Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

time since maddie went missing

i can’t edit it but as of jan 4th 2025 she has been missing for 1 day, 8 months and 18 years. Sorteraimpervius (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The article currently says "Missing for 17 years, 8 months and 1 day" which is correct, counting from the disappearance on 3 May 2007. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Woman claiming to be Madeleine

There's a woman, Julia Wendelt, who claims to be Madeleine and this has been covered in several reliable sources. I would write the passage myself, but I don't know where to put it. I'll leave the sources I found here if this interests anyone.
Sources

• The Independent
• BBC News
• Diario de Pontevedra (Spanish newspaper)
• Observador (Portuguese newspaper)

Grumpylawnchair (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2025

Under "Alleged reappearances as an adult", add in that in February 2025, an American woman, Eugenea Collins, claimed that she is the real Madeleine McCann after hearing about Wandelt. CharmStone127 (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any source? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit requests are for specific actions (change X to Y). Before adding what random people have claimed, it is necessary to have a discussion to assess whether WP:DUE is satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

"baseless" in lead?

"Baseless" (Not having an underlying basis or foundation, groundless; unjustifiable - OED) seems a very strong term to use in the lead for the allegations against the McCanns. I can see this has been discussed a few times before, but the arguments made for it don't seem to be great.

The word was put in place in a discussion in 2017 replacing "false" and asserted to be more neutral - I think it's actually more or less synonymous. It's claimed in that discussion that the allegations were found to be false in the libel case against the Express; but that is not what a libel case establishes. It is a defence to a libel charge to show that the statement was true; but losing a libel case does not prove the statement was false, only that the defendant could not prove it was true.

The word was questioned again later in 2017 where it was justified on the basis that the McCanns have been ruled out as suspects by the Portuguese police. This seems to be disputed by the 2017 Portuguese Supreme Court ruling.

It was questioned again in 2024 and the word was justified by WP:BLP; but WP:BLP says that Wikipedia doesn't say unproven things about living people; it doesn't say that Wikipedia actively disputes unproven things. It's also asserted that it's accurate to call the accusations baseless because the McCanns have not been proven guilty in a court of law. Again, this is a reason not to assert that they are guilty; it is not a reason to state as fact the opposite.

I have absolutely no personal position on this case; but this word stuck out to me, and to the multiple people who have questioned it before, as a deviation from the WP:NPOV, and does not seem to have been especially well justified in the previous discussions.

I tend to think that if a single word, in a lead, is repeatedly questioned and needs five paragraphs of notes to justify it, maybe it is not the most neutral choice, and I would suggest a better word could be found (or the word could simply be removed), and this additional context given in body text instead of being dismissed in a single word in the lead. TSP (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Which other word(s) would you suggest? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I was reading up on the case after many years and came across the Wikipedia article. I was going to leave a note about the exact same thing this user brought up.

The allegations were not baseless, quiite the contrary. There was a lot more evidence, albeit circumstancial, to support a coverup than an abduction. The Polícia Judiciária report is widely available, and while it does not officially favour any one theory due to a lack of concrete evidence, it certainly does not disprove any theory either, and neither did (or in effect could) any other police force involved. You cannot say kidnapping is baseless either, although the case seems to be much weaker there.

The Mccanns were charged with anything, but they were also NOT clared in any way, shape or form. Reading the article, it does feel like it's very much one-sided in its' effort to depict them as totally innocent of any wrongdoing, which no official source involved in the case ever said.

Having said that, "baseless" is completely innacurate at best. Wikipedia is supposed to an impartial source of factual information. Do better please. Pedro161982 (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Replying to your question, a suggestion would be to simply drop the word "baseless" altogether.

"Her parents were subjected to intense scrutiny and allegations of involvement in her death, particularly in the tabloid press and on Twitter."

