Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:25, 13 November 2013

This article is undergoing a featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

	Disappearance of 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 Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 21, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 2, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept December 21, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 19, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept February 1, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed February 23, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept March 8, 2008 Good article nominee Listed March 29, 2008 Peer review Reviewed May 30, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Mississippi Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alabama This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Caribbean: Aruba Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Aruba work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Template:Maintained

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Madison Underwood (February 23, 2010). "Dutch reports: Joran van der Sloot admits to dumping Holloway's body". Birmingham Weekly.

Continued from 'Van der Sloot kills in Peru section' archived page

(Re Wehwalt's decision to archive. WP:AATP"It is difficult to say exactly when a discussion "ends" and when it is continuing. Given that archived discussions are immutable, archiving a discussion effectively ends that particular discussion.")

Rejoinder to remarks by Montanabw: I'm sorry you feel that way. Having, never edited the article page (apart from a couple of recent reverts) you apparently think it is perfect as it is ("restore prevous FA version"). I happen to think failing to mention a verifiable fact as well known as Van Der Sloot's conviction on a charge of murdering Flores was far from perfect. You were on wikipedia at the time the edits by me and then Britmax were dome reverted, discussed modified and put in to a collaborative version, and you said nothing at all. That was your decision. Wehwalt said nothing in talk either. Britmax reverted me but, agreed the section needed work, which he did. Then you and Wehwalt both revert the collaborative edits that Britmax had done. We, I don't think I have read where you actually discussed the edits, your activity on this page is ad homminem. This is the second time you have told me that I am obsessed and no one is interested in my views on a Talk page. It may be a very economical use of your time to do drive by reverting of changes you dislike, and then tell those who want discussion that they are obsessed, but editors are actually supposed to discuss issues on a talk page.

I've only read the objections to the edit in edit summaries so far. So now we discuss the issue in talk . The information that Van Der Sloot, who has appeared on television and written a book talking about him being suspected of murder in the Holloway case, was convicted on a charge of murdering Flores is not in the article, although the info that he pleaded guilty to the charge is. There are a multitude of reliable sources for it and BLP policy WP:BLPCRIME says "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." The article currently says "Van der Sloot pled guilty to murdering Ramirez on January 11, 2012". I think we have to add that he was convicted ._Overagainst (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You've already made basically the same point over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. The other editors involved with this article don't agree with you and I, coming in as a neutral observer who had not previously edited the article also have looked at what you have to say and do not agree with you. I've also gotten to the point where I'm sick and tired of reading your endless walls of text that basically just keep saying the same thing. We have discussed. You keep repeating yourself. The answer is still "no." And, you are beginning to be disruptive. Montanabw 19:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one who made those edits in their final form.. My single Talk page mention of having Van Der Sloot's conviction for murdering Flores added to the article section about him 'killing in Peru' was on 13 August, the same day the edits were made on by me and then Britmax reverted. We had some talk page interaction and then he modified the page with his own edit which I accepted after discussion. I'd mentioned the issue in Talk immediately and no one responded there for days.

