Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 1

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The statement from Cristinao Ronaldo came from MUTV, and not Sky News as previously stated. However, the statement which appeared on MUTV was later shown on Sky News. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 17:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Once we know whether this was a kidnapping, murder or disappearance I suggest that the article is moved to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann or whatever is then suitable. The event is notable, the child is not. TerriersFan 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 08:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with moving it to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann; seems suitable as it is the event that the article is focusing on. Dave101→talk→contributions • 12:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the child in herself is not really notable and it's only the coverage of the incident which warrents any inclusion in wikipedia. Given this is makes sense to make the page on the incidient. Mallocks 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved. TerriersFan 07:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias, the main line of investigation is the possibility of Madeleine having been kidnapped by a pedophile network ("uma rede internacional de pedofilia").[1] The newspaper reports that British police have supplied the Polícia Judiciária with a list of dozens ("dúzias") of names of convicted British pedophiles. The Polícia Judiciária is reported to be in the process of localizing every person on that list who has travelled to Portugal in the past four weeks. Important information, but where should it be added in the article? Or should we avoid all newspaper speculation about theories at the moment? 129.125.174.122 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point. IMO, you can add it to the article, but please provide reliable sources.Page Up 19:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have moved these back to Pound Sterling from euros since they should stay in the currency they were offered in. TerriersFan 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is understandable, but you should add the value in Euros too. Millions of potential readers are not aware of the value of UK's currency.Page Up 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I agree, € and/or USD are more understandable, has they are strong currencies with wide acceptance worldwide.--Netshark 10:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

While I understand why people may blame her parents for leaving her in the apartment alone, the newspaper article referenced for this section makes no criticism of her parents. Should this be removed as OR.212.140.167.99 22:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The UK television channels are reporting criticism of the parents in the Portuguese media and I have sourced one such criticism, by the Diário de Notícias, reported in The Guardian which is one of the most reliable of UK newspapers. TerriersFan 02:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely keep the criticism of the parents. I've seen a lot of toned down criticism in various UK newspaper articles. I read it wasnt the first night they had left the 3 toddlers alone in the holiday home at night. Until the girl is found, or a long time has elapsed I cannot see the parents being heavily critiscised in the UK, purely due to the fact the parents are 'respectable' doctors. The portugese media have been honest, the UK media jump on the bandwagon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.193.145 (talk • contribs)

Why is this article due for deletion?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.83.49 (talk • contribs)

A good question - express your view at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeleine McCann. TerriersFan 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Debate now closed as a keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeleine McCann. |→ Spaully^₪† 20:23, 11 May 2007 (GMT)

This page has been vandalised! "fuckballer". "Blueberry McCann", "no dick/fanny unturned". Can editing of this page please be locked for unregistered users? How does one do this?

Semiprotection can be requested by anyone at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Is vandalism getting promptly reverted? Protection wouild prevent new unregistered users from making positive contributions such as this [2] as well. The page likely has a large numbers of editors watching it at all hours and it is easy to revert vandalism. Edison 23:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am keeping the situation under review and will semi-protect if necessary. Meanwhile, when someone puts up an edit they have been writing for some time it is important that they check for any vandalism first - vandalism has been missed a couple of times today. TerriersFan 00:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the 'missing white woman syndrome' link in the 'see also' section is somewhat lacking in taste and general respect in regard to the McCann family? Even if users don't feel this to be the case, the situation is currently is ongoing, so it doesn't seem appropriate to gauge whether or not the media attention it's receiving is disproportionately large, as the inclusion of the link implies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.205.187 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

How many tens of thousands of children go missing every year, and how much international attention do the disappearances get, compared to that for photogenic white girls from well to do families? If the shoe fits, wear it. Edison 18:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What you say is undoubtedly true, hence the syndrome, but there is no evidence that if this had been a working class boy, as Ben Needham was, that there would not have also been a big fuss. My view is that including the link is stating a POV and it should remain out. OTOH why was there such interest? Well:

• It was a toddler and toddlers of both genders have an 'aw' factor.
• It was a British child and the UK have journalists with an investigative tradition who know that kids sell papers/attract viewers.
• It happened in another country so two lots of media are involved and the international dimension adds intrigue.

