Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Oprah

FYI, Beth Holloway and some of Natalee's family (I believe here brother) will be on Oprah tomorrow afternoon; the show was taped today. I don't expect it to be a source of any new information, but it may provide a reference for some of the information already in the article, including quotes from Beth. - auburnpilot talk 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard. I expect a transcript will be put up on one of the discussion boards, I can't watch it live.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I read the transcript. I didn't see anything particularly noteworthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't able to watch it live, but Tivoed it and watched lasted night. It was a lot of fluff, and nothing new. - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 Amigoe article

Do we want to do anything the Amigoe article here [1] in which two US private investigators claim that NH was sexually abused and impregnated by her stepfather, as well as other allegations? I would prefer to wait and see if it gets picked up by off-island media. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Dompig's statement that the two investigators are simply "looking for their 15 minutes of fame" is likely accurate. Neither the article nor the investigators provide anything other than speculation, and I believe WP:BLP comes into play here. This is very contentious material, and I agree with you that we should wait for more reliable sources if such assertions are ever to find their way into the article. - auburnpilot talk 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think it is very different from the July Amigoe article. Saying that you sexually abused a child (as Natalee would have been then, as under 19 in Alabama) is about the worst thing you can say about someone. If the story gets legs, then we can reassess, but as of right now, it is a wild theory.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
AgreedKww (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Straight-A" student edit war

I don't understand the need to war on this one. It is a quote from the Vanity Fair article. This is an article about Natalee Holloway, not the disappearance, not her trip ... it's about the girl. We've hashed that out enough times. For an 18-year-old, that is a pretty meaningful descriptor. So where's the beef?Kww (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is deleting the information about Holloway being a straight-A student (which I've added to make this article a bit more balanced), they should stop. This is properly sourced, clearly noteworthy biographical information about Holloway, which is frequently mentioned in news articles about the case. And it's also relevant in that it was quite arguably a factor in why the case became such a media phenomenon: Holloway's academic achievements contributed to her positive public image, and supported her family's description of her as a responsible person, who did not typically engage in risky behavior, and would not have run away. It's certainly at least as worthy of inclusion here, as for example, the hearsay (and extremely farfetched) allegation that she was in rehab, allegations about behavior of Mountain Brook students that do not even mention Natalee specifically, etc.--- Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.98.233 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that we have no way of verifying it, and the first paragraph of the VF story is a story being told by Beth Twitty. While that by itself does not make it unbelievable, we also can't verify it via school records and so forth. I would have no objection to saying, in the body of the story, rather than in the lede, that "according to her mother, Holloway was a straight-A student." Incidently, how does it make it more balanced? And also, why have you never edited any article except this one?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The line appears in an editorial description by the author of the article, not in a quote by Beth. It's at least as reliable as the rest of the article.Kww (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm still troubled by the idea of describing someone's educational status when we can't independently verify it. Educational privacy laws and so forth. One of the Jena Six was described as an honors student with no criminal record. Turns out that was oh for two. As for the editorial voice, yes, I agree, but it is telling the story of Beth Twitty's Memorial Day weekend, which is obviously coming from her. The whole thing about driving at 110 mph straight through Mississippi has had no independent confirmation and has been told about four different ways (that she was pulled over, that she called 911, that she had a police escort . . . ) In addition, I read that "editorial voice" as setting up the first few paragraphs as "this is the official story" which he then spends the next 9 pages questioning, though he does not mention the straight A issue again.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Incidently, I noticed that the numeric user is signing his posts "Jon", and we remember Jon and JonAaron's posts. Is this a sockpuppet issue?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's reasonable to describe her as a "straight A student" citing the VF article as the source unless someone challenges that characterization in print somewhere else. It is important to discuss the quality contributions here, not the quality of contributors. --Dystopos (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I've inserted it in the body of the article, early on, at what seemed to be an apprpriate juncture.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was more appropriate where I had inserted it earlier ("Holloway and her classmates were in Aruba celebrating their graduation from Mountain Brook High School, where Holloway was a straight-A student"). That is, with her academic history at MBHS mentioned along with the fact that she'd just graduated from MBHS.

And it's not like the VF article is the only source for this information. It's been reported many times, by multiple news organizations. For example, CNN online articles about the case feature a photo of Holloway, with the caption: "Natalee Holloway was a straight-A student". An ABC News article calls her a "straight-A student" in the first sentence. I could easily find more examples as well. So I think

"Holloway, described in a later article as a straight-A student"

should be replaced with

"Holloway, a straight-A student".

Given that this has been reported by multiple sources as fact, in the absence of any information to the contrary, I don't think a qualifier is neccessary or appropriate--- Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.98.233 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that since we have no means of checking her academic history, that "reported to be a straight-A student" is best. And given the fact that we report that she may have been to rehab, we have every right to be cautious about whether that is fact or not. And what is the point of discussing it if you are going to unilaterally make the change?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I generally support Wehwalt's opinion that the information fits better outside of the lead paragraph, I'm not sure why it is necessary to question the sources we have. --Dystopos (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dystopos: The lead section describes her as a "student"... so why can't it describe her as a "straight-A student", what's the point of postponing that additional detail? As an analogy: If she were a bestselling author, what would be wrong with the lead section describing her as a "bestselling author", rather than just an author?

I don't have any strong objection to not mentioning it until later, but where it has now been inserted, into a sentence about where she was last seen, is a rather awkward fit in my opinion.

I suggest one of the following:

a) Natalee Ann Holloway (born October 21, 1986), a straight-A student from Mountain Brook, Alabama, in the United States, disappeared on May 30, 2005, during a high school graduation trip in Aruba.

b) Holloway and her classmates were in Aruba celebrating their graduation from Mountain Brook High School, where she was a straight-A student.

or, if it were to be moved down into the body of the article, I'd move it forward one sentence:

c) "Holloway, a straight-A student, and 124 fellow graduates of..."

Jon (24.16.98.233 (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

Dead

The girl has been gone for 3 years now, and by her description she's obviously the kind of girl who would call her parents over an abduction or anything unless confined, even so, if she was still alive and confined, it would be in the island, proof she hasn't left there. I am assumin she is dead, may I put it on their? --Alisyntalk 02:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can provide reliable proof that she is dead, we cannot call her dead; she is officially missing. Your assumption, though likely accurate, is original research. - auburnpilot talk 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The current lede cleverly evades the question of being dead or alive. We simply have no reliable sources that prove she was dead.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
3 yrs... she wouldn't be kept for that long, she would've called her parents if lost, I think she is dead. --Alisyntalk 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably you are right. However, we don't know for sure. All we can do is report what is out there, and not report our own opinions.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave and Jacobs

I'd favor getting rid of the paragraph where Dave Holloway (sourced to his book) alleges that Dennis Jacobs wanted to know how much money he had, and asked again four months later (no doubt when you couldn't throw a stone on Aruba without hitting a TV crew). I think it is undue weight. The fact that we include that, when the Twittys and Holloways have made claims against everyone from the PM on down, is questionable. It really adds nothing to the article but a tinge of alleged corruption, none of which has been substantiated. I would say either get rid of it, or start a new section of "Allegations by Holloway's Family" and include that, the "criminals" comment, the gang rape/kidnap, and things of similar ilk. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are other sources to substantiate the claim, I have no problem removing the allegation against Jacobs. I'd certainly prefer removing it over including the others. - auburnpilot talk 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Sensationalist garbage

We shouldn't update this article every time somebody claims to have cracked the case, are we are going to be at this for years. If, after presentation, De Vries's evidence has credibility, that's the time to add it.Kww (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This has been covered by numerous print-news outlets, and I've seen coverage on both CNN and FNC. If it turns out to be nothing, we can certainly revise it later, but I believe it is worth mentioning right now. We have somebody claiming to have a confession on tape, Beth Holl-Twitty has traveled to the Netherlands to be a part of the program, and the Aruban investigator has stated that the "truth is surfacing" (or something like that). I don't believe blanking the section is the correct course of action. - auburnpilot talk 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I restored a decently written version of it. I put De Vries and Geraldo Rivera in the same class of reporter, so I'm not holding my breath waiting for credible information. On the positive note, it might give me something to talk about in Tuesday's Dutch class.Kww (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've come to the reluctant conclusion that is better to include something than to have to revert garbage every five minutes. Absent new developments of credible information, I suggest we keep it more or less status quo, short article in body, nothing in lede, and see what happens on Sunday.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

While I fully agree it's too soon to say anything here (after all, De Vries himself hasn't said a lot, and is clearly waiting for his Sunday night show to air), "sensationalist garbage" borders on the psychic. As a crime reporter, he has earned a reputation as a reliable source in the Netherlands, even more so than the (also quite reliable) forensic duo whose work recently led to a breakthrough in the US Peggy Hettrick murder case. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, his reputation is rather mixed. But let's wait for Sunday and see what there is to do then.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
We seem to base our opinions on Peter on very different sources. On the bright side, we clearly agree on the encyclopedic course to follow. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
PS Kww's "Geraldo" comparison borders on a WP:BLP violation. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well, take it up on his talk page if you are aggrieved.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Aggrieved? Whatever gave you that idea? I personally couldn't care less. Some facts for you: (1) BLP violations are a Foundation issue and (2) BLP violations could lead to problems for the editor in question should the aggrieved party (i.e. De Vries) take issue. Please comment on the edits, not on (your guesses about) the editor. Thank you. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Aggrieved does not imply personal anger. It is a legal term. If you feel there is a problem, take it up with Kww on his talk page (I see you posted there, though not on this point) or take it up with an admin. As AuburnPilot is an admin, and he didn't flag it, I'd say you're a bit off point here. And besides, this is a talk page, and Kww has expressed his opinion as to De Vries' journalistic credibility as a stated reason for making the edit he did. His judgment call as an editor, perfectly proper. Not a BLP issue in the least, because it is not improper to compare someone to Geraldo.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin or not, I can't see how anybody would find the comment "I put De Vries and Geraldo Rivera in the same class of reporter" to be a BLP violation. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding his mixed reputation: he is the Netherlands' main crime reporter and has solved or has helped solving some high profile Dutch cases and did some important revelations, as one can read on his page. So he is to be taken seriously. On the other hand, people have accused him of being (or having been) a bit too close with some criminals, as can be read on his Dutch wikipedia page. Also, he is bit of a sensationalist; he overplayed his hand once (as far as I remember) with his investigation into JFK's death. He claimed his two hour special would shed new light and provide new evidence etc (he didn't claim he had solved it though). Afterwards critics said it was just the same old stuff (of course the critics might have been wrong, I don't know). Of course then his reputation wasn't at stake as much as it is now. Mtcv (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously he's a controversial figure. But it doesn't matter. As a practical matter, we've done our duty to the reader by posting a summary of what is happening and we are sitting back and awaiting developments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
While I know nothing about De Vries, 20/20 is typically considered quite reliable, and they are airing a 90 minute special on Monday night, titled "20/20: The Final Hours of Natalee Holloway". If they're latching on, maybe De Vries actually has something. - auburnpilot talk 17:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
May well be something to it ... the addition of the confession by Joran is legitimate, and seems to be a valid summary of the Dutch.Kww (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The perennial move discussion