I would ask you to engage with the actual point at issue which as I outlined above is that WP:BLPCRIME is very specific about the necessity of mentioning convictions and the article currently says Van Der Sloot pleaded guilty to the charge. OK you have looked at the rationale for Britmax's edit and do not agree. But just saying 'I don't agree', can fit on an edit summary and is not discussion. I would like you to take the trouble to explain your reasons for disagreeing with my interpretation of how WP policy (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to Britmax's edit adding information that Van Der Sloot was convicted on a charge of murdering Flores. I have given my reasoning; that WP policy mandates the edit._Overagainst (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As I and others have said before, that info is fine for Van Der Sloot's bio, but this is Natalee's bio. What's relevant about him is what's relevant to her, not a bunch of stuff that just goes to general character (and for that reason is often inadmissible in courts, too.). Montanabw 22:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The article states that he pled guilty to the murder. What more elaboration do you believe is "required" by BLPCRIME?—Kww(talk) 00:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem was first, Overagainst wanted to add more to the lede, which wasn't needed. Then it was adding the unneeded redundant "was convicted" - when in the previous sentence it already does say he pled. Same difference, and bad writing. Probably could add the 28 year sentence, if Wehwalt thinks that's OK. Now somewhere in Overagainst's wall of text, if there is another point, I am not sure it was noticed. His tone and "demands" attitude is quite annoying and he is not winning friends here. Montanabw 06:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw and Kww, the article's 'Van der Sloot kills in Peru' section says that he pleaded guilty to murdering Flores, but does not report the outcome of the trial. I have already quoted from WP:BLPCRIME on why this is impermissible. It is clear cut in WP:CRIMINAL too: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law". The section 'Van der Sloot kills in Peru' cannot omit explicitly reporting that he was convicted.__Overagainst (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Pleading guilty" is quite sufficient. If you think it's not, go argue your case at WT:BLP.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Kww, I think we are supposed to try and "resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages"; do you not think this is at an early stage? Anyway, that's your opinion clearly stated, although I'm afraid I am left no wiser about why you think that, as you have not cited any WP guidance of countervailing effect to WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIMINAL which I quoted, nor have you explained your thinking or provided a cite of other articles that say a living person pleaded guilty to a murder, and nothing more. Other editors here should now say what they think.__Overagainst (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe they have. As for my logic, you are quoting policies that are intended to prevent people that have only been accused of crimes from being reported as having actually committed them. A report of a plea is sufficient to satisfy that concern.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Then it ought to be easy for you to cite me guidance to that effect or other articles where it is is done.__Overagainst (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Overagainst, per WP:BURDEN, the burden of proof is on you to convince us that this material should be added. You have not done so. I agree with Wehwalt and KWW on this. Please, we've let you go on forever about this and you don't seem to understand that your view is simply not prevailing. Let it go, please Montanabw 22:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw, you've re-stated your opinions without acceding to my request for good reasons why the information about Van Der Sloott's conviction and sentence being omitted is desirable, or even permissible. Apparently, no one can give a precedent for this in any other article, or explain why it's not contrary to the WP guidance which I have repeatedly cited:- WP:CRIMINAL: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law". WP:BLPCRIME says "...editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." It is clear cut, both in WP policy and from the practice on other articles that once an accusation is put in, you don't omit a conviction on that charge._Overagainst (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:BURDEN. The onus is on you. The conviction IS noted in "pled guilty." I don't see anyone objecting to adding the bit on his sentence. Your edit was to say the same thing twice, which is bad writing and unneeded. Montanabw 22:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"The conviction IS noted in "pled guilty."". No Montanabw, that is not noting it at all. While one may reasonably believe that the conviction might be correctly surmised from the mention of a guilty plea, this is a Misplaced Pages article with encyclopedic content, so we just provide the information like the WP guidance says we should. It is rather bizzare to suggest that we can mention that a living person pled guilty to murder and than drop the matter without saying what the outcome was. Your WP:BURDEN cite has nothing to do with the case.WP:BURDEN says "material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", hence it is about providing sources for what is added. What I am pointing out is that certain information (Van Der sloot's conviction and sentence), for which I have provided a reference, needs to be added. The guidance is quite clear:WP:CRIMINAL: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law", also WP:BLPCRIME "...editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."_Overagainst (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion those who revert changes and leave the edit summary "No consensus" should participate to some extent in the subsequent Talk discussion of those edits.Overagainst (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence of Joran is properly placed in his article, or in one on the Flores killing. It has no place here and only serves to denigrate one side and build up the point of view that Joran killed Natalee, which is where the BLP issue comes in.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"The sentence of Joran is properly placed in his article". It says he pleaded guilty, what happened next is not mentioned and currently it has to be surmised that he was convicted. Those objecting to vander Sloot's Peru murder conviction being mentioned should have objected to anything about the Peru murder being in the article at all. As it stands the conviction can not be omitted; I think I have provided quotes from the relevant WP guidance: once an accusation or attribution of crime is made, any conviction on that charge is included in the article.

As for Van der Sloot BLP issues, the article is currently full of them. for instance this which is in the lede for some reason "The Aruban prosecutor's office reopened the case on February 1, 2008, after receiving video footage of Joran van der Sloot, under the influence of marijuana, making statements that Holloway died on the morning of May 30, 2005, and that he disposed of her body. Van der Sloot later denied that what he said was true, and subsequently gave Greta Van Susteren an interview (the contents of which he later retracted) in which he stated that he sold Holloway into sexual slavery."!_Overagainst (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am only replying to fend off another "silence is consensus" edit. To plead guilty means one need not be "convicted" by a jury, as they have just convicted themselves, basically. So to say, "and was convicted" is redundant and conveys the wrong nuance, as no trial is held, no jury verdict returned. As for the rest, you have adequately stated your case. You simply have not prevailed. Consensus has gone against you. Try again in a couple of years. Montanabw 19:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve the article, not make you submit to my will. Does anyone have an objection to the article being nominated for a FA review?_Overagainst (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone's objections would have any weight. I object to you doing it for the purpose of attempting to unbalance the article, and would ask that you be willing to nominate it and then walk away, as opposed to attempting to get it changed in the face of near-unanimous opposition as you have been doing here.—Kww(talk) 22:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have taken the suggestion to take it to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard where you can put your side of the story._Overagainst (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Death date discussion - ONLY

