Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 6

McCanns visit to Brussels
I have removed, for the moment, "Two days later UK media reported that the Mccanns were on a high profile mission to Brussels to "pursuade MEPs to introduce an EU wide child abduction alert system" in an effort to spin headlines off the Portugese police requests. " because I am not sure that the McCanns' activities which are not related to the Disappearance are sufficiently relevant to this article. May I have opinions, please? TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a further thought, the McCanns are going to get increasingly involved in their initiative on missing children in general and I am sure that there will be many more reports of their activities in this regard. I think that this initiative is being sufficiently reliably reported to be notable. Possibly it should be the subject of a separate article? There are many Ghits for Child abduction alert system, certainly enough for a page that could also link to AMBER Alert. A couple of recent links are here and here. I am not volunteering to write it, but I think its a runner if someone is interested. TerriersFan (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, hum, call me a pushover if you like but I have created page. TerriersFan (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit by User:Haudcivitas
I should like to explain my reversion of the edit by User:Haudcivitas so that other editors can take a view. Essentially his/her addition has four parts:
 * McCanns being asked to go back for a reconstruction - already in the article, lower down.
 * McCanns feelings - attributed to an unnamed friend and therefore unreliable.
 * McCanns refusing to go back - not what the current sources say - the sources say that they haven't decided.
 * Brussels trip - I have an open mind as explained in detail above. TerriersFan (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. They are POV and poorly sourced. The SKY news article used as a ref makes no mention of "spinning". That is entirely the editor's POV. HtD (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for picking this up; I had a heavy cold last night and wasn't as sharp as I could have been. TerriersFan (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Mccanns make all their "statements" in this way, are they to be protected from analysis for that? The Mccanns have NOT gone back and here is a link which will show you that the Mccanns have officically refused to go back voluntarily as suspects (as if you didn't know already). You are anything but open minded and no doubt have been a charity fund contributor at some point. Or otherwise caught up in the professional spin of millions of pounds. HC.
 * You are misdirecting yourself if you believe that bad editing and characterisations, such as above and here, are likely to advance your case or win others round to your viewpoint. It is inaccurate to claim that the McCanns have refused to go back; all that the Fox source does is offer the unattributed views of 'friends'. Neither the views of friends nor the feelings of the McCanns can be included without a direct attribution. TerriersFan (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Mccanns make all their "statements" in this way..."


 * No, they don't. They have an official spokesman, and only what he says or they say themselves directly to the media can be taken as being their official position, which is of course open to scrutiny. HtD (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Metodo 3 allegations
I have removed the allegations about the Metodo 3 detectives because they are unrelated to either the disappearance itself or to their investigation of other child disappearances. HtD (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

the website latest blog
The mcanns are speaking about madeline in the past tense "she WAS a lovely girl..." not IS. It is worth pointing out and putting it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.113.58 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you paste a link to that page on the blog please? I can't find it. HtD (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Article too long
Hi. I just tagged this article as being too long. It's over 100k and it's making edits, such as for cleaning up vandalism, load slowly. I pity anyone trying to load the page on dialup! I'm not a regular editor on this article, but is there a way we can trim this up or should it simply be split into sub-articles? &mdash;Ashanda (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the tag. One of the reasons it's so long is are the notes. We have tried to deal with that in the past by having a scrolling reflist, but this was vetoed by general WP consensus. This is a very complicated BLP that has already been split once. The detail is needed, and because there are so many individuals, there is a lot of it. Again, for BLP reasons it shouldn't be split, because it's important to have the whole context in one place. There are many longer articles on WP, and length is not a constraint as we are not a paper encyclopaedia. Harry the Dog WOOF  19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have given thought from time to time on this. All the content is fully sourced and every sentence has been reviewed for accuracy and relevance, by multiple editors. Identifying sections for breakout is hampered by the article being highly factual, with most of the content relevant to the story and with little padding. However, we can start to make some thinning by moving the  Confirmed sightings on 3 May and Reported sightings sections to a new page, Sightings following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, leaving a reasonable summary in the main article. Indeed, the muse has just moved so I will create a user space version for consideration! TerriersFan (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That was the one section I felt could be moved as well. Since all the sightings have been false alarms, while it is important to record that they happened, it doesn't need to be in the main article. Harry the Dog WOOF  15:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Though we assume the sightings were false alarms, and they probably were, several of them have not been explicitly discounted. I will distinguish between these in the draft article and post here when I think it is ready for prime time! TerriersFan (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * True. I guess what I meant is that they haven't led to a resolution of the case. Harry the Dog WOOF  16:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, the initial draft is ready at User:TerriersFan/Sightings following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Now we have space, there is sourced analysis that can be added, as well as distinguishing between the discounted and undiscounted sightings, but this makes a start. I should like agreement to carry out the split, please. TerriersFan (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks fine. I say go ahead. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Harry the Dog WOOF  18:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done; saving 15.4Kb. TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
The edits today have been a bit confusing. On the one hand we have the removal of remarks made by Pamela Fenn. This I agree with, as the reference no longer appears on the Daily Express website and cannot be verified. I'm not even sure the Express was a reliable source to begin with. On the other, there's extra wording added into the section of the leaking of interviews. The addition "that statement would have come from the Portugese police" does not appear in the BBC reference and sounds like POV. I think the original wording was better. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that the addition you were concerned with was, rightly in my view, reverted by HTDD and it should stay out. I have researched the Pamela Fenn remarks and found this. For this reason, it should also stay out. The question of the source being unavailable is, however, not a good reason for exclusion. References break all the time when sources take material off their websites and the Wikipedia practice is that we don't remove material for that reason. TerriersFan (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

People removing information just because the source has been removed is crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.206.183 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

End of investigation?
Newspapers are reporting that the police are to drop their investigation due to lack of evidence. Worth mentioning now, or should we wait for an official announcement? Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet more unsourced spin and speculation... According to SKY the Portuguese Attorney General has now released a statement refuting these claims. Snowbunni (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The submission of the final police report is now widely confirmed. However, no decision has been made on closing the case. I have added this to the page. TerriersFan (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From This BBC News Story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7516585.stm "The police investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been shelved, Portugal's attorney general has said. The child's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, and a third British national, Robert Murat are no longer formal suspects he also confirmed." Should maybe make mention that the three are no longer suspects in the case. Malbolge (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree - editing now ... TerriersFan (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Book and report
About the book A verdade da mentira:  

Official police report published on a newspaper, by a named police inspector: pg1 pg2 pg3 pg4 pg5 pg6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.227.226 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits about Jeremy Wilkins
An anon editor has been persistently adding that Wilkins did not see the suspicious individual, citing the report. But on page 18 of the report it states that Wilkins "arfirmou ter visualizado un individuo com un comportamento e aspeto estranho..." Unless my Portuguese is rustier than I think it is, that says that Wilkins stated he saw an individual who looked strange and was behaving strangely. Is there anything else that I can't find in the report that supports what the anon editor wants to insert? Harry the Dog WOOF  12:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On further reading of the report, I think the anon editor may be referring to page 55, which is based on the reconstruction, and which reports the police's speculation based on the reconstruction and not proven or admitted facts. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, good! Then the mistery is solved! "But on page 18 of the report it states that Wilkins "afirmou ter visualizado un individuo com un comportamento e aspeto estranho..."" Yes and what about the rest?
 * "[…]JEREMY WILKINS, afirmou ter visualizado um indivíduo com um coportamento e aspecto estranho. Veio-se
 * a verificar que era um hóspede, que inclusive participou nas buscas."Translation:
 * Jeremy Wilkins stated he saw an individual looking and behaving in a strange way.
 * We verified it was a guest, who also took part on the search.


 * "A proximidade física, real e efectiva entre JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN e JEREMYWILKINS, no momento em que a primeira passou
 * por eles, e que coincidiu com o avistamento do suposto suspeito, transportando uma criança. Resulta,a nosso ver, inusitado que tanto GERALD McCANN como JEREMY WILKINS, não a terem visto, nem ao alegado raptor, apesar da exiguidade do espaço"


 * “The, real and effective physical proximity between JANE TANNER, GERALD McCANN and JEREMY WILKINS, on the moment in which the first(Jane)passed by them and which coincided with the sighting of the alleged suspect, carrying a child. It follows, in our view, unusual that both GERALD McCANN as JEREMY WILKINS, did not see her, or the alleged kidnapper, despite the paucity of space.”


