Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 3

message: I'll be reviewing the article and leaving extensive comments in this section.  The Rambling Man 15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike out when completed, please. TerriersFan 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done a bit on the proseline for the first two sections, but probably still needs some work. Haven't done anything to Subsequent lines of enquiry" as I don't have time right now Harry was a white dog with black spots 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have converted the third section to a list which though not the best meets GA standards. TerriersFan 18:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: Copied from my talk page for information. TerriersFan 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the policy, then I think Madeleine McCann should be in bold, but that "Disappearance of" should not. Her name is not a description. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) 08:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me.  The Rambling Man 08:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know its pedantic and meaningless, but the example given in the MoS leaves every title word unbolded, even though Hurricane Isabel is a name and not a description.  As I said, its unimportant so if the consensus is for an exception to be made, then I'd go with that.  I shall go back to my den of pedantry now.  chgallen 11:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am with chgallen above. Madeleine McCann is not the title - it was moved from that since it is not a bio article. I see no reason why this should not become a featured article so it needs to  comply with MoS. I agree that bolded looks better but the answer is to get MoS changed, if required. Bolding the girl's name is the worst of all worlds. We should either bold the full title or nothing. TerriersFan 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry guys, I just stupidly did it without looking here first. My bad SGGH speak! 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem; it was news to me too! I have now added a 'hidden comment' to clarify the matter. TerriersFan 01:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding title in lead 

message: I have removed a link to this. As discussed before, there is no reliable source making this link and there have been other, previous, media blitzes eg Disappearance of Ben Needham. The, possibly excessive, media coverage is more related to the skilled campaign by the parents and their excellent connections. TerriersFan 15:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The literal term "missing white girl syndrome" seems to be used to describe this disappearance and its associated media coverage on blogs and other online sources perhaps not meeting WP:A such as . However I found "Was TV coverage right for Madeleine?" by Raymond Snoddy. Marketing. London: Jun 13, 2007. pg. 20, 1 pgs. (Proquest: subscription. Source type: Periodical. ISSN: 00253650 ProQuest document ID: 1297467781 Document URL: ).  This reliable and independent source said "To what extent has all this coverage been kept afloat for so long because the child is white and photogenic, and has articulate, resourceful parents? Of course, the news value of the story was also enhanced by context-everyone's worst nightmare,a child snatched from an apparently secure apartment in an upmarket holiday resort. But the sad truth is that if a black child had been snatched from a sink estate in Liverpool or Glasgow, the chances are you would not know their name." This is in fact a definition of missing white girl syndrome, and it could be used to document the substance of the criticism if not the neologism itself. Edison 16:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful analysis thank you. However, much of the media attention, initially, came about because the parents, both doctors, used their excellent medical contacts to orchestrate the campaign. If they had been equally well connected black doctors I see no reason why it would not have also taken off - all 3 year olds look cute. I agree with the sink estate point but I think that goes to connections, media savy, parents being articulate etc not colour. I think that Snoddy's would be a good comment to add but it should go here. TerriersFan 17:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there clearly needs to be a mention in the main article. It's much too important to restrict it to the sub-article (which is basically a drawn-out way of saying MWWS). -Mysekurity 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a source that mentions MWWS then it can go in, otherwise there is no need for a claim of racism by the entire british media and public. (Hypnosadist) 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. I am going to add the Snoddy material, now, to the Response article because I think that it is a useful view to add balance and that is where it belongs. The Response page is not a "drawn-out way of saying MWWS". People like labels hence the urge to use MWWS and such-like tags. However, as I allude above, the issue is far more complex than that. If the exceptional media response was shown to be due to MWWS then a main article mention is right but while the motivation remains unproven then Response is the place for sourced opinion so that it can be read in the full context and not as a form of short hand. TerriersFan 02:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing White Women Syndrome 

message: I'm afraid the prose still suffers badly from proseline.  I'll tag the article which will soon fail the current GA nomination unless this is rapidly addressed.  The Rambling Man 14:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a large number of single-sentence paragraphs are outstanding and need attention. The Rambling Man 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors will wish to be aware of the comments that I have placed at User talk:The Rambling Man#Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (2). Perhaps we could have other views, please? TerriersFan 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm prepared to accept that my criteria for GA are possibly more stringent than those defined at WP:GAC.  If you believe my reviewing technique to be questionable, I'll happily put remove my "ownership" of the review and allow someone else to review it.  It's a touchy subject and I feel that it's one of those articles which may, sooner or later, attract a lot of attention.  Perhaps the best approach, if you're determined to push the GA through, is for me to remove myself from the review and allow another editor to examine the article.  Please let me re-assure you that I have no intention of "shifting goal posts".  Let me know what you think.  The Rambling Man 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no agenda "to push the GA through"; I did not apply for GA status for this article in the first place! However, since it is being reviewed I have cooperated with other editors to try to achieve this status because I think it would reflect the quality of work that has been put in in achieving IMHO a high standard article on a controversial subject that has attracted some passionate editing. I suspect that GA status would be easier to achieve on The mating habits of the Panda Moor goldfish since, with few editors interested, it would be possible to sit down and source and polish such an article at ones leisure. But I digress; perhaps I was alone in this view but I had assumed that when we met your shopping list then you would promote it to GA status, not come back with a further section that required prosing. I am doubtful whether changing reviewing editor is going to help since a new editor might well come back with a whole new list of requirements! I think that we now need some other views on the way forward. TerriersFan 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then I'll wait and see.  My shopping list is intended to be a bit more in depth than a typical GA review, before this I was much more accustomed to WP:FAC so I get swamped in the detail.  Let me know when and if you'd like me to take another look.  The Rambling Man 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With nothing further discussion forthcoming, no changes made to the single-line paragraphs and the article being on hold now for over a week, I'm having to fail the GA for the time being.  It can easily be re-nominated.  The Rambling Man 10:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further GA comments 