The issue of which death date to put in the lead now needs to be discussed. After some edit disputes, I restored the article to the last "clean" version, which was Wehwalt's last edit. We have three options: 1) Using the "after date of disappearance" date, 2) using the date declared legally dead (important to note "legally" there, as we don't actually have a clue when or even if she died) or 3) both. Each option has sources, each option has arguments for it, and so now we can discuss. I attempted to compromise by putting in both versions, but that apparently is not agreed to by some. Montanabw 22:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's a fourth option: specifically state "unknown". Both the date she disappeared and the date she was declared dead are in the lead, so "October 21, 1986 – unknown) " would be my preference.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the issue was with on or after May 30, 2005. As she was seen alive on that date it could not be before.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a big issue with the "on or after" language, which is why I've never fussed about it. If we are reopening the issue, then I prefer "unknown" to either date.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose unknown is OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

And frankly, I really don't have a terribly deep level of caring one way or the other. Unknown is fine, 2005 is fine, or all of the above. The only thing I think is silly is the "legally dead" as official death date because they aren't the same thing. Whatever Wehwalt and Kww can agree on is fine with me. If no consensus, then leave the 2005 language as is. Montanabw 06:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Britmax is correct, "on or after" is not verifiable, it's a conclusion based on personal research. Britmax's edit "(October 21, 1986 – declared dead January 12, 2012)" is sticking to facts that there are verifiable sources for. A compromise would have to be along the lines of: "Natalee Ann Holloway (October 21, 1986 - disappeared May 30, 2005)" or "Natalee Ann Holloway (October 21, 1986 - disappeared May 30, 2005 - declared dead January 12, 2012)". It is not for editors to use Misplaced Pages's Voice to specify the time frame when someone died, or to say that it is 'unknown'.Overagainst (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please be specific: what prevents Misplaced Pages editors from saying something is "unknown"?—Kww(talk) 20:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, if there are reliable sources that say so. Otherwise it is personal research stated in Misplaced Pages's Voice._Overagainst (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You are straining the definition of original research beyond all rational boundaries.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether this case amounts to personal research or not is beside the point; if there are not reliable sources that state something is 'unknown' then it cannot be stated in Misplaced Pages's Voice that it is unknown._Overagainst (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Overagainst, I agree with KWW. "Unknown" is perfectly acceptable and NOT OR. To ALL: Unless there is some metadata reason otherwise, might I suggest we insert as follows: ...." d. unknown, date of disappearance May 30, 2005, declared legally dead January 12, 2012)"? Just hit all possibilities and call it good? Montanabw 22:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, "Unknown" is perfectly acceptable, if you have reliable sources that that it's 'unknown'. A few editors in agreement with Kww's opinion that the DoD is "Unknown" does not amount to a reliable source so it should not be in the article that it is 'unknown', especially not right in the top of the lede alongside well sourced information. There are reliable sources for DOB, date of disappearance, and date when legally presumed dead._Overagainst (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You have circular reasoning, an unknown is an unknown because it's well, unknown. But I really have no real strong feelings about "unknown," I just think that there should not be confusion over her legally dead status and an actual date of death. I think the article was fine the way it was, I'm just trying to find ground that works for all. Legally dead and actually dead are two different things.

It is very simple. No source that says Natalee Hollyway's date of death is 'unknown' has been provided. The most basic rule of Misplaced Pages is that sources are required for statements made in Misplaced Pages's voice. For any information in any article a reliable source must be provided as a reference. The burden of providing the source for an edit falls on the editor who wants to make that edit. Similarly there is no source provided for Holloway's death being "on or after May 30", 2005" so it should not have been added in the first place. That kind of wording is not used about disappeared people in other articles. I would suggest that the lede should say:-

"Natalee Ann Holloway (October 21, 1986 – disappeared May 30, 2005), was an 18 year old American student who vanished on a high school graduation trip to Aruba..." _Overagainst (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I can live with that if KWW and Wehwalt can. I can also live with "unknown." I can also live with "disappeared on date X and declared legally dead on date Y" I only object to the date of her legal declaration of death being identified as "when" she died. So over to you, gents! Montanabw 23:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

18 year old seems redundant with the dates right there. The rest I can live with.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sentencing?

Per the dispute resolution discussion going on elsewhere, IF there is a consensus to add info on Van der Sloot's sentencing, here are two sources better than the USA today one: CBS news, which also included the guilty plea and CNN, which also contains analysis. I personally don't object to including a phrase like " ... and was sentenced to 28 years..." to the end of the existing sentence. Likewise, I also have no objection to NOT including it, and am just proposing something that might be workable. However, None of this belongs in the lede, IMHO. Montanabw 19:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

