Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Messages of support

Well done for editing out the message of support left on the article. I hope she is found soon as well, but I doubt, wherever she is, she's browsing her own wikipedia article for hopeful messages. Is the french article still about, or has it been deleted?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamhopgood (talk • contribs)

The French Wikipedia article is deleted: See fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Disparition de Madeleine McCann. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather, it was transwikid to wikinews, although there appears to be an attempt to recreate it in the fr wikipedia space: Disparition de Madeleine McCann - Tiswas^(t) 12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or not - My French, apparently, is not particularly fluent - Tiswas^(t) 12:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the French Wikipedia userspace (used to be interwikied from this article, for some odd reason). Doesn't seem to be in French Wikinews either. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr and Mrs

Madeleine McCann's parents are usually called "Mr and Mrs McCann". This would be appropriate if they were surgeons, but as far as I understand Gerry McCann is a cardiologist (not a cardiac surgeon) and Kate McCann is a general practioner. Some doctors working in a field other than surgery are also surgeons. My own GP is a surgeon and it is therefore appropriate to call him Mr W-----. By calling Gerry and Kate McCann "Mr and Mrs" one is either denying them the title customarily accorded to members of their profession or misleading the public into believing that they hold professional qualifications that entitle them to practise surgery. If they are surgeons (which I do not think they are) or if they have deprived of the right to practise medicine (and do not hold a doctoral degree such as DPhil or DM) they should be called "Mr and Mrs". Otherwise, they should be called "Dr" or, in order to distinguish one from the other, Gerry and Kate.--Oxonian2006 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Gerry is a surgeon. But in any event, professional titles are generally used only when relevant. In "social" situations, and in encyclopedia articles that are not about them practicing their profession, it is correct practice to state that they are physicians (or surgeons) but not to use their professional titles. Quakerman 15:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Quakerman. Normally, a bio article would refer to the person, after the intro para, just by the last name. Here, as it is not a bio article and we have three key players with the same last name, we are disambiguating by first name. TerriersFan 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

2nd picture

Is there a particluar reason we need a picturte of madelines "right eye" ? i fail to see what this can possibly adfd to the article? what is wrong with the picture at the top of the article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.9.99 (talk • contribs) 01/06/07

If you had bothered to read the article, you would have seen that she has a distinctive eye condition that makes it easier to identify her. Ward3001 00:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

So, were not appealing, theres enough bloody appeallers already. --82.23.235.59 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Further protection

Given that this is a current event it seems to be a regular target for IP and newly registered vandals. I think longer term protection is needed. Quakerman 16:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected per WP:RPP request :) - Alison ☺ 17:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Future article reconstruction

The article has now become quite large and will, no doubt, continue to grow. Though a split is not yet essential, we need to plan to spin off part of it to a separate page, at a future date, to keep things manageable. How to do this is not immediately obvious. For example, one candidate would be the Criticism section but that would run into NPOV concerns. I think that we should now discuss some options. TerriersFan 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this article ain't going to shrink :-) My thought at the moment is the main article to be sections 1-4, 8 and a Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann article to be 5-7 and 9-11. Any thoughts, pl? TerriersFan 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

HelpFindMaddie badge

(Removed link) Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re the above unsigned post - please could we keep things like this off the talk pages? Talk pages are meant to be for discussion of the article text, not for discussion of or campaigning related to the article's subject. Ben Finn 16:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It can be removed if that's the consensus. In fact, I believe it is just a devious way of inserting a link to a wiki-site that we had previously agreed should be removed, so it should be removed. Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

you think wrong. cris

Given that you uploaded the image, and you originally mentioned the wiki-site, I believe I think right! :-) Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree; future links like this should be removed immediately. TerriersFan 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with unsourced material

Some perfectly decent material was recently removed as unsourced. Unless it is inflammatory, or breaches WP:BLP, I am not wildly enthusiastic about this approach. Firstly, it is discouraging to new editors of this article and secondly it may not be seen by other editors who can source it. With the exceptions noted above, I think that the material should be edited to reasonable shape and then either sourced (best) or marked with a fact tag to highlight it. Where material has hung about with a fact tag for more than a day or so then removal is correct. TerriersFan 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I removed it with the intention of doing a rewrite and returning it (it was in the wrong section as well), but you beat me to it! Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference list format

As explained by Quakerman, the regular editors of this article prefer the scrolling format. As the reference list is likely to get much longer, any other format will progressively become more unmanageable. If any editor disagrees that's fine but please raise it here and seek consensus first. What is unacceptable is dropping in and making a unilateral change. TerriersFan 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just came to this article for the first time. I have never seen a scrolling refernce list and find it odd. We should move the see also and external links above the references and leave the list full length. By the way, your "What is unacceptable is dropping in and making a unilateral change" attitude" violates the spirirt of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Be bold) and is unacceptable. --Nricardo 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick-failed GA candidate

