Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2015

The Timeline is incorrect, The McCanns actually arrived at the resort on the 28th April AlexGan001 (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? Harry the Dog WOOF 10:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Done -Thanks for the correction suggested. @Harry the Dirty Dog: it is sourced in the body of the article (please see Apartment 5A sub-section in Background section, cite-19). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

2nd paragraph, last sentence reads "The McCanns were declared arguidos (suspects) in September 2007, but were cleared in July 2008 when Portugal's attorney-general closed the case.[6]"

The parents were not, and have never been, CLEARED - the case was NOT closed it was archived.

4th para, 2nd sentence reads "The McCanns were subjected to intense scrutiny and false allegations of involvement in their daughter's death, particularly in the tabloid press and on Twitter, which was just a year old when Madeleine went missing.[8]"

At present there are two investigations into the disappearance. As such we do not know if those allegations were FALSE. Please remove the word false.

Thankyou

Lord Spencer (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. What about this source which seems to support "cleared". Is there a source that shows anyone is guilty? If not, claims of guilt are false. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... That article says "cleared" (in the headline); "formally cleared" (opening sentence); "cleared of being formal suspects" (picture caption); "...no longer "arguidos" or formal suspects" (fourth para); and refers to "insufficient evidence to continue the police case" (second para). Simply saying that they were "cleared" and that the case was "closed" does seem to be a partial interpretation of the situation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ward of Court

Here is the entire section titled Madeleine McCann:

"Madeleine was born in Leicester and lived with her family in Rothley, Leicestershire also in Leicestershire. At the request of her parents, she was made a ward of court in England in 2007, which gave the court statutory powers to act on her behalf. Interpol described Madeleine as having straight blonde hair, blue-green eyes, a small brown spot on her left calf, and a distinctive dark strip on the iris of her right eye. In 2009 the McCanns released age-progressed images of how she may have looked at age six, and in 2012 Scotland Yard commissioned and released one of her at age nine." End quote.

My complaint is that the ward of court sentence appears disruptively in the midst of biographical details about Madeleine, giving the impression the courts conferred that status on her prior to her disappearance. The reader is likely to be intrigued by this information, but since no details are given as to why that status was sought, he/she is obliged to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to click the link. Only then does it become obvious that ward of court status was sought and conferred after the disappearance.

My suggestion is that the sentence be removed and inserted elsewhere at a location that is chronologically more appropriate, and that it deserves a few words of explanation. My suggestion is something like this: "...to empower judges to act in Madeleine's best interests as her parents sought access via the courts to witness statements that had been shared, with strict confidentiality agreements, between the Portuguese and Leicestershire police." Akld guy (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly disruptive. It's a very short paragraph, and one of the notable things we can say about her (along with the fact that she has disappeared and her physical description). So I think it does belong in the section about Madeleine. The reasons why the McCanns sought this could be spelled out though.Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 08:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have inserted an explanation as to why ward of court status was sought, and put it into chronological context.Akld guy (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Petition

An online petition is calling for the parents of abducted British four-year-old Madeleine McCann to be investigated by social workers. Despite this petition and general public concern, the no investigation was ever carried out. To counter any impression that this article is pro-McCann, might not the text mention this petition in greater detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.144.66 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesnt sound particularly notable to be mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The only petition like that that is referred to in reliable sources that I can find is already mentioned in the article. Given that it was in 2007 ("is calling for"?), it got only 17,000 signatures, and came to nothing, the couple of sentences on it already in the article seems more than sufficient. DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

image links?

why were there lots of weird image links in the article?

example:

Exterior shutter

Madeleine's bedroom window
showing the exterior shutter

Either it's a free image and we show it, or we don't show it. These links were retarded, so I removed them. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy, please don't keep removing these. Several are images released by the Portuguese police, which are probably PD, but they haven't responded to my requests for a release, so I can't upload them. This is the next best thing. These and the other images are informative to readers interested in this; readers not interested don't have to click on them. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Then perhaps they should be at the bottom of the article, where links usually go? I've never actually encountered this in an article before, to my eyes, it looks shit. Is there some generally accepted procedure for this sort of issue? I was under the impression, that if an image wasn't available due to copyright issues, we just didn't put an image. If there is an off-wiki article that is useful, then we linked to it, at the bottom of the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest WP:PERMISSION & WP:RP and suitable options regarding obtaining these images or alternatives. Also, is there anything in WP:FAIRUSE that would allow us to use the images anyway? Either way, links to images look awful and I until I see otherwise, I'm of the opinion that there is zero consensus for using image links in that way. However, show me the consensus and obviously, I will accept it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Spacecowboy420 we dont normally include external links in the body of the article, if these images add value to the article then they can added to external links. MilborneOne (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The images were present at 20 September 2015. The images were present before then, and they continued to be present until the edit at 28 March 2016. I have restored the images because they have consensus and because the rationale for their removal ("dumb image links removed. they are borderline linkspam") is mistaken. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The images were not present on 20th September, they are links not images. If they were images, there would be no issue.

I suggest you read above, as the rationale is explained in detail on this talk page, and in subsequent edit summaries. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not the time for pedantry. The link I gave shows the material you removed has been present in the article since September 2015, and in fact was in the article before then. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel that I have reverted this article enough for today. I propose that these image links are moved to the bottom of the article, unless someone can show that having image links in the body of an article, is a standard procedure in cases such as this. I also suggest that we look into alternative images, getting permission for this images, or using them anyway (under some fair use or similar reasoning) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where someone has to produce a rule book to justify how an article has appeared for months. The question should be whether this article benefits from the links. Obviously it does because the material is highly relevant to the ongoing case. Yes, it is unusual, but this is an unusual topic. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How is it unusual? Why would it benefit in a way that other articles would not? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps one option would be to look at these links and see what they offer the article.

1. An image of a vacation resort. White buildings/swimming pool. Beneficial?

2. A dead link. One of the reasons that we don't encourage overlinking in an article.

3. Google map. Does it need to be in the body of an article? Of course not.

4. A picture of a bedroom with some furniture. I'm sure a sentence along the lines of "bedroom with two children's beds" would suffice.

5. Pajamas with a cartoon character. Not the actual pajamas worn, but similar pajamas.

6. Someone checking a shutter for evidence. Not very technical, does this help an article?

7. The same shutter, without anyone checking it for evidence.

8. A fucking awful MS paint image of a burgundy sweater with a white circle. This could be reproduced in 30 seconds, or explained with "burgundy sweater with a white circle"

I really don't see any advantage in having any single one of those links to an image, when a sentence in the article stating for example "pink eeyore pajamas" does the job perfectly well. There is no extra information gleaned from those images. There is pretty much zero justification from having links to images, when consensus built up over years has put actual images in the body of the article, and links at the bottom, with suitable procedures for requesting alternative images or obtaining permission from the copyright holder.

I would understand if there was something that could only be understood with an image. (but there isn't)

I would also understand if this article was a really special case. (but it isn't)

Look at numerous other articles, and see what consensus we have gained about having non-free images. We don't get to use them. We find alternatives, we get permission, or we go without. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This is one of five million articles—there is no need to arouse such passion or language. It has been established that the image links have been in the article for many months so a delay while the issue is calmly discussed is not a big problem. I think it would be better for each of us to withdraw for a couple of days and give others an opportunity to express a view. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have zero passion for this article. It's just another article. Regarding language, I'm assuming that you're referring to my use of the word "fucking" - don't worry, it's a word that I use multiple times daily, to describe the ice-cream I ate, to locate my smokes, and as a general filler word. It doesn't mean that I hate you. And yes, I'm a big fan of stepping back and getting other opinions, it makes my work easier. I come back and find that people agree or disagree with me, and from there we can claim to have consensus (or not).

"This is not the time for pedantry." I think the fact that you reverted my edit, without actually checking/knowing what my edit was (otherwise you would have known that I wasn't removing images) says it all. But never mind, we all have different motivations for being here. Mine is to build a neutral encyclopedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy, your statement that you've reverted enough for today suggests you're planning a slow edit war.

I can remove the burgundy top and one shutter image. The shutter matters because a question arose as to whether it could be opened from the outside. The aerial view of the resort shows the route the kidnapper took. The importance of the pyjamas is obvious. The bedroom image shows where Madeleine was sleeping in relation to the window. The image of the side of the building shows where the kidnappers may have entered.

I put in several requests for releases to the police in Portugal regarding the images they released to the media, and I tried to get the help of Wikimedia Portugal, but I wasn't able to get beyond preliminary replies. We can therefore link to them but not upload them. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not planning or hoping for a slow edit war, if you're curious about my intentions, it might be more productive and less confrontational to ask me, rather than attempting to read my mind.

I'm planning and hoping that everyone will agree with my proposals and I can gain consensus for my edits.

I think the ideal solution would be to find license free images, so I will spend a little time searching for them... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

http://open.mediaexpress.reuters.com/ "Thank you for visiting. Reuters Open Media Express is currently not available in your region." can someone who is not in my region, please check about licensing options for the reuters images? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I should correct what I wrote above. I've only linked to one of the Portuguese police images, the one of the bedroom. And some or all of the e-fits are from that bundle. The bundle of Portuguese police photographs are the ones it would be good to get a release for, or any photographs of the apartment block, the resort, etc. I found some on Flickr, but the photographers won't release them. That Reuters page is discussing not charging for certain images. I don't think they are free in the sense of freely licensed. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think these image links are legitimate inclusions in the article. Most of these images are fairly integral to the investigation and if they were freely available would be used in the article. As such they further the encyclopedic coverage of the topic and would be legitimate inclusions in the external links section per WP:ELYES#3. Their placement through the article is slightly unorthodox (we would usually bundle links into an external links section) but I think having them in context relevant sections better serves the article since the links are being used in lieu of the actual images themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if they were in the actual body of the article, but presented in a different manner, it would be better?

I'm not in favor of a big box with a link, maybe if they were linked to in the same way as an inline citation, it would be better.

Example: [[1]] was a two-bedroom, ground-floor apartment in the fifth block of a group of apartments known as [Village]

Note: I can't format them nicely. Can someone format the above example for me, in the same way that we link to wikipedia articles, please?

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We dont normally add external links into the body of an article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and personally I would like to see links at the bottom of the article, as per usual.

However, if we do have to have a non-standard use of links in this article, it should be a little less intrusive than it currently is.