OK that makes 2 (Me and Britmax) for, you neutral and 2 against. I think it would be better to bring back Britmax's edit of the section as he improved the organisation of the section. But I'm OK with adding " ... and was sentenced to 28 years..." to the end of the existing sentence. It seems the lede will remain as it is although a lede should mention the main points of the article and it is questionable if Van der Sloot could be named in the lead or elswhere in the article at all (as a mere suspect) if he had not been convicted on the Peru murder charge and sentenced to 28 years. as WP:BLPCRIME says that being suspected of a crime is not realy enough to name someone. Van der Sloot is notable because of the combination of his being questioned as a suspect in the dissapearance of a Natalee in Aruga and his Peru conviction for murdering a young woman 5 years later (the biggest crime story of 2010). The lede of the Van der Sloot article does not make it clear that he was the main suspect in the dissappearance of Natalee, though he most certainly would not have had that article created for him just on the basis of him being convicted of that five years later of a murder in Peru. In effect the Van Der Sloot article is an article on a "person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial" and that was the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. One of the articles' lede should mention the two facts (Van der Sloot was a suspect who was arrested in the dissappearance of Natalee, and conviction for a murder that happened five years later in Peru). Overagainst (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, Joran did not get an article until after he was accused in Flores's death. There had been articles created and then deleted or merged on him. All about BLP1E. Although at the time, the policy on these things was a lot less developed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

He has notability as a result of the combination of being suspected of involvement in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway and his conviction for the murder of a different young woman 5 years later. You seem to be acknowledging that, but also saying one of these facts must be ignored in the lede of the Natalee Holloway article. So van der Sloot is notable enough for an article on him that can't explain in its own lede why it exists, while the article on Natalee can NAME him repeatedly in the lede (why's that not a BLP violation?), but can't mention the context in which he is notable. I'm not overwhelmed with your reasoning.Overagainst (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Overagainst, we do NOT have my "neutral" to say we reinstate Britmax's edit or anything in the lede. Just so you are clear. I am only "neutral" about adding about five words that state ONLY the length of sentence. But I want to hear what KWW and Wehwalt have specifically to say about "... and was sentenced to 28 years." before it goes in, because I don't think they have weighed in on that narrow view. I also don't give a rat's rear end what anyone does with Van der Sloot's article, it's not an FA and I have enough drama here. Montanabw 19:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've got no major object to mentioning the sentence in the section where his plea is mentioned. As to JvdS's notability: at the time this article was primarily written, JvdS was nearly a celebrity. Anyone that tried to delete all mention of him from Misplaced Pages on notability concerns would have been laughed at. It was very hard to persuade people that we couldn't write the article from the perspective of him being obviously guilty.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with it being in the body, per KWW. I don't think it should be in the lede. The murder conviction has to be in there, you can't mention JvdS without it. Putting the sentence struck me as a bit piling on, and also unnecessary. It's enough to give the reader sufficient detail in the thumbnail sketch we call a lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Added "and was sentenced to 28 years in prison" in the body text with the CNN citation. Feel free to toss anything I screwed up. Montanabw 23:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the lede it is difficult to see why van der Sloot is being named in the lede para at all, given that he has not been convicted of any offence in relation to Holloway; nothing in the lede explains his notability. Moreover the lede mentions at length him incriminating himself during interviews which he immediately retracted,, again in relation to offences which he has not been convicted. Is the current lede 'standing alone as a concise overview', or omitting facts that explain his notability in a way that makes the lede look like a BLP violation?-Overagainst (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this just going to be a war of attrition with you, grinding away with interminable discussions? The story of Holloway's disappearance could not be told without the discussion of JvdS's multiple detentions, investigations, and confessions. The story can't be told without mentioning him.—Kww(talk) 14:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That is the thing. I'd like these discussions to end at some point.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Drop the stick. We're done here. Montanabw 17:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In view of Wehwalt having made 1346 edits of the main page since 2005, and being the main participant in Talk over several years, I would have thought him so familiar with the subject that he could dash off rejoinders to any objection to his (it is in effect) article with a minimum of effort. Looking through the Talk archive and article history, Kww has usually contributed one line remarks on Talk, apparently preferring to let people spend considerable periods on multiple edits, then quietly take out their contributions a few days later in one fell swoop. Which is a very economical use of his time to be sure. Montanabw, the lede doesn't even say how old she was (Wehwalt has even objected to her being described as a teenager) but gives the date she graduated. Then it links the words 'media sensation' to sensationalism which is an opinion stated in WP's voice. It names Van der Sloot as suspect for something he was never convicted of--arguable, although not in the spirit of BLP. Note the Kalpoes are named as suspects ('released for lack of evidence') for something they have never been convicted of, along with Van der Sloot. How can it be OK to mention Van der Sloot as suspect for murder in the lede, but a BLP violation not to omit his conviction for a separate murder from the lede (but not the article)? After talking to the three, the Aruban police arrested several others, completely innocent people (those making statements to police accusing innocent people were apparently never charged). The second crucial omission, in the lede is the deceptive account of the Aruban investigation. It does not mention Dompig, the policeman in charge, said publicly as early as March 2006 that the investigators had concluded that Natalee had probably O.D.ed and had not been murdered. The lede mentions Beth'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._Overagainst (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick rejoinder: The lede states her date of birth and date of disappearance, the rest is simple math. Also, she is described as a high school graduate. The vast majority of recent high school graduates are teenagers. You don't have to rub people's faces in stuff, the reader "gets it".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr, Overgainst. I for one no longer care what you have to say, you are merely now arguing for the sake of argument. Knock it off and go somewhere else, please. We're done here. Montanabw 22:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It takes a lot of work to make a lede into a straightforward overview that is easily read. It seems those who find Talk page discussion terribly wearing are happy to task the reader with deductions about age or conviction. The reader is further tasked with combing through the entire article to find the information that gives the case its main notability, by which time they they'll have had their nose ponderously rubbed in the lovingly-covered 2006 divorce which is 'Background' on a girl who disappeared in 2005; the reader might be forgiven for being rather annoyed, and thinking that lawyerly interpretation rather than common sense must have been used by the main editor._Overagainst (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Mother's second divorce