And the page has again been moved without discussion, and again reverted back. - auburnpilot talk 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For anybody who doesn't wish to go searching all over the place for the newest discussion, it's on the BLP noticeboard. Mira Gambolputty (talk · contribs) asserts that the article title is a violation of policy, and I've refuted that claim. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
With all respect to the editor, we've thrashed this out repeatedly here. I must say that Mira Gambolputty has some, um, innovative interpretations of WP practice and policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Mira seems to have left the project, so it's not likely an issue anymore. - auburnpilot talk 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This article is being failed under [Fail Criteria] for the following reasons:

  • The article has been the subject of recent or ongoing edit wars
Comment – The conflict over the name of the article and aspects of the subjects biography, in the space of time since the article has been nominated, meet this criteria. It also sees quite a number of significant edits each and every day, if the recent history is any indication, leading me to believe it isn’t necessarily stable, either.

Additionally, this article has other problems such as a copious lack of images and being an on-going subject. To prevent this problem, the editors may wish to create a new article which references “new developments” as they come along. This would remove one potential element of instability.

If you disagree with my review, feel free to renominate the article -- jackturner3 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this article meets the quick-fail criteria, and your review does not come close to being "extensive enough to allow the article to be renominated and pass". The move was not an edit war, but an overzealous editor who misunderstood policy, and has now retired from the project. Also, instability isn't a quick fail criteria. I assume the quick fail criteria you are alluding to is "The article specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint" but this is not an unfolding event, and most certainly doesn't have a definite endpoint. Articles are expected to change as the subject changes, and a new development in this case was reported within the past few days. It doesn't change "significantly from day to day". - auburnpilot talk 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that I don't know how to fix it based on this review. Especially the "lack of images". What images would we need? A picture of "Carlo's and Charlies"? The landfill? Someone licking a belly-shot?Kww (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone licking a belly-shot? I'll volunteer to go get that one. ;-) I uploaded an image of the infamous light house back in July/July 2007 (Image:ArubaLighthouse.jpg), but I've been unable to find any other free images that are remotely relevant to this article. Flickr has one image of Carlos'n Charlie's in Aruba, but it isn't free. - auburnpilot talk 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a map of Aruba, or at least of the western half, with Oranjestad, the Holiday Inn/Marriott area, and the lighthouse locations noted? But I agree, the editor who reviewed this article is being silly. This article is exhaustively footnoted, to a FA standard if you ask me. Why don't you two colloborate on the belly shot?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If the editors do not feel my review of this article is appropriate, they may renominate the article without making any changes and see if anyone else is willing to review the artilce. As to my review, the incident over Ms. Holloway's grades was described as an "edit war" and it was sufficiently recent in my opinion for caution. And, while instability is not a quick fail criteria, the article is frequently edited, which gives me concern. As for suggestions on how to improve the article, the editors oviously feel there is no further need to improve the article to bring it to GA, so for that reason, I don't seen any particular reason to add any comments. However, for those who don't have any idea what images would be appropriate, you might try photos of the police investigation, images of her parents, the suspects, and on and so forth. The suggestion about the map is also a good idea. But, since I'm "being silly," renominate it. I won't review it this time. But I still don't think it's stable enough to be GA quality, much less that the article itself is worthy of FA standard. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to refuse to give a review, please don't review articles at all; allow somebody who is actually willing to take the time. - auburnpilot talk 17:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
First, I still think this article meets the quick fail criteria, so if I were to review it again, I would still fail it. Thus, saying that I will not review it further is my way of telling you that you should get a second opinion. I'm not going to recommend it for one because I don't think it's necessary. Second, the quick fail issue aside, the article's instability and it's lack of images make me reluctant to promote. Third, I don't appreciate your comment as to what I should and should not be doing on wikipedia. If you don't like my opinion, write better articles, then I won't have occasion to opine as I do, but don't assume I don't take this seriously. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
But the lack of stability is an unactionable complaint. How are editors supposed to keep it stable? Stop being a wiki? Andries (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This is my opinion. As I have stated, I don't think this article is ready for GA for the reasons I stated above. The authors are free to renominate it if the objections I have raised are addressed and I will reassess the article at that time, or, since the authors of this article find my review to be "silly," they are free to renominate it to allow another editor to review the article if other editors feel so inclined. -- jackturner3 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Thank you for whatever time, effort, and commitment you used on your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

apparent piece of work

- Joran van der Sloot appears to be a real piece of work. Is there more material or background that can be brought out about his behavior before and after the disappearance? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have more reliable sources of information that bring up things that aren't in the article, feel free to bring them up. The main problem in editing this article has been the vast amount of mudslinging from all three sides, and sorting out things that are actually verifiable is difficult.Kww (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Especially when the editor originally posted [2] that Joran was a scumbag and then got all resentful over my talk page and Kww's and AuburnPilot's because we each deleted his personal abuse! However, please feel free to contribute to the article in good faith and respecting other editors and WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

removal of blog

I have removed a blog as an external link. Just because it has been here "along time" does not impress me for going against policy. Also the living category says that people who are listed in the missing category should not be listed in the living category. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My objection before was that you also removed the Scrux EL. As for the living category, see section 11 above, we are under orders from Admins to keep that category in. Suggest you take it up with the BLP patrol.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No objections to removing the blog, as it appears to be a fairly run-of-the-mill Natalee blog. The Scrux link, however, should remain. - auburnpilot talk 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I'm just concerned about the sudden rash of drive-by editors we are getting. I suspect we will continue to see them through at least Sunday.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal from living category

Per the discription at the living category page, this category should be removed since this article is included in the disappeared persons category. I have read the discussion above, and the orginal person who suggested that it be left in the article out of BLP concerns has retired. It appears that there are enough eyes watching this article to protect it against any violations of any guidelines and policies. Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

However, the order stands in place. And others who participated in that discussion are still active. Suggest you bring it up with the BLP patrol. Crockspot's retirement changes nothing. We were told to do this to allow the BLP patrollers to monitor the article, and they are the ones you should speak to in order to get that changed. I don't personally care, but I'm trying to do what we were told to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
When you say BLP patrol, you mean Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or something else? Thank you --24.250.59.250 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I posted a note there. I also removed the possibly living category per that pages guidelines. Maybe this category(possibly living) would be more appropriate? It will be three years this May, so living will be removed eventually, why not do it now and keep an eye on this page? Thank you.--24.250.59.250 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Any removal of the BLP tag would itself violate our BLP policy and I would actively oppose such a move. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
How about removal of category:Living persons? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It must stay too, assuming she is dead would be original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
So do not remove it again, you doing that wont see the category disappear and edit warring is huighly disruptive in this case, it must stay until her death is official. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Please goto the Living People and Disappeared People categories and review what they say. Both say that someone included in one is not included in the other. Jons63 (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking this to Request for Comment. It's absolutely absurd that you'd keep the "Living people" tag up. That's a tag that requires positive evidence that she's alive, just as "2005 deaths" requires positive evidence she's dead. You have neither. You're letting something odd get in the way of common sense here. Moncrief (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking it to Rfc sounds good but all the same until you can verify she is dead you have no right to assume so, see our policy around original research and I suggest people are not going to want to listen to your ideas around this poor young lady. You cant prove she is dead and until we get some reliable sources that she is I would suggest an Rfc would be seriously counter-productive to your cause, and there is no way the arbcom will back up your original ideas on this one. You believe she is dead? Fine, just don't bring it here to wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right. Taking it to RfC does sound good. Please don't be so disrespectful and tell me what to take and not to take to Wikipedia. Remember the tone of your discussions here is important. We'll let RfC decide, not you or me. This also has nothing to do with what I think or believe, It's about the appropriateness of the "Living people" tag on this article. Moncrief (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Tone, what are you on about? You seem determined to troll this poor woman and her family and now you start rebuking me. All arbcom will bve interested ion is whether we can verify she is dead and as we cant obviously your extremist viewpoint will go nowhere. You cant change reality by posting an Rfc and wikipedia will not take a viewpoint on this issue. I would actually suggest waiting till she gets officially declared dead because will not go along with your original research as if somehow you know she is dead, until that is officially declared so. Please stop wasting everybody's time pushing a point of view that has no verifiability. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As a user of Wikipedia, I have a right to use any process open to me. Please don't tell me what to do and what not to do. I don't like being called an extremist or being told that I'm "wasting everybody's time." I am "determined to troll"? On what evidence do you base that? (That I'm "determined to troll" this woman and her family by questioning a category inclusion on Wikipedia is so over-the-top bizarre that I can't even be offended by such an accusation.) I've used and edited Wikipedia since 2003 and have never been accused of being a troll before. I have the right to use RfC and will do so despite your protestations. That's my last word here on it till then. If you believe your decision here is sound, it shouldn't trouble you that others will look it over. Moncrief (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Just don't expect a sympathetic reaction, and indeed as a wikipedian you need to show good faith or your edit privileges might be revoked, and pushing for a BLP violation because you think she is dead is certainly wasting everyone's time, I am merely advising you in a good faith way to desist. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
SqueakBox, to respond to a user's comments, you need to put one more colon before your comments than the person you're responding to used. Otherwise it is hard to follow the train of comments. I used two colons in this message. You should use three colons to respond, not one. Thanks for your advice! I don't need it, but thanks for sharing nonetheless. Moncrief (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I do know but I am not always a great formatter. I am, though, committed to our BLP and NPOV policies, and my advice is certainly genuine. the day the media comes out with proof that she is dead or the day she is pronounced legally dead by either Dutch or US authorities is the day that we will call her dead too. We are an encyclopedia, we do not create news