 * You can call it rusty!! In the case you got confused, those are two different events. Wilkins saw that person on a different occasion, not when Tanner said she saw the alledged suspect.

89.180.164.172 (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "It follows, in our view..." As I said, speculation, and therefore not encyclopedic. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"It follows, in our view..." Do you have reading comprehension problems, or is another biased opinion of yours? The fact:GERALD McCANN as JEREMY WILKINS, did not see her, or the alleged kidnapper The speculation: none (no theories about why they did not see them) opinion:"unusual ....despite the paucity" About speculation... the entire wikipedia article of Madeleine Mccann is pure speculation, erase it then. It seems your English is also too rusty.89.181.79.236 (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, read WP:CIVIL. Secondly, the article is fine as it is. This is just another pointless argument about nothing, of which there have been many on this talk page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Pawnkingthree. Resorting to abuse is the first sign that one is losing the argument. The police report contains speculation, and we do not deal in speculation, especially in a BLP. "In our view" indicates speculation, not fact. It is one explanation. By their own admission, the PJ are not able to solve this case, and this is just one theory about the movements on that evening. Harry the Dog WOOF  16:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was you who resorted to abuse calling my edit with a source vandalism. Where did I write "In our view" on the page? There was no mention to Pj's views. What theory are you talking about??? What you are saying is plain nonsense. And explanation to what????89.180.50.14 (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Explain where is the theory here: "although Gerald McCanne and Jeremy Wilkins were on that same road they did not see Jane Tanner or the man carrying a child." What you are saying is that the PJ came up with the theory that they did not see Jane or the suspect? Very clever observation.
 * For one thing, it was unsourced the first time you added it. The words "in our view" our contained in the report that you are quoting as a source, meaning that it is the police's view, unproven and therefore speculation. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the dumbest comment I ever heard. The source was already on the page, you do not have to repeat it all the time. The fact here is that Gerald McCanne and Jeremy Wilkins reported to the police that they did not see Tanner or the suspect. The PJ's opinion is not mentioned on the article, only what it was declared to the police. Are you going to erase all those opinions made by opinion makers you collected from the newspapers?89.180.128.102 (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So what do the words "in our view" which are contained in the police report mean to you? (Direct quote: "It follows, in our view, unusual that both GERALD McCANN as JEREMY WILKINS, did not see her, or the alleged kidnapper, despite the paucity of space.") It is a conclusion that the police are drawing, not what Wilkins and McCann said. And no, you did not include the police report as a reference the first time you added this (and it would be good if you could spell people's names correctly too), you mentioned it but did not include the ref. This is silly, and I won't respond further given your tone, I will simply revert the addition if it is made again per WP:BLP and ask for semi-protection if you persist. Harry the Dog WOOF  13:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a comment to their statement!!!It was not included in wikipedia but if I had written: " In the PJ´s opinion it was unusual that both GERALD McCANN as JEREMY WILKINS, did not see her, or the alleged kidnapper, despite the paucity of space." It would be perfectly correct. I decided to avoid the PJ opinion and relate only what they declared to the police. The source was already given. Someone decided to put it on the end of the article. Complain to him/her. As I understand you are defending that Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins saw the suspect, and Gerald did not recognise it was his own daughter being taken? It has a source, you can´t read portuguese, you asked for a translation and your revert is bad faith. You are making it silly.  89.180.57.44 (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not defending anything. All we can go on are the statements made. The police's opinions on those statements are irrelevant. Opinion has no place in Wikipedia. Period. Harry the Dog WOOF  14:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, no opinion was included in the article. The statements made are that they did not see them. But you can follow your own advise and erase comments like the ones made by Mark Williams-Thomas, Professor David Barclay or anything refering to criticisms made. As you said: "Opinion has no place in Wikipedia. Period." Too silly.89.180.30.23 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are going to be abusive, have the courage to create an account so that you can be held accountable for your actions. Otherwise, if this continues, I will ask for your IP range to be blocked. I have said why this does not belong in the article, you have responded with abuse rather than solid arguments, so as I say, I will continue to revert per WP:BLP, and any more abuse and you will be reported to admins. Harry the Dog WOOF  14:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The abuse is yours. You started calling my edit vandalism, then said I gave no sources, said that I included comments although there would be nothing against it, now you make threats. Even worst, it looks you are implying that Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins did not make that statement and it is all just PJ´s opinion. And there is nothing that goes against WP:BLP,it came out in several newspapers, so it is public. 89.180.215.141 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is the reference in this edit? Certainly not next to the material added. Adding unsourced material to a BLP is vandalism. What I am looking for is the source for the statement "although Gerald McCanne (sic) and Jeremy Wilkins were on that same road they did not see Jane Tanner or the man carrying a child." If you can point to where in the police report it says that, fine. But what we have been discussing so far is the police's comments calling into question the fact that they did not see her or the man with the child, which is speculation on behalf of the police. Harry the Dog WOOF  08:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you are accusing me of vandalism and of not giving sources, check the External links some editor decided it was the best place to keep it, it is only needed to mention it once. You are acusing the PJ of speculation and of having the "opinion" that they did not see Jane or the suspect,"By their own admission, the PJ are not able to solve this case, and this is just one theory about the movements on that evening." This is a very serious accusation. What can be or not be made public was already officially discussed so there is no WP:BLP arguments involving Madeleine McCann: "Police discuss what evidence will be made public". And if PJ was "not able to solve this case" they had great help :"DNA error by British experts led to McCanns being accused, leaked report claims" . Note: "From today officials from the public prosecutor's office in the Algarve town of Portimao will copy the documents on to DVDs for reporters who have requested them.

89.180.137.184 (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, in a BLP, when you add material, you need to give a reference for each claim or series of claims. Not to do so can be considered vandalism. What I want to see is a footnote leading directly to the reference in which the statement that is being made can be supported. Look at all the other statements that are made, and you will see that this is how it's done, even if it means referring to the same source several times. Now, I have been more than patient with you despite your abuse. Any more of it, and you will be reported to the admins. I will no longer continue this. I will simply remove any statement that is not sourced properly. Harry the Dog WOOF  13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just pin point where it says "you need to give a reference for each claim or series of claims" on the BLP, also clarify whose biography is it from : of Wilkins, Jane, Gerald or of someone called "Disappearance". The two times the references were taken from the page: You had no difficulty finding the source, you clearly identified the two paragraphs and you clearly misinterpreted both paragraphs. It is not private information as it was made officially public. So, revert my paragraph, put the references wherever and stop the nonsense because you are really showing bad faith and you also pretend you understand a language which you clearly show you have big difficulties.89.181.69.218 (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP. Unsourced material is to be removed immediately. Now your turn. On which page of the report does it say (in Portuguese of course) the exact words "although Gerald McCanne (sic) and Jeremy Wilkins were on that same road they did not see Jane Tanner or the man carrying a child." Page number please for ease of reference. Harry the Dog WOOF  13:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Read it your self!"Referring to other editors' good-faith changes as vandalism" The article is not fine, is full of nonsense gossip. A well sourced entry, from the police report, was erased, my edit called vandalism, and you want to distort the information and discard it. It is sourced, so it stays.89.181.35.196 (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Amaral book
From my talk page: "we dont recite unproven allegations sourced or not? well the article sources a newspaper saying " And one of the McCanns' two Portuguese lawyers, Carlos Pinto Abreu, told Lisbon radio station TSF that Mr Amaral's comments were "in very poor taste" and "unhelpful to the investigation".

"The British police have only been working on that which the McCann couple want them to and which is most convenient for them," he said.

"The have only investigated tips and information developed and worked on for the McCanns, forgetting that the couple are formal suspects in the death of their daughter Madeleine.".