I'm failing this without review, because it has a current event tag, and as such is inherently unstable as an article. Once the event has concluded, and the tag can be legitimately removed, consideration can be given to renomination. See WP:WIAGA for details on Good Article criteria. Any questions, please place them on my talk page. Best wishes --Fritzpoll 23:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just checked that criteria: It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. By that definition, this article is stable and has not been warred over for some time now. Little more information is going to turn up, the search is running out of leads. Furthermore, the footnote attached to that point specifically states that if any instability is due to constructive editing, than it should be put on hold. Either way, to quick fail this is just wrong, and I think you ought to look at it again. DevAlt 13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the failure, albeit for different, more marginal and subjective, reasons. The article goes into too much detail (WIAGA 3(b), delving into minutae and falling victim to a hearts on sleeves mentality, despite the worthy efforts of a number of editors to remain objective. Due to the current nature of the topic, the nomination was premature, and ought to be placed on hold (see WP:WIAGA#_note-4) rather than dismissed just yet. - Tiswas^(t) 13:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Several editors have gone to great pains to ensure the article's objectivity and I don't believe for a moment that it falls into "a hearts on sleeves mentality". However, if you consider that to be the case then please fix or exemplify it rather than stating it. You may well be right about whether it is "delving into minutae", but please itemise some examples, to support this view, so that we can review them. TerriersFan 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we disagree - since this is an ongoing event, with facts and details still emerging, I do not believe it meets the criterion of stability. However, if you disagree with me, please feel free to take it to a review at WP:GA/R, or to renominate it. Best wishes, --Fritzpoll 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As an editor of this article, I have always tried (and succeeded, I believe) to contribute in the most objective manner possible. Though I have on occasion lavished some harsher words upon vandals who attacked this article in the past, the text I included in the main entry are stricly based on media reports and therefore, as far as non-professionals are concerned, unbiased.

I believe others have also behaved thus.

Regarding the possibility the article delves into unimportant, nonconsequential subjects, that problem will most likely be solved in due time, when the article is split into several daugher entries dealing with specific events. -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the point. A current event article is built up from component parts, as they happen, and inevitably with later reflection some will be considered trivial, are overtaken by events or can be merged. I am minded to split the article into two parts, as I proposed above which, as you suggest, should allow us to see the wood from the trees. TerriersFan 23:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As the original reviewer of the article, can I make plain that I do not believe that the article is inherently non-objective. I only failed it on the grounds that the article is presently unstable but the very nature of its content. I categorically made no judgements about the style, or contributions of editors, and I apologise unreservedly if my comment gave this impression. However, from the two comments above, I think it is clear that there is a lack of stability, and as such, this article cannot currently be assessed for GA status. If you have any comments or questions, please drop a line to my talk page - cheers, --Fritzpoll 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Archived

This talk page was really long so I've archived all the discussions from May 27th or before. --GracieLizzie 13:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you add the relevant info boxes & tags - a fair few visitors to this page will not be familiar with the navigation - Tiswas^(t) 14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added {{archives}}, but I am not sure that is 100% correct. If it isn't can someone else fix this? --GracieLizzie 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok - I've added {{archive-nav}} to the archive - Tiswas^(t) 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

'In the news'?

I think that there is such broadly based international attention that an 'In the news' entry would be justified. Perhaps something along the lines of: "There continues to be an unprecedented level of international media attention on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann with investigations currently focussing on Morocco." However, I have given up trying to fight my way through the submission process. I should welcome this being given the attentions of someone more skilled than I in such matters. TerriersFan 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that wikinews was the place for that - Tiswas^(t) 09:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is nothing to do with wikinews. If you look on the Main page you will see a whole list of news items. TerriersFan 15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've thought of doing something along those lines, but for it to be done effictively I believe we would need to collect sufficient statistical information, which, as we're all aware of, is a daunting task, given the sheer amount of magazines, newspapers, etc covering this issue.

I'm compiling a small dossier containing over 60 newspaper articles I purchased last month. Since I started collecting newspapers, I thought I might as well do that to improve this page. Along with that, I'm betting my local library must already have newspaper dated between May 3 and probably last week. Assumming I can go there without being called a lunatic by my parents, the plan would be something along those lines:

1)Getting a list of all major newspapers in Portugal

2)Search the archives for all articles dealing with the case

3)Create a graph using that information: how many articles, how many of those articles were covered by x, y, z, etc, paper, their average lenght and a chronology of the media coverage.

Because the case isn't solved yet, this will probably take a very long time, maybe even one year or so. Still, it's something I can and want to do. It would be even better if someone was doing something similar in Great Britain, because those two countries are the most important so far as this article is concerned. -- Ishikawa Minoru 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The release of 50 thousand balloons should be noted and anyone doing so in the UK should have been Fine £50 for littering. http://www.guildford.gov.uk/GuildfordWeb/News/litterlouts.htm Craig7006 23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Broken reference - help please!

In the 'Response' article there is a reference with the name 'iafrica' and the number 36 that has no underlying reference. That ref name also appears in this article. I should welcome any help in tracking down the full reference, please. TerriersFan 02:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the reference on the response article, all should be working now. Sam42 10:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good job; many thanks. TerriersFan 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Petition criticising the parents

There is apparently an online petition asking that the McCanns be investigated by Leicestershire Social Services in relation to leaving their children alone. I heard this on BBC Leicester news just now, but haven't found a link to the petition. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Found it! ... and adding it to the article. TerriersFan 21:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Should every little snippet of information be included? Could I created an online petition, that may (or may not) be picked up on in the blogosphere, and possibly by lazy journos, and have that incluced? It doesn't seem to me to be a good source simply for that reason. - Tiswas^(t) 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned on the Beeb website so it is notable enough and is needed to balance up the POV of the article. Hypnosadist 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the above comment about balancing the point of view of the article. Surely our tasks not to "present all opinions" but simply to state the facts, without opinions. I do not "want" to include this (because it is for me neither tasteful nor notable), but because the BBC mention it I think we should. It's a fact. Robinson weijman 11:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Robinson weijman, yes you made a common mis-understanding of WP:NPOV and that is we do not try to "simply to state the facts, without opinions" because outside of the Hard Sciences this is impossible (and even in the sciences difficult). Insted we present the all the POV's about a given issue, and weight them according to how common the notable pov is. Example if we have three opinions in an article A, B, C and 50% believe A,30% believe B and 20% believe C then the article should be 50%A, 30%B and 20%C giving the views of all and counter arguements so people can make up their own mind, hope that helps you. Hypnosadist 11:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Hypnosadist, this does help a lot thank you. And the link you've provided backs up what you've said (though your explanation is more concise and easier to read). Robinson weijman 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The lead doesn't refers that the little girl and her siblings were left unattended in an unlocked, ground floor hotel room while the parents went to a restaurant. Any reader will think that she disappeared while staying with her parents in the apartment, and this wasn't what really happened.Page Up 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I have added 'alone' to the lead paragraph and clarified the 'Disappearance' section. TerriersFan 20:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Letter

