Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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^(talk) 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 Wikipedia is that sources are required for statements made in Wikipedia'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^(talk) 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)

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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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.[21] 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^(talk) 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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where you can put your side of the story._Overagainst (talk) 22:08, 26 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..." [cite] 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^(talk) 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..." [cite] 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^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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. [1][2].

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)|

I assume that you are familiar with WP:CRYBLP. It's disruptive to falsely claim WP:BLP grounds, Anthonyhcole. There's no unsourced or poorly sourced material in play.—Kww(talk) 13:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's an essay: why do you feel it has the status of representing community consensus? The whole of the policy, WP:BLP, applies to this encyclopedia, even the bit that says we must write conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy, and the bit that says 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, and the stuff about not further victimising victims. All of WP:BLP applies to this encyclopedia. You know that - or you should. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly WP:BLP applies to the entire encyclopedia. Your particular invocation of it remains invalid. Beth Holloway and Jug Twitty are no mere bystanders to the events documented in this article, as they forced themselves into the media coverage in the effort to keep the investigation going when investigators were inclined to believe it had reached a dead-end. The material you are disputing isn't an invasion of their privacy, does not victimize them, nor is it included in order to paint the parties in an unfair or negative light.—Kww(talk) 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Kww and others, you say "I don't recall ever seeing you explain why you believe showing that no accusations of fault were made against Beth (in 2006 divorce) places her in a negative light". Apparently you can't remember the extended discussions about the text on Talk in July which centered on me saying it placed her in a negative light, because far from showing she faced no accusations of fault, the text was derogatory on any reasonable reading. In those July onwar discussions I was told the issue had come up before. Brad From NewYork removed it and it was reverted back to. Anthonyhcole was more resolute and explained at great length why the text is inappropriate. The argument about the meaning of the text about Beth's husband filing for divorce which Anthonyhcole has removed involves a highly specialised knowledge requiring a cite of "Alabama State Divorce Code - Chapter 2, Section 30-2-1" and a technical interpretation rather than a straightforward one such as is appropriate for an encyclopedic account of 'a no fault divorce'. We are not writing the article to privilege Alabama lawyers. Hence what the text and quoted phrase ("such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together.") actually means in Alabama law books or the mind of those who added it to the article, is not particularly relevant, because it didn't read that way. To merit retention as an explanation that Beth and her then-husband got a no-fault divorce in 2006, the text should convey that meaning. In my view it did not, and so it was very badly written, whereby it deserved removal on that ground alone.

The text about the 2006 divorce of Natalee Holloway's mother which three editors are saying is perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia policy on BLP goes as follows: "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."" As mentioned above I strongly believe this is a BLP violation and I repeatedly gave my reasons in arguing against it being in the article on this talk page only months ago. Now the same arguments are being deployed again at great length with Anthonyhcole who has reached the same conculsion I, BFNY and others before us. I have followed and participated in the long discussion of the issue with Anthonyhcole. I understand the issues and am not requiring clarification. One last time, I still do not see how it is compatible with BLP to have that kind of thing in the article, especially as it's about the disappearance of her daughter. I understand three editors disagree. However, two editors have deleted it recently and I think it should stay deleted.Overagainst (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

So your argument is basically that because you read it incorrectly as meaning the exact opposite of what it actually means, it should be removed? Your discussions earlier (and now) still don't get into why you feel we should modify text that doesn't actually have a negative connotation beyond your personal misunderstanding of the text.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Kww, Anthonyhcole has not 'post-and-run?' he has explained his position and given his reasons, repeatedly. There comes a point when asking for further 'discussion' and clarification about points that are not new or substantive begins to seem like a ploy. Overagainst (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

At the time I made that comment, he had done nothing but post an explanation of why he had edit-warred and had not replied to the simple refutation of his misconception about the meaning of the text. His stance, which relies on reading the text incorrectly, is easily refuted. Yet, he repeats it multiple times. As do you.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh. So it's us reading it incorrectly. Ah. Right. Nothing to do with what it actually says, eh? I don't know about America, but in Australia people get divorced all the time and it's usually because life is better for one or both of them that way. Your reasoning, that including the grounds or the filing party is somehow useful is weird and just wrong. No one is going to look at "they were divorced in 2006" and think, "he must be a wife-beater" or, "she must have done something wrong". Your protestations that, "Oh I'm protecting the couple from people thinking the worst of them", while obviously well-meaning, is misguided.