Mind you, it has to be said that all the indications are that if it hadn't been an attractive girl she wouldn't have been abducted. TerriersFan 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is speculation at this point what the motives of the abductor were, if it was an abduction. 4 year olds are quite capable of wandering off and in the middle of the night might fall into a body of water or something. There was a recent case in the US where exactly that happened. Edison 23:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link a couple of times but it keeps being added. AFAIK, MWWS has not been referred to by any reliable sources in connection with this story. Therefore the inclusion of the link is clearly POV.MartinBrook t 12:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say in regards to the comment "Does anyone else think that the 'missing white woman syndrome' link in the 'see also' section is somewhat lacking in taste and general respect in regard to the McCann family?"; This is an Encylopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. "Taste and decency" shouldn't be a determining factor in whether something is included in an article if what's being included is of a relevant nature to the article.212.139.51.102 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more to the MWWS. Sad that tens of people die everyday in Iraq and that doesn't create such reaction from the people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.179.12.71 (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually, very few children are taken by strangers. Most are taken by the non-custodial parent or, in the case of older children, run away. A child that appears to be abducted IS news. I think if you look on the missing children websites you'd be hard-pressed to find ANY children under the age of seven who have been abducted by a stranger. This is news because it is so RARE yet it fits into what we believe about child abduction. 86.132.98.119 02:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

-Anyybody remove the link to MWWS are as irresponsible as Madeleine Parents, YES THAT'S YOU!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.32.139 (talk)

-I think the MWWS link should stay. How come "child abduction" is deemed an appropriate link but not MWWS? Both are based purely on speculation. There is no proof that McCann was abducted, and there is no proof theat the copious amounts of media attention she's recieving is a result from her being attractive, white, and rich. Both, however, offer insightful information on the case.

In terms of a MWWS being "innapropriate," that is ludicrous as a user said earlier. This is an encyclopedia. Soon users will be censoring the "Human Feces" Wikipedia article because it talks about poop. -MM 5/16/07

OK, for consistency I gave removed Child abduction. At best the MWWS is a speculative concept and no reliable source is citing it here. Including either plainly implies a POV. TerriersFan 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The key thing is not whether it's "appropriate", it's whether it's relevant to the article. It's not clear that MWWS is relevant (it might be, but that's not for us to judge - wait until it's being widely discussed in reliable sources that we can cite).

It is clear that Child abduction is relevant because it's mentioned right there in the first paragraph.

MartinBrook t 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevant or not, inclusion of MWWS in the article must be accompanied by a verifiable reference. It is not enough that a Wikipedia editor thinks that this is an example of MWWS, but that it is reported elsewhere - otherwise it is WP:OR and / or synthesis. - Tiswas^(t) 11:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[This link] says that in the 12 days after McCann's disappearance, 450 young people have gone missing in the UK. So, if it isn't MWWS, what is it? Given that she apparently just 'wandered off', there's no exceptional circumstances that can excuse the ridiculous media circus. If it was a spotty 12 year old boy in a Slipknot hoodie, nobody would give a monkey's. It's Holly and Jessica times ten. [MSN Editor's blog] also has a very pertinent opinion which echoes my thoughts. I suggest to include both links in the article, which is starting to join in with the media canonisation of her, instead of being impartial, factual and encyclopaedic. Others might disagree that blogs are "reliable sources that we can cite" but since it is by someone who contributes to MSN's news page (and MSN is the 2nd most viewed site on the Internet, according to alexa.com) I thought it'd be acceptable. Psyklax 15:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course those newspaper who are printing "controversial" articles criticising the media coverage do so only to get themselves in the limelight and try and sell more papers. Its not because they care one way or another, but they see a way of getting sales from readers who aren't so sympathetic to the McCanns. Low selling newspapers like The Independent frequently print "shock horror outraged of politically correct land" stories to try and boost sales.62.239.159.5 12:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are, understandably, springing up all over the place. I have removed two from the article so far. If we list one, we will need to list them all, and my view is that we should avoid this. TerriersFan 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The article includes criticism of the slow response of the police, but there is also the statement in the news stories that the police appeared within 10 or 15 minutes after being called. A timeline helps to sort things out in an article like this. A missing piece of information is what time the police were called. How long did the parents, friends, and staff search for her before calling police(in the process contaminating the crimescene with people tramping in and out of the room)? Edison 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question and I agree a timeline would be a useful addition. The criticism, though, wasn't of the initial police turnout but delays in such things as alerting the border police (several hours), finger-printing the family for elimination purposes (several days) etc. TerriersFan 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The image selected for this article is deliberately a low resolution picture that I am confident meets the fair use criteria. Further, I consulted on this image before posting. Switching to higher resolution images, that have more doubtful claims to fair use, is just muddying the waters. TerriersFan 01:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the infobox and moved 'The Child' down the article. This page was kept at the AfD on the basis that it is about the event and not the child. The format should, therefore, concentrate on the event and not look like a pseudo-bio. TerriersFan 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed, for the moment:

"Of the media There has been some criticism of the media for the disproportionate amount of press coverage this incident has incurred, considering that Madeleine's parents are not celebrities and thousands of children are abducted every day around the world. Some have suggested that this could be attributable to "Missing White Woman Syndrome", as the case made headlines before any mention of the sizable reward, and the victim is a cute blonde white girl. It can also be argued that the size of the reward is in proportion to the case's media exposure."

As it stands this is just POV but it can go back if it can be sourced that someone notable said this. TerriersFan 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with TerriersFan's view - I was about to add an almost identical comment when I saw it had already been mentioned. I'm saddened to see it has again been put back into the article - I'll remove it. Robinson weijman 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a good internet-based source for it, but I have watched Portuguese television programs with notable people claiming the "disproportionate amount of press coverage" , the "media circus", and the "blond white girl disappearance vs. poor dark haired girl disappearance" issues.Page Up 15:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I added the comments in question. first of all let me say this incident is a truly sad and heartrending event and i am glad Madeleine is getting a lot of attention as I hope it helps her get found safe and sound. My post was made regarding the media scrutiny based on many blogs all over the internet (Google some blogs) reflecting this puzzlement over the intense media coverage of the case, considering there is no concrete criminal intent established (ransom note, etc). Mind you, I realize no one "notable" has published an article regarding this issue, as bloggers are not considered notable I guess, but there is sentiment of this type floating around online, and i think deserves a mention on wikipedia. anyway I'll try to find something "official" that has been written about. I'm not British, but I'm actually an American expat living and working in Asia of all places, and living here has made me sensitive to the issue of the "voiceless victims" in the media. White foreigners living in an Asian country get no attention or equality (unless they have committed a crime), and it made me realize people of color get almost no media attention on major English media outlets in very similar cases (Shoshona Jackson vs. Jessica Lynch, etc); if you don't know who Shoshona Jackson is, that proves my point exactly, as she could have been an African-American clone of Jessica Lynch (same unit, same circumstances). And this is in addition to many black girls who are abducted in America/the UK but no one hears about. i don't begrudge Madeleine's media attention but i want people to wonder why people of color don't deserve that same attention, to maybe save some of their kids when they are abducted. Thanks for your understanding, all. Stay tuned while I look for official comments... thanks :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.108.15.121 (talk • contribs)

I have removed it again. This is a well-sourced article and putting in unsourced POV simply knocks back its quality. People are speculating all sorts of things in blogs and they are not reliable sources. We either need quotes from notable people or official media comment i.e. an editorial not a blog or readers' views. The BBC "World Have Your Say" section is simply a blog by another name. TerriersFan 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The "media frenzy" over this event has been critisised by The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1801166.ece), The Telegraph (editor on TV: question time) and The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2082507,00.html), it should be added to the main article. MarkT39 11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

More critism of the (media) hype from a different author at the Guardian here. White young pretty girl syndrome seems pretty self-evident to me... I think this deserves to be back in the article. -203.171.67.232 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have added some quotes regarding this issue by two notable and well-known individuals, Ana Filgueiras and José Miguel Júdice. I have added a section under the heading "criticism of the media coverage."

