Jump to content

Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Thai sex ring...

"Suspect in Holloway Case Allegedly Caught Arranging for Sex Workers". ABC News. 2008-11-10. Retrieved 2008-11-11.

It doesn't look like there's anything particularly relevant to this article, but Joran seems to be in the spotlight again. Might bring some increased traffic here, though. - auburnpilot talk 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been following this rather sordid offshoot of the story. This is not an article on Joran, we've agreed he doesn't pass notability (yet). This is too far removed from NH to cover. We covered the Patrick saga because it had to do with Natalee's vanishing (allegedly). This is irrelevant to that. I say this because we may get drive by editors in the next few weeks over this.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

More of an argument to give him his own article than to add material to this one, but it doesn't look like we should do either to me.—Kww(talk) 00:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
According to this tool, traffic to this article spiked yesterday. I guess we should watch out for unhelpful edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


This guy Joran is being hunted in Thailand currently for the murder. He admitted on camcera that he did it. I don't see how on earth you can say he doesn't 'pass notability' or that he shouldn't have his own article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DegenFarang (talk • contribs) 07:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Being hunted in Thailand for what murder?—Kww(talk) 11:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

New evidence

Supposedly a woman has come forward claiming Joran confessed to her quite some time ago. I figure this should be mentioned somewhere, since it's the only thing to happen in quite some time, but I'm not exactly sure where to stick it. - auburnpilot talk 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd give the story a couple more days to bake. I can't find any coverage in the local press. If you feel that you have to put it in now, a couple of sentences at the end of De Vries footage and "confession" is where it should go.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kww. I would hold off for a bit, but we will have to say something. CNN is the best article I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is something tonight on Greta which creates a MAJOR splash, I don't think there is anything to add to the article, notwithstanding my prior comment. Mos's office has said "no new developments" basically. I think we continue to sit back and wait to see if Mos will prosecute or close the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to catch Greta's supposedly damning evidence she intends to reveal tonight, as I'm traveling for the Thanksgiving holiday, but I agree we should hold back for now. If something major happens, there's plenty of time to properly add it to the article. - auburnpilot's sock 02:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I won't summarize here, but it is another story by Joran wildly inconsistent with each of the others he has told, he sold Natalee into white slavery. I've reverted an unsourced add of material relating to it, and propose to continue to do so. If there is third party reaction, especially something official from Mos, then I would suggest reassessing then, but for right now, I see no point in adding anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
As usual, I like to let things ripen a few days, but this should get added. One way or the other, the existence of yet another version of that night needs to be mentioned.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I simply suggested keeping it out until we have good reliable sources, and an accurate account of what was said.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As events are running away with us, and I don't feel like having to revert good faith, but crude edits, I have put the info in. The sources really aren't there yet, I imagine we will wind up expanding to cover the allegation about Paulus and the cops, once we have better refs.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

coupla things

The International Safe Travels Foundation site seems to be dead. I guess they weren't careful while traveling. I've made a slight rephrase of the info in the article so that it is unclear if the entity still exists, but we have a dead link to deal with. Thoughts?

Also, there's a red message uppage under the WikiProject Alabama banner, something about a default sort key being overridden.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I added an Internet Archive link for the dead ISTF reference, so that's taken care of. I'm not sure about the default sort key issue. As far as I can tell, the one given in the WikiProject banner matches the one given on the article's {{DEFAULTSORT}}. - auburnpilot's sock 16:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there someplace we can get help with that?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Slant

I realize there will be little change in this page and recent developments aren't likely to be included, but additions and edit summaries like this continue the concern about the direction this article slants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, you yourself passed this article for FA and that includes a requirement of NPOV. This article has changed little since then. The edit you complain of is the woman's own words, not dissimilar to other statements she has made, but it provides readers with the most current information. Since both Joran and Beth insist on opening their traps and making fools of themselves (though they are not alone in that department), we will continue to cover their notable statements. We will almost certainly cover Joran's white slavery statement once Greta gets done with her programs and there are sufficent RS. I saw one from Radio Netherlands this afternoon but don't want to use it as it contains factual errors and there will be other RSs. If you insist on cursing the darkness, such as it is, I will say to you this:
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Sturman's edits