This was denied by Mr Amaral, so the article sources unproven allegations.Also i believe that the article on his book is interesting regarding the whole story about madelaine.Erasing it is pure vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.215.29 (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC) "
 * The publication of the book is included in the Response sub-article. However, the addition that I reverted, that can be found here, recites unproven allegations against the McCanns. Even though they are attributed to Amaral, in my view including them presents a defamation risk and a breach of BLP. I am putting the discussion here to collect alternative views. TerriersFan (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, as my reverting of the same material when it was re-inserted indicates. People can think what they like, but unless it is proven or admitted, it should not be included in a BLP. Harry the Dog WOOF

Incompetence of the Portuguese police
I think the criticism of the Police section needs to be expanded. As more is revealed from the files, the more their incompetence is exposed, e.g. not following up leads or issuing the photofits of suspects. Maybe this is a Portuguese thing, something to do with their laws and procedures, but either way I wouldn't want to be a crime victim in Portugal. 212.159.92.22 (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Police team is inappropriate. If a study is made of disappearance's of children such as Madelein, you will see that the circumstances are identical to Madeleins. Children at times are removed unlawfully from public places with dozens of witnesses and the children and suspects remain unaccounted for. A small ray of hope in this case is that the usual pattern of events are, that the offender will at some future date find the Police sat on the other side of a desk formally reading a charge against the offender. Give the Police time.Johnwrd (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

They did follow up on leads. They rightfully placed the parents as suspects only to be shouted down by the public and international community. They had their killers, even if they were unintentional killers, but were stopped from doing their jobs by others. That's not incompetence. 203.206.32.220 (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Harlequin

Backstory
This article reads in its utter naivete as if there had never been any other child abduction in Europe, never any Dutroux case in Belgium, never any snuff movies filmed in Amsterdam, never any sale by Russian criminals of street children to paying Westerners. And most important, never any collusion by media plus police plus judiciary in covering for child-abusing power elites in USA (Pagegate), Belgium (Dutroux) or Portugal (the Casa Pia case). That is why I have now cited the Daily Mail article of 10-2007. Readers can then better judge in what sort of legislature McCann was abducted. Jacques Roux (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * None of these are relevant to this article which is based on a specific case. If you wish to write a general article called Child abduction in Europe, feel free. The Daily Mail article has failed to establish any link with the Madeleine case; it is pure speculation. However, it is probably worth a brief mention so I will move it to the Response page. TerriersFan (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Tapas Seven libel settlement
The Tapas Seven libel settlement is covered in detail in Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and summarised at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I recommend that, for consistency, it is not also included in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann section since the McCanns' and Murat' awards are also dealt with in this manner. TerriersFan (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible ownership issues in non-standard intro
The intro to this article contains a number of oddities. It introduces "Madeleine McCann", a non-notable child, without describing who she is/was. It boldfaces a past-tense phrase, perhaps the only article on Wikipedia to do so; and generic article titles do not require boldface repetition in the intro. And it is poorly written; the first sentence contains multiple fragments; "disappeared" is used twice; yards are used as the primary measurement; and is a fairly poor summary of the case (it could easily include the information that the parents were suspected, or that no charges have been brought).

As I have discovered, any attempt to improve and Wikify this paragraph is inevitably reverted wholesale, with the comment that this is a "consensus" formulation. This is nonsense; there was little discussion of the phrasing of the introductory paragraph in the archive, and no vote or similar has ever taken place. Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 11:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't "vote" on Wikipedia; we form consensus. And if you look carefully at the archives there is extensive discussion both on the nature of the article (it is about the event, not the person) and therefore the way the intro should thus be formulated. So it is not "nonsense", and to suggest so assumes bad faith. It has been tweaked several times. What I suggest is that you bring your proposed wording here first for discussion. Harry the Dog  WOOF  13:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See above. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 14:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you could paste your proposed version here so people could comment on it. The bolding issue has been commented on extensively and the current version is the consensus. As for other possible changes (like metres first) I can see merit in that, but other might wish to comment, and it would help them to see the proposed text here. Harry the Dog WOOF  14:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Posting a revised formulation here seems a very good way forward indeed. There is a great deal of discussion about bolding the lead in the archives. Initially it was bolded but then I, amongst others, removed the bolding since, as you say, bolding is not required on generic titles. I therefore prefer ProhibitOnions's wording. However, the removal of the bolding resulted in continual drive-past bolding by other editors. The present formulation was agreed as a compromise after a fairly fraught discussion. If ProhibitOnions considers that reopening this question is worthwhile I will support him but I think that we have more pressing issues to resolve on Wikipedia. The question of metres or yards or both and in which order has also been discussed. Frankly, I am not bothered about the units except a) the units must be consistent throughout the page; b) it must be agreed first to avoid another sad dispute. A final thought; the summary of the case is the intro paras taken together. The parents as suspects/cleared is clearly stated in the third para. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the 3 February revision proposed by User:ProhibitOnions:

Madeleine McCann, a British girl, went missing on the evening of Thursday, 3 May 2007 from the resort of Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region of Portugal, a few days before her fourth birthday. She was on holiday with her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, and siblings when she disappeared from an apartment in the central area of the resort. Madeleine's parents have said that they left her unsupervised in a ground floor bedroom with her two-year-old twin siblings while they ate at a restaurant about 130 yards (120 metres) away.

To which I would suggest some minor changes:

Madeleine McCann, a British girl, went missing a few days before her fourth birthday while on holiday with her parents and twin siblings in the Algarve region of Portugal. She disappeared from an apartment in the central area of the resort of Praia da Luz on the evening of Thursday, 3 May 2007. Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, have said that they left the children unsupervised in a ground floor bedroom while they ate at a restaurant about 130 yards (120 metres) away. - Rothorpe (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the present text for ease of comparison:

Madeleine McCann disappeared on the evening of Thursday, 3 May 2007 from the resort of Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region of Portugal, a few days before her fourth birthday, and is still missing. The British girl was on holiday with her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, and siblings when she disappeared from an apartment in the central area of the resort. Madeleine's parents have said that they left her unsupervised in a ground floor bedroom with her two-year-old twin siblings while they ate at a restaurant about 130 yards (120 metres) away. TerriersFan (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I Have a couple of issues with Rothorpe's draft. I prefer the initial sentence to include the date with the birthday later. Also, neither version mentions that she is still missing which I think is an important fact. This is my version to deal with these matters:


 * Madeleine McCann, a British girl, went missing on the evening of Thursday, 3 May 2007 while on holiday with her parents and twin siblings in the Algarve region of Portugal. She disappeared from an apartment, in the central area of the resort of Praia da Luz, a few days before her fourth birthday, and is still missing. Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, have said that they left the children unsupervised in a ground floor bedroom while they ate at a restaurant about 130 yards (120 metres) away. TerriersFan (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Having offered a draft let me add a caveat. What happened last time was:


 * We decided to remove the bolding.
 * We agreed a wording.
 * Editors who are accustomed to bolded leads would bold the lead.
 * One of us would revert the bolding citing consensus.
 * After a number of such reversions an editor came along and said that because of the number of reversions we no longer had a consensus and it all got fraught.
 * We agreed the compromise.
 * This compromise has held for several months. Unless we want to go through the above steps all over again, my view is that we should leave well alone. TerriersFan (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is my feeling as well. I recognise that the intro is non-standard, but we should avoid the bolding-unbolding issues of the past. I do feel that since it is an article about the disappearance, that word should lead the article. I think her nationality is really secondary to the event, and can be included further down. My suggestion:


 * Madeleine McCann disappeared on the evening of Thursday, 3 May 2007 while on holiday with her parents and twin siblings in the Algarve region of Portugal. The British girl went missing from an apartment, in the central area of the resort of Praia da Luz, a few days before her fourth birthday. She is still missing. Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, have said that they left the children unsupervised in a ground floor bedroom while they ate at a restaurant about 130 yards (120 metres) away.


