Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 2

message: Well done for editing out the message of support left on the article. I hope she is found soon as well, but I doubt, wherever she is, she's browsing her own wikipedia article for hopeful messages. Is the french article still about, or has it been deleted?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamhopgood (talk • contribs) 
:The French Wikipedia article is deleted: See :fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Disparition de Madeleine McCann.  x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather, it was transwikid to wikinews, although there appears to be an attempt to recreate it in the fr wikipedia space: Disparition de Madeleine McCann - Tiswas(t) 12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or not - My French, apparently, is not particularly fluent - Tiswas(t) 12:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is the French Wikipedia userspace (used to be interwikied from this article, for some odd reason).  Doesn't seem to be in French Wikinews either.  x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messages of support 

message: Madeleine McCann's parents are usually called "Mr and Mrs McCann". This would be appropriate if they were surgeons, but as far as I understand Gerry McCann is a cardiologist (not a cardiac surgeon) and Kate McCann is a general practioner. Some doctors working in a field other than surgery are also surgeons. My own GP is a surgeon and it is therefore appropriate to call him Mr W-----. By calling Gerry and Kate McCann "Mr and Mrs" one is either denying them the title customarily accorded to members of their profession or misleading the public into believing that they hold professional qualifications that entitle them to practise surgery. If they are surgeons (which I do not think they are) or if they have deprived of the right to practise medicine (and do not hold a doctoral degree such as DPhil or DM) they should be called "Mr and Mrs". Otherwise, they should be called "Dr" or, in order to distinguish one from the other, Gerry and Kate.--Oxonian2006 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Gerry is a surgeon. But in any event, professional titles are generally used only when relevant. In "social" situations, and in encyclopedia articles that are not about them practicing their profession, it is correct practice to state that they are physicians (or surgeons) but not to use their professional titles. Quakerman 15:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Quakerman. Normally, a bio article would refer to the person, after the intro para, just by the last name. Here, as it is not a bio article and we have three key players with the same last name, we are disambiguating by first name. TerriersFan 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr and Mrs 

message: Is there a particluar reason we need a picturte of madelines "right eye" ? i fail to see what this can possibly adfd to the article? what is wrong with the picture at the top of the article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by  88.108.9.99  (talk • contribs)  01/06/07
:If you had bothered to read the article, you would have seen that she has a distinctive eye condition that makes it easier to identify her. Ward3001 00:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd picture 

message: Given that this is a current event it seems to be a regular target for IP and newly registered vandals. I think longer term protection is needed. Quakerman 16:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protected per WP:RPP request :) - Alison ☺ 17:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further protection 

message: The article has now become quite large and will, no doubt, continue to grow. Though a split is not yet essential, we need to plan to spin off part of it to a separate page, at a future date, to keep things manageable. How to do this is not immediately obvious. For example, one candidate would be the Criticism section but that would run into NPOV concerns. I think that we should now discuss some options. TerriersFan 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article ain't going to shrink :-) My thought at the moment is the main article to be sections 1-4, 8 and a Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann article to be 5-7 and 9-11. Any thoughts, pl? TerriersFan 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future article reconstruction 

message: Some perfectly decent material was recently removed as unsourced. Unless it is inflammatory, or breaches WP:BLP, I am not wildly enthusiastic about this approach. Firstly, it is discouraging to new editors of this article and secondly it may not be seen by other editors who can source it. With the exceptions noted above, I think that the material should be edited to reasonable shape and then either sourced (best) or marked with a fact tag to highlight it. Where material has hung about with a fact tag for more than a day or so then removal is correct. TerriersFan 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, yes I removed it with the intention of doing a rewrite and returning it (it was in the wrong section as well), but you beat me to it! Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with unsourced material 

message: As explained by Quakerman, the regular editors of this article prefer the scrolling format. As the reference list is likely to get much longer, any other format will progressively become more unmanageable. If any editor disagrees that's fine but please raise it here and seek consensus first. What is unacceptable is dropping in and making a unilateral change. TerriersFan 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came to this article for the first time.  I have never seen a scrolling refernce list and find it odd.  We should move the see also and external links above the references and leave the list full length.  By the way, your "What is unacceptable is dropping in and making a unilateral change" attitude" violates the spirirt of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Be bold) and is unacceptable.  --Nricardo 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference list format 

