Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 1

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

message: Once we know whether this was a kidnapping, murder or disappearance I suggest that the article is moved to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann or whatever is then suitable. The event is notable, the child is not. TerriersFan 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 08:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with moving it to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann; seems suitable as it is the event that the article is focusing on. Dave101→talk→contributions • 12:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the child in herself is not really notable and it's only the coverage of the incident which warrents any inclusion in wikipedia. Given this is makes sense to make the page on the incidient. Mallocks 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. TerriersFan 07:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: According to the Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias, the main line of investigation is the possibility of Madeleine having been kidnapped by a pedophile network ("uma rede internacional de pedofilia"). The newspaper reports that British police have supplied the Polícia Judiciária with a list of dozens ("dúzias") of names of convicted British pedophiles. The Polícia Judiciária is reported to be in the process of localizing every person on that list who has travelled to Portugal in the past four weeks. Important information, but where should it be added in the article? Or should we avoid all newspaper speculation about theories at the moment? 129.125.174.122 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good point. IMO, you can add it to the article, but please provide reliable sources.Page Up 19:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophilia network? 

message: I have moved these back to Pound Sterling from euros since they should stay in the currency they were offered in. TerriersFan 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is understandable, but you should add the value in Euros too. Millions of potential readers are not aware of the value of UK's currency.Page Up 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I agree, € and/or USD are more understandable, has they are strong currencies with wide acceptance worldwide.--Netshark 10:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewards 

message: While I understand why people may blame her parents for leaving her in the apartment alone, the newspaper article referenced for this section makes no criticism of her parents. Should this be removed as OR.212.140.167.99 22:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK television channels are reporting criticism of the parents in the Portuguese media and I have sourced one such criticism, by the Diário de Notícias, reported in The Guardian which is one of the most reliable of UK newspapers. TerriersFan 02:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Parents

message: This page has been vandalised!  "fuckballer". "Blueberry McCann", "no dick/fanny unturned".  Can editing of this page please be locked for unregistered users?  How does one do this?
:Semiprotection can be requested by anyone at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Is vandalism getting promptly reverted? Protection wouild prevent new unregistered users from making positive contributions such as this  as well. The page likely has a large numbers of editors watching it at all hours and it is easy to revert vandalism. Edison 23:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am keeping the situation under review and will semi-protect if necessary. Meanwhile, when someone puts up an edit they have been writing for some time it is important that they check for any vandalism first - vandalism has been missed a couple of times today. TerriersFan 00:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Vandalism

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

message: The article includes criticism of the slow response of the police, but there is also the statement in the news stories that the police appeared within 10 or 15 minutes after being called.  A timeline helps to sort things out in an article like this. A missing piece of information is what time the police were called. How long did the parents, friends, and staff search for her before calling police(in the process contaminating the crimescene with people tramping in and out of the room)? Edison 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent question and I agree a timeline would be a useful addition. The criticism, though, wasn't of the initial police turnout but delays in such things as alerting the border police (several hours), finger-printing the family for elimination purposes (several days) etc. TerriersFan 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

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

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

message: The article claims "At approximately 21:30 WEST (Western European Summer Time), Gerry checked on the children and they were all fine. At around 21:45 WEST the McCanns returned from the restaurant to find an empty bed and the apartment door and window wide open.[3] This is not in keeping with the widely reported "every 30 minutes". The source is BBC, written a day *after* the BBC article cited below. BBC reported "Madeleine, who turns four next Friday, was last seen by her father at about 2100 local time. When Mrs McCann went to check on her about an hour later, she found the bedroom's outside shutter and window had been opened and her daughter missing."[] It's crucial the time she was checked on is accurate and I can't find one other source that claims the dad checked on her at 21:45 or 9:45pm Maluka 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC sources clearly show 45 minutes between the last check and the child being found missing. The '30 minutes' was simply a claim by the aunt. I have updated the the timeline. TerriersFan 18:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of parents checking is in dispute 

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

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

message: Last time I checked it when it was just Madeleine McCann, the article was far more continuous and readable; now it's somewhat simplistic and fragmented. Can someone please fix it?   ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's gone down a rickety bridge :-( 212.219.39.146 10:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I am starting to work through it to improve readability. It needs to be borne in mind that since the early days there has been a huge amount of information added. TerriersFan 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to this article? 

