Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

On the need to include a reference to the Missing White Woman Syndrome within this article

A brief reference to the McCann case being a primary instance of Missing White Woman Syndrome is due within this article. Those unfamiliar with the term should follow the link provided; this thread is aimed at discussing and refuting the most commonly employed arguments advocating exclusion of any references to MWWS in this article. I've examined these reactionary arguments with great attention, and found that they are easy to refute. They will be listed below in short order, along with the responses to them.

• "Missing white woman syndrome is a fringe view, and does not warrant inclusion into this article."

MWWS is the subject of growing research by the social sciences, particularly the branches of sociology, criminology and media studies. Preliminary work at identifying and defining this media phenomenon was done by professor Yvonne Jewkes of the University of Leicester in 2004. The study of MWWS has since gathered traction among many other social scientists, and it has been investigated and reported on in a variety of mainstream media and quality press outlets. Consequently, MWWS satisfies the conditions outlined in WP:N, and this also applies to all references to this media phenomenon within relevant articles, as is the case here.

• "Missing white woman syndrome is irrelevant to the contents of this article."

Sociologists define MWWS as an "undue focus on upper-middle class white women who disappear, with the disproportionate degree of coverage they receive being compared to cases concerning missing women of other ethnicities and social classes, or with missing males of all social classes and ethnicities". This article is independently refering to the McCann case as the ""the most heavily reported missing-person case in modern history", and various quality press sources have directly linked that fact to the characteristics of MWWS, as it is defined by the social sciences. This establishes that the conditions stipulated in WP:RS are being met.

• "There is no direct link between the McCann case and missing white woman syndrome, and it therefore should not be mentioned."

Numerous journalists, social commentators and researchers have established direct links between the McCann case and MWWS in mainstream and/or quality press outlets, including (but not limited to) outlets who are members of the Investigative News Network[1], MSNBC[2], NY Daily News, the International Business Times[3] and CNN.

Important Notice: Several sociologists engaged in the study of the MWWS media phenomenon have made implicit links between MWWS and far-right, white supremacist and white nationalist policies. While it is self-evident that not every user who objects to the inclusion of a reference to MWWS in this article will be a sympathizer of these groups, every person who does foster such sympathies will by default object to the inclusion of this information. The aim of discrimination and racism is to maintain the social privileges of one ethnic group in society at the direct expense of other ethnic groups. Those who argue to keep this relevant information censored should be approached with a measure of caution and skepticism, as they inadvertently or intentionally argue for a status quo that upholds racial discrimination within the mainstream media. Malik047 (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Over a week has elapsed since the topic has been opened, and no objections to the inclusion of a brief reference to MWWS in the McCann article have been raised. Consequently, I will assume an implicit consensus per guidelines that are stipulated in WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and will be adding a well-sourced reference to the introduction section which states how mainstream outlets have explicitly linked the McCann case to the Missing White Woman Syndrome media phenomenon.

Specifically, these sources will be citing articles from The Independent[4], a member of the Investigative News Network[5] and the International Business Times[6], covering a wide range of editorial stances and establishing that MWWS is not an issue exclusively reported on by progressively-leaning quality papers. This will help to allay allegations of "political bias", and offer a response to various other criticisms which seem to originate with the underbelly rather than the cerebrum. Malik047 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The consensus not to add it has not changed. It does not change until there is explicit agreement to change it. I chose not to engage in the discussion because of the tone of your contribution but I see no reason to change the consensus. The "coverage" you cite consists of opinion pieces and is by defintion POV. In the case of the Independent opinion piece, the comments pressent a different opinion. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The consensus you refer to does not appear to exist. No arguments which may offer a rationale as to why this information ought not be included have been put forth in a period of two weeks, despite an apparent widespread awareness of this topic. This suggests implicit consensus with my position per the Wikipedia guidelines outlined in WP:TALKDONTREVERT; guidelines that have not been observed thus far. This suggests outside mediation is warranted.

Established researchers present a lucid explanation of Missing White Woman Syndrome, and quality press citations that are diverse as well as numerous explicitly link the McCann case to this media phenomenon by name. There exists no rational basis to withhold this information from the article; except as part of an anti-intellectual motive which sets itself the task of insulating the public from insights gained by sociological study and investigative journalism.

It's a given that advocates of social inequality seek to prevent broader public awareness of discriminatory practices such as Missing White Woman Syndrome, with the aim of achieving social inertia. Opponents of equality tend to believe they are the ones being hurt, and their actions and arguments must be understood within that context. MWWS is a form of discrimination which is motivated by an inalienable part of a person's identity (in this instance, having been born into a non-white ethnicity), which gives it the recognizable characteristics of a far-right policy.

