Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4

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

Aw, crap, we are our own reliable source

I've been working on the post-release statement paragraphs. We've been using, recently, as our source Caribbean News, from December 10, 2007, which stated:

Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers, in interviews or statements after their release, have said that he and Holloway were left at a beach near the Marriott Hotel at about 1:40 a.m.

He also has stated that Holloway wanted to have sexual intercourse with him there, but he did not because he did not have a condom. He also has said that he was picked up by Satish Kalpoe at about 3 a.m., leaving Holloway at the beach where he says she wanted to stay. Satish Kalpoe had denied picking up Van der Sloot.

Van der Sloot also had indicated that he was not truthful at first because he believed Holloway would soon turn up, and was somewhat ashamed to have left a girl alone on the beach.[1]

My revision, as of 21:55 on 9 December 2007, stated as follows. At the time, the language was completely unsourced:

Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers, in interviews or statements after their release, have said that Van der Sloot and Holloway were left at a beach near the Marriott Hotel at about 1:40 a.m. Van der Sloot has stated that Holloway wanted to have sexual intercourse with him there, but he did not because he did not have a condom. Since his release, Van der Sloot has stated that he was picked up by Satish Kalpoe at about 3:00 a.m., leaving Holloway there - he says she wanted to stay, while he wanted to go home because he had to go to school later that morning. Satish Kalpoe denies picking up Van der Sloot.

Van der Sloot, in interviews after his release, indicated that he was not truthful at first because he believed Natalee would soon turn up, and was somewhat ashamed to have left a girl alone on the beach, albeit by her own request.[2]

And at some later date, which I can't be bothered to look up, we found the article and fell on it with glad cries to justify our own language, when it was taken from WP's own unsourced statements!

Oy. I think we should rule this out as a source to the extent it copies our language and look elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Somehow this article was removed from my watchlist; very odd. Anyway, that reference looks vaguely familiar, so it may have been my doings. It's amazing how many "journalists" out there simply copy directly from Wikipedia. I glanced over the reference section a few days ago, looking for duplicates, and I believe we're good in that respect. I'll check them better sometime this weekend and check for any moved articles with now dead links as well. - auburnpilot talk 15:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to be working on the refs, a little more standardization of the format would be a good thing to have, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a little more than half of the job, and have found problems with the following links:

Dead/missing

  • Crumbly, AnneMarie (2007-11-26). Holloway Update. WJTV. Retrieved on 2007-11-28. “A key suspect in the disappearance of Clinton-native Natalee Holloway will stay behind bars.”

Potentially unreliable

The two links under "potentially unreliable" are from the same About.com blog. We'll probably need to replace these. I swapped the reference dates from "|month=XYZ |year=123" for full dates where possible. If the links ever die, having the exact date should help us find them. - auburnpilot talk 19:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Good work. I suspect we can replace most of those, with the possible exception of the Paulus appeal thing from expatica. Maybe Kwww could do a search or two of the Dutch media on that point? A Dutch source would be better than nothing.
I'll work on replacing the sources as time permits. Given the way things seem to be dragging on, on that crime notability proposal, it will probably be a few weeks before we shoot for FAC, esp given that we'd probably want to have a discussion here about the name first.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
A quick search turned up some copies of the expatica article, but the copies aren't in great places (hyscience, scaredmonkeys). I'll keep digging.Kww (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am slowly getting rid of them. I think, end of the day, the problems will be with the Paulus appeal, and the July Amigoe article. If we can't verify them, they may have to go. I was thinking, though, that we could convert the Amigoe thing to the method in which you cite articles from offline newspapers.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, at last resort, we could leave the ref in, put in parentheses (dead link) and then put after that (article archieved at: . . . ) if the alternative is having to delete the info on WP:V grounds. After all, we can always delete it during FAR if someone raises it as an objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As you say, reformatting them to a {{cite news}} type format is a good option. There's certainly no requirement for our sources to be available online, and anyone who truly has a burning desire to check the few offline sources can call the news agency. I believe the cite/news and cite/web templates are essentially interchangeable, and the only thing we'd need to do is remove the url and swap "web" for "news". - auburnpilot talk 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is all good. I'm presently travelling and my internet access has been spotty. The process for the proposed policy seems to be dragging on. What about going for FA in early May? That will allow for a decent interview since the promotion to GA and we can clean up the remaining refs and individually go over the article in detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I've been meaning to finally swap the cite templates, and make a few wording adjustments. There are a few spots that need a little rewording to meet the "brilliant" prose part of the featured article criteria. Statements like "and the Kalpoes were arrested three times each, but each was released each time due to lack of evidence." need a little work (each, each, each). I'll be out of pocket May 1-5, but then I'm ready to get the FA process started. - auburnpilot talk 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the prose is pretty good, and I'll work on improving it. Since a lot of it is what I wrote, and I'm not the best self-editor, as many eyes as possible would be good. I took a shot at changing the each language, take a look at it if you get a chance. I made a couple of changes to your copyedits, see the edit summary for details. Suggest we set D Day for May 6, then, or thereabouts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
My main concern with the prose is repetition. We start far too many paragraphs with "On Month Day, Year", which is one of the things I tried to change in my copy edit. I only changed a couple, and haven't looked over the second half of the article in the same way, but I think we need to vary our opening sentences a bit. May 6th sounds good to me. - auburnpilot talk 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New proposal that may be of interest