I reverted several good faith edits by Sturman, which sought to greatly expand the material on the On the Record interview and place it into its own section. I did so for several reasons. First, there has been little third party media coverage of the OtR interview, and beyond mentioning the interview, we can't give it as much play as the DeVries interview, which got extensive coverage. Second, much of the material added was speculative, and to the extent it was sourced, was sourced to viewer responses to a blog, which certainly does not qualify under WP:RS. Lastly, it was rather POV in that it set out to show that it was not Paulus's voice on the chips, which we have no actual way of knowing. There is also WP:SYNTH problems. If WP:RS choose to further cover the matter after the weekend, then I can see adding more. For now, not.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I improved the section by making it much shorter and by citing a newspaper source rather than a blog. If you think it is necessary I will give more newspaper sources. Leaving this part out is rather NPOV because this whole Van Susteren story is bad journalism, as they just did not check the story and tape out well enough. I think you should either take that whole section out, or if you do mention the show it has to be countered by the testimony of prosecutor Hans Mos and others that the tape (and thereby the whole story) is a fake. Sturman (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is bad journalism, and apparently they sat on it for four months, leading me to believe they knew it wasn't true, since four months is probably rather a long time if you are being held in white slavery. However, until a RS says that kinda thing, we can't. I've taken your word for it that the Dutch says what it says, and no doubt Kww will let us know if it isn't the case. I've also shortened it considerably, for example Mos needs no introduction to the reader of this article by this point. Please let us know if there are further developments in the Dutch press that are not covered in the US, but I'd hate to see this section grow much more.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The translation isn't incorrect, but isn't necessarily the part I would have chosen. The Telegraaf says it's Joran faking a low voice, but Mos ties it down to the pronunciation of the "g" sound. I would go with the Mos quote, but I'm not sure the average reader would understand why that's important. A Dutch "g" is a strange gutteral sound, and varies from speaker to speaker. It is kind of a tell-tale for background and region. Most importantly, Mos is not quoted as saying it's Joran, just that it's not Paul. The Telegraaf does unequivocally state that it's Joran.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I would avoid the whole g thing, but certainly if it is Mos talking, not the Telegraaf itself, then we should say so. Kww, as you've read the thing, you should probably make any necessary edit. We don't have to give reasons, the interested reader can get the article and at least use Google translate. Summary style and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Then I'll leave it alone. Avoiding the whole g thing means avoiding Mos's quote and going with De Telegraaf's statement, which is what is currently in the article.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive, redux

AuburnPilot, when you get back, do you think you could archive? I'd suggest current threads 1-16. Of course, if there is opposition to archiving, we should talk about it, but all of those threads are dead now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Will do. I'll have my hands on an actual computer sometime this afternoon, and will take a look at the archive situation. - auburnpilot's sock 17:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. I've archived all threads that lacked comments within the last month. Archive 4 is now 264kb, just over the typical 250kb, so the next bunch should start a new subpage. - auburnpilot talk 06:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
My blackberry thanks you.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ax the reward?

It strikes me that we should ax the reward section and perhaps insert a sentence into the chronology sections, perhaps in July 2005 which in a sentence or perhaps two, says what the reward is. The reward section is rather short and we should probably integrate it into the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a big issue with me either way.—Kww(talk) 14:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

I was thinking about putting together a {{FAQ}} to place at the top of the page. Traffic has been slower recently, but having the usual questions already answered could be beneficial for people not familiar with Wikipedia practices (and those who are, but have a different opinion). In my mind, the FAQ would cover topics like:

  • "Why do you mention that Joran is an honor student? He's scum!"
  • Wikipedia's policies require that articles are written from a neutral perspective. This doesn't mean... (this is boilerplate/actual wording will differ)
  • Explain reasoning for current title, link to previous discussions
  • Natalee has an article. Shouldn't Joran, Deepak, and Satish?
  • Explain why other articles redirect here, link to previous discussions
  • Why are you attacking Natalee and her mother? Their behavior isn't relevant. / Why doesn't this article cover all the horrible things the students did?
Again, explain.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Is it even worth doing? - auburnpilot talk 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. If you want to do it, I'll help, but what we seem to get are people intent on imposing their POV. My question would be, is it worth it when it takes relatively little effort to revert them, and the FAQ will take time.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Body found, according to twitter reports

@BreakingNewsON reports (http://twitter.com/BreakingNewsOn/status/1362272586) that her body may have been found. This is not yet confirmed, so I did not edit the main page yet. — Eric Herboso 20:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and appreciate it. If someone a little more authoritative than twitter reports it, we can discuss including it. I can see we're going to have a fun time. As I understand it, it is that someone aboard a flight to Aruba says another passenger told him he was bringing in a cadaver dog because Aruba authorities supposedly have found the body, which makes me wonder why they need the cadaver dog. Nowhere near solid yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Confession Added

Added the confession from here, but can't cite properly...sorry :(

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35533792/ns/world_news-americas/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.108.154 (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


Lifetime Original Movie.

So I can't sleep and therefore am watching 1:00am Will & Grace reruns when I see a promotion for the Natalie Holloway Lifetime Original Movie. I'm speechless at just how fucking retarded this is. Anyhow, let's add something about it to improve the article cuz it's notable and, IMHO, wikipedia are srz bzniz. 96.237.59.92 (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is in the Twitty section already, has been for some months. Thanks for the thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It is starting to be reviewed, not very favorably. We should check the article after Sunday for tenses and the like. No word yet on the wrapup of the pond search. No doubt Aruba is very nice this time of year.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There was never any local coverage at all for the pond search.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I suspect we should expect a small surge of unhelpful edits and other fun stuff over the next few days. Apparently the movie is so bad they didn't send out any screeners. One seen has Beth falling to the ground and sobbing at an improvised cross on the beach, as the camera soars away. How touching.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't able to catch it, as the Holiday Inn doesn't get the Lifetime Movie Network (coincidence? ;-)). I'm sure it'll rerun eventually, but I'm not expecting much. --auburnpilot talk 01:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirection

why does "Joran van der Sloot" redirect here? It makes no sense. Mijzelffan (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the inquiry. Repeated discussions on this talk page (you might want to check the archives) and on the Joran talk page led to consensus that he was not notable independent of the Natalee matter, and that a Joran article would be, in many ways, a duplicate of this. The same went, even more so, for Deepak and Satish. Accordingly, those three names redirect here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Movie coverage

