Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 4

message: From the lead para of the main article: "[T]he police subsequently stated that there was a strong hypothesis that she might be dead. They also confirmed that the parents were not suspects." Therefore, the statement by the McCann's spokesman today is factual and removing it is yet another example of POV pushing. It is even more important to restate it in case people get the wrong impression about the interviews. Until the PJ say formally that the McCanns are suspects, remains a fact. If editors can't put aside their declared POV when they are editing the article, they should refrain from making changes. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing again

message: Quoting the article: "After DNA analysis, however, the UK Forensic Science Service in Birmingham concluded that the traces of blood did not come from Madeleine."
I was just consulting this article and found it odd that the old Times article that stated the blood-spots were not Madeleine's was quoted as fact, even though the PJ have for the last several weeks consistently stated on-record (in print and on tape, on several outlets: here's a VERY lesser example ) that the article was incorrect and no results have been sent from the UK, while the Birmingham Forensic Lab has also repeatedly confirmed that it has no results to send (as per phone-interviews given on tape, screened on Portuguese tv-stations).
Paulo Reis and Duarte Levy, writing about the long delay  on the 30th Aug, are also the authors of the original Times article . In fact, reports dismissing the Times' assertions were quickly published a couple of weeks ago, right after the Times article was written .
(Of course, there's the usual bias. If the blood tests were being conducted in Portugal, the British media would be shouting and screaming about the unbelievably inept two-week-plus delay over the deadline initially given, and there would be dozens of articles to quote from; since it's a UK lab, not a peep is heard, and a two-week-old incorrect article - which mixed up reports about the DNA on the Belgian straw, with reports about the Praia da Luz blood - still stands as fact.) Mip | Talk 22:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points; I'll rewrite the relevant passage. TerriersFan 23:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. TerriersFan 23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now updated it with the most recent reliable source I can find; The Daily Telegraph on 31 August here. TerriersFan 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA?

message: The past tense is correct here. We are referring to a specific body that had been in that specific place, not generalising. To use "has been" in this context is to suggest that the body remains there. Thnk about the sentence, "He has been in his house for two hours." Clearly sniffer dogs aren't required to find a body that is still there. A body that had been in the flat for more than two hours would be detected by the dogs. A body that had been there for only 90 minutes clearly wouldn't have been. Harry was a white dog with black spots 12:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it works much better the way you changed it now anyway :-) The problem with the first sentence in past tense is that the first part was in present tense, and the two didn't mix well. But the first part of the sentence could have been changed to "would have picked up" or something, and it would have worked. But, I suppose, rather pointless to argue this point now that you've already changed it to something even better :-) Thanks for your tireless efforts in improving this article, by the way. And the same goes to everyone else who has contributed. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) - Review me! 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ACTUALLY, I just re-read the current version, and it suffers from the same problem. I'm not getting into an edit war, however, so what does everyone think? Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) - Review me! 12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lilac Soul. I think the current version is correct for the reasons that you said the previous one was! :-) The dogs could and still can detect the scent. It is countinuous. So the present tense is correct in terms of the capabilities of the dogs, and the past tense is correct in reference to a specific activity that they carried out, in this case detecting the scent of a body inthe McCann's apartment, and the fact that a body had been there, but is there no longer. It's a bit convoluted (perhaps becuase of the Latin) but I still think it's correct. Other views? Harry was a white dog with black spots 12:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I think the options are which could only pick up the scent of a body which had been in situ for more than two hours (my latest edit) or which can only pick up the scent of a body which has been in situ for more than two hours since we need consistent tense within the same phrase. TerriersFan 23:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you need consistent tense within a phrase? Think of the of the sentence "John has a dog that had been brought to the shelter by its previous owners". In any event, the latest edit is OK. The main thing about this development is that the dogs picked up a scent of a body, and that the scent had been in the apartment for at least two hours, although we don't know if and when an actual body had been there. There is of course, the possibility that the scent was brought in by someone who had had contact with a body - hunting dogs are able to follow a scent that is dragged along the ground for them, so these dogs might have detected something similar. So it's not actually proof that a body was there. Harry was a white dog with black spots 07:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, excellent example! TerriersFan 16:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Body in situ