Which is best? An attempt at compromise and making the links less ugly, or conforming with current standards and totally removing them? Either choice is better than leaving the article in its current state. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've asked for opinions regarding this on the MOS talk page, maybe they can shed a little more light on this issue, or offer suggestions. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Investigation closed in July 2008?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36138504 suggests not yet closed. 86.132.220.47 (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The Portugal case was closed in 2008, but as the article says, the parents continued their own investigation until it was picked up by Scotland Yard. 175.195.186.98 (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am creating this section in order to avoid a war of editions since my contribution to this page has been reverted by other user. Before my edition, the fourth paragraph of this article read the same as it reads at this moment like this

The disappearance attracted sustained international interest and saturation coverage in the UK reminiscent of the death of Diana in 1997. The McCanns were subjected to intense scrutiny and false allegations of involvement in their daughter's death, particularly in the tabloid press and on Twitter. They received damages and front-page apologies in 2008 from Express Newspapers, In 2011 they testified before the Leveson Inquiry into British press misconduct, lending support to those arguing for tighter press regulation.

while my edition would have left this paragraph like

The disappearance attracted sustained international interest and saturation coverage in the UK reminiscent of the death of Diana in 1997. The McCanns were subjected to intense scrutiny and arguably false allegations of involvement in their daughter's death, particularly in the tabloid press and on Twitter. They received damages and front-page apologies in 2008 from Express Newspapers, In 2011 they testified before the Leveson Inquiry into British press misconduct, lending support to those arguing for tighter press regulation.

where the unique diference is that I inserted the adverb 'arguably' to keep the neutral point of view of this article. The user who undid my review wrote that things are rarely proven beyond all possible doubt, but this is what false means in common usage in order to support the deletion of this adverb so the page now asserts that the allegations of the McCaans on the disappearance of their daughter are false. 'False' should not be confused anywhere, less in a libellous matter with 'unconclusive' or 'not proven'. There are many plausible doubts surrounding this case and no thread has come out to be revealed as 'false'. There is simply too few evidence in any direction so we should be very careful and keep our neutrality not discarding by ourselves any line of investigation.

According to oxforddictionaries.com, false means 'not according with truth or fact; incorrect'. While I acknowledge that the tabloids like the Sunday Express and the Daily Star have apologised for these allegations, the facts have not been proven to be essentially different to their allegations. The case has not gone to court nine years after the disappearance of the girl and the police simply did not continue investigating her parents due to the absence of evidence incriminating them. There are many unclear and unconclusive facts around the disappearance of Madeleine that simply provide too few evidence in any direction.

In spite of the press and Twitter allegations implying their presumtive involvement have been made recklessly, this doesn't mean those allegations to be false. There is not even a plausible explanation, an arguable suspect or evidence supporting that someone broke into their house. This unconclusiveness leads me to the conclusion that my revision makes the fourth paragraph more neutral hence more appropriate for the Wikipedia policies.Sam10rc (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"Neutral" on Wikipedia means that we reflect the views of reliable and appropriate sources, in rough proportion to how those views are represented in the literature; see WP:NPOV and in particular WP:UNDUE. There are no reliable sources that support the view of parental involvement. This article therefore makes clear that the old allegations were false. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Quite so, but 'false' doesn't add anything, so I've removed it. The McCanns were subjected to allegations, that's clear enough. Rothorpe (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe, I've reverted, because it adds that the allegations were false, which isn't nothing. This is the view of all the RS, and it didn't come without a struggle, so it's important to state it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV, thank you for your kind remarks. We are precisely at the point that there are not reliable sources supporting the view of parental involvement at the same time that parental involvement has not been discarded by any reliable source beyond all doubt. NPOV states in the first paragraph that in consist of 'representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ' So we are not entitled to declare those allegations to be false, specially when a sentence, stating that the inspector who wrote a book alleging that Madeleine had died accidentally and the abduction was faked was libellous and charged with a huge fine, has been overturned on appeal court four months ago[2]. A Martian reching Earth today with a decent understanding of English and read the article would immediately think that the press has raised some hypothesis against the McCann family which are far from whatever happened to the girl. This is because the article is obviously biased, meaning that the family could not do anything bad to Madeleine. Reliable sources cannot make us conclude either parental involvement or parental innocence. Thus we should either not claim the allegations to be false at all (according to Rothorpe) or we should state that they are arguably, possibly, probably, or even presumably false. But we can never say that they are simply false unless we are certain. The overturn of that sentence removes any scent of certainness. Sam10rc (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. However, that's not how enwiki works—WP:BLP means no one gets to add spurious "it is not known whether the subject has stopped beating his wife" crap to articles like this. The article is not concerned with something precise like how many legs dogs have so there will always be room for doubt. Nevertheless, it is standard procedure at enwiki that readers should not be mislead by sprinkling tantalizing "allegations" around—as far as common usage is concerned, the allegations are false. Please do not use ref tags unnecessarily on talk pages—just use links. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Long familiarity with the story (first edit 20 May 2007) has convinced me too that the McCanns did nothing to harm their daughter but until Madeleine turns up safe and sound I don't think we should use a word like "false" to describe any aspect of her fate after 3 May 2007. Rothorpe (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

When a person disappears, her parents are investigated without conclusion for or against their involvement and a detective who is fined after saying that the parents were involved sees his fine overturned, I am only certain that we cannot conclude anything. In spite of this being a very hard to prove matter, this is simpler than the number of legs that dogs have: the parents could have been involved or not. What would you do if the mother confessed tomorrow that she killed her daughter or that a very unlucky accident occured and they faked the disappearance to cover it up? As long as we are not certain, according to reliable sources, that those news were false, we should not judge them to be false and the adverbs are not only pertinent but necessary according to NPOV. Personally, I don't believe that the McCanns did anything bad to their daughter but I leave my personal beliefs behind when I click the 'edit' button. Sam10rc (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but you have a total of 25 edits at enwiki, and the lack of familiarity with standard procedures is showing. This is an article talk page, and people should not be exchanging their thoughts about whether parents may have been involved, and the conjecture about tomorrow is prohibited by WP:BLP. Please do some work monitoring WP:BLPN for a couple of months before volunteering thoughts here. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Johnuniq, please find a personalised reply in your user talk page. For talk purposes I will simply reply that the retorical question I have raised in my previous reply indicates that very few is known and that there are many plausible explanations of how did Madeleine disappear. The evidence referred in the article is not enough, in my view, to support that the allegations were, plainly, false. Moreover, the references come mainly from the media which once indicted the family and later apologised for their allegations. Which newspapers should we consider: those blaming on Gerry & Kate one day or the ones absolving them the following day? I though that I was not going to need it but [|here] is a newspaper, in Spanish, stating four months ago that they have concluded that Gerry & Kate's emotional response is pretended. At this point we have two options: either we discredit this source for one reason or another e.g.by finding a 'better' source stating the opposite or we admit that there are reasonable doubts on the falseness of the allegations. Sam10rc (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Starting again

The previous discussion is a clear BLP violation, so I'm going to archive it. If people want to discuss whether the word false should be in the lead, it has to be done carefully and succinctly, referring always to the sources, not to personal opinion. As for which sources we use, we rely on current sources and because this is the English Wikipedia, we rely on mostly English-language sources. If not English, then newspapers in Portugal are fine too, but they must be high quality. No tabloid journalism. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Sky news and The Independent telling in April this year that the police officer won his appeal, overturning the fine (he was previously fined after writing that the family faked the abduction). The most recent new I have found concerning this matter is that the parents have appealed.

Concluding: we have no reliable source saying something like 'Police discards parental involvement' (many sources pointed that Portuguese police ceased to investigate them since they had no evidence against them). The only certainty we have at this moment is that an appeal court has decided that the police investigator was guilty of nothing. Consequently, the allegations could, might, may not be false. We should give the word 'false' a more careful sense than its normal use.Sam10rc (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Why would removing "false" improve the article? Should Wikipedia amplify every evidence-free attack on individuals? Including those from twitter? If someone were believed to have committed a crime, they would be charged. If no court case ensued, it should be assumed that there was no useful evidence, in which case Wikipedia should not record the accusation as any more than false. The same applies, only more so, if no charges were laid. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The civil case in Portugal was concerned only with whether the officer had the right to publish his views. And we do have sources saying that the police reject the conspiracy theories, some of which are in the article, including footnote 1 and the sources produced by the Leveson Inquiry. This is old news, not something we should need to discuss in 2016. It's all explained in the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Facts: there is very little known on this matter and the police (Portuguese and British) has provided very little. On this ground, many newspapers and individuals from the social media have made allegations of all kind. The allegations have been harassing to the family.

We ought to be skeptical. The wording I proposed supports the presumption (not assumption) of innocence since it said that the allegations were 'arguably false', coming from the tabloid press and Twitter (which have very few credibility, as everybody knows), and that Express Newspapers have apologised for their allegations. Which credit gives this wording to the allegations? Absolutely none. This cannot possibly be read as an amplification. Moreover, the word 'allegation' is quite different to 'accusation'.

In regard of all these concerns, 'ill-founded allegations' could be the best wording. We are not saying that they are false and we acknowledge where they come from (tabloids and Twitter). Most important, we don't say that they are true or false, simply that there is a total absence of a solid ground of evidence. We would emphasize that the allegations were made not with the purpose of covering any possible suspect of the crime with the creation of a delliberate lie, but with the purpose to sell a lot of newspapers, irritating and vexing the family if needed. Sam10rc (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

"We ought to be skeptical." There is your problem. It is not Wikipedia's place to be skeptical. Being skeptical is definitely POV, so your suggestion that you are wanting this change to make the article less POV is in tatters I'm afraid. On Wikipedia, WP:BLP is the primary concern. It is one thing to report well-sourced allegations, making sure they are not given undue weight; it is quite another to suggest that those allegations might even possibly be true. Unless any allegation against a living person has been proven in a court of law, there is no "arguably" about it. The allegations are false, in a strictly legal sense, which is what we are discussing here. Wikipedia cannot even insinuate that any unproven allegation might be true (which your proposed edit does), or it too will wind up in the courts like the tabloids did in this case.

Obviously if the situation changes, the article can change. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. This article has changed many times as the investigation has progressed. No doubt that will continue. But for now, from a purely legal standpoint, Wikipedia has to make clear that any allegations against the McCanns are false - because that us the legal state of affairs. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok about skepticism, but please consider the rest of the last paragraph as if I didn't write that first phrase there. Which problematic would be arising in case we wrote 'ill-founded allegations'? With this wording we are reporting that some allegations have been made, we are not giving them weigh as we are not entering into their details, and when something is said to be 'ill-founded' and not described in detail we are not suggesting them to be even possibly true.