In a society that demographically continues to diversify, those at odds with this evolution may find that a growing public awareness about white privilege is the logical consequence of social progress, and that there's a whiff of inevitability about this process. Malik047 (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You have had four separate editors revert your inclusion. That should indicate to you that you have more work to do to convince people and change the consensus. The arguments were made long ago. There is no need to revisit them each time a new editor wants to add this. There needs to be more than just opinion. Just because in someone's opinion this is a case of MWWS (if such a thing even exists) does not mean it should be icluded in the article. Opinion is opinion. It is by definition POV and we should be very careful when including opinion in a BLP. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Every source given for the addition (which would not belong in the lead if they were good sources either) is an author giving thier opinion. As per WP:BLP what sources given should reflect the addition, opinion pieces are not WP:RS no matter what the website/paper they are belonging to.

As for consensus, that would be clear after 4 editors revert, your WP:TALKDONTREVERT edit summary is WP:WIKILAWYERING, and is totally uncompatible with WP:PROVEIT

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

With;

"Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any potential problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."

These are the reasons why you addition has been removed. Murry1975 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The cited sources refer to peer-reviewed academic research, the most notable example of which is [7]. As a gentle reminder to the participants of this discussion, peer-reviewed academic research is generally considered the most reliable source material available, per WP:RS. It duly establishes that the provided sources meet the requirements stipulated by WP:PROVEIT, rendering your position untenable.

Additionally, WP:CONS explains that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity; nor is it the result of a vote."

The crux of the debate is that a group of resident editors is opting to exclude relevant content while they are aware that it is being sourced by peer-reviewed academic research and mainstream media outlets. This state of affairs implies that the resistance against the inclusion of this information constitutes an instance of WP:OWNER; specifically of multiple-editor ownership. As another reminder, multiple-editor ownership is materially different from achieving consensus.

The likely motivation for this behavior I've alluded to in my previous post, but the motive behind the ongoing efforts to block this well-sourced content is, ultimately, irrelevant. What's of consequence is whether Wikipedia guidelines are being met. If the tag team of editors involved in this discussion continue to be unable to offer a valid rationale as to why this content ought not be included (despite it 1) being directly relevant to the article, 2) it being sourced by peer-reviewed academic research and numerous quality press, and 3) it meeting the requirements stipulated by WP:RS), and nonetheless continue excluding the information by invoking an invalid rationale or non-existing consensus, then this issue will require outside mediation sooner rather than later. Malik047 (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What your peer-reviewed sources indicate is that there have been studies into the theory of MWWS, which have found some evidence that it exists. That is very different from saying that this particular case is a case of MWWS. There are no sources for that other than various opinion pieces. Just because in someone's opinion this is a case of MWWS does not make it so. There are lots of cases where parents have killed their children. I am sure we could cite peer-reviewed studies about that. But just because some people believe that the parents are involved in the disappearance of Madeleine, and we could find sources where people express that opinion, doesn't mean that we should include that opinion in the article. Once again, this is a BLP and the need to avoid potentially defamatory speculation and opinion is paramount to all other considerations. That is the only reason why this has never been included in this article. That this is a case of MWWS is a matter of opinion, and is potentially defamatory. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I also oppose the mention (diff) as it is coatracking some concept into this article. Given the widespread interest in the cases, it is likely that sources could be found that mention this topic in connection with a wide variety of matters. However, those matters are WP:UNDUE here unless reliable sources show otherwise—sources showing the DUEness are needed, not sources proclaiming the connection. Johnuniq (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Gonçalo Amaral book (Maddie, The Truth of the Lie)

In the interest of giving some useful insights/background information, perhaps Wikipedia and researchers in communication sciences could take up the request of Gonçalo Amaral to: "look into this case in order to understand how a dramatic event could be transformed into one of the most media covered happenings of our time”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.82.207 (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Since it appears that no one objects, it would seem OK to change the section Gonçalo Amaral book to read: Gonçalo Amaral book (Maddie, The Truth of the Lie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.88.247 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2014