That would be better. Pedro161982 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

We have a policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which this article must adhere to. Madeleine's parents have not been convicted of anything, so any accusations they have faced are indeed "baseless" from a legal point of view. To say or imply anything else would be a violation of policy and leave Wikipedia open to legal action. Lard Almighty (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I fail to see how, for example, removing the word "baseless" from the sentence would turn it into an attack on the McCanns. Stating a factual evidence that they were "subjected to intense scrutiny and allegations" is not an attack in any way, shape or for.

Leaving the word in this given context in the lead is in fact extremely innacurate and biased in their favour. While they were not convicted, or even charged, they were made suspects. They were never cleared.

If you think they would sue Wikipedia for taking a neutral stance , then I think something is wrong. Pedro161982 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

My question was for TSP. What a coincidence that you should suddenly appear and create an account just to answer. I'm sure no one is suggesting any kind of legal action in this case. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

It is a coincidence, my account was not even created today. It was your colleague Lard Almighty who mentioned legal action.

What is your opinion on the subject? Pedro161982 (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Removing the word entirely works for me. Or something like "disputed", or actually expand what we mean rather than trying to fit it in one word.

@Lard Almighty: No, that's a complete misreading of WP:BLP. The policy is that we must only include content on living persons that is verifiable. The fact that allegations were made, for example, is verifiable. It absolutely does NOT say that we must make our own assertions that people are innocent or allegations are untrue - in fact, it says the opposite of that. TSP (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. What you are ignoring is the context in which the word is used. The context is not every allegation ever made against the McCanns (including those by the Portuguese police). It is referring specifically to the allegations of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance (and possible death) made in the tabloid press and on Twitter. Those have in fact been found to be baseless in a court of law, and many, many RS use the term. So it is absolutely proper for Wikipedia to use it in that context to refer to the allegations made by the Daily Express et al. What is, in fact, verifiable in that context is that the allegations are baseless, and that is what Wikipedia should say in Wikivoice. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Perhaps that could be make clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

That is an extremely disingenuous take on what is conveyed there.

"Her parents were subjected to intense scrutiny and baseless allegations of involvement in her death, particularly in the tabloid press and on Twitter." What that says is ALL allegations made against them are false, and that some press and social media were used to convey that false narrative.

If you want to be precise, yoou could reword it perhaps into something like: "Her parents were subjected to intense scrutiny and allegations of involvement in her death, particularly in the tabloid press and on Twitter. Many of those allegations were found to be baseless.". Or something to that effect.

Also, if you are so intent on abiding by the rules, I should remind you of this one: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Above all, Wikipedia has to be neutral. This article is very, very biased. Pedro161982 (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have boldly changed it to "Her parents were subjected to intense scrutiny, including some baseless allegations of involvement in her death, particularly in the tabloid press and on Twitter." I think "some" makes it clear that we don't mean that all allegations are baseless. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, it sounds better, though in my opinion is it still convoluted. You could edit it in various different ways that would make it sound better and more impartial.

Another thing I'd like to point out about the lead:

"Over the following weeks, particularly after misinterpreting a British DNA analysis, the Portuguese police came to believe that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment and her parents had covered it up."

Why is the article stating the police "misinterpreted" something of this importance while offering no immediate source to back up this claim? Who said this, and what authority and knowledge of the case did they have to make such a claim? Pedro161982 (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest you need to open a separate thread for this. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I will, thank you. Is there a way for me to ask for a review of the entire article? There are some obvious glaring points that catch the eye immediately, but I feel the entire article is extremely biased, to put it mildly. Pedro161982 (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty: I really don't think that your rewrite means what you say it does - "some" doesn't work like that. If I said, "I bought some delicious cookies", that would not lead you to conclude that I had also bought some cookies that weren't delicious.

If you really want that meaning, you could say "allegations of involvement in her death, some of which were baseless" - but that would be actively saying some of them were not, which I suspect you don't want (and which arguably would be a BLP/legal issue).