A television movie, called "Natalee Holloway, The Real Story", based in part on Beth Twitty's book, was made by LMN (formerly the Lifetime Movie Network).[1] The movie, starring Tracy Pollan as Beth Holloway, Grant Show as George "Jug" Twitty and Amy Gumenick as Natalee Holloway, premiered April 19, 2009.[2]

I'm thinking of moving the above text from the Beth Twitty's involvement section and placing it in the Media coverage section (possibly as a subheader if sufficiently fleshed out). While the movie is partly based on Beth's book, it doesn't feel right to me in the BTi section. Thoughts? Possible points of coverage: production (any commentary from those involved?), movie's reception, ratings, family reaction (anything?). --auburnpilot talk 21:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking. It still needs to be copy edited, de-comma'd, and generally reworded, but it's a basis for the direction I think we should go. --auburnpilot talk 22:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. You should probably update the redirect at the movie article to point directly at the section after you include it.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. When you insert it, I'll make any necessary copyedits.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Done and done. I reworded the second to last sentence to avoid the unspecified critics (can't find any reliable reviews other than Harvey's) and left in a sentence about the film next to the first mention of Beth's book. --auburnpilot talk 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Move section

The recent move of the Lifetime movie section doesn't make sense to me. I admittedly haven't seen the movie, but my understanding from media coverage is that the movie doesn't really fit well as a subsection of the upper level title Criticism of the investigation. If we like it where it is now from a content standpoint, my suggestion would be to bump it up a header level so that it isn't under the Criticism umbrella. --auburnpilot talk 05:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason I moved it is that it is a poor way to end the article. I think the current end gives a sense of literary closure, while ending it with the Lifetime material does not. I have no objection to any solution that does not involve ending the article with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Title

As this isn't a bio page, I propose moving the page to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Fences&Windows 02:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the discussions (see especially those in Archive 4) which have turned down this move in the past? For the reasons stated there, by the way, I oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Many editors have independently said that the name should be changed and each time a small group of editors has opposed. Sometimes perennial proposals are made because they are correct. I won't insist, because I don't care enough to make a huge issue of it, but just saying that it's been rejected in the past doesn't really fairly characterise the previous discussions, in which over time probably a majority of editors has supported renaming. Fences&Windows 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I am familiar with the previous discussions and I still support the proposed move. --Dystopos (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, at the RfC, it was a rather large group of editors, and not just those who took this article to FA and TFA. The community was asked for its opinion, and a majority !voted against a move.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes perennial proposals are made because they are right, and sometimes they are made because they represent a widespread misunderstanding of relevant policies and guidelines. This is one of the latter cases. As nothing has changed since the last time, I'll responde pretty much the same way as I did last time. The controlling language is from WP:TITLE, which states Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Linking to the article is most easily done with the title of Natalee Holloway, and Natalee Holloway is the most easily recognized name for the article. There is a minimum of ambiguity in this title as well: very few people would be of the opinion that an article on Natalee Holloway would focus on her high-school grades or social work. She is known for triggering a media sensation by disappearing, and nothing else.
This article does contain all the information that Wikipedia should present on the topic of "Natalee Holloway". It is prevented from expanding into biographical information by WP:BLP1E, so it's very difficult to foresee a circumstance where the name of this article could present any confusion. In the event that something unexpected happens that would permit the expansion of Wikipedia's presentation of "Natalee Holloway", the article could be split at that time. When there is something to talk about in the context of "Natalee Holloway" aside from the investigation of her disappearance, that is the time for moving this article.
People frequently use WP:BLP1E as a justification for a title change, which I will reproduce here in its entirety:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.

This article follows this policy — it focuses on the event, not the person. Information about things that had an impact on the event or on the aftermath of the event (and yes, that includes divorces and renaming of key players) is included in the article, and information about things which did not is excluded. This is an article about an event, and the simplest and most reasonable title for that event is Natalee Holloway. Nothing in BLP1E dictates a title, and anyone that uses it as a reason is reasoning from a false premise.
Further, the title "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway" isn't that much better. This article primarily focuses on the investigation of the disappearance and the resulting media sensation. The disappearance itself occupies only a paragraph or so. That's the nature of a mysterious disappearance — they aren't witnessed by anyone willing to discuss them, so there are no reliable sources discussing them. If we had to rename this article with the idea that it was somehow mandatory for a title to explicitly describe the aspect of the subject described in the article, it would be "Investigation into the disappearance of Natalee Holloway and the subsequent media coverage".—Kww(talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just came on this

Is it worth adding? Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit bizarre. I have no objection to adding it, but I'm not sure where it would go. My inclination is to wait a bit and see what, if anything, it leads to.—Kww(talk) 13:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Death of Paul van der Sloot

According to, among others, this source [1], Paul van der Sloot died after a heartattack during a game of tennis. Worth adding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.189.117 (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to add it. Paul was certainly a player in this case, but not so major that details of his biography are critical.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with adding something like "Paulus van der Sloot died in February 2010." The whole thing about "the case getting harder to solve" is POV and ridiculous. Paul was no longer a suspect and it is speculative to assume he had knowledge.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Confession?

