Talk:Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann article.
Article policies
This is not a forum for general discussion of Madeline McCann, or anything not directly related to developing the Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann article.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Contents

[edit] Missing white woman syndrome

As has been discussed many times on the main article, concluding that the coverage is an example of Missing white woman syndrome is an OR conclusion unless a reliable source can be found citing this. TerriersFan 14:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is hardly a snappy, catchy title but was the best I could think of at the time! Would Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - Response be any better? Any other suggestions, pl? TerriersFan 23:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would call this one "Disappearance of Madeleine McCann" as in my opinion this one should be the main article. The case is a worthy article because of the response, not because of the disappearence - media reports that disappearences happens by the hundreds every month, in UK alone - nor by the inestigation details.
In due time, when this cools down and it may be looked in perpective, the investigation may be summarized enought to be merged in in here. For the time being maybe calling the other one (currently "Disappearance of...") "Investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann", or something better, may do. - Nabla 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has any official/newspaper/whatever said the "Media covrage is not helping case"?

Someone pointed out to me that the widespread media coverage could be detrimental to Madeleine's welfare if she is alive because her kidnapper may, in the light of all the media coverage, be now MORE tempted to kill/dispose of Madeline as they may feel this could be the only way to "get away with it". Has anyone official made this assertation? I think it is a good point but I am not going to add it unless I can find a reference. --GracieLizzie 16:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice point; I'll have a look around. Whether it is correct I lack the expertise to judge but my guess is that it depends why she was abducted. If it was for a childless couple, for example, then it would make no difference but if it were a paedophile gang ... TerriersFan 15:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There were several such opinions ("this may hurt more than help") from day one, in Portuguese media. But I can't remember of any written sources. - Nabla 16:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the parents and the police

Why hasn't that section been moved from the main article? -- Ishikawa Minoru 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the actions of the police and parents are described in the main article. The 'Criticism' paragraphs balance relevant text. If the two sections were moved from the main article there would be NPOV issues with it. TerriersFan 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, but given the way the main article is structured, we should move the 'criticism' portion of the article into 'Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' and then create a new article dealing with criticism, when there is more information available (perhaps when the case is solved). -- Ishikawa Minoru 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be argumentative but this simply won't fly. A 'criticism' article is fraught with NPOV issues (and consequently is very likely to face an AfD challenge) and weakens the NPOV of the main article. The structure, as it exists now, is IMHO right - we have a criticism section in each article, to balance the other material in that article, that is relevant to the content of the article. Having said all that, if there is a consensus on here that we should change things then, of course, we will. TerriersFan 21:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Can be added an external links section?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.4.94 (talk • contribs)

It will be added if links that meet WP:EL are found and they haven't been so far, except for the official site that is in the main article. TerriersFan 15:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Media External link

I have added a sourced quote from an article in The Independent, but was unsure how to format the external link/footnote in keeping with the rest of the page. Can someone help please?Snowbunni 13:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Harry was a white dog with black spots 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shrek the Third

Apparently some mothers have objected to the showing of a find Madeleine McCann appeal before the screening of Shrek the Third.[1] I was about to add this information to the article, but I wasn't sure where to include it. -- Ishikawa Minoru 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current event tag

I have removed the current event tag both here and in the main article. If you disagree, please bring the discussion to Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Lilac Soul 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter publicity

I moved the following here:

"Further controversy was generated by the decision to link the campaign to the launch of the final Harry Potter novel (Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows), by supplying booksellers in 65 countries with Find Madeleine posters. [1]The author, J.K. Rowling, a prominent supporter of the campaign, had originally proposed inserting a 'Find Madeleine' bookmark into each copy of the book sold. However, following a decision by the publishers, this idea was abandoned. A spokesperson was quoted as saying that their first responsibility was to "protect younger readers and not to expose them to certain issues without their parents' compliance". [2]"

The first part, the poster publicity, is already in the article here, and reference 1, above, is broken as there is no URL. The criticism is from the Daily Mirror which we have previously agreed (main article talk) is not a reliable source. However, I am happy to go by concensus and invite views. Meanwhile, I am looking for a better source since, IMHO, it is a fair criticism. TerriersFan 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have found a Daily Mail link to the bookmarks withdrawal which I am adding. TerriersFan 15:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. I'm happy with these amendments Snowbunni 17:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The family have remained in the same holiday resort since the disappearance."