message: This article is going to need a bit of a rewrite, as the mother is going to be formally named as a suspect this morning. --Fredrick day 07:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.  Is it citable?  As of now she's just a witness.  The Rambling Man 08:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is being reported by The Sun and now the BBC that she will be made an "arguido", but we can't add it to the article based on speculation. If and when it happens it will be added. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6982969.stm
Snowbunni 08:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as I said, it is being reported on the BBC, but until it happens it remains speculation and can't be added. This is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news service. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I repeat yeat again, Wikipedia is not a breaking news service. An encyclopedia by definition only contains events that have already happened. Speculation, however well-founded, on events that may take place in the future have no place in an encyclopedia, if for no other reason than that the speculation will soon be overtaken by events. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I subsequently reverted to the older version. I agree it's a problem that people want to rush to add the latest bit of news, especially if it is seen as a departure from what has been the status quo. However, I think it is best to think of Wikipedia as an "after the fact" resource. Quoting someone, no matter how well-informed, about what will happen is still speculation. This is particularly difficult when dealing with an ongoing, major news story, but it is precisely because of this that we need to be as disciplined as possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "The parents of a British girl whose disappearance sparked a global search will be formally named as suspects, family friends said Friday, after the child's mother was questioned for 11 hours by Portuguese police." This is per the Associated Press, as printed in today's New York Times  and as reported yesterday and today on CNN. That the report of a statement by  "family friends" was reported by the AP, CNN and other news services is a fact, not speculation, and as such the statement may be included in the article. The article should not report as a fact that the parents have been named as suspects, or that they will be named as suspects,per WP:BLP,  just that "family friends" have told reporters they will be named as suspects. That event (the statement by "family friends") has already happened, and is attributable to multiple reliable and independent sources. There is no guideline which prevents including this material, carefully stated and clearly delineated and sourced. The exclusion of this material is POV. Despite the repeated claim that Wikipedia is not a breaking news service, there is no mandatory waiting period between when something is reported by multiple reliable sources and when it may be added to an article. When and if the statement by "family friends" is overtaken by events, such as a statement from the police, then the article will be revised. Wikipedia is not paper, and revising an article will not kill a tree. Edison 13:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it's verifiable now. It just wasn't this morning before the police made the official announcement. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One hazard of including a breaking news story sourced to non-print mediaa is that the story someone cited at 9 am may be revised at 10 am, 11, am, and noon, but the same link, such as   that led to the 9 am version might now lead to the noon version, with greatly modified text. Is it possible to cite not only the day but the time of access? Please do not get upset with other editors if you look at a link and it says something slightly different from what it said when they talked abut it in the article. As an example, I am not at all sure that the "family spokesman" was earlier identified by name. On another issue: all the stories have been repeating the nonsequitor that the parent or parents are suspect because traces of the girl's blood were found in a car they rented 25 days later, leading to the absurd image of the parents carrying around a bleeding corpse for weeks while subjected to constant scrutiny, or hiding a body then moving it weeks later.  Someone please find a story which somehow makes sense of this reported claim. One gets the sense right now of the press reporting nonsensical scraps of info because that's all the police or family spokesman have given them. Perhaps the police will hold a press conference and explain this. Per WP:BLP there must not be any conclusions of guilt beyond reporting something as a claim  or classification by the police, and if the family presents exculpatory information that must also be included. Innocent parents have been falsely blamed by police many times when children disappear or are killed, such as the Azaria Chamberlain disappearance. Edison 17:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it worth mentioning that the parents were already sueing a newspaper for stating that the police believed they killed their daughter, as stated in the CNN story of August 31, viewable at  ? Edison 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fully covered in the Response article - I am adding it to the summary in the main article - thx for the suggestion. TerriersFan 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "blood in the boot" claim on the grounds that it was not in the article cited, then an anon put it back without edit summary, then you removed it and protected the article. I Googled for the mother's name and "boot" and "blood" and found that apparently some blogs (never a reliable source) state this but that more credibly some British papers Timesonline Telegraph,7:40pm BST 07/09/2007 (state that blood was found in the boot and on a keyfob, but they in turn cite it to unspecified Portuguese papers. This seems to fail WP:BLP for so damaging a claim. So: Are there any editors out there who can check the Portuguese press and see if the statement is there and if it comes from a paper regarded as reliable? (I expect they have haoxy speculative tabloids like the rest of the world.) Other articles have said that the Portuguese police are forbidden to run to the press and try the suspect in its pages as is common in some countries, so any such facts would probably have to be carefully sourced, like the new reported arguida status of Mrs. McCann. As mentioned above, a cited source may change numerous times in a day for a story such as this. Edison 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother to be named as Suspect 