message: This talk page was really long so I've archived all the discussions from May 27th or before. --GracieLizzie 13:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you add the relevant info boxes & tags - a fair few visitors to this page will not be familiar with the navigation - Tiswas(t) 14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added , but I am not sure that is 100% correct. If it isn't can someone else fix this? --GracieLizzie 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok - I've added  to the archive - Tiswas(t) 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: In the 'Response' article there is a reference with the name 'iafrica' and the number 36 that has no underlying reference. That ref name also appears in this article. I should welcome any help in tracking down the full reference, please. TerriersFan 02:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the reference on the response article, all should be working now.  Sam42 10:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job; many thanks. TerriersFan 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken reference - help please! 

message: There is apparently an online petition asking that the McCanns be investigated by Leicestershire Social Services in relation to leaving their children alone. I heard this on BBC Leicester news just now, but haven't found a link to the petition. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it! ... and adding it to the article. TerriersFan 21:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should every little snippet of information be included? Could I created an online petition, that may (or may not) be picked up on in the blogosphere, and possibly by lazy journos, and have that incluced? It doesn't seem to me to be a good source simply for that reason. - Tiswas(t) 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioned on the Beeb website so it is notable enough and is needed to balance up the POV of the article. Hypnosadist 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the above comment about balancing the point of view of the article.  Surely our tasks not to "present all opinions" but simply to state the facts, without opinions.  I do not "want" to include this (because it is for me neither tasteful nor notable), but because the BBC mention it I think we should.  It's a fact.  Robinson weijman 11:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Robinson weijman, yes you made a common mis-understanding of WP:NPOV and that is we do not try to "simply to state the facts, without opinions" because outside of the Hard Sciences this is impossible (and even in the sciences difficult). Insted we present the all the POV's about a given issue, and weight them according to how common the notable pov is. Example if we have three opinions in an article A, B, C and 50% believe A,30% believe B and 20% believe C then the article should be 50%A, 30%B and 20%C giving the views of all and counter arguements so people can make up their own mind, hope that helps you. Hypnosadist 11:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Hypnosadist, this does help a lot thank you.  And the link you've provided backs up what you've said (though your explanation is more concise and easier to read).  Robinson weijman 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petition criticising the parents 

message: The lead doesn't refers that the little girl and her siblings were left unattended in an unlocked, ground floor hotel room while the parents went to a restaurant. Any reader will think that she disappeared while staying with her parents in the apartment, and this wasn't what really happened.Page Up 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. I have added 'alone' to the lead paragraph and clarified the 'Disappearance' section. TerriersFan 20:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead paragraph

message: Sorry if this was discussed already. The police now have a letter telling directions to where her body can be found, buried. They searched, they don't know if it's a hoax or not, but it resembles another letter that lead to the spot where two Belgian girls were buried. Here's a link to the story http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=62596; if it's not in the article already, that'd be great if someone added it. Dontworry behappy 09:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It is in the article now, see  Other_lines_of_enquiry.  Robinson weijman 11:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter 

message: Since this is an article about a British girl then using British English is appropriate - e.g. paedophile is correct. TerriersFan 17:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go around putting it that way, but I do think that using British English is a more appropriate English to use than American English (colours over colors, favourite over favorite, etc). Note that my opinion on the matter goes for all articles when possible. // DecaimientoPoético 17:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: British-English should be used throughout per WP:ENGVAR, as this is the variant of English the article was written in and the most appropriate as the subject is a British girl. Dave101→talk  18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British spelling 