OK, we'll start a new train of discussion if you insist. It surprises me that you'd consider yourself NPOV. You've used the word "poor" (to mean "unfortunate," of course) twice in a discussion of the subject of the page here. While I don't disagree with you personally, that is you injecting your POV into the discussion. (Let alone all the bizarro motives you've thrown at me, which don't seem to spring from the mind of a calm, POV person, but that's just my POV.)
I absolutely agree, 100%, that "the day the media comes out with proof that she is dead or the day she is pronounced legally dead by either Dutch or US authorities" is the day you should add a category confirming she is dead, and not a day before that. However, the "Living people" tag is an affirmative tag declaring that the article knows her to be alive. I'm not asking you to add a "2005 deaths" (or "2008 deaths") tag. It's an affirmative decision to call her a living person rather than a person about whose living status reasonable people can agree may be in doubt. You and whoever the "we" are do not own this article, and there are plenty of ways to signify the uncertainty of someone's living existence. Keeping in the "Living people" tag to signify this is just one (arguably POV way) of doing so. Anyway, I've got to write up the RfC now. Moncrief (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Moncrief, could I ask you to post a link to the RfC when you do it? I don't intend to comment unless side issues get dragged in, but I'd like to monitor it. Frankly, I am heartily sick of the categories thing--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)g.

Some comments above seem to have the mistaken impression that removing the "Living people" category is saying that she's dead. It's not. Putting her in "Dead people" would be saying that, but nobody seems to be advocating that. The "Possibly living people" category would describe the Schrödinger's cat-like uncertainty of her status better than either of those categories. Using a category that says that she's living or dead is POV compared to the one that shows the indeterminacy. The edit comment, "(rv the cat is there precisely because we dont know and therefore have nor right to assume she is dead)", is flawed because we have no right to assume she is living either, so it should just stay categorically indetermined. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're 100% correct that no one is advocating putting her in a "Dead" category. And I agree wholeheartedly with everything else you wrote. I'd be fine with "Possibly living people," which is the best description of her status. Are there people other than "SqueakBox" who disagree with this position? He seems to be the only one advocating keeping the "Living people" category here. Moncrief (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a dog in the fight. As long as editors think it is proper, given what we've been told to do, fine. The sheer number of pixels wasted over this one issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing based on "Office asked us to do this"

Can a link please be provided to where the "Office" instructed certain editorial oversight for this article? I have read alot of the history but it looks like ancient history at this point. At some junction it will be time to move on. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natalee_Holloway&curid=2025310&diff=188654833&oldid=188652212#Suggest_this_page_be_treated_with_the_concern_relevant_to_a_living_biography

Until she is declared dead, we are treating that request from Gerard as being in force.Kww (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I read that. I don't see how you take that to mean that this article page should be included in the category living persons? We should treat this article based on BLP guidelines as far as what material is included, but if this article is included in category missing persons, per that category page, it should not be included in category living persons. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Maybe David Gerard should clarify if that category should be included and if that was what his note requested? Thank you --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I requested that David comment on exactly what he requested of editors in this regard. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That is good. But why is it even a good idea to delete the category? Seems to me it does no harm. It may or may not be an anamoly, but what's the harm, really?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Its not the appropriate category, thats why. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
In no way is it inappropriate but your removal of it is. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Per the category disappeared people, living people category should not be included, but I will wait a while longer. If there is no reply from David about what his specific directions were in this regard, it should be removed. why is this even an issue. There are multiple edits who live here and protect this article like their child so little chance of BLP issues going unnoticed. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Many people who watch for BLP violations view the related changes for that category. Even if David's comments were no longer valid, keeping the category has more benefits than removing it. - auburnpilot talk 16:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Like what beside being against a stated logical guideline? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if guideline is correct, but against what a category page says that makes good sense. The living category makes a unsourced POV while the other category does not. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
First, I did not say office actions do not matter, and there are no owners of this article. I don't see any guideline that prohibits the category from being included, as the text on a category page is not a Wikipedia guideline but a general rule of thumb for the category's use. The benefit would be allowing those who patrol for BLP violations to continue to see changes to this article within the related changes link I provided above. Also, it does not make a POV statement. There is no proof that Holloway is dead, and she is presumed alive until declared otherwise. - auburnpilot talk 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You said that even if David's comments (which people took to many to keep the living category in) don't apply, so that is pretty pickyyouwn. Also, it is POV since it implies she is living when in fact that is not known. Just because you can't prove a person is not alive does not prove they are. This person has disappeared, correct? I would not agree with listing her in the dead people category unless that can be proven. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)People
My original thoughts when this question was asked at the BLP Noticeboard was that both categories applied. It was pointed out that the categories say that someone in one category should not be in the other. I initially agreed with that, but looking into it more, I believe both categories should remain and that notice in the category pages should be relooked at. We need to assume until a reliable source says she is dead, that she is alive and treat the article as such. Jons63 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Though I was initially not so wild about the idea, I'm happy to have the BLP patrol here. While we have at least three people who regularly look at this article, we all sleep (sorry, Kww) and have lives. We're coming up to what I expect will be a trying couple of days for this article, with the De Vries and 20/20 pieces. We're going to get a lot of drive by editors, as well as those with an agenda. The more eyes on this article, the better. Frankly, I'd love to have semi protection, but I doubt there are grounds yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody know what the satutes are for when somebody can be declared legally dead? So we wait until that happens and then remove the category? Listen, if everybody except me wnats to include the category then fine, I am the jackass in here and I will desist. It just seems that at some point, I guess we haven't reached it, the ownous should be for proving she is alive rather than disappeared which is the current facts on the ground. Like I said, however, I will drop this point as other editors disagree. Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not much different than it is in the States. Someone will have to file a petition with the Aruban court asking for the declaration to be made. The court will consider it and grant it, if it seems justified in the face of the evidence. If no one ever makes the petition, the declaration will never be made. Usually, the purpose of such a declaration is to divide an estate or collect on a life insurance policy, but those aren't likely to come into play with a teenager. If someone successfully filed a wrongful death suit, a declaration by the Aruban court of the death might come in handy, but that day may never come.Kww (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reward section