message: Okay, the complete rewrite was well done and besides a few misplaced citations which I've fixed, the article now meets my intepretation of the good article criteria, so I'm promoting it.  Well done to all involved.  The Rambling Man 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. TerriersFan 15:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA revisited 

message: I'm going to add a criticism of the media section, given the criticism schtik of teh current article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.69.12  (talk • contribs) 
:Please sign your posts.
:I have removed the criticism of the media section as it is duplicated from the "Reaction" article. Do we need to move all the criticism sections to that article, as they are reactions to to the disappearance? Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was correctly removed - the Criticism sections are in the articles to which the content relates. TerriersFan 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the media 

message: I have given this article short-term protection. Vandalism is getting missed and this is a high-profile article where unsourced material gets commented on, damaging Wikipedia's reputation, (<-- Since when Wikipeedia has reputation???) and has BLP implications. This was the reason for the previous long-term protection. Removing long-term protection was a good shout but the article needs targeted protection during times of high media interest . TerriersFan 16:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: I have removed this sentence. The source says "The “cadaver dog” is reported in the Portuguese press to have discovered a trace of Madeleine’s body in her bedroom, meaning that she would have been dead in the apartment for at least two hours, which does not fit with official police reports so far.". The Times reporting what the Portuguese press says is a secondary source at best. My view is that it should remain out until a primary source can be found. I welcome views, please.TerriersFan 19:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has also been reported by being called a body dog in several newspapers in the UK with no mention of the Portuguese papers. I'll list more refs here when I get a chance. Here's a few:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15785 - especially Two dogs were sent into the McCanns’ apartment last week. One of the spaniels is a “blood dog” which can detect tiny blood specks invisible to the human eye that could be months or even years old. The other is a “body dog” specially trained to locate and unearth corpses. 
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2005320001-2007360335,00.html
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=64264
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2218171.ece
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=8102
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15722/MADDY:-Sniffer-dogs-back-at-suspect's-home
I would welcome assistance in finding more sources. Tamatisk 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for this research. However, of the reliable sources, crucially the Times said "Experts also cast doubt on claims that a British dog trained to track bodies had detected a scent in the bedroom. The body would have had to be in the room for at least several hours before leaving a detectable trace." and the Express simply relays from other, unnamed sources, stating "Reports in Portugal said one of the spaniels detected the traces of blood in the apartment, while the second picked up the scent of a dead body." Neither the Sun nor First Post would be considered reliable sources. TerriersFan 22:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cadaver dog 

message: I have reverted this edit:
:News about the possible death of Madeleine first appeared on Saturday, August 4 2007 in Sol newspaper.De acordo com o jornal, vestígios de sangue de uma pessoa morta, presumivelmente da pequena Madeleine, foram descobertos numa parede do quarto, in Sol newspaper On Sunday and Monday, several other Portuguese newspapers followed the same line, giving more details. Jornal de Notícias (JN), a leading daily newspaper, wrote that “traces of blood from a dead body, presumably from young Madeleine” were found at the Ocean Resort apartment from where she vanished.
The reasons are:
* The status of the apartment has not been sourced - it is situated outside the Ocean Club and its status has varied - this needs sourcing.
::Actually, it is not outside the Ocean Club, as your carefully sourced description makes clear, and as I have stated before. In fact, it is in a central position in the Ocean Club. The fact is that Mark Warner does not own all of the Ocean Club, and that is where the confusion has come in. It is perfectly possible for private individuals to buy properties within resorts. We know that this apartment was privately owned (and has since changed hands) and was leased back to Mark Warner to rent to its guests. Harry was a white dog with black spots 06:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and was, in fact, in the process of reverting as well, but TerriersFan beat me to it. ElinorD (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can not erase investigation developments and fresh well-sourced news just because some people have doubts about them. In this affair everybody has a lot of doubts about everything. This article is not about the truth because nobody knows the truth yet. This article is about the investigation and all kind of developments (plausible and less plausible) concerned with the case. Page Up 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have over-riding WP:BLP considerations not to make suggestions that cannot be substantiated. I am sorry, but this is a bad paragraph which is not based on primary sources. As you state yourself: "quoting unidentified police source", "No source is quoted to substantiate those informations, the journalists just mention that Jornal de Notícias". TerriersFan 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You in the UK are living in one planet and we in Portugal are living in another planet. Two realities for the same story, and one sole article with the first planet's version. That's all. Page Up 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added a sourced description of the status of the apartment. We are fully aware of the difference of emphasis on the story by the media in the UK and Portugal. The problem is that, due to Portugal's laws restricting what the police can say on the progress of an investigation, papers in both countries are seeking to fill the vacuum with, more or less informed, speculation. The two key pieces of information on which we await confirmation are (a) the ownership of the blood and (b) whether a 'dead body smell' was detected by the sniffer dogs. Until these uncertainties are resolved the speculation by the Portuguese press remains just that, speculation. In my view we should not include speculation. However, we edit on here by consensus so it would be interesting to hear more views. TerriersFan 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting this edit 