Not done

This looks like a really good article! I have noticed a couple of things in the infobox that seem a bit unnatural. Firstly, the computer generated photograph of McCann should be placed further down the article. It is not actually a photograph of McCann: it is just a computer generated image of how she could have looked in 2012, assuming she was still alive then. It is a bit like having this [8] at the top of the Lord Lucan article. Secondly, in the 'born' entry, it says McCann is 'age 11'. This does not make much sense, because it is not known whether McCann is alive. It could be removed or changed to something like '11 years ago' instead. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC) 159.92.1.1 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Having both photos there is fine. No real reason not to. The assumption, until proven otherwise, is that she is still alive. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is that the assumption? Very simply, the second picture is not an actual photograph of McCann and putting it in the infobox gives the wrong impression. Would you support having speculative photographs at the top of the Lord Lucan, Disappearance of Etan Patz, Disappearance of Ben Needham or Disappearance of Genette Tate? The final article also has a better organised date section later in the infobox: it says Tate disappeared age 13 and has been missing for 35 years, rather than saying Tate is now age 49, which is speculative and possibly incorrect. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Because until there is proof someone is dead, or a certain period of time has passed and the next of kin apply to that person declared dead, they are presumed to be alive. So legally, Madeleine is presumed to be alive. That she is dead is what is speculation in the absence of proof or a declaration by a competent authority. The second picture is an artists impression of how she might look today, created by a very reputable forensic artist. It has been widely used in reliable sources so there is no problem having it in the article. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what you write about McCann being alive in a legal sense. I also agree with having it in the article. My request was not to remove it from the article, but to have it placed further down the article in the relevant section rather than at the very top. The infobox picture is supposed to be representative of the subject, which the computer generated is not. It is speculative because it is not actually a photograph of McCann, whereas the older one is. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of my second suggestion, to change the 'age 11' to something like '11 years ago' or 'disappeared x years ago' or just remove it entirely? It seems very jarring to describe McCann as being 11 years old. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Well my feeling is that because we must presume she is alive, we must presume that she is 11 years old and state that without any qualification throughout the whole article.

The second photo is not "computer generated". It was created by a world-renowned forensic artist, and has been widely covered in reliable sources (and used by the Metropolitan Police). It is clear that it represents how Madeleine may have looked in 2012. As such, I don't see a problem having it in the infobox.

I won't mark as not done yet in case another editor wants to weigh in with a different view. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. A simple change to '11 years ago' or something similar, as done in other articles, does not dispute whether or not McCann is alive at all. As it stands, the '11 years old' without justification does come across as a little strange. Sorry, would the forensic artist not have used a computer as part of his work? I do not know much about this field. Even the 'may have looked' is not clear. Is it an image from a forensic artist that models what McCann might look like if she is still alive (yes)? Is it a real photograph of a child that is believed to be McCann (no)? Is it a photograph her kidnapper has sent in to taunt McCann's family (no)? Whilst it is obvious to those who know about the disappearance, to a new reader, it is simply not clear. The image could be placed in the first section of the article (Background - Madeleine McCann), where the details of the image is given. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the "justification" for 11 years old is that she is alive, unless you can provide a reliable source that she isn't. As for the photo, it passes the tests for inclusion, and the caption on it is very clear, although I will look at amending it to make it even more clear. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the caption to read: (Left) Madeleine in 2007, aged three, and (right) an impression by a forensic artist of how she may have looked in 2012, aged nine Harry the Dog WOOF 17:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That reads a lot better now, even though I personally disagree with the photograph being there anyway. Are you opposed to changing the 'age 11' to '11 years ago'? Making this change helps a reader and does not make any underlying suggestions either way. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because for the purpose of this article she is still alive (unless you can provide reliable sources that show that she isn't) so there is no problem listing her age. It is more helpful if, for example, someone is coming to the article thinking they may have seen Madeleine and want to confirm how old she is today. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I respect your reply but disagree with it. Changing the text to '11 years ago' enables such a person to see how old McCann would be today if she were still alive. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"How do I look" vs "What do I look like"

There is a difference between "look like" and "how + look". Ask yourself these two questions and you will see the difference - 1. "How do I look?"; 2. "What do I look like?". If we are talking about "how" Madeleine looks, were are talking about her looking goos, looking pretty, looking good in something she is wearing, etc. If we are describing her, we are talking about what she looks like. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You are simply wrong on this point. The difference you suggest does not, in fact, exist. "How she may have looked..." is perfectly good, clear English. "What she may have looked like..." is both longer and introduces an impersonal pronoun unnecessarily. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