Is the stuff about the ex con pledging reward money notable or appropriately written? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That whole mention and the 2nd paragraph should be removed per undue weight or whatever you want to call it. It really appears out of place to go into such great detail there. What do the reulars think? Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The man pledged the money. No dispute about that. It's appropriate to explain that he is no longer in a position to pay it. We don't censor. And it isn't undue weight. If it is "whatever you want to call it", call it something, please, this isn't a guessing game.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The moon is not made of cheese, should I add that too? Over 1/2 the reward section doesn't need to be about some crack pot egg farmer and his legal woes. Please don't call this censorship, thats silly.--24.250.59.250 (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a citation in the reward section and removed the part about the non notable, ex con egg farmer from Yardley who offered to put up a reward. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The reward section says the reward "was", is it no longer being offered? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't know. There hasn't been much talk about it recently. Saying "was" covered both the possibilities it was being offered still, and it was no longer being offered.
You asked for comment from the "reulars". As one of the regulars, please wait until Kww and AuburnPilot have a chance to weigh in before making changes. If you want to add a ref, and it is a rs and relevant, feel free, but please wait to do the deletion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't find a sign of revocation. Under common law, the revocation of a reward must be posted in at least as conspicuous of a manner as the original reward notice, so, unless there is something specific under Pennsylvania law that negates that, it's still in effect.Kww (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Never did like contract law. Should we rephrase? I think Mammana's involvement should stay in.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I preferred it to tort, but not by much. I did pretty well in law school, but really couldn't see myself doing that for a living. Anyway, yes, I think we should. The whole phrase about "unlikely to still be valid" is original research, because we have no source for it being invalid, and, worse yet, probably incorrect original research, because the reward is probably still valid, even if it's difficult collect $100K of it.Kww (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. However, if Mammana pledged a tenth of the reward, his name should remain, and we may want to consider a parenthetical that he is currently incarcerated (which he is, I checked the Federal Prisoner Locator) for tax evasion. After all, he probably pledged at least as much as, say, C&C's--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's certainly worth mentioning, even if it needs to be reworded. I'll see if I can find any sources regarding the reward's current status, but I'm not finding anything so far. - auburnpilot talk 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The second paragrapgh is totally undue weight for that section. The person mention is completely non notable except for being a nut. This article is about Holloway, not the legal history of this red linked wack job We don't go into any details about any of the other far more credible reward offers so why do it for this guy's "offer", used very lossely since he has a history of trying to offer rewards as a publicity stunt. Is there a citation for the reward being a million dollars in total? Also, if it is unknown if all the rewards mentioned have been revoked as mentioned above, using "is" would make much more sense. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We go into more detail because of the basic concept that the unusual gets more focus than the usual. It's a joint reward, offered by a mix of credible organisations and a somewhat more suspicious character. No one is going to write sentences that says "The Aruban government is credible" or "Carlos'n'Charlies is credible". We are going to write one that says "tax-evading convict."Kww (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Its called undue weight. Do we need a link to that policy? Also, why remove my requests for citations? Why change the word "is" to "was" as far as the staus of the reward? Your blanket reverting and ownership issues with this article are everything wrong with Wikipedia. Why not try to improve this article rather than force your agenda and "protection" of this article on others? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've rephrased the matter. All we know is that rewards were offered. It is rather OR to apply our knowledge of the law to try to make a determination as to whether the reward would still be valid some two and a half years after the announcement. Could we judge the current validity of the reward, say, for Amelia Earhart, or Judge Crater? Best to stick to the fact that a reward was announced, and to leave the question of its current validity open. I've also reprased the Mammana matter to avoid the citation needed tag, added a citation, and removed the tag.
Ownership issues are not the issue. There are a number of dedicated editors who have spent much time on this article, but everyone is welcome to edit. Obviously, there are worries about keeping the article NPOV, and I am afraid the manner in which you entered this debate (the whole Joran as scumbag thing) was rather unfortunate. That has not stopped me, anyway, and I believe also the other editors, from looking at your edits dispassionately, and on the merits.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
How is it unforetunate that I stated that Joran had or has every appearance of being a scumbag and making that point. I didn't want to add that "Joran, the scumabg, ect" to the article, rather that his actions past and present should be scutinized closely in relation to this case and any sourcable material about his actions included. The reward section is still akward in lumping all the reward monies together and the undue weight given to the egg farmer, convict. Please just don't blindly undo my edits as I try to improve that one small section of this article.Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Both Kww and myself have worked with you this morning on addressing your concerns. WP works by compromise and consensus. Your latest post indicates that what is more important is what you think, rather than appealing to the collective wisdom, if any, of editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you "two" seperate accounts or one in the same? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't. - auburnpilot talk 14:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is so poorly written now. The citation does not support the way the article is written. Nice work guy(s). The egg farmer is linked to a citation that makes no mention of him? Since it seems that you have very little good faith in actually working with other editors, its no surprise people leave here in disgust. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The only people who leave here in disgust are the ones who are disgusted that policy refuses to allow them to push their own point of view, in opposition to sensible discussion. Please stop edit warring, do not accuse two users of being one person, and realize this project works on consensus. Your accusations of ownership could be quite easily turned back on you. If consensus determines the Mammana issue is worth mentioning, it will be mentioned. You may also want to give our civility policy a read. - auburnpilot talk 14:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
How do I claim ownship or explimlify that? By editing a small section that gets reverted blindly back with no regard for what was added? The three of you have been here for how many years on this talk page and have made how many edits to this article? That does not imply consenus, more like ownership. I will, howver, try to work with people in here. Thanks you.--24.250.59.250 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit that I'm a little testy this morning. If you look through the night's edit history, you'll see why ... a bit of insomnia was not helped by dealing with persistent vandalism on the article during the night. I really don't understand your undue weight argument ... the man got three sentences in Wikipedia because he has appeared in numerous news articles in relationship to his reward offers. If he had an article, that would be undue weight. Three sentences? Nope.
As for your implicit sock-puppet allegations, Wehwalt and I are two separate people. Unlike you, I'm completely open as to my identity (see my user page). If you Google me, I'm the semiconductor and telecommunications expert that ran away to the Caribbean, not the gay lawyer in Boston. If I remember properly, Wehwalt is a lawyer somewhere in the eastern US.Kww (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You know they make excellent pills to make you go nighty nite :) Seriously, it is imho undue weight because the article is about Holloway and not some crack pot, convict egg farmer from Yardley, PA, still. I appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism and POV pushers, but I am trying to improve one tiny section that really should not be that contentious and I am met with line in the sand resistance for what reason? The entire section contidicts itself and gives undue weight to a non noteable individual. Also, who is the gay lawyer and what the heck is that in relation to? Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Unhappily, three editors disagree with you. You have not achieved consensus. You can try to build consensus, or move on to another point.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, if you took the time to track me down, you would spend time sorting through articles about me and a gay lawyer from Boston with the exact same name. I added a reference for Mammaman to the article, which hopefully will alleviate your concerns about sourcing. About weight, however, you are simply wrong.Kww (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, you've done one thing. You've caused that section, which wasn't the strongest in the article, to be tightened up. But we're not going to get rid of Mammana. He's part of this story. I hadn't heard he was an egg farmer from Yardley, though, thanks for the info. But he is three lines in a long article. We haven't reported his threats to have people go down to Aruba and deal with J2K (presumably through violence). I think the coverage is appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, we won't get rid of Mammana. I have tried to read more about him and I have no problem with his inclusion in this article, in a reasonable manner. My point still is why do we need over 1/2 the reward section decicated to his legal woes? You guys say that is not undue weight?Why is this like pulling teeth? I really want to try to improve this article within the guidelines and policies layed out. I haven't even touched the living category fiasco laetly. HAve we heard back from DAvid about his "directive"?--24.250.59.250 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you expand the reward section, then? As I understand it, the reward was originally quite small, I think only $25,000 (I can't remember if that was on the "Call Me Hootie!" poster or not). We might do well to trace and expand the growth of the reward. As for the living person category, last I checked we still had those two contradictory statements, and had not heard from David. You might want to watch his talk page. Don't confuse the two, I see the living people thing to be something we have no discretion in as editors until we are given new guidance.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Wehwalt, sorry about removing the million for safe return. That was my mistake. It is the only one I have ever made :) Thanks for fixing that and I hope that doesn't discredit my other edits. Yes, an expansion or clarification of the rewrd time line might be appropriate since this has been going on for some time--24.250.59.250 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. FYI, the "Call Me Hootie" poster does not give a dollar amount for a reward. It has "REWARED" scrawled across it. I could upload a copy, but it would probably be a copyvio. Do editors have some thoughts on this? Any way to insert this into the article as we are short on illustrations?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to another site on the talk page so I can see what we are talking about?Kww (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Call me Hootie. - auburnpilot talk 15:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not appropriate as an external link.--24.250.59.250 (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree as far as including the link, but was just providing it so Kww would know what we're talking about. - auburnpilot talk 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, you mean it should not be included, correct? Wehwalt has readded the image I think based on your above comment in error? Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I support its inclusion with an appropriate fair use rationale. Policies such as WP:OR and WP:RS are not typically applied to images, as images released from reliable sources are rarely free use. The reliability of a source is important when adding content, but the image itself is unquestionably reliable. It was released by the Holloway family, regardless of what website now hosts a copy of the poster. - auburnpilot talk 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide proof that it was released by the family? This seems like a complete breakdown or reliable sources wether its content or an image. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we want the blipping poster or not?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. - auburnpilot talk 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
WHAT!?!, you agreed above that the picture is from an unreliable source, didn't you? This is bad. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you read my comment above, where I commented on that issue? - auburnpilot talk 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP does not say that unreliable sourced material must be removed. It says that contentious material without sources or from unreliable sources must be removed immediately. That poster is not contentious at all. There is no reason to remove it under WP:BLP Jons63 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and the poster was mentioned on Pauw and Witteman, as this transcript shows. Take that was whatever proof you may require, but I doubt you'll find a source that states "Holloway releases poster X". - auburnpilot talk 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't you feel the love? :) Please tell me you guys aren't going to edit this article from 6:30pm till 9:30pm tonight, otherwise you three will seriously need to get lifes, just kidding! --24.250.59.250 (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
5-8:30 my time, but no, I won't be editing... - auburnpilot talk 16:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Wiki should be locked down for 3 hours so the non football vandals don't run amok? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that the De Vries program is going to air three hours before kickoff or so, we could all come back from the Giants' victory (remember, this is wiki!) to have a big mess to pick up. Wish we could lock it down. Can I suggest we close this topic, which is long and hard to read, and if there is more to discuss on the reward front, start a new topic?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be here. I'm going to the Karnaval parade this afternoon, and should be back home just as the DeVries interview wraps up. I'll watch the recap of the interview on BVN. As for the image, I think we can include it under fair use.Kww (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

I've uploaded the reward poster to [3]. I suggest we also include the last known photo of Natalee (the one of her dancing in CnC's) and I'll try to think of one or two more.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt, that image is from an unreliable source and should not be added. What is going on here? I asked that the image be deleted. Can anybody help with that? Thank you--24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No, we don't delete images because they come from an unreliable source. The poster in question was released by the Holloway family, specifically Beth, and the source of the image doesn't change that. There is also another poster that was more widely used (seen here), but using both would probably be overkill. - auburnpilot talk 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
So images from unreliable sources are ok? I better just leave now. You are going to do whatever you will with this article regardless of anything. Tell me again how you don't own this article together. Nice work. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly your prerogative to leave, but if you remain, please give Wikipedia:Civility a read. We've done some good work on this article, and the image's source being unreliable doesn't change the fact that the image exists. Are you saying that if I called up Beth Twitty today and had her fax me a copy of the image it would be magically ok? The reliability of a source doesn't change the context of an image, as it does textual content. There is no bias or falsehoods presented in an image of a reward poster. - auburnpilot talk 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It absolutely does make a difference where content, either written, or an image comes from. The image from the geocities external link site has not been altered? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it has not been altered. If you do an online search for the poster, you will find many independent accounts of the poster's text. - auburnpilot talk 17:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you eqake good work to ownership of this article, then you have done excellent work imo. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. When you're ready for civil discussion, please let me know on my talk page. - auburnpilot talk 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Who wrote "Reward!" at the bottom of the poster? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dutch sources for information on de vries broadcast of tonight.

