This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
We don't really need the family's home address, do we? I have removed it from the Disappearance section, leaving the general area in place for context. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should say Shannon is 'well' until we get an attributed quote. The generalised statement in the BBC source that "officers confirmed that she was OK" doesn't seem enough to me - police officers are not medically qualified. BlueValour ( talk) 20:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the name of the man who was with Shannon when she was found. Though the name has been widely reported I think we should wait until the name is officially released before including it - this has been our usual practice with other articles. BlueValour ( talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A small point, but which is nearer to the MoS, please, Shannon Matthews or Shannon Matthews disappeared? My preference is the second since this is a page on the event not the person. See also Disappearance of Madeleine McCann for a precedent. BlueValour ( talk) 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The article says it's the biggest in the area, or in the country since the Yorkshire Ripper - based on the following quote: "It's the biggest investigation of its kind now, it's certainly the biggest missing persons inquiry since the Yorkshire Ripper which I also worked on." I would say that this is not enough to justify the "in the country" claim. Rich Farmbrough, 16:38 7 April 2008 (GMT).
I am not particularly comfortable with the inclusion of this sentence. Whilst it is sourced and undeniably accurate it is also irrelevant to the subject of the article and the matters he is being charged with. May I have views, please? BlueValour ( talk) 00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Reading the article for the first time (8 Apr 2008), I was struck how dated it is. The general gist of the article is; girl abducted, girl found, kidnapper arrested, case closed. What reflection there is, is mainly a class-war comparison of this case with that of Madeleine McCann.
However, there are now several strands of evidence which point to this case being far more than an abduction. The first emerged within days when the alleged abductor was charged with kidnap and false imprisonment. Like Sherlock Holmes dog in the night, the interesting fact was what he was not charged with - namely any form of assault or abuse. The request for cash from the Madeleine McCann fund and the charges against the aunts and then the mother for various offences relating to misleading the police investigation now start to point to the whole thing being a put-up job.
I understand that the conclusion of this is conjecture, but the basis (criminal charges) is pretty solid and I think it is now clear that this was certainly not a simple abduction. Any ideas how to proceed? -- Oscar Bravo ( talk) 07:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the man who was arrested is being investigated for possible offences. This, certainly as far as UK law is concerned, brings into play the sub judice rule, which severely limits what can be said from now on, and more so if he is actually charged. Whatever the ins and outs, it is probably wise for us here not to copy media speculation into the article for fear of falling foul of that rule; it may well be that a potential juror will have read our article, for example, and it is far better to say nothing than to include every speculation that may arise. As far as Shannon herself goes, she needs some time to recover & reintegrate with her family, and similar considerations apply. That's why her picture has been removed; this is no longer a missing person enquiry. Breaches of BLP will, as normal, be reverted on sight. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm generally keen on a very cautious approach to BLP and to the sub judice rule, but I also think that these things can be taken too far. I have just heard the man's name for the second time on BBC Radio 4 news, and it is reported on the websites of the national newspapers I have checked so far: Yorkshire Post [1], The Grauniad [2], the BBC [3], the Daily Telegraph [4], The Independent [5] ... and The Times [6] uses the name in its sub-headline.
At this point, it seems a bit silly for Wikipedia not to mention the name too. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
On other wiki articles there's a template that says 'Current court case' (I'm thinking Kwame Kilpatrick). Perhaps it's time to add one here. UK users will at least then be aware of the issue, and editors in general should then be more careful about what's published here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.86.82 ( talk) 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we take the photo down now too? It's the last thing she needs now that she's been found. -- Counter-revolutionary ( talk) 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The image should be reinstated. The welfare of any of those involved in this case is no concern of the editors of this page. If the image adds value to the article, which it quite obviously would then it should be added, the concerns of those involved in the page are completely immaterial. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should avoid sentences starting with dates, for example 'On 8 April', on 10 April' etc. This is stylistically drab and makes the page look like a list rather than an article. Better, I think, to incorporate the dates within sentences to keep the page prosed.