message: This article (referenced in our article) features a map on the bottom of it. It's likely to be copyrighted, but perhaps we can find or draw up something similar, as it really clarifies the situation.SQB 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Please stick to referring to the parents just by their first names. This is the protocol we have adopted throughout two articles and we need to be consistent. TerriersFan 16:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names,"other than for royalty and nobility (such as "Dame Judy"), "For other subjects, it is better to refer to the person by their surname and not their first name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant." So "Mrs. McCann" or "Kate McCann" is preferred to just calling her "Kate."  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article with a neutral point of view, not a support site per se. Edison 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually if you read that section of the MoS just using first names should be allowed. "To disambiguate between siblings or other well-known relatives with the same surname, use the surname of the article header to indicate that person, and use first names or complete names to indicate siblings or others." It doesn't specify exactly how to handle married couples but my take is that you should use either "Kate" or "Kate McCann". Jeltz talk 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no suggestion that using first names is anything other than a convenience. McCann is ambiguous and using both names is repetitious. However, if the agreement is to use the "Kathy McCann" style then it should be used for each and every instance of Kate, Gerry or Madeleine amd the article should be edited acordingly. TerriersFan 23:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only Mrs. McCann is mentioned in a paragraph or section, she should probably be referred to as "Kate McCann."  I could see some use of first names to disambiguate. It could say something like "The McCanns entered the station at 8 am, but only  Gerry emerged to speak to reporters, saying that Kate was being questioned further" without sounding like they are the writer's next-door neighbors and closest friends. A paragraph or perhaps sentence only talking about one of them should probably  use first and last name. Other articles about disappeared or murdered children naturally use the first name of the child. Edison 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First names

message: In the introductory section (I have no idea how to edit it, since there is no edit link to the right of introductory sections in Wikipedia) we can read:
On 7 September 2007, it was announced that Madeleine's blood had been found in a car her parents rented 25 days after her disappearance.
However the Portuguese Police have not announced anything in this regard (I am writing this on Sep 7, at 7:22 Portugal time)  despite the BBC footnote (5) saying so.
It was announced is too vague. It should be say who announced it. More exact is "a family friend told reporters that police thought..."
Can anybody tell how to edit introductory sections in Wikipedia?
--Savedor 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed the lead para - are you OK with it now? TerriersFan 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Editing is permitted by registered users. What we have done is stop editing by IPs because they were adding misinformation and unsourced facts. Normally, that is not a problem but it was today since, because of the pace of editing, mistakes were getting established. This article is under media scrutiny and its vital for Wikipedia's well being that we keep it accurate. Onto the point that you made quotes from 'familly friends' and  'it was reported' are not acceptable. TerriersFan 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It  was announced - WHO announced it?

message: I am going to edit all instances of the use of "de Abreu" in the main article - the lawyer can either be called Mr Abreu, or Mr Pinto de Abreu, but never Mr de Abreu (as described here). In this case, since his professional name is "Firstname Pinto de Abreu", the proper way to refer to him is "Pinto de Abreu".
Calling him "de Abreu" would be as incorrect as calling the parents "Mr and Mrs Cann" - you can't drop the "Mc" any more than you can add the "de". Mip | Talk 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If he can be called Mr Abreu, why can't we use just Abreu? TerriersFan 09:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no real grammatical reason to not use just plain "Abreu" - it's just a question of common practice, when someone uses a compound-surname professionally. As an analogy: people don't write about "William Gates", though that is grammatically just as correct as calling him "Bill Gates" or "Mr Gates". Mip | Talk 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De Abreu

message: Please note that since this is a British girl we use British English. TerriersFan 09:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. This is backed up here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. British English should be used due to the strong national ties to the topic, and to continue with the original form of English already present in the article. Abc30 17:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a diff when comments like this are made. Edison 02:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British spelling

message: A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate McCann about how best to handle bio information on the McCanns. Since this would affect this article, views from editors are invited. TerriersFan 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate McCann

message: I have reverted  this edit, with this explanation to the editor, on which any comments are welcome:
"Hi, thank you for your interest in Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The Portuguese media have been discussing, for several weeks, various scenarios, some in lurid detail, and most negative to the McCanns. We have had several discussions and decided not to include them since they are based, in the main, on non-attributed, police sources of unknown reliability. We have also agreed that The Sun is not a reliable source because it has no record of fact checking and more background can be found on The Sun's WP page. We have an over-riding duty to comply with WP:BLP, with which your edit may be incompatible. I am therefore reverting your edit and posting the diff on the talk page to enable other editors to take a view." TerriersFan 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Terriers, lets just wait and see what (if anything) happens, SqueakBox 02:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me.  It's not like we can't add the information later. Hermitian 02:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted material 