For those so intent on getting this article up to date (before the americans broadcast the syndicated version of the broadcast). Here are some potential references in Dutch:

First american reference that i found so far. I'm sure the other major american news sources will follow soon now. Hidden Camera Shows Dutch Student Saying Natalee Holloway Died on Aruba Beach Foxnews --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone needs Dutch -> English translations, let me know I'm happy to help you. Wobuzowatsj (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We need to source everything, preferably to English language websites since this is the English wikipedia. Please subordinate your desire to share what you know with the world to keeping up the high standards of this article by keeping every significant statement sourced.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In De Vries's program, the original video with Enlish subtitles was shown to Natalee's mother. I assume it will be all over the US media in due time. rsmith (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I've started in with the use of the Foxnews article. I'd be grateful to everyone if they'd keep their opinions of the people involved off this talk page. There are many places where they can express them.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've put a link here to the video of de Vries his program in which you can see the confession but someone has deleted it without mentioning it. Unless the person who did it gives a good reason for it I will place it again. Note that the video is complete and that it has English subtitles. Pieter pietersen (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Remember that the video is copyright, so unless it is a site authorized by the show, we shouldn't link to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I would appreciate it if someone would first discuss it before deleting/editing someone else his post or he would at the very least notice the fact that he deleted/edited someone else his post.
Ontopic; I disagree. This video only shows a small fragment of the program, 9 minutes out of the 90 minutes. This regards a high-profile international case, I think that everyone should have the possibility to see the evidence. Not everyone lives in the USA or in the Netherlands, they can't watch it in any 'legal' way.
Pieter pietersen (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
From WP:EL, which is our mandatory policy around here on external links:
Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.
I hope this helps. I understand you were acting in good faith, but I think anyone sufficiently interested is going to run right to YouTube or whereever anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Jan-Feb 2008 new developments section

Can somebody remove the 2nd paragraph "Beth Twitty's attorney, John Q. Kelly, indicated that he has little faith that the supposed evidence will prove pivotal to the case and suggests that it will be quickly debunked." since that is not in the citation. Thanks! --nyc171 (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was replaced by another one and ABC apparently used the same link. I've updated the reference to point to a copy of the original article, hosted on another site. - auburnpilot talk 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
it should be noted that the friend whom van der sloot claims dumped the body may not be the same person who has come out saying he wasn't in aruba at the time. the friend has not been positively identified yet, according to the source used in this section [4]74.131.53.9 (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to say. And if the events did not transpire as Joran stated, that's another possibility. It is difficult to figure out how to phrase without sounding POV or indicating belief. We might do best just to await developments.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The Daury from Rotterdam had a different surname. The surname was "beeped away" in the TV documentary. Andries (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Different from whom?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Different from the surname that Joran mentioned in his confession. Andries (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't know what that is. He mentioned a Daury. This guy felt he needed to have a press conference about it. I've rephrased it though, hope it helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I don't see how WP can use a yearbook picture. Wouldn't that be copyrighted? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is being used under a claim of fair use, and is an image circulated by the family during her search. As a missing person, no free use image is likely to become available. It isn't actually the photo of Holloway used in the yearbook, but one of the senior portraits likely purchased by her parents. - auburnpilot talk 18:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The photo was made public in order to publicize her appearance when she was a missing person. I wonder if the claim of publicity fades once she is presumed dead. --Dystopos (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It's possible, but if she is declared dead, the likelihood that a free use image would become available decreases considerably. If that's the case, we can always update the image information to match the claims I've made on Image:NancyLynn.jpg. I wouldn't presume to contact the Holloway family for a free use image, but in time it may be appropriate. - auburnpilot talk 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt that they would give us the time of day, given the supposed complaint that came from them or a friend that put us on the BLP list (though that's turned out well), and given the number of edits we have had to fend off that want to slant it towards a given point of view.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My point was the the copyright to the picture is owned by the publisher of the yearbook. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
A senior portrait? Probably not. It would belong to Natalee. Usually, the senior portrait is done by an independent photographer, and submitted to the yearbook. Because of the quality, it would appear that Beth grabbed one of those, not that someone rescanned it out of the yearbook. Even if they had scanned it, it isn't clear to me that a copyright from the yearbook publisher would apply, since they are reprinting something that belongs to someone else.Kww (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree. In my day, the photographer held onto the negative of school picture in hopes of reprint orders, but with digital technology, that seems to have changed. It would belong to NH or one or both of her parents. I don't think the actual ownership would affect the fair use rationale.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I have the MBHS 2005 yearbook in my hand, and the photo of Natalee is not the one we have on this page. When portraits are taken for seniors at MBHS, it is done over the summer prior to the student's senior year. The students are then presented with a booklet of choices, from which they are able to choose the image that will appear in the yearbook, as well as which (if any) they'd like to purchase. The one within our article would be one that Beth/Jug/Dave likely purchased. - auburnpilot talk 14:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
When my daughter had her senior pictures taken, about 4 years ago, the photographer made it clear that we didn't have the right to reproduce the pictures, just buy prints from him. I'm only looking at this from the point of view of what's legal for WP to do, not what's best for the Holloway family. Sorry about that. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, when I first uploaded the photo, there was a template ({{PD-awio}}) which erroneously claimed that images released to the media for purposes of publicity fell into the public domain. (See discussion here.) I used the template in ignorance, and it is clear that the image is not in the public domain. The claim now made is Fair Use, which depends less on the wishes of the copyright owners than on our prerogative in usurping those rights for public benefit. The rationale would have to be that this image has historical importance, its omission would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject, and that it could not be replaced with a non-free image. --Dystopos (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unmerge Joran van der Sloot

I originally supported the merge from Joran van der Sloot to Natallee Holloway, because I believed that Van der Sloot was no longer a suspect and the case was close. But now Joran's recent bizarre behavior may warrant an article on him. He wrote a biography about himself this would not a single-event-policy-violating-biography. Andries (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What would we say that isn't already adequately covered in here? Sorry, I disagree. There is no need for such an article, and Joran has no independent notability.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In the last few days Joran clearly has acquired independent notability in the Netherlands. His confession was seen by 43% of the Dutch population and not because there are so few TV stations in the Netherlands. His name was today in the top 10 of google search items in the Netherlands. His first name is today on the front page of the web edition of the most populair Dutch newspaper Telegraaf stating that people make parodies of his confessions. Natalee's name is not. Andries (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
And all of that is derived from the Natalee Holloway case. He has zero notability outside of Natalee's disappearance, and does not warrant his own article. It would do nothing more than duplicate information already included here. - auburnpilot talk 01:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If it were up to me I'd create a stub article that would allow him to be categorized independently, but that would make clear that this article is the main article for the incident from which his notoriety is drawn. I'm not sure that my preference follows Wikipedia consensus, however. It seems like stubs aren't valued as they once may have been. --Dystopos (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
What would we categorize him as? We have no idea what, if anything, he's really done! That wouldn't stop some people, who would happily categorize the stub as Category:Rapists, but we'd be constantly deleting that (unless he were convicted of it, say) and arguing about it. A Joran article adds nothing to WP and doubles the possibilities for those who want to insert their own POV into the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We would categorize him as a living person subject to the policies for editing biographies of living persons, for one thing. --Dystopos (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would argue for maintaining one article. If the material on Joran continues to grow, I think that strengthens the argument for moving this article to something like "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway", but I don't see an argument for splitting it.Kww (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Joran is quite notable. And even people notable for one event often warrant a WP article (although not necessarily a biography as it may be difficult or impossible to write a neutral one). However, unmerging now is not advisable as the Natalee Holloway article does not contain sufficient biographical information on Joran to create his biography (i.e. an article called Joran van der Sloot instead of the current redirect). But the needed material may well be out there in V RS sources. If it is possible to write a neutral biography of Joran (based on reliable sources, and I would not see Joran's own book as such right now), I'd say go for it. Having said that, I do not understand why the Natalee Holloway article shouldn't be moved straight away. Admittedly I'm butting in without reading what went before, and I'll do so presently, but I have participated in such moves on several occasions in the past and would support it here in a heartbeat. Even though WP:BLP arguably does not apply as even Natalee's parents believe she is no longer alive. Anyway - it is clear to me that the article is currently not a biography and as such a misnomer, to be corrected by e.g. adding sufficient bio information or by moving it to something like "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway". Avb 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
PS I've now read the talk page above. Apparently, such a move has been attempted and discussed before, but I did not see any arguments other than the ones presented here in this section so I assume the preceding consensus discussion(s) have already been archived. I think a new consensus may be in the cards and look forward to discussing it. Avb 15:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Suggest we deal with one thing at a time, unless you have an overall propoasl that deals with both the Joran issue and the name change. And the name change has been dealt with at least three times, in May 2007, July 2007 and February 1, 2008, not counting the current discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
My aim here is to help build a consensus regarding the two issues discussed above by others. To recapitulate (1) I would support a move and have given policy-based arguments above. (2) I oppose an unmerge for now and have given policy-based arguments above. I would not oppose the creation of a separate vd Sloot article if sufficient V RS material can be found to build a neutral biography but am not interested in creating one myself. The reference to past discussion does not help; 1 Feb is not a consensus discussion in any shape or form (only arguments in favor of the move, no arguments against). July 2007 is much too long ago. How about addressing my arguments? Avb 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(1) I do not see where you have provided policy-based arguments to support the move. For a more complete discussion regarding the move, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Natalee Holloway disappearance, specifically diff 1 and diff 2. (2) I somewhat agree with you regarding the need for a separate article for Joran (see diff 2). At this time, Joran is not notable enough in his own right to warrant a biography. As far as WP:BLP, we have been asked to treat this article with the care of a BLP, and I support that very much. - auburnpilot talk 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I will be succinct in my viewpoint, although I echo the sentiments of those supporting an unmerge at this juncture. Ron Goldman was a non-notable individual prior to his murder, and said murder was made particularly newsworthy by the suspected involvement of celebrity OJ Simpson. And yet, that article exists without dispute, although after his death he himself had no further notority (aside from the murder case in criminal and civil court, and the involvement of his father in particular). By way of extrapolation, Natalee Holloway herself was not notable prior to a singular event for the same reason as Goldman, and yet an article exists on her without dispute. I believe we should honestly place semantics aside and clearly delineate why applying a separate standard to Joran is justifiable to that of Ron and Natalee. Is it a perceptual bias towards the victim and against the (alleged) murderer? That, quite frankly, smacks of a far greater principal that seems to be skirted...that being WP:NPOV...which I question at this juncture.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 05:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be rather a different situation? There are probably a bunch of OJ Simpson related articles (assuming the ones on the murders would be deemed related to him) and so it would simplify things for there to be an article on Goldman. Here, we have one article. And I doubt it could be said that failure to have an article on the supposed, but uncharged perp is equivalent to having an article on the victim of crime and thus creates a POV problem. As to why we have an article on Natalee, it is very clear: Because this has been deemed (see many discussions above) to be the most likely search term.
As for the Goldman article, I looked at it. It is basically a stub, with almost nothing on him as a person. Most of it is about the death and the aftermath, which probably duplicates info found elsewhere.
As a practical matter, we have all the information in one article. It would not shorten the article or increase the coverage if we had a second article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dumping her unconscious body into the Caribbean"