I've only been looking at earlier title discussions. If anyone has ready access to earlier divorce discussions, could you please post diffs? Don't go to any trouble if you don't have them bookmarked. I'll get there eventually. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Try Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 6 'Lede'. Overagainst (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

""Such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together" is nothing more than the Alabama legal phrase for "irreconcilable differences". It indicates a no-fault divorce. The issue has come up before, and I've never understood why some seem to believe that we are committing some outrageous invasion of privacy by using it.—Kww(talk) 20:17, 24 July 2013 "

Kww, the 24 July remarks appear to show you claiming inability to understand the very view you said today is one which "relies on reading the text incorrectly" and "is easily refuted". Which sounds like progress. However you told me earlier today "Your discussions earlier (and now) still don't get into why you feel we should modify text...". These recurring calls for clarification (of earlier clarifications) are begining to look like a tactic rather than genuine incomprehension.Overagainst (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's genuine frustration. You are wrong. You know you are wrong. You know the language indicates a no-fault divorce. I've provided you with the legal code that indicates that it is the one and only cause for divorce in Alabama that does not place blame on an individual party in the marriage. Yet, instead of admitting that you misread it, you continue to insist that it is somehow a problem. What good faith explanation is there for that? What you haven't explained is why you continue to press the issue after becoming aware that you are wrong.

As for what other things people might think, note that Beth returned to the name of "Holloway": not her maiden name, but the name of another man that she had previously been married to. That caused a lot of speculation at the time as to the motive for the divorce. That content is not in the article (as it was reported as gossip at best, and only carried in earnest by the more lurid of sources), but the simple refutation that the divorce was not based on fault is. If you want, I could go dig up the accusations of adultery and neglect to counterbalance saying something nice about Beth. Maybe that would appeal to your sense of balance?

As for Anthonyhcole's "I don't know about America, but in Australia people get divorced all the time":they do here as well, and it makes a substantial difference in its disposition as to whether it was based on fault or not.—Kww(talk) 14:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

English is my first language, and in it the phrase which most clearly indicates a no-fault divorce is "no-fault divorce". Instead of that you had a phrase with an obscure technical meaning which is totally different to its meaning to 99.9% of readers. That has now been removed, but you are not asking for it to be replaced with the phrase 'no fault divorce' anywhere in the article. Given you claim to be motivated by a desire to make clear that the divorce was no fault, I find this puzzling.Overagainst (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you can figure out a way to describe it with the phrase "no-fault divorce" without falling afoul of WP:OR, I'd be grateful.—Kww(talk) 00:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Why, aren't you a reliable authority for what the phrase from the primary source divorce papers meant? On 12 Nov, you quoted "Alabama State Divorce Code - Chapter 2, Section 30-2-1!" by way of telling us how the quote from the divorce papers phrase was suitable to be in the article, because you could estabish it simply meant 'no fault divorce'. 3 days later, and you are claiming that the reason you have failed to propose an interpretative paraphase of those words is none would be allowed, because we have no reliable source as to what the phrase means._Overagainst (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot use myself as a reliable source in a Wikipedia article, Overagainst. I presume you know that, and are only being snarky here. We can only what sources directly say.—Kww(talk) 13:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite. A quote from divorce papers filed by Beth Holloway's husband was defended by you and others on the grounds that it meant 'no fault divorce', although almost anyone reading it would think it meant the opposite. So you said you knew what it meant Overagainst (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that most people believe it means the opposite of what it says or believe that. I assume that most of the people that have never commented on the text were quite capable of understanding it.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You were defending it being in the article (which entails there being a reliable source for the meaning). If that is the case you could replace the quoted opaque technical jargon with a paraphrase. You're not even trying to do that and it looks like the thing about the quote you liked was not the technical meaning, but the meaning 99.9% percent of people reading that featured article would assume._Overagainst (talk)

