a simple abduction. Any ideas how to proceed? --Oscar Bravo (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Remembering WP:BLP, we wait until the criminal charges ave been resolved. In relation to any other issues, we use reliable sources. So, as normal, then. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)WP has strict policies regarding synthesis of any theories especially for living persons, the original article title is fine as that is what triggered all subsequent events, and no other name is in common use. Even for maddie mcann, all subsequent events are covered by 'dissapearance of...'. It could have better section headings. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be very aware of the potential for sub judice here. Stick to the facts and remember 'innocent until proven guility'. Chump Manbear (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no potential for sub judice here in regards to a) wikipedia or b) foreign editors. Editors located in the UK should be aware, however, that this does apply to them. --87.113.68.170 (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP generally

It seems that the man who was arrested is being investigated for possible offences. This, certainly as far as UK law is concerned, brings into play the sub judice rule, which severely limits what can be said from now on, and more so if he is actually charged. Whatever the ins and outs, it is probably wise for us here not to copy media speculation into the article for fear of falling foul of that rule; it may well be that a potential juror will have read our article, for example, and it is far better to say nothing than to include every speculation that may arise. As far as Shannon herself goes, she needs some time to recover & reintegrate with her family, and similar considerations apply. That's why her picture has been removed; this is no longer a missing person enquiry. Breaches of BLP will, as normal, be reverted on sight. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This, certainly as far as UK law is concerned, brings into play the sub judice rule, which severely limits what can be said from now on, and more so if he is actually charged. actually it doesn't because wikipedia is based in the states and is subject to the laws there not in the UK (I'm actually in the uk but this argument about what happens with UK cases and our reporting has been hashed out) --Fredrick day (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Where has this been hashed out? I've practised law in the UK and whereas the rule may not apply to WP itself, it certainly applies to UK editors of the article, who are most likely to fall foul of it, even unwittingly. It is they who should be careful. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And how do you identify an editor as being "UK"? 82.20.24.97 (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In your case, by your Birmingham Virgin Media address; others, by a checkuser if the Foundation are asked to provide identification. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely unreliable. If I was editing from work (in the UK) you would incorrectly deduce my location as Germany. Checkuser data is kept only a short time. Anyway, how is it OK for just about every other media source in the UK, including the BBC News, to mention this guy's name, but it's not OK for Wikipedia to do the same. You know very well that it's commonplace to name people in these circumstances, and I'm surprised at someone who purports to have legal training making such a claim. 82.20.24.97 (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll find that things will go quiet in the UK media if he is charged. The same cannot be said for here. Even Sub judice aside, there is still WP:BLP. And, as an admin, the tools I use here have to be reliable, for obvious reasons. It is not possible to spoof a fixed IP address, which you are using. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally keen on a very cautious approach to BLP and to the sub judice rule, but I also think that these things can be taken too far. I have just heard the man's name for the second time on BBC Radio 4 news, and it is reported on the websites of the national newspapers I have checked so far: Yorkshire Post[1], The Grauniad[2], the BBC[3], the Daily Telegraph [4], The Independent[5] ... and The Times[6] uses the name in its sub-headline.

At this point, it seems a bit silly for Wikipedia not to mention the name too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps I've been knocking around judges for too long. ;( --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On other wiki articles there's a template that says 'Current court case' (I'm thinking Kwame Kilpatrick). Perhaps it's time to add one here. UK users will at least then be aware of the issue, and editors in general should then be more careful about what's published here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.86.82 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Can we take the photo down now too? It's the last thing she needs now that she's been found. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't object at all. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I think I'll remove it.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. BlueValour (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The image should be reinstated. The welfare of any of those involved in this case is no concern of the editors of this page. If the image adds value to the article, which it quite obviously would then it should be added, the concerns of those involved in the page are completely immaterial.Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically I agree with you. I think compassion must be shown, especially in a case when a minor is a victim, but her photo is still everywhere, there clearly is no press restriction on her image. There is a documentary on the case due to be shown on the C&I channel in the UK and this is using a full screen photo of her face in the adverts. I would lean towards keeping the photo off this article if it was being done in the general media, but it isn't. If it goes to a vote of any description, I would probably agree with putting it back. If you can prove a photo adds value, I see no real reason to not add it back. Sky83 (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Style matters

I think that we should avoid sentences starting with dates, for example 'On 8 April', on 10 April' etc. This is stylistically drab and makes the page look like a list rather than an article. Better, I think, to incorporate the dates within sentences to keep the page prosed.

It also would help if editors would add references in the 'cite web' format. BlueValour (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. It is an encyclopedia not Hello magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 13:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree the article is very difficult to read as is Killemall22 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Article problem

Hello.. I am a new user.. I signed up today to report a problem with this article. It is stated that the charges include rape and sexual battery, the link to the CPS is dead, and nowhere can i find any other reference to these charges. I am pretty sure this is incorrect and needs to be taken out. I refer you to this page from the CPS on the charges http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/123_08/ . Apologies if I have done this incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnfotp (talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at an archived version of the reference here and it makes no reference to the changes made against the couple. Your link does not give full details as is an early one but I have found a Guardian report that fits better with what they were convicted of and will use as a reference in place of the dead one. The rape and sexual battery charge is not mentioned and should be removed. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made these changes to the article. Hope that covers everything. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All those claims were added by an IP in a series of edits three days before this discussion. See Special:Contributions/107.3.29.137. All this IP's edits should have been removed. Paul B (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)