The article claims "At approximately 21:30 WEST (Western European Summer Time), Gerry checked on the children and they were all fine. At around 21:45 WEST the McCanns returned from the restaurant to find an empty bed and the apartment door and window wide open.[3] This is not in keeping with the widely reported "every 30 minutes". The source is BBC, written a day *after* the BBC article cited below. BBC reported "Madeleine, who turns four next Friday, was last seen by her father at about 2100 local time. When Mrs McCann went to check on her about an hour later, she found the bedroom's outside shutter and window had been opened and her daughter missing."[[3]] It's crucial the time she was checked on is accurate and I can't find one other source that claims the dad checked on her at 21:45 or 9:45pm Maluka 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The BBC sources clearly show 45 minutes between the last check and the child being found missing. The '30 minutes' was simply a claim by the aunt. I have updated the the timeline. TerriersFan 18:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• From the reports I've read it was Mr McCann who checked at 21:00 then at 21:45 Mrs McCann went to check and the child was gone. This is from reports both from The Sun and BBC News

I restored the link to pedophilia as that is what the article said (I can read Portuguese even though I cant speak it), SqueakBox 18:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

They have found this house, but the newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, is in Swedish. Is anybody covering this? PureRumble 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally offended by the utter lack of respect shown by fellor editors who reverted my additions to the body of this article. Everything I wrote comes from the ongoing, I believe, reliable, news coverage broadcast on SkyNews, so it's not hearsay we're talking about. Gaynor was interviwed and claimed he had told her and everyone who took part in the investigation he had been volunteering as a witness testimony translator for the Portuguese police. It's a damned interview, broadcast on a major news channel, for crying out loud! -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

TV is okay as a ref but must be referenced properly, giving the prog and date screened in the reference, SqueakBox 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I started watching the reports on SkyNews today, 2007/05/14 at around 21:20 UTC, but they've been airing the interviews for several hours.