It is a no-fault divorce, and there are sources that indicate that the statute was revised to provide a 'no-fault' divorce. Putting those sources together with this particular action for the reader violates WP:OR. I think you underestimate our readers: I think that 99% of them recognize "mutual incompatibility" as a no-fault divorce grounds, and very few people would read the phrasing as being negative.—Kww(talk) 15:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"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."[3]". What transparent sophistry I was guilty of when arguing that could be construed negatively. _Overagainst (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I have not accused you of sophistry, just of clinging to an incorrect position after it has been demonstrated to be incorrect.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

removed comment.Overagainst (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Another statement you know not to be true. Making statements like that is why people accuse you of editing in bad faith.—Kww(talk) 17:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Exclamation, 'slaves' remark

There was some mention of things being kept out the article because they reflected badly on Natalee. This, it seems to me, is a bit of a MacGuffin that is fueling tself-perception of NPOV editing. To get it out in the open. One supposedly suppressed-as-damaging detail was her shouting "Woo-hoo Aruba" as she left in the car with the trio at closing time. Personally I don't see a problem with that being in the article. She was in high spirits, on top of her night's drinking she had just had a shot of 151-proof rum van Der Sloot bought her. There was a suggestion of what may have been a racial remark, which refers, I think, to her her seeing the Kalpoes in the car and asking van Der Sloot, "What are these guys, your slaves?". The most likely explanation for her remark is she was baffled on finding van Der Sloot had a couple of pals who had been sitting waiting in the car like chauffeurs while he was in the nightclub. Anyone might well be surprised at that. She probably didn't realise they had only been there half an hour, having arrived shortly before closing time (they were apparently well organised). Anyway, from what van Der Sloot said, Natalee was behaving like a naive girl who had unwittingly become a 'mark'. No problem with putting any of it in as far I can see. By the way, he said she told him she was a virgin and I personally don't have a problem with that being in the article either.Overagainst (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed text for 'Disappearance' section

"On Thursday, May 26, 2005, Holloway and 124 fellow graduates of Mountain Brook High School, located in a wealthy suburb of Birmingham, Alabama, arrived in Aruba for a five-day, unofficial graduation trip.[26][32] The graduates were accompanied by seven chaperones.[33] According to teacher and chaperone Bob Plummer, the chaperones met with the students each day to ensure nothing was wrong.[34] However, Jodi Bearman—the one who organized the trip, said, "the chaperones were not supposed to keep up with their every move".[33][35] Police Commissioner Gerold Dompig, who would head the investigation from mid-2005 until 2006, asserted the behavior of the Mountain Brook students included "a lot of drinking. We know the Holiday Inn told them they weren't welcome next year. Natalee, we know, she drank all day every day".[33] Two of Holloway's classmates "agreed that the drinking was kind of excessive".[36]"

There is no change to the references.Overagainst (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? Seems fine as is. Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Montanabw, that is altering the tone of the article which is not necessary as repeated consensus have stated that the article is neutral. Cutting information as to a theory of the case seems ill-advised in any event, and is especially so here as it deprives the reader of information. This was held to be neutral at a time when the article was judged by BLP standards. It is so at present as well. Overagainst, at some point, you have to take no for an answer and not continue the arguments that have gone on for the last three months.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw, that section is there to give the background. Readers are going to assume (as they should) that the facts presented are believed to be somehow relevant or significant for an encyclopedic article on the subject. We don't mention everything so there has to be selection. If something later happens with a bearing on the case it can be added. In the light of that it may be the older wording subtly over-emphasised certain facts. For example there were things about the background to George Edalji that appeared somewhat differently in the light of his subsequent behaviour. Fine as it may have been when it was written, when for all I know almost everyone thought Natalee died accidently, the material about drinking in the article Background section does go on a bit repetitively. I am proposing slightly less repetition about drinking, which I consider a very conservative modification.Overagainst (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The only meaningful change I have proposed is the removal of innuendo about her having been sexually promiscuous. A source for innuendo about Natalee is not a justification for putting it in the article. Wehwalt has not given any other justification, he said he does not remember any prior discussion of the innuendo. I did nothing on this page between 28 July and 1 Nov. I only just mentioned removing the innuendo yesterday, and I am not the only person objecting to it.Overagainst (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask you this, Overagainst. If we can find common ground on this, and a version of this passage satisfactory to all, will you consent to the closing of the FAR and agree that the article generally is fair?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, at this point I must say no to your deal. My understanding is that a featured article has to meet WP:FA?. I don't think the article anywhere near those standards. With this proposed second removal (I did not do the first one) the article as a whole would still be seriously flawed even by non FA standards, in my opinion. The FAR is at quite an early stage. Of course, I would change my mind if we could improve the article in a major way.Overagainst (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

