Talk:Natalee Holloway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Natalee Holloway article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Featured article star Natalee Holloway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Wehwalt, AuburnPilot, Kww
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Exhuming an oft-defeated proposal to re-focus

  • There have been arguments before in favor of moving this article to a name that stresses its encyclopedic coverage of a notable event, rather than as a biography. There have been good arguments both for and against the idea. I bring it up again only to point to a comparable article, Chappaquiddick incident, which is where you get redirected if you search for Mary Jo Kopechne. --Dystopos (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dystopos, we are currently screaming and running in circles trying to address valid concerns to make this a FA. Can we put the title on hold for a couple of weeks?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting a course of discussion, not a schedule. --Dystopos (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. And I will engage you on the discussion when I'm not distracted by the FAR. Incidently, as a major contributor to this article, any help with the FAR you could give would be greatly appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, back to this. I'm still of the same belief that this is the best article title because it is the most common search term. And while both are doozies for the spelling bee people, people are more likely to remember Chappaquiddick than Kopechne. And the bulk of missing people are under their own names, not disappearance of. See my comments during the last four times this was brought up.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. We've also added basic background/biographical information per the requests at the FA discussion, in order to more appropriately address the current title. I still favor the current location, even more than I did previously (initially objected to bio info, but I must admit it makes the article more complete). - auburnpilot talk 01:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Nice to see the nomination close successful; that was more work than I anticipated. Seems quite appropriate that the article would be promoted May 30, 2008 (UTC), which is the 3 year anniversary of the disappearance. Congrats! - auburnpilot talk 04:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is. Congrats to you too, and to Kww and everyone else who helped out. I admit the process leaves somthing to be desired, as Mark Twain said about being run out of town on a rail, if it wasn't for the honor, he'd rather have walked. Perhaps we can shoot for being Featured article of the Day a year from now!--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I suggest we archive all but current sections 8 and 11 of this Talk Page.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. - auburnpilot talk 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you do it? Archiving is not one of my best skills. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. - auburnpilot talk 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natalee's Grades

I see that once again the sourced information about Natalee being a "straight A student" has been deleted from this article (I'm guessing once again by "wehwalt") even tho the last time this was discussed on here, the verdict was 4-1 that it was worthy of inclusion. Natalee has been described as a "straight A student" in numerous news reports by CNN, ABC, Vanity Fair, and others, and that info has never been disputed anywhere. It is a meaningful descriptor of an 18 year old, and clearly relevant to several aspects of the case.

I think that the most natural place to add it would be in the second sentence, perhaps rewritten as follows:

A straight-A student from Mountain Brook, Alabama, in the United States, Holloway graduated from Mountain Brook High School on May 24, 2005, shortly before the trip.[3]

Or alternatively, perhaps in the beginning of the second paragraph as follows:

Holloway, a straight-A student,was scheduled to fly home later on May 30. However, she failed to appear for her flight

(Jon 24.16.98.233 (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

First, please log in before you edit. I assume that you are User:Jonaaron, and it makes it easier to track discussions with you if you log in each time.
I'm not aware that anyone but you thought that that was an important addition to the article. Can you show any support for your position that her grades are sufficiently important to warrant mention? Kww (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Holloway's grades really are irrelevant, and being a straight A student at MBHS is not uncommon. It should not be included, as it merely serves to perpetuate the "innocent angel" vs "devil Joran" perspective. The only place I could conceivably see it in the article, would be as a response to Dompig's statement: "Dompig indicated that there is evidence that points to possession (though not necessarily use) of drugs by Holloway.[15][73] Members of her family have denied drug use by Holloway,[74] and she is described as a straight-A student". I prefer if it wasn't included, but it shouldn't be given prominence as suggested by 24.16.98.233 (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I also oppose. It really isn't relevant to anything. And certainly it has no place in the lede. If somehow it winds up in the article, I would certainly insert that Joran was an honors student at Aruba International School, a soccer star, and a role model for the other kids at that school. It's all in reliable sources. If it is good for the goose . .. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kww:

I don't know if any of the others who expressed an opinion would have described it as an "important" addition, but IIRC out of about 4-5 respondants, all but one indicated they had no problem with its inclusion and some offered their own reasons why it deserved to be included. Is that discussion section archived somewhere?

Jonaaron (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Auburnpilot:

I see you mentioned earlier on this talk page that you were archiving other talk sections- is the previous section on this subject among them?

Re: Your comments above:

First, it isn't true that Natalee's GPA was "not uncommon" at MBHS. Natalee ranked in the top 7% of her class (at a very competitive school whose standardized test scores were well above the national average).