message: A number of people I know have received a chain email saying that a body had been found some days ago.  I'm not sure how widespread this was, or if there's a documented source, but if it wa widespread, and documented it should be included. Rich Farmbrough, 18:21 14 June 2007 (GMT).
:No problem, if we can find a RS. TerriersFan 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need a rocket scientist to tell you that! hbdragon88 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This chain mail started about a week after Maddy went missing. A friend of mine got it on 10 May. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural phenomenon

message: Does anyone else think this should be moved to Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? I think it would be more suited to the Response article, especially as the information on Madeleine's fund is contained in that article. Dave101→talk  08:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and moved it, please feel free to move it back if you think it warrants inclusion in the main article. Dave101→talk  07:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem from me, but it does need a linking sentence, so it can be found, which I have done. TerriersFan 17:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Potential frauds" section 

message: The first paragraph says, "attention currently focussing on Morocco."  Is this still true?  This was true a week or two ago, but not any longer, I think.  Robinson weijman 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; I'll fix it. TerriersFan 21:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quick!  Thanks.  Robinson weijman 21:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Morocco

message: The media coverage of this case has been roundly criticised across the web. Why is there no mention of this in the 'criticism' section?Snowbunni 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Of the media coverage might be the reason. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 14:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The criticism section relates to criticism of matters/people covered by this article. Criticism related to the 'Response' is in the 'Response' article. This is for NPOV reasons to keep each article balanced. TerriersFan 16:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no criticism of the media? 

message: First of all, it is not remotely sensible to apply a NPOV tag to a criticism section since, by its nature, a criticism section can never be balanced. NPOV issues should be considered across the whole article. I have removed the tag for this reason, but also because no rationale appeared here which is an essential concomitant with placing this tag. I would add, that this is the editor who tried to insert material that differed from the supplied sources. TerriersFan 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I take your point. Having said that, I still believe that a NPOV TAG would be appropriate in this section. The parents have attracted an enormous amount of public criticism, although this has not been reflected by media coverage of the case in the UK. You only have to consider the comments pages of any article on this subject on any major UK news website to see the extent of this controversy. I originally edited the remarks on the petition to include a second petition mentioned in an article in the Guardian, as this had attracted more petitioners than the Downing St petition cited. I also felt it was important to point out that the 'bad language' which lead to the cancellation of the Downing St petition originated from certain supporters of the McCanns who had sought to undermine any criticism. I stand by my assertion that the nature and extent of criticism the McCann's have attracted is simply not reflected accurately by this section of the article, but am happy to defer to any majority view on this matter. Snowbunni 09:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are aware of any sourced, substantial criticism that we haven't included then please add it (it would be helpful if you adopted the same reference format as in the rest of the article). However, it is important that the text matches the source. For example, you stated that a second petition raised 7,000 signatures whereas the site for that petition here shows a figure of 8, not worthy of mention, and even two of those were rejected!. TerriersFan 14:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section - NPOV tag 

message: Things have settled down so I have removed the semi-protection. However, in the event of any significant vandalism, then it goes straight back on. Further, if any admin has any concerns about the lack of protection then please feel free to put it back. TerriersFan 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been under persistent IP attack this afternoon so I have semi-protected it for 24 hours when the protection will be automatically lifted. TerriersFan 14:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Remember that WP:BLP applies to all articles on wikipedia including this one. As nearly all of the participants are alive, it applies to all mentions of them on the article and the talk page. Unsourced and poorly sourced (tabloids are generally not reliable sources) speculation about specific figures, especially negative (e.g. they kidnapped Madeline, they have strange fetishes etc) should not be present in the article or talk page. Nil Einne 16:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are all fully aware of these issues so it would be helpful if you could point out where we say that a named person has a 'strange fetish' or 'kidnapped Madeleine' and we will immediately fix it. However, it is not possible to make a blanket statement that a tabloid is not a reliable source; it depends on the context and who the tabloid is quoting. What is a tabloid? It is a vague and undefined term. If you are concerned about a specific reference then raise it here and we will discuss it. TerriersFan 00:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remember BLP