By adding SYNTH, conjecture and POV? So far, that's what I'm hearing. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw, I have proposed taking something out I consider highly inappropriate, not adding anything. So far one thing has been removed and not by me, and nothing has been added. I think you are the only one still actively opposing a name change which is in line with WP:BIO1E. Overagainst (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

1) Aren't you still wanting to add the bit about Van der Sloot's Peru conviction to the lead and make a big deal out of it? Or did you drop that stick somewhere along the way? As for the rest, 2) I don't read the bald statement of facts in this article as implying what others seem to think it's implying about promiscuity or whatever; if I did, I'd have issues with it, but I don't read it that way. 3) on the rename, it's mean-spirited and stupid, but I don't have the energy to go and reform all of BIO1E, even though it seems that most male perpetrators get their own articles, while female, gay, or child victims are non-notable. So on that, I GAF, but haven't the energy to fight that mob of idiocy. They win, the victims lose, again. It's bull, but I haven't the energy to engage in that battle at the level I'd need to to have a shot at winning. So that's someone else's war. Montanabw^(talk) 00:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

At any event, the move is made. I cleaned up the lede paragraph so it isn't a bio, but those who sought the move should clean up the links on this site that are not transcluded that list this article, check the redirects elsewhere, and modify the fair use rationales.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(1) No. I think have I already said I blundered badly I arguing for that. I stopped arguing for that by the end of the discussion in July. But it is good tactics to hold me to the fire with it and constantly bring it up. If anything I think the names of suspects never convicted of anything in relation to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway should not be in the article at all. That applies to the brothers names, and to Joran van der Sloot. I don't think anything should be added about any of them.

((2)Well I'm listening, you convinced me over (1) so let's discuss.

(3) That was not my doing. I just thought it seemed reasonable. You have a good point about perps. Overagainst (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Overagainst, the difficulty is, we're not as certain as you are what your position is, you say much and it isn't always clear which arguments you've made before are still valid. Can you let us know your present position? It would be very helpful when I go to work on the article, which I am hoping to do Saturday, but it might be Sunday and implement the things Nikki suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the names of suspects merely arrested (like those security guards being slandered) and never convicted of anything in relation to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway should not be in the article at all. That applies to the brothers names, and maybe to Joran van der Sloot. I don't think anything should be added about any of them.. If you require further explication it be should be a new section, as we are talking here about new text to replace what I think is inappropriate innuendo about sexually promiscuity in the 'Disappearance' section.

Nikkimaria told you go ahead and take time to look at sources, do so all means. He did not suggest you 'implement' anything beyond that. Of course, if you want to alter the article in the next few days you can propose and discuss text here on the talk page like I am doing with my proposed changes right now.Overagainst (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate weight for room-swapping, drinking etc.