I'm still in favour of simply removing the word "baseless". "Allegation" (The action or an act of alleging something; an unproved claim or assertion - OED) already has strong implications that there is a lack of proof. The extra assertion of "baseless", even with your claim that readers are, for some reason, only meant to read this as applying to some of the allegations, isn't needed. TSP (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd also argue that a single word needing five paragraphs of notes/references to justify its inclusion suggests a WP:SYN (and therefore WP:BLP) issue in itself. If something is stated in reliable secondary sources as a fact, one or two such sources is plenty. If it's stated by sources that are not WP:RS, or appears in those sources as an opinion, no number of them turns it into a fact. TSP (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, not at all. We know there were many allegations made. They have been widely reported. That is the context. There were many allegations thrown about, some of which we cannot say were baseless (and we don't, but neither do we say the contrary) but some of which we can, specifically the ones made in the tabloid press which were found to be baseless in a court of law and reported as such in RS. To be compliant with WP:BLP we must state that those particular allegations are baseless if we mention them. That is what the article does. The notes are there because this argument has been made before, and so it was decided to list sources that describe the allegations made in the Express and repeated elsewhere as baseless so that there could be no doubt that a) those particular allegations were found to be baseless and b) that word was widely used in RS. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"To be compliant with WP:BLP we must state that those particular allegations are baseless if we mention them" - no, that's completely untrue. Where does WP:BLP say that? What WP:BLP says is that, when talking about living people, we must only include verifiable facts. That allegations were made is a fact; calling them "allegations" ("an unproved claim or assertion") already carries a strong implication that they may have been unfounded. Adding "baseless" is our own gloss and is not required or encouraged - in fact it is specifically discouraged by WP:BLP. (Remember that there are more living people involved here than the McCanns.)

Those particular allegations - OK, but as written currently it doesn't say that. It simply says that there were some baseless allegations, it doesn't state whether there are other allegations that weren't baseless.

You seem to think the word "some" has a totally different meaning to how I think it is actually used in (at least UK) English. If your partner said "I cooked you some delicious food!" would you respond "What, why is only some of the food delicious?" TSP (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, those allegations were made so we report that, as we would any other allegation that is sourced. But we know (as it has been found in court) that some of those allegations were baseless (they remain historical allegations though, which is why we use the word). "Some" means "not all". Some of the cars are blue, some are red. Not all the cars are red, but the ones that are red are red. Not all of the allegations made against the McCanns have been shown to be baseless, but some have. It is not our own gloss. It is what has been found in a court of law, and reported as such in multiple RS. I will look at tweaking the wording further to indicate that we are referring specifically to the allegations made in the Express (and repeated elsewhere, e.g. Twitter) which have been found to be baseless. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"some", as used here (including some baseless allegations), does not mean "not all". It's OED plural meaning 1, An indefinite or unspecified number.

To repeat my example, are you really saying that if I said "I've brought you some delicious cookies", you would conclude that I must have also brought you some horrible cookies? Of course you wouldn't. That is not what the word means.

If you genuinely want that meaning, you can say something like, "allegations, some of which were baseless".

But again, simply removing "baseless" solves all these issues, and I think I have adequately refuted the assertion that it needs to be included for BLP.

"Allegations" (an unproved claim or assertion - OED) already presents the assertions as unproven. "Baseless" is a further assertion that is not well backed-up - you may know in your head that you mean this description to only apply to some specific allegations, but that is in no way clear in the article as written. And the inclusion of five paragraphs of sources - only one of which (Addley) really says the thing it is purporting to source in the editorial voice rather than as a quote - backs up my view that this is at the least verging on WP:SYN, which is a violation of WP:BLP and must be immediately removed. TSP (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"Baseless" is used in multiple RS, based on a court finding. Therefore there is nothing wrong with us using it to reinforce the fact that those allegations in particular are baseless. As I say, I'll look at tweaking the wording again. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, I have changed it to this: "Her parents were subjected to intense scrutiny and faced accusations of involvement in the disappearance, particularly in the tabloid press and on Twitter. In 2008 they and their travelling companions received damages and apologies from Express Newspapers, as a result of false allegations of their involvement in Madeleine's death."

I've changed baseless to false.