More than that "what she may have looked like" is clumsy, awkward and overly colloquial. "How she may have looked" is correct. DeCausa (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a difference between a it being a momentary state/ change in state or a longer-term state. If you are trying to find a place, you ask for a description of the building - "what does it look like?" and the reply would be something like "double storey, green, old-fashioned building". If your friend tells you he renovated his house, you ask "how is it looking?" and the reply would be something like "it is looking great". Think of the difference being being "drunk" and being "a drunkard". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle and DeCausa. If one tries to prescribe the use of phrases based on similar-sounding phrases in different contexts, one can get very misled. English doesn't work like that. "How she may have looked" is a more refined expression, and perfectly standard. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Rui Gabriel, I think you chose the wrong example to justify your reasoning, but you are right in a certain sense. If one asks, about a woman, "How does she look?", it is asking about her appearance at the moment, perhaps whether she looks like she is feeling better than before. If one asks, "What does she look like?", one is asking for a description of her general physical appearance, not just at the moment. PaleCloudedWhite is also right. I think Ghmyrtle is wrong to say in an edit summary that "an impression of what she may have looked like in 2012" is poor English. To me, the two alternatives are equally correct. "An impression of how she may have looked in 2012" is more concise than the other, so is appropriate for the caption. "What she may have looked like" is actually more colloquial than "how she may have looked", so in that sense Rui Gabriel is right. I think "an impression...of how..." is not especially good writing. "An impression...of what..." is better. So if one prefers "how she may have looked", I would change "an impression of" to "showing": "a forensic artist's image showing how she may have looked in 2012". If one prefers "an impression of", I would use "what she may have looked like": "a forensic artist's impression of what she may have looked like in 2012". CorinneSD (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that "how she may have appeared in 2012" is clearer, and avoids the issue. TJRC (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"How she may have looked" is better, more direct. Rothorpe (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Under the 'born' section of the infobox, McCann is described as being 'age 11'. Should this be kept, removed or changed to an alternative wording? 159.92.1.1 (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Remove age or change to '11 years ago'. The infobox is supposed to give a summary of the article to those who are new to it. Suggesting that McCann is age 11 is problematic: it implies to the reader that McCann is, without doubt, still alive. Changing it to '11 years ago', or removing it completely, does not make any such suggestion and does not remove any detail from the infobox. Unlike what others have said below, it does not suggest McCann is dead. The current content is confusing to new readers. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted, for the purpose of the article, she is still alive, legally. Nothing in the article should indicate the contrary. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing it to '11 years ago' does not indicate anything to the contrary: it is the most neutral possible wording. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Stating her age is the clearest possible indication that she is still alive. Why is that confusing? If she is still alive, which we much presume, stating her age is not confusing. Not stating it might confuse the reader into believing she is dead, since all infoboxes of living people state their age if known. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, under British law, a person is declared dead in absentia after seven years, which potentially applies to McCann. 'A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “If after seven years a person is still missing and there has been no sight or contact with them, they are presumed dead."' [9]. Legally, this is a very interesting issue, yet wording it as '11 years ago' removes this problem entirely. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Saying someone was born 11 years ago does not suggest the person is alive and does not suggest the person is dead. That is my reasoning. I think it would be best if we leave it for others to discuss: a request for comments is to get outside opinions. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Only if a competent authority or the next of kin apply to have them declared dead. No competent authority has indicated they will do this, and her parents have said they definitely won't. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Just consider someone who is reading the article for the first time who reads that McCann 'is age 11'. The reader might think that McCann disappeared and was subsequently found, or went missing and is assumed to be alive or something else altogether. On the other hand, if the reader sees that McCann was born '11 years ago', no questions will be asked and all the information will be provided. Writing 'is age 11' only serves to hinder the first-time reader. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not have the time to continue with this discussion and requests for comments, but I hope it is discussed properly by others and a solution can be reached. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as-is Per WP:DATED. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The 11 can be made to change every year, as with all other dates. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Leave it as is showing her age, we dont have any reliable sources that indicate that she is not alive and if she was not then the article would take on a new direction because she would no longer be "dissapeared". Dont have a problem with the compromise change that Harry the Dirty Dog made MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Remove "and age" from infobox parameter. We know when she was born; we know when she disappeared. That's all we know. We should not imply she is alive, which the current wording does; we should not imply she is dead. Simply removing the two words "and age" would remove the scope for contention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle gets it exactly right. I was going to post the same thing. When the information is not known, Wikipedia should not purport to state that information. TJRC (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note - I have added a "Missing for" parameter to the infobox. That shows clearly that she is still missing and for how long. As noted, unless we can provide a reliable source stating that she is dead, we have to assume that she is alive. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"..unless we can provide a reliable source stating that she is dead, we have to assume that she is alive..". We don't have to assume, or suggest to readers, either that she is alive or dead. By removing the two words I suggested, we leave the issue entirely open and uncertain, as it should be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about her legal status. Until she is found dead or declared dead legally she is presumed to be alive. The article should reflect that unambiguously. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The legal status is just one aspect. We need to reflect reality. The reality is uncertain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The legal status is important. This is a BLP, and this can be compared to situations where someone has been charged with but not yet convicted of a crime. The reality there is uncertain too, but they are presumed to be innocent until there is proof of their guilt, and nothing in the article should even remotely suggest guilt. In this case, we must presume that Madeleine is alive since she has not been officially declared dead. Virtually all BLPs that have infoboxes include the age of the subject. To a casual reader, not including her age could give the impression that she is no longer alive, which is something the article should not do. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Giving her age in the infobox gives readers the impression that we think she is alive, which is something the article should not do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I see it the other way round. Not having it there means we think she is dead, since all other BLPs tend to include the subject's age if we know it. Not including the age for a living person seems odd to me. Since there is no uncertainty about her legal status (legally she is alive) it is better for the article to clearly reflect that reality. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Harry, my suggestion included the age '11', yet you still oppose it. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're happy to have "age 11" listed in the infobox I'm not sure what we are discussing. And if you are happy to have it elsewhere, why not in the infobox? "11 years ago" is not the same thing, which is what I took your initial suggestion to be. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The punctuation marks were just around the 11, sorry, so I meant I think the 11 should be included, but just in a slightly better-worded way than present. Someone who reads 'age 11' will assume that McCann is still alive, which is not entirely clear here, no matter what the status is legally. Someone who reads '11 years ago', or something similar (that was just an example) gets the age without making any type of inference about status. I would not say it is strange to describe myself as being born x years ago, for instance. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A directly parallel case is Disappearance of Ben Needham. In that case, there is no infobox, but the article does not say 'age 24'. It gives his date of birth, date of disappearance, and age at the time. I fail to see what the difference is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Two differences between the cases are the length of time they've been missing and Scotland Yard producing an age-progressed image for Madeleine, which I assume they didn't do for no reason. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue of the age-progressed image is the next section, not here. The same was done for Needham, incidentally [10] [11]. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record I was opposed to having an infobox on this article when it was discussed, but since we have one it should be consistent with the infoboxes on virtually every other BLP where we know the age of the subject and include it. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Remove age per Ghmyrtle and 159.92.1.1's arguments above. WaggersTALK 13:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep age. I could go either way on this, but I have a slight preference for retaining it. Scotland Yard have made clear that she might still be alive, in their view, and they commissioned the age-progressed image that's in the lead. The parents have not applied to have her declared dead, and there's no evidence to suggest that she has died, so for now that parameter strikes me as reasonable. Saying that she was born 11 years ago would be to imply that she is dead, so we should either retain the age parameter or remove it, but we ought not to add "11 years ago," as was suggested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep age - To be honest because of the nature of this I could go with either aswell but at the end of the day I believe somewhere out there she's alive so saying Keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Remove age per Ghmyrtle and 159.92.1.1's arguments above. WP should not be implying that she's either dead or alive because nobody, including the police, actually knows. Including 'age 11' clearly implies that she's alive. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question - One question has remained unanswered in this entire discussion. If someone can provide a convincing answer I will change my view. We have decided that this is a BLP. Despite the fact that it is an article about the event and its aftermath, we have decided to have an infobox about Madeleine on the article. That's fine. I am not going over that discussion again. But BLP infoboxes do include the subject's age (if known). Given that, to not include her age (given that it is a BLP and she remains legally alive and is presumed to be alive in the absence of proof that she is dead) is to treat this BLP differently to any other BLP. If we want to change the status of the article, that's fine. But a BLP by definition means the person is alive. The question is, since it is a BLP, and we have a BLP infobox (specifically relating to Madeleine) on the article, why would we not include the subject's age as we do for every other BLP where the subject's age is known? Harry the Dog WOOF 16:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(Comment) It is not an actual biographical article but one on a crime event but because it includes information on real people some of the BLP rules apply, so it doesnt actually have or need a biography infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(Comment) That was my argument when we discussed having an infobox about Madeleine on the article. But now that we do have a BLP infobox that is about her, should we not treat that infobox in the same way as we do every other BLP infobox? Harry the Dog WOOF 16:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think holding an RfC on this issue is not exactly a sensitive thing to do, and that we ought not to let it continue for much longer. The issue is whether we retain the "and age" parameter in the infobox; the infobox is fine either way, so let's just make a decision and close this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, request for comments last for twenty-eight days normally. There are many controversial and potentially upsetting articles on Wikipedia, but there is no reason to close these types of discussions early for reasons of 'sensitivity'. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep age - until there are definitive answers; one way or the other - keeping the age for now seems right...Modernist (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Keeping the age suggests a definite answer of McCann being alive. Removing the age, or changing it to something more neutral, does not give any such answer. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'll vote keep. Rothorpe (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rothorpe, you should give a reason for this. Request for comments are not simply votes. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Good, I was about to answer your latest comments anyway. Keeping the age does not mean she is alive for certain. 'Disappearance' implies she is still missing---or are there articles called Disappearance of X in which X has subsequently been found? Plus the real picture of Madeleine is not going to be what she looks like today, should someone see a child who looks like that and is reminded of the picture they saw here, and that needs counterbalancing. Rothorpe (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Was leaning towards remove, but have decided on keep instead. Going to by the alive until proven dead principle. — Status (talk · contribs) 09:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Your Wikilink takes us to the entry for "Presumption of innocence," which is irrelevant to the concept of "alive until proven dead." -The Gnome (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Remove, if the age is unknown we should not be pretending to know. Fraulein451 (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2014