I see this has actually been mentioned further up, but a new guideline is proposed that could impact on this article, and as editors of a possibly affected article, your comments would be appreciated. The proposal can be found at WP:N/CA and endorse/don't endorse comments are asked to post at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think the most active editors on this article have posted over there or on related pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The proposal has now failed. One less thing to worry about.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I can't say I saw that coming. I figured it would have passed, but the discussion did die off fairly quickly. Like you say, one less thing to worry about. - auburnpilot talk 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FA in mind

With the featured article criteria in mind (specifically 2.(b)), I've been working to streamline the table of contents and general flow of the article. Right now, the toc is fairly messy and a bit overwhelming. I propose reworking the headers and order of the article, as I've done here. In addition to removing dates from the headers, I moved the "Amigoe Aritlce" and "Skeeters tape and Dr. Phil; lawsuits" sections lower in the article, beneath the criticism section, and moved the "Reward" section up one. This doesn't change any content, but I believe it better organizes the article and gives the toc a better, more concise hierarchy. - auburnpilot's sock 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. I have a long list of typos I caught while reviewing the article on my blackberry with nothing else to do. I'll implement them shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think your new organization is an improvement.Kww (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Great. I'm sure FA will put us to work, but I think we've got a great article on our hands. Wehwalt, would it be easier for you to implement your changes with the article as it is now? If so, I'll hold off on moving everything around until your done. - auburnpilot talk 21:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Just finished them. Go for it!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
All done. Should we address the naming issue, or should we just continue as planned? - auburnpilot talk 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of the three of us are advocates of the name change; accordingly the debate would be half hearted. I suggest we lay it aside fo rnow and continue as planned. D Day is still the sixth.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll be ready. I ended up not being as unavailable these last few days as I thought, but the 6th still sounds good to me. - auburnpilot talk 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you are ready sooner, just pull the trigger and let's get on with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natalee Holloway. Trigger pulled. - auburnpilot talk 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Make sure you have your seat belts fastened . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Meridian Star

It seems Brian Livingston, staff writer for the Meridian Star, copied text directly from the intro of this article, and failed to cite his sources. The third paragraph of his article TV show to concentrate on Holloway disappearance is oddly familiar. The exact text he uses was included at least three days prior to his article being published (at first I was afraid we'd copied him).[3] Interesting. - auburnpilot talk 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

People apparently think well of our efforts here, not only did we have the incident with Caribbean Net News, but also see [4]. Not a RS, of course, but they advocate reading this article for a good grounding in the case. Hopefully the FAR editors will think so too.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