 * Harry the Dog WOOF  11:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm really not bothered either way. Just no comma after 'apartment', please! Rothorpe (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If we lose the comma after apartment we have to lose the one after Luz, as they are parenthetical commas. The phrase does not need to be parenthetical however. Harry the Dog WOOF  15:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, and the one after 'Luz' signals a natural pause. Rothorpe (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy to go with Harry's wording. My reading of the commas is that they mark a descriptive clause that can be removed whilst leaving the sentence making sense. TerriersFan (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly, like a non-defining relative clause. I just felt it laid too much stress on 'apartment' and not enough on where the apartment was. But I am outvoted. Rothorpe (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the revised text but the sentence 'She is still missing' doesn't feel right since we also use 'missing' in the previous sentence. Would 'She has not been found' sound better? TerriersFan (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine. Harry the Dog WOOF  08:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

POV?
This article needs to be worked. Very POV. 67.150.52.95 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please point to specifics? Harry the Dog WOOF  14:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

2 Years on
They have just released pictures of what a now 6 year old Madeleine would look like, maybe a mention would be in order? 82.4.66.153 (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've put in a link from the Guardian: Rothorpe (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Idiotic opening
The article should have an opening akin to Murder of James Bulger. Lord LaBrie (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If/when we know what happened to her we can consider it! TerriersFan (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Developments
There have been several developments in recent days, coinciding with the 2nd anniversary, which aren't in the article yet - I don't have time just now to add them but I'm putting them here for ease of reference:
 * 4/5/09: The McCanns go on Oprah in their first US television interview
 * 7/5/09: A new suspect image is released and a Channel 4 documentary is shown
 * 17/5/09: The McCanns are to sue the Portugese detective Gonçalo Amaral who led the enquiry.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking the same thing. The computer age enhanced photo needs adding at least. Digifiend (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I put in a link to the computer image:. Rothorpe (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

German arrest
Just a heads-up that AP is reporting that German authorities are questioning a suspect at the request of the British authorities. We'll need to see where this goes before deciding whether to add it. But there are suggestions it could be a breakthrough. Harry the Dog WOOF  14:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have updated and shortened the content on Raymond Hewlett. Until there is some link with Madeleine shown then matters such as he being allegedly wanted for an unrelated offence are not relevant; we need to have WP:BLP very much in mind. Though the papers use the phrase 'convicted paedophile' this is an imprecise and loaded label. Better, I think, to say what he has been convicted of. I should welcome any thoughts, please. TerriersFan (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Hewlett link
The link (95) mentions nothing about Hewlett! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaweeuk (talk • contribs) 17:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ground floor apt
5A is on the first floor, up a flight of concrete steps, not ground floor as stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaweeuk (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Amaweeuk (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You can clearly see from these photos that the apartment was not on the ground floor:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/11/article-1043469-021A2AB2000004B0-813_468x559.jpg

Steps up to the apartment:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STEPS.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.33.255 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

86.20.33.255 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mods, these seems to be pretty much proven?

86.20.33.255 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no mods on Wikipedia. Just find a reliable, independent source (ie, not a tabloid or a self-published blog) and it can go in.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pawnkingthree, thing is, when I have tried to make changes before, they have been undone, was that not by a mod? I think reliable independent source is proven with every photo every taken of 5A 86.20.33.255 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The angle of the photos is misleading. The building is on a slope, so one side is quite high off street level and the other is slightly above street level. There are no flats below the McCann's, therefore it is on the ground floor, even if part of the flat has been built slightly higher than street level because of the slope. For it to be the first floor there would have to be a flat beneath it that wasn't a basement flat, which there isn't. All reliable sources attached to the article refer to it as a ground-floor apartment. Harry the Dog WOOF  15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the point; trying to deduce whether the flat is ground-floor from the photos is a classic case of WP:OR! In any case, the bungalow in which I live is certainly entirely ground floor despite it being accessed via two steps; how many steps makes it first-floor? :-) TerriersFan (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Murat's questioning
Do you think it needs to be mentioned that Murat was picked up because two of the Tapas Seven identified him as being around on the night of the disappearaance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaweeuk (talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)  Amaweeuk (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. However, taking the various sources together, it is not certain that this was the pivotal factor. I have made an addition that weaves this information into the article. TerriersFan (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think the pivotal factor was the journalist who fingered him. Lori Campbell, from the Mirror (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6656451.stm)

Amaweeuk (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Goncalo Amaral's documentary
I think should be mentioned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxGhlYTNisw&videos=WC0BCDP_XZo&playnext_from=TL&playnext=1 to balance up all the criticism of the PJs. Amaweeuk (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The documentary was based on Amaral's book. I have amplified the reference, here, to include the key accusation. TerriersFan (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bolding lead (again)
(Note: Moving this discussion from my TP to the article TP where it belongs. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

I've always found that talk page consensus can override guidelines if and only if there exists a sufficiently strong explanatory rationale on why to take exception from the guidelines. The rationale "the article is about the disappearance" cannot give rise to an exception from the MoS since generic article titles are one of the things the MoS specifically addresses -- and therefore that rationale is a pure tautology: "We don't follow the rules because we decided not to."

And unless I'm very much mistaken, I daresay we both know that the current version is preferred simply because it's stable. However, that fact happens to pertain to my main problem with WP:BOLDITIS: People do it because they don't know better. But: Should we really cave in to some people's lack of knowledge instead of at least trying to educate them? You see, soon enough (actually, I've seen it already) people will refer to other articles and to this form of bolding everything as Wikipedia-wide consensus "because it's done on most articles", and "not doing it is the true mistake", and therefore "the MoS needs to be changed to reflect actual practice", and then "Wikipedia's collective IQ slips another 2 or 3 points."

Since you did revert, I have to ask: Did you do it because you think it's actually correct, or because you defended a talk page consensus status quo you don't yourself believe in (asking since you referred to the consensus as though you didn't really agree with it). 84.44.251.232 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you point to the specific part of MOSBOLD that you are using to justify the unbolding of "disappeared"? I see the sentence "It is typically used in the first paragraph of an article, used with proper names and common terms for the article topic." as supporting the bolding of "disappeared", as not only is it a "common tern for the article topic", the disappearance (rather than the person) is the article topic. Surely the full topic should be bolded, not part of it. It has been well-established that this is not a biographical article on Madeleine McCann. She is not in and of herself notable. It is the disappearance and subsequent events that are notable and the subject of the article. Therefore "disappearance" should be bolded along with the name of the person who disappeared. Harry the Dog WOOF  07:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:MOSBOLD says: If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive (e.g., history of the United States), the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does. Applied examples include Death of Ian Tomlinson or Death of Michael Jackson. The non-generic portion (Madeleine McCann's name) may be bolded, at least the MoS doesn't specifically mention cases like that; and personally, I think it makes sense to bold her name since the article, albeit not biographic in nature, is associated primarily with her and does focus on what happened to her. 84.44.251.232 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it can be argued that "The disappearance of Madeleine McCann" is a commonly accepted name for the case. It has been referred to as such many thousands of times in media around the world. I would discount the example of Michael Jackson in that he is notable. An article about his death is justified by his notability, and therefore he can be the subject (and thus bolded) of an article on his death. Ian Tomlonson's article is written in biographical style, which it probably should not be, as it is a case of WP:BLP1E, as is the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. There is a real problem with the Madeleine McCann article. We cannot open it like the Tomlinson article ("Madeleine McCann was...") because we don't know she is dead or that she was abducted for example. A better example is the Fritzl case. Should only the word "Fritzl" be bolded? I think not. In previous versions, we had "The disappearance of Maddeleine McCann occurred..." but thus was felt to be a bit unwieldy, so the current consensus was reached, and it is one that I support. We should not have an article about the individual, and the bolding in the lead should not indicate that it is a biographical article about Madeleine McCann, but rather an article about events in which she is the central character. If you want to re-open the discussion, feel free to do so on the article's TP. Harry the Dog WOOF


 * "it can be argued that "The disappearance of Madeleine McCann" is a commonly accepted name for the case." -- Hm. I'm looking at "disappearance of Madeleine McCann" vs. "Madeleine McCann" right now and have to say I decidedly disagree.
 * The Michael Jackson example cannot be "discounted" as far as bolding the name for the article on his death is concerned, for that is entirely independent of whether or not he is notable. The title "Death of Michael Jackson" is simply generic in nature, that's the only reason why nothing else but his name is bolded. Should it say "Michael Jackson died" because the article is about his death? Certainly not.
 * Death of Ian Tomlinson is not written in biographical style at all (as you can celarly see iff you look past his name), it appropriately focuses exclusively on the events surrounding his death. There is not one section in that article devoted to his life prior to those events. And those events are highly notable. An article on his person alone would indeed not qualify as notable (BLP1E doesn't strictly apply, since he is dead).
 * "We should not have an article about the individual, and the bolding in the lead should not indicate that it is a biographical article about Madeleine McCann, but rather an article about events in which she is the central character." -- Maybe there's a bit of misunderstanding here: Which words are being bolded in the lede does quite obviously not determine the style of the article -- the article itself does. An article doesn't suddenly become biographical in nature just because one word in the lede is unbolded. The intelligent 12-year-old we're writing for can immediately recognise that from the page title as well as from the article itself.
 * Fritzl case is indeed a good example, but not for what we are discussing here. The term "Fritzl case" is also of far less arbitrarily generic nature than "Disappearance of Madeleine McCann".