message: Are her eyes really that color, or is that red-eye from a flash? Ariel. 10:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's red-eye in the photo, but that doesn't make the iris cut across like that. It's in all the official descriptions of her. --Dhartung | Talk 11:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The iris cut I know, I was only talking about the color. Someone should really fix the photos - it's quite misleading to have the wrong color. Ariel. 12:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I fixed it. Ariel. 12:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it legitimate to Photoshop an image and change the hair color, even if it is "supposed" to be blond? See the difference: . Edison 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it is legitimate. But I didn't do it. I just removed red-eye. This is not supposed to be legal evidence, it's supposed to look like her, so if it needs some fixing that's fine: any mistakes are mistakes by the camera, not changes in reality. That is different from editing to remove blemishes or whatever that actually exist. Ariel. 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the diff. The hair color was reddish in the edit immediately before the one by you. Edison 19:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but I'll say it again: I didn't do it. It's a different photo altogether, from a different source. The one I edited is an official one from the website. The one you show from the diff is not on the official website. I have no way of knowing which hair color is more accurate. I also was not the one who switched the main article to use a different photo. Ariel. 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on other photos and descriptions the earlier photo was incorrect in showing "strawberry blonbe" hair and the newer image is more accurate. It may have come from a website, but is looks like the same photo with different color adjustments. As long as it meets  the fair use, copyright etc standards for Wikipedia it seems fine. Edison 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are her eyes really that color? 

message: Please stop spamming this page with links to unofficial sites. I don't believe they add anything of value to the article (WP:EL states: "Links normally to be avoided: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.")MartinBrook t 12:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Websites that do not offer anything that is not already in the article, and that can not be considered official, should be avoided. However benevolent they may be, it's linkspamming. - Tiswas(t) 11:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to unofficial sites 

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

message: I remain uncomfortable with 'The child' section at the start of the article. This is a clunky section that distracts the reader from 'Disappearance' which is where the meat of the story starts. My suggestion is to split 'The child' and incorporate the first paragraph in 'Disappearance' to avoid duplication and to move the 'identification' paragraph and incorporate it within an 'Identification and sightings' section. TerriersFan 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that as an alternative. TerriersFan 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The child 

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

message: According to Portuguese TV the PJ is looking for a man of Russian origin, a friend of Murat's and a child sexual offender. Does anyone have any english language version on this? -- Ishikawa Minoru 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick search on the Portuguese Google News gives a lot of links. The first I found was this one, an article in the Agencia Financeira. The title, "PJ levou computadores de casa de russo amigo de Murat", translates as "PJ took computers from the house of a Russian friend of Murat." AecisBrievenbus 23:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen reports that he is Russian and a web site creator - but none that he is a sex offender.  Can you add references to back this up?  Robinson weijman 07:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here the man himself denies being a sex offender.  Robinson weijman 07:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  BBC News has stated on several occasisons that he is a a convicted sex offender Tamatisk 09:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I cannot find one - could you please add them, because currently we only have references to this in Portuguese. Robinson weijman 11:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If so, why have the Portuguese authorities allowed him to live in their country for 4 years, given that Russia is not in the EU. In fact they have given no details yet of when, where and for what he was convicted. I'm suspicious of any such claims until the details emerge.Red Hurley 11:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be careful to observe WP:BLP policies about derogatory statements about living persons, and also remember that in a crime such as this there is a long history of the media pronouncing innocent people to be guilty, such as the falsely accused Richard Ricci in the Elizabeth Smart abduction. Ricci in fact died in jail, and stress from the false accusations was likely a contributing factor. Consider also Richard Jewell, a security guard who did his duty in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing but was wrongly pilloried in the media for planting the  bomb which was really planted by another. There is a long tradition of police "rounding up the usual suspects" just to get the media off their backs in highly publicized cases. Edison 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian 

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

message: Anyone who has a view and can speak French may want to add their voice to the debate. So far the article is heading for deletion. Quakerman 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't canvas support for AfD discussion, including cross-wiki ones - Tiswas(t) 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not canvassing for support. This is a neutral message bringing it to people's attention, acceptable under the canvassing guidlines. People can vote how they want! Quakerman 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. It seems that they are taking a far more dispassionate stand, and would be less likely swayed by one stop supporters from the english wiki. - Tiswas(t) 16:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is a link to the debate in French Wiki? I do not plan to contribute, but it might be entertaining to read it via Babelfish. Edison 17:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: its on the article page . What is the French for oppose? SqueakBox 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a done deal; there are 12 Supprimers  against 2 Conservers, both of which are from here! TerriersFan 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that quite shocking actually. - They obviously have different priorities on French Wikipedia. Jooler 10:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick note: To vote on AfD on the french wikipedia, you must be 1) logged; then 2) an editor with at least 50 edits on the french wikipedia before the date at which the request for deletion starts or 3) the creator of the article. Boréal 14:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed for deletion on French Wikipedia