The police left the house around 21:45. They reported that live. -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that TV interviews are not verifiable - give the situation a little time and the main points appear on the web. The main point that Gaynor made is now sourced in the article. TerriersFan 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That is simply irrelevant. Many sources are unverifiable (any book one cant access) but the rules do not limit us to online verifiable sources, SqueakBox 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All books are verifiable, even if getting them is inconvenient or expensive. We are not a breaking news service, see WP:NOT, things are sourced on the internet in a very short time so it is right to wait for that. I would that the additions that I removed were added to the middle of sentences relating to other sources and were not sourced to a news broadcast. TerriersFan 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All TV is equally verifiable and some stuff that appears on TV does not appear on websites, indeed I would say a lot of stuff. It may not be appropriate to use TV as a source in this case but it clearly is appropriate in some cases. All refs need to be properly formatted, SqueakBox 22:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You can acess tapes of TV programs. It might be hard, but it can surely be done, too. -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sky news do video clips too though I agree that if there is an alternative web page that should be used, SqueakBox 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of a TV ref], SqueakBox 22:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd trust Sky News as much as their sister US network Fox News - not at all. The only time I'd accept something from them to be verifiable is a direct quote from an interview with somebody significant (a police detective or whatever) that hasn't been cobbled together. Otherwise don't trust them, they're as bad as The Sun for reporting hearsay etc. Psyklax 15:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked it when it was just Madeleine McCann, the article was far more continuous and readable; now it's somewhat simplistic and fragmented. Can someone please fix it? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's gone down a rickety bridge :-( 212.219.39.146 10:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I am starting to work through it to improve readability. It needs to be borne in mind that since the early days there has been a huge amount of information added. TerriersFan 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Are her eyes really that color, or is that red-eye from a flash? Ariel. 10:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's red-eye in the photo, but that doesn't make the iris cut across like that. It's in all the official descriptions of her. --Dhartung | Talk 11:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The iris cut I know, I was only talking about the color. Someone should really fix the photos - it's quite misleading to have the wrong color. Ariel. 12:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. Ariel. 12:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it legitimate to Photoshop an image and change the hair color, even if it is "supposed" to be blond? See the difference: [4]. Edison 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is legitimate. But I didn't do it. I just removed red-eye. This is not supposed to be legal evidence, it's supposed to look like her, so if it needs some fixing that's fine: any mistakes are mistakes by the camera, not changes in reality. That is different from editing to remove blemishes or whatever that actually exist. Ariel. 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the diff. The hair color was reddish in the edit immediately before the one by you. Edison 19:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I'll say it again: I didn't do it. It's a different photo altogether, from a different source. The one I edited is an official one from the website. The one you show from the diff is not on the official website. I have no way of knowing which hair color is more accurate. I also was not the one who switched the main article to use a different photo. Ariel. 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on other photos and descriptions the earlier photo was incorrect in showing "strawberry blonbe" hair and the newer image is more accurate. It may have come from a website, but is looks like the same photo with different color adjustments. As long as it meets the fair use, copyright etc standards for Wikipedia it seems fine. Edison 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spamming this page with links to unofficial sites. I don't believe they add anything of value to the article (WP:EL states: "Links normally to be avoided: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.")MartinBrook t 12:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Websites that do not offer anything that is not already in the article, and that can not be considered official, should be avoided. However benevolent they may be, it's linkspamming. - Tiswas^(t) 11:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I started collecting all magazines and newspapers I could get my hands on which included information on the Maddy case. So far I have 4 newspapers and a magazine, 4 in Portuguese and an English weekly paper I purchased today (it's actually from the 12th). My suggestion is this: given the fact there's a good chance the references we're putting up on the article won't be around a decade or two from now, I believe it would be better if we could somehow link to the newspaper articles I am collection. I thought of creating a Wikisource page where people could upload the articles (scans, I mean) in Portuguese, English, whatnot, so people could access the original sources. I can't scan the newspaper articles because the pages simply don't fit my scanner, but I can work around that problem by going to a store and have it printed. The thing is I am not sure this sort of initiative can be taken, so I wanted to ask before doing anything. I know it'll be very hard to collect all articles related to this case (nor is that what I'm looking for), but rather to make a selection of the best articles, the ones that provide the best coverage of the possible kidnapping, etc. -- Ishikawa Minoru 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a great initiative. What I suggest is that if you can get easily readable scans then uploading to Wikisource is the way to go and we can put a link to there. TerriersFan 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: By the way, shouldn't we move this article to "Disappearence of Madeleine Beth McCann? At least that's her full name, according to Portuguese Lux magazine. -- Ishikawa Minoru 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles are usually just under the first and last name and only the full name if the person is generally known by the full name. TerriersFan 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. I'll be checking newspaper stands tomorow morning for new material, so I'll try to make use of that opportunity to look for someone to scan the stuff for me.