 * In conclusion, I have learned during my time here to always immediately give up when I meet the slightest bit of resistance. Even the most foolproof arguments in the simplest of cases have not worked once during the years I was active on Wikipedia. I'm content having tried to do the right thing according to P&G and common sense. Now it's not my fault that the formatting is wrong. 84.44.251.232 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "formatting is wrong" in your opinion. Perhaps if you took it up on the article's TP you might find some support for your views. But this has been endlessly debated, and the current style is what has been considered appropriate by the community for the reasons I gave. If you think you know better than most of the editors who have worked on this article for a long period of time, feel free to say so on the TP. Harry the Dog WOOF  09:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As a descriptive title it is fine not to bold the lead at all and I would have no problem with the principle of that. However, when we tried it the page was subject to continual drive-by bolding so it didn't work. The current formulation is an acceptable compromise that was thrashed out after extensive discussion. However, since the child is not independently notable, bolding just 'Madeleine McCann' is plainly wrong. TerriersFan (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Article overly reliant on UK press stories
Most if not all references and citations in this article rely on the UK press, including rather ironically the Daily Express which has been successfully sued by the McCanns. The reason I raise this is because the PJ have released DVDs of the investigation documents following the shelving (not closure) of the case. Translations of most of this material is available on the internet. The problem with using UK media as a source are twofold - a)the reporting of this case has a history sloppy journalism where stories are repeated without verification, b) in what must be a unique situation the McCanns have employed a 'spokesman' who has ready access and contacts with the media. Although the PJ's investigation was inconclusive and possibly flawed and they could not prove conclusively (or concretely as they put it) what happened - their investigation revealed no evidence of an abduction and leaned towards an accidental death. In most criminal cases the primary source of information is the police - but because of the Portuguese secrecy laws this has not been the case and the primary source seems to be the McCann's own media team which their fund has been able to pay for. For the wikipedia entry to be a reliable source of information I think it has to present a balanced view.Apepch7 (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Layout of the Ocean Club
"The layout of the Ocean Club may have contributed to the disappearance of Madeleine as its buildings are spread out across the village, such that anyone can wander in and out of the holiday areas."

I believe that this phrasing is correct, because of the use of the word "may". If this was an abduction, then the open layout of the village could have contributed to the disappearance, because the lack of security meant that strangers could wander freely throughout many parts of the club. Had that not been the case, any abduction would have been more difficult or impossible. Harry the Dog WOOF  07:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only the phrasing is not correct as it is not a professional opinion. No expert ever said so. Another example of a biased opinion. Point out the reference of a portuguese or british officer that ever said so or even a detective paid to look for the child.
 * On the other hand it is the village that is not safe from tourists that come from every where and some that may be paedophiles and stay in hotels in quiet villages. As is the threat had to come from the village. It seems the whole investigation was not made by the police or detectives, but by the opinion of the journalists.


 * We are not talking about the village. We are talking about the Ocean Club. The Ocean Club provides some secure areas for its customers, but the entire club is not secure (access by key etc. only), unlike many similar clubs. Therefore, there is a greater risk of problems because people who have no business being on Club premises can gain access to it freely. That is the point that is being made, and it is a valid one. Had the entire Club been a secure compound, as many such resorts are, the risks of abduction etc. would be lessened, as only people with legitimate business would be able to do anything, unless they broke in, which again is harder than just walking in. Harry the Dog WOOF  08:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've stayed in a Portuguese family resort in Alvor (not that far from PDL) and there was no secure perimeter. This is not a concentration camp - people have to take their own precautions based on the layout and so on. What definitely did contribute to the likelihood/possibility of abduction was leaving young children on their own at night. If you do that in any location apart from a high security prison (!) then it they are risk. I am not saying this to pillory the McCanns but rather to make a point which people seem unwilling to make given to general heartfelt sympathy for Madeleine. The layout of the Ocean Club is a non-issue - it has the same layout as many other places in Portugal and elsewhere. Apepch7 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is quite simple. It has nothing to do with a "concentration camp" or anything like that. The restaurant where the McCanns ate was in a secure perimeter. Only guests of the Ocean Club could enter. Many resorts around the world adopt this for the entire premises. Because of the nature of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, this in not possible. Had the resort been in a secure perimeter, then at the very least the list of suspects could have been narrowed down; at best the disappearance wouldn't have happened. I think it's valid to point out that the Ocean Club is not secured in this way, as many people expect a "resort" to have some security (although of course many don't). Harry the Dog WOOF  21:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ocean Club as well as other resorts in Algarve are very secure. Stop making claims that you have no evidence whatsoever to support them. I worked in Ocean club. The criminal rates of Algarve is one of the lowest in the world. To give you an idea I used to leave my car unlocked because I knew nothing bad was going to happen. I also lived in a house near Praia da Luz and I used to never lock my front door. I never had any problem neither I known anyone who had any problem concerning security. I the several years that I worked in Oceans club the only situation in years that I ever saw was a woman who claimed that her handbag was stolen, later a local came to deliver her handbag, she had lost it in the beach, no item was stolen, including credit cards and about 400euros in bank notes. Sometimes media tries to draw a very bad picture of Algarve security when in fact is one of the most secure places in Europe. And I known how to compare it since I've worked in several resorts in Spain, France and Italy. I known for a fact that Praia da Luz and Oceans Club is way more secure. The parents could easily asked for a babysiter which is available 24hours at ocean's club. Also there's always people working 24hours in Oceans club. There's no way that Ocean's club was a not so secure place. It's a very secure. A security perimeter wasn't making it more safe in any way, actually it would make it more unsafe since suspicious activities couldn't be seen. Anyway, in Praia da Luz the residents all known each others. It's a small and very friendly community. And I'm not saying all this because I like Ocean's Club. I didn't like the management that's why I left. But this is wikipedia and we need factual information. And there's nothing to point to the security. It's very secure place. Some of the clients used to comment saying that Algarve as very secure and that you can go everywhere at any hour of the day or night, even leaving things unlocked, without any problem and that in their home towns they could never do something like that. So stop making claims saying that Algarve and/or Praia da Luz and/or Ocean's Club is not secure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.99.223 (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are confusing a general sense of feeling secure, and a low crime rate, with the physical security of certain premises, specifically the Ocean Club and its layout. In no way is the Ocean Club a large, secure compound, and that is the only point being made. Harry the Dog WOOF  20:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Posh Spice look-alike in Barcelona
To be honest I don't the energy to add anything about this last piece of news. Partly because I think it doesn't make any sense but also because there have been so many sightings and e-fits that I am beginning to lose count.Apepch7 (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. TerriersFan (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The media is now making a big deal of the Aussie connection. There are reports of an Australian private yacht moored in the marina at the time and an Australian woman, named in some reports, has said that she hasn't left the country since 2000. This all seems too tangential, to me, for inclusion. My inclination is not to cover, in blow by blow fashion, the inquiries until the private eyes have either found something substantial or eliminated the leads when we can report the conclusion. Any thoughts, please? TerriersFan (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dating
I think that, given that two years have now passed, it would be helpful if the year concerned was added to the dates in the article, or perhaps the events could be put in chronological order under each year heading. I found myself having to constantly 'read back' on the article to verify the dates, and this detracts from the overall presentation of the article.Garstonboy (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Run down
Does "run down" mean "run over and killed by a vehicle"? The article says, "The Portuguese police investigation team was run down in October 2007." That must have been a grievous event! Unfree (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC) probably it was a literal and very bad translation from Portuguese. "run down" in this case would have other meaning. It should be something like "the Portuguese police investigation team was conducted in October 2007" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.99.223 (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding between American English and UK English.In the UK 'run down' can mean 'somewhat ill and tired', "knocked over by a vehicle of some kind", "a machine running out of power" or "the gradual ending of a process" among other meanings. In this case it means that the police process was terminated during October 2007. Source- me having to struggle with two nations separated by a single language! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.15.22 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit re questioning of Kate McCann
I've edited this article as the entry previously contained a quote from Justine McGuinness stating "Kate will answer every question put to her — she has nothing to hide." This gives the impression that Kate answered all questions put to her when in fact she did not and refused to answer 48 questions regarding the case. I have referenced my edit to a report from the BBC confirming this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.194.67 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have moved this because it confuses two interviews. McGuinness was referring to the first time Kate McCann was interviewed, at which time she may well have answered all questions put to her. The reference used refers to a subsequent interview, after she was made an arguida, and during which she used her right to remain silent, a right which all suspects have. Harry the Dog WOOF  15:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