Wikipedia articles are not legal documents and we can use more sources than legal documents. If the allegations are false from the legal point of view and we are binded to reflect from the legal point of view that the allegations are false, we could rephrase it to 'legally false allegations', or any other wording which reflects that the falseness is well-sourced at this moment from the legal point of view. Sam10rc (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not legal documents but they have to stay on the right side of libel laws in various jurisdictions. Ill-founded is just another way of saying false, so why not just say false? Legally false is also the same as false. No need to use more convoluted wording. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 14:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not exactly false, even though the meaning in a court context is equivalent. In the normal use of English, which is that concerning Wikipedia, their meaning is a bit different -the question is very complex, we are not talking about how many legs dogs have. While we are acknowledging that there is no solid evidence supporting the allegations and that they harassed the family and we reflect the fact that they vexed the family, we are still presuming that the are false (according to BLP and court criteria in civilised countries). Writing 'false allegations' would imply that we assume that they are false. WP:BLP states clearly that we should presume, not assume innocence. This slight difference between assumption and presumption is what makes me favour 'ill-founded' instead of 'false'. Sam10rc (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no presuming or assuming involved. For there to be a presumption of innocence, charges have to be laid. No charges = innocent. Period. No assuming or presuming. Anyone can make an allegation about anyone. As I said before, you have to look at the legal context (which is what WP:BLP is concerned about). No charges have been laid against anyone in this case. Publications that have made allegations have been sued and lost (because there is zero evidence to back up any of the theories or allegations that Madeleine's parents were involved - among other allegations - despite the police quite properly pursuing that line of inquiry and eventually dismissing it). Therefore, to comply with WP:BLP. while the article outlines the investigation and various allegations from other sources, it must make absolutely clear that these allegations and lines of inquiry have been shown to be false, because no action was taken by the police on the one hand and they have been shown to be false in a court of law. The article cannot introduce any doubt on that score, or insinuate that they might be true. "False" is the best and most accurate way of doing that. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Beautifully put, thank you. That explains the situation well. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for edit

"The McCanns were subjected to intense scrutiny and false allegations of involvement in their daughter's death". That sentence ought to be edited to read "The McCanns were subjected to intense scrutiny and allegations of involvement in their daughter's death". There is no evidence the allegations were FALSE (or TRUE). As of this moment, it is not known what happened to the little girl. 90.17.88.152 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I support this request. This would be the most neutral wording and, in my understanding of English, this is not insinuating that they were involved. Sam10rc (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

One form of tendentious editing is to repeatedly raise the same proposal, possibly with variations. That particularly applies when there is no engagement with detailed comments supporting the current text—see the above section. The only reason to mention "intense scrutiny" would be to imply that the parents might have done it—you'll have to find another website to push that line because unfounded accusations against living persons do not last at enwiki. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no accusation in the wording proposed above. This would reflect the facts that we know to be true from reliable sources and nothing else. Sticking to the source that appears in the article, the allegations were 'vile, unsubstantiated' but not false. Removing the word 'false' from the text would make a more neutral wording and would be more accurate to the source.

But I coincide with you that this wording could possibly not be the best one (even though I regard it as better than the current one): reflect that the allegations were, as the source says, 'vile' or 'unsubstantiated,' why not to put one of these words? Why not a synonym like 'malicious' or 'ill-founded?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam10rc (talk • contribs) 21:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Quote from user SlimVirgin regarding my Smith testimony additions --Felixkrull (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC):

(copied from User talk:Felixkrull)

That source is not a reliable one. It violates our living persons policy, so please do not restore it. In addition to that, the issue is already dealt with elsewhere in the article, in this section. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I can agree with none of your (changing) objections. a) the source appears to be reliable based on photocopies of the Smith testimony. please provide evidence to the contrary. b) if you believe the Smith testimony violates BLP then please delete it altogether, including from the Oakley International section. I submit again: this is planely a quote of the relevant Smith testimony, it belongs obviously into this section if anywhere at all. Please deal with the factual evidence in this case. --Felixkrull (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The source is not reliable. Please look at what constitutes a reliable source (WP:RS). If you want to add this, find a reliable source. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That website isn't allowed as a source, because it's a self-published site containing allegations about a living person. This is a matter of policy; see WP:BLPSPS. I understand that you regard the source as the statement, and not the website on which the statement appears, but this is such a sensitive point that we can't rely on that distinction in this instance.

In any case, we already deal with the Smith issue in the Oakley International section, where we explain what Smith said months after he gave his first statement, and that he was persuaded he was mistaken, sourced to The Sunday Times. You want to introduce it elsewhere in the article too, but without explaining that he changed his mind. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Brown spot in retina or iris?

An IP posted at my talk (presumably because I had the most-recent edit). The topic concerns the infobox which has "Distinguishing features" with text:

Blonde hair; "left eye blue and green colour; right eye green colour with a brown spot in retina; small brown mark on the left leg calf".

The IP's post was:

On the page regarding Madeline McCann, the 3-year-old abducted from Portugal, her description states that she has a right green eye with a brown spot on the retina. It is actually on the iris. It is almost impossible to see the retina without a specialized scope, making it a poor identifier. Thank you 97.123.200.93 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The IP has a valid point—see iris and retina. However, the text in the infobox is in quotation marks because it is the exact text used by the source (Interpol). That makes changing the wording awkward. I don't see anything addressing this issue in the talk archives, although this includes on the Policia Judiciaria website, her right eye is described as "green with a brown spot on the iris" (with a dead link to the website).

I'm just noting this issue in case anyone wants to discuss it. I think it would be difficult to "fix" the wording without a good source. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, sorry, I thought I had replied to this. I've fixed the iris/retina issue by swapping the Interpol source for a Portuguese police one. Many thanks to the IP for pointing it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Very thorough edits, thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2017

The content of the second paragraph in the Lead Section is misleading given the latest court ruling and should be brought into line with existing content in section 5.6 "Amaral's book (24 July 2008)"). The final sentence of the second paragraph in the Introduction should therefore now read:

The McCanns were given arguido (suspect) status in September 2007, which was lifted when Portugal's attorney general archived the case in July 2008 [7][8]. However, Portugal's Supreme Court ruled, in February 2017, that the McCanns had not, in fact, been cleared [201]. AlisterMcLeod (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The proposed sentence makes no sense in that context. The first sentence says the arguido status was lifted. It used to say that they were cleared, but it doesn't now. Therefore to add "however, they were not cleared" is a non sequitur.

We include the Supreme Court's comment in the section about the book (second paragraph). It has to be understood within that context. What seems to have happened is that the McCanns' lawyer argued to the effect that the McCanns should not have to tolerate these smears given that they were cleared, and the court responded that the McCanns had not actually been cleared; the case was closed because of a lack of evidence, not because anyone had been cleared. I say "seems to have happened", because I can't find the ruling, so I've had to read between the lines. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Marking as answered. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Italicized organizations and street names

While it's normal to italicize foreign words and phrases in an article (such as arguido), it is not common at all in an encyclopedia or other scholarly work to do so with proper names of things like streets and organizations (such as the Judiciaria), for the same reason you don't do it for someone's name, city, wider jurisdiction, etc. An article about world libraries does not italicize the Bibliotheque nationale de France in the same breath as it discusses the British Library or the Library of Congress. This article's odd style choice is highly irritating to read, over and over, as it comes across as pedantic and even slightly xenophobic, as though the intent was to alienate the Portuguese police and Portugal itself as much as possible. Was the article in this state when it received 'good' status I wonder? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Italics removed from the street names and Polícia Judiciária. Thanks for pointing it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That must have been a long slog! There are still a few left, I'll see about removing them myself. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I had a look and did not see any obvious problems. Possibly some book titles are in italics and I suspect that is not style, and YouTube appears, but others seem justifiable and at least consistent. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I already fixed the two that were left. None of what I was referring to were titles or foreign words. They were Portuguese place names and organizations. Virtually every single one was in italics when I first read the article, which is why I signalled it, and SlimVirgin fixed 99 percent of them. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Exact birth dates of the McCanns

Why is it not possible to find out their exact birth dates? Any person in small articles here has them, but this famous couple doesn't. Ridiculous. Tokota (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is it so important? You are not actually entitled to everything there is to know about a living person you know. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Holiday-home sexual assaults 2004-2010

There is an apparent discrepancy in this section: The assaults occurred during the time frame 2004-2010, but the suspected offender died in 2009. No mention is made as to how this apparent contradiction is rationalized. Boardhead (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There were 12 assaults that took place between 2004 and 2010 including four instances of a lone intruder sexually assaulting five girls aged from seven to 10 between 2004 and 2006. The suspect in those specific assaults died in 2009. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The rewording of this section makes this very clear. Boardhead (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sensitive subject. But we need to be objective ...

"The McCanns were subjected to intense scrutiny and false allegations of involvement in their daughter's death, particularly in the tabloid press and on Twitter."

I don't believe the word false should be stated here as fact. The word can be removed without changing the meaning but a more accurate reflection of the facts.