I can speak Portuguese, so, as far as translating the materials is concerned, I can help out. -- Ishikawa Minoru 17:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the twins were born in the Netherlands, in a fertility clinic. Since Madeleine was also born as the result of in vitro fertilization, I was wondering whether she was born in the UK or somewhere else. I'm asking this because I thought it would be nice if we could add the Biography template. -- Ishikawa Minoru 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is an interesting idea, but I wonder whether it is appropriate. See the discussion about the article title above. What came out of it (for me) was: Madeleine is not notable; her abduction is. Robinson weijman 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • There has been no suggestion that the question has any relevasncy to the disappearance, has there? Has the question been raised and answered in a reliable source? If not then it sounds like a WP:BLP violation or a simple invasion of the privacy of a child to speculate. Edison 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• If it's okay for a Portuguese magazine to publish where the twins were born, then I'd assume it's perfectly normal they'd mention where Maddy was born, don't you think? Besides, I just wanted the information so I could fill in some parameters on the Biography template, or create a table detailing the location, time-span and "major players" in this kidnapping case. That's all there is to it. -- Ishikawa Minoru 22:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Looking at the comments above, there may have been some confusion about my asking whether this was an appropriate subject. By that, I'm not thinking of privacy (that's a separate issue I'm not qualified to judge) but rather whether it is fitting for this entry in Wikipedia. Specifically - this article is about Madeline's disappearance, and not about Madeline herself. So some details about Madeline (e.g. appearance, age, ...) are relevant but some (e.g. place of birth, list of pets) are not. That's my opion - but I'm open to correction. Robinson weijman 07:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I remain uncomfortable with 'The child' section at the start of the article. This is a clunky section that distracts the reader from 'Disappearance' which is where the meat of the story starts. My suggestion is to split 'The child' and incorporate the first paragraph in 'Disappearance' to avoid duplication and to move the 'identification' paragraph and incorporate it within an 'Identification and sightings' section. TerriersFan 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with the first. Disagree with with the second: what's such 'identification' for? what is it's encyclopedic value? Delete it. 85.240.253.85 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the child section should remain but be moved to the end of the article. Tamatisk 23:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that as an alternative. TerriersFan 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose a move there. Some sort of decription has to be given near the start to allow the article to develop logically. I cannot see the logic of putting the child's description at the foot. Lumos3 11:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed TerriersFan replaced the most recent portion of the "Investigation" section of this article, something which didn't really please me. While I do believe anyone should be able to edit Wiki and that no article is "sacred" (as in free from being changed, updated, etc), the truth is that I think what I wrote was perfectly fine and that, quite frankly, the current version of this article simply doesn't flow. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, which means the articles shouldn't be a succession of quotations take from the articles we cite. Given the above, I hereby request other editors to decide on this matter. It is not my intention to start an edit war. My only objective is that of creating the best article possible and to help Maddy. -- Ishikawa Minoru 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Portuguese TV the PJ is looking for a man of Russian origin, a friend of Murat's and a child sexual offender. Does anyone have any english language version on this? -- Ishikawa Minoru 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A quick search on the Portuguese Google News gives a lot of links. The first I found was this one, an article in the Agencia Financeira. The title, "PJ levou computadores de casa de russo amigo de Murat", translates as "PJ took computers from the house of a Russian friend of Murat." Aecis^Brievenbus 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen reports that he is Russian and a web site creator - but none that he is a sex offender. Can you add references to back this up? Robinson weijman 07:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here the man himself denies being a sex offender. Robinson weijman 07:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

BBC News has stated on several occasisons that he is a a convicted sex offender Tamatisk 09:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? I cannot find one - could you please add them, because currently we only have references to this in Portuguese. Robinson weijman 11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I had added two references to the claim. Expresso says that "Malinka tem cadastro por crimes sexuais", while the Correio da Manhã says that Malinka has "antecedentes criminais por violências sexuais" and a "perfil criminal." Aecis^Brievenbus 10:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If so, why have the Portuguese authorities allowed him to live in their country for 4 years, given that Russia is not in the EU. In fact they have given no details yet of when, where and for what he was convicted. I'm suspicious of any such claims until the details emerge.Red Hurley 11:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful to observe WP:BLP policies about derogatory statements about living persons, and also remember that in a crime such as this there is a long history of the media pronouncing innocent people to be guilty, such as the falsely accused Richard Ricci in the Elizabeth Smart abduction. Ricci in fact died in jail, and stress from the false accusations was likely a contributing factor. Consider also Richard Jewell, a security guard who did his duty in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing but was wrongly pilloried in the media for planting the bomb which was really planted by another. There is a long tradition of police "rounding up the usual suspects" just to get the media off their backs in highly publicized cases. Edison 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added in some caveats. Despite the media scrum, no evidence nor charges have been shown or made as of now, noon on 17th. I have to say that if this happened on my doorstep I would hesitate to be overly helpful to journalists, for fear of their inchoate suspicions and underlying need for a 'story'. That is an unwelcome aspect. The complainant journalist appears to have known next to nothing about Mr. Murat, and now his life also has been turned upside down, though much less than the McCanns.Red Hurley 11:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has a view and can speak French may want to add their voice to the debate. So far the article is heading for deletion. Quakerman 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't canvas support for AfD discussion, including cross-wiki ones - Tiswas^(t) 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not canvassing for support. This is a neutral message bringing it to people's attention, acceptable under the canvassing guidlines. People can vote how they want! Quakerman 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seems that they are taking a far more dispassionate stand, and would be less likely swayed by one stop supporters from the english wiki. - Tiswas^(t) 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is a link to the debate in French Wiki? I do not plan to contribute, but it might be entertaining to read it via Babelfish. Edison 17:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