Again, allegations can be true or false. Sometimes we know, sometimes we don't. But in this case, we do know that the allegations that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance and possible death (beyond the fact that they left her unsupervised) are false because that is what a court has ruled. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Which court has ruled they were innocent of any involvement in her disappearence? Pedro161982 (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The court that found that the Daily Express had libelled the McCanns by saying they were. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The court ruled the tabloids were at fault due to making unsubstantiated claims. Once again, they did not prove the McCanns were innocent, it just proved the tabloids could not sufficiently prove those specific allegations. Tabloids are dirty business and they got what they deserved.

But your conclusion is not true. Pedro161982 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It is a court finding that it is untrue to say that the McCanns had any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. That was one of the specific allegations ( among others). They weighed the evidence and that was their finding. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

That's not how libel law works. The court in a libel case does not "weigh the evidence" of whether or not an allegation is likely to be true.

It weighs the evidence on (a) whether the statement is defamatory; and (b) if so, whether the defendant has successfully brought a defence, e.g. that the statement is provably true.

A libel court that rules for the plaintiff is not finding that the statement was false, but that it was defamatory, and the defendant has not proved it to be true (or offered another satisfactory defence).

However, a lawyer representing Express Group newspapers did after the Tapas Seven case describe the allegations as "false allegations", which would be noteworthy to include as a quote. TSP (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Police misinterpreted evidence?

As suggested by an editor, starting this thread to adress this part of the lead:

"Over the following weeks, particularly after misinterpreting a British DNA analysis, the Portuguese police came to believe that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment and her parents had covered it up."

Why is the article stating the police "misinterpreted" something of this importance while offering no immediate source to back up this claim? Who said this, and what authority and knowledge of the case did they have to make such a claim? Pedro161982 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

This is addressed later in the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I see a lot of text about the DNA results in the body, but none as clear as this - per WP:LEAD, the lead must not contain material that is not in the body of the article.

What's our reliable secondary source that states as fact the DNA evidence was indisputably misinterpreted? Is this based on Matt Baggott as reported by Esther Addley? If so I think we need to say that - the view of one senior police officer is obviously persuasive, but his view doesn't constitute a reliable source in itself. TSP (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I read it. I'm asking why it's pointed out as a fact in the lead without immediate backing. I don't remember the police stating anywhere, including the official report, that they ever had a 100% match (though I could be wrong, but I don't think I am).

There are unnoficial accounts of what may have been presented to the McCanns in questioning, but you cannot present disputed accounts as factual. This is not something that was on TV or numerous witnesses claimed to have seen or heard.

I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that this is not about the McCanns; this is about their 3 year old daughter who disappeared while under their care. She's gone. Their parents were responsible for her and failed her to such an extent that's she hasn't been seen of heard from in almost 18 years now. This is not about them, their reputation or state of mind. This is not about whitewashing their involvement, whatever it may be, in this situation. This is about the disappearance of their daughter. Pedro161982 (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead doesn't need to contain "immediate backing". And we present what reliable sources say as factual, nothing more. If you think the article doesn't do that, please give precise examples so that it can be corrected. But If you believe that Wikipedians are engaged in a whitewash here, then the there in nothing more to discuss with you. Please assume good faith.

As a gesture of good faith, I have changed the wording to: "Over the following weeks, particularly on the basis of their interpretation of a British DNA analysis, the Portuguese police came to believe that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment and her parents had covered it up." That removes the issue of whether the police were right or wrong, but subsequent investigations do suggest that they were wrong. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a big improvement. (I would have no objection to text mentioning that, for example, the senior British police officer said that they had misinterpreted the DNA, if it was possible to fit that into the lead; it was just the outright factual assertion of a misinterpretation that doesn't seem to be backed up in the main body or in sources.) TSP (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The Portuguese Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that the McCanns did not have cause in their lawsuit against the Portuguese inspector Gonçalo Amaral, effectively conveying the fact that they had not and could not be cleared of wrongdoing in this case. What subsequent investigations are you talking about? Were they official police investigations that came to a different conclusion? Other than theories and leads?