With 3 images torpedoed, and potentially more to come, we need to get back to searching for images. I'm searching now, and have already fired off an email to Greta Van Susteren in hopes she'll release some of the images she's taken and posted to her blog. Time to get creative... - auburnpilot talk 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Without making this a travelogue, what about reviving that image of the California Lighthouse we discarded a while back? And I guess it is time to start looking for beach scenes . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:ArubaLighthouse.jpg? Don't see why not. - auburnpilot talk 22:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
What about [5]? Mountain Brook High School? put it to the left and below Natalee's senior portrait?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This was my initial thought, but the image of the search party near the lighthouse may need to be moved down lower, within the "Book, search, and inspection" section. - auburnpilot talk 22:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[6] Here's one of Greta. I'm afraid they may get rejected as too decorative, but what else can we do?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, a pic of Greta might look a little out of place. Here is the other arrangement, which adds the MBHS image and the California Light house image. What we really need is a pic of the suspects. In my email, I asked Greta for three images.[7] [8] [9] She took them all, but who knows if I'll get a response. - auburnpilot talk 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think that you are worrying more about this issue than you should. Pull the images out that were rejected, and see if the review swings toward "not enough images!" By their very nature, missing people don't generate a lot of photo opportunities.Kww (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Let's hold those photos in reserve. If the concerns are raised, put them in.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion needed on article organization and POV

I would like to see some discussion of the section headings which contribute to possible POV in the article. Highlighting and separating criticism can lead to POV: Wikipedia:Criticism is only an essay (not policy or guideline), but it gives valuable tips on how to avoid separating and highlighting criticism to create POV. There is a section heading, "Holloway's behavior", but there isn't a corresponding section heading, "van der Sloot's behavior" or "Behavior of the Kalpoe brothers", so singling out this content in a section heading creates POV. Similarly, there is a "Criticism of media coverage" section, which separates and highlights that content rather than working it seamlessly into the "Media coverage" section. I'm a bit surprised to find these section headings but no corresponding section heading that analyzes the Aruban reaction to a "missing white girl" (that content might not be thoroughly covered, but what is included is worked seamlessly into the article as it should be, while the content critical of Holloway and her family is singled out and highlighted via section headings). I'd like to see a discussion of possible reorganization of content to minimize the appearance of POV creeping in via the section headings. IMO, there is a subtle Aruban POV present in this article via the article's organization, but I suspect that people who aren't familiar with Aruban society haven't noticed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say I'm a bit surprised by your belief that there are POV problems with the article. I'm not sure if you're not familiar with the case, but Holloway's behavior and criticism of the media's coverage of the case have been significant points of discussion. There couldn't be a "Behavior of the Kalpoe brothers" section, because that aspect of the case doesn't exist (or for Van der Sloot). I would be against removing the separate sections, as these are critical points of the case, and warrant discussion in and of themselves. Can you point to where there is a "subtle Aruban POV present" in the article? - auburnpilot talk 19:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say there was POV: I said I'd like to see a discussion of section headings relative to possible POV. Singling out Holloway's behavior, and not doing the same for van der Sloot, is but one example of Aruban POV. (And perhaps a sexist POV as well, since young female "behavior" is singled out, while young "male" behavior isn't.) Is there a separate section discussing a 17-yo out alone late on school nights, drinking and gambling, for example? A balanced article won't create separate sections to analyze one side of an issue unless it does same for all sides, and working the issues seamlessly into the article is desired. Is there a corresponding analysis of van der Sloot's behavior and the Aruban reaction to the case? If not, there are issues of balance that should at least be discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, possible POV relative to section headers. We're not singling out Holloway's behavior any more than anybody else has. It's a significant aspect of the case, one that has been discussed continuously, whereas Van der Sloot's behavior as a "17-yo out alone late on school nights, drinking and gambling" has not. It's not our place to create an aspect of the case that doesn't exist, and I don't believe that is a POV problem in the least. Van der Sloot's behavior, other than his ever changing version of what happened, has never been discussed. (Addendum to the sexist comment added after I replied: this has nothing to do with sexism, and I believe you are reading into things that do not exist. We've presented facts at face value, and never has