its on the article page [5]. What is the French for oppose? SqueakBox 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a done deal; there are 12 Supprimers against 2 Conservers, both of which are from here! TerriersFan 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I find that quite shocking actually. - They obviously have different priorities on French Wikipedia. Jooler 10:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The score there is now 4 Keep (including me), 13 Delete. Babelfish is at http://babelfish.altavista.com . The French Wikipedia will not let IP-numbers edit: everybody must log in to edit there. Their reasons for deleting seem to center around "Not encyclopedic, put it in Wikinews" and "Wait and see what eventuates before starting a Wikipedia article about it". How many of you can understand written French? (I learned French in school.) Anthony Appleyard 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note: To vote on AfD on the french wikipedia, you must be 1) logged; then 2) an editor with at least 50 edits on the french wikipedia before the date at which the request for deletion starts or 3) the creator of the article. Boréal 14:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Malinka's "exclusive interview with Sky News": First of all, there is no such thing as an "exclusive interview." It is just as much a buzzword as "serious crisis", as if there are also trivial crises. Secondly, what does it add? What does it matter who he said it to? Why can't we just say "Malinka himself spoke negatively of the coverage of the case in the Portuguese media — which claimed the man was a convicted sexual offender — and claimed to be "completely innocent". Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 10:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is exclusive in the sense that Malinka has spoken only to SKY News and to no other media outlet. In other words, he has spoken exclusively to SKY News, refusing to speak to other media outlets. SKY News has copyright on the interview and you have to credit the source. Quakerman 10:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary (and being careful not to overstep the mark, as IANAL and legal concern is an Office only issue), the quotes are Malinka's - only the compilation belongs to Sky. The quotes themselves are quite probably ideas only, and do not enjoy copyright protection. Wikipedia policy, however, requires verification of any quote - which in this case would be from Sky, as they are the only source (exclusivity, in the "scoop" sense, notwithstanding.) The quote need not be credited ("Sky News said that...") but it must be cited ("Malinka said that...<ref>sky.com</ref>")- Tiswas^(t) 11:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We credit the source by referencing the quote, as we are supposed to do under WP:CITE and WP:V. We do not need to mention the publisher/broadcaster. What matters is what Malinka said, not who he said it to. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 11:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The compilation is copyrighted, and the compilation is what is being quoted. But since again as Princess Tiswas says, the only source for Malinka's words are the SKY News compilation, it must be cited and acknowledged as the only source. All other media outlets must (grudgingly perhaps) acknowledge that Malinka's comments were made to SKY News. Any reporting of his comments on, say, the BBC, must include something like "In an interview with SKY News..." Quakerman 11:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal points aside (wikipedia has its own laywers - there is policy regarding acting on perceived legality, though I can't remember the specifics), it is not relevant and material to the content of Malinka's statement as to who it was said to. Wikipedia policy states that the statement must be cited - there is no policy (or even guideline) that such a quote must be credited (in the sense that the source must be mentioned in the body of the text, and not as a citation). - Tiswas^(t) 11:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that (and this is armchair advocacy, so ultimately not relevant), the compilation is not being quoted at all. That would require verbatim quotation of a significant portion of the interview, not merely a summary of the major points, paraphrasing, or a small direct quote. - Tiswas^(t) 11:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. So are we going to remove references to all other media outlets from the body of the article, or is this just about SKY News? Quakerman 11:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be my suggestion, unless the media source is material in itself - this is not Sky specific - Tiswas^(t) 11:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that if that's a consensus. Quakerman 11:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added this image, from Commons, that I found on a foreign wiki. I have left a message for the photographer but, meanwhile, can anyone source the location of the photo? TerriersFan 23:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is mostly unsourced and contains large quotes that are out of proportion. Actually, I don't disagree with the sentiments but it needs close sourcing or most of it will have to come out. TerriersFan 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have done a bit of tidying. Quakerman 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work sourcing but the length is still, in my view, out of proportion. TerriersFan 15:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now cut it back to the essentials, which makes the points clearer. There are, I'm sure, other sources that can be added to emphasise the point so we need to keep the length from one source in balance. TerriersFan 15:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I do not know if this is relevant, but a day or two ago I saw on UK television in news about Madeleine McCann, a street poster about her with the word LOOK in big uppercase, and in the first letter O was a coloboma like she has. Anthony Appleyard 11:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I think it is a good idea to add this to the article. The publicity campaign is unusual, in terms of both size and cleverness (items like this poster). Definitely notable. Robinson weijman 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A link to the Wikipedia page for the BBC is not a reference for the claims made in the two paragraphs about cybersquatting and the poster. Quakerman 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Refs in publicity section