Is this correct? I understand they have meet with Tony Blair, George Bush, the Pope and many other people. Did all these people come to Praia de Luz? Should this say they have been based in Praia de Luz instead? Maybe this was the intended meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.26.101 (talk • contribs)

Good spot; this was out of date and I have now fixed it. TerriersFan 17:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libel action

I think this will need a section of its own as the case develops. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; and have given it its own section - this is going to get very messy. Are you happy with the section location? TerriersFan 16:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks great. Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
FWIW I have also started a new article on Tal & Qual. Perhaps our Portuguese editors could expand it a bit, please? TerriersFan 16:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of the publicity

I have moved the following passage here:

"Discussion on internet sites has ranged from full support to the McCann’s to open criticism for their continued efforts at filling the media with Maddie’s image.[3]"

since the source does not, in my view, meet WP:RS. I should welcome views from editors. TerriersFan 00:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The given source, an individual web comic site, could hardly be described as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For a more serious and balanced analysis of the public debate and divided opinion surrounding the case, it might be worth citing India Knight's article in the Times: Madeleine McCann: You are all guilty. Error -128 (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Great catch, thanks. I am adding it to the article. TerriersFan (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Ross, Shan. "[Rowling enlists help of Harry Potter in bid to find Madeleine Rowling enlists help of Harry Potter in bid to find Madeleine]", The Scotsman, 18 July 2007. Retrieved on 2007-07-18. 
  2. ^ Carroll, Sue. "POTTER LAUNCH IS NO PLACE FOR MADELEINE", The Mirror, 18 July 2007. Retrieved on 2007-07-18. 
  3. ^ Mike, Phillips. "I found Maddie", Apathetic Rant, 2007-08-27. Retrieved on 2007-07-05. 

[edit] Media coverage of Kate and Gerry McCann

I was going to add content about the media coverage of Kate and Gerry McCann after they had been formally named as suspects, but I wasn't completely sure how to incorporate it into the article — it is, after all, primarily about the response to Madeleine's disappearance, not to the recent developments involving her parents. Is such content appropriate for this article at all? Extraordinary Machine 00:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. (I am trying to throw off a heavy cold tonight so I'm not thinking that clearly at the moment but here goes ...) At present the article on Kate McCann is going through an AfD. If it survives then I am sure a Gerry article will be created. In this case then the material could go in those articles. If the Kate article doesn't survive the question is, does it fit in here? My view is that criticism of the media coverage of the McCanns as individuals probably doesn't but criticism of the media coverage of their role in the disappearance does. TerriersFan 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring more to criticism of the Kate/Gerry McCann media coverage in relation to the disappearance, including articles that suggest the McCanns are at the centre of a trial by media, than to criticism of the coverage in relation to the individuals, although the two seem very intermixed in what I've read. I think it's best to wait until the Kate McCann AFD closes before deciding what content to add and to which articles. Oh, and I hope your cold goes away soon :). Extraordinary Machine 01:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it is worth mentioning Clarence Mitchell, who is both family spokesperson and director of the Government's Media Monitoring Unit. Which would explain imo the well organised media campaign around this case. Wvdc 10:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you can reliably source the dual role then, yes, we should get it in. TerriersFan 11:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Clarence Mitchell is no longer the family spokesman. That role has been taken over by McGuinness. He was often referred to as "provided by the Government" or words to that effect, so it shouldn't be too difficult to source. Harry was a white dog with black spots 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this article in The Times provides some insight. It also illustrates the "unprecedented" role of the government in the media campaign Wvdc 11:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I certainly think the detail could be added. It is relevant to giving greater insight into how the response was handled and how the disappearance became such a media phenomenon. Harry was a white dog with black spots 12:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

I recall a former Scotland Yard officer who widely propounded a theory that Madeleine simply wandered off. There will be many RSs reporting this. Can anyone recall the guy's name, please? TerriersFan 02:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2237613.ece Harry was a white dog with black spots 06:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I'd forgotten about him. It was John O'Connor I had in mind but I'll add them both to the page. TerriersFan 23:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article here?