I removed "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."" and it was restored by User:Kww. I have again removed the text.

My reason for removal is the divorce is mentioned later in the article, where we explain her book was published under "Beth Holloway," which she resumed using following her December 2006 divorce from Jug Twitty. That is, mention of the divorce in the "Background" (how is a December 2006 divorce part of the background to a May 2005 disappearance?) section is both out of place and redundant. It also offers unnecessary and irrelevant (unless some kind of point is being made that I don't quite follow - that the woman is impossible to live with?) details about the divorce, and points out that the divorce was initiated by the husband - which is again irrelevant (unless we're trying to establish something about her character).

Kww posted on my talk page "That material has been in there through multiple reviews: peer review, FAR review, more reviews than you can count. It's been heavily discussed during them as well. By removing the only statement that indicates that no fault was ever leveled against either party, you are leaving something open to conjecture that need not be left open to conjecture. No fault was ever leveled by either party. We know that. It's improper to leave the issue hanging and thus imply that fault may have been leveled.

"You've also broken the chronology: the subsequent mention of the divorce is after the article has already discussed actions taken after the filing."

I think his assertion that the prior version includes important information is wrong, and believe that prior version instead entails (1) he divorced her and (2) he couldn't live with her; both of which are negative commentary on the woman that serve no purpose in this article other than to paint her in a negative light. As for chronology - putting a December 2006 divorce into the background of a girl who disappeared in May 2005 is very tortured, seemingly very pointy, chronology; mentioning, where it's relevant, that Twitty and Beth were divorced is appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. I do not think having no information is superior to having the information we had. The previous version is superior.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Kww's excuse for the 'previous version' is very weak. Anthonyhcole's characterisation of the previous edit seems quite accurate to me. I don't see any refutation of what Anthonyhcole said when he took the trouble to explain why the previous version needed to be changed.Overagainst (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

review of it is that no new argument has been made and therefore my previous answers stand. Also those of Kww, Montanabw and the other editors who have come to the conclusion that the article is evenhanded. Incidentally which of the accusations that Beth made against Joran should be removed from the article? Seems to be a need under BLP--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Anthonyhcole, let's get the chronology right: NYB Boldly removed it, I Reverted it, and, when it came time for you to Discuss it, you didn't. .

The chronology of the names and relationships in this whole thing is complicated and does require this information to be presented early in the article: sources at different periods in the chronology used different names for Beth at different times, and she did the very confusing act of returning to the name of "Holloway", despite Holloway being the name of a man she had divorced many years before.

Your assertion that indicating that the divorce was a no-fault divorce somehow paints Beth in a negative light is strange. Why does leaving open the possibility that it was a divorce for cause somehow paint her in a more positive light?

As you note below, the "chronology" of this article extends well past the May 2005 appearance, as the only notable event in Natalee's life was her disappearancet. The article chronicles information up until 2012, and includes substantial information from the 2006 time frame. Including information is far from out of place.—Kww(talk) 13:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. It was part of a carefully-constructed way of informing the reader as to the state of play. I am getting the feeling we are being accused of placing unnecessarily salacious or negative detail in the article for the purpose of defaming people we've never met. Please keep in mind that lots of the "juicy stuff" as discussed in the Vanity Fair article, does not appear in this one. We were careful to keep out things like the exclamation of "Woo-hoo Aruba" which is the last words known to be spoken by her, as she got in the Kalpoe vehicle. In that vehicle, she may have made a racial comment about the Kalpoe brothers, who are Surinamese of Asian descent. That is not mentioned in the article. Bottom line is that Overagainst wants to scrub this article of anything he considers negative to Natalee or Beth; things possibly negative to Joran are not judged by the same standard; indeed their retention is sought. And an addition. A big fat statement that Joran killed someone else in Peru five years later. The reader will not unreasonably conclude that we have some reason for putting it there and that we are giving him a great hint that Joran done it. That Joran is, so to speak, libel proof as an admitted murderer of someone else is irrelevant to the issue: our BLP policies apply to even someone who has killed another so terribly. Yet the same person untroubled by placing it there is deeply bothered by the fact that zomg she got divorced! Let me clue you in on something, divorce as a social stigma died when Reagan was elected.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, as the section heading indicates this is the section for discussing the 2006 divorce. One thing at a time please. If you wish to introduce something else then please do so in a new section. "Carefully-constructed", you said that, I didn't.