message: I have moved the following additions here:
"On 23 June 2007, a Maltese man said that he spotted a young girl in a pushchair who resembles the missing Madeleine. The man stated that he had seen the girl in the company of a woman at the Birzebbuga playing fields. On 24 June 2007, The Malta police received another report of an alleged sighting in the last hours, with a Maltese woman saying that she noticed a young girl resembling Madeline in a pushchair in Valletta, in the company of a woman who was probably of foreign nationality."
They can go back if they can be reliably sourced. TerriersFan 16:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malta sightings - unsourced 

message: This section needs serious rewording, for example the word sucessful would be far from truthful given they have not succeeded. It would also be best to remove social commentary, such as the choice of wording in "Inevitably, the publicity has spawned attempted scams with..." especially are no referenced sources on these areas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmi Hugh (talk • contribs) 
:I have removed the two words that you rightly queried. However, this section does not require "serious rewording" since it is a summary of the fully sourced subsidiary article. TerriersFan 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies. i am appeared to have lost the ability to see, i completely overlooked that link, should have juse changed the wording. -- Jimmi Hugh 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to the disappearance 

message: I have removed from the article, per WP:BLP the text in Murat and Malinka which said "On 28 May British tabloid The Sun claimed that Murat's computer, which had been seized by the Portuguese police, had been used to view child pornography and bestiality. There is no direct link between what was found and Madeleine but officers are describing it as a ‘relevant sexual history’."  When the article says "according to a tabloid" it appears to violate WP:RS. Tabloid says "Tabloid newspapers in Britain, collectively called the tabloid press, tend to be simply and sensationally written, and to give more prominence than broadsheets to celebrities, sports, crime stories and even hoaxes; they also more readily take a political position (either left- or right-wing) on news stories, ridiculing politicians, demanding resignations and predicting election results. The term red top (as in "News International red tops sweep the board") refers to tabloids with red nameplates, such as The Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star, and distinguishes them from the black top Daily Express and Daily Mail. Red top newspapers are usually simpler in writing style, dominated by pictures, and directed at the more sensational end of the market. Tabloid newspapers are sometimes pejoratively called the gutter press." The Sun (newspaper) says "More generally, the Murdoch Sun has been criticised since its launch for its sensationalism, which on occasion has led it to publish stories on the most spurious evidence, and for its focus on celebrities for its news and feature coverage. It has regularly been accused of appealing to the lowest common denominator and dumbing down public discourse." This certainly does not mean that nothing in it is true, but if it is generally true as the two articles state that the paper is prone to hoaxes and spurious information, then derogatory or incriminating  statements need corroboration from more reliable sources. 
Also per the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP "Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" For almost a month this statement has been sourced only to the tabloid, so it should not be restored to the article until it is confirmed by other sources, per WP:BLP. It should not be restored to the article without confirmation and certainly without further discussion here. Edison 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sourced the text from the Daily Express and Daily Mail; it was not difficult finding alternative confirmatory sources. TerriersFan 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Looks better, in that the articles about these 2 papers do not specifically attribute to them hoaxes and "spurious" stories. Edison 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation and unreliable sources, [[WP:BLP]] concerns

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

message: Sorry to be pedantic, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and the comment in the opening paragraph - Madeleine "was alone in a bedroom with her two-year-old twin siblings" - is nonsensical. How can you be alone with two other people? What it should say is that Madeleine and her two-year-old twin siblings had been left unsupervised in the hotel room by their parents. (A fact that hopefully will be given greater attention after Madeleine is found safe and well.)  Gadsby West 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that was poor phrasing but Ishikawa Minoru has produced an excellent fix. The actions of the parents are subject to extensive criticism, as summarised here, and if further criticism is reliably reported we will record it (as we will further praise). TerriersFan 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madeleine alone? 