Does this article really need to exist? Surely, it could be merged with the main McCann article? Dewarw 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was broken out when the main article became too large, as is normal practice. A merge is simply not viable. TerriersFan 01:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have now seen that the main article is very big. It did surprise me, however, how an article existed on such an obscure topic! Dewarw 11:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate

There was a debate on "the McCanns and the media" at the LSE on 30th January with Kelvin MacKenzie and Clarence Mitchell among the speakers. Report here. Worth a mention? Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought so, if only to highlight the idiots baying for the McCanns' blood. Rothorpe (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Good catch by Pawnkingthree. Now added. TerriersFan (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fear of abduction

The response of the public, in the UK esp., but worldwide, due to saturation coverage has been an overall increase in the fear of abduction of children, out of proportion to the actual risk or any increase in the risk, and since now there is criticism of the parents for "leaving her crying", this has led to a global shift in parenting attitudes. Parents have become much more obsessive, security conscious and "caring". I think the article should reflect this dramatic change in attitudes more. This is too controversial a topic, as evidenced by the barrage of warnings on the talk page alone, for me to contribute to it directly. But I feel this case's status as the canonical cautionary example about not letting children out of your sight is the core of it's notability, from the perspective of psychological effects on the masses. It must be a function of the media coverage and the pain that people feel about the girl. You might even say that the childless are traumatized by a reasonably everyday, if evil occurrence by possibly one sick person. --81.105.243.17 (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family benefiting from the fund

Here is the full quote from the FAQ:

It is true that family members, including those on the Board, can benefit from the Fund. However, 
the Fund has a conflict of interest policy to manage this situation. Those directors who are members  
of Madeleine’s family cannot vote in discussions relating to payments to family members. They also 
cannot sign cheques payable to themselves or other members of the family. The only exception to this 
was some small initial payments to family members made before the independent directors had signed 
the bank mandate.

If we are going to mention this in the article. we need to quote the paragraph in full, to make it clear that there is no possibility of family members benefiting improperly from the fund, or giving themselves money, and that the small payments made in the early days were for practical reason while this structure was being set up.

Personally I think it's a red herring, especially the way it was introduced with selective quoting. so I have reverted it. I don't think it needs to be part of the article. HtD (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"to mention this "? There are two questions being clarified which were misleading in the article. 1- who can benefit from the fund? The article wrongly induced it was only Kate and Gerry. But it was any member of the McCann family. The McCann family is not Just Kate and Jerry but their relatives too. 2- who did benefit from the fund? The article wrongly induced it was only Kate and Gerry and not the McCanns and relatives. If there is a possibility or not that the family member benefit or not improperly it is another issue.
A sellective quoting, well, well. Aren't they all? I should say what you had previously was a misleading information, now that I clarified it you are affraid of what?
How do you know the payments were for pratical reasons? Are you a family member? Anyway, it is all in the viewers eyes, how much is a small payment for you? If you live on benefits or a pention and you gave money, little money means a lot to you. How much do you call small? If thousands donated why did a family member charge and not donated too if it was that small money? Can you answer?
Listen, you can have your personal opinion but it is just POV. The thing is people can read the FAQs and get the full paragraph and you have no right to selectively remove information because you want to " make it clear that there is no possibility of family members benefiting improperly from the fund, or giving themselves money," What do you know?
You are discussing another different issue. This is not about "benefiting improperly from the fund" who said anything about it? It is about who can benefit and who did benefit, improperly or not that would be for lawyers and judges to find out if they decide to do so. Keep your imagination on a leash(no offence) and don't manipulate information, there is a lot of nonsense written already.
p.s. If you can clarify which were the "pratical reasons" or how much money means "small payments" it would be a lot better than letting people do wild guesses.