sexism been brought up in this case.) - auburnpilot talk 19:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not my job to research the article, but I do watch and read U.S. news sources, and I have read English- and Spanish-language Aruban newspapers on the topic (as well as skimming some Papiamento sources), and I find the statement that van der Sloot's behavior hasn't been discussed by reliable sources to be simply incorrect. If you haven't covered that angle, then there are 1b (comprehensive) concerns in the article, as there has definitely been press coverage of the issue of a 17-yo whose family permits him to drink and gamble late on school nights, and the previous issues with van der Sloot's behavior. That aspect of the case definitely exists: if it's not covered here, there may be 1b and 1c issues, lending to further concern about Aruban POV in favor of young local male against young U.S. female. Please consider attempting to research and cover this side of the story: I understand that most of our readers aren't familiar with Aruban society. Some of us are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It may not be your job to research the article, but if you are going to accuse us of completely ignoring an aspect of the case, one that I don't recall ever being an aspect of the case, it's time for you to pony up some research. I eagerly await the sources you present to back up your assertions that we are failing to comprehensively address the subject. Personally, I find it to be so insignificant, that it would pose an undue weight concern. Whether or not Van der Sloot went out and drank every night, or the fact that he was a high school student, isn't particularly relevant. - auburnpilot talk 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Auburn, please read my words carefully and do not misinterpret them. I am not accusing anyone of anything: I raised a question, I expected it would be easily resolved with some simple reorganization of section headings, but the direction your answers are going is increasingly giving rise to additional concerns. That isn't what I expected would happen when I raised what I hoped was a simple question on the route to article promotion. If this can't be easily resolved via talk page discussion, and if I must personally engage with the article's research, that means entering an oppose, recusing as FAC delegate, and passing the FAC to Raul (I can do that if it comes to that, but initially I thought I was raising a rather simple issue on the route to promotion). I am now concerned at seeing the same authors (I guess?) who created a section specifially highlighting a young female U.S. tourist drinking would then turn around and not miss a beat in saying, "Whether or not Van der Sloot went out and drank every night, or the fact that he was a high school student, isn't particularly relevant". If van der Sloot's behavior is irrelevant (even though it has been covered by reliable sources), then by the same measure, Holloway's drinking behavior doesn't warrant a section heading that singles out similar behaviors. This is the very definition of imbalance: ignoring the exact same aspect of the story for one party, covered by reliable sources, when it applies to a young local male rather than a young U.S. female. Please take some time, without alarm, to consider whether this can be resolved via talk, because in the past three cases where I've had to recuse, there has been considerable delay in promotion because Raul is so busy. I'd not like to see this article get this far and be held up on something I think can be solved with a wee bit of research and reorganization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
What I think I will do is refrain from responding for the time being. You either are not understanding what I'm saying, or you are not clearly stating what you think the problem is (something I've asked you to do). Again, if you believe we are missing something, please provide a source to back up that assertion. I've done some searching in the time between my last reply and this one, and found nothing. I say this not as an attack of any kind, but I believe you are allowing your own bias to cloud your judgement. So, I'll allow Kww and Wehwalt to respond to this section before I comment further. Please, be specific in your concerns. - auburnpilot talk 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Or, perhaps, the conversation has already veered further off than I expected when I first posted here about section headings, and I may already need to recuse. I didn't expect the conversation to go the direction it did; I initially thought there was some text that might need to be merged to eliminate some section headings, and thought it was a fairly simple issue. If you all are uncomfortable, I'll go ahead and recuse and pass the nom to Raul. Please think it over, no hurry; the responses here have been a bit surprising to me, so it's a bit awkward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Allright, here is one specific example; it is not the only example, I could find scores of others if I engaged with this article and did the research myself, but it is an example which clearly shows how one side of the story has been overlooked. Without even taking the time to look further, the very source that is most often used in the "Holloway's behavior" section includes exactly the same kinds of statements about van der Sloot that I'm referring to (and for which many other references can be found), yet the section heading and content focuses on Holloway, while completely neglecting any mention of similar statements about van der Sloot. That is a failure of 1b and 1c, WP:WIAFA. Some quotes from the Vanity Fair article used to source the "Holloway's behavior" section:

Beth took a hotel employee aside and described him. "She knew exactly who he was: Joran van der Sloot," Beth remembers. "And then she said—these were her exact words—'He tends to prey upon young female tourists.'"

In the first half-hour, Beth listened as Joran's parents lavished praise on their son, though they eventually admitted they had been having trouble with him. According to Beth, the van der Sloots acknowledged that Joran had been seeing a psychiatrist. "Anita told me that," Beth says. "She was saying they were beginning to have trouble with Joran [for a] defiant attitude. The father acknowledged they could not control him. He would sneak out, go gambling, in the pre-dawn hours. They had no control over him."

Moreover, Dompig says, this summer F.B.I. profilers completed a detailed psychological evaluation. "He struck us, and the F.B.I., as a guy who can make you believe he's God's gift to mothers-in-law," Dompig says. "But if you look at his actions, he's anything but. The F.B.I. profiled him as a person who never has been corrected by his parents. He's the boss of what happens in that house. He's the boss in the family. He is allowed to do anything.… If a person like that is in a position where a person says, 'No,' well, that person may change completely. Maybe he blew a fuse when she wouldn't have sex with him, and something happened."

This is covered in scores of sources; there have been multiple mentions throughout reliable sources of the issue of van der Sloot being a teen with no limits, allowed to gamble and drink late on school nights while still in high school, yet this angle is completely missing from this article. I hope this can be easily resolved by incorporating a bit of the missing text, and reorganizing to avoid POV in section headings aimed at one side of the story while leaving out the other. I'd like to see this FAC move forward. We cannot cherry pick sources to highlight Holloway as a "bad girl" while neglecting the other side of the story, which has been covered in great detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is actually one of the trickiest issues about neutrality. How to write a neutral article when a lot of the sources have an inherent non-neutrality. Much of the media coverage had a sexist, girls-gone-wild bent to it, and this definitely reflects deeper sexism in our society. I think that you're both right in that it does reflect the sources, but the headings also lead to a perception of subtle POV. I think the best option would be to add some of those criticisms of the males (not that they come off looking like saints as it is), as identified above, and to perhaps integrate the material about the trip into the section about the investigation? --JayHenry (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
we have Beth accuse Joran twice of rape in the article; and once of homicide. Must we also allege he was up late? Seems trivial. By the way, he was of legal drinking age. As was Natalee. See, we are not criticising her, we are trying to give the reader some sense of her state of mind, why she got in that car.22:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)~ (Wehwalt, sorry, was on my Blackberry)
But no corresponding sense of van der Sloot's state of mind or, as the article labels them "behaviors". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As much as I disagree with the need for a paragraph regarding Joran's behavior, I've tried a couple times now to write something up, but the result was far from neutral (what can I say, I despise the guy). If somebody else wants to take a crack at it, please do. Where do you, SandyGeorgia, believe such a section belongs? - auburnpilot talk 01:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I subscribe to the Wikipedia:Criticism notion that all text (pro and con, criticism and otherwise) should be worked seamlessly into the article; that is, that there shouldn't be separate sections singling out the behavior of either of them (van der Sloot or Holloway). I'd be happy to see all of the text that discusses their behaviors just worked into the story, with neither of them singled out as "bad kid" or "girl gone wild" via a separate section. I also don't generally think criticism sections should be used for anything except, for example, criticism of an art work or literary work (as in critical reception), and that whenever you find yourself with a section that is purely critical, there may be problems with balance in the article. But, not all editors hold that view, it's certainly not guideline or policy, and that doesn't mean you have to do it my way. I guess I'm not much help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, no offense, but we're certainly not going to be doing that here. It would require a major restructuring of the article with little to no benefit (emphasis on no benefit). I suppose we'll just wait for others to comment. - auburnpilot talk 01:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Auburn, do you think it might be possible to integrate this information into the section on investigation? The sources of these claims are all from Spring of 2006, and thus if we basically moved those paragraphs to the chronologically appropriate part of investigation and said "An article in Vanity Fair at this drew attention to the behavior..." It's that same information, but without what Sandy feels is undue weight given by the heading. I personally don't feel that it's a dealbreaker as written, but I think we have an opportunity for a logical compromise here. Do you think that might work? I could take a stab at it if you'd like (I know how difficult it can become to rework an article that you've focused on for so long. By the time I get to FAC, I'm generally incapable of editing my own prose any further!) --JayHenry (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All these are good points, and what I propose to do is this. I think we should put the content of the behavior section into the part of the article which discusses the trip. That way, it isn't criticism, it is just what happened prior to Natalee's disappearance. I would also delete the part of the Amigoe section that discusses the rehab center. I have never thought that was relevant, but it was added by another editor.
We may, in the chronology of the article, put some comments, say by talk show hosts, who comment on Joran's changing story, to answer Sandy Georgia's concern. I would rather not put a criticism for which the source is Beth Twitty, she's had her bite at the apple by accusing Joran of rape and/or manslaughter, and that is covered in the article. As for the personality profile thing, I think that would be difficult to include, due to Dompig relating it to Joran's "actions", which are certainly debatable (what actions?) and then going off in speculation. While we are on the subject, I should note that we cover Joran's lies, changing stories, accusation of rape against him (three times), accusation of manslaughter (dumping Natalee into the ocean), use of marijuana, and his very ill considered comments to Van der Eem. I do not think we are kind to him; that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. To accuse him of staying out late on a school night seems almost silly. Did he not eat his vegetables that evening, too? As for the underage drinking, it appears the drinking age on Aruba is 16, and there are enough questions as to whether there was money involved in the poker tournament I've read he participated in (with his father) to make it unfair to cover that critically. If Joran drank at 17, and it was legal there, he does not compare unfavorably with Natalee, who flew several hours to avoid a 21 year old drinking limit.
I do not think the Beth Twitty section is unduly critical, it is based on her quotes. And we give her one of only three blockquotes in the article, to explain her quest for justice, giving her the last word in the section.
Anyway, that is what I propose we do. Integrate the behavior section into the early part of the article, perhaps expand a bit to cover the chaperones, delete the rehab center, and put in a paragraph criticizing Joran for his changing stories. Sandy, does this address your concerns? Incidently, I see no need for you to recuse yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've only had a chance for a quick look at the diffs, haven't re-read the article, I see the section headings that singled out one party and concerned me are gone, what you describe above sounds quite reasonable, and I think it best that I leave you all alone now and get my nose out of your work :-) I'm going to unwatch here now; if anyone feels that I should recuse, please speak up without concern. Good luck on the FAC ! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation question from SandyGeorgia