• Comment: We do know the age. The question is whether we should continue to refer to her as being alive when we don't know whether she is dead, but we can say that, legally at least, she is alive. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Stating (Legal age 11) would therefore be more precise than the current wording. However, obviously it could be considered offensive - which is why I still feel it would be better to omit the parameter entirely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strong vote to Remove age: It is entirely uncertain whether the subject of this entry is still alive. Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides on this (or any other matter). Listing the date of birth, without listing the age, provides all available information per reliable sources and keeps Wikipedia neutral. Listing the subject's age in BLP articles is meant to facilitate information, i.e. do the calculation for the user. It is not meant to convey opinion. -The Gnome (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong keep age: By the above logic we should also be referring to her in the past tense, and remove the distinguishing features etc. The easiest way out of this dilemma is to accept the fact that she is still legally alive (and that is a fact, not speculation) and frame the article around that, thus age, distinguishing features, present tense when referring to her. To not do that does actually imply that we believe she is dead (which would be speculation) as opposed to her being alive which, at least in legal terms, is a fact. Cooperative Guy (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This user has only two previous edits, which were made to the same article more than one year ago. I cannot help but feel that there is something strange going on here. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This from an unregistered user whose edits this year (all but three of them) have all been on this talk page? I read Wikipedia a lot, but rarely sign in and edit. I came here looking for information about McCann (including how old she is now), saw the discussion and decided to comment. Cooperative Guy (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if I have made a mistake. My concerns were raised just because you have only ever signed in to make two edits many months ago on an article that shares edit history with a very vocal member of this discussion. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear with an investigation. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not the same at all. Including her "distinguished features" simply provides the available information as provided by the authorities. Wikipedia will record and reflect this. As regards the tense of the text, it does not signify anything: Articles can be written in the present tense denoting a past event. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would say Remove age. Removing the age is *not* saying she is dead, as some people are implying - it's simply not saying anything either way. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am trying to say, Boing!. Removing the age simply removes the current ambiguity which leads new readers to believing that McCann is certainly alive. I cannot imagine anyone noticing the lack of 'age 11' and concluding that McCann is dead because of this, which is what is being suggested by others. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(Having said that, I don't feel strongly about it - so whoever closes this, please feel free to give more weight to those who do have strong feelings — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