Montanabw, I had my doubts about the title, but I was not the one who broached the issue, because I thought a trio of admins would have the inside track on something as basic as a title. There seems to have been a WP policy shift away from giving people notable through known or suspected crime (be they victims or perpetrators) an article with their name as the title, and I am aware of a number of similar title changes to conform with this. I have already already given my argument for the title change. As for the point that a human being is reduced to an object by not getting a bio article title; of course no article can claim to represent a person in the plenitude of their individuality (for good or ill), especially when they are victims in events that by their tragic nature make people seem better than they are. As I already said, I don't think the job of an article is to try and overcome the halo effect of tragedy, by inserting a compensatory slanted tone in an attempt to give the reader a totally objective picture of what the person was or is really like. That, it seems to me, was what was going on. I am aware some including Mark Arsten at the FA say the article is perfectly fair to Beth and Natalee, but I have to disagree. I thought (and still think) it in clear contravention of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. That is why, despite being crushed on the Talk page by three very experienced editors, I initiated the FAR; I was confident some things the article contained about Natalee Holloway and her mother, (both of whom were living people by BLP criteria when the article got the gold star) were wrongheaded. And on Talk there were some things that were just vile, the sort of thing I could imagine Silas Jayne saying. Overagainst (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. But what is said on talk, especially in an offhand manner, is not the same as what is said on the article page. What you are saying is that the room switching/drinking thing is discreditable and should be kept out. Well, it isn't. No one thinks badly of the kids for celebrating a graduation. Some questioned the parents' decision to send them to Aruba to do so, but no laws were broken and the parental point of view that it is safer for kids to party where there is no ready access to high speed cars and fast highways, is certainly valid, and for the most part, the coverage back then did not fault the parents (I mean of all the kids). And the question of what the kids were doing that led up to Natalee's disappearance is relevant. If she had been holding an all-night vigil in the church and Joran offered her a ride home after morning services, we would have printed that of course. The kids drank, had sex, and partied fairly strenuously, and more power to them. As it happened it worked out tragically, but the parents were well-intentioned. You see only the text you do not like and do not see all the hard work, careful choices, all well-intentioned on our part, that got us there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No Wehwalt, it is the same. WP:ALIVE "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Unfortunately for me, what seems to be a very influential editor who gave the article a thumbs up at the FAR and made no comment on your 'offhand' talk (which I mentioned) doesn't take it very seriously, but is very down on talk page 'drama'. Someone who came here and did a lot of great work, was taken down hard when he was sharp with another editor (you). And he has said he does not want any further changes, so you have won again.

While I'm sure you were "well-intentioned", WP:AVOIDVICTIM says "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization".

Like most of my objections I don't object to a mention of facts, but I do to failure to condense for an encyclopedic account. Trying to include every detail advanced in support of what now is a none-too-popular hypothesis can lead to problems, even though the material is well-sourced. Don't take my word for it, see WP:AVOIDVICTIM. "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." Now, as I say in the section below, I do not see much problem to it being mentioned that there was a lot of drinking during the vacation in the party she was with. It should be mentioned she had been drinking in a nightclub to the extent she was inebriated when she left with van Der Sloot. I don't see the relevance of all that emphasis on what she in particular had been drinking in the previous week. It might have merited inclusion at one time, to give the background to what was then a favoured theory of the Aruban investigators, but not now (and it's doing no favours for Aruba to keep it in unchanged, believe me).

The only relevance of the reference to sexual promiscuity, that is the quote alleging "lots of room-switching every night" in general, might have been to imply that Natalee would willingly have had sex with any or perhaps all of the the trio, so they had no motive to get violent and harm her: she would have given them what they wanted. Whatever one might have thought about the relevance of Dompig's very general characterisation of the group's behaviour, or the propriety of quoting it in 2006, it was not specifically about Natalee. I think was an untoward insinuation about what I believe was until 2012 a person presumed to be living. Even through BLP no longer applies to Natalee that insinuation is now even more tangential than ever, since it was said by Dompig while advancing the idea that "we are not talking about killers here". Which is still possible, but I don't think anyone knows that. So, it is a wildly speculative insinuation, and more than a little bit creepy in my opinion. I don't see it now meriting inclusion on any grounds whatever.Overagainst (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ALIVE"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

