Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Polish girl who thinks she's McCann

Hello there mods, do you think that there should have a section about this girl, she thinks she's Madeleine? JoãotheWikiFan (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Already there. 2023 claims General Ization ^Talk 00:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I want to add a source. And I want to make a mention of a DNA test and that this polish woman could potentially another Swiss missing girl. And for some reason I cannot added the page even though I'm a Wikipedia member. I thought members can create and edit locked pages.Loymc1 (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection for an explanation of your inability to edit the page. As for your source, assuming it's the same one you added at Disappearance of Alessia and Livia Schepp, it gives no evidence that she could be one of the Schepp girls, it only says that it's an Internet rumor that's going around—one that, if true, means the young woman is both 21 and 18 at the same time. Largoplazo (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Wendel or Wendell?

The I24 link uses "Wendel." However, others, such as Edinburghlive and Irish Mirror use "Wendell." Yahoo! also uses "Wendell." I can't link every article that uses "Wendell." How should we verify which is correct? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Sergey Malinka" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sergey Malinka has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 25 § Sergey Malinka until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

broken link

Kristi Card link broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.64.216 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Julia Wendel is not Madeleine McCann

On April 4, 2023, a private investigator concluded that Wendel is not McCann after receiving a negative DNA test, “She is absolutely 100% from Poland” [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolheights23 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Julia Wendel

Requesting the removal of the subsection "2023 Claims" regarding Julia Windel. The reasons for this are:

1 - It isn't a formal police line of enquiry, it's a tabloid promoted attention-seeking random wanting their 15 minutes of fame, so doesn't belong in the section it's been forced into.

2 - Her claims were immediately dismissed by the authorities and disproven by DNA, and didn't have any noteworthy impact on the case in question.

3 - If we continue to include her then it's setting the precedent that means we'd have to include the likely dozens at this point randoms out there all claiming to have been Madeleine. Unless we're going to start a new topic of false claims of being Madeleine McCann then it should be removed as superfluous. Apache287 (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe there have been a small handful of such claims, but not dozens? I would support removal - we don't cover the other such cases, and it's therefore a question of WP:DUE. Some randomer said she was Madeleine McCann; it was proven quickly and conclusively that she isn't. Is there a need to cover that? In my opinion, no, absolutely not. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

There's probably only a handful that have been reported on but I wouldn't be at all surprised if you dug through every tabloid, blog etc out there you'd find a lot of people all claiming to be her. This one that somehow got mass reporting is even more farcical when one of the sources used to warrant inclusion literally points out she's years older than Madeleine... Apache287 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed, per WP:UNDUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

In paragraph 4 of the introductory section, "whom" is used incorrectly and needs to be changed to "who":

The current version of the paragraph is

In 2020, police in the German city of Braunschweig stated there was a new suspect in Madeleine's disappearance,[15][2] a German national and convicted sex offender whom public prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters was convinced had abducted and murdered the child.[16]

and should read

In 2020, police in the German city of Braunschweig stated there was a new suspect in Madeleine's disappearance,[15][2] a German national and convicted sex offender who public prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters was convinced had abducted and murdered the child.[16]

In this sentence, "who" was misconstrued as a grammatical object. Piscator47 (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2023

The text in the 4th paragraph of the section "German Investigations in 2020" includes the line:

...the convicted German serial paedophile Christian Brückner (also known simply as "Christian B" under German privacy laws), who was living in a VW camper van near Praia da Luz when Madeleine disappeared...

This is redundant, as the information about Brückner's criminal history and living situation is already stated in the first paragraph:

...possible involvement of then-43-year-old Christian Brückner (also known simply as "Christian B" under German privacy laws), a convicted sex offender believed to have been living in a borrowed VW camper van in the Algarve region at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.

I propose the sentence in the 4th paragraph be changed from:

According to cell phone geolocating, the cell phone of the convicted German serial paedophile Christian Brückner (also known simply as "Christian B" under German privacy laws), who was living in a VW camper van near Praia da Luz when Madeleine disappeared, was allegedly near McCann within 5 minutes of her disappearance.

to:

According to cell phone geolocating, the cell phone of Brückner was allegedly near McCann within 5 minutes of her disappearance.

Timtjtim (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

23 May 2023 Reservoir search

The ongoing search by German police of the Arade dam in Portugal, 31 miles from Praia da Luz, needs to be added: [2] 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears to involve both German and Portuguese Police officers and was added due to photos of McCann at the site being uncovered recently by police. They are also searching the wooded area near the reservoir. BettyWik21 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it seems you have misread. That source actually says "... after photographs and video of the site were said to have been found in the possession of a man suspected of involvement in the child’s disappearance 16 years ago." The photos featured Christian Brückner himself. The search also included British police observers. The search continues for a second day today. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Sniffer dogs have been employed and bags of material have been taken away: [3] The search continues for a third day today. This really should be added to the article. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This has now been added. But not sure of the wording of "the girl was killed in the dam". Maybe that makes sense in German or Portuguese, but not really in English. Perhaps "the girl was killed on the shore of the reservoir", or something similar, might be better? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2023

I would like how old she would be now and key dates in Madeleine's disappearance to be added please. McEatMyMcFeet (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. All of that appears to be in the article already. Cannolis (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2023

It says "Previously, McCann's sock was found in the search area in 2008". There is no evidence for this claim of finding a sock. Please remove. 193.38.2.81 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The Portuguese source refers to a "child's sock" ("uma meia de uma criança"). I have changed the text in the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone found a childs sock??? 2.28.132.29 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. However it was known that Madeleine did not have socks on when she was last seen in bed. Could you please further expand? 193.38.2.80 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link for "The Portuguese source" ? Thanks. 193.38.2.81 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It's one of the sources next to that sentence. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2023

Under “Futher Police Inquiries (2011-Present)” and under “Operation Grange” the first photo (of Theresa May and David Cameron) and description is missing a parentheses after “(then-home secretary”.

