This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Disappearance of Ben Needham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The event is notable, the child is not. I suggest moving this article to Disappearance of Ben Needham which is a more normal style. TerriersFan 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In today's Times, there is an article that claims that the real version of events was somewhat different - a quote from this article: "It is understandable that Kerry Grist clings to her urban myth, even without a shred of evidence that her son was abducted at all. Those of us who properly investigated Ben’s disappearance are certain he was not; put bluntly, a child less than 2, toddling unsupervised for five hours on a baking, remote, inhospitable hillside that is still largely unsearched, is easy prey to the lonely accident. Nevertheless, to believe in abduction is to allow for the chance he is alive, and who would deny that to Mrs Grist? " Article here : [1]
I don't subscribe to this opinion, but if there's an alternative view as to the circumstances, should this not be placed in the article for the sake of balance? Michaeltyne 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the phrase 'False Hopes' suitable as a heading? The language used strikes me as way too informal for an encyclopaedia entry. 78.149.2.161 ( talk) 02:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anything is too "formal" in this sense. Keiiri ( talk) 17:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Disappearance of Ben Needham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Disappearance of Ben Needham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The event is notable, the child is not. I suggest moving this article to Disappearance of Ben Needham which is a more normal style. TerriersFan 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In today's Times, there is an article that claims that the real version of events was somewhat different - a quote from this article: "It is understandable that Kerry Grist clings to her urban myth, even without a shred of evidence that her son was abducted at all. Those of us who properly investigated Ben’s disappearance are certain he was not; put bluntly, a child less than 2, toddling unsupervised for five hours on a baking, remote, inhospitable hillside that is still largely unsearched, is easy prey to the lonely accident. Nevertheless, to believe in abduction is to allow for the chance he is alive, and who would deny that to Mrs Grist? " Article here : [1]
I don't subscribe to this opinion, but if there's an alternative view as to the circumstances, should this not be placed in the article for the sake of balance? Michaeltyne 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Is the phrase 'False Hopes' suitable as a heading? The language used strikes me as way too informal for an encyclopaedia entry. 78.149.2.161 ( talk) 02:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anything is too "formal" in this sense. Keiiri ( talk) 17:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Disappearance of Ben Needham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)