As to the main point, is it your opinion that the Vanity Fair article on the case was seeking to "perpetuate the innocent angel vs devil Joran perspective"? That article is generally considered fair by Joran supporters, and it mentions that Natalee was a "straight-A student" near the top of the first page, in a phrasing/context very similar to what I suggested above for this wiki article.

And what about CNN, ABC, AP, and other reputable news organizations that have also described her as a "straight A student"? (archived CNN articles on the case feature the caption "Holloway is a straight-A student and member of the National Honors Society" at the very top, underneath her photo). Are all these respected news outlets guilty of anti-Joran propaganda by reporting that information?

The rationale you offer for censoring it on here, doesn't strike me as valid for a supposedly objective article. The primary criteria should be whether the information is credibly sourced and sufficiently relevant, not concern that it may make one individual look more sympathetic than another.

In this case, the information is undisputed, and it's clearly relevant in several ways.

This is an article entitled "Natalee Holloway", so basic biographical facts about her are appropriate. And prior to Natalee going missing, being a straight-A student was the most noteworthy thing about her. If her "Family Life" is worthy of a full paragraph, near the very beginning, why not also just a couple words about her exceptional academic achievement- which for an 18 year old, is biographically at least as important as which parent she lived with as a child, her parents' professions, and other such items already included on here.

Restricting biographical info to that which is neutral or negative, isn't objectivity, it's bias against her.

The idea that less significant background info about a suspected crime victim should be included, while more significant info is excluded, because the latter might make her look more sympathetic relative to her suspected killer, is one that I find rather absurd.

Also, some additional ways her being a straight-A student is relevant:

It's relevant to the allegations she possessed/used drugs.

It's relevant to why the case became such a media sensation.

And it's relevant to criticism of the investigation- the fact that ALE failed to initially take the case seriously, despite the insistence of those who knew her, supported by her grades, that she was a responsible person unlikely to voluntarily miss her flight and vanish.

Frankly, I find it strange that there is even any controversy over this. As was the earlier consensus, it should be included- and I don't see why it needs to be buried somewhere deep in the article as you suggested. Rather than describing her at the begining as a "student", and then much later as a "straight-A student", why not (as in the Vanity Fair article) just use the complete description "straight-A student" at the beginning?

Or if that is really so objectionable, than I suggest the following compromise: Retitle the "Family Life" section to something like "Background and Family Life", and mention it there.

Jonaaron (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that Jonaaron's view is offered to make a point, and runs into this language from WP:NPOV:
"A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias". Jonaaron suggests that it is "relevant to" the allegations that Holloway possessed or used drugs, failed to take the case seriously (I don't see that in the article by the way, they began searching immediately and sent two cops with the posse to the Van der Sloot house). I see no RS which relate these points, thus Jonaaron is offering the allegation regarding grades to make those points, and not for NPOV reasons. There was no consensus then for inclusion, and is none now, and what there is now is what is important. WP is a breathing document, and we many times have reconsidered what was decided on before.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Jonaaron, I'm sorry, but you are 100% wrong that straight-A students are uncommon at MBHS. The difference between Holloway's GPA and class rank as a straight-A student and other student's grades as straight-A students is the boost given by AP classes. At MBHS, an A in a regular class is calculated as a 4 when determining GPA, but an A in an AP class counts as a 4.5. Thus, somebody with 4 regular A's and a B would have a 3.8 GPA, while somebody with 4 AP A's and a B would have a 4.2 GPA. Now, this really is all beside the point, and I couldn't agree more with Wehwalt's statement. Simply being able to verify a claim doesn't mean the claim should be included. Unless you can produce reliable sources that state Holloway's GPA was a factor in "allegations she possessed/used drugs / why the case became such a media sensation / the fact that ALE failed to initially take the case seriously" it's all original research. - auburnpilot talk 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


Here are the previous opinions on this subject, from the "Straight A Student Edit War" section in the archive (my memory was a little off, the opinion was actually 3-1 for inclusion). Oddly, kww seems to have reversed his/her opinion on this since then.

kww- 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?

Dystopos- 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.

Whewalt- Well, I've inserted it in the body of the article, early on, at what seemed to be an apprpriate juncture

Jonaaron (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Auburnpilot:

1) Yes, I'm well aware of how the grading system at MBHS works. Natalee's GPA was 4.15, and she ranked 25th in her class of more than 300- as I said, in the top 7%. Regardelss, the point is that the term "straight A student" is both completely accurate, and not at all misleading- ranking high in her class at a very competitive school means she was indeed an excellent student, as the term implies. A term which, again, was used repeatedly to describe her by pretty much every news organization that has ever covered the case.