'Two of Holloway's classmates', young women, are named in the article. Why? In view of the fact that those two women must be presumed to be living, there can be no question that naming them as members of a group that the article has in the previous sentence quoted a police chief as saying were engaged in lots of sexual promiscuity is a BLP violation.Overagainst (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Focusing on the perceived sexual promiscuity of a female victim of violent crime is repugnant, for reasons that I would hope are obvious. (I'm a little surprised that Montanabw, who's capable of seeing misogyny and objectification in Wikipedia's innocuous titling conventions, hasn't brought up this up much more concrete example). Like Overagainst, I think the material lacks direct relevance, is overly sensationalistic, and has a distinctly repellent "she-was-asking-for-it" undertone. (To be clear, I don't think any editor intended to convey anything like that. It's just how the final product reads to me, as someone who's looking at the article primarily as a reader). MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, I've just gotten so tired of Overagainst's endless slanders and drivel that I no longer care to comment on it point by point, it's a DFTT situation. At this point, OA has no credibility with me for much of anything and I skim lightly. I am not thrilled with some aspects of the article, but the debate has now become so tendentious and wide-ranging that I am rapidly approaching DGAF territory. Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am not aware that Natalee Holloway was the victim of violent crime. Do you have evidence of that? Yes, I agree, I would consider discussion of teenage drinking and the rest of it best avoided if possible. But it is not possible here, because it is relevant because it is what a person who disappeared was doing in the hours and days before her disappearance. The media focused on it for months, far less respectfully and in far greater detail than we do. A significant theory says that Natalee died by misadventure fueled by alcohol. Dompig apparently believed it based on the evidence they had, and the Vanity Fair article concludes with a scenario whereby a drunken Natalee, left by Joran on the beach, goes into the warm water and drifts beyond her ability to return to shore, and as I understand it based on the discussion of currents while the case was active, the current runs west from there to Panama, which given the warm waters and plentiful sea life, the body would soon be beyond identification.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize we were in court here. Fine. It's repugnant to focus on the perceived sexual promiscuity of a dead teenager who was quite possibly the victim of a violent crime. Is that better?

We're not required to follow the media's focus slavishly, nor to echo particularly sensationalistic aspects of its coverage in our BLP-sensitive content. Worse, in this case, we're actually being more sensationalistic than Vanity Fair (the source of the quote). In VF, the quote from Dompig is tucked away near the end of a long-form piece. In our article, the quotation constitutes about 1/3 of our entire "Disappearance" section. We seem to be going out of our way to call attention to these details in a way that's distasteful and not consistent with the emphases of the cited source. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is tucked away in a long-form article here as well. The VF article discusses far more than the disappearance, so your comparison is very questionable: you focus on its placement within a subdivision of the Wiki article, while not subdividing the VF article. Would you like apples or oranges with that, we have both for you to compare—oh, you've helped yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Are we VF? The relevance of the implication of sexual promiscuity (that the article currently contains) to her drowning is...what?.Overagainst (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

How are the activities of Natalee and her classmates prior to her disappearance not relevant?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So far your only argument for retention of innuendo about Natalee being sexually promiscuous is she may have drowned accidentally. Have you a source for some suggestion she somehow drowned because she had been having casual sexual encounters?Overagainst (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As Natalee's fate is unknown, what is and is not relevant is to a certain extent speculative. Wikipedia, fortunately, need not make that judgment. We simply went by what the secondary sources that covered the case did. Multiple sources reported on the graduates' behavior.

I would ask you to consider this: These passages were reviewed multiple times, and accepted, despite the fact that, as Overagainst has pointed out, that BLP was applicable to the article at the time. I do not think that specific passage was ever questioned, but the archives are open to those who want to make certain.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What happened to her is not at issue here, because I am asking how the innuendo that Natalee was sexually promiscuous could be relevant to any cause of her death? Accidental or otherwise.Overagainst (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, if you have a justification for having this article about the disappearance of a young woman continuing to contain innuendo about her having been sexually promiscuous, beyond the innuendo having appeared in print, please tell me.Overagainst (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say she was sexually promiscuous? No one says that she, personally, room switched, and the evidence was, she did not. The behavior is clearly attributed to the students in general. And yes, it is relevant what the kids as a group did, because they did what they were supposed to do and partied. Whether that led to her fate or not is not for me to say, and if you give the reader less information, he will have a less informed viewpoint at the end of the day. Holloway was an adult and free to be sexually promiscuous if she deemed it appropriate, anyway. From what I recall, of her three roommates, one did not show up because she wound up staying at a condominium, one room switched, and one did not.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And that's the point. We are neither a tabloid or PR for the grieving family, we state what occurred, the reader may draw their own conclusions. That is what NPOV is all about. We don't spin the facts to our comfort level. We state what is known, we state the major theories advanced by respected sources, and we avoid conjecture. It is not misogyny to state that a bunch of kids, off the leash and inadequately supervised, engaged in irresponsible behavior. Correlations are to be noted, they do not imply causation. Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Where does it say she was sexually promiscuous?" Nowhere, that is why it is an innuendo. Innuendo is conjecture.Overagainst (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As Natalee was not married, and was an adult at the time of her disappearance, she was entitled to have sex with anyone else similarly free. Her business, and I don't understand why it's such a hangup. She's allowed to have sex. Is this a matter where we can balance it with the mother's stated belief that she was a virgin?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be none of of anyone's business, even if there was any good reason to think she was having sex. Or even actual reliable sources for that. It was certainly no business of anyone's to put what most people would take to be heavy hints about sexual promiscuity in the article, as it is irrelevant sleazy innuendo about her character. While you and Montanabw don't understand why imputations of sexual promiscuity are discreditable, you can't deny they are discreditable. WP:BALASPS "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wildly speculative insinuation about sexual promiscuity (something that is widely thought to be discreditable) has no relevance to the article.