• Remove age Anyone who can read the infobox should be able to add three to the time she's been missing to get her current age (presuming she is still alive). Leaving the 'current age' out is a more neutral way, and doesn't imply belief in either of the positions. In the light of certain long term disappearances that have been resolved in recent years, there is still hope that she will be found alive and well. But there is also doubt. BTW the seven year presumption of death in English law is there mainly for permitting the settlement of the estate of the missing person, which is hardly relevant to a child in a case where (so far as I know) there is no estate to settle. Peridon (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Remove age. As Boing says, that means we are simply not taking an opinion on her status, which leaving the age in clearly means we are. Removing the parameter is the obvious answer. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 02:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

OK to make things clearer:

1. Madeleine was born (fact)

2. Madeleine disappeared (fact)

3. Madeleine has not been found dead or declared dead (fact)

4. Madeleine is still legally alive (fact)

Based on those four facts, the article should treat her as still being alive, including having her age in an infobox that is about her. Nothing else seems logical to me based on the above facts. To do anything else does treat this infobox differently to any other person infobox where the person is still alive, and therefore would give the impression that we don't believe she is still alive. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, without trying to be dogmatic (like what i did there?):

Harry, you've made your opinion very clear ~ i count thirteen comments and replies so far ~ perhaps you should stop;

Stating the age implies that the stater (in this case us) strongly believes the subject is alive: Use of the present tense, even implied, in "Age 11" is saying that Wikipedia takes the position that the poor child still lives. Of course we hope she does, but we don't know, so it is intellectually dishonest to say we do;

There is no way "the article should treat her as still being alive", because we don't know; behaving as if we do is not the right thing to do;

Trying to cover the position with whether she is "legally alive" is sidestepping the issue; (fact)