We had a pretty long discussion on this topic. The original, written transcription of the verbal quote was ...because she is a pretty, blonde, and white. This needed a [sic] somewhere, because, as transcribed, it's a grammar error. However, as spoken, it isn't: ...because she is a pretty blonde–and white is fine grammatically. We enquired on the MOS talk page and here, and got no satisfactory answer. Finally, we decided to treat it as a transription error in the punctuation, and we are providing the exact wording of the verbal source, while providing the exact, erroneous transcription as well. Kww (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V, and many discussions on verifiability, not truth. The safest thing to do, always, is to report what source say. You have a very reliable print source here: deviating from it involves original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand the concept. Where would you put the [sic], and why? The written source described exactly what the words were that were said, as do we. What does "she was a pretty" even mean?
If people actually made little hand gestures when they spoke, indicating commas and dashes, it would be one thing. She said "she was a pretty blonde and white." That is a perfectly valid sentence, not indicating illiteracy or lack of knowledge of the English language. A transcriber transformed it into bad grammar, with "pretty" being used as a noun, instead of an adjective. If the original source was written, it would be one matter, but here, the original source was spoken.Kww (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a sic at all; just quote the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we change it back to the erroneously transcribed form, it doesn't make sense. We need a sic to let the reader know there is an error and it isn't ours, and he can figure out what was meant. I'd prefer to have it in the corrected form, but if we have to change it, so be it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Copyediting through this article. The introduction to the investigation needs to be at least 3-4 sentences long to summarize the key points of the section. miranda 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Noticed that photos have captions which have fragments that have periods. Correcting these now. miranda 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done miranda 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help, Miranda. - auburnpilot talk 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a controversial article, you need to cite Further, according to Amigoe's report on the interviews, Aruban authorities were obstructed at the highest level in their attempts to investigate Jug Twitty, and they received very limited cooperation in their attempts to question Holloway's fellow graduates.in the Amigoe section. miranda 21:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. It's from the same Amigo article, which reads "Especially when it came to investigating her direct relatives, mother Beth, stepfather George ‘Jug’ Twitty – who apparently has direct or indirect contacts and influence reaching as far as the White House- but also when it came to investigating the more than 120 fellow students and the chaperones who accompanied them in their trip to Aruba." I reworded so the sentence reads "Holloway's relatives" instead of singling out Jug. - auburnpilot talk 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro, copyedit, etc

Working when I can, but there is still a lot of work to be done here. I'm most concerned about the intro length, and the duplication of information within different sections and the intro. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The intro is actually the correct length, per WP:LEAD, as it should be up to four paragraphs and be able to stand alone as a complete summary of the article. Thanks for whatever copyediting you can get done. - auburnpilot talk 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected various small errors that have crept in as a result of the editing, which was mostly quite good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)