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

message: I have removed the current event tag. As I wrote before, it says on Wikipedia:Current and future event templates that The template should be removed from the article when the event described is no longer featured in the news headlines. This appears to be true now. If you feel the tag should still be on the page, please state your reasons for this here. Remember that just because this is something that people still talk about, to a certain degree, and that any future, major new developments will definitely make headlines, it does not necessarily make it a current event. Also, please note that I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here. I feel as horrified about Madeleine's disappearance (and all other kidnappings) as anyone else, so my edits have nothing to do with that. I'm just following standard guidelines here. Lilac Soul 07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Given that this article is titled "Disappearance of Madeleine McCann", and her disappearance is something which occurred two months ago without any substantial new developments, I think it correct that this is no longer classed as a current event. Obviously if and when she is found/returned, we may have to look at changing the name of the article from Disappearance to Abduction (if relevant) and re-tagging the page. VTSPOWER 15:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel strongly about this either way. I agree with VTSPOWER, and if/when Madeleine is found there is every intention to change the title to one that is then more suitable. The term 'Disappearance' was chosen as a neutral term pending a more definitive outcome. TerriersFan 16:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the tag 

message: I have included this quote because I believe it supports the impartiality of this article as a whole. Thomson is one of very few high profile journalists to speak out publically against the McCanns, and his remarks reflect the views of a large number of people.Snowbunni 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its offensive POV rubbish and has been removed. This is an encyclopedia not a gossip column for vultures feeding off this tragedy (Thomson), SqueakBox 17:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Squeakbox. It's fine in the other article as it is criticism of the media coverage by a journalist. He is not "speaking out publically against the McCanns". Please stop pushing your POV in these articles. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the parents - Alex Tompson quote 

message: Apparently some folks own this page and I don't wish to get in trouble with them, but I wanted to make a few observations.  First of all, what are "Notes"; that looks like a list of references to me.  Secondly, the self-contained "notes"/references section has made this article non-functional for people using any screen readers, or relying on a printed copy of the article.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one owns this article other than the Community. Yes, a consensus amongst regular editors has been achieved on certain matters but that is normal in the development of any article and is necessary to avoid the distraction of constantly revisiting the same points. The difference between 'Notes and 'References' is explained here. Notes are not meant to be read through rather they are consulted from marked parts of the article. References was changed to Notes to enable those editors who object to the scrolling format to produce an alphabetical list should they so wish. A nice example, albeit much shorter, may be seen at Gill Langley. HTH. TerriersFan 22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references? 

message: No, not a joke! Clearly this is an important enough subject to warrant an article. The point I'm trying to bring to the attention of the editing community is that this article doesn't state clearly why the subject is important. The importance of any article, especially one as detailed as this, should be clear to the reader - an obvious way to do this is to set it out clearly, in the article lead. Easily fixable in this case, where the importance is clear. SP-KP 21:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent point that a couple of editors have tried to address. I have removed the tag because I think that we have sufficiently met this point. If anyone doesn't consider that we have gone far enough that's fine but please bring some alternative suggestions here so that we don't get involved in 'tag wars' :-) TerriersFan 22:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance tag 

message: I have made some changes to the timeline, as the times given did not tally with those reported by most sources. Although there is a good deal of confusion regarding precise times, I believe Gerry McCann's final check was at 9:30pm, not 9pm as previously stated. Also, it was Kate McCann who checked the children at 10pm and reported Madeleine missing shortly thereafter. See [] 
"John Hill, the Ocean Club manager, said the alarm was raised by the family between 10pm and 10.15pm: “The staff, many guests and the best part of the village started looking right away, a total of 40 to 65 people. The police were called and started taking details from the family and then took the decision to escalate the search.”"
Snowbunni 11:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you "believe" is irrelevant. All the references apart from the columnist quoted above writing in the early days after the disappearance agree on the timeline. Chances are the above columnist is in error, since she is the only one stating 21.30. Not a basis to amend the timeline. Harry was a white dog with black spots 11:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I read the sources? Of course. Did you before you made the changes? Clearly not, because the source that you left attached to the timline when you changed the first time to 21.30 states: "Madeleine, who turns four next Friday, was last seen by her father at about 2100 local time." So why did you change it to 21.30? I think you need to learn more about what is an appropriate source. One or two sources that disagree with all the others are not a valid basis for making changes. Harry was a white dog with black spots 13:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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