Talk:Disappearance of Ben Needham

Article title

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)

Alternative version of events

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)

Yes it should. Mind you, the whole article is shot full of POV. Also, the crucial reference on the family's scenario is now broken. I'll clean it up. TerriersFan 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I too find it hard to subscribe to the opinion that this child, who wasn't even two, could have had an accident yet no-one has found his remains yet. cosmic_quest 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the journalist who investigated at the time and who was there speaks of a "remote, inhospitable hillside that is still largely unsearched", so unless you know differently regarding this hillside it is worth a mention as it *may* be an opinion, but it is from a fairly primary source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.1.182 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 25 May 2007

Even if the hillside were not searched by the police, the family would have searched it - regardless of how remote it is. The maternal uncles and grandparents were living there at the time. A toddler cannot walk miles, so he couldn't have travelled far if someone had not taken him. Hence it is almost certain he was abducted. Jim Michael (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

False Hopes?

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)

The article needs a thorough rewrite. It currently reads like a web page written by the family and their supporters, and not an encyclopedia article. I started on the lede yesterday, but haven't got any further than that - yet. Keristrasza (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be prepared to help but it would be my first article edit. Which, for some odd reason, seems incredibly daunting. (78.149.2.161) Tj1916 (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD and just do it! If it goes a bit pear-shaped, there is always somebody watching who will step in and help tidy up. Keristrasza (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Completed the first edit but had huge problems with referencing, even after reading the help page and watching the video. Got there in the end. There are no references for the third paragraph in the disappearance section and I am struggling to track one down. Tj1916 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I found an article in the Western Mail supporting the first part of that paragraph, but haven't been able to find anything mentioning the alleged sighting by the shop assistant. Keristrasza (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Great stuff. There are a few options with the 'False Hopes' section: Changing the title to 'Alleged Sightings' (or similar); merging the section with Disappearance (and changing the section title to reflect the sightings information); merging it with the 'Later Events' section and changing the title; deleting the 'False Hopes' section altogether. I'd be inclined to go with either of the first two options. Also, I wonder if the article needs both a 'Later Events' and a 'Latest Developments' section. Any thoughts? Tj1916 (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps: Lead section; Disappearance; Police investigations (1991; xxxx; 2012); Alleged sightings (incl. Abduction theory?), something along those lines. Keristrasza (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything is too "formal" in this sense. Keiiri (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you mean. Keri (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130129025151/http://uk.missingkids.com/91-000003 to http://uk.missingkids.com/91-000003

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)