There is no evidence one way or the other that the allegations are true or false. Therefore neither word should appear in what should be a factual document. Adamacs (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The allegations were unfounded. There was never a reason to suppose they had been involved (except in the sense that parents always have to be ruled out). Scotland Yard's Assistant Commissioner recently confirmed that "there's no reason whatsoever to reopen that [the parents' alleged involvement] or to start rumours that that's a line of investigation" (from c. 00:45). We signal that in the lead with the word "false", which reflects the view of all the mainstream and high-quality RS. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Adamacs. The allegations have not been disproven, therefore there are no grounds to call them false. Wiki must remain scrupulously unbiased in such a situation. Darorcilmir (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. "The McCanns were subjected to intense scrutiny and allegations of involvement" is quite enough. Rothorpe (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Adamacs, Darorcilmir and Rothorpe. On a side note; why isn't there anything about the McCann's refusal to take lie detector test/s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.181.44 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, see Polygraph. Rothorpe (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone so WP:BLP is strongly enforced, and there is no reason to describe false allegations as anything other than false. See Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Tabloids and social media for the background. Wikipedia is not available to spread FUD. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to describe allegations as anything other than allegations. Who ever heard of true ones? A pity we can't just call them tabloid lies. Rothorpe (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

See FUD. Creationists allege that evolution is nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Rothorpe, can you say what you mean by "Who ever heard of true ones?" Allegations can be true or false. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

'True allegations' is not a common phrase, try googling it. Yes, as a predicate, the allegations were true/false. But allegations on their own are assumed to be false, which is why the sentence gains force without 'false'. The McCanns were subjected to allegations, poor them; they were subjected to false allegations, well, obviously. Rothorpe (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

To allege is to make an assertion without proof, and is like Schrodinger's Cat. An allegation is neither true nor false until a determination is made. Whether an allegation is determined to be true or false after the fact is an important distinction. Failing to do so is to passively state that no determination of proof was ever made, and that the question is still open. The fact that these allegations were determined to be false must be included to treat this WP:BLP issue fairly. Scr★pIron^IV 18:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

And in fact the allegations have been proven false to the extent that the McCanns have won libel actions against the tabloids that made them. That needs to be reflected in any mention of the allegations, and the word false serves that purpose. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

+1 for removing "false", if only on the grounds that it's really poor english. duncanrmi (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it felt tautological. Now we have 'baseless', which seems much better, much more descriptive. Thank you, SarahSV. Rothorpe (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please save comments that are not based on policy or community norms for Facebook. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest "unproven allegations" as a compromise. An abundance of reliable sources employ that exact wording. — TPX 17:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, 'unproven' is more neutral than 'false' or 'baseless'. Rothorpe (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"Unproven" is the opposite of neutral. It's a dog whistle. I've swapped "false" for "baseless" for now, but I think it should be revisited when the current drive-by interest has died down. The allegations were false. This is a fact acknowledged by both police forces and all reliable sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Disproven, then? Rothorpe (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing editors from discussing the topic today in a calm and reasonable manner. Let's continue to do so. It seems to me that while the McCanns have been subject to specific allegations that have since been proven false and/or withdrawn, the sentence could be misinterpreted as saying that all allegations in the tabloid press and on social media have been proven false. So I would like to amend my proposal to "baseless and unproven allegations". Baseless for statements that have been withdrawn and unproven for everything else untested, on social media or elsewhere. — TPX 21:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Stuff like that belongs in a blog where suggestions that the parents may have visited Portugal in order to chop up their child can be phrased in terms of "unproven" allegations. However, Wikipedia does not amplify baseless claims from attention-seekers without evidence, or from locals covering up incompetence. The article is not about elementary mathematics where it would be fine to say that 4 = 2 + 2 is proven while 4 = 2 + x is unproven. In a BLP article, baseless claims are not given an elevated status. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a documented fact that allegations have been made against the McCanns in the tabloid press and on social media. Such allegations do persist. While it's not our job to give undue weight to individual claims in detail, assessing the likelihood of them being true or false, it most assuredly is our job to describe the reality of the situation using neutral and precise language. So let us be precise. — TPX 09:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The "reality of the situation" is that the allegations have been found to be false in a court of law (the Libel case against Express Newspapers). Also, both investigating police forces are on record as saying the allegations that the McCanns had anything to do with their daughter's disappearance are false. How much more reality do you need? Lard Almighty (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Stirring stuff TPX, but those familiar with WP:BLP articles and WP:BLPN know that what I said is correct. If false allegations are sufficiently notable, an article about the allegations may be created (example). Howwever, the main article does not mention the false allegations. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"from her bed" is assumption and hearsay

There are many theories which project number of possibilities so therefore would be safer and more accurate to state

"Was reported as missing from her bed"

Nalapally (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sfn

I'm going to try out the {{sfn}} template for the book citations. If anyone objects, per WP:CITEVAR, let me know and I'll undo them. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"False" allegations

Reading through the Archives I note that there appears to be an assumption on here that certain allegations are to be deemed officially "false" because the McCanns won certain libel actions as Plaintiffs. In these actions it was up to the Defendant(s) to provide acceptable evidence to back up the allegations. In the absence of such, judgement was made in favour of the Plaintiffs. I suggest that this does not, ipso facto, render the allegations "false" in the general sense of the word, merely unproven in a civil law Court. 115.87.153.185 (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sniffer dogs

Just noting here that, because of the recent reverting, I've removed the Grime report (the dog handler's report) as a source, because it hasn't been reliably published that I know of. It's available on at least one anti-McCann site that we can't link to. I've therefore relied on Summers and Swan 2014, which uses the Grime report, and I've linked to the YouTube videos of the dogs alerting. The footage was released by the Portuguese police. That should be enough detail. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184144/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-09/lifestyle/35459736_1_british-spy-london-office-intelligence to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-06-09/lifestyle/35459736_1_british-spy-london-office-intelligence

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Case additional funding to pursue a 'final line of inquiry'

The hunt for Madeleine McCann CONTINUES as Home Office approves Met Police's request for cash to pursue a 'final line of inquiry' 11 years after youngster vanished, Daily Mail, published: 16:23 EDT, 26 March 2018 Vwanweb (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Why should this article abide by the "biographies of living people" policy?

when it's been 10 years since she disappeared, and the legal limit for being missing without being presumed dead is 7 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4200:D8A1:B4E6:B606:9458:7227 (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Because this article is not about Madeleine. It's about her disappearance and the subsequent events. As such, the WP:BLP issues affect her parents and all those mentioned in the article (who are still alive), including named police officials, named suspects, named witnesses etc etc.

BTW, while a person can be declared dead after seven years, this is not automatic. An application would have to be made by her parents in order for her to be declared dead. Until then she is considered to be alive. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a biography, shouldn't pretend

I'd recently removed vital dates from the top and categories pertaining to people from the bottom, as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann (unlike Madeleine McCann) is clearly not a person. This was reverted, for unclear reasons. I propose we return it to the logical presentation as an event, or at least explain why a story about many people should be treated like a story about one person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InedibleHulk (talk • contribs) 13:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the proposal? Something about removing "born 12 May 2003" and Category:Kidnapped English children? Why? The text and category are just quick pointers with encyclopedic information. The whole thrust of the article concerns the kidnapping of an English child. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's mostly it. Because this article is based on the kidnapping of an English child, but overwhelmingly focuses on the resultant search efforts, police investigations and news coverage, none of which directly involved her. The place for details on the Madeleine McCann aspect is the "Madeleine McCann" section, while the lead should summarize the overall disappearance, not begin as a biography does before suddenly shifting to event mode. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't suddenly shift to anything. It begins with the disappearance: "Madeleine Beth McCann (born 12 May 2003) disappeared on the evening of 3 May 2007 from her bed in a holiday apartment ..." SarahSV ^(talk) 17:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"...sparking what one newspaper called 'the most heavily reported missing-person case in modern history'." Halfway through the next paragraph about the girl going to bed and vanishing, it jumps to "Over the following weeks...". Then "the parents continued...". Finally "the disappearance attracted...". It's a jumble, and at the very least, a break should occur before the part about the following weeks (though revert that, too, if you don't believe me). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As for the supposed lack of need for a break, see paragraph and topic sentence. Your current reclumping is two ideas about two places and times. I think it also counts as overly long, as in "Overly long paragraphs should be split up". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please stick to one issue at a time. Is there a problem with the birth date or not? That has nothing to do with long paragraphs or jumbles. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a problem with the format of the lead sentence, including the birth date. It's the sort of thing one finds in a biography, immediately setting up readers to think they're reading one, right before the whole thing morphs into a winding police story. It's like seeing fake antlers strapped to a dog wearing a knit sweater at Christmas; never enough to convince you it's a genuine reindeer or your real grandmother, but a clear signal that its owner is trying too hard for something here. Maybe artistic expression, maybe seasonal conformity, maybe a cry for help.

Unless in on the joke (or at least tolerating it), the whole presentation carries a "thing that should not be" vibe. The aunt who dresses a dog or the salesman who ties overalls to teddy bears have a method to their madness; perhaps if I understood the intent behind this ghastly chimeric bioevent, I'd be less inclined to hate it. Is it about honouring the dead? Capitalizing on cuteness? Force of habit? The other thing?

Anyway, sorry for talking about two related problems concurrently. I figured Sarah, at least, was OK with that. Thanks for illustrating how that kind of run-on jumbling can irritate some people, some of the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Halligen

If Kevin Halligen's death is not relevant to this article, isn't the fraud allegation also non-relevant? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It's there to provide context. To continue discussing him, and especially to include that his death was unexplained at the time of the report you provided, is to veer away from the subject of this article. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

How does a fraud allegation provide context in a missing person case? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

He stopped working for the McCanns just over a year before his arrest. If you read the W/Post story used as a source, they place his arrest in that context: "By September 2008, the McCann contract was canceled, Halligen’s debts were mounting and his reputation was sinking." Therefore, there is a brief mention of it in that section. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Map

Portugal in red, the North Atlantic to the west, Spain to the east and north, Morocco to the south

Central and southern Portugal, showing Praia da Luz and Portimão, regional headquarters of the Polícia Judiciária, in the south

Why does the map, perfectly relevantly showing Portugal, then continue to list various entities broadly irrelevant to this article and the cardinal directions which they are from the relevant one? It appears bizarre.