I didn't mean to imply Wikipedia is actively trying to whitewash or is in collusion with the McCanns. What I mean is when reading the article, it is difficult, as a whole, to not leave under the impression that they are innocent. The police "misinterpreted" results, they were victim of numerous "baseless" allegations, the whole tone is very apologetic in my view.

Noted your revision and it is appreciated. Pedro161982 (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

For example, the German investigation that has identified a very plausible suspect.

And yes, they are presumed innocent, at least under the UK legal system, as they have not been proven guilty of anything. On the contrary, as noted above, a UK court has found that claims they were involved (beyond leaving their children unattended) are false. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

In most jurisdictions people are presumed innocent until proved guilty? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

They are innocent until proven guilty, but is it Wikipedia's place to use adjectives in such a way that it effectively conveys a message that they were wrongfuly accused?

The Portuguese investigation identified very plausible suspects as well: the last people to see her alive, who were in charge of her and who had no verifiable or logical reason for her disappearance. And they were not they only ones.

In tlegal terms, not guilty and innocent are not quite same. They reason they were not charged is due to not enough evidence, not absence of evidence. No one is saying to publicly accuse the McCanns or state they are guilty of something. But the evidence, albeit circumstantial, against them was so strong they could not be cleared.

You cannot claim someone's innocent until proven guilty and at the same time immediately present someone else as a suspect. That is what he tabloids and social media do, not Wikipedia. Pedro161982 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence is a basic legal principle, not something that needs to be explicitly claimed. The existence of some other suspect(s) may be a fact. The two are not necessarily related. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. By the same token, and to my point, their supposed innocence does not need to be explicitly or implicitly stated, namely by putting down every other well founded theory relating to the case. All I'm sayiing is the article, as whole and namely the lead, do not ring neutral as it pertains to the topic, the disappearence. Pedro161982 (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, we follow the sources. If you have a specific example where this article does not follow the sources, please give it so we can discuss it. But also bear in mind that this talk page is not a forum to discuss the rights and wrongs of the case. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

[1]https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/09/european-court-of-human-rights-rules-parents-of-missing-child-madeleine-mccann-received-fair-trial-in-portugal/

[2]https://nationalpost.com/news/world/lack-of-evidence-doesnt-mean-madeleine-mccanns-parents-are-innocent-court-decides

"The McCanns sued Amaral in 2015 after he published a book insinuating the parents were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. A Portuguese court ruled in the McCanns’ favor, but the decision was overturned two years later. The McCanns appealed to the ECHR, claiming that their right to a fair trial, right to respect for private family life, right to reputation and right to be presumed innocent were violated. The ECHR reasoned that, even if the McCann’s reputation was damaged, it was because of suspicions against them and not by any argument made by the former inspector. The court found that the McCann’s right to be presumed innocent was “ill-founded.”

"But they added: “It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal’s Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn’t committed a crime."

There are many sources on the rulings by the Portuguese Supreme Court and by the European Court. Why are those decisions not given the same importance as a UK ruling about what the tabloid media said? Pedro161982 (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that is all very well summarised by "In their 76-page ruling, the judges wrote that the McCanns had not, in fact, been cleared by the archiving of the criminal case in 2008. In March 2017, the Supreme Court rejected the McCanns' final appeal."

In fact, the Portuguese legal wranglings are given far more space in the article than the Express case which is mentioned mostly in passing. Amaral's book has a whole section. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You are missing my point. My bone of contention mostly revolves around the lead, which is very selective. You know as well as I do that many people will read the leads in many articles and then glance over the rest of the article, if at all.

In this case, the lead takes the time to mention baseless claims, misinterpreted police findings and even the dianification of the case, which is a nice touch. What it fails to mention is how well founded the suspicions over the parents really are. You take time to adress tabloid claims and have now changed baseless to false, which is the same thing, if not worse, but you have 0 lines regarding high courts decisions flatly stating the McCanns are not proven innocent. What do you want me to make of this?