"The objectives include helping the family with their expenses and continuing the investigation independently should that prove necessary." That is any member of the family.
"The only exception to this was some small initial payments to family members made before the independent directors had signed the bank mandate." I am merely quoting the bits of the FAQ that were omitted in your edit, which refer to small payments for practical reasons (which were that the other directors could not yet sign).
Quotes which are selective must be balanced. Your selections weren't balanced, and gave the erroneous impression that the family could benefit from the fund fraudulently, or at least with no control. So either quote the whole of the FAQ (which would defeat the purpose of your edit) or the leave the edit out altogether. You have no right to add information selectively to try to make the family look bad. That is definitely POV! HtD (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You want to give the impression the two are the only ones who can benefit from the fund. The bits that were omitted were already ommited in the article. I did not start it. How can you talk about balance and erroneous impression if you are just trying to manipulate information. I am trying to make the family look bad because anyone of the family can benefit from the Fund? Very funny. You have no right to selectively omit information to manipulate the way you want the family to look. I did not say a thing about benefiting from the fund fraudulently. You assumed that. If your problem was "interpretation" you would have added information at the end of my edit and not erase it as you did. You act in bad faith and acuse me of wanting the family to look bad and add things such: "which would defeat the purpose of your edit". You have a problem, find help urgent!
Since when is "family" only two people??? If it was just the parents, the article would say "Gerry and Kate". It doesn't. It says the family. I am afraid that it is you who is selectively omitting information in your edit, as is clear from the full quote from the FAQs above. The bits you included could be read as the family in some way wrongly benefiting from the fund. The bits you omitted show that this cannot happen, because in fact non-family members have a majority control of how the funds are dispersed. With the added information, there is no point to the edit in an article that is already long enough. HtD (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Family for many people means parents and kids, but no one would assume the kids benefited.
Some dictionaries make a distinction between family [2] and extended family [3] or give several possible meanings for family like this one [4]:
7. a group of persons who form a household under one head, including parents, children, and servants.
10. a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live together: Many hippie communes of the sixties regarded themselves as families.
I did not omit any bits, I did not say a word about if they can or not benefit wrongly, you started with it.
"Since when is "family" only two people???" You forgot the kids. If as you say, anyone would assume the extended family was included reading just by "family" why are you complaining and why didnt you start to justify if they could or not wrongly benefiting from the fund in the edition you keep reverting back. I explain you better: the wrongly benefiting from the fund which I did not write a single word about is all in your head. Tell me where did I write about anyone wrongly benefiting from the Fund.
"because in fact non-family members have a majority control of how the funds are dispersed." And before there was a board of directors to do it? You mean that before they have wrongly benefited? And if they did not have the board of directors they would be wrongly benefiting until today? I do not know why you got so paranoid (this is how it looks on my screen) about the benefiting, as I said before if it is for someone to make a judgement it is work for judges and lawyers. If for you there is no point to the edit ,it is not so for others and with all the fuss you made with such a simple edit you are just contradicting yourself. It is important! If you want to defend how the funds are dispersed just start another paragraph, it is another subject.
  • Although it was not what was in my edit that you so egerly want to erase, your edit was just nonsense.
Fund Objectives

1.1 The full objects of the Fund are: 1.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; 1.1.2 To procure that Madeleine’s abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and 1.1.3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family. 1.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere. [5]

"The objectives include helping the extended family with their expenses related to the case" is it your interpetation of what it says here? To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family.