Kww, Anthonyhcole has just went to the trouble of clearly stating his reasons to help you understand why that text was changed. I tried to explain much the same thing to you 5 months ago, when you said I was not the first person to raise the issue. I will try again: the text that you say was 'indicating that the divorce was a no-fault divorce' was doing the exact opposite of that. An account of the divorce in 2006 does not belong in the "Background" section on a girl who vanished in 2005. As for the idea that such convoluted chronology was an aid to comprehension of the article; quite the opposite, it was very confusing.Overagainst (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Anthonyhcole merely demonstrated that he is laboring under the same misconception as you are. The language indicates a no-fault divorce. Any other cause for divorce would place blame on either Jug or Beth for misbehaviour, and, since Jug filed the suit, any other cause would be specifically accusing Beth of misbehaviour. Not mentioning that the divorce suit did not accuse either party of wrongdoing casts an unnecessary negative light on Beth. The "2005" vs. "2006" argument is simply a red herring: the notable events concerning Natalee Holloway took place up through 2010.—Kww(talk) 19:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

All concerned are quite familiar with this particular issue now, it has been extensively discussed and I can say there is no room left for any misconception, what remains is a real disagreement with your view of the matter which you have stated more than once.Overagainst (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing you explain why you believe showing that no accusations of fault were made against Beth places her in a negative light. It's an obviously inconsistent stance, and you've never explained the inconsistency.—Kww(talk) 22:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here we go: the causes for divorce in Alabama, based on Alabama State Divorce Code - Chapter 2, Section 30-2-1

(1) In favor of either party, when the other was, at the time of the marriage physically and incurably incapacitated from entering into the marriage state.

(2) For adultery.

(3) For voluntary abandonment from bed and board for one year next preceding the filing of the complaint.

(4) Imprisonment in the penitentiary of this or any other state for two years, the sentence being for seven years or longer.

(5) The commission of the crime against nature, whether with mankind or beast, either before or after marriage.

(6) For becoming addicted after marriage to habitual drunkenness or to habitual use of opium, morphine, cocaine or other like drug.

(7) Upon application of either the husband or wife, when the court is satisfied from all the testimony in the case that there exists such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together. (emphasis by Kww)

(8) In favor of either party, when the other, after marriage, shall have been confined in a mental hospital for a period of five successive years, if such party from whom a divorce is sought is hopelessly and incurably insane at the time of the filing of the complaint; provided, however, that the superintendent of the mental hospital in which such person is confined shall make a certified statement, under oath, that it is his opinion and belief, after a complete and full study and examination of such person, that such person is hopelessly and incurably insane.

(9) Upon application of either party, when the court finds there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and that further attempts at reconciliation are impractical or futile and not in the best interests of the parties or family.

(10) In favor of the husband, when the wife was pregnant at the time of marriage, without his knowledge or agency.

(11) In favor of either party to the marriage when the other has committed actual violence on his or her person, attended with danger to life or health, or when from his or her conduct there is reasonable apprehension of such violence.

(12) In favor of the wife when the wife has lived, or shall have lived separate and apart from the bed and board of the husband for two years and without support from him for two years next preceding the filing of the complaint, and she has bona fide resided in this state during said period.

Given the choice between explicitly saying that Beth did not commit 1-6 or 8-12 or leaving it open, I think it's clearly better to say that she did none of the bad things, it was simply #7: incompatibility.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

They got divorced. We mention that. It is nobody's business who filed, and nobody's business what the grounds were. That's an excessive intrusion into these people's personal lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing that noting that Beth was not accused of wrongdoing is an intrusion? That's an interesting stretch. It's an unfortunate thing that American divorces are split into this dichotomy of one party having done something vile vs. neither party having done anything in particular, but that's the reality of the world we live in. Pointing out that neither party is believed to have done anything vile is hardly an intrusion. If it had been cause 5, for example, I'd be extremely sympathetic to the notion that it was an intrusion, but it wasn't cause 5, it was 7: mutual incompatibility. Would making it more passive make you feel more comfortable? "A divorce suit based on grounds of mutual incompatibility pertaining to the marriage between Jug and Beth Twitty was filed on December 29, 2006" so that it removes any hint of siding with Jug against Beth? The point of mentioning it at that point in the chronicle is to make it clear that Beth was acting alone during 2007 and beyond. Whether you view her as a heroine, a villainess, or somewhere in-between, she was on her own at that point.—Kww(talk) 04:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I would support that, adding the divorce law of Alabama as an additional source or else as a footnote. Nothing discreditable on Beth was intended. Gee, a no fault divorce? Thirty plus years after there was such angst over whether America would elect a divorced man as president and then no one cared about Jane Wyman?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with the divorce being mentioned earlier, if it sheds more light on the mother's (and step-father's) circumstances from 2007 onwards. I'm opposed to mentioning who filed and the grounds, for WP:BLP and WP:DUE reasons. So, feel free to move the divorce to a more relevant part of the narrative, but for now at least, leave out those excessively intrusive details.