'Look' publicity
I have removed the following content: "This has been utilised in publicity incorporating the word 'LOOK' with the black radial line at '7 o'clock' position in the first 'O'. A hundred days after she disappeared, this typographic feature was repeated on a British newspaper's front page in the first '0' of the number '100'." The link is now dead and I can't source this. Does anyone know which newspaper used the '100' feature since it may be found on their site? TerriersFan (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Animal bones?
I have removed from the section 'Unofficial investigations': "but were later confirmed by police to be from an animal. ". The Sun is not a reliable source and further investigation shows why. The reference is here. The Sun editorial states "Later the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said it had been confirmed to him that the bones were from an animal." However, the more reliable Daily Mail here stated, on the same day, "Last night the McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell played down the find. He said: "We have not been informed of anything by the police to indicate that this find is significant. There is nothing to indicate at this stage that they are human bones and they could easily be from an animal."" Substantively different. The same quote is given in the Irish Independent here. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Image not Madeleine
should not be in the article. An error was made; it's not a projection of how Madeleine would look but a completely different girl. See the discussion at the Commons .--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing up the mystery of the disappearances. Rothorpe (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Always read the edit summaries too. ~ R.T.G 01:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I did read 'not a picture of madeleine'. I thought: 'Another loony!' Rothorpe (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nipping Controversy in the Bud?
Cases of child abduction or murder are always highly emotionally charged, and controversial in the extreme. Ask the parents of JonBenet Ramsey, ask 'The Dingo Baby Murder' parents how extreme public opinion is in these crimes. The most controversial point in the MaCann Case was the attitude taken by the British Media. As one man summed up the feelings of many people when he said; 'If the MaCann's had been a working class couple in similar circumstances, the Media would have been baying for their blood. Because they are 'respectable' people the Press is gushing with sympathy for them'.Johnwrd (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How is this relevant to the article? Rothorpe (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections
Are these warranted in a Good Article? Per WP:CRIT ,..., 80.225.34.147 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be OK, so long as it is unbiased. Hope this helps.  Set Sail   For The   Seven Seas   338° 34' 30" NET   22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Murat and Malinka
Given that we now know that the acusations against Murat were built on sod all the tone of this section needs some serious reworking.©Geni 00:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What in particular? It seems fine to me. It is a factual account of the events surrounding the two men, and does not contravene WP:BLP. These events happened and it's not Wikipedia's role to airbrush history. It makes it clear that both were cleared of any wrongdoing. Harry the Dog WOOF  08:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree; if there is anything factually wrong indicate here and we'll fix it. Also, if there is relevant, sourced information that is missing it can be added. TerriersFan (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

timeline
The aticle appears fragmented- would adding a timeline aid comprehension Twentytriestofindanunusedloginname (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

wikileaks
Add the latest news: "WikiLeaks cables: UK police 'developed' evidence against McCanns"

In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.125.187 (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/124011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11988094

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8200186/WikiLeaks-British-police-helped-develop-evidence-against-Madeline-McCanns-parents.html

Edit request
Edit semi-protected Please unbold the word "diappearance" in the opening sentence. I am aware that this kind of bolding is a rampant bad habit, but the Manual of Style (MOS:BOLDTITLE)is actually rather clear with regard to such cases: If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. In similar cases, only the name of the person is bolded (cf. Death of Ian Tomlinson, Death of Jean Charles de Menezes). The main line of reasoning behind not bolding anything but the main subject's name is that it would be awkward to build a sentence around a "boldable" phrase, or to bold non-adjacent words in the lead sentence. Thank you. --78.35.212.131 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Disappearance" in not bolded in the opening sentence. The article begins Madeleine McCann disappeared and this has been the consensus for a long time. Rothorpe (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I obviously meant the word "disappeared", and consensus is entirely irrelevant if it completely ignores any arguments as well as the Manual of Style. Thank you for your input though. --78.35.212.131 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously you did, but, as you say, "The main line of reasoning behind not bolding anything but the main subject's name is that it would be awkward to build a sentence around a "boldable" phrase, or to bold non-adjacent words in the lead sentence." That's not an argument for unbolding 'disappeared'. Yes, it's bolded to echo the title; as I implied, if you want to change that you'll need a consensus. (Personally, I don't much care, and once suggested no bolding at all.) Rothorpe (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus changes. Edit clearly follow MoS. Reason for sprot was sock-puppestry, and I havhttp://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_bold.pnge no reason to suspect that this user is a sock. So Yes check.svg Done. -Atmoz (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For consensus to change there has to be a discussion. I have changed the lead and the bolding. The consensus was right because this is not a biographical article about Madeleine; it's an event article about the disappearance. Madeleine is not notable in herself to warrent an article. If we must have this awkward formulation to make that clear, sobeit. Harry the Dog WOOF  19:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're in the minority and nothing you said makes any sense. --78.35.213.132 (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The consensus was right" -- Bollocks. The consensus is not "right" or "wrong", the consensus is the consensus. What you meant to say is that you personally agree with the prior consensus, but your personal opinion does not make the prior consensus "right". Slightly presumptuous, that. At any rate, once aggressively destructive people like yourself arrive at the scene, any discussion becomes instantly futile. You obviously did not even try to understand the points made above. Ah well. This is why Wikipedia sucks. People like Harry the Dirty Dog. --78.35.213.132 (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith and do not presume to tell others what they "meant to say". I am reporting you formpersonal abuse. My point is that I have seen no discussion of this apart from your request and one other editor agreeing with you and two others disagreeing. For consensus to change, there has to be more of a discussion than that, and until a new consensus is reached, the previous consensus stands. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have looked back at TerrierFan's final comment in the previous discussion echoed by Rothorpe here. I think perhaps we could try unbolding the lead entirely again and see if the problem of drive-by bolding manifests itself again. Harry the Dog WOOF  12:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sightings of Madeleine McCann
I have changed the section title back to this from Supposed sightings of Madeleine McCann which implies value to the sightings. I don't see any discussion here on the title but correct me if I am wrong. Whilst some of the sightings have been disproved other have not. I see no need to amplify this title but if amplification is necessary, 'supposed' is a bad choice because it comes across as very pointy. TerriersFan (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Bolding lead (yet again)
My initial impression (despite the earlier discussion) is that "Madeleine McCann" ought to be in boldface. Not the word "disappeared" — just the girl's name. This seems to me to be more in keeping with the prevailing Wikipedia style; failure to use boldface detracts (IMO) from Madeleine's status as the logical topic of the article; and even though the article's title identifies an event (the girl's disappearance), rather than the girl herself, I don't see a convincing, overriding need to omit boldfacing per MOS:BOLDTITLE or MOS:BIO. Compare Christine Jessop, another article about a young girl notable only for a single event (her still–unsolved murder). Comments? Rich wales (talk · contribs) 19:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed several times and the initial consensus was that the guideline "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." applies; currently, for that reason, there is no bolding. However, because of the prevalence of driveby bolding, a compromise was arrived at that the formulation "Madeleine McCann disappeared" should be used. I am actually happy with either way forward but remain fundamentally opposed to "Madeleine McCann". This is because this is an article on the event not the person. In my view Christine Jessop is simply wrong. TerriersFan (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW Disappearance of Ben Needham has another acceptable way of doing things. TerriersFan (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Madeleine crying
This is news: "While we were having breakfast, Madeleine said: 'Mum, why didn't you come when we were crying last night?'," she said.