No, there is no case for 'balance'. Once the innuendo is removed there will be no problem with the prurient and speculative intrusion into irrelevant aspects of a deceased teenage girl's life, whereby there will be nothing for "us to balance" (what should not be there) by adding similarly irrelevant material. I would like to hear what some other people apart from Wehwalt and Montanabw think now.Overagainst (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly we could get rid of the room switching by rendering what Dompig had to say mostly as prose. However, we can't redact what Natalee did, i.e. drinking, because that is directly relevant to what happened to her.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. The bit about drinking is rather repetitive though, it could surely be condensed. Overagainst (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What is ref 165 needed for?, Scrux?

"that cite is needed to support facts in articles. No consensus to remove external links"

I don't see anything in ref 165 except the information that got removed as gossip. By 'articles' do you mean ones other than this one, if so which?.

Scrux appears to be an obscure website on the Holloway case that is selling a self pubished book. You may not know this, but self-published books can not be used as references, or for anything else on Wikipedia. There should bever have been an external link to that site. Take those two links to Scrux off right now please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 November 2013‎

There are different standards for references in articles and from external links.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference please! Cite me Wikipedia guidance where it says you can link to the dedicated home website for a self published book about living people. There are all sorts of interviews and things on that same site too, and you have linked to a video. God only knows what is on it. Just take those 2 external links off.Overagainst (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

please answer my question about ref 165.Overagainst (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. The Scrux links are permitted per WP:EL.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Scrux says "In order to present the whole picture, we also have a Sam Redman essay section entitled "Unsubstantiated Information." This is for rumors, possible witnesses or information, not yet in evidence, but theorized by some as having a possiblity of becoming evidence". Yikes!

WP:LINKSTOAVOID "4. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

"5.Individual web pages[6] that primarily exist to sell products or services

"11.Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority".

Remove both those external links ASAP please.Overagainst (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. All of the matters you cite are not applicable to this website. It is a valid and valuable resource, which has collected many of the items in this case.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK we disagree, do you have an objection to me asking for an opinion at BLP noticeboard?Overagainst (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is not a BLP, and the first site for dispute resolution on any article is its talk page. So yes, it is not proper, and in my view would be forum shopping. You've been batting at this a couple of hours. Generally speaking, Wikipedia discussion allow time for people to comment, keeping in mind that not everyone is on the same schedule. So you've made your case and the thing to do is wait and allow others to reply.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK I will do what you say is the thing to do. You've re-stated that there is no problem with those 2 external links which you have restored, and they should stay on. I am keen to hear anyone else's opinion, or 'reply' as you put it. Overagainst (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This article has major BLP implications even though its primary subject is presumed deceased. It would be entirely appropriate to present this question at the BLP noticeboard. That said, I think we can resolve this on the talkpage, since the Scrux link is clearly inappropriate in my view per WP:EL. The site fails multiple criteria; it presents unverifiable research, and it appears to be essentially a personal website. I do not see any way in which this link is a creditable addition to a serious reference work, nor how it adds anything of encyclopedic value to the existing coverage. And that's leaving aside the obvious BLP implications. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