To be clear: I have removed the excessive details around the missing woman's mother's second divorce on very solid policy grounds - including WP:BLP. Do not restore that content without establishing a clear genuine consensus to do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You've already accused editors of lying, and are not by any means a neutral party. You are involved and your er, warning, is meaningless. The only reason I don't revert you is that I don't care to edit war with you, as you've already gone there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)

Not neutral? Involved? What on earth does that mean? Generally, if content is removed from an article on WP:BLP grounds, we leave it out at least until a clear consensus is achieved to restore it. I hope that's the reason for your not revering me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

When there is a disagreement about the application of BLP a talk page discussion is preferable in the first instance. If there is a disagreement about the application of BLP then consensus governs. If no consensus is reached then per our long-standing practices the text remains.--Wehwalt (talk)|

The title

Can someone please point me to any prior discussions that led to this article about a mysterious disappearance being called "Natalee Holloway"? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Check archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've started looking through the archives, checking all the threads with relevant headings:

• No one responded to this proposal here: "...I wuld be in favour of moving it to a more approproiate title, such as Natalee Holloway disappearance. User:KimvdLinde 01:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)".
• Then there's this: "We've had a complaint letter about this page - no detail as to what the matters of concern are, but strong concern. If this page is treated with the concern relevant to biographies of living people, that would probably be best for all - User:David Gerard 18:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  "...Maybe it becomes time to split this up in a bio and a case page. User:Dugodugo 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  "Or just turn it into a case, for which there is plenty of precedent in the UK murders articles, eg Roy Whiting and Sarah payne became Murder of Sarah Payne, User:SqueakBox 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  "An idea, but given that we have little to say about Natalee outside the context of the case, I on't know that it is worth it. If we renamed "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway" and did a redirect on Natalee Holloway to send things there (because frankly, there isn't much to say about her outside the context of the disappearance), I'm not sure we'd solve the problem. Yes, we wouldn't fall under the LB situation, but the objection I think is to the content. Any stick does to beat a dog It wouldn't stop the objection.--Wehwalt 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  "This is basically an article about the case in its entirety already. There is very little biographical information, but I wouldn't support moving this to a new title anytime soon. If/when there is a conclusion to the case, then I could see renaming. - auburnpilot talk 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  "A good thing about having an article eventually about the case, is that we could combine this article and Joran van der Sloot, something I've advocated before. But not yet. If Aruba announces the three aren't suspects anymore, and the WD suit in LA goes bye bye, then maybe.--Wehwalt 00:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)"

• On 15 July 2007, User:Crockspot suggested moving to "Disappearance", and was opposed by Wehwalt ("There was some discussion of that above in topic #9, if you care to wade through that. Sentiment seemed to be against it"), AuburnPilot and Kww.
• In this 18 July 2007 BLPN discussion User:Crockspot again wonders if Natalee Holloway should be moved to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway; User:Jmh123 thinks it should; and User:Edison says, "Our style more recently has consistently been to title the article as the case, not the person (unless they were notable before the incident)."
• In this December 2007 discussion User:Dystopos wondered "if it's not time to reconsider the idea of changing this from a biographical article to an article about Holloway's disappearance and the subsequent investigation and sensationalism." This was opposed by Wehwalt and mildly opposed by AuburnPilot, and Kww didn't care.
• On 1 Feb 2008 User: Mira Gambolputty moved it to Natalee Holloway disappearance and was told at BLPN by User:AuburnPilot that, since this isn't a biography, the BLP policy doesn't apply, and by User:Moonriddengirl, "I don't believe Natalee Holloway is low profile, and hence I don't believe that the article about her is problematic with regards to BLP, which is intended to protect individuals from invasions of privacy and Misplaced Pages from allegations of defamation. I am inclined to agree with that the page should be moved, per the notability guideline...", and by Wehwalt here, "With all respect to the editor, we've thrashed this out repeatedly here..." Though, I've not seen any "thrashing out". If there had been prior "thrashing out", can you point me to it please? The user who proposed the move then left the project, and no one followed up Moonriddengirl's suggestion. You left a comment here saying, "Mira seems to have left the project, so it's not likely an issue anymore."
• In this March 2008 discussion, User:AuburnPilot warns that this article is being cited in a couple of AFD discussions. One article is deleted and the other is moved to "Murder of".
• On 19 March 2008, in a move discussion, User:Baseball Bugs, User:AjaxSmack and User:Sceptre support a move to "Disappearance." Wehwalt, Kww and AuburnPilot oppose.
• In October 2008, User:Ilse@ says. "This article is giving a detailed description of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway and not of (the life of) Natalee Holloway. In this respect, the article is imbalanced. The detailed description of the disappearance should be moved to an article Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. The sections dealing with the disappearance in this article should be shortened considerably."
• In this October 2008 thread, User:Dystopos agrees with User: Marskell, User:SandyGeorgia and User:Cla68 that the article should be titled "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway." Wehwalt, AuburnPilot and Kww disagree.