"Rachael Oldfield, had been in the adjoining flat - on the other side of Madeleine's wall - all evening and heard no crying." I bet the Spanish private detectives heard this for the first time from the Spanish TV. And any of the Oldfield heard nothing when she disappeared?? How thick must the walls be. The upstairs neighbour, an old lady, heard her crying.

New image
Although the article in its present state is very good, I believe the addition of the computer image, released recently and showing an aged to present guess of Madeleine's appearance, would improve the article. It is a current part of the campaign and shows clearly how many years she has been missing. Rafmarham (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is truth at stake ?
I just wish you please correct what's wrong on this page by providing true references, i.e those from the Police Files. The secret of justice made the media practice story telling. The PJ Files are available, on the Web, in an English translation. Why do you insist in quoting discredited, at least because misinformed, sources ? Robert Murat never tried to sell his story. Anne Guedes (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "wrong". We use reliable sources to construct articles. In a story like this, things do change over time. The first police on the scene said it appeared she had been abducted (no forced entry was needed as the patio door was unlocked). That was reported in reliable sources so we include that in the article as what the police believed at the time. As things change, we include those changes. So the PJ's final conclusions are also included in the article. But that doesn't change the fact that on the evening of the disappearance and in the hours that followed the police believed she had been abducted. That is the truth. Harry the Dog WOOF  15:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Words don't say the truth just because they're in bold !
Extract translated from the GNR's report to the PJ on the 4th of May : The possibility of abduction was raised by the parents, given that Jane Tanner, a temporary resident of apartment D5, Ocean Club, Rua Agostinho da Silva would have seen an individual aged between 30 and 40, about 1.78 m in height, with dark hair, wearing light coloured trousers and a dark shirt, who was carrying a child who appeared to her to be wearing pyjamas and also because of the fact that the shutters of the bedroom in question were raised and the window open. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm#p1p26

Mentioning Jane Taner's sighting implies mentioning the independent 9 Smiths' sighting that occurred at 22h at about 400 m from the flat : They saw a Caucasian, around 180m in height, about 35/40 years old, with a short brown hair, carrying a little girl about 4 years old, blonde but not light hair to the neck, white skin and closed eyelids, wearing light-coloured pyjamas. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm Anne Guedes (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The GNR received the first call at 22h41. The Ocean Club receptionist was calling.


 * Well of course the police had to have a reason to believe that Madeleine had been abducted. But it would have been very poor policing to simply take Tanner and the parents' word at face value. Had there been immediate signs that Madeleine had died in the room I doubt they would have. But since there weren't, they began the investigation on the theory (and it was and still is only a theory) that she had been abducted.


 * As far as the sentence you want to change is concerned, that sentence is supported by a reference. You have been advised before about what reliable references mean (see your talk page). Right now, the article accurately reflects what that reference says:


 * "Holiday girl abducted, police say"


 * "Police investigating the disappearance of a three-year-old British girl from a Portuguese holiday resort say it appears she has been abducted."


 * "Officers say they have a suspect in mind, and believe Madeleine McCann remains in the area and is still alive."




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


 * "They had about 30 calls from potential witnesses and have created an artist's impression of a suspect."
 * So to summarise, Encarnacao told the media on 5 May (bringing them up to date on police activities between the night of 3 May and 5 May) that the initial theory they were working on was abduction. That is what the reference says. That is what the article says. There is no good reason to change it. Harry the Dog WOOF  07:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

New sighting 2013
This was published on March 5 here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.158.73 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

English
This is the English Wikipedia. Just because this took place in Portugal does not mean that every other word should be in Portuguese. It makes it very hard to read. Using, for example, 'arguido' instead of 'suspect' adds nothing to this article except confusion. If Portugal police treat suspects radically different to Canadian/English/American's do and it has a bearing on this article, then mention something, but otherwise 'arguido' is just a translation of 'suspect', and should not be used in the English Wikipedia.

Another example is: "babysitting service and a creche" Where 'cheche' is simply a daycare. What could any possible point be for using the Portugal word for daycare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisnoskij (talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 'arguido' is a technical term in Portuguese law and has implications that the English term 'suspect' does not have. Using this term is entirely proper and replacing it would make the article less acurate. 'creche' is in perfectly common use in English. TerriersFan (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of stating the obvious, the word creche is of French origin, not Portuguese. While daycare is more common to American English, creche is normal in British English. The latter should be used in this article; see WP:ENGVAR.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 May 2013
Within the subheading "McCanns As Suspects", the last paragraph begins "In the judgement...." Please correct judgement to judgment, as it is currently misspelled. Thank you.

108.3.178.158 (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ WP:ENGVAR. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Citations and other changes
Hi, I started tidying this a few hours ago, which included fixing dead links and removing access dates, location, etc, to reduce the numbers of words in the citations. However, after starting I noticed the article has GA status. Had I seen that, I'd have checked here before I started fiddling with it, so I'm checking now in case anyone wants me to stop (not stop fixing dead links, but removing things like access dates). Apologies for not having asked first. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest in this article. However, not only is this article GA but also pretty well all the content has been extensively discussed on this talk page to reach consensus. That doesn't mean of course that changes shouldn't be made, consensus changes, but substantive changes should be discussed first. Firstly, it is long-term established that this is an article on the event not the person. Consensus has established therefore that an infobox is not appropriate. There has been extensive discussion whether the lead words should be bolded and per WP:BOLDTITLE it has been decided not to. This also goes to this not being a bio article. I have removed the birth date of Madeleine which is a privacy decision. The family/friends has been moved back to the end of the article so that the reader gets into the meat of the article quicker. I have re-established the lead because some of the changes are not stood up by the facts. The lead has been carefully crafted in the light of the references. An example of an introduced inaccuracy is "The children had been left at around 20:30 in a bedroom in the ground-floor apartment, while her parents ate with friends in a tapas restaurant 130 yards (120 metres) away. The parents or friends checked on the children throughout the evening". We can't say this as though it were a fact - this is the parent's version which, like much else, is disputed. With regard to reducing the cites, I notice that you have removed 'location' which we were previously advised should be in. I guess it is down to what the guidelines say? TerriersFan (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi TerriersFan, I see you reverted a lot of my edits. Citations first, as they're less important: access dates aren't needed for publications that are dated, and location similarly isn't needed unless the publication is little known, or needed to distinguish it from some other. The less citation clutter there is, the better.


 * As for the other edits:


 * The article being about an event doesn't mean we can't have an infobox. Infoboxes give the reader the key facts at a glance.
 * It also doesn't mean we can't have a birthdate, which has been widely published.
 * The rest of the lead reads as though the writers are leaving open that the McCanns were involved. For example, it's not only the McCanns who say they checked on the children; their friends do too. And they're the only ones in a position to know. And "After further investigation, the PJ stated that there was a strong hypothesis that she might have died in her room. The investigation has so far failed to show which of these possibilities is true," is surely a tiny-minority position. We have to reflect what reliable sources are saying now, not what the tabloids said six years ago. Of course, the article must offer the history of the investigation, but it can't reflect those tiny-minority views in Wikipedia's voice. It's now widely acknowledged that the McCanns had nothing to do with this.
 * I also don't see why you would remove the age-progression image at six, and the link to the more recent one.
 * Finally, the key people ought to be introduced before the main text begins.


 * SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Leads side by side
SlimVirgin (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have moved the Family and Friends section back; though I don't like it I don't feel moved to spend time arguing about it. The age progression link was removed by mistake (sorry) but I can't see a neat way to put it back without an infobox. My view is that the best way to incorporate it would be to add it to the right of the progression at age 6 so the readers can see 3/6/9 in one place. Your rewrite of the lead makes assumptions of what happened that we (and reliable sources) cannot be sure of. Throughout the development of this article we have reflected accurately what reliable sources have said and taken no position on who may or may not have been involved. I strongly resist attempts to move from that neutral position. We do not know what happened in the flat nor what happened to the child - though some scenarios are less likely than others until/unless she is found all options remain open. On bolding/including age/infobox the present version reflects consensus (which can change) up to now. Finally, I haven't "reverted a lot of my edits.", only the lead. I simply haven't has time to examine the other edits. Sorry if this sounds terse but real life limits how much time I can spend on this for the moment. TerriersFan (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is too reflective of the position of the tabloids in 2007, and I see now that it was given GA status in August that year. In my view, it needs to be updated to reflect that no one now believes the McCanns were involved; all reliable sources that I'm aware of agree that Madeleine was kidnapped. The second sentence here – "After further investigation, the PJ stated that there was a strong hypothesis that she might have died in her room. The investigation has so far failed to show which of these possibilities is true" – is unsourced and is a BLP violation.