This just in: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/23/joran-van-der-sloot-confession-natalee-holloway_n_472617.html also http://wireupdate.com/wires/1938/report-suspect-in-natalee-holloway-case-confesses-2/ (gives database error most times, keep refreshing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.254.153 (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, we've now inserted it into the article in a neutral way. I hope Joran is enjoying himself, or at least making much cash, he needs to send some this way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It just won't die

Sigh. Here we go again. And we're up to 7,700 hits again yesterday, and I'm sure the stats for today will be even higher.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if we should add anything to the lede? If we did, I would suggest modifying the structure slightly, but I would leave things be unless we get a lot of people who can't find the new "information" and insist on addin it themselves.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd say what's in the article right now is adequate. After all, this isn't a new development but merely new light on an old interview. --auburnpilot talk 04:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not important enough for the lead. I don't think we'll have too much trouble with people forcing it into the lead.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Get ready

A vacationing couple from Pennsylvania see what they think is a skeleton in one of their dive photos and have a "gut feeling" it's Holloway's. Looks like a rock to me. (story) --Dystopos (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Skeleton overlay-animate.gif.

Right, definitely a rock. Pareidolia. There are a lot of rocks that look like half buried bodies bound and gagged. Why did these people even bother to call the police. Obviously a scam. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Link to the image of an overlay of a skeleton over the photo for when it inevitably get's deleted in half an hour: http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1105/skeletonoverlayanimate.gif. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The underlying image is copyrighted. That's why.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know photos could be copyrighted. Thank you for explaining this, good citizen. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if you take a photo, you have the copyright. Much of the work that goes on around WP deals with how to deal with images. AuburnPilot and myself are both admins, who are very familiar with image policy, and Kww, though not an admin (hoping that will change soon) is also very familiar with image policy. We have been working on this article for four years and are careful to avoid POV and keep it in good condition. Thanks for your suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted some information as unsourced, but checked around: trust Fox News to publish incredible crap as if it were real news. Regardless, unless this grows legs, I don't think it belongs here. Even if the blurry lump is a skeleton, that's a long way from establishing it's Holloway. I'm not sure any mention belongs in the article at all.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it. Nine day wonder.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming pretty big news. Not just Fox News. The bias of those that watch over this place is mind-boggling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randallrendall (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  • "big news" isn't the same thing as having a fact to talk about in an encyclopedia article. So far the "big news" is just speculation. If they find something pertinent, then we can discuss how the evidence was found and everything else. --Dystopos (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe add an invisible comment at the end of the article to the effect that we know about the situation and are choosing to wait? That way, someone who edits at the end will see it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Or an edit notice could be created. I agree with most of the above, in that we should wait before adding anything, but I suspect some mention (likely a mere sentence) will be required before it's over. After all, the argument for the existence of this article has always been the fact that the media has covered every aspect of the case to an extent like no other case. Nearly five years later, it's still in the news. --auburnpilot talk 14:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I've edited the language that was most recently inserted. I think the community has spoken, and I would rather not have us blocked for 3RR. Can someone clear up the referencing? Also, that is a dead link. I can't do it from this computer (I'm traveling, not in Aruba)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If this is nine day wonder, we'll cut it back to one sentence, such as "Further searches of the ocean occurred in April 2010 when an American tourist claimed to have seen human remains in a photograph taken while SCUBA diving, but searches revealed nothing." Do we want to say anything about Joran's latest story (fell from balcony, disposed of in swamp). As that has not gotten a tenth the publicity the Davy Jones' Locker shot has received, I suggest no.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I swapped the reference and formatted it using {{cite web}}. As you say, the other story (Joran's newest story) didn't receive much play so I think we're correct to leave it out. --auburnpilot talk 15:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. CNN reports the searches are over, found nothing, and it's another dry hole, in a manner of speaking. I've updated the article, feel free to alter of course. By the by, perhaps it is about time we did some archiving, say anything that hasn't had a post this year.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Aruba is 21 miles long. If the members of the police force in Aruba where able to thoroughly examine 4 miles of ocean around it for scant traces of the human remains of one person in a few days, it would truly be an astounding feat, especially considering that the guide could not be located and it is not know where the photos were taken. Also, in the CNN article used as a source, there were two authorities in forensic pathology questioned. One refuted the photo outright and the other stated that it could be remains, but that the location would have to be found so that the objects could actually be examined. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
They went to areas typically used by dive companies which take tourists off cruise ships. Of course they didn't search the whole offshore area! As for the other things you mention, keep in mind summary style. We've mentioned the major events. If the controversy over the lonely bones/rocks continues, we may add more. But it's a closed issue for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Auburn University stuff

I can't find anything that says this ever came to pass. Perhaps we could rephrase this to something like Beth indicated that she planned to do this. However, without a RS, we can't say it didn't happen, but we don't have to say it was going to happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean the "foremost guide to travel" stuff? I'd be willing to treat it as trivia.—Kww(talk) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Something New About Joran van der Sloot