It also would help if editors would add references in the 'cite web' format. BlueValour ( talk) 17:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
i agree the article is very difficult to read as is Killemall22 ( talk) 18:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello.. I am a new user.. I signed up today to report a problem with this article. It is stated that the charges include rape and sexual battery, the link to the CPS is dead, and nowhere can i find any other reference to these charges. I am pretty sure this is incorrect and needs to be taken out. I refer you to this page from the CPS on the charges http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/123_08/ . Apologies if I have done this incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnfotp ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
We don't really need the family's home address, do we? I have removed it from the Disappearance section, leaving the general area in place for context. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should say Shannon is 'well' until we get an attributed quote. The generalised statement in the BBC source that "officers confirmed that she was OK" doesn't seem enough to me - police officers are not medically qualified. BlueValour ( talk) 20:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the name of the man who was with Shannon when she was found. Though the name has been widely reported I think we should wait until the name is officially released before including it - this has been our usual practice with other articles. BlueValour ( talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A small point, but which is nearer to the MoS, please, Shannon Matthews or Shannon Matthews disappeared? My preference is the second since this is a page on the event not the person. See also Disappearance of Madeleine McCann for a precedent. BlueValour ( talk) 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The article says it's the biggest in the area, or in the country since the Yorkshire Ripper - based on the following quote: "It's the biggest investigation of its kind now, it's certainly the biggest missing persons inquiry since the Yorkshire Ripper which I also worked on." I would say that this is not enough to justify the "in the country" claim. Rich Farmbrough, 16:38 7 April 2008 (GMT).
I am not particularly comfortable with the inclusion of this sentence. Whilst it is sourced and undeniably accurate it is also irrelevant to the subject of the article and the matters he is being charged with. May I have views, please? BlueValour ( talk) 00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Reading the article for the first time (8 Apr 2008), I was struck how dated it is. The general gist of the article is; girl abducted, girl found, kidnapper arrested, case closed. What reflection there is, is mainly a class-war comparison of this case with that of Madeleine McCann.
However, there are now several strands of evidence which point to this case being far more than an abduction. The first emerged within days when the alleged abductor was charged with kidnap and false imprisonment. Like Sherlock Holmes dog in the night, the interesting fact was what he was not charged with - namely any form of assault or abuse. The request for cash from the Madeleine McCann fund and the charges against the aunts and then the mother for various offences relating to misleading the police investigation now start to point to the whole thing being a put-up job.
I understand that the conclusion of this is conjecture, but the basis (criminal charges) is pretty solid and I think it is now clear that this was certainly not a simple abduction. Any ideas how to proceed? -- Oscar Bravo ( talk) 07:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the man who was arrested is being investigated for possible offences. This, certainly as far as UK law is concerned, brings into play the sub judice rule, which severely limits what can be said from now on, and more so if he is actually charged. Whatever the ins and outs, it is probably wise for us here not to copy media speculation into the article for fear of falling foul of that rule; it may well be that a potential juror will have read our article, for example, and it is far better to say nothing than to include every speculation that may arise. As far as Shannon herself goes, she needs some time to recover & reintegrate with her family, and similar considerations apply. That's why her picture has been removed; this is no longer a missing person enquiry. Breaches of BLP will, as normal, be reverted on sight. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm generally keen on a very cautious approach to BLP and to the sub judice rule, but I also think that these things can be taken too far. I have just heard the man's name for the second time on BBC Radio 4 news, and it is reported on the websites of the national newspapers I have checked so far: Yorkshire Post [1], The Grauniad [2], the BBC [3], the Daily Telegraph [4], The Independent [5] ... and The Times [6] uses the name in its sub-headline.
At this point, it seems a bit silly for Wikipedia not to mention the name too. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
On other wiki articles there's a template that says 'Current court case' (I'm thinking Kwame Kilpatrick). Perhaps it's time to add one here. UK users will at least then be aware of the issue, and editors in general should then be more careful about what's published here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.86.82 ( talk) 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we take the photo down now too? It's the last thing she needs now that she's been found. -- Counter-revolutionary ( talk) 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The image should be reinstated. The welfare of any of those involved in this case is no concern of the editors of this page. If the image adds value to the article, which it quite obviously would then it should be added, the concerns of those involved in the page are completely immaterial. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should avoid sentences starting with dates, for example 'On 8 April', on 10 April' etc. This is stylistically drab and makes the page look like a list rather than an article. Better, I think, to incorporate the dates within sentences to keep the page prosed.
It also would help if editors would add references in the 'cite web' format. BlueValour ( talk) 17:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
i agree the article is very difficult to read as is Killemall22 ( talk) 18:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello.. I am a new user.. I signed up today to report a problem with this article. It is stated that the charges include rape and sexual battery, the link to the CPS is dead, and nowhere can i find any other reference to these charges. I am pretty sure this is incorrect and needs to be taken out. I refer you to this page from the CPS on the charges http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/123_08/ . Apologies if I have done this incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnfotp ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)