So “Theresa May (then-home secretary with David Cameron (then-prime minister) in 2010” to “ Theresa May (then-home secretary) with David Cameron (then-prime minister) in 2010 DFMNE404 (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

to be added to "Amaral's book (24 July 2008)":

The McCanns brought an action before the ECHR against the Portuguese State, invoking Articles 6 and 2 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention and alleging that Mr. Amaral's statements had damaged their reputation, good repute and right to the presumption of innocence, complaining that they had been unable to obtain redress before the domestic courts. The judgment of September 20, 2022, delivered unanimously by seven judges, held that there had been no violation by Portugal of the articles in question. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-219530%22]} 2001:818:E806:9600:71DF:A1A7:9DEC:C951 (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Presumed dead

The infobox states that she was presumed dead in absentia on 4 May 2020. This is not accurate. On that day, German prosecutors just stated that they assume her to be dead. The legal term in absentia is not used in the BBC source. As McCann is a British citizen, only a UK court would be able to declare her legally dead. When reading "presumed dead in absentia", one would think that she has legally been declared/presumed dead.

In English law under the Cestui que Vie Act of 1666, a missing person would generally be assumed dead after seven years under three conditions; no evidence of still being alive, and the people most likely to have heard from them having no contact, and inquiries made of that person being unsuccess. Under this law, she would almost certainly have been declared legally dead by now.

However, with the Presumption of Death Act of 2013, this was changed. As seven years did not get to pass from McCann's disappearance in 2007 before the 1666 law was abolished in 2013, she was not been declared dead.

This is kind of my own research to give background but also just simple deductive reasoning. There might be sources for it, though.

The infobox needs to be changed to no longer imply that she has been presumed dead in any sort of legal manner just because police (for good reason, I believe) in a foreign country think so.--Marginataen (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2024

smith sighting alien craft correllation 49.255.189.26 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2024 (2)

check Brooklyn Blood Pop............... !-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> 49.255.189.26 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Brooklyn Blood Pop Correllative to Madeleine Mccann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.255.189.26 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

How does this not violate NPOV

Saying "Her parents were subjected to intense scrutiny and baseless allegations of involvement in her death, particularly in the tabloid press and on Twitter" and only much later mentioning that many of these allegations came after the British Cadaver/Blood dogs identified the smell of a dead body in the McCann's room in Praia de Luz seems to contradict. It is a valid point of view that Madeline was never kidnapped. The original detective on the case, Amaral, though so, and so does criminal profiler Pat Brown. It seems unjust to call that theory "baseless." Wfazers (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs summarise the article and can't mention everything. The fact that Amaral believes what he does is covered further up in the lead. Pretty much everything in this case is a theory, and as such, we have to be particularly mindful of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Wikipedia doesn't deal in "points of view", valid or not. It deals in sourced content. These theories about her not having been kidnapped have been widely covered in the media, and generally dismissed, so that is what Wikipedia records. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Having been widely dismissed does not make a theory "baseless", especially when such a theory is given a solid base later in the Wikipedia article. It seems like saying it is "baseless" is more bias than saying that the police don't currently suspect the McCanns of covering up their daughter's death. Wfazers (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The McCanns have not been charged, let alone convicted of any involvement in what happened to Madeleine. Therefore, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons the allegations that they were involved are indeed "baseless". Indeed, some of the allegations made in the tabloids were baseless, in the sense that they were basically made up. That is why most tabloids are not considered WP:RS. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Tabloids are baseless but the theory itself is not,

"Her parents were subjected to intense scrutiny and baseless allegations of involvement in her death" by itself is an incorrect statement. The part about the tabloids comes after.

Didn't the Portuguese Supreme Court rule that the Mccanns had not been officially cleared? I understand not accusing the Mccans on a public platform, but saying that a valid theory is "baseless" is just incorrect. That is what I object to. Wfazers (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read the sources that this statement is based on (click the little a). The mention of tabloids is part of the same sentence. As I said, per WP:BLP the statements are baseless as they have no proven basis in fact, but I'm quite happy to change baseless to 'completely untrue' which is a direct quote from one of the sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I did read the sources, I've read most of them a long time ago. Even a qualifier such as "This theory has been labeled as 'completely untrue'" would even be better than 'baseless' which is factually wrong. Wfazers (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:BLP it is in fact baseless because it has no basis in fact. The guilt or innocence of the McCanns has never been tested in a court of law, and therefore they remain innocent, and any statement to the contrary is indeed baseless. That is what Wikipedia must state, without qualifier, even as it records that various theories were advanced. It really is that simple.Lard Almighty (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't see anything like this for many other people accused of high-profile crimes. There is a whole section on the Killing of Jonbenet Ramsey about the Theory of a Parent vs. The Theory of an Intruder. Wfazers (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And the theories and accusations are mentioned here, just not given undue weight. And until they are tested in a court of law and the McCanns are found guilty of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, these theories remain baseless, and Wikipedia must refer to them as such. Please read WP:BLP. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC).

The Ramseys were similarly never convicted nor indicted. No matter how many wiki rules you link me to (which I have read before) I still disagree with the word "baseless." Wfazers (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge of Wikipedia policies for an editor who only started editing today. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my grandma tells me I am a genius on-par with Einstein (and also a very handsome young man). But even with my super level of intellect, I'll never understand why many Wikipedia editors like to state things which are factually wrong. Wfazers (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

I have noticed that King CharlesIII is refferd to as a prince here :"anonymous email to Prince Charles" Where Prince should be changed to King. Communist Bean (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No, in 2007 he was still Prince Charles. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)