I have now twice reversed edits by an editor on pov grounds, here is one of the diffs [5]. The editor seeks to bring in language from the first, summary paragraph of the NY Post article. In my view, it is misleading, speculative, and sensationalist. Also POV as hell. What I have written is a fair summary without the unproven image of a living Natalee sinking beneath the waves. The edit made by the editor makes it look like Natalee was certainly alive at that point, and the only "allegedly" about it was whether Joran was involved. The NY Post may have low standards, but we don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It is sourcable material and a fact about what Twitty said. Why is so important to remove this? It really isn't that contensious and reflects imporatant feelings that Twitty has regarding the new tape.--nyc171 (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, how is it POV? We are reporting what Twitty said, no more, no less. Readers are told that. You already added the business about "adhering to the position that the tapes represent the way events actually transpired" as some disclaimer, why remove part of her statement, belief. It appears to be in proper context and not really taking sides since it is attributed to her and not stated as fact. --nyc171 (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I stand by what I've said. I've rephrased as an interim measure. I think we should go back to the summary form indicated in teh above diff.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I see you added more disclaimers. That should help our readers who are retarded and can't comprehend that this is Twitty's belief as is stated. Reads and looks much better.--nyc171 (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
IF they are retarded, they can read it in the New York Post, which is designed for same. We are bound by WP:BLP, check out the part about contentious material.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
How is this contentious? Twitty saw the tape. Twitty made a comment about the tape. The comment about her belief was reported in the media. We have included Joran's response to the tape without any disclaimers, why not Twitty's? This whole tape episode has garnered a huge amount of coverage and seems to be significant yet it gets little mention here so undue weight is not a problem. Iam not a NY post fan myself for what its worth. --nyc171 (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Because what you posted assumed several things as fact, and it was unclear as to whether we were reporting them as facts, or as Twitty's views. Among these were Natalee's body being dumped (Joran said he didn't do it, that this other guy, Daury, did it but Joran wasn't there then) and that Natalee was unconscious, rather than dead. These are not trivial matters. What we post about Joran's view is not compound, it is very clear that what is in that sentence is Joran's perspective. As a practical matter, the paragraph as is has all the facts in there, and there is no chance of misinterpretation. Are you so wedded to the way it was reported in the NY Post that you must have that language?
As for the tapes getting a huge amount of publicity, that is true. We have summarized it as part of a long article, in a dispassionate manner, and we await further developments. Twitty deserves some mention for her views, but we have to be careful in how we do it. Should we mention she said on nationwide TV that she wants to kill Joran?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If she said that and there are sources, and its in some kind of context and relevant, why not add it? I have no problem with that. --nyc171 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I am not wedding to anything in here. --nyc171 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm tempted . . . no, then we'd have to put some of Joran's comments about Twitty, including that Joran says Natalee called her mother "Hitler's sister's daughter." Seriously, though, it is a question of contentious material is an article subject to WP:BLP. Beth is accusing Joran of, let's face it, premeditated murder. Joran denies he did Natalee harm or was involved in her disappearance, so does his lawyer. We must phrase things so that it is clear, not just arguable, that this is Beth's perspective, not the article's.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
At this point, even a retarded reader would realize that those statements are Twitty's belief of what happened. Maybe we should have readers sign a form saying they understand that before being allowed to read this article? Also, I don't see that Twitty is accusing him of premeditated murder, just plain murder, but does that really matter? Again, these are relevant beliefs to what she saw on this viedo tape and her stated response.--nyc171 (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I think this will do. It has the content, and the note that it was Twitty's view, which you amended. --Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Looking at the descriptions of Category:Possibly living people, Category:Living people, Category:Disappeared people, and Category:Dead people, I see that you're not supposed to include a single article in more than one of these. So why are people edit-warring to keep the conflicting categories in place? *Dan T.* (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could say why are the categories saying this kind of controversial, edit-warring encouragement. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, what more, besides what has been said ad nauseum, can we tell you to answer your question, Dan T.? I don't particularly care about the categories dispute, and we've received conflicting and changing advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The owners of this article will not allow the category living people to be removed from this article for any reason, that is why, capche? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't make any sense, you're right. The description of the "Disappeared people" tag explicitly states that it shouldn't appear in an article with a "Living people" tag yet that's the case here. More information for the RfC I'm putting together on this issue. Moncrief (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, how is it in any way POV? It makes perfect sense not to include a person in multiple categories because that would be taking a certain POV. Listing a person just in disappears tells readers that there is no proof either way if the person is living, as is the case here. This person is missing. They might be alive, they might not be. Neutral. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you on that 100%. Makes logical sense. See also my additions today to Talk:Natalee_Holloway#Removal_from_living_category Moncrief (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the category "living persons" today per all the talk here and above. It seems that this page is watched closely enough so hopefully slander/blp issues are not a problem. Also, was there every a RFC that was talked about? I hate to do a vote thingy but maybe everybody should weigh in? Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I support the removal of the "living persons" category per discussion above. However I expect we should still enforce the same standards for verifiability that pertain to biographies of living persons. --Dystopos (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
On balance, I would keep it. But I won't reinsert it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Former student

General discussion

Is there any evidence that Holloway is a current student? Why can't this be changed to former student if she is not currently attending school? That doesn't seem to be taking a POV does it? --72.209.11.186 (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried this earlier,[6] and quoted the Manual of Style in my edit summary but it was changed back since that was the consensus. I still maintain the opening paragraph is factually incorrect since it still says she is "an American student" after almost 3 years out of school. It should be changed, but this article has people who are strong opponents of changing the status quo of the article. Jons63 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, "former student" would raise more questions than would be answered. How about, more or less, "Natalee Holloway, a recent high school graduate and prospective college student, disappeared . . . " That way, it avoids the question by clearly referring back to the time of her disappearance.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be better than the current version I guess. Did she actually "officially" graduate? Any other ideas?--72.209.11.186 (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I think it will work, it is definately better than the current that states she is a student when she obviously isn't. Jons63 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll implement it. Apparently, this trip happened after graduation. At least, that is what every source I have seen says.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What if we change the current opening paragraph to read
"Natalee Ann Holloway (born October 21, 1986), disappeared on May 30, 2005 during a high school graduation trip in Aruba, a Caribbean country that is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Born in Clinton, Mississippi and most recently from Mountain Brook, Alabama, Holloway graduated from Mountain Brook High School just days before the trip to Aruba. The disappearance generated a media sensation in the United States and in the Netherlands."?
This would avoid the question of "is/was" and still gets across the same points. The recent wording seems awkward. - auburnpilot talk 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That is even better, it accurately states what happened and her status at the time of her disappearnce. Jons63 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I simplified the lead to just HS grad. The artilce goes on to talk about recent grad and prospective College student does not really seem necessary, in the lead sentence. --nyc171 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I like AuburnPilot's language. We've had too many insertions into the lead sentence, so that the oomph of the sentence, "disappeared", has fallen too far down the sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You reintroduced the factually incorrect information that she is a "student". She has not been a student for almost 3 years now. Your edit is worse than either of the other 2 suggestions above, with AuburnPilot's being the best. Jons63 (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made those changes. Something about that "an American" statement right after the birth-date has always bothered me, but I see it has been re-added as I write this. - auburnpilot talk 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What bothers you about that? --nyc171 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's really nothing more than a personal preference for word choice, I suppose. - auburnpilot talk 15:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK sounds good then.--nyc171 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Per MOS, her nationality should be in the lead. It looks pretty good now and does not say she is a current student. --nyc171 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We state where she is from, and I don't believe nationality must be explicitly stated. Either way, the last change made the first sentence a fragment, and would have required the "is/was" reintroduction. - auburnpilot talk 15:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
See below.--nyc171 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have modified it slightly so as to move the nationality into the second sentence, where we discuss her birthplace and origin. Seems more logical to be grouped there.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:MOSBIO.--nyc171 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
MOSBIO is a guideline on how to properly format the article. We do not have to sacrifice editorial judgment in the name of MOSBIO. It simply makes more sense to place "an American" where Wehwalt placed it in this version. - auburnpilot talk 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Why? Is there some good reason to go against a guideline here? sacrifice editorial judgment?? --nyc171 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I read it. The way I had it still satisfied MOS as it had her nationality in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Most bios usually have the nationality after name and date of birth and then what they did or why they are notable. Why alter that order against guidleines? --nyc171 (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional breach will improve an article." I believe it improves the readability of the article. - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We should change the order because the way it reads, "Natalee Ann Holloway (born 1986-10-21), an American, disappeared...", it is very awkward. Jons63 (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think because of the careful way we phrase this first sentence, where she is notable for "disappeared" rather than for her status as a once and future student, that the adjective or noun "American" should await the point, in the second sentence, where we talk about her as a person. As it is, by saying she is "an American", it creates a rather jingoistic look, as if that is her defining characteristic, sum civus Americanus. Given the fact that some have complained that had NH been of another nationality, she would not have gotten the attention she did, I think it is best to avoid the phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That is more reason to include it. Again, why besides "readability" or "sacrifice editorial judgment" or "awkward" would we go against an established guideline? --nyc171 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying, remove it, just move it to make the sentences flow. How many reasons do you need before you will say move it? Jons63 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jons63 here, Nycahole171. We've given you several perfectly valid reasons, all which would fall under the exceptions to a guideline, and you need more? Come on... - auburnpilot talk 16:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I really haven't heard one valid reason yet why to remove nationality from the lead sentence. Can you point to other bio(s) that do that?(didn't I ask that before?)--nyc171 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Then maybe you should reread MOSBIO. The list you are referencing states "The opening paragraph should give:". NOT the opening sentence. - auburnpilot talk 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I randomly selected 10 bios from the living people category (5 from "A" and 5 from "G") and 6 had the nationality in the 1st sentence and 4 did not. These 4 did not: David Aardsma, Martín Abadi, Salleh Abas, John Lewis Gaddis. 60-40 split, is not consensus as to how to write the 1st sentence. Jons63 (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

How about: Natalee Ann Holloway (born October 21, 1986) is an American who disappeared on May 30, 2005 during a high school graduation trip.....--nyc171 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we are avoiding the use of "is" and "was".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, Natalee Ann Holloway (born October 21, 1986) an American who disappeared on May 30, 2005 during a high school graduation trip..... This gives the 4 major components of mosbio in the lead sentence.--nyc171 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

infobox

I added nationality to that. OK?--nyc171 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but it should still be moved in the intro. - auburnpilot talk 16:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Why again? Readablity? Editorial oversight or what did somnebody call itsacrifice editorial judgment? Its awkward? I don't like it? Did I miss any? --nyc171 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
How about WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IAR (if you must) or the fact that nobody agrees with you? This belief you seem to have that we must blindly follow "established guidelines" is absurd. This is an encyclopedia, and readability is important, as is removing awkward wording. From WP:MOSBIO: "objective of this Manual of Style (or style guide) is to provide guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles. Adherence to the following guidelines is not required". - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, fine, if everybody thinks I am a jackass, I will saddle up :) Seriously, I think there in nothing wrong with having nationality as it is now. If everybodyelse wants to move it for now, go for it. Can you point to other bios that do this? --nyc171 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted myself per a few other editors who disagree with me. Good luck guys. --nyc171 (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Too long?