Sorry if this was discussed already. The police now have a letter telling directions to where her body can be found, buried. They searched, they don't know if it's a hoax or not, but it resembles another letter that lead to the spot where two Belgian girls were buried. Here's a link to the story http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=62596; if it's not in the article already, that'd be great if someone added it. Dontworry behappy 09:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It is in the article now, see Other_lines_of_enquiry. Robinson weijman 11:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

British spelling

Since this is an article about a British girl then using British English is appropriate - e.g. paedophile is correct. TerriersFan 17:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go around putting it that way, but I do think that using British English is a more appropriate English to use than American English (colours over colors, favourite over favorite, etc). Note that my opinion on the matter goes for all articles when possible. // DecaimientoPoético 17:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

British-English should be used throughout per WP:ENGVAR, as this is the variant of English the article was written in and the most appropriate as the subject is a British girl. Dave101→talk  18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cultural phenomenon

A number of people I know have received a chain email saying that a body had been found some days ago. I'm not sure how widespread this was, or if there's a documented source, but if it wa widespread, and documented it should be included. Rich Farmbrough, 18:21 14 June 2007 (GMT).

No problem, if we can find a RS. TerriersFan 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a rocket scientist to tell you that! hbdragon88 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This chain mail started about a week after Maddy went missing. A friend of mine got it on 10 May. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Potential frauds" section

Does anyone else think this should be moved to Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? I think it would be more suited to the Response article, especially as the information on Madeleine's fund is contained in that article. Dave101→talk  08:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it, please feel free to move it back if you think it warrants inclusion in the main article. Dave101→talk  07:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem from me, but it does need a linking sentence, so it can be found, which I have done. TerriersFan 17:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Morocco

The first paragraph says, "attention currently focussing on Morocco." Is this still true? This was true a week or two ago, but not any longer, I think. Robinson weijman 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I'll fix it. TerriersFan 21:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks. Robinson weijman 21:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reflist Formatting

I propose that the reflist should be placed in at least 2 columns. I've never seen it on any articles, even with long reflists. It would be ideal to have all of the articles the same format, in my opinion. --Jennica 03:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. Before the article split the reflist was much longer but it is now growing steadily again. My view is that no-one is likely to want to read a long list of references (and even if they do the present format allows that) and the scrolling format is as efficient as any format without visually dominating the article. To put it another way - I see no benefits from 2 or 3 long columns. Formats should be tailored to the articles concerned, and formats vary widely across different series of articles, and this format is consistent at least across both 'Madeleine' articles. TerriersFan 10:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally changed it because I know taht it is one of the current standards for Wikipedia articles. Besides, when a footnote is clicked on, the ref will be highlighted, so they won't have to scroll through a lot of references. Karrmann 03:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this is probably one of the best-sourced articles in Wikipedia, certainly amongst the newer ones. The ref list came to simply dominate the article. As you say, a click on the link takes you to the ref you want, which means there really is no need to have them all displayed. The techonology exists to scroll, so why not use it? Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

85 is not that high a number. There are some arguments against scrolling references in the TfD that deleted the scrolling template. –Pomte 04:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that it is scrolling. --Jennica^Talk 16:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus of the regular editors of this page is that a scrolling reflist is best. Please do not change it, not matter how ridiculous you find it, unless a new consensus is reached. Harry was a white dog with black spots 10:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The references should not be hidden though. Why hide them? They're meant to be seen. --Jennica^Talk 18:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not hidden - scrolling it displays all the references clearly. Indeed, they are much easier to read than in the reflist format since the font is bigger. This is strictly a Notes List, not a Reference List, and is not designed to be read through. If you wish there to be a consultable list then you would need to produce a separate references section in alphabetical order (I have changed the heading to facilitate this). TerriersFan 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's at least maybe put it into two columns, with a reflist instead of references? --Jennica^Talk 22:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just nicked the 3-column reflist from another citation-heavy article and put it in, looks good to me. EditorInTheRye 13:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your change. Please respect the consensus of regular editors of this article. Harry was a white dog with black spots 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The consensus throughout wikipedia is that scrolling lists should not be used for references. There is no consensus on this talk page either. As far as I can see User:Harry was a white dog with black spots & User:TerriersFan believe that a scrolling list should be used, whereas User:Karrmann, User:Jennica and User:EditorInTheRye believe that a scrolling list should not be used.