In the section Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Publicity, I got two of the info items from BBC TV television news, and said so in <ref> ... </ref> notes.

I was merely narrowing down the field of search if someone was searching for a source. I was merely saying what BBC TV news is. I was not intending to tell people to look on the BBC TV Wikipedia page. OK. OK, I have now found a precise ref re the typosquatting info. Anthony Appleyard 05:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The "LOOK FOR MADDIE" image seems to come from the families' Picture Video, set to Simple Mind's "Don't Forget About Me" which can be watched here. --GracieLizzie 09:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remember the neutral point of view. It's not for us to call something objectionable. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 10:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed that Madeleine "Maddie" McCann be merged into this article (or perhaps even deleted?) as this would better reflect the SOP as established at articles like Holly Wells (which is a redirect to the Soham Murders page). Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Page has been deleted. Quakerman 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, was just about to remove this heading since no one had responded and this was no longer a problem but ended up in an edit conflict. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this article as a CSD:A7. The content of the page is already included at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, so nothing to merge, and no independent notability for the subject was asserted. It is open to the creator to take it to deletion review if he wishes. TerriersFan 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A sourced paragraph on the babysitting service was deleted from 'Criticism...Of the parents'. I have restored it under 'Disappearance'. Frankly, I am not bothered where it goes but it must remain somewhere - it is both sourced and relevant. TerriersFan 15:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is not "There was a babysitting service together with a 'dining-out' creche service in the evenings for children aged four months to nine years - parents eating in the resort's restaurants drop the children off and pick them up later - but the McCanns did not use these facilities.^[1]" a duplication of "The parents have been criticized for leaving their children alone while they ate at a nearby restaurant despite the availability of a babysitting service and a creche.^[2]"

Does it need to be in both places? I think the shorter version in "Criticism of the parents" citing the same source is suffient. Quakerman 16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops; I seem to have missed that. I agree and have removed the longer version. TerriersFan 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the link for this site from External links - none of these support sites meet WP:EL. That site is on this talk page and we now have three links in the article (official site, fund site and police appeal site); that is plenty. This is an encyclopaedia article not part of the search effort. TerriersFan 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I put a reference to (link removed) since i beleive that is a source of resources not covered here and that can provide useful aditional information. In such case as this, every help counts. The well being of a litle child may depend on it. Furthermore, since the tags in Wikipedia have a nofolow rule, this is not an attempt to improve search rankings for wiki-site.com. cris

As stated above; this is an encyclopaedia article and is not part of the search effort. We record events - we do not try to influence events. That site fails WP:EL. TerriersFan 01:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

TerriersFan is right, Chris. The wiki-site is one of many private initiatives, and as such has no official status and is not related to the search effort. FindMadeleine.com on the other hand is official. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else think the Reaction section reads like it could be easily rolled into the Appeals section as an "Appeals from Politicians" subsection? --GracieLizzie 15:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)