With the threat of deletion temporarily suspended, I noticed the article has been tagged as too long. According to Wikipedia:Article size, this should be based on the main, readable prose of the article. As of now, the readable prose (see here) is only 35 kilobytes long; the suggested "too long" length is 32 kilobytes. Since this is fairly close, and the guideline suggests that for articles around 30k "length alone does not justify division," are there any objections to removing the tag? - auburnpilot talk 04:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any way we could split the article. "temporarily suspended" lol!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't split it.Kww (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Gah, I keep forgetting about readable length. Tag removed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

New images

Male signing wall

Female signing wall

News crews

Blurry shot of Carlos'n Charlie's

I was searching Flickr for some images, since that is apparently our downfall, and found a few by Flickr user "maryatuab". They were originally licensed in a way that we couldn't use them, but she graciously re-licensed them under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 license. Two of the three I uploaded to commons are of a memorial/prayer wall setup near Natalee's church (if I remember correctly) less than two weeks after her disappearance, and the third is of a couple news crews standing near the wall. The news crews could go in the media coverage section, and one of the first two would likely fit well somewhere near the beginning of the article (disappearance/early investigation sections). (see here) - auburnpilot talk 20:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also the blurry shot of Carlos'n Charlie's I found. - auburnpilot talk 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd include the "female signing wall" and the Carlos'n'Charlies shot. That is the Aruba CNC, so far as I can tell. I can see fragments of a sign in Papiamentu, and there isn't a CNC on either Bonaire or Curacao.Kww (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and thrown a few images into the article in the same way I'd set it up in my sandbox. Obviously feel free to add/remove/rearrange as needed. They'll be more difficult to obtain, I'm sure, but some free images of the three suspects would be a good find. - auburnpilot talk 02:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

GA renom?

I think we've addressed the points used to turn us down for GA status. The article is stable, no edit wars, the skies are sunny above Aruba with nothing to cause a flood of editors down on us, and we have photographs. Should we go for renomination?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the worst that could happen? We wait 6 weeks for a review, then are told we don't get one? Hmm...already happened. Seriously, though, I think it meets all the requirements. I support resubmitting it. - auburnpilot talk 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 8, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Notability of the changes of lead investigators is not clear, if these changes are not natobale they should be removed. If they are they should be referenced.
2. Factually accurate?: {{fact}} templates have been added where the source of the information is not clear. Good references are needed for the use of the case by popular culture, and if they can't be found I don't think the article would suffer by having that section removed.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: lastnatalee.jpg needs a completed fair use rationale


Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Million_Moments (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done everything except for the first point regarding the investigators. I'm not sure how notable it is, and while there are sources referring to each of them as commissioner, I didn't find anything that specifically referred to the retirement/transfer of titles. I also cut the entire popular culture section after searching unsuccessfully for reliable sources. Tv.com referenced the case on the episode pages for some of the shows, but I don't think that is an acceptable source. - auburnpilot talk 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you will ever find a reliable, conclusive source giving the reasons for the personnel changes. Aruba's police chief got transferred here, but none of us could ever tell for certain whether it was a slap in the face or done at his own request (general consensus on Bonaire was that he did a good job here). Similarly, we all speculated that Aruba's "request" that the Netherlands take over the investigation was forced, but no one ever knew for sure. However, I think the transfer of the investigation from Aruba to the Netherlands was well sourced, and I don't think eliminating mention of it is reasonable ... we just shouldn't speculate about the cause.Kww (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, as far as I am concerned, we can axe that paragraph. Dompig is the only one we give "face time" to, neither Van der Stratten nor Richardson significantly figures into the story. I vaguely remember that that paragraph stems from someone trying to imply Dompig got kicked off the case for saying NH had drugs.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 8, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass, good lead section
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass, good use of images so far

Future improvements could include: -

  • More images such as a screencap from the Dr. Phil interview and the cover of the book written by Holloway's mother with appropriate fair use rationales.
  • Using blockquotes more, espicially when dealing with cases of accusations.
  • If avalible, inclusion of any notable people defending the investigation.
  • Expansion of the media coverage section, perhaps incorperating a specific section on public reaction. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough review and response after we addressed the concerns, Million Moments. Much appreciated! - auburnpilot talk 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you as well.
I'm not too good at screencaps, but I think one of the Skeeters tape is our best bet, but without the subtitles from Phil. We can "borrow" the cover of Beth's book (and possibly look for Joran's as well) from amazon.com or similar sites. Media--ideas on how to do that that satisfies WP:V? I would suggest two blockquotes, one for a Beth quotation and one for someone with a different point of view. I would suggest Beth's "living hell" quote and Wix's "body in the bathroom", just offhand. But I would limit it to two. People who defended the investigation--didn't Condi Rice say something about it? I'll start looking. My goal for this article is to make it a FA, and I think we have a very good start.
Thoughts, anyone?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done some of the work. I would suggest we include some mention of Condi Rice's involvement. She made some comment on the case in June 2005, met with Beth in October (and invited her to church) and I think she said something against the boycott, but I'm not sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-Quotes- As far as block quotes, I believe they should be reserved for lengthy quotations (those that take up multiple lines), as is done in the "Initial arrests". The one liners are just as easily worked into the regular text/spacing format. -Images- The book covers look good, and as they are discussed, they're an easy justification for fair use. I've also searched flickr again and found an image of the Dutch Marines searching the area around the light house. I contacted the guy to see if he'd alter the license so that we can use it in the "Physical search" section. My other thought was an image of Twitty, Jug, and Al. Governor Bob Riley for the boycott section. That should be an adequate number of images. -Notable people- Condi would be a good addition. I'll do some searching tomorrow to see if I can dig up anything else. - auburnpilot talk 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave it to you on the quotes thing. --Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear. What I meant was you should use larger blocks of quotes rather than just the line or two you have when it comes to things such as the criticism of the police investigation. It's better in terms of neutrality as an editor could pick and choose things to reflect what they are trying to demonstrate. For example in Ipswich 2006 serial murders entire quotes from the family on the verdict were used rather than just the bits that called for the death penalty, and I think it provides more clarity. Million_Moments (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Well, I guess we can look for some. The longest quote we have in the article is the Dompig quotation. We can dive back into the refs and start looking for longer quotes. I see in the refs, though, someone put in a fairly long quotation criticizing the media for abandoning the family and moving on to Katrina, at the time the four then-jailed suspects were released. We could pull Dave's quote out of there and use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting work on bringing article up to FA standard

While being a GA is great, I see no point in resting on our laurels here. This article could, and should, be an FA. In anticipation of starting the process after a decent interval and possibly getting a peer review, I'm working on getting more quotes in the article (including a couple from Beth that will allay any contention that the article is slanted against her) and having citations for EVERYTHING. Some things I am having trouble finding, even though they are plainly true, like the appeal dismissal of the award to Paulus.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source for the appeal dismissal either; only unreliable replications of other articles. A lot of work has gone into this page recently, and it already looks and reads much better than it did before. Peer review is a good idea, and will obviously bring in some new perspectives. I have some free time tomorrow and will try to find a ref for the Paulus issue. - auburnpilot talk 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Beware

I still can't figure out people's obsession with using this article as a basis for defending the existence of other articles, but with the Lauren Burk and Eve Carson articles at AfD, this article is being mentioned all over Wikipedia right now. Everything from the perennial move suggestion, to some users thinking it would be a good idea to nominate this article for deletion again to make a point. Just FYI...watch your backs. - auburnpilot talk 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As for AfD, be afraid. Be very afraid. I'm more worried about drive by editors who stop and damage and maybe stick around for a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PUNC

This was brought to my attention in connection with the good article pass of George Grossmith, in which I did a few edits in prep for the GA review. But WP policy is to place punctuation marks outside quotation marks unless the punctuation mark is part of the sense of the quoted material. And apparently they get picky about these things at the FAC level. It's going to be some work, but we'll have to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An automated review of the article was generated for the peer review, and can be found here. Unfortunately, I'm leaving town tomorrow and will have limited internet access until I return on the 23rd. I'll try to pitch in with some of the review items as I can, but will not be much help over the next week or so. Hopefully we'll get a human reviewer with a few more specific issues to address. - auburnpilot talk 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm going to concentrate on the stylistic stuff, such as wikifying the dates and whatnot. I'm not sure we need a bibliography or "Further Reading."--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion suspended pending outcome of proposed guideline

The disappearance of Holloway is a widely covered media event. Holloway herself does not meet the criteria for notability. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it you are proposing a move to something like Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Oppose for the reasons as stated in the three previous discussions on this topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Then you have an inconsistent, arbitrary policy that makes no sense. As a person, Eve Carson is far more "notable" than Natalee Holloway was. Yet her page was moved to Murder of Eve Carson on the grounds that she was not notable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've read the proposed WP:N/CA. Why don't we wait for consensus on that, rather than rushing into this ad hoc? In fact, I intend to participate on the discussion page there, since this is not necessarily a criminal act (we don't know).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, please stop drawing the conclusion that the title of this article makes this a biography. There are many reasons why I believe this article should not be moved, but it has nothing to do with whether or not we have an article on Natalee Holloway, the individual. To say Holloway doesn't meet the criteria of notability is a non sequitur. - auburnpilot talk 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support a move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Subject was not notable before disappearing and is only notable now for having disappeared. There's almost nothing in the article dealing with her life; the topic is events subsequent to and as a result of her disappearance. — AjaxSmack 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to wait until the proposed guideline is finalized, somebody should remove this proposed move from WP:RM. - auburnpilot talk 04:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I left a comment saying that Baseball Bugs agreed to put it on hold pending the finalizing of the guideline.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Support a move; "cover the event, not the person". This goes against most of our "Disappearance of" or "Murder of" articles. Will (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Read the article, and you'll see, the event is covered and not the person. - auburnpilot talk 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Results of Peer Review

For everyone's convenience, here is the results of the peer review.