message: I am surprised there hasn't been any criticism of the press included in this article. There are many who are very sceptical of the Portuguese, British and European press in general. Especially, the British press's seeming inability to believe they (The McCann's) could've done wrong 90.197.137.123 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's included in the Reaction article. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't all criticism/reactions be in the same place?  I may be wise to move all three sections together in one of the two articles. Codik 10:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the press

message: "Philomena McCann, Gerry's sister, told the media that the Portuguese police suspected that Kate may have killed her daughter by accident and then hidden the body." I say again, how does she know, first hand, what the Portuguese police believe? And why do we believe this part of what she said and not the part about the deal being offered? Anyone can say anything they want to the media, and it doesn't mean that they know what they are talking about or that it's true. In any event, people can read the source. It doesn't need to be in the article
All we should be saying in an encyclopedia is that it is being reported that the Portuguese police suspected that Kate may have killed her daughter by accident. This is especially important now that the McCanns have arguido status and are prevented by law from saying anything. Should we be party to them trying to circumvent this by using others to spread their version of events when the PJ have no right of reply? There will be time enough for all the facts to come out, and we should wait. Let the media speculate. We don't need to.
I thought we were clear that this article is not part of the campaign to find Madeleine, nor is it a soapbox for those involved in the case. It is about setting out the facts of the case as it occurred in an historical context, nothing more, and we have to be consistent and not slide into speculation. We have an article with a great level of integrity, which is a credit to Wikipedia especiallly given the sensitive nature of the subject, but if we are going to allow standards to slip, I am done editing it. Harry was a white dog with black spots 14:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some great points and, actually, I mostly agree with you. My preference is for all the quotes by Philomena McCann to be removed. However, if the bit that the Portuguese police suspected that Kate may have killed her daughter by accident and then hidden the body. is to be in it is better to attribute it (which all the media reports are doing) so that it can be evaluated rather than stating It is reported which is needlessly vague. As I say, I agree with you that we should avoid being a mouthpiece for the family so, if you are not happy, take out all the stuff that has come from Philomena McCann and you have my support. TerriersFan 15:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it will be OK in this instance. The problem is that what Philomena says is almost certainly true, but she is not the best person to say it in this instance. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure why you removed the "claim" from what Philomena said TerriersFan. If we can accept claims from someone who can't know something first hand as fact, then Wikipedia will become even more of a laughing stock than it already is. If the standard of "verifiability" of facts can include claims along the line of "he said that she said that they said" and consider that factual and encyclopedic, then Wikipedia is useless. We have to be clear that these things are claims from someone who may well know, but is not in a postition to know for sure what the police are thinking. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave a long explanation of my position in the section above. Let me clarify. The 'claim' is being regarded as dubious by responsible media. The Guardian states it cannot verify the claim, other sources are referring to it as the 'alleged claim', and a newspaper editor in Portugal states that the police have no power to make deals. The other quotes by the aunt are being accepted as valid but since they cannot be verified are being attributed to  Philomena.
We have three levels of reporting:
# The RS says XYZ - that means it can verify the story
# The RS says Mr/Mrs ABC says XYZ - that means it is probably true but they can't verify it
# The RS says Mr/Mrs alleges XYZ or claims XYZ - that means it is unreliable.
Surely that's a reasonable and clear position? TerriersFan 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is. But what I see is a situation where Philomena says the McCanns said the police said... Now I am pretty sure that what Philomena says is accurate, but I don't see that scenario covered by the above. Surely unless the police are saying directly what they think, anyone who says they know what they think is making a claim. It is perfectly acceptable to report what a third party (Philomena in this case) understands to be the situation, but it should be made clear that she can't know for sure what the situation is. That is why the word "claim" ("allege" is used in other circumstances) is important I feel, but I will bow to your greater experience. Harry was a white dog with black spots 22:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have clarified one point. That is that we report scenario 1, we report scenario 2 attributed, but we don't report scenario 3. However, I have made an alternative suggestion, to try to pick a path through this, and that is to put both scenarios 2 and 3 in the Response article and scenario 1 in the main article. TerriersFan 22:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philomena McCann, Gerry's sister, told the media...

message: Nothing in the article is strictly chronological. We need to balance chronology with sequencing the more important events. Therefore, though the McCanns were suspected after other suspects, the important sequences are Murat as arguido, McCanns as arquido/arguida, and then other suspects who are not arquido. TerriersFan 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of sections