It would be distasteful (in mine opinion) to put in the weasel-phrase ("if she is still alive"), so the only thing to do is leave the age out, and allow our readers to draw their own conclusions. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's sidestepping the issue. Her being legally alive is the one fact that we do know. It allows us to state things in the present tense, like her distinguishing features. Until she is proven dead we can assume she is still alive without making a judgement either way. An assumption is not stating something as fact. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Remove age In some cases of disappeared persons, they have been declared legally dead, like Judge Crater or Amelia Earhart, so we do not post ages as if they might be still alive. In a 2005 disappearance of an 18 year old, Disappearance of Natalee Holloway she has also been declared legally dead, and her "present age" is not given. Unlike those cases, and more on point here there is Disappearance of Iraena Asher from 2004, who like McCann has not been declared legally dead, but which just gives her age at disappearance and not a "present age." Her status is "possibly drowned." In all articles in the category of disappearances from the 2000's, omitting articles which state a legal finding or strong presumption they were murdered or committed suicide, and omitting those with no infobox, we have the following examples of community consensus. Not a single one states in an infobox what the missing person's present age is or would be. Disappearance of Rahma el-Dennaoui (vanished from her bedroom at age 1) No present age in the infobox. Disappearance of Amy Fitzpatrick from 2006: no present age in the infobox. Jessie Foster from 2006, no present age in the infobox. Disappearance of Tara Grinstead from 2005, no present age in infobox. Disappearance of Jennifer Kesse from 2006; no present age in infobox. Disappearance of Claudia Lawrence from 2009. No present age in infobox. Disappearance of Brianna Maitland from 2004. No present age in infobox. Disappearance of Maura Murray from 2004: no present age in infobox. Joe Pichler from 2006: No present age in infobox. Finally, Zebb Quinn from 2000/ No present age in infobox. Thus it is quite a departure from the common practice , even in cases where a child was abducted from his bedroom and no body was found or suspect identified, to include a calculated present age in an infobox. I see no reason to depart from that practice here, even if it is comforting for relatives and friends to picture Madeleine growing up somewhere and reaching various ages. Edison (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Edison, that has addressed the issues clearly. I actually think common practice is wrong, since assumption does not by definition mean certainty, so assuming someone is still alive until there is certainty they aren't still strikes me as the right way forward. And that would include listing their current age.

But that is a debate for another place. Since the current practice on similar articles is not to have the age, then we shouldn't have it here. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Remove age per Edison. I still think there are valid reasons for keeping it but it seems it is not current practice on similar articles. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep age Until she has been legally presumed dead, she should be presumed to be alive. Kidnapped children have been recovered after more than 11 years. Not enough time has passed to presume that she is not a still living person. --Iamozy (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
• Omit age from infobox. The absence of an age does not suggest to readers that Wikipedia has a view as to this girl's status. The presence of an age does. Lacking evidence, we should not. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Remove age per Ghmyrtle and above. As Ghmyrtle said, we know when she was born and we know when she disappeared. That's all we know. This is the most neutral position, in my view. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep age but qualify with "if alive" or equivalent. (age 11, if alive). We aren't restricted to merely omitting or including. It falls within our power to be explicit here, and the fact we can do so with addition of two little words keeps us well in line with MOS:INFOBOX. If she's alive she's 11, if she's dead she's not. Why argue over what possible assumptions the reader might make under two different cases of too little information if we can include the relevant information as to remove any doubt in a concise manner? Rubiscous (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the speculated image of McCann made by a forensic artist be removed from the infobox and placed within the main article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the speculated image of McCann made by a forensic artist be removed from the infobox and placed within the main article under 'Background - Madeleine McCann'? 159.92.1.1 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Remove from infobox and place in main article. The forensic artist image is not a real photograph of McCann. I cannot see the benefit of cluttering the infobox with this image. The nature of the image is described in the section 'Background - Madeleine McCann', which would be a more suitable place for the picture. It seems unusual to allow infoboxes to host speculative images when legitimate images exist (consider Lord Lucan, Disappearance of Etan Patz and Disappearance of Genette Tate, for just three examples). 159.92.1.1 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Already discussed. No point in rehashing it. In any event, it is a single image. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A request for comments is a way for outside editors to give their own opinions, instead of just us two doing so. Collaboration and consensus is how Wikipedia works. Give your opinion and then leave it for others to do the same. It does not matter what the outcome is, as long as it has community support. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That's why I waited some time to mark the request as "not done". There was plenty of time for others to give their opinion. It seems pointless to keep rehashing it. But if others want to weigh in now, that's fine. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep image This is why we don't need partisans on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as-is - dont see why the image cant be included as it was an important step in the disappearance and search for Madeleine, remember this is not a biography article but a crime one. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think there is a negative impact by having two photos in the lede, but I am slightly concerned that we could be misleading readers, especially those who aren't very literate in English and perhaps just googled her name or something. It would be undesirable if someone leaves the article thinking that is how she actually looks. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The two images are in fact one image for which we claim fair use. The age-progressed one was commissioned by Scotland Yard, which is not something they would have done lightly. The caption makes clear that it's an artist's impression. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as is, but the fabricated image should not be seen as a replacement for the genuine photograph (in other words, showing them alongside one another is fine but I would not agree with using the forensic artist's image in the infobox on its own). WaggersTALK 13:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as is - I don't see why this shouldn't be included and plus it does state "an artist impression". –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The genuine photograph is, after all, the more misleading one. Rothorpe (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• keep it as it is after all it's the best one we have 5 albert square (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. It's perfect the way it is. — Status (talk · contribs) 09:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Move to main article There is simply no place in the infobox or in the intro for that matter for a speculative rendering made by a forensic artist. There exists a photograph and that is what should be used. The rendering can be affixed inside a section relating the efforts to find Madeleine. Otherwise (see RfC immediately above), Wikipedia is taking sides and offering a non-neutral, arbitrary opinion - indirectly implying that the girl is alive. According to all reliable sources, however, there is no way of knowing whether she is alive or not. Therefore, in the intro and in the infobox, Wikipedia should be reflecting precisely this state of affairs. -The Gnome (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment This is clearly an emotionally charged subject. It is interesting to note that some of the justifications for the keep-as-is vote demonstrate a desire to help solve the mystery. However, this is not what Wikipedia is about, at all. Wikipedia is not some sort of social media. -The Gnome (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Move to article If it's an official rendering, it's a part of the investigation and relevant. But it belongs in the 'efforts to find' rather than the infobox. Infoboxes are abbreviated facts, while this image is speculation - scientifically informed speculation, though. It shouldn't be discarded on the grounds that it might assist finding her, and it shouldn't be included on the grounds that it might assist finding her. It should be included as a relevant part of the investigation. Peridon (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - most of our historical biography articles have artist impressions, not photographs. The caption explains the image very well and there is no chance of confusion on the part of readers. In fact, as a reader, I'd expect every similar article with a similar official age-progressed image to handle it the same way as is done here. Caveat: if sometime in the future she is declared legally dead, then the age-progression should be removed. -- Netoholic @ 21:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Your "caveat" offers a helpful insight in this argument. If she's found dead, we should remove the artist's impression, you are suggesting - and quite correctly so. But why would we be removing it? Because finding the girl dead annuls the implicit assumption she's alive, an assumption made through the inclusion of the artist's impression. Yes, precisely. However, Wikipedia editors are not allowed to make "assumptions"! When we do not make assumptions, i.e. when the article is properly written, every image should be able to remain in place irrespective of subsequent developments. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep There is no problem with the clearly labeled image, although I don't see why there should be an external link in the caption. Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, stop scratching the itch. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Unarchived section. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Secret Home Office Report

