Misplaced Pages

:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article review Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:20, 3 November 2013 editOveragainst (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,667 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 17:16, 4 November 2013 edit undoOveragainst (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,667 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 19: Line 19:


::::Comment: We've been over this ''ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.'' It's an FA-class article. A FAR is not reasonable. Overagainst, your endless content disputes need to end. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC) ::::Comment: We've been over this ''ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.'' It's an FA-class article. A FAR is not reasonable. Overagainst, your endless content disputes need to end. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::Again, this is not about any specific content, I've accepted the article is not going to be changed. The point at issue is whether the ] article taken as a whole fulfills the ] criteria. I think that anyone who reads the article will get an overall impression of misogyny toward Natalee Holloway and her mother; their flaws are being presented as the context of the disappearance and investigation, instead of the other way about.] (]) 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC) :::::Again, this is not about any specific content, I've accepted the article is not going to be changed. The point at issue is whether the ] article taken as a whole fulfills the ]. I think that anyone who reads the article will get an overall impression of misogyny toward Natalee Holloway and her mother; their flaws are being presented as the context of the disappearance and investigation, instead of the other way about.] (]) 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::Mark Arsten's point "Overagainst found that there was a consensus against his proposed changes and filed this in retaliation" is a very strange one in view of the fact that editors are supposed to spend a period of several weeks trying to resolve problems on the talk page before initiating a FAR. I did . Anyone who follows the guidance opens themselves to that objection of acting in retaliation. and then waited an additional 2 months before stating a FAR See . As for the allegation of personal anomosity toward Wehwaly, I quoted Wehwalt because he is the main defender of the article, and what Wehwalt calls his famous sense of humour is highly inapropriate for a talk page discussion, especially for someone given admin privileges over that article. When I first saw the article earlier this year there was a little pop up, warning against (and complicating) editing the article, if you tried to edit it said "OK be a jerk". Here is another qoute: "Twitty's activities are part of the story; she is a public figure, has her own article, and notoriety does not expire. ..".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC) ''Notoriety''! That attidude comes through loud and clear in the article. It's not the kind of thing that should be held up as a FA. __] (]) 17:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:16, 4 November 2013