He is suspected of murdering a young woman of 21 years old in Lima, Peru. Here some links: [2] [3] [4] [5]--190.41.133.216 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is time to reopen a vote on whether Joran deserves his own article. Now that he no longer qualifies under WP:ONEVENT he should have a page other than in the context of N.H. --166.20.224.12 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This might finally be time to treat Joran van der Sloot as a notable person in his own right, as opposed to simply redirecting to this article.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Though it's terribly sorry to see it come to this at the cost of another life [and due to slackness of the Dutch MoJ]. Qwrk (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he definitely should now have his own entry. I'm sure he'll be very proud.--Drvanthorp (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Being a suspect in two high-profile crimes does raise his notability somewhat. Obviously we need to be very careful as he has not been charged or convicted of either offence. Fences&Windows 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps his lede could identify him as "either a serial killer, or the unluckiest person in the world" ? Codenamemary (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"To be accused of one murder, Mr van der Sloot, may be regarded as a misfortune; to be accused twice looks like carelessness."(with apologies to Oscar Wilde). Fences&Windows 00:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
He is unquestionably notable now as his fame extends beyond the NH case. [BLP violation redacted - Neljack (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)] --Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another proposal to rename the article

I came upon this article today and was surprised to see it at its current name rather than Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, so I looked through the past discussions to figure out why it was at this name. I of course saw that it has been suggested that this be renamed several times, so I read the previous discussions. After reading them, it seems to me that the second AfD had a consensus to rename the article, and that there is also a consensus to rename the article if all the discussions are taken over time. I also didn't see any single discussion that had a consensus to keep the article at the current name. The request for comments seemed evenly split, while the first and third AfDs seemed rather indifferent to the issue of renaming, but with slightly more people between them being in favor of a rename vs. keeping the article at the current title. The other discussions in the talk page archives seemed to not reach a consensus individually, but again I don't think any of them had a consensus to keep the current name and that there is definitely a consensus to rename the article if the discussions are taken collectively. It also seemed to me that in a lot of the more recent discussions, the regular editors of the page would refer to the past discussions as if they had supported your position, but upon actually reading them I found that they supported the opposite position. I'm concerned that some of you (particularly User:Wehwalt), may be misremembering the past discussions out of wishful thinking that there was a consensus to keep the article at its current name. I would ask you to please objectively consider the consensus of the past discussions, which I think as a whole is to rename the article.

Also, while it may be futile at this late stage, I figured I might as well try to convince you (meaning Wehwalt, AuburnPilot, Kww, and anyone else in favor of the current name), that you have made a mistake and that the article should be renamed. The main argument that I see for renaming, and the reason I think the article should be renamed, is that the article really is about the disappearance of Natalie Halloway and subsequent search and media coverage it generated, not about her life. I think the majority of people who have discussed the issue of including more biographical information in the article, including most of those in favor of the current name, agree that the article shouldn't have more biographical information (per WP:VICTIM, and probably other policies and guidelines). I feel that a rename of the article, in addition to putting it at a title on what it is actually about, would also make it clear to people who may not be aware of the guidelines as to why the article doesn't and shouldn't have more biographical information.

The main arguement I saw given for the current name in the previous discussions was that people will expect to find this article at this name, and that most people searching for this article would search for it with this name. I disagree with that arguement both on its premise that people will expect the article at this name, and on the idea that we should title articles based on where people would expect to find them rather than on what they are about. I started looking through the past discussions on this subject specifically because this article was not located at the name I expected it at. In my opinion most people will expect this artilce to be at a title like Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, as most people will know that she was not notable other than for her disappearance. I think many people, upon seeing the article at the current title, would be confused (like I was) and wonder why someone would write an biographical article on Natalee Halloway as opposed to an article on her disappearance. Of course, upon reading the article, those people would realize that it is really the article they expected about the disappearance, and not a biography, but I think many people would still find the current title jarring. In fact, I would guess that is why there have been so many proposals to rename the article by different people, as different people keep finding the article and being surprised by the title. Regardless, even if I thought most people would expect the article to be at the current title, I would still think it should be renamed, as I simply think that encylopedia articles should be titled based on what they are about, not what someone was expecting to find. Particularly for an online encylopedia like this one, redirects can easily get people to where an article is actually located without much hassle, but even even in a print encylopedia I would think articles would be titled based on what they are actually about (with a note like "see <actual name>" from other titles they might look for).

Another arguement for the current name I saw in past discussions was that there are many articles on victims of crimes that are at similar names. I would say that many of those articles should be renamed as well. However, since this is a featured article, we should make sure that at least one at the appropriate name, as people will likely see this article far more often than many of those other articles. Also, some of the other articles that are named after people who disappeared or were murdered may have more reason to be named after the person in question than this one does. For example, I would say that Joseph Force Crater isn't really comparable to this article, as he held a public position which would have conferred some degree of notablity before his disappearance, and also because his name became widely used outside actual discussions of his disappearance.