Additionally, the clear consensus on this AfD is that scrolling lists should never be used for references, and additionally there is another consensus on the citing sources talkpage. - ARC Gritt^TALK 00:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the consensus of the editors who have done most of the work on this article should be respected. can someone explain to me the problem with scrolling lists please? I look at other articles with upwards of a hundred references and they look overwhelmed by them. The links and other items below the reflist get lost. Do people really read the entire list? Or do they click on the link and jump to the reference they want. If it's the latter (which I believe it is) then does it really matter if the list scrolls as long as the reference that the person is looking for is displayed when they want it? And if you do want to go through each reference, I actually find the scrolling list easier. The focus of a page should be the article, not the references. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but the clear consensus no matter how you look at it is that scrolling lists should not be used. Wikipedia is based on consensus and not on credentials (see page for rejected policy). - ARC Gritt^TALK 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See also. - ARC Gritt^TALK 12:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When there seems to be a campaign by people who have never edited to the page before to force their opinion (without really citing any valid reasons) it is acceptable to discount their opinions. Just because a few people don't like scrolling references for reasons they don't seem to be able to articulate properly and post their views in a few places, it doesn't mean that scrolling ref lists are invalid. I'm sorry, but "I find it ridiculous that it is scrolling." is not a compelling argument to me. Why is it ridiculous?

From the page on consensus: "Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (my emphasis) (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When polling is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus." Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would add that, in the absence of a formal policy guideline, the authority for the approach to be adopted for a particular article lies with the associated talk page, i.e. here. The present format has been accepted as a compromise between those who want to reduce page real estate and those who want a broader view of the references and seems fine. TerriersFan 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in a formal guideline discussion about this topic here. - ARC Gritt^TALK 01:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why no criticism of the media?

The media coverage of this case has been roundly criticised across the web. Why is there no mention of this in the 'criticism' section?Snowbunni 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Of the media coverage might be the reason. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 14:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section relates to criticism of matters/people covered by this article. Criticism related to the 'Response' is in the 'Response' article. This is for NPOV reasons to keep each article balanced. TerriersFan 16:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section - NPOV tag

First of all, it is not remotely sensible to apply a NPOV tag to a criticism section since, by its nature, a criticism section can never be balanced. NPOV issues should be considered across the whole article. I have removed the tag for this reason, but also because no rationale appeared here which is an essential concomitant with placing this tag. I would add, that this is the editor who tried to insert material that differed from the supplied sources. TerriersFan 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I take your point. Having said that, I still believe that a NPOV TAG would be appropriate in this section. The parents have attracted an enormous amount of public criticism, although this has not been reflected by media coverage of the case in the UK. You only have to consider the comments pages of any article on this subject on any major UK news website to see the extent of this controversy. I originally edited the remarks on the petition to include a second petition mentioned in an article in the Guardian, as this had attracted more petitioners than the Downing St petition cited. I also felt it was important to point out that the 'bad language' which lead to the cancellation of the Downing St petition originated from certain supporters of the McCanns who had sought to undermine any criticism. I stand by my assertion that the nature and extent of criticism the McCann's have attracted is simply not reflected accurately by this section of the article, but am happy to defer to any majority view on this matter. Snowbunni 09:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are aware of any sourced, substantial criticism that we haven't included then please add it (it would be helpful if you adopted the same reference format as in the rest of the article). However, it is important that the text matches the source. For example, you stated that a second petition raised 7,000 signatures whereas the site for that petition here shows a figure of 8, not worthy of mention, and even two of those were rejected!. TerriersFan 14:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected! [THIS][1] was the one I had intended to attach, I seem to have attached a duplicate petition of the same name by mistake. Unfortunately it is now riddled with obscenities. Whilst thousands have signed this petition in good faith, it seems to have been hijacked by certain people seeking to undermine/discredit it and is therefore no longer useful as a credible source. I will endeavour to find some more suitable, sourced criticism.Snowbunni 14:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sighting: Gypsy cart

Around June 20, Andre van Wyk, 66, a retired pilot, claimed to have seen a girl resembling Madeleine three weeks ago in the back of a horse-drawn cart close to where she was abducted. Van Wyk said that a woman in the cart quickly covered the sleeping child's face with a shawl. He was so suspicious that he trailed the cart to a gypsy camp near the town of Portimao, about 16km from where Madeleine disappeared. Why not mention this important fact? Because it is not politically correct to suspect gypsies in this case? -- Christian Lehmann, Germany

No, because I have not seen any reputable source for this "important fact". Harry was a white dog with black spots 13:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It was in the press, and the witness was not anonymous. I have the strong suspicion that (a) certain information are not published (which might make sense if it was for the good of the investigation progress) but (b) people are not supposed to believe that gypsies (and there actually is a large gypsy population in the Algarve region) or Arabs might abduct little children. -- CL, Germany

If it was in the press, please provide the link. And please sign your posts with four tildes. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Having read the above comments, I found it pretty quickly with Google. It's from The Times of London website. Here's the link. I'll add it to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinson weijman (talk • contribs)

Continued... Sorry to have not signed previous comment. The article text has been changed (since my addition) with comment that we've agreed not to mention the source newspaper. Who has, when and why? Robinson weijman 15:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It was agreed here. If you wish to reopen the question that's fine but we should be consistent so there would be an awful lot of source names to add back! TerriersFan 00:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Does wikipedia (as an information providing system) intend to help to find Madeleine McCann, or is this just a sort of sports, keeping to some writing rules? - I think it is a scandal that there has not been any systematic search for the girl except around Praia da Luz. Sorry I cannot sign properly; I am registered at German wikipedia. -- Christian Lehmann

Wikipedia has no role in helping to find Madeleine - this article is not part of any Madeleine search effort - it is an encyclopaedia article. We record events but do not attempt to influence them. TerriersFan 21:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What is so special about this?