It's bedtime here. But it's looking very like every visitor that comes to that page and expresses an opinion on the title thinks it should move to "Disappearance" ... except you three. The "owners". A couple of people referred to you as that somewhere in the archives. The "owners". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, that's a pretty off-putting way of putting it. What do you intend to accomplish with that comment? It's one thing to propose a move, another to get personal. And I read your comments on Sandy's talk, which don't say you're coming in all neutral. You say you are coming here to mock myself, Kww, and AuburnPilot, here. I could answer you seriously, by telling you (though you are no doubt aware) that there have been as many views about keeping the article under this name, but as you are here to mock, I have a peer review to do elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No, no. I went to Sandy's talk page to laugh at you. I came here to find out what you're up to. As for your last assertion, "there have been as many views about keeping the article under this name," that's false - at lease up to October 2008. Not one visitor to this page, not one, supported this name. Not one. I didn't cherry-pick the above list. That's a chronological list of all mentions of the title from the first talk page archive forward. I'm busy today, but I'll continue my list when I have more time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's just plain untrue, Anthonyhcole. You linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Natalee_Holloway/Archive_4#Disappearance_of_Natalee_Holloway . Take a look down the page at the RFC (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Natalee_Holloway/Archive_4#RfC:_Proper_naming_for_article ). See JayHenry? See Garycompugeek? See how the RFC ended in no consensus? I stand by my analysis of policy in the RFC, by the way: Natalee Holloway remains the most policy-compliant title for this article. Incidentally, are you actually going to discuss your removal of the divorce language, or will it just be a post-and-run?—Kww(talk) 04:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's quite true, Kww. I'm only half-way down that archive page. I'm delighted for you that you can point to two people in that RfC who support the owners' naming position. As I say, I'm short on time today, but I'll get back to you. Just glancing at the RfC, though: I see six people, including User:Eiad77 and User:Thumperward, opposing it. If we add those to the list above ... I haven't counted but what is that? 20:2 opposed to your (the owners') version? The current title violates WP:N, per Moonriddengirl's above explanation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly you could wait, then, until the returns from Hayseed County come in. And I should not have to tell you that we do not vote, yada yada.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I point out the overwhelming consensus against the owners' preferred title because you (plural) repeatedly say, falsely, in the above-cited discussions that consensus is in favour of your preferred name. To be clear: everyone who commented on the question, up to the point in October 2008 where I interrupted my reading yesterday, opposed your preferred title. You, however, repeatedly mislead people with the false statement that consensus supports you. That's not "vote counting", it's a straightforward reading of the record. It's a pretty clear demonstration of highly-inappropriate behaviour on your (plural) part. I'll continue my study of the archives here. If the above pattern of misrepresenting consensus continues to the present day (and a glance at the contents of the current talk page is not promising) I'll be proposing appropriate sanctions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me see, you've called me a liar and stated that you plan to have me sanctioned. AND you haven't even looked through all the archives yet, so you are calling a well-regarded (if I may say so) editor a liar without having checked the facts, although you did check in with Sandy, whose actions regarding this page are well-recorded and due no one any credit. If this is looked at after the fact, I would ask readers to note that I acted with great civility, at least up to and through this point. And I got slapped in the face with it. I'm not sure I trust myself to reply further, so will let it go at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to as well. Just because I haven't reverted it doesn't mean I agree, it just means I don't care to edit war. I await with interest Anthony's rationale.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have explained my rationale for the removal of the excessive, intrusive and undue details around the missing woman's mother's second divorce, above, in the relevant section: it's a WP:BLP privacy violation. ---Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, so this is still a thing? Five seconds looking at the article shows this is still as much of a pseudobiography as it was five years ago; accordingly, it should not be titled as a biography, but rather after the incident that it's really about. There should be no need to make things personal here (pardon the irony). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Without knowing anything about this case and a history and not interest in digging up 2008, I think that the name of the person is the best name for the article, as in law cases you also start using the name of a party. Why make something complicated that could be easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article review candidates
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• FA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• FA-Class Mississippi articles
• Top-importance Mississippi articles
• WikiProject Mississippi articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class Alabama articles
• WikiProject Alabama articles
• FA-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• FA-Class Caribbean articles
• Low-importance Caribbean articles
• FA-Class Aruba articles
• Low-importance Aruba articles
• Aruba articles
• WikiProject Caribbean articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press