Natalee Holloway

Natalee Holloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Wehwalt, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article contains too much opinion about the subject's living mother's alleged misleading statements in her publicity campaign in the aftermath of her daughter's disappearance, From the top, it links the words 'media sensation' to the page on sensationalism. The link is a way of surreptitiously stating an opinion in WP's voice. The lead names 3 living persons, namely Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes brothers as suspects ('released for lack of evidence') for something they have never even been tried for. Yet the lead does not mention that Van der Sloot was convicted of murdering a young woman in Peru 5 years later. The mother's 2006 divorce should not be 'Background' on a girl who disappeared in 2005; the Disappearance section names living people as part of a group and a police chief is quoted as alleging that the same group engaged in "'wild partying, a lot of drinking, lots of room switching every night'". The Disappearance section does not mention that Dompig, the policeman who is quoted about the Natalee Holloway and her group were drinking all the time, said publicly as early as March 2006 that the investigators had concluded that Natalee had probably O.D.ed and had not been murdered. There is a lot of argumentative counterpoint on Natalee Holloway's mother's complaints about the Aruban investigation, but those complaints appear very differently in the light of what Dompig said about Natalee's death not being murder. Much further down the long 'Continued search, suspects rearrested and released again' subsection does have Dompigs OD theory but it's too hard to find. So the 2006 statements by Dompig about alleged heavy drinking are disconnected from the the relevant theory. It seems they are just there to bring Natalee Holloway's character in. as I understand it the word 'denied' is not recommended for responses to accusations as they are about alleged drug use by Holloway. Overagainst (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was responsible for promoting this article, and I have long had a policy of not engaging FARs for articles I promoted, but my concerns about the neutrality of this article, and off-topic smears at the mother while text relevant to the daughter's accomplishments are left out, are recorded in the article's talk page archives. I have additional recent concerns about editors who have never engaged the article previously suddenly appearing in support of preserving the text that concerns Overagainst. These concerns go back years, so I suggest the FAR should continue (and will need close monitoring by delegates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There are no grounds for demoting this article. I'm not sure what Sandy's getting at. As for Overagainst, they've failed to gain consensus for their views constantly on the talk page, so they're trying an FAR. I suggest this be speedy closed. The community ruled that this article was neutral when it was promoted, and it was substantially in the same shape then as now. Note that Sandy objected to it, dragged her feet on promoting it, put in comments that made clear her views that the editors who worked very hard on the article had an "Aruban" point of view. I won't bother with diffs, it's through the archives. There are no grounds for an FAR--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
"The community ruled that this article was neutral when it was promoted," If that is any kind of argument then why have any FAR ever. The following is only the most egregious example, in the 'Background' (on Natallee Holloway who disappeared in May 2005) section: "Jug Twitty began divorce proceedings on December 29, 2006, stating the two have "such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together."". The next section starts "On Thursday, May 26, 2005". That quote from divorce papers filed in 2006 by a non-public living person about Natalee's mother is there for one reason only: attacking the character of a living person. I'll let Wehwalt's own words speak for him: "He is unquestionably notable now as his fame extends beyond the NH case. Poor taste on Joran's part, he should have nailed Lori Berenson, she's there in Lima and everything. Miraflores, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)". See here. Joran van der Sloot murders ('nailed') a girl in Peru and it's a big joke. Fantastic as it seems, Wehwalt was the one determining the article's "protection level" . He only completely unprotected it in Jan 2012.Overagainst (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The FAC is relevant because neutrality is a FAC criterion, and a promoted article has received consensus that it is neutral. There have been a number of discussions since, including the one you filled the talk page with, that consensus has not been disturbed. The article has been carefully updated for new events since then. As for what I said, I have no problem with saying I'd rather a convicted terrorist died than an innocent woman. At any rate, what I say about it on talk isn't really relevant; my sense of humor is well-known. As for the quote from the divorce papers, I did not choose that the secondary source I got it from chose it. Since the secondary source did not characterize it as a no-fault divorce (which it was) all we could do was quote from it. We did not have the divorce papers before us, searching for the sexiest bits. Why have you not notified the other FAC nominators of this discussion?--Wehwalt (talk)| This is the first time I have ever had anything to do with a FA review, and I got a bit mixed up when going through the procedure, sorry.Overagainst (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed the article and the comments here and have concluded that this FAR is completely meritless. The article seems neutral and fair to me, and I see no grounds for its featured article status to be removed. I don't think the mother is being poorly treated here at all. It seems that Overagainst found that there was a consensus against his proposed changes and filed this in retaliation. Animosity towards Wehwalt and Montanabw also seems to be motivating some of the above comments. I suggest that this be closed before more volunteer time is wasted. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The article is about Natalee Holloway. The article does not say "no fault divorce", read what it says. Whatever one thinks of using a quote from the 2006 divorce papers of her stepfather (who is not a public person), front and centre in the 'Background' section about the subject of the article (a girl who dissappeared in 2005) it is reasonable to question whether the status of the article should be that of FA. The contex of the police chief's theory about accidental alcohol poisoning in his statements that Natalee had been drinking heavily is not given proper weight, and it is difficult to read it as anything else but saying something about her character. The article lede does not mention the main notability of the case: that one of the men she was last seen with was convicted in a seperate case of murdering a young woman in Peru 5 years later. There are BLP considerations about the naming of two members of a group when the article says a little later that group is alleged to have been involved in 'room switching'. In general the problem is the tone and emphasis throughout rather than the content. I think the way Natalee Holloway and her mother are treated in the article is opiniony, and the article comes across as rather misogynistic in tone. Having it as a featured article is not a good idea.Overagainst (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "It seems that Overagainst found that there was a consensus against his proposed changes and filed this in retaliation" seems to be a fair assessment. Using the proper Alabama legal terminology to describe a no-fault divorce is quite reasonable. It's hard to see where accusations of misogyny come in. Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers were in the forefront of the media coverage of Natalee's disappearance, which is why they are in the lead. Not surprisingly, a crime that occurred in a different country five years later did not play a role in said coverage, which is why it is not in the lead. Describing the article as "opiniony" speaks to the level of careful and well-reasoned criticism being leveled by the proposer.—Kww(talk) 17:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The style in which information is given is objective enough; who could argue with a quote? But the meaning conveyed by that quote is not of a no fault divorce, and it is front and center in the article despite having nothing to do with the 'Background'. At issue is whether the article is of exceptional quality. The most notable event is van Der Sloot's conviction in Peru, and it is not covered in the lede. I think that someone coming to an article about an 18 year old girl who vanished in the company of a man later famously convicted of murdering a separate young woman, and who finds the subject described as constantly drunk, with a mother who is crass in her behavior (that is indeed the overall impression of the article) will detect a certain misogynistic animus in the editing.Overagainst (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Why should it be covered in the lede? That would present BLP issues, I think. Mr. van der Sloot has not been charged with a crime in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Since the lede contains, generally, information important to the article, the reader would be likely to take that as an intimation that van der Sloot is guilty in the Holloway case. On the other hand, if it is not there for that purpose, for what purpose is it there? But that is the problem, you see. Overagainst is for adding information that shows Joran to be a bad 'un and Natalee and Beth to be saints. As for the comment above about Jug Twitty not being a public figure, he was often on Foxnews twice in the same night, if both Hannity and Greta got to him. Tell him that, not us.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: We've been over this ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. It's an FA-class article. A FAR is not reasonable. Overagainst, your endless content disputes need to end. Montanabw 09:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, this is not about any specific content, I've accepted the article is not going to be changed. The point at issue is whether the Natalee Holloway article taken as a whole fulfills the Featured Article Criteria. I think that anyone who reads the article will get an overall impression of misogyny toward Natalee Holloway and her mother; their flaws are being presented as the context of the disappearance and investigation, instead of the other way about.Overagainst (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Mark Arsten's point "Overagainst found that there was a consensus against his proposed changes and filed this in retaliation" is a very strange one in view of the fact that editors are supposed to spend a period of several weeks trying to resolve problems on the talk page before initiating a FAR. I did so. Anyone who follows the guidance opens themselves to that objection of acting in retaliation. and then waited an additional 2 months before stating a FAR See here. As for the allegation of personal anomosity toward Wehwaly, I quoted Wehwalt because he is the main defender of the article, and what Wehwalt calls his famous sense of humour is highly inapropriate for a talk page discussion, especially for someone given admin privileges over that article. When I first saw the article earlier this year there was a little pop up, warning against (and complicating) editing the article, if you tried to edit it said "OK be a jerk". Here is another qoute: "Twitty's activities are part of the story; she is a public figure, has her own article, and notoriety does not expire. ..".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Notoriety! That attidude comes through loud and clear in the article. It's not the kind of thing that should be held up as a FA. __Overagainst (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)