The article is not neutral, in my opinion, and this lead especially should be heavily scrutinized. Pedro161982 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead section should fairly summarise the entire article. If there are still issues with the main body you need to identify them. And then, once resolved, the lead might be adjusted accordingly. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead is in my opinion, misleading. It does not reflect the entirety of the case of "fairly summarise the article". Is it a valid point of view which has been stated by numerous other users before, for instance regarding the "baseless" term which has been contested from what I've seen since at least 2017. This is easily verifiable by reviewing the talk page.

I think it would be interesting to acknowledge there is a possible issue with something that has been questioned by numerous people over such a long period of time, instead of simply trying to dismiss it. Thanks. Pedro161982 (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I would point out that this article has been awarded Good Article status, so there is likely very little wrong with it. As with any article, improvements can always be made, and as new things come to light things can be added or changed, but an independent review has found that it more than meets Wikipedia standards. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I read the article a few days ago when I started looking into the case again. The article itself is not bad, although you can always disagree with something, but that's neither here nor there. I have not pointed out anything in the main body that is, in my view, prejudiced or wrong.

What I pointed out was that in my view the lead is, excuse the pun, leading. I decided to use the talk page and realised another user was already stating the exact same thing, and then realised there were multiple other users before us pointing out the exact same thing. You'll excuse me if I say it's not a coincidence.

I'm not trying to badger you into submission, but some acknowledgement that there might be an issue with the overall tone of the lead would probably go a long way. There will almost certainly be the same issues in the future if you decide to just leave baseless, or false or another equivalent in there.

My suggestion: please review that entire last paragraph, the way it's constructed, the words used, and the message it tries to convey. It woukld go a long way. Thank you. Pedro161982 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to "dismiss" anything. I was asking if you thought there were still inaccuracies in the main body of the article, and if so what they were. You've mentioned "multiple other users before us pointing out the exact same thing". Presumaby these are somewhere in the Talk page archives. I wonder could you point out where these are? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

To clarify: I did not point to anything in the main body of text as being faulty. My comments regarding past discussions are about the use of the word "baseless" regarding allegations made about the McCanns, which many other users alluded to over the years.

Lard Almighty has changed the structure of the sentence and, as it stands now, it seems to better reflect the reality of facts. The way it was worded, it was easy for someone to interpret it as all allegations made against them being false, as opposed to what I think you were actually trying to state, which was that many allegations made against them by the tabloid media were false. These are two completely separate issues and I think it is adequately addressed now. Pedro161982 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Where were the "multiple other users before us pointing out the exact same thing"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 9#Baseless allegations

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 10

It should be easy for you to find several threads addressing this very issue and the perception that was created by it. Pedro161982 (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

As I understood it, the word "false" was used at one time and then changed to "baseless", but the perception remained the same. Pedro161982 (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

In Archive 9 I can see two threads, one initiated by Adamacs (their only ever edit) and another initiated by IP 120 (4 edits, geolocating to Brisbane) and in Archive 10 I can see one thread initiated by Wfazers (also a WP:SPA. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe there are a few more somewhere in there, but the point has been discussed and I guess it is addressed now. Thank you for your time. Pedro161982 (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Should we include the alleged reappearances

Julia Wendelt has been covered in numerous reliable sources:

• The Independent [3]
• BBC [4][5]
• Sky News [6][7]
• Polskie Radio (Polish public broadcaster) [8]
• El Tiempo [9]

Grumpylawnchair (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: Grumpylawnchair (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty simple case of "verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion". Yes outlets that frankly should know better have reported on this random woman's claims to be McCann for the clicks but this is something that would easily be WP:UNDUE to be included in the article.

Just going off of the first BBC article you've linked it says, "About that time, Julia decided to take a DNA test. She says neither her parents nor the McCanns agreed to provide DNA samples for Julia's to be compared against. But when the results arrived, they showed that Julia was from Poland, with some Lithuanian and Romanian heritage. In other words, she is not Madeleine McCann."