The Report was said to conclude that:

The intervention of multiple UK police forces and agencies created "frustration" and "resentment" among Portuguese police.

The decision by the Association of Chief Police Officers to put Leicestershire Police in charge of the operation was a mistake because the force was ill-equipped to deal with such a big investigation.

Challenges to the Portuguese police's approach to the investigation led to warnings that Britain should not try to act as a "colonial power".

The Home Office - which declined to release the report under Freedom of Information laws - declined to comment.” Madeleine McCann Secret Home Office Report, SkyNews, 1 Sep 2014

Should not this Report, plus the issues and concerns it highlights, be mentioned?

78.147.90.180 (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Sky report is here. It might be appropriate to include a sentence along the lines of "Sky News reported that...", but I'm not sure it adds very much, and no doubt it's been publicised now simply in order to promote a new book "out next week" which promises "further revelations"... surprise surprise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"false allegations"

As nothing is known of Madeleine's ultimate fate at this time, I think the phrase "false allegations" in the introduction should be amended to just "allegations". By definition, we cannot know whether or not allegations against Madeleine's parents can be said to be "false" until the case is resolved.

Legally, at least some of the allegations are false because the McCanns have sued for libel over them and won. So it is correct to say that they have been subjected to false allegations. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is there never any discussion of this case on the talk page (here)

Is it because this wikipedia article is tightly controlled by parties to the mccanns? Clarence Mitchell etc.

Every aspect of what is discussed about the McCanns, is controlled by them as far as possible. Will this question even be allowed to stand.

5.81.102.11 (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article only. See WP:NOTFORUM. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Picture

Using the artist's impression of how McCann would have looked at age nine in the infobox, next to her actual picture, seems to me to be in rather poor taste. Nearly every biographical article has the subject's picture at the top so the immediate assumption of a reader unfamiliar with the story would be that it is an actual picture of McCann, and that the article is about a nine-year-old girl. The sad reality is that she almost certainly died at age three.

It certainly belongs in the article somewhere, but not in the summary box. --77.102.114.99 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The article makes it clear enough that the image on the right is merely an impression of Madeline, therefore I don't know how anyone could think it is an actual picture of Madeline. The image in the infobox should always illustrate the subject of the article and that's what both images attempt to do. The one on the left in my opinion would no longer do that on it's own because if she is still alive, her appearance will have changed.--5 albert square (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You see the picture before you read the article, and it's the initial impression that is in question here. It doesn't illustrate the subject of the article. The subject of the article was never a nine-year-old. The possibility that she is still alive is, sadly, miniscule and to imply she is still alive by including what she would look like if she was is WP:UNDUE.

It does illustrate the extent and the length of the investigation into her disappearance, so it would be suitable in the relevant section. But to use it as if it's an actual photo of her is really very poor taste.

How far is this going to go? In ten years' time if her body has still not been discovered and someone mocks up a photo of what she would look like as an adult, would that be included in the infobox? If not, why is the nine-year-old mock-up different? --77.102.114.99 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Very recent discussion here [12]. I see no need to re-open it at this stage. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)