message: An interesting analysis has been published here by The Independent. I accept, though, that this is from the perspective of Planet UK. Whether this analysis takes us much further is, I think, doubtful and simply reinforces the need, in the absence of any clear statement by the police, to await hard new evidence. TerriersFan 23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: According to this Times article Murat is no longer a suspect and Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa, of Polícia Judiciária, said: “Police are following a new lead.”. I think we should wait until this is confirmed by another source before adding this the the page. Nlwiki 07:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Murat no longer a suspect

message: The article currently reports that the Portugese Police have 'definitively' stated that the parents are not suspects. In fact they said that the 'official position is that they are not suspects'. Since as we well know in Portugese law there is a category of official suspect all the Police stated was what we already know. They did not state that the McCann's are not under investigation and indeed it appears that they are. At the very least the tendentious and unsupported claim that they are 'definitively' not subjects should be removed and if possible a correct wording supported by a citation inserted. Uh - someone got there before me! 129.12.22.72 12:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Suspect' status of parents 

message: This doesn't deserve its own page. A lot of children go missing and they don't get their own page. What makes this case any different? jm4847
:The difference is the enormous publicity this disappearance has engendered. Note; no-one on here is defending the publicity merely reporting the fact. Subjects don't get their own page because they deserve it; they get their own page if they meet WP:N. TerriersFan 18:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps when the case gets resolved we could put it up for deletion, especially if, as we all hope, she is alive, SqueakBox 18:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens if she is never found? It's her parents' fault that this happened. Andrew Eng 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's your opinion.  This is an encyclopaedia where most of like to stick with fact.  The Rambling Man 18:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I acknowledge that the publicity this case has garnered slightly increases its Importance, that this story (and others like it) are more important than the many pages we have about fictional entities that only exist on TV or in comic books.--SallyForth123 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete article 

message: I reverted a new timeline section because it was selective, badly written and unreferenced. However, it was a well-meant attempt in which some time has been invested, and there is a case for a timeline table. Consequently I have added the material to a new page Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Timeline. If there is to be a timeline I suggest it should be:
* A new article not stuck in the middle of the existing article because it would both disrupt the flow of the main article and enlarge what, despite the split, is likely to grow to be quite large.
* Complete.
* In the form of a table.
* Referenced by each item.
If anyone agrees please feel free to develop this new page. However, I suggest any development be confined to the new talk page and nothing be created before it has been fully developed and agreed. TerriersFan 20:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I agree with your edits, I notified another longterm editor of this page that a good faith editor had added such.  Keep it out for now, the prose description of current events is the way forward. The Rambling Man 22:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: An editor has attempted a radical rewrite of the lead paras, which has been carefully edited to reflect the article and sourced content. As always, comments here are invited. TerriersFan 00:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paras 

message: I have removed the Presumed dead section as it is not a correct interpretation. The Independent report is more carefully worded than that in the the Daily Telegraph. The fuller Independent article quotes the police chief as saying "The hypothesis (that she is dead) is perceptible for everyone. Although it's true that it's a strong hypothesis and there is always that possibility, we cannot say that she is dead." This doesn't stand up a Presumed dead heading. We should avoid emotive headings. I have moved your source to a position next to the Independent in a better place in the article. TerriersFan 03:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Presumed dead 

message: I have removed the unofficial sites from 'External Links' - we have a well established policy of limiting external links to the official site. TerriersFan 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unofficial sites

message: I have restored the variation in times. It is essential to record the possible inaccuracies in the timeline. TerriersFan 03:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted Disappearance section

message: For that second paragraph in the intro, please stick to short, direct sentences with no attempts to join them or to assert causal relationships between them.--SallyForth123 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your point about not implying causal relationships but I couldn't disagree more with your suggestion of short sentences. Several short, staccato sentences are awful to read. What we have been aiming at is reasonably flowing prose. However, I have produced a redraft that seems a reasonable compromise; in particular I have split the various relationships. Don't use weasel wording such as 'nearby' - say how far away the parents are and the reader can decide if that is nearby. Please stop removing important information in your edits, such as 'the police then stated that there was a strong hypothesis that she might be dead'. Finally, I have moved the second villa search back. It is more important for the reader to read the second villa search in context. TerriersFan 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro style 

message: I have also removed the details of the charges against Gonçalo Amaral and others. The details are not needed in this article and quoting them out of context raises BLP issues. TerriersFan 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BLP]] issues