Yes, I do feel sympathy, but I still couldn't understand what makes this issue so important. I live abroad, so I might have missed the importance of it in UK, so please could anyone explain why it is so important to make a Wikipedia article and cover BBC's cover web page? 139.179.12.71 11:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a major world wide news event - like it or not.

Not just is this an event of worldwide importance, but also information is information and information should be made available to the public, in places such as Wikipedia. If you deslike the fact we're working on this article, then perhaps you should browse other more "relevant" entries, ones that suit your fancy.

Either way, just let us do what we have to do. If you can help, please do. If not, please leave. -- Ishikawa Minoru 12:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, guys, let's assume good faith and assume that this was a sincere question. The reason we are covering this item, 139.179.12.71, is that this disappearance currently is the main news in the UK and in Portugal, and has received widespread coverage in other countries as well. This means that it meets our notability guidelines, in the sense that there is multiple outside coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Some have suggested that the media attention is due to the missing white woman syndrome, but that is neither here nor there. What matters is that there is media attention, which makes this case notable. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was actually good faith that I asked the question above (my i.p. address has changed, but I am the one who asked. I was just my wondering why the issue is important, since the issue is not mentioned at all in my country; and was surprised by the coverage of the article by Wikipedia, BBC and the Guardian etc. At first, I had thought the family was a famous one; but then seeing that these people were ordinary, I wondered the motivation behind. One more thing I wonder is why most of the football celebrities are so interested in the issue. I would be pleased if someone explained that in the article. (Yes, I know J.K. Rowling etc are interested as well, but I haven't found a connection about football except the Everton shirt photo. Keep up the good work. 90.158.124.98 13:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: The interest of the footballers: Just off the top of my head, I think some photo was posted of the missing child wearing a shirt bearing the colors of some football team or other. That team's captain responded with an on-air appeal for help in locating the missing child; other footballers got on-board. Generally speaking, though, the public interest is easy to understand. This story has a human face—and it's the face of a cute little girl. Having your child kidnapped is every parent's nightmare, especially if you're in a strange and unfamiliar country. Hence, the story is a worst-case-scenario for both tourist and parent. On the other hand, 300 Iraqis blown up by a car bomb is just a statistic—the horror is simply too great for most people to relate to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.62.255.251 (talk • contribs)

"...in a strange and unfamiliar country" - I can ensure you that a British tourist in some parts of the Algarve, Portugal, hardly finds he is in a strange and unfamiliar country. A Portuguese from other regions who travel to some places in the Algarve should feel a foreigner in his own country, not an English. Many bars, restaurants and hotels are owned by British people and even Portuguese-run facilities have all the signs in english and the workers use primarily the english language. A huge number of British pensioners live all year round there and newcomers are landing in the airport every day. In the summer season is not easy to find a Portuguese on the first try. It's a sunny Britain in southern Portugal! Guarantee. :) Page Up 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As regards the footballers, the Portuguese ones are almost certainly the highest-profile and best known Portuguese people living in the UK, so it makes sense that efforts would be made to get them to make some sort of comment or appeal on the matter. Or they may simply have felt obliged to do something as representatives of their country after seeing all the UK media coverage, some of which in the tabloids hasn't exactly been helping Anglo-Portuguese relations. Angmering 12:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an intriguing question. I think what is happening here is typical British. Cute white girl dissappears in a foreign country has created a new multi-million pound industry. Many seem to be eager to cash in on this case, headed by the tabloid press. BBC Radio 4 just reported that this event has also sparked several con sites. I'm pretty sure that if this had happened within the UK, it would not have had the media attention it currently has - it's a wonderful occasion to feed the British false sense of superiority over other nations. On top of which, several children disappear every week in the UK, but their social-cultural background is apparently not interesting or valuable enough. Wvdc 06:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

this can't be only abduction/disappearance of a child. Im not saying that its wrong too extend the search as much as they(the parents) can, but what about all the other families who have lost a child and no football stars came on TV and urging everyone to find it? --chandler 16:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole case will be remembered as the biggest case of British mass hysteria since "Dianamania". A little child going missing is a sad event, but thousands of them do so every year and attract no attention. What's so special about this particular one? 86.17.230.122 12:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Bystander

Approximately 70,000 children are reported missing in the UK each year, 1,200 since Madeleine's disappearance. There are a number of phenomena at work in this instance - MWWS, the fact that the parents are relatively educated and affluent, the international aspect, the suspicion of paedophilia (a favourite UK pastime). Then there is the snowball and bandwagon - Once you start, you can't get off, otherwise you are quickly branded as no better than the abductor(s). - Tiswas^(t) 13:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide importance? It's just a missing kid. Kid's go missing all the time, you can't make an article about every single one that hits the news. This kid is not article-worthy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.46.104 (talk • contribs)

Considering that her dissappearance and search-adn-rescue has become a wordwide event, I think she is. Karrmann 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Havn't heard jack here in Canada. This is really of no importance. I agree with 68.209.46.104. Killswitch Engage 04:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Key developments have been covered in Canada as they have elsewhere in the world - see here, for example. TerriersFan 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Seventy-thousand children might go missing every year in the UK but those will all be runaways or cases of parental abduction. It is very rare for a British child to go missing in such a mysterious manner like Madeleine has and this is why it's of such interest. Stranger abduction is very rare occurance in the UK so such cases, regardless of the child's colour, is going to hit the headlines. Cosmic_quest 01:22, 30 July 2007