message: Regarding Malinka's "exclusive interview with Sky News": First of all, there is no such thing as an "exclusive interview." It is just as much a buzzword as "serious crisis", as if there are also trivial crises. Secondly, what does it add? What does it matter who he said it to? Why can't we just say "Malinka himself spoke negatively of the coverage of the case in the Portuguese media — which claimed the man was a convicted sexual offender — and claimed to be "completely innocent". Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 10:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is exclusive in the sense that Malinka has spoken only to SKY News and to no other media outlet. In other words, he has spoken exclusively to SKY News, refusing to speak to other media outlets. SKY News has copyright on the interview and you have to credit the source. Quakerman 10:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary (and being careful not to overstep the mark, as IANAL and legal concern is an Office only issue), the quotes are Malinka's - only the compilation belongs to Sky. The quotes themselves are quite probably ideas only, and do not enjoy copyright protection. Wikipedia policy, however, requires verification of any quote - which in this case would be from Sky, as they are the only source (exclusivity, in the "scoop" sense, notwithstanding.) The quote need not be credited ("Sky News said that...") but it must be cited ("Malinka said that...sky.com")- Tiswas(t) 11:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We credit the source by referencing the quote, as we are supposed to do under WP:CITE and WP:V. We do not need to mention the publisher/broadcaster. What matters is what Malinka said, not who he said it to. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 11:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The compilation is copyrighted, and the compilation is what is being quoted. But since again as Princess Tiswas says, the only source for Malinka's words are the SKY News compilation, it must be cited and acknowledged as the only source. All other media outlets must (grudgingly perhaps) acknowledge that Malinka's comments were made to SKY News. Any reporting of his comments on, say, the BBC, must include something like "In an interview with SKY News..." Quakerman 11:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Legal points aside (wikipedia has its own laywers - there is policy regarding acting on perceived legality, though I can't remember the specifics), it is not relevant and material to the content of Malinka's statement as to who it was said to.  Wikipedia policy states that the statement must be cited - there is no policy (or even guideline) that such a quote must be credited (in the sense that the source must be mentioned in the body of the text, and not as a citation). - Tiswas(t) 11:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Aside from that (and this is armchair advocacy, so ultimately not relevant), the compilation is not being quoted at all. That would require verbatim quotation of  a significant portion of the interview, not merely a summary of the major points, paraphrasing, or a small direct quote. - Tiswas(t) 11:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. So are we going to remove references to all other media outlets from the body of the article, or is this just about SKY News? Quakerman 11:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be my suggestion, unless the media source is material in itself - this is not Sky specific - Tiswas(t) 11:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that if that's a consensus. Quakerman 11:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusive interview 

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

message: This section is mostly unsourced and contains large quotes that are out of proportion. Actually, I don't disagree with the sentiments but it needs close sourcing or most of it will have to come out. TerriersFan 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done a bit of tidying. Quakerman 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work sourcing but the length is still, in my view, out of proportion. TerriersFan 15:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now cut it back to the essentials, which makes the points clearer. There are, I'm sure, other sources that can be added to emphasise the point so we need to keep the length from one source in balance. TerriersFan 15:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of the media coverage 

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

message: A link to the Wikipedia page for the BBC is not a reference for the claims made in the two paragraphs about cybersquatting and the poster. Quakerman 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "LOOK FOR MADDIE" image seems to come from the families' Picture Video, set to Simple Mind's "Don't Forget About Me" which can be watched here. --GracieLizzie 09:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: In the section Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Publicity, I got two of the info items from BBC TV television news, and said so in  ...  notes.
I was merely narrowing down the field of search if someone was searching for a source. I was merely saying what BBC TV news is. I was not intending to tell people to look on the BBC TV Wikipedia page. OK. OK, I have now found a precise ref re the typosquatting info. Anthony Appleyard 05:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "LOOK FOR MADDIE" image seems to come from the families' Picture Video, set to Simple Mind's "Don't Forget About Me" which can be watched here. --GracieLizzie 09:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please remember the neutral point of view. It's not for us to call something objectionable. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 10:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs in publicity section 

message: I have proposed that Madeleine "Maddie" McCann be merged into this article (or perhaps even deleted?) as this would better reflect the SOP as established at articles like Holly Wells (which is a redirect to the Soham Murders page). Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page has been deleted. Quakerman 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, was just about to remove this heading since no one had responded and this was no longer a problem but ended up in an edit conflict. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted this article as a CSD:A7. The content of the page is already included at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, so nothing to merge, and no independent notability for the subject was asserted. It is open to the creator to take it to deletion review if he wishes. TerriersFan 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

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