If a concern is posed in an edit summary and the edit is simply reverted without any response to the concern, do not brandish BRD. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree. The purpose of the map is to show where Portugal is on the European continent. "Portugal in red" is quite sufficient. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the map is to show where Portugal is in relation to other countries. Not everyone is a geographer. The bordering countries were areas of interest to detectives and the family. The McCanns went on a tour of Morocco appealing for help, and one of the compelling early leads was from Spain. I don't mind if we remove "the North Atlantic to the west", but I can't see any reason to remove the names of the countries that readers might find useful, and leave Portugal as a puzzling red blob. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The disappearance happened in Portugal. Portugal is highlighted to show where the event took place. No need to mention any other country. Lard Almighty (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Portugal doesn't exist in a vacuum. One prevailing theory is that she was kidnapped to order; the implication is that she left the country quickly. That the roads weren't closed quickly to prevent that is (or was) one of the big issues in the case. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the extra text is unnecessary. Readers don't need to know where Portugal is in relation to other countries; it's adequate to show it's on the western edge of Europe - "Portugal (shown red) within Europe". The relative position of Morocco can be explained adequately within the article text, as can Spain (the relative position of which is already illustrated on the larger scale map beneath). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Readers don't need to know where Portugal is in relation to other countries". Yes, they do, because Morocco and Spain were (and may still be) a focus of the investigation. Are you extending the same logic to the second caption, namely that readers don't need to know where Praia da Luz is in relation to Portimão, where the police headquarters are, because they can read it in the text? Remember, in addition to the basic point that this helps all readers, that we're writing captions for people who use screen readers too. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The second caption is referring to places that are labelled on the second map; the first caption is referring to places that are not labelled on the first map. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You're forgetting the readers who use screenreaders. Captions are a form of alt text; additional alt text is needed only when captions aren't sufficiently descriptive. In the case of the maps, the captions point out places of relevance to this article (e.g. she disappeared from one town and the officers travelled from a second to investigate, taking a long time to get there; and, in the first map, the immediate places of interest were the three neighbouring countries, so the caption names them for readers who don't know and for those using screen readers. If you know what those countries and towns are, and you can see, you're speaking from a position of privilege. But the article is for everyone. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The caption should be "Portugal in red, Spain to the east and north, Morocco to the south". A caption does not need this much attention but since we are here, while I can't see a compelling reason to mention the North Atlantic, given that there are no other maps in the article, it is useful to spell out Portugal's neighbors because they are important to the topic, as explained in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It is central to this article to know where Portugal is. Several other places are mentioned in the article but considerably more peripherally and listing some of them in this caption spuriously heightens their apparent importance to this article. On seeing the caption I thought that there must be some central significance to Spain, Morocco and the North Atlantic of which I was previously unaware. On checking, the scant reference to two and lack of reference to the other left me baffled. If we are going to list all the places of comparably moderate relevance in the caption, it would be even more crowded. Scotland and England; specific cities therein? (I am not advocating this.) Morocco is mentioned in the article in one list of several countries, then in a reference to "Europe and Morocco", so only singled out for mention from all the counties implied because it isn't in Europe. That's effectively it. The two mentions of Spain are also peripheral. There is nothing about immediate interest in three neighbouring countries to Portugal. The caption as it is is over-wordy and gives excessive emphasis to aspects of the case which are inessential. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Matt, you wrote: "It is central to this article to know where Portugal is." Yes, it is, and the map doesn't say where it is. Kate McCann has a chapter on Morocco in her book. Portugal's location near two countries, and next to another continent, dramatically enlarged the places kidnappers would be able to take the child quickly. In part or entirely because of the length of time the police took to arrive from Portimão (there's a dispute about how long that took), the roads and borders weren't closed or alerted until many hours after the disappearance. In addition to that, there was an early, convincing, sighting in Morocco, and a second serious witness report from Spain. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Then why not have other relevant countries (including the UK) shown in different colours? The caption could be something like "Countries related to the investigation" and then list the countries with the coulours in brackets. Having a couple of countries mentioned (in an apparently random way to someone who has not got that far in the article yet) looks out of place. The first time Spain and Morocco are mentioned is under Media and PR, quite far down the article, and only in a list of other "sightings". Spain and Morocco are only mentioned three times in the article, hardly enough to be specially mentioned in the map caption. In fact, the only two countries we can say for sure have a connection to the disappearance as Portugal and the UK. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Pointing in the direction of possible reasons as to why Spain and Morocco are central to this subject is all well and good but it's odd then that there there is next to no reflection of this in the article. If there is nothing substantial in the article about Morocco or Spain, giving the expectation in the caption that there is should be avoided. It would also be to avoided to add inessential material about Spain or Morocco to justify the inclusion of their mention in this caption.

"the map doesn't say where "Portugal" is? I'm afraid I'm at a loss to understand this comment. There's a distinct "red blob", as you put it, and a caption commencing "Portugal in red...". Map with red blob and that part of the caption is all we need. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I can understand having a local map related to the dissapearance but I just cant see the need to show readers who cant click on the Portugal link where Portugal is within Europe. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

MilborneOne, a map without a descriptive caption doesn't help readers using screen readers and those not familiar with which countries are nearby. I'm puzzled that I'm having to argue that. I will take the advice above and add more to the article (when I have time) about the relevance of Spain and Morocco to the investigation. For the McCanns' investigators, Morocco in particular was the focus of interest and reportedly remained so as of 2017. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

My point was that you dont need the "European" map at all it really adds nothing to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The advice was not to add more to the article. Portugal is mentioned 20 times (not counting captions). Morocco and Spain three times each. They really don't merit bring singled out in the caption. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox: 'Born' section - Age

To bring this article in line with others, and to assist people willing to grow knowledge on the subject, It is my belief that the infobox should show her age next to her d.o.b, possibly by using the format below. I would have done it myself but do not possess the number of edits necessary to do so.

   {#{birth date and age|2003|05|12|df=y}#} (without hashtags - hashtags included to prevent formatting as below.) 
    (2003-05-12) 12 May 2003

Euanjamie (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The consensus has been that we don't give what her age would be today as we don't know whether she is still alive. We have the time since her disappearance in the infobox instead. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, that seems reasonable.

Euanjamie (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

68.81.85.159 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

shes 4 years old not 3

 Not done: she disappeared 9 days before turning 4 DannyS712 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

22:00 Smith sighting section (height inconsistency)

Regarding this description of the possible abductor, the height as given in feet and inches does not match the equivalent provided in meters.

"The man was mid-30s, 5 ft 7 in–5 ft 9 in (1.75–1.80 m)..." - 5 feet 7 is supposed to be 1.70 m, 5 feet 9 = 1.75 m. Or maybe the figures in meters are the ones that are correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.155.112.252 (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

For anyone wondering whether {{convert}} should be used, unfortunately it does not handle a range using ft/in. The following converts the inch values showing three decimals of precision:

• {{convert|67|-|69|in|m|3|abbr=on}} → 67–69 in (1.702–1.753 m)

It's one of those cases which is hard to express briefly and accurately. I don't recall seeing the source, but if they provided the conversion we can stick with it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I just came across the following source:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id162.htm

The 1.75 - 1.80 m height range appears to be the correct one for the person in question (if we assume that the information from Gerry McCann's blog can be relied upon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.155.112.252 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2019

Change "three British" to "three Britons" (correction of grammar, line 6 under sub-heading: "Searches and interviews in Praia da Luz"). Megadeth86 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Done Lard Almighty (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

What about a new section about the Netflix series?

It has just been released and will potentially reach millions of people. What do you all think? 2804:14C:1B3:2374:E463:9515:106C:DFCE (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, I've added a section about it. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Link - Coloboma not Heterochromia

Just a small error I've noticed - the reference to a 'dark strip' on Madeleine's right eye links to the article for heterochromia. What Madeleine has is a coloboma, not heterochromia. I'd fix this quickly myself, but it's a protected article. Harveyjamesm (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom per style (using "new section" at the top, sometimes "+", is best to add a new topic). I have not examined this issue but the problem is that articles have to be based on reliable sources and they can get technical terms muddled. The text "distinctive dark strip on the iris of her right eye" is referenced. Some prior discussion is at archive 5. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Harvey, it isn't clear what the mark is. The media called it a coloboma. Her father said he didn't think it's that. I think it was me who first linked to heterochromia iridum, but perhaps that's OR and we should link to coloboma. I don't mind either way. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent revert

I have reverted the last series of edits, which made large changes and significant additions. While I note that this article asks for Oxford spelling and that those edits might well be justified (although I don't personally see the need)- the other edits should be discussed before being made. It would be easier if the edits were made individually, rather than in large chunks, as then mass revert wouldn't be needed.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes. Please discuss here what the problem is. You removed a lot of material. As for Oxford spelling, the article has been that way for years. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Much of what you did in that revert was to remove citation templates. But I checked, per CITEVAR, on 21 July 2017 whether anyone objected to my adding {{sfn}}, and when no one did I began the conversion, which I've been slowly completing ever since. See archive 9. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The revert was explained and the talk page discussion was started. SlimVirgin you shouldn't have reverted back without discussion first.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You wrote that you were removing recent "major" edits "which included multiple errors". Can you please explain what the major edits and multiple errors were? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

For clarity can you confirm that both accounts, SlimVirgin and this, are the same editor? I know that's within the rules but it does affect potential consensus. As if you're different editors you have some consensus and if you're not you don't. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've checked the edits again that you objected to. I think you may be misreading the diffs. There are no major additions; the extra bytes are caused by adding citation templates. Otherwise, there is some copy editing, some joining of paragraphs, a few new details but nothing much. If I'm wrong about that, please point out what you mean, including what you described as the multiple errors.

There is only one account interacting with you here. I sign as SarahSV, but that's just the signature. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok. There are a few things copy wise which I'll look at later.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You might not be aware that SarahSV (SlimVirgin) has been doing major edits to this article since May 2013. It is very unlikely that she introduced "multiple errors". At any rate, they would need to be identified before reverting. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN, I'm seeing a repeat here of what happened at English Defence League, which should definitely be avoided. Your copy editing is adding errors and awkwardness (and even slightly changing the meaning), e.g. "public relations people arrived in Praia da Luz who were deeply resented by the local police, who saw the media attention ..." Please respect Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss (BRD), and discuss on talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Thanks for discussing. The above is correct. The first clause is defining 'public relations people who were deeply resented' and refers to the public relations people. The second clause is non- defining, as indicated by the comma, and refers to the police. The entirely regrettable situation on another page shouldn't affect this.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see you've also reverted my other, explained edits. 'Nor' used for lacks and negatives. Neither takes the singular. I have not reverted and would appreciate your letting sound grammatical improvements stand.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nedochan, you're making errors or changing words that don't need to be changed. This is what happened at English Defence League and Talk:English Defence League. You were warned there not to do this kind of thing. See this discussion, for example, on Snowded's page. It's particularly inappropriate to do it here at this time, because the article is getting increased page views because of Netflix. Therefore, please propose your changes on talk and wait for consensus to form. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

On reflection 'were' is fine. Was is formally correct but were reads better. 'Or' really isn't right, though. As for the above clauses, I'm not sure why you think they're wrong. I should also say that I am discussing your reverts. That's what's happening.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read this. It doesn't read properly at all.

To that end, a string of public relations people arrived in Praia da Luz, deeply resented by the local police, who saw the media attention as counterproductive...

This sentence requires a relative pronoun as otherwise it seems as if if it's Praia da Luz that's deeply resented.