Semi-protection

Things have settled down so I have removed the semi-protection. However, in the event of any significant vandalism, then it goes straight back on. Further, if any admin has any concerns about the lack of protection then please feel free to put it back. TerriersFan 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The page has been under persistent IP attack this afternoon so I have semi-protected it for 24 hours when the protection will be automatically lifted. TerriersFan 14:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember BLP

Remember that WP:BLP applies to all articles on wikipedia including this one. As nearly all of the participants are alive, it applies to all mentions of them on the article and the talk page. Unsourced and poorly sourced (tabloids are generally not reliable sources) speculation about specific figures, especially negative (e.g. they kidnapped Madeline, they have strange fetishes etc) should not be present in the article or talk page. Nil Einne 16:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We are all fully aware of these issues so it would be helpful if you could point out where we say that a named person has a 'strange fetish' or 'kidnapped Madeleine' and we will immediately fix it. However, it is not possible to make a blanket statement that a tabloid is not a reliable source; it depends on the context and who the tabloid is quoting. What is a tabloid? It is a vague and undefined term. If you are concerned about a specific reference then raise it here and we will discuss it. TerriersFan 00:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Malta sightings - unsourced

I have moved the following additions here:

"On 23 June 2007, a Maltese man said that he spotted a young girl in a pushchair who resembles the missing Madeleine. The man stated that he had seen the girl in the company of a woman at the Birzebbuga playing fields. On 24 June 2007, The Malta police received another report of an alleged sighting in the last hours, with a Maltese woman saying that she noticed a young girl resembling Madeline in a pushchair in Valletta, in the company of a woman who was probably of foreign nationality."

They can go back if they can be reliably sourced. TerriersFan 16:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to the disappearance

This section needs serious rewording, for example the word sucessful would be far from truthful given they have not succeeded. It would also be best to remove social commentary, such as the choice of wording in "Inevitably, the publicity has spawned attempted scams with..." especially are no referenced sources on these areas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmi Hugh (talk • contribs)

I have removed the two words that you rightly queried. However, this section does not require "serious rewording" since it is a summary of the fully sourced subsidiary article. TerriersFan 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. i am appeared to have lost the ability to see, i completely overlooked that link, should have juse changed the wording. -- Jimmi Hugh 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Speculation and unreliable sources, WP:BLP concerns

I have removed from the article, per WP:BLP the text in Murat and Malinka which said "On 28 May British tabloid The Sun claimed that Murat's computer, which had been seized by the Portuguese police, had been used to view child pornography and bestiality. There is no direct link between what was found and Madeleine but officers are describing it as a ‘relevant sexual history’." When the article says "according to a tabloid" it appears to violate WP:RS. Tabloid says "Tabloid newspapers in Britain, collectively called the tabloid press, tend to be simply and sensationally written, and to give more prominence than broadsheets to celebrities, sports, crime stories and even hoaxes; they also more readily take a political position (either left- or right-wing) on news stories, ridiculing politicians, demanding resignations and predicting election results. The term red top (as in "News International red tops sweep the board") refers to tabloids with red nameplates, such as The Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star, and distinguishes them from the black top Daily Express and Daily Mail. Red top newspapers are usually simpler in writing style, dominated by pictures, and directed at the more sensational end of the market. Tabloid newspapers are sometimes pejoratively called the gutter press." The Sun (newspaper) says "More generally, the Murdoch Sun has been criticised since its launch for its sensationalism, which on occasion has led it to publish stories on the most spurious evidence, and for its focus on celebrities for its news and feature coverage. It has regularly been accused of appealing to the lowest common denominator and dumbing down public discourse." This certainly does not mean that nothing in it is true, but if it is generally true as the two articles state that the paper is prone to hoaxes and spurious information, then derogatory or incriminating statements need corroboration from more reliable sources.

Also per the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP "Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" For almost a month this statement has been sourced only to the tabloid, so it should not be restored to the article until it is confirmed by other sources, per WP:BLP. It should not be restored to the article without confirmation and certainly without further discussion here. Edison 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have sourced the text from the Daily Express and Daily Mail; it was not difficult finding alternative confirmatory sources. TerriersFan 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks better, in that the articles about these 2 papers do not specifically attribute to them hoaxes and "spurious" stories. Edison 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cadiz arrest

I have moved the 28 June arrest to Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Potential frauds where latest developments indicate that it better belongs. TerriersFan 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine alone?

Sorry to be pedantic, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and the comment in the opening paragraph - Madeleine "was alone in a bedroom with her two-year-old twin siblings" - is nonsensical. How can you be alone with two other people? What it should say is that Madeleine and her two-year-old twin siblings had been left unsupervised in the hotel room by their parents. (A fact that hopefully will be given greater attention after Madeleine is found safe and well.) Gadsby West 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that was poor phrasing but Ishikawa Minoru has produced an excellent fix. The actions of the parents are subject to extensive criticism, as summarised here, and if further criticism is reliably reported we will record it (as we will further praise). TerriersFan 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the public/media

I have reverted the reinsertion of these sections since they are in Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann for the reasons given above. TerriersFan 02:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Current event tag

I just want to get a discussion going about how long this article should maintain the {{current}} tag. She has (regrettably) been missing for two months as of tomorrow, and I don't think it really qualifies as current anymore. Especially since nothing substantially new has surfaced for some time now. I recommend removing the tag. Normally, I'd just go ahead and do it myself, but I know that something like this is a sensitive subject, and if anybody might object to the tag being removed, I think it's better to have had the discussion here first. Lilac Soul 20:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some rather interesting information HAS emerged recently. The following article was published yesterday in the Portuguese Press [2] It contains some very interesting new revelations, these will no doubt force the hand of the UK media in the next few days. Watch this space.Snowbunni 21:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak Portuguese, what does the article say? Also, it looks to me like you're linking to a blog or something? Lilac Soul 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding the above linked website is not a blog, but rather a digital abridged version of the weekly Portuguese newspaper 'Sol'.