Anyway, I'm sorry for the huge block of text I've posted here, but hopefully I've convinced someone that this article should be renamed. Calathan (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my previous arguments: "Natalee Holloway" is the simplest and most obvious title for this article, and the article contains all the material, and only that material, that would be expected in a Wikipedia article by that name. No one will come here looking for the summary of her experiences in high school and the 4H club: she's famous for one, and only one, thing. That's what people will expect to see discussed, and that's what's here. I can dig through the archives and recreate the argument out of policies and guidelines if you want.—Kww(talk) 23:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And just to be a little pointy: if you want a descriptive article title, it would be Controversy over the investigation into the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. There's precious little in the article about the disappearance itself: no one that saw it will discuss it.—Kww(talk) 23:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that no one will come here expecting biographical details of her, but I don't agree that this is the most obvious title for article. Also, I think that Disappearance of Natalee Holloway would best encapsulate what the article is about (her disappearance and the events that followed it), while using her name instead makes the artilce sound like a biography when it obviously isn't a biography. Calathan (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not the most obvious title. Natalee Holloway is nobody except for her disappearance. Nobody comes looking for Natalee Holloway, they come looking for the events surrounding her disappearance. Weakopedia (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
But they still search on her name... right?:).. the disappearance need a human to ever happened.. his happened to Natalee not someone else.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Cartainly, but the title of an article is not just a keyword representation of the most popular bits of the article. If you take away the disappearance, Holloway gets no article. The article shouold be named about what it is, not just given the lowest common denominator. Weakopedia (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to introduce some facts into the argument: last month, eight people searched for "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway", while 95,369 people looked for "Natalee Holloway". There's no way to interpret those statistics as thinking that users and readers expect the content to be titled "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway".
And, because I can see I'm going to have to get into alphabet soup here, WP:TITLE calls for the title to be:
  • Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.
  • "Natalee Holloway" certainly is used in reliable source.
  • Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).
  • 95,369 to 8 kind of settles that
  • Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
  • It's certainly precise enough: it's not ambiguous, and the content isn't surprising.
  • Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)
  • It's the most concise of our choices.
  • Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles.
  • It's consistent.
On a policy basis, it's a no brainer. There is no policy requiring titles to be completely descriptive of the content, only that it is recognizable, easy to find, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
While you do have a point that 8 page views in a month for the redirect is tiny, I think you are presenting your arguement in a deceptive way. You are presenting those page views as searches, when they aren't. Many of the page views for Natalee Holloway would be for people redirected from other titles, people following Wikilinks or links from other websites, people who are familiar with the page and know its current title, and other similar cases, so it is impossible to tell what exactly people are searching for. For example, I reached this page by searching for Joran van der Sloot, in order to see if it he had been given his own article due to being a suspect in a new murder (it was still a redirect at the time). Though you have a good point, you should let it stand on its own merits rather than presenting it in a way that bends the facts.
Anyway, about WP:TITLE, I think the two titles are equally recognizable, as anyone familiar with Natalee Halloway would know that she disappeared, and many reliable sources make reference to her disappearance. I also think they are equally consistent, in that there is no consistency to the names of articles of this sort. I would also say that they are equally precise, in that neither title specifies any information to differentiate this Natalee Halloway or Disappearance of Natalee Holloway from another one that we don't actually have an article on. I would agree with you that this title is the most easy to find, but I don't think that it is so much easier to find than another title like Disappearance of Natalee Holloway that that should be a major consideration in the naming decision (neither title is something that would seem completely out of place, though I personally was surprised by the current title). Finally, for being concise, I would argue that you are confusing conciseness with shortness, and that the longer title more accurately reflects the content in the article. Conciseness doesn't mean that we should pick the shortest title possible that can't be confused with another article, but that we should pick the shortest title possible that accurately represents the content of the artilce. So ovareall I would say that WP:TITLE doesn't significantly favor one title over another, and that instead the title should be based on Consensus. I believe that the previous discussions have shown an overall consensus for renaming the article, and that it should therefore be renamed. Calathan (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the 95,369 figure is cumulative, but so is the eight: no more than eight people searched for "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway" last month. No matter what percentage you use to allow for external links, the number that represents people searching for it is going to be a lot more than eight. Even if you assume that 99% of searches are external, that would still be 953 to eight: at 99.9%, it's 95 to eight. You'd have to assume that 99.95% of searches were external or redirected to get even a tie, and I submit that's ridiculous. You are really basing your argument on the accuracy of the description, and that is not a factor.—Kww(talk) 03:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • As the first post in this section is majorly tl;dr, I will simply say that I support maintaining the current title as I always have. Repeated discussions have always failed to find consensus for retitling this article and I continue to believe the present title is the best option. --auburnpilot talk 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I had to read through 5 pages of talk page archives, 3 AfDs, a FAC, and a FAR to find out what had previously been discussed on this topic. I don't think reading my comment would take that much time in comparison to that. But I will summarize: I think the second AfD had a consensus to rename this article, and all the different discussions taken cumulatively have a consensus to rename this artilce, while no individual discussion has had a consensus to keep the current name. Furthermore, I think it should be renamed because a different name would better express the content of the article. Calathan (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You read consensus differently than I do. Arguments are to be weighted according to their strength, and how well they correspond to policies and guidelines. To date, no one has made a strong argument for moving the article.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I would say we read consensus in the exact same way, but disagree with which arguements are strong in this case. I think that not only have there been more people in favor of renaming, but that there arguements have been stronger. Calathan (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You haven't managed a solid counter-argument against the numerical weighting yet. No one ever has. You are arguing to move the title to something that essentially no one looks for on the grounds that it is more descriptive, and "more descriptive" isn't a factor.—Kww(talk) 04:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he did manage it. If you think that numbers mean anything, try looking up 'climategate' and see how far it gets you. The term 'Natalee Holloway' does not adequately describe the reason why we have this article. Once again, we do not reduce article titles to the lowest common denominator. We don't have an article titled 'Obama', 'US of A', NY or NH, but we have articles that cover those subjects - this is no different. Weakopedia (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ouch, just catching up on things. I oppose the rename, for the reasons that I have stated quite a few times and can be found in the archives. Natalee Holloway is the most common search terms. 8 people try for the redirect. 2,000 a day (depending on day of the week and season, bet it will be more today) type in Natalee Holloway and up pops -- the "Natalee Holloway" article. Simple, clean, and easy to use.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If you can show me people are requesting "US of A" over "United States of America" by several thousand to one, I'll do the move myself.