For instance 'They arrived in London, smelly and dank, and went to the theatre'

Can you see the ambiguity? NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it is fine. And if it needed to be fixed, the solution would not be to add two "who"s. You're fixating on minor points of grammar, sometimes getting them right but sometimes not (e.g. you've misunderstood what a dependent clause is and how to use semi-colons), and ignoring the flow of the text. Copy editors have to be able to handle all these issues. Thank you for making the edits that were an improvement, but please don't restore the rest. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. And I believe you haven't grasped defining and non-defining relative clause usage. I don't want to argue, however, so will depart. I hope that some consensus forms around this. 'To that end, a string of public relations people arrived in Praia da Luz, deeply resented by the local police, who saw the media attention as counterproductive'. This clearly isn't good English but I have to carry my burden of previous loss of decorum and accept prejudice for a while. Peace.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This pattern of largely irrelevant and pedantic edits including several which change the meaning (without acknowledgement in the edit summaries has got to stop. There is going to be little alternative to an ANI report if you continue -----Snowded ^TALK 23:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2019

Madeleine McCann was missing for almost 13 years now, not 11 years and 10 months. Just thought that should be changed, Thanks, Brooklyn Brookemorris22 (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Brooklyn, she's been missing since 2007. You may be confusing that with her year of birth. But thanks for pointing out what you saw as an error. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I never like saying this

... but this article is almost impossible to read because of its crushing overdetail. EEng 00:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Umm, have you seen Phineas Gage? It's not compulsory to read the article so presenting what is known is ok. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course reading the article isn't compulsory, but that's not the question. The question is this: if someone wants to read the article and gain an understanding of the subject, can they?

Gage is in pyramid form. You learn about his background, his accident, and the rest of his life in 2400 words, after which you can read as many or few other sections as interest you, in any order; once you've read the first section the rest are mutually independent, with one minor exception. This article is 11000+ words with so many twists and turns and byways and side points that its editors apparently felt the need to repeat basic information over and over – for example, we're told four separate times that Amaral was "the officer in charge of the PJ inquiry" / "the inquiry's coordinator" / "head of the PJ investigation" / "coordinated the investigation" – though another explanation for all the repetition is that the editors themselves couldn't keep track of what's where amid the merciless flood of trivial detail such as in whose Learjet the parents flew to the papal meeting arranged by which cardinal, accompanied by whom, on what exact date; at what precise minute the family took the "last known photograph" (cue ominous music – dih-dih-dih-DUH!) of the victim; and that apartment 5A was owned by a retired teacher from Liverpool. Luckily, at least twenty internal Further information: § section and [[#section]] links are scattered throughout in a desperate effort to help the reader not drown in this tarpit of miscellany. See WP:RISOTTO.

The Twitter logo [3] was an especially nice touch. EEng 04:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been ignoring the article for a while and did not see that Twitter logo. Breathtakingly inappropriate, thanks for removing it. The title ("Disappearance of Madeleine McCann") is a good summary of what happened and most people wanting to read the text would already have an idea of the basics. Many would want the details of what is known which is what Wikipedia can be good at. However, I won't press the point until I get some time to examine what's going on. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you'll find the problem is a combination of excessive detail at some points, and numbingly stultifying presentation of perhaps-appropriate detail at others. Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#Witness_statements is perhaps a particularly egregious combination of both. IMHO, in place of an enumeration of every suspicious encounter, hair color and car color, level of personal attractiveness, and who-knows-what else, three or four sentences could summarize that entire section. EEng 14:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I do think some of the detail is useful but the article has grown considerably over the years, which to me is the biggest issue as far as readability is concerned. Perhaps, as with other articles, we could separate out certain topics into spinoff articles, summarise them in the main article with "See main article links". Lard Almighty (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

NOTPAPER and all that, but still there's a limit to how minor something can be and still qualify for inclusion, even in spinoff articles; we need to leave something to the full-length books, fan sites, and so on. Look at Reactions_to_the_disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann, which lists every appeal in every sport on every date at which stadium or other venue, reciting which media and exactly how many tips were received and the precise date of the photo of the victim used in that particular appeal, and precisely how many posters and the phone number of the hotline and which languages were employed in which countries for how long and which politicians called on what dates and just how comforting were their words of support, though the details of the conversations would remain private, he did confirm that "During them, Mr Brown offered both Gerry and Kate his full support in their efforts to find Madeleine." In late September Foreign Secretary David Miliband telephoned Gerry. Then Former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott also commented on the case, saying at Prime Minister's Question Time "I'm sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with them at this terrible time." – I mean Jesus, of course various politicians say stuff like this. If they didn't, then THAT should be commented on in the article. The German Justice Minister, Brigitte Zypries, said at a meeting of G8 justice ministers in Munich on 3 June, that it should be assumed that Madeleine had been abducted by a gang that passes on children to be abused – OK great, so some German official who apparently has no particular special knowledge of the case mouthed off – what of it?

That lots of politicians and public people took an interest and commented – that's worth noting, in summary (probably working from some secondary source commenting on the phenomenon, in summary). But the relentless enumeration of absolutely every twinge of the ether somehow related to the case – it's unfathomable, ill-conceived, completely indigestible. And these are just a fraction of that article. EEng 00:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Arguido

The article has been tagged for [further explanation needed] in the lead. But isn't the link to arguido sufficient here? 216.8.184.198 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Name of "social media and tabloids" section

Shouldn't the name of this section be changed to something more general (e.g media coverage and public response) as the netflix documentary doesn't seem to fall under the category of social media and tabloids? Llewee (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've separated the Netflix section to stand alone. The previous section is specifically about the social media and tabloid coverage. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Left picture

The left picture with her staring into the camera is quite unsettling to some people. I propose to remove it. --94.134.89.217 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Being "quite unsettling to some people" is irrelevant. It's an image of her as she was, and essential to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Grammar

Would any editor be able to give a grammatical explanation for why this edit was made? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann&diff=928670848&oldid=928650062 NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the time point of reference. That point had been set as 2 October in the previous paragraph and as such acts as the present time in the mind of the reader. All other events are taken from that point. Amaral had been promoted before 2 October and that promotion was still in place and still relevant to the time point of reference, 2 October. Therefore past perfect, not past simple. If the point of reference in the mind of the reader was the current time, the time of reading, then past simple would have been used. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So the whole of the paragraph should be in past perfect? Is it?NEDOCHAN (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite correctly, the only use of the past perfect in the next paragraph is the last, as it describes something that happened before the conviction. According to your 2nd October argument, why is this written in the past simple?

The following month he was (had been?) charged with making a false statement, and four other officers were (had been) charged with assault. Eight-year-old Joana Cipriano had (wrong) vanished in 2004 from Figueira, seven miles (11 km) from Praia da Luz. Her body was (had never been- actually this would  be right) never found, and no murder weapon was (again had been) identified. Her mother and the mother's brother were (had been?) convicted of her murder after confessing, but the mother (had?)retracted her confession, saying she had (correct)been beaten by police.'

Time is in the sentence. If you say when something happened and it happened then it's past simple. Yesterday, Donald Trump was the president. Last year, Trump was the president. 6 years ago, Obama was. You're reading this now. Yesterday Trump had been president. Come on. 'One day after' and 'on those occasions' are the times given. My birthday was one day after my best friend's. I loved my birthdays when I was a child. On those occasions I saw my family. Put those sentences into past perfect. NEDOCHAN (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN is correct. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The only reason I was reverted is that there are serious WP:OWN issues in this article and those issues, coupled with the fact that I have corrected an admin's grammar previously, which they did not like, mean that even the most basic of grammar-based edits are not allowed. Oddly, the text was only put into past perfect recently, meaning the longstanding version is the one I restored. It seems that BRD only applies to lowly editors. I cannot edit at risk of punishment. It's bullying, frankly, when one gets shouted down because an admin doesn't like one. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it depends on the reader's background because I assure you that regardless of whatever rules might have been memorized, the original reads better to people brought up speaking English here. We'll see if anyone else wants to give an opinion. By the way, the nonsense you have posted about an admin and punishment and so on does not reflect well on your judgment. That's off-topic for this page but if you want to get some gentle opinions on the matter, ask at WP:Teahouse. Point to some edit summaries or talk-page comments and ask whether they justify the above mentions of "bullying" and "doesn't like" etc. Differences of opinion happen hundreds of time a day here and most people can handle it without imagining that people on the other side are bullying them or OWNing the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think there can be an appearance of WP:OWN on this article because there are two or three editors (myself included) who keep a close eye on it for WP:BLP issues and are quick to revert when they arise. This is a very sensitive article and we must be sure that it remains as WP:NPOV as possible and that only WP:RS are used. But I do not think this equates to WP:OWN

As for the grammar issue, grammar is either correct or it isn't. Here the past perfect is incorrect. I can understand why people want to use "had been made" to indicated that he is no longer an arguido in that case, but in the context of the sentence that's wrong. If Amaral had been made an arguido in the past, it would make sense: "Amaral had himself been made an arguido in another case several months before" would be correct. But he was made an arguido after Madeleine's disappearance, so simple past is what makes sense. If you are referring to the previous paragraph, either another way needs to be found to reflect the timeline or the whole of this paragraph needs to be put into past perfect, ie "Amaral had himself been made an arguido one day after Madeleine's disappearance, in relation to his investigation of another case, the disappearance of Joana Cipriano. The following month he had been charged with making a false statement, and four other officers were charged with assault." Lard Almighty (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And Johnuniq, your assurances are not much good to me. I am a CELTA-qualified native English speaker and I teach this kind of thing on a daily basis. I have explained it at length and there has only been a single grammatical argument made against the point I have made. That argument was not correct. The only other points were your assurance and an appeal to an invisible and anonymous 'professional editor' whom I am to accept without question disagrees. Within this context my concerns are reasonable and this is not even a remotely controversial grammatical issue. https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/past-perfect NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

He is partly correct. Being overlooked is the context which is set by the style of the surrounding text. It could be perfectly correct to say "Yesterday Trump had been president" if the context supplied silent text, ie it was clearly meant that "Yesterday Trump had been President (until 1.15 pm when he resigned). This is the danger of being too pedantic about grammar and following the EFL intermediate level text book too closely. English is in a constant state of flux and this encyclopdia is written in the language an educated speaker would understand, which is not always the same as using strict grammatical rules. The original past perfect, in context, read better that past simple, and that is what counts. What would Churchill say, I wonder, [4]? There is so much more to contribute to this project that that to sit bak prudishly acting like Cecil Vyse. In this article, the section in question would benefit from some adjustment because it does not read as well as it could, partly due to constant editorial changes: word order and tenses in the context of the whole section could be looked at again. There is a lot more than can be done to this article than spending so much time juggling a few words around. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin's version is correct in both locations. M.A.K. Halliday called this "past in past" tense. So it's May 2007 before 2 October 2007, both past, but May is past in relation to 2 October, right? And it's 2004–2006 before March 2014 (the issuing of another appeal). 2004–2006 is past in relation to March 2014. One past before the other past, in both cases. They're clear-cut cases. Tony (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the real problem is that the second paragraph about a totally different case seems out of place between two paragraphs relating to Amaral's removal and the take over of the investigation by another detective. This is why the tense issues are difficult. Maybe we could move that paragraph elsewhere? Lard Almighty (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Tony you are not correct. It's easy. Use past perfect for things that took place before the time of the main verb in the sentence. The sentence. Again.