By that argument, anything can be characterized that way. The article talk page is always the first place to discuss, that is where it should be. Discussion by provoking a deletion and a warning that reversion violates BLP is not appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the Scrux external links; you reverted; I went to talk; we disagreed. Opinion is now 2 against you. (I have taken the liberty of indenting your comment so everyone can see who is who) Overagainst (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm very concerned by the spectacle of Wehwalt reverting 3 times, against 3 separate editors, to put the scrux.com link back into the article. This is absolutely not the way to handle a suspected BLP violation. I'm not willing to edit-war, but I've raised the issue at WP:AN/I. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• I noticed this discussion at ANI. I also notice that the external link was not to the main website www.scrux.com but rather to the sub-page http://www.scrux.com/natalee/deepakskeetersvideo.htm Generally speaking, if we assume that some other parts of scrux.com might not be suitable for an external link, does that mean that every part of scrux.com is unsuitable?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Before all of this hot air, I was going to propose leaving the link to the Deepak interview and deleting the other.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: There were actually two links to scrux.com at issue. (Having two links to pages on the same website is itself a problem—see WP:ELPOINTS—but a minor one compared to the BLP issue). I'm not comfortable with the idea of okaying specific individual pages from a website which is clearly not an appropriate source or external link per WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly clarify matters if you would say whether you think there's a BLP problem with each of the two links considered in isolation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a BLP problem with linking to a personal, amateur website which contains, among other things, a repository of "unsubstantiated information" about the case. Pages from a website like that should not be cited as sources, and should not be linked as ELs. Besides violating BLP, the site fails at least 2 criteria from WP:ELNO (it's a personal webpage, and it contains unverifiable claims). MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You're probably correct that both of the two links fail WP:ELNO, but that doesn't necessarily mean they both violate WP:BLP, especially since the subject of the article was declared dead in 2012. To the extent you're relying on WP:BLP to justify your own actions, I would think that much more specificity would be needed, both as to the material in each of the two links, plus the particular parts of the BLP policy. But perhaps the matter is pretty much moot now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP conceivably applies to someone declared dead in 2012, per WP:BDP. But more broadly, this article has very profound implications and potential for harm for a number of living people, including the deceased teenager's parents/family and people who may be portrayed as involved in her disappearance. I think that we agree the site likely fails WP:ELNO. If it fails that (relatively loose) guideline, it can't possibly be appropriate in a setting with BLP implications, where our criteria are much stricter. MastCell ^Talk 00:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, it's moot. But if it weren't, then it could do no harm to point to a specific part of the BLP policy, to specific living people, and to specific content in each of the two links. A personal website can fail WP:ELNO and yet still be no more offensive than a Brahms lullaby. Anyway, take the last word if you like, I haven't got anything else to say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the FAR was put on hold so issues could be pursued with the relevant noticeboards and here on talk, I have updated the BLPN thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboards

I did not request or agree to any or all of a raft of issues I had raised at the FAR now being taken to noticeboards. Nor did I agree to noticeboards, as a matter of course, being updated on discussions here or asked to rule on them. If anyone wishes to raise any issue brought up by me anywhere on their own account at a noticeboard, to agree or disagree with me, then do so by all means. I don't mind being quoted on a noticeboard by people who are disagreeing with me, but if you do that please make it clear that I am not the one taking their argument to that noticeboard, you are.Overagainst (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

With the FAR on hold for three months, I would like to propose that that we (probably in practice me) be given some of that time to work on the article without the constant discussion. Once I was done, there would be the opportunity for comment and so forth. But give me some time to work on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with you working on improvements to the article without any interruption. Take as long as you like. When you have got the text of a section the way you want it, post the text you propose here on the talk page for the article, complete with links to the sources if possible. Anyone interested can look at it, and they might be able to make some helpful suggestions. Once it has consensus, your work can be added to the article.Overagainst (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt I had a re-think. OK, I agree to your proposal.Overagainst (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Article issues?

Recent changes would affect this article's status as Featured. Looking at the edit history, the FA review must be initiated as soon as possible. --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)