Though the information contained therein is interesting, as it implies Madeleine's parents are not above police inquiry, I have some doubts regarding the date this article was published.

Despite the fact it says "30 JUN 07" on the top left corner of the page, the article claims that Madeleine 'vanished into thin air' ("Faz um mês que Madeleine McCann se eclipsou, sem deixar rasto."). Assuming the article was written on the 30th (a saturday, when that paper goes on sale), wouldn't it have been better to say 'it has almost been two months since...'. -- Ishikawa Minoru 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak Portuguese but using Babel Fish, the heading is 'Pact of Silence'. However, this is not sourced so we will have to see if this is something or nothing. TerriersFan 23:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Madeleine McCann's parents and the friends with whom the couple had been on vacation with in Praia da Luz have been constituted as suspects in the [police] inquiry into the little girl's kidnapping. Contradictory accounts of the night of Madeleine's dissapearance have arised and the group has [seemingly] forged a pact of silence."

The above is a rather coarse translation of the article's lead section (I apologize if it isn't great, but it's 2 am here...somehow it doesn't flow, but you get the point.). It doesn't look like you cannot read the rest of the article online. Assuming the paper went on sale last saturday, I might be able to find it. If so I can let you know about its contents. -- Ishikawa Minoru 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Her parents have, to my knowledge, been suspects from day one, which is nothing unusual in such cases, I'm sure. Sol doesn't appear to be a particularly reliable citation for this. And finally, while new stuff apparently does happen, that is true of a lot of things, and the current event tag should really only be used when an event is so current that information can be expected to change any hour. From Wikipedia:Current and future event templates, it says that The template should be removed from the article when the event described is no longer featured in the news headlines. I think that's true now, so let's return the discussion to the current event tag rather than the portuguese article (though that is of course indirectly related to the event tag). Lilac Soul 08:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a link to an English translation of the Sol article here [3]Snowbunni 09:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; this is very helpful. There is a lot of chatter about this around the blogs but it has yet to make the editorial of any RSs. I will continue to monitor for any mention that we can include. TerriersFan 22:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Terriers Fan, there is a reference to the Sol article in today's Sunday Express. Not the most salubrious of sources, I'll grant, but no doubt others will follow. The Express article also alludes to a potential investigation of the McCanns by the CPS. See http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/14355 Snowbunni 19:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sol article has now also been mentioned in the Daily Mail. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=470157&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

"An Internet campaign in Portugal is urging police to investigate the McCanns because the couple left their children alone in their holiday apartment on the fateful night little Madeleine went missing.

An article in Portugal's Sol magazine accused Madeleine's parents and the other families in their holiday group of hiding behind a "pact of silence".

It said that the McCanns' friends had constantly altered their version of events and that they were a "very strange group that never stayed with their children". "

Thx, I'll read myself in to it. TerriersFan 02:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed the tag

I have removed the current event tag. As I wrote before, it says on Wikipedia:Current and future event templates that The template should be removed from the article when the event described is no longer featured in the news headlines. This appears to be true now. If you feel the tag should still be on the page, please state your reasons for this here. Remember that just because this is something that people still talk about, to a certain degree, and that any future, major new developments will definitely make headlines, it does not necessarily make it a current event. Also, please note that I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here. I feel as horrified about Madeleine's disappearance (and all other kidnappings) as anyone else, so my edits have nothing to do with that. I'm just following standard guidelines here. Lilac Soul 07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Given that this article is titled "Disappearance of Madeleine McCann", and her disappearance is something which occurred two months ago without any substantial new developments, I think it correct that this is no longer classed as a current event. Obviously if and when she is found/returned, we may have to look at changing the name of the article from Disappearance to Abduction (if relevant) and re-tagging the page. VTSPOWER 15:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this either way. I agree with VTSPOWER, and if/when Madeleine is found there is every intention to change the title to one that is then more suitable. The term 'Disappearance' was chosen as a neutral term pending a more definitive outcome. TerriersFan 16:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the parents - Alex Tompson quote

I have included this quote because I believe it supports the impartiality of this article as a whole. Thomson is one of very few high profile journalists to speak out publically against the McCanns, and his remarks reflect the views of a large number of people.Snowbunni 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Its offensive POV rubbish and has been removed. This is an encyclopedia not a gossip column for vultures feeding off this tragedy (Thomson), SqueakBox 17:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Squeakbox. It's fine in the other article as it is criticism of the media coverage by a journalist. He is not "speaking out publically against the McCanns". Please stop pushing your POV in these articles. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

references?