2) Obviously, simply being able to verify a claim doesn't mean the claim should be included, that goes without saying. However almost everything in this article requires some degree of subjective, unsourced opinion, i.e. "original research", as to why it is relevant enough to the broad subject of "Natalee Holloway" to be worthy of inclusion.

3) You didn't respond to my primary argument, that it is inclusion-worthy based on being widely reported biographical and descriptive information. What was a more noteworthy fact about her, prior to her going missing, then her academic achievement? Is it more noteworthy, for example, that her father was an insurance salesman? If not, what's the rationale for including that and excluding the more noteworthy info, other than the more noteworthy being positive rather than neutral or negative? Which, I contend, is not a fair or valid rationale.

There are presently several examples of negative or unflattering allegations about Natalee in this article. Are there presently any examples of positive information about her on here? If not, is it really so objectionable that the article should include a single such example?

4) I thought my suggestion for a compromise was fairly reasonable- no thoughts on that?

Jonaaron (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statements

What is the rationale for not including a link in the External Links section, to the various witness statements which have been made public?

It's true those statements haven't all been 100% confirmed to be authentic, but they are generally considered to be authentic on the various Internet message boards where the case is discussed. Also, several were included in Joran's book (from the files turned over to his lawyers), others were read aloud by Greta on her program prior to their publication on the Internet, and no one in a position to know (for example, Joran's civil attorney Joe Tacopina) has ever disputed their authenticity.

I happen to have compiled all such statements on my own site, at the page linked below (both translations and the Dutch originals):

http://www.hollowaycase.com/archive/index.htm

It seems to me that while the statements' authenticity is perhaps not certain enough for them to be cited as sources in the article itself, they are such an important resource for anyone interested in researching the case, they shouldn't be completely omitted. Perhaps a hyperlink to the statements could be created in External Links, that included some caveat in the text- for example, call the link something like "Alleged" Documents from the Police File.

Jonaaron (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainly what you said, that they "haven't all been 100% percent confirmed to be authentic". We try for a high standard here. Thank you for your dedication in collecting them, and I know it is outside your control to be vetting them for accuracy, but because we can't be sure that they are real (or sometimes, they, as I understand it, were not signed), I'd rather leave the site out.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the criteria for inclusion, relevance to the article subject matter- which includes public discussion of the case in the media? Several of the statements have been discussed on television. And they dominate discussion of the case on the Internet- does the Internet not qualify as the media?

How, in principle, is mentioning or linking to the statments, different from mentioning or linking to the Dr. Phil tape (except that the statements' authenticity hasn't been disputed by any of the persons the statements are attributed to)?

Again, I think a good argument can be made that they shouldn't be cited as sources in the article itself, but omitting any mention of them at all, even as just an External Link, seems unreasonable.

Also, to the extent that authenticity is an issue, the question isn't whether a statement is signed or not- it's whether it is actually part of the police file. I believe all the released statements are signed by the interviewing officer(s), so if a statement is lacking the signature of the witness/suspect, that doesn't make it inauthentic, just a statement from the officer rather than the witness/suspect.

Jonaaron (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with the FBI 302s and the affidavits from the lawsuit. I'm more concerned with the authenticity of the PV's. Like you said, some of them have been put in Joran's book, but some have not. And Greta has indeed read a few more. But a lot have not, and the fact that they are generally accepted in the message board world doesn't count for much here. And we can't vouch for the translations. So those are my concerns. Thoughts from anyone else?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe the link would meet the external link guidelines. It amounts to a personal website, and unless all the statements were taken by Feds, a case could be made that it is also a site that contains "material that violates the copyrights of others"; I don't believe Aruba has a public domain release like the US. That, coupled with unreliable translations, I can't support including the link. Personal websites simply are not reliable sources of information and there is no way to confirm the authenticity of the statements. - auburnpilot talk 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll buy the unreliability of translations argument. Jonaaron (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I see now that (I assume it is) Jonaaron has linked to a page containing only the 302s. So there goes the copyright and translation arguments. It is still a personal website, though. I took it out feeling that a new consensus needed to be arrived at before adding it. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
My only objection is to the one that is hand-typed from a screen capture. I'm willing to accept the scans.
Kww (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the scrux.com Facts in Evidence Page already in External Links also a "personal website"?

And the only other websites I know of that have the scans are message boards- not sure how those sites are classifed, but there the scans come with a lot of extraneous stuff on the same page.

Jonaaron (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Kww: OK, I changed the link to a page with just the scans. [1]

Jonaaron (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)