Ruhrfisch comments Seems pretty good to me - here are some hopefully helpful comments:

  • I would include the ages of the Kalpoe brothers in the Disappearance section (as van der Sloot's age is given here)
  • References go after punctuation, so this needs to be changed: Beth Twitty was provided with free housing, initially at the Holiday Inn (where she stayed in her daughter's former room[27]),...
  • California Lighthouse photo has white space after it - have you tried adding the "upright" tag to the image (after "thumb|")?
  • Should John and Jones were released on June 13. have a reference?
  • Ref(s) also needed for the releases of van der Sloot senior and Croes releases...
  • ...and for At some time during the interrogation, Van der Sloot told a third story: that he was dropped off at home and Holloway was driven off by the Kalpoe brothers.
  • Anything that is in quotes chould be cited: ...after an individual ("the gardener") claimed to have seen...
  • Why is there an interwiki link to nl here: Combined Appeals Court of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba(nl).[41]?
  • I doubt Scrux.com is a WP:RS, also do not make direct external links in the text.
  • The investigation continues (September 2005-April 2006) section - lots of short paragraphs (one sentence or two). I would combine them into fewer larger paragraphs.
  • I would not include the ISBN for Aruba: The Tragic Untold Story of Natalee Holloway and Corruption in Paradise in the text, put it and full publisher information in a reference.
  • Same for van der Sloot's book (ISBN and book details in a ref, use {{cite book}}). I would also translate the title to English. Why is there no summary of the book? Even if it says nothing new, then have a sentence that it repeats what he already said (for example)(or whatever it says).
  • July 2007 Amigoe article section - first four paragraphs are uncited - need refs
  • Awkward sentence: The article states that the interviews indicate that Renfro and Beth Twitty received a phone call from an unknown woman on June 2, 2005, offering information about Holloway's location and the information that Holloway was still alive but was unwilling to return to her mother, for the sum of $4,000. Makes it sound like the $4,000 was for Holloway to return to her mother as now written.
  • Watch for short paragrpahs throughout.
  • Is there any sort of final summary possible - any published theories about what happened to her?

Hope this helps, these are fairly nitpicky Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already taken care of the refs on the releases. The rest should provide us with some small amount of work. Though I think we need to be very careful about a summary, lest it be too conspiracy theory oriented. Possibly use a quote from the end of the VF article. Or avoid it entirely. After all, the end of this story is not yet written. Anyway, I suggest that we wait until the dust settles and the proposed move is dealt with, request a level 1 review, deal with that, and then consider making this a FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm crossing them out as I take care of them. I'm not terribly good at some aspects of wiki so help with the book refs and the photo would be appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I can answer one question: there's an interwiki link to the Combined Appeals Court of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba because there are no good English sources on the subject, and I haven't ever translated the NL article to English (it's pretty advanced Dutch, so I would need help). Is this really an obstacle to FA status?Kww (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
As one of the few things left on the list (great work, Wehwalt), is the first light house image even necessary now? It seems a bit cluttered right now, and the white space Ruhrfisch is referring to appears to be part of the image upload. It looks like it was a 35mm image somebody scanned and uploaded. Maybe reupload it without that white space, if we need it, or replace the image with Image:ArubaLighthouse.jpg. - auburnpilot talk 02:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we have the luxury of getting rid of an image, I'd let that one go. Thank you. I would oppose ending with a summary with theories, it will be a honey pot for pov edits. Aside from that, if someone could take care of the book ISBN and refs, I think we are done. We should also start looking for mdashes and ndashes, they will be picky about that at the next level. Also, can we find a ref that says that restrictions of the suspects were eliminated by the appeals court in English?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't see a problem with that image at all. What are people complaining about?Kww (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the right side of the image (Image:Lighthouse-aruba.jpg), there is a line of white space, a bit of black, and a gray stripe as well; its only a few pixels wide. I went ahead and removed it because of this, and because the images were stacked one on top of the other (maybe it was just on my resolution). I also did a bit of spacing work, and moved a couple quotes so they are now within the body of text, rather than stuck at the end of a section. I agree with Wehwalt that adding a section on theories as to what may or may not have happened wouldn't be a good idea. Other than the "watch for short paragraph" issue, I believe that covers the peer review. - auburnpilot talk 18:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Well done, all. I suggest that we let things play themselves out on whether the page is going to be moved, and once that is decided, move forward on a FAC nomination. A second review wouldn't hurt, either,--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Combined Appeals Court of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba

Created the article today, and put a note on the corresponding talk page in the Dutch Wikipedia requesting them to look at the article and review my translation for accuracy. The inter-wikilink has been removed from this article, and is included in that one.Kww (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Twitty quote

AuburnPilot moved the lengthy quotation from Beth Twitty from the end of the Twitty section to the middle. My thought on having it at the end is, that as the section, while in my view npov, does not present Twitty in the happiest light, we could allay any concerns about pov by giving her the last word with a quotation which is fairly sympathetic, presents her view that she needs to keep going on the case or it will grind to a stop, and also certainly notes her focus on J2K. I'd move it back to the end. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if it's move from its current position, but having the quote just stuck on the end, without any introduction or follow-up seemed odd. When I first read it, I couldn't figure out whether the quote supposedly came from the book or why it was even there. If we move it back to the end of the section, I'd suggest using {{quote|What we want is, we want justice. And you know—and we have to recognize the fact that, you know, this crime has been committed on the island of Aruba, and we know the perpetrators. We know it`s these suspects, Deepak and Satish Kalpoe and Joran (v)an (d)er Sloot. And you know, we just have to, though, keep going, Nancy, because the only way we will get justice for Natalee is if we do keep going. I mean, if we give up, absolutely nothing will happen. Nothing.|Beth Twitty}} to attribute it by name and remove any confusion. - auburnpilot talk 20:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind doing that? I tried cutting and pasting and got a mess in preview.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. - auburnpilot talk 03:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Judicial titles

Through the article, we refer to a "judge" "judge commissioner" and "examining judge" who I think are all the same guy, Smits. Can we settle on a single term to use to refer to him? Unless he really has more titles than Pooh-Bah!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be quite surprised if they were all the same judge. Most judges rotate through Caribbean duty, and the term is usually 12-18 months.Kww (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, but what should we call him, we're using three different terms.
Also, I'd like to shore up our referencing on our statements about what Joran and the Kalpoes said when they changed their stories while in custody. It is no trouble finding references to say that all three agreed Joran and Natalee were dropped at the beach, it is refs about whether or not a Kalpoe came to get Joran later that we need to shore up.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think "judge" is good enough.Kww (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"... a pretty, blonde, and white..."

I don't think it's an extra article or extra word. I think it's a punctuation error. In speech "a pretty blonde - and white". And before you protest, yes, I see non-white blondes every day. Bottle-blonde, but so are most white blondes.Kww (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. I guess put an mdash in with non wiki'd brackets. I know what you mean about the bottle. The rail thin platinum blondes that they seem to stamp out of a mold these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No, if I did that, there'd still be an extraneous comma. How do we handle this?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is criticism that it is only a story because she is a pretty blonde – and white – and it is criticism that journalists are taking to heart and looking elsewhere for other stories.. As for how Wikipedia wants us to handle the case where a written transcription of a verbal statement mispunctuated the verbal statement, I'm not sure.Kww (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That is what I mean. I'll start looking through MoS, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:MOSQUOTE is unclear, this point really isn't addressed. I've asked for help on the WP:MOS talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really clear on how it should be done either. Obvious spelling mistakes and the like can be fixed with {{sic}} or {{bracket}}, but I'm unsure about a transcription error in punctuation. - auburnpilot talk 18:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, we will see what comes up from my request. In the meantime, nice link to the Mammana article. Have you read it? Ouch.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Mammana is definitely not shown in the best light. Spelling quiz: Is it guerrilla or guerilla? Or is this an American vs British thing? - auburnpilot talk 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have gone one r. Shows what I know.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that we leave the spelling the way it is in the source, since one-r seems an acceptable variant. However, if we can find that quote with two rs from another source, use that instead.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that if we continue to get no response, that we be bold, correct the punctuation, and put a comment in the reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PostChronicle

The Post Chronicle website is not a reliable source. The content disclaimer on its front page disclaims all responsibility for reliability and also acknowledges that some content may be hosted without copyright permission. It is an aggregator, and much of the content comes from blogs and other untrustworthy sources. Feel free to cite the sources from which PC takes the content, as long as they are reliable, but PC is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I can accept that. I've reverted your last edit, not because I disagree, but so we can know where we need better sources. Please look back on us in a week, if it is OK, by then we should have them all replaced. None of the postchroncicle cites look to be anything we can't get from CNN or FOXNews. I gather that you are going from article to article, searching for postchronicle references, and that there is some question about it. However, I agree to the extent I'd rather have a news source closer to the action, and besides this is the sort of thing that can cause us issues on FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I got rid of them. I would rather have an article talking about the Skeeters tape manipulation, but the media, which was so fast to rush into pixels about "she did" was more reticent about "no, she didn't."--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)