Talk:Disappearance of Ben Needham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Article title
The event is notable, the child is not. I suggest moving this article to Disappearance of Ben Needham which is a more normal style. TerriersFan 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative version of events
In today's Times, there is an article that claims that the real version of events was somewhat different - a quote from this article: "It is understandable that Kerry Grist clings to her urban myth, even without a shred of evidence that her son was abducted at all. Those of us who properly investigated Ben’s disappearance are certain he was not; put bluntly, a child less than 2, toddling unsupervised for five hours on a baking, remote, inhospitable hillside that is still largely unsearched, is easy prey to the lonely accident. Nevertheless, to believe in abduction is to allow for the chance he is alive, and who would deny that to Mrs Grist? " Article here : [1]
I don't subscribe to this opinion, but if there's an alternative view as to the circumstances, should this not be placed in the article for the sake of balance? Michaeltyne 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it should. Mind you, the whole article is shot full of POV. Also, the crucial reference on the family's scenario is now broken. I'll clean it up. TerriersFan 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I too find it hard to subscribe to the opinion that this child, who wasn't even two, could have had an accident yet no-one has found his remains yet. cosmic_quest 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well the journalist who investigated at the time and who was there speaks of a "remote, inhospitable hillside that is still largely unsearched", so unless you know differently regarding this hillside it is worth a mention as it *may* be an opinion, but it is from a fairly primary source.