—Kww(talk) 15:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that Natalee Holloway disappearance gets more hits than Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. However, if you start typing "Natalee Holloway disappearance" into the search box, it will suggest "Natalee Holloway", so almost everyone who thought the article would be at "Natalee Holloway disappearance" would instead go directly to Natalee Holloway. Only those people who ignored the suggested page and typed continued on to typing "disappearance" in the search would go through the redirect page. I think this makes the stats totally unreliable, as there is just no way to judge how many people though the title would be something else but got directly to the page because that was what was suggested in the search box. Anyway, I'm still of the opinion that the title is less accurate than it could be, and that is the overriding concern. Calathan (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A good start at overcoming a thousand to one disadvantage! What else you got? We've got 120K satisfied readers viewing the article the last two days. Ten went to Natalee Holloway disappearance. The readers are getting what they want, a thorough and authoritative article, maintained by three committed admins who know the subject better than most, and who have been scrupulous about keeping POV out of it. The car runs great, it looks great, so what if you don't like the name of the car? It's given a great ride for years and will continue to. So say nearly a million hits a year.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The users will still be getting an equally good experience regardless of which title the article ends up at. I admit that the title is really a minor issue in that respect. I think the most important issue here is what I see as an consensus being ignored, and I believe that the act of ignoring a consensus is harmful to Wikipedia. However, even though the name of the article is a minor issue in the overall quality of the article, I still think it is worthwhile to have the article at the best possible title, as this is a featured article and featured articles should be as close to perfect we can get them. The suggestion that the title shouldn't be changed just because it has worked fine simply isn't a valid argument, as being "good enough" isn't actually good enough when it comes to featured articles. Also, I want to say that I think your referencing your admin status in this case is highly inappropriate. Being an admin has no bearing on the validity of your opinion on this issue or any other issue that is purely a content issue, not a administrative issue. Furthermore, your comments are really starting to sound like the stuff that WP:OWN says not to do. The amount of work you have put into the article is irrelevant to whether your opinions on this issue are right or wrong, and the amount of knowledge you may have on the subject of the article really has little to do with what to title it. Calathan (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change the subject; the ref to admin status is out of pride at Kww making it out of persistence. We do not own the article, but our knowledge of the subject does go towards whether our opinions are likely to be right. There is no consensus to change the name. There has never been a consensus to change the name. When there was a RFC, a majority !voted against a name change (and I know we do not vote, you do understand !vote, right?) We've argued the rules to you. We've argued practicality to you. We've argued the great opinion of the public, who type in the most common search term and find what they want. I agree, this is a minor issue. It is one where arguments can be brought forward on both sides, but in the meantime the public is just fine with the status quo. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to check the news sources to see if there is any update on Joran, a far more important thing to be doing, as if we don't put some mention of the new developments in, others will, most likely badly.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I felt that you were making a form of argument from authority, and as such an argument is a fallicy yet could still sway people's opinion, it was relevant to the discussion to point it out. I don't think I changed to subject. Anyway, I've argued rules to you as well, namly the rule that articles are titled based on what they are about, which is perhaps so obvious that WP:TITLE doesn't really discuss it. I've also argued based on WP:CONSENSUS, though obviously if you don't believe there was ever a consensus then that won't sway you (but I would say you should review the second AfD and see how many people though the article should be renamed). I still don't think the argument that most people are visiting the article at where it is rather than where it is not is persuasive. I do agree after reviewing the RFC that it looks to have ended up 6 to 5 in favor of the current name (I think I missed the last person who replied at the end when saying it was evenly split before), but it certainly didn't reach a consensus. Anyway, as I've been thinking of it more, I think it would be better to decide on a naming convention for articles of this sort in general, rather than arguing the issue on a specific case. As that is a discussion for another place, I'm fine with dropping this issue for now. Calathan (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Possibly you are right on the argument from authority, though that was not my conscious attempt, I had admins on the mind with JzG's attempted move. I see your point on the second AfD, but that wasn't a proper forum and people weren't voting for no name change, so it is hard to judge. Actually, there was a proposal on criminal actis notability somewhere around which covered naming conventions, but it sort of died. You might want to look for it. If it is any help, I could make "Natalee Holloway disappearance" a redirect to NH, and that would allow us to know how many people are clicking away. Today's volume, anyone want to start a pool? I'd say about 94,000.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose move -- there's nothing more I can add that hasn't already been pointed out. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move -- for whatever it's worth, I still think "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway" better reflects the content and focus of the article and no-one is particularly inconvenienced by a redirect from the current name. --Dystopos (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It's worth a considerable amount, Dystopos, no one has forgotten the good work you did on this article back in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The latest reversion to the article illustrates why it should be renamed - it doesn't say "NH is" or "NH was" but "NH disappeared while...", making the disappearance the focus for the article. Weakopedia (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose move -- The current article name and current article text is exactly right. Its an FA article for a reason and shouldnt be changed.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support rename. This is not a biography; it is an article about an event. Our practice in similar cases to this one is to rename the article to emphasise the event, not the person. There is no reason to treat this article differently. This is particularly important if (unlikely as it is) Natalee Holloway is in fact still alive, as WP:BLP1E would then apply. Robofish (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support rename. It's not a bio, it's about her disappearance. This has been argued before and most editors who've aired a view support the rename, if you dig back through the archives. Fences&Windows 00:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's been argued before, and a slim majority of people present the argument that you just have. Unfortunately, it isn't an argument supported by WP:TITLE. Can you make an argument that is?—Kww(talk) 03:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
If we're going by the guidance at WP:TITLE, I think that actually points us to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. The five main points there are: Recognizable; Easy to Find; Precise; Concise; and Consistent. Both that title and the current one are equally recognizable and (with redirects) easy to find. However, while Natalee Holloway is more concise, Disappearance of Natalee Holloway is both more precise and more consistent with the titles of articles of similar cases. (Also, as I've said above, I think WP:BLP1E arguably applies here - we should always assume someone is living until it's certain they aren't.) Robofish (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Except the guidance says to be only as precise as necessary to allow the user to identify the content and avoid ambiguity. In what way is the extra precision necessary? What other article is there that we need the extra verbiage to disambiguate this article from?—Kww(talk) 16:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
In this case, the ambiguity to be avoided is between an article about a notable event and a biographical article about a notable person, not between this article and another existing article. --Dystopos (talk)
That's not an ambiguity at all. Until there's content to be distinguished, the title shouldn't be excessively precise. Just because someone could, at some point in the future, write an article about beggars banquets doesn't mean we move Beggars Banquet to Beggars Banquet (Rolling Stones album) to make it less ambiguous. This is a parallel case.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that it is an ambiguity, and is relevant to interpreting the guideline. Furthermore, the counter-examples of other disappearances of non-notable individuals seem to be much more closely-aligned parallels. --Dystopos (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Two cents