Apparently some folks own this page and I don't wish to get in trouble with them, but I wanted to make a few observations. First of all, what are "Notes"; that looks like a list of references to me. Secondly, the self-contained "notes"/references section has made this article non-functional for people using any screen readers, or relying on a printed copy of the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No-one owns this article other than the Community. Yes, a consensus amongst regular editors has been achieved on certain matters but that is normal in the development of any article and is necessary to avoid the distraction of constantly revisiting the same points. The difference between 'Notes and 'References' is explained here. Notes are not meant to be read through rather they are consulted from marked parts of the article. References was changed to Notes to enable those editors who object to the scrolling format to produce an alphabetical list should they so wish. A nice example, albeit much shorter, may be seen at Gill Langley. HTH. TerriersFan 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Importance tag

No, not a joke! Clearly this is an important enough subject to warrant an article. The point I'm trying to bring to the attention of the editing community is that this article doesn't state clearly why the subject is important. The importance of any article, especially one as detailed as this, should be clear to the reader - an obvious way to do this is to set it out clearly, in the article lead. Easily fixable in this case, where the importance is clear. SP-KP 21:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

An excellent point that a couple of editors have tried to address. I have removed the tag because I think that we have sufficiently met this point. If anyone doesn't consider that we have gone far enough that's fine but please bring some alternative suggestions here so that we don't get involved in 'tag wars' :-) TerriersFan 22:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That does the trick. Thanks SP-KP 22:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Why here

Why is she getting so published? There are thousands of other children missing every month, why HER? Is she the daughter of the PM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.43.107 (talk • contribs)

Timeline

I have made some changes to the timeline, as the times given did not tally with those reported by most sources. Although there is a good deal of confusion regarding precise times, I believe Gerry McCann's final check was at 9:30pm, not 9pm as previously stated. Also, it was Kate McCann who checked the children at 10pm and reported Madeleine missing shortly thereafter. See [[4]]

"John Hill, the Ocean Club manager, said the alarm was raised by the family between 10pm and 10.15pm: “The staff, many guests and the best part of the village started looking right away, a total of 40 to 65 people. The police were called and started taking details from the family and then took the decision to escalate the search.”"

Snowbunni 11:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What you "believe" is irrelevant. All the references apart from the columnist quoted above writing in the early days after the disappearance agree on the timeline. Chances are the above columnist is in error, since she is the only one stating 21.30. Not a basis to amend the timeline. Harry was a white dog with black spots 11:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, virtually all the references do agree on at least one element the timeline, namely, that Kate McCann checked the children at 10pm and reported Madeleine missing shortly thereafter. Here are just a few examples [5], [6] [7], [8]

What exactly is your issue here? There should be no value judgement attached to establishing the correct times. I am simply trying to make the article as accurate as possible, and am citing appropriate sources. Furthermore, the most cursory perusal of the relevant references would support this. Have you read them? Snowbunni 12:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I read the sources? Of course. Did you before you made the changes? Clearly not, because the source that you left attached to the timline when you changed the first time to 21.30 states: "Madeleine, who turns four next Friday, was last seen by her father at about 2100 local time." So why did you change it to 21.30? I think you need to learn more about what is an appropriate source. One or two sources that disagree with all the others are not a valid basis for making changes. Harry was a white dog with black spots 13:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. You seem to be more interested in attacking me personally than in establishing the facts, and have failed to respond to my point above regarding the 10 pm check. It is indeed a case of 'one or two' sources disagreeing with all the others, as you put it, but the 'one or two' which differ are actually those cited in the article, so we have a problem. The early reports, such as the BBC article, were sketchy, and were subsequently contradicted over the following week. What makes these earlier articles more 'appropriate' than others? I have already cited four relevant sources above which contradict the earlier reports, and here is a fifth source (The Guardian) that I would consider equally 'appropriate' [9]

"When did Madeleine vanish? Between 9.30pm and 10pm on Thursday. Her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, were dining at a tapas bar in a Mark Warner resort around 100 metres from the apartment where Madeleine and her twin siblings were sleeping. The McCanns checked on the children at around half-hourly intervals. Mr McCann checked at 9.30pm, but when the couple returned at about 10pm, Madeleine had gone. A pool, hedge, wall and alleyway are between the bar and the apartment."

Snowbunni 15:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in attacking you personally. I have an interest in factual articles. Please do not change articles unless you are able to do so properly. If you don't know how, ask for help. (I was happy to help you with a reference on the "Reaction" article. But don't change a page and leave references that contradict the new information you are posting. If you want to change the time she was found missing to 10, fine, but cite a reputable news source that backs this up in the article. Don't leave a source that says 9.45. BTW, the "multiple" sources you quote for 10pm are actually one source - they are all using the same newswire report. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to find some wording that meet the points of both editors - if either is not happy please feel free to raise concerns here. TerriersFan 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TerriersFan. My main concern is that the wording was changed, but the reference was not, creating a discrepancy. Also the "multiple sources" mentioned were in fact one source, a newswire story, that may or may not have been accurate. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some small recogntion of our drafting ...

... can be found in three paragraphs lifted from the lead here. TerriersFan 02:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it 'small'...I mean, whoever wrote that article copied what we wrote about Malinka verbatim without citing sources.

This has actually happened to me once, when part of what I wrote about Risako Sugaya was plagiarized in a Singaporean newspaper aricle about jinor idols.

Anyway, it serves to show we've become a major source of information, bigger than other paid encylocapedias. -- Ishikawa Minoru 02:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

EDIT - Wait a second...is this Karen Williams for real? I read the article and I recognized a lot of stuff from this page. Even stuff I wrote myself, meaning there's no way she published it because she's a Wikipedia user who has contributed to the Madeleine article. -- Ishikawa Minoru 02:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right, having gone back to it there are many lifts, certainly enough to expect some acknowledgement. TerriersFan 04:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been other comments added to the functionpix article this morning. Karen Williams has added a couple of half-hearted references to Wikipedia following the comments, but nowhere near sufficient to acknowledge the debt she owes us. Harry was a white dog with black spots 11:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm proud to announce Karen Williams has apparently be canned from functionpix! I just check the article and it says "...Miss K. Williams is no longer contributing to Functionpix - Editor".

Serves her right, I'd say. -- Ishikawa Minoru 18:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)