'One day after' and 'on those occasions' are the times given. My birthday was one day after my best friend's. I loved my birthdays when I was a child. On those occasions I saw my family. Put those sentences into past perfect.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If any of the above arguments were correct every novel and all history would be written in the past perfect. I can't believe I am having to explain that grammar is based on sentences. 'I went to the shop yesterday but it was closed as someone had attacked the shopkeeper.' The time is yesterday. Main verb went. Attack took place before. Past perfect. Jeepers creepers.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Read this sentence.

'Amaral had himself been made an arguido one day after Madeleine's disappearance.' When was Amaral made an arguido? Before 'one day after Madeleine's disappearance? Or 'one day after Madeleine's disappearance'? We know the answer. The sentence is grammatically wrong and it is flat-out preposterous to suggest otherwise.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

==Consensus votes required please==

Please read the sentence in dispute above, in the context of the whole article sub-section. Should we use Amaral had himself been made an arguido one day after Madeleine's disappearance (past perfect) or Amaral was made an arguido one day after Madeleine's disappearance (past simple)? I suggest editors only cast their vote here, to avoid clutter, and leave discussion to the section above. I think we should give it a few days before closing. Oh, how these little things are meant to try us.

• Past perfect Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Past simple because he was made an arguido one day after Madeleine's disappearance. Not before. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Neither because what is covered in the paragraph is not about Amaral's removal from the case nor Rebelo assuming the case. It does not belong here. It should either be removed or moved. If moved, the appropriate tense can be discussed in the context. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

'Amaral had himself been made an arguido one day after Madeleine's disappearance.' When was Amaral made an arguido? Before 'one day after Madeleine's disappearance? Or 'one day after Madeleine's disappearance'? We know the answer. The sentence is grammatically wrong and it is flat-out preposterous to suggest otherwise.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Nedochan, please consider removing your comments from here and putting them in the section above where they better fit. This part is for votes, not for discussion, nor for having the last word. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It's very simple Roger. That's the point. I have yet to hear even a semblance of an argument against the point that even resembles grammatical language. I'm sure it's easier simply to vote as it means you can just state something without backing it up. Before or after one day after. Before = past perfect. One day after = past simple. It would be much easier if logic could prevail and people were able reluctantly to accept that this isn't even an interesting or controversial point.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Past perfect. The sentence in question has to be read in context: "On 2 October 2007 Chief Inspector Gonçalo Amaral, the inquiry's coordinator, was removed from his post ... after telling the newspaper ... that the British police had only pursued leads helpful to the McCanns [who at that time were arguidos or suspects] ... Amaral had himself been made an arguido [in 2003] one day after Madeleine's disappearance, in relation to his investigation of another case ..."
  As Tony said, this is one past before the other past. In 2003, before the more recent past under discussion (2007), something had happened to Amaral. Another example: "Susan and John got married in 2018. John had been married before."
  The Chicago Manual of Style, 5.133: The past perfect "refers to an act, state or condition that was completed before another specified or implicit past time or past action". One of their examples: "the engineer had driven the train to the roundhouse before we arrived".
  It seems that NEDOCHAN is confused by the word "after" in "one day after Madeleine's disappearance". That word is making him think the sentence isn't about a time before a time. But that's to misunderstand the syntax. The sentence tells us that Amaral was sacked in 2007 and that something else had happened to him before that, in 2003. Instead of saying "in 2003", we say "one day after Madeleine's disappearance". But that's a red herring in terms of the grammar. What matters is that it was in 2003. The tense is determined by the relationship between events in 2007 and 2003, not by the relationship between events in 2003. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  Sarah this is laughable. Your own quote ' "refers to an act, state or condition that was completed before another specified or implicit past time or past action". The specified past time is 'one day after Madeleine's disappearance'. The action was not completed before the specified time but at the specified time. Hence what I'm saying. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  Focus on the sentence. Was he made an arguido before the day after Madeleine's disappearance or on the day after Madeleine's disappearance? That is the only thing to think about. If it was on the day it's past simple. As your own source unambiguously says.NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'd love to hear the professional editor's view. Your Chicago MoS quote is very helpful as it really clearly shows I'm right. The time IS specified and the action took place then. Not before. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  https://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar-lesson-sentence.phpNEDOCHAN (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  Please read the final paragraph of my 23:38, 1 December 2019 post. Your advice to "focus on the sentence" is where things are going wrong. See above: "Susan and John got married in 2018. John had been married before." And "Amaral was removed from the case in 2007. He had himself been a suspect in another case in 2003." SarahSV ^(talk) 01:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no specified time in the second sentence. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

In the sentence where the time is specified, past simple is used. It says 'got married in 2018'. Not 'had got' NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The sentence he had himself been a suspect in another case in 2003" is wrong. He was a suspect. Specified time. So the third party example you use supports my point and your own example makes the same error NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Grammar is based on sentences.NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

'The sentence in question has to be read in context'. No. It doesn't. Sentences are grammatical units.NEDOCHAN (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The irony for Sarah is wonderful here. 'Your advice to "focus on the sentence" is where things are going wrong. See above: "Susan and John got married in 2018.'NEDOCHAN (talk)\

(I have moved my post made earlier today here from the section above, with NEDOCHAN's reply, because they fit better here.)

When editing, the standard we should aim for is plain English. What sounds best as you, a native speaker? The sentence in question is the first one following, with the second sentences also inserted. The verb, make (or for some, to make) is in the past perfect tense, passive voice. The verbs in the following sentence switch to past simple passive. Amaral had himself been made an arguido one day after Madeleine's disappearance, in relation to his investigation of another case, the disappearance of Joana Cipriano. The following month he was charged with making a false statement, and four other officers were charged with assault. The tense in sentence 1 can be either ppp or psp and is determined by the time used as a marker in the mind of the reader. Here, the marker time is 'In the following month', which is in sentence 2. This means that Amaral was made arguido at a time before the marker time, which makes the use of the ppp in sentence 1 correct. The awkwardness in the paragraph which can confuse some people, but I speculate only some, is that the set marker time, that affects the verb in sentence 1, occurs in sentence 2. This is not wrong but a slight re-wording would help iron out any creases. It is more a matter of style than grammar. The separate point raised by Lard Almighty could then also be dealt with at the same time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Grammar is about sentences. And I have very clearly explained why the sentence is not correct. The action took place at the time specified in the sentence. Not before. As much as it might pain you to accept that I might be telling the truth when I say that I teach this stuff and know it, it could well be simpler to review and agree. Was he made an arguido the day after Madeleine's disappearance or before the day after Madeleine's disappearance? NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Wading through all this it is becoming increasingly clear the problem is NEDOCHAN's belief that a sentence stands alone, unaffected by what surrounds it, by context. Says NEDOCHAN: 'The sentence in question has to be read in context'. No. It doesn't. Sentences are grammatical units. That narrow but fundamentally wrong approach is fine in most EFL classes but not when dealing with post school certificate first language English speakers. Most of us do not speak English as a foreign language so we don't need to be taught it by an EFL tutor. You have now had two explanations identifying the same thing - being made an arguido was an event in the past before another event in the past. It does not matter too greatly that they are not both within the same sentence because the relationship between the two events is clearly implied by reading in context. If you do not get it then you just do not get it. Finally, a suggestion. Please remember none of us know everything. There will be people reading this who teach the teachers who teach EFL teachers in what for many is a cheap and cheerful four week course. There will also be people reading this who knowledge of grammar far exceeds EFL level. The louder you shout the less people will listen. Why not help rearrange that whole section to make it flow better or better still add some fresh reliably sourced detail? (See elephant below) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Roger. I get it. Believe me. I cannot explain it any more clearly. The only argument you have given above is that sentences don't matter. They do. That's what grammar is. Sentences. By definition. Here is the dictionary definition.https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/grammar It doesn't need to be written again. It was fine before someone put it in the wrong tense. I corrected it and was reverted because a senior editor thinks that they're infallible and is cross with me.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Finally, as I can't be bothered to repeat my very clear and actually very simple point again, to describe something as a' narrow but fundamentally wrong approach' without a shred of evidence is ridiculous. But as you have I feel I can too, although I shall back it up with the definition linked above. You are fundamentally wrong. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The elephant in the room

As fascinating as the above discussion is, it ignores the central point that the paragraph in question does not belong where it is. It is neither about Amaral being removed from the case (his involvement in the previous case was not a reason why he was removed from Madeleine's case) nor is it about "later developments", subsequent to his removal.

Before we get any more bogged down on tense, we should be discussing whether to move or simply remove the paragraph,

Would it not be better to mention the other case when Amaral is first introduced, under Early response?

Gonçalo Amaral, head of the PJ in Portimão who had investigated a similar case, the disappearance of Joana Cipriano, became the inquiry's coordinator.

People can then look at the other case and see the controversy. Or we could add something like "One day after Madeleine's disappearance Amaral was made an arguido in relation to that case and charged with making a false statement."