Reading the above I an stupified. Let us get back to basics: WP:N, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:EVENT, WP:BLP1E. With this in mind what have we:

  • A woman disappeared, something that happens daily (globally), and never is cause for WP to start an article,
  • A frentic US media campaign by the family of this woman, IOW every disappeared person gets an article once their family is vocal enough to get it mentioned on TV,
  • A man is suspected of possible involvement in her disappearance, and for reasons I cannot fathom, his article was, untill recently, a redirect to this girl,
  • This man has been accused of possible involvement in trafficking of women,
  • This man has now been accused of possible involvement in the murder of another girl,

Normally, the above would warrant an article on the man, with that article detailing the disappearance and subsequent events. In essence the NH article should be merged into his (it already more or less looks the way policy dictates). But no, editors here feel that this one incident deserves an entire article, without even acknowledging that article is disallowed the reasonable name: i.e. referring to her disappearance.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 11:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see whatever point you are attempting to make. The article exists and attempts to delete it have firmly established that the subject meets our inclusion for criteria; whether you believe an article is deserved or not is frankly irrelevant. The article most certainly should not be mainly located at Joran van der Sloot as he is only one aspect of the case and is just one of many suspects over the years (granted he is considered the main suspect). The Van der Sloot article was redirected here as his notability outside of the Holloway case was nonexistent until he became a suspect in additional criminal cases. For many reasons, including those you've mentioned, Van der Sloot now has an article. --auburnpilot talk 17:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is not a biography of Natalee Holloway. It's unlikely that a biography will ever be written of Natalee Holloway. What it is, is an article about the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, an incident for which there appears to be a consensus of notability. Current practice is to have such articles at "disappearance of..." (or "murder of..." or whatever). Some examples: Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Disappearance of Maura Murray, Disappearance of Brandon Crisp, Murder of Meredith Kercher. We don't pretend to have biographies when what we're actually writing about is the tabloid news sensation; in fact the arguments put forward by the few long-term opponents of moving above are precisely wrong on this: it is inconsistent to have an article on the disappearance at the name of the person. All the balance of those arguments fall on the simple grounds that redirects exist. To be consistent with policy and normal Wikipedia practice, the article has to be moved to "disappearance of" with a redirect. Because that's what it's about - the person herself is not in any way notable, all the sources are about by the disappearance. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No one is arguing that this is a biography of Natalee Holloway: it is an article that represents virtually everything that will ever be contained in Wikipedia about Natalee Holloway. To describe it more precisely violates WP:TITLE, which indicates that titles should be " ... precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." The additional verbiage may make the title more precise, but it's excessive precision. It's the same reason we have Beggars Banquet, not Beggars Banquet (Rolling Stones album).—Kww(talk) 21:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
My favorite counterexample to Guy's list Joseph Force Crater. Notable only for vanishing.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I just want to point out that I argued otherwise above (at the bottom of the big block of text I posted). Calathan (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Not true; Crater was a Justice of the New York Supreme Court, and would in all probability have an article even