No where it says the expenses have to be related to the case. The "wrongly benefiting" is all in your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.181.96 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The expenses are by definition related to the case. If Madeleine hadn't disappeared, the family would not be incurring the expenses. For example, the McCann's were not able to make the two mortgage payments as a direct result of staying in Portugal because of the case. They would have been able to make those payments had it not been for the case, since they would have been back at work. HtD (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Are they? And where are the sources? Cousin x can say his livingroom caught fire because he was talking on the phone with a reporter and forgot to put off his cigarret.
This is related , so he can have a new livingroom? The fund does not say the expenses have to be related with the case. And your relationship is so silly that any relatioship can be used as an excuse.
They can use the money to pay any unrelated expenses because it is what it says on the Fund Objectives. There are no restrictions defined. Please learn to read or ask a lawyer if the expenses are or not related to the case before you revert my edit.
No case, no fund, no payments. Simple as that. Unless you have any evidence for the hypotheticals you mention above they are irrelevant. Do you have any evidence that the fund is being used inappropriately (as you suggest above, so it's not my imagination that this is your POV)? If not, any suggestion that it is is not only highly inappropriate but violates WP:BLP. HtD (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It is you who have to source that the expences are related to the case. It does not say so on the Fund website. You made it up. As I said before it is you who are calling it "the fund being used inappropiatly". Nothing in the Fund's objectives say what is appropriate and what it is not. I gave you examples of what could be considered related to the case, almost anything can."Any suggestions that it is" comes from you and you are simply making a bad case for yourself suggesting there are inapropriate ways of using the fund that are not specified by the Fund. You are making it all up. Give the Fund's sources that say what the expenses have to be related to the disappeaence and the list of what is appopriate and what is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.89.39 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the purpose of your edit is your POV that the family could benefit improperly ffrom the funds. Why else would you leave out the part of the FAQ that specifically makes this impossible, if not to leave the impression that it is. Bearing WP:BLP in mind, we have to assume that the funds are being used properly unless there is any evidence to the contrary. Where is your evidence that the non-family members of the board (the only ones who can give funds to family members) would approve the payment in the hypothetical that you have cited above? In any event, to try to stop this nonsense, I have made a compromise edit that cannot be contradicted or claimed to be unsourced, and makes it clear that the family cannot benefit from the fund in ways that the other board members feel inapprpropriate. Sadly, it's a longer edit, and if third editor feels that the shorter version is better, I will leave that to them. HtD (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Madeleine book

The Express Newspapers book Madeleine:A Heartbreaking and Extraordinary Disappearance has definitely been withdrawn for legal reasons: booksellers have been instructed to take the book off their shelves. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still available at several online booksellers, including Amazon in the UK. Do we have a source for this? If it's still for sale we can't really say it's been withdrawn. HtD (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not the kind of announcement that immediately gets on the web; there may be something in the trade press over the next few days. Can't explain why Amazon are still selling it although they will have to take it down soon. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's now disappeared from Amazon UK's website. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
OK! HtD (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone find a source stating that this book has been removed? I work in a book shop and made the initial change to the article stating that it has been removed from sale, but all we've been told is that it is for "legal reasons". Now I know despite that someone will keep reverting the change until there is a web link to slap on the statement. I've been searching but found nothing yet, but as stated above it has definately been removed from our stock. Steeboh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.168.21 (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If it has been officially withdrawn by the publisher, there will be an announcement on the publisher's website. If it hasn't been officially withdrawn, then it is individual outlets making the decision not to sell it for their own reasons. Either way, it could be in the article, but we need to know which it is. HtD (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how the publisher of the book is Express Newspapers, I think it's unlikely that they'd be publicising that fact on their website after what they've been through recently:) Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
They may not have any choice! But they may bury it. HtD (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Usually legal reasons are kept hush hush, and as Pawnkingthree said, I doubt they would like to announce the fact, so chances are we won't see an official source, but it's still happening so perhaps it merits a mention in the article, but worded in a way which avoids confusion as to the lack of sitation for the time being. 91.103.168.21 (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise edit on fund

Perhaps the IP editor would care to explain why my wording "The objectives include helping the extended family with their expenses (to prevent abuse, payments can only be authorised by the independent members of the board who are not family members)..." is not a fair and accurate summary of "It is true that family members, including those on the Board, can benefit from the Fund. However, the Fund has a conflict of interest policy to manage this situation. Those directors who are members of Madeleine’s family cannot vote in discussions relating to payments to family members. They also cannot sign cheques payable to themselves or other members of the family." HtD (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a perfectly fair and accurate summary. The anon IP is just arguing over nothing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)