It is extremely hard to justify any subsection existing in an article about the disappearance of a missing child, presumed dead by the authorities, to include a subsection claiming an "alleged reappearance" when it's a proven load of bollocks so clearly fails to improve the article or provide encyclopaedic merit. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

But she also tried to stalk the McCanns, and was arrested, and her trial is being reported on. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Several people have stalked the McCanns or claimed to be Madeleine and been reported on, we still don't include it because it's UNDUE. This is no different.

This is an article about the disappearance, not some random Polish woman who for whatever reason is desperately trying to get attention by falsely claiming to be the missing child. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I see your point; maybe I'll split it off into it's own article if it gets notable enough. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

To be honest the only way it'd probably ever reach notability would be if she was actually Madeleine... Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, BBC said, back on 21 February, that: "Julia Wandel, also known as Julia Wandelt, was arrested at Bristol Airport on Wednesday on suspicion of stalking involving serious alarm and distress. ... She was remanded into custody after appearing at Leicester Magistrates' Court ... and is due to enter a plea at the city's crown court on 7 April." So this is not just some random misguided attention-seeker. This is a criminal who is currently detained. I think it's very unlikely she will ever deserve her own Wiki article but, depending on how the criminal case progresses, I think she might very well deserve a mention in this one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

So should I introduce it? I haven't because I think that might be edit-warring. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

It was reverted here. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we could wait until 7 April and see what happens? No strong view. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue is she's not even the only stalker currently in front of a Magistrate.[10]

So again there's nothing really notable about Wendelt, and people stalking the McCanns as vile as it is doesn't really relate to the actual article subject. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's see the outcomes of the trials and redetermine then. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Spragg is the "other woman" named in the Wendel case? Sounds like they were acting together in some way. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

That's speculation, and isn't an argument as to why coverage of a stalker would be relevant to an article that is specifically focused on disappearance itself and not later coverage involving Madeleine's parents or siblings. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The two women were part of the same investigation by Leicestershire Police: [11] But I agree, it may be speculation to say they were definitely "acting together in some way." I expect details will emerge during a trial, if things get that far. I'm not convinced, however, that the stalking is wholly "irrelevant" to this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Given the article's subject Julia Wendelt would've been relevant if there had been serious consideration of her claims over a long period of time. Instead from practically day one it was readily demonstrated it was fraudulent so becomes UNDUE. The article is quite specifically about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and given this woman isn't Madeleine it's out of scope in the same way all the other harassers and stalkers of the parents are out of scope. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

How many "all the other harassers and stalkers of the parents" have there been I wonder. I guess the article won't tell us. But I'm still not wholly convinced, about the WP:UNDUE, sorry. I think you might agree that, had it not been for the disappearance, these alleged crimes would never have happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

There's been a lot. The parents and wider family have been harassed for years ([12][13][14]). And the reason the article doesn't cover it is because they're not directly related to the disappearance. The only reason someone claiming to be their daughter would be notable (and Julia isn't even the only person to have been reported on in RS ([15]) would be if said claims were taken seriously and weren't immediately dismissed as the rantings of someone who clearly has other problems going on. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for telling me. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

time

as of today someone needs to change the days missing of 12 to 13 I do not have acsess Pourtigesesquirllatschool41243 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It updates automatically. Looks fine now. You may need to clear your cache. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

whats a "chache" Pourtigesesquirllatschool41243 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

also never knew it updated automatically that's my fault sorry man, thank you for telling me tho it helps a lot really appreciate it. Pourtigesesquirllatschool41243 (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Minor Edit Request

In section "Disappearance", subsection "Daytime: McCann family activities", paragraph 2 I request changing

...took the last known photograph of Madeleine at 2:29... to

...took the last known photograph of Madeleine at 14:29...

All other mentions of time use a 24-hour clock except this one; this might be confused as saying 2 am. The source explicitly mentions 2:29 pm.

Teolev (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

References