I think that would make more sense than trying to shoehorn it in where it doesn't belong, and it also takes out detail about another case from an article that is already long enough. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. We can then move on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The proposed sentences are grammatically correct.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose moving that, but I don't mind shortening it. Events are described in part as they happened and in part as they were reported, depending on which perspective makes more sense. With Amaral, he was barely visible in the narrative until near the end of the first inquiry, when he was removed. When this happens, we describe what we know about him, because from then on, he became a prominent influence on perceptions of the case. I can certainly tighten that part, but I'd be reluctant to move it and lose the focus. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"Events are described in part as they happened and in part as they were reported, depending on which perspective makes more sense." Therein lies the problem. The fact that he was made an arguido was reported at the time. Much better to report it as it happened, especially as where it is mentioned is a non-sequitur (and part of the reason why there is a question about which tense to use, because what is dealt with doesn't follow on directly from what is discussed in the previous paragraph and is out of the timeline) and not something that the heading indicates is covered in that section. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you supply sources showing how it was reported at the time?

When you scatter droplets of information about someone across a long article, they get lost. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but with Amaral he doesn't figure much in the inquiry (publicly) until close to its end, at which point he becomes vocal and is removed from the case. From that point on, he exerts more obvious influence over the narrative, particularly when his book is published and the McCanns follow the path of a large expenditure of time and money trying to fight it. That's why the article offers more information about him toward the end of the first inquiry. After that, there's a brief section about the inquiry closing, the article notes the deteriorating relationship between the McCanns and the police, then we return to Amaral: "The bad feeling between the McCanns and the PJ reached such a height that Chief Inspector Gonçalo Amaral resigned in June 2008 to write a book alleging ..." Having said that, I'm quite willing to reduce the information about the other case. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"When you scatter droplets of information about someone across a long article, they get lost. " That is exactly what we are doing in this case. We are introducing a non-sequitur in a section where it doesn't belong. Much better to have it in chronological order.

If we want to have it here, we should go with his conviction rather than his being made an arguido, as per this ref We could say something like "Amaral was subsequently given an 18-month suspended jail sentence having been found guilty of falsifying evidence in a similar case, the disappearance of Joana Cipriano. He had been under investigation since the day after he took over Madeleine's case." Then leave out all the detail on that case; people can click the link. I think it's enough to say it was similar.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Please correct this line with the spelling of 'they' instead of 'hey'. "In 2020 the German police announced that hey were investigating a 43 year-old suspect known as "Christian B" as a murder enquiry.[22]" Vernonsqr (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Was fixed by another user but they forgot to mark this as answered. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

German suspect

Is it worth adding any details on this suspect the BBC have reported on here- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52914016 Llewee (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, definitely - there was an interview with Clarence Mitchell this morning (BBC Today programme) where he said that he though it was one of the biggest new leads yet. Selroh18 (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Add this please: suspect received call from +351 916 510 683 to his +351 912 730 680 . Germans are asking everywhere for help/info about these two phone numbers.

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/fall-maddie-103.html

Am Tag nach Maddies Verschwinden sei der Jaguar auf einen neuen Halter umgemeldet worden. An dem Abend, als Maddie verschwand, soll der Verdächtige einen Anruf erhalten haben unter der Nummer +351 912 730 680 mit portugiesischer Ländervorwahl. Der Anruf wurde in der Region um Praia de Luz entgegengenommen. "Ermittler glauben, dass die Person, die diesen Anruf getätigt hat, ein höchst wichtiger Zeuge ist, und rufen sie dazu auf, in Kontakt zu treten", hieß es in der Scotland-Yard-Mitteilung. Die Nummer des Anrufers laute +351 916 510 683.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:10EC:578F:8000:0:0:7A0 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

German privacy laws RE disclosure of suspect's details

British (at least) newspapers are today disclosing the name, and displaying photographs, of the German suspect in the latest (June 2020) development, but eg. the BBC News website is blocking them due to privacy laws in Germany, given that websites are accessible outside the country including in Germany. We should presumably likewise avoid mentioning his name, for now? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

PS, I note that the online editions of British newspapers seem to have no such qualms. Also, the suspect's name is already mentioned in this article, and also in at least one of the citations. Is there a WP policy to inform such a situation? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

German laws apply only in Germany. Publications that are published outside Germany, including websites, do not have to abide by these restrictions, unless there is a worldwide injunction in place. If we have reliable sources printing the name, then barring an enforceable injunction we can go with that. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that German laws only apply in Germany. But the Beeb presumably has a reason for their cautiousness, and I thought perhaps WP shares this or at least has a relevant policy to guide us. Seems I was unduly concerned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Their reason is that they have offices and correspondents in Germany and they don't want to risk having them closed down over something which is pretty trivial. Easier for them just to go with the flow. Other outlets have made different calls. It was the same with the Fritzl case. He was originally identified as Josef F (in part to protect the children), including here, but as soon as his full name was widely reported in RS it was used on Wikipedia. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good point, didn't think of that. BBC does have a presence on the ground in Germany, whereas British press probably not (and also not much cross-ownership between British and German MSM). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency in that he is named in full in the main article text, but only in the shortened form in the lead. Is there any good reason to maintain that approach, or is it simply (as I suspect) the outcome of different editors working on different sections? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Typo

Please fix the typo "identofoed". Wesko (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a long article - if the typo is still there can you give the section (preferably subsection) heading where it occurs? JezGrove (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I corrected it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

New section for German suspect?

Would it be a good idea to separate the latest (June 2020) developments related to the German suspect into a new section, at this point? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Was just about to suggest that! It seems that it is at least as relevant/significant as all of the other sections. It definitely deserves more than being lumped into 'further inquiries', judging by the weight media and those involved in the case have given it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selroh18 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that earlier. I'll make a change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking he will need his own separate article. To be disambiguated from this (other) Christian Brückner. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

(Declared Dead June 15, 2020) GiacomoValenti (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Source? Lard Almighty (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (And no, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Jaguar XJR6

The Link at German investigations in 2020 to Jaguar XJR-6 seems to be wrong. I doubt that the suspect was driving a super sports car. I guess this car is ment: Jaguar XJ (X300)#XJR (X306). --Mielas (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a photo and a caption in the cited source. If the BBC got it wrong, contact them, not us. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wording in the section about German investigation

Hello

The wording in the section "German investigations in 2020" somewhat gives the impression that the investigators only suspects the perpetrator in question but are not sure yet of whether he is involved or not. However, according to the words of one of the German investigators mentioned in the section, Hans Christian Wolters, in an interview with 60 Minutes Australia, they are certain that he is responsible and that he killed her, saying; "We don't have the body and no parts of the body but we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann".

Should maybe their certainty be made slightly more apparent in the section?

Okama-San (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2020

You need to change the date of how long she's been missing to the actual amount of years days and hours because people need to know! Kidnapperfinder2.0 (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It's in the info box. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

Change "The child in the man's arms was wearing light-coloured pink pyjamas with a floral pattern and cuffs on the legs, similar to Madeleine's" to "The child in the man's arms was wearing light-coloured pink pajamas with a floral pattern and cuffs on the legs, similar to Madeleine's" under the "21:15: Tanner sighting" section. "Pajamas" is misspelled. 72.131.25.162 (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It's a valid spelling, especially in British English. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Baseless allegations

'The McCanns were subjected to intense scrutiny and baseless allegations of involvement in their daughter's death.' The word baseless should be removed from this sentence, there remains significant dispute over this point and the Portuguese authorities have never cleared the McCann's of involvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.153.89.211 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless Wikipedia know who did it the "baseless" really needs to be removed, as someone else pointed out. Why is it not fixed? Clearly it is an opinion and not fact. Dustie (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to know who did something to know that someone else did not. The McCanns have been investigated and ruled out as suspects. That is what the article says. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The McCann's have never been ruled out as suspects by the Portuguese authorities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.153.89.211 (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Christian B

Hi everybody. I'm wondering why the bit about the newest suspect in Germany totally excludes his name. I know there are BLP issues here, but being as his name has been widely reported for a while now (as well as recently by CBS News <twice> and Fox News, surely we can at least name that he is the subject who was implicated and investigated, right? My account confirmation level is too low to make the addition myself, and I'd seek input regardless, in case there's a reason I'm missing. Any input? Thanks, cheers, etc. FireWalkWithMe27♣(talk) 18:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Already discussed. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I didn't find it, though I did do a search. Thank you for the link. Should I delete this thread since I used his name in the section title, to maintain adherence to the referenced privacy guidelines? Feel free to do so if you think it's appropriate. Thanks again! FireWalkWithMe27♣(talk) 20:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

I want to change the time since disappearance, to the correct time. 18 years, 8 months and 8 days ago Bae Eunji 5th power (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Disappeared in 2007. Not 18 years ago Cannolis (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Christian Brueckner

This article should now mention that Christian Brueckner, a German man, has now been noted as a suspect in Madeleine McCann's disappearance, as noted on the BBC Radio Four news tonight (Friday 22 April 2022). He was in Portugal at the same time the McCann family were on holiday there. YTKJ (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SUSPECT. Unless there's a lot more coverage, we probably shouldn't include the name of every single suspect. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the lead source should be altered so it does not come from Daily Mirror - an unreliable tabloid newspaper. It should be more reliable. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

Change “child” in the first sentence to “person” or “adult” as, at 19 years of age, she is no longer a child. 2A04:4A43:4A1F:D5CC:34AE:C706:FE84:C2F (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Re-read the sentence. She was a child at the time, therefor child is still correct. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

Add "Death of Azaria Chamberlain" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Azaria_Chamberlain, to the "See also" section. Eightofstorms (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Not related. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It is, in my opinion, more related than the other cases that are in this section already. The media's coverage of the Chamberlain case was very similar to the disappearance of McCann, it's compared in the "Trial by media" section of this article (Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, "trial by media" 3rd paragraph). Eightofstorms (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a disappearance (presumably a kidnapping, presumably not by a wild animal). The other is about a death where we know the outcome. Moreover, Madeleine's mother has never been charged, let alone convicted, in connection with the disappearance. So they are unrelated. Lard Almighty it (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting Instagram page

There's been an Instagram page with the username 'iammadeleinemccan' that's gained traction lately (300k followers in four days), owned by a woman in Poland with very similar features to Madeleine (such as the eye mark) and therefore believes she is her. She's claimed to have ordered a DNA test to verify her ancestry, but should this be added to the main article or should it wait for a couple weeks or more? MaxLikesStuff (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of press coverage, so I've added a sentence, but not the unsubstantiated claims made by the woman concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2023

Withdraw recent entry about Julia, Scotland Yard has released statements to the press that they have reasons to believe she’s not Madeleine. If she is to be mentioned the other girls who have also claimed to be Madeleine should also be so as not to have it look like an isolated incident 2600:1700:35F6:2220:6952:43B2:E5C2:B3E4 (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)