 * The article is sourced in a couple of places to what seems to be personal websites – mccannfiles.com, mccannpjfiles.co.uk – which (if that's what they are) is also a BLP violation; see WP:BLPSPS. The tabloid sources ought also to be replaced; again per WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."


 * What is your objection to including an infobox and date of birth? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the sentence about "the investigation has so far failed to show" as an unsourced contentious statement, and therefore a BLP violation. I think it would be better to allow the lead to be rewritten rather than copy edit what's there, because it's quite problematic (e.g. "Madeleine's parents said they believed she had been abducted ..." as though this is not the majority view; and the police suspicion and the naming of the three as suspects ought to be in the same paragraph). I also removed the Mccannpjfiles links, because I can't see who runs that site. Do you know who does? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Madeleine's parents said they believed she had been abducted ..." is part of the narrative outline in the lead. It's the conclusion the article itself led me to when I first read it in 2007. The sentence still seems to me entirely appropriate. Rothorpe (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Things have moved on since 2007. They didn't only say they believed this; they did believe it, as do the reliable sources that I'm aware of. So it's just an odd sentence. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, then, how about "Madeleine's parents believed she had been abducted, but the Polícia Judiciária (PJ), the Portuguese criminal investigation police, came to regard them as suspects"? That's simpler than either above version. Rothorpe (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's better that the current sentence, but I wonder what the purpose of it is (however it's written). The point to get across is that the police treated it as an abduction, then acted as if the parents were involved. What the parents believed isn't the point. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the event and subsequent investigation, not a biography of Madeleine McCann. Therefore the proposed lede is inappropriate. We have had this discussion many, many times before. Nothing fundamental has changed. Harry the Dog WOOF  16:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Which parts of the proposed lead make it a biography? The issue here is that the article is out of date, and is relying on sources that violate BLP, so it really does need to be fixed, rather than leaving it because of a consensus formed years ago. Arguing about a birth date in the first sentence, and whether it's a biography, misses the point – the point is to offer reliable information that readers might look for or find helpful – so I'm going to add the proposed lead, and if someone removes the birth date, we can have a separate discussion about that one issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The proposed lede is biographical in style. This style is used only for articles about living or dead people, where the person is notable in their own right and the subject of the article. This can include crime survivors such as Natascha Kampusch who has become notable in her own right. But the person is not the subject of the article in this case. The disappearance and subsequent investigation is. Look back through the archives and you will see the endless discussions that have resulted in this consensus. Madeleine is not notable and would not normally have her own article. What is notable is the disappearance and the events surrounding it. There are many examples of this on Wikipedia including the Fritzl case and the Lin family murders. There are other ways to add accuracy to the arictle if need be. Harry the Dog WOOF  08:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Harry, you reverted to a version containing BLP violations, including relying on tabloids and personal websites. I've restored the changes, but I left the dob out of the lead as that seems to be the key issue. If you want to discuss individual changes (such as the dob or the infobox), that fine, but please allow the article to be brought in line with policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And you have made changes against long-held consensus unilaterally. I will let others deal with this as I really don't have time. I will revert the lead and remove the info box as that is the consensus. Please do not change them until consensus has been reached. The consensus at the moment is that the article is about the events, not the person, the same as tne Frtizl case (Fritzl is pretty notable/notorious too but he doesn't have his own article). Tabloid sources are also acceptable when there are no alternatives, especially when trying to maintain NPOV. Harry the Dog WOOF  07:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

birth date
"I have removed the birth date of Madeleine which is a privacy decision", TerriersFan

Like much else on Wikipedia, the reasons for removing the birth date quite frankly escapes me. By such criteria all mentions of persons birth dates must be expunged from Wikipedia, whether deceased, disappeared or not. It strikes me as totally arbitrary, advising me to see WP:XXX wouldn't enlighten me much further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Wetterling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

Dgharmon (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally you don't reveal personal information unless it's relevant. Madeleine's age is relevant but her precise birthdate is not. Had her parents chose to make this public that would be one thing, but all they say is that she was born in May 2003. Harry the Dog WOOF  08:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you provide any previous rulings from other similar Wikipedia articles, where the birth-date can't be mentioned because it would breach privacy and isn't relevant. What would the birth-date have to be relevant too, to make it er ... relevant. Again I find these type of rulings to be totally opaque and arbitrary and seemingly done at the whim of particular editors, so do please enlighten me. You'll have to pardon me for saying so, but it seems to me a particular `fact' stays in depending on the seniority and longevity of the editor. To state it more strongly, the D-O-B isn't going in because someone doesn't like being contradicted. I've expended too much energy on this matter already, so I won't be returning to the D-O-B issue here again.

"Madeleine was born in May 2003 .. On Tuesday May 12th it was Madeleine's birthday

Dgharmon (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is part of the "it's not a biographical article" rationale. Madeleine is not the subject of this article. She is not notable enough in her own right to have an article of her own. It is the events around her disappearance that are notable. Certainly in an article about a person, where the person is the subject of the article, the birthdate is mentioned if it is known and in the public domain. But in articles about events, we don't usually mention the birthdates of people involved in those events, even if they are central to what happened. So we don't mention, for example, her parents' birthdates or that of others involved in the investigation, although we may well mention their ages. This is no different for Madeleine since she is not the subject of the article. This is not one person not wanting to be contradicted. Madeleine not being the subject of the article is a long-established consensus developed over the years. Nothing that I can see has changed that consensus. Harry the Dog WOOF  14:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * She's one of the most notable children in the world. That the article is about her disappearance doesn't mean it's not also about her as a person (obviously), and including her date of birth is entirely appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And her parents are two of the most notable parents in the world but we don't include their birthdates. Why? Because this is not their biography. Neither is it Madeleine's. It is an article about events in which she is central, yes, but which is not about her as an individual. It is not the story of Madeleine McCann's life. Harry the Dog WOOF  07:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture"
It's a famous enough subject to probably have loads of references- it's the archetypal disappearance of the twentyith century, á la (perhaps) Lucan? Basket Feudalist 12:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit
In trying to copy edit this, it seems that quite a bit should really be removed, per WP:RECENTISM. There are sentences such as "examination of the scientific evidential material is continuing," referring to issues from 2007 that no longer pertain; lots of details and quotes that could only have been of interest at the time, and that have no bearing on the situation now; and turns of phrase such as "determined to leave no stone unturned, the police ..." There are also sources that violate BLP, including personal websites and blogs. It's also not clear in places which year something happened in.

So generally it needs to be tightened and updated, and the sources swapped for more recent or higher-quality ones. I'm not sure I can commit to doing it all, but I'm leaving this note in case people see me removing sentences and wonder why. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Heads Up -Breaking News- New possible suspects
Hey SlimVirgin (and anyone else who's interested in the article) (on edit, not me then, I guess, I just make sarcastic jokes about it), seriously keep your eye on the news, and notwithstanding WP:NEWS etc, some new developments which may / may not be worthy of inclusion at a later date:


 * http://news.sky.com/story/1092302/madeleine-mccann-new-suspects-identified
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22576103
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326108/Madeleine-McCann-Possibility-Maddie-alive-Scotland-Yard-identify-20-new-suspects.html
 * http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/17/new-suspects-in-case-missing-british-girl-madeleine-mccann/
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/17/madeleine-mccann-case-new-leads
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10064372/Police-identify-new-Madeleine-McCann-suspects.html
 * http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3767894.ece
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/madeleine-mccann-missing_n_3294563.html
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-review-of-madeleine-mccann-case-identifies-new-leads-and-more-than-a-handful-of-persons-of-interest-8621347.html

Absolute shedload of sources for you there SlimVirgin, see what you can do. Probably just worth a line at the moment but this is probably a good place to index (generally) WP:RS on the case.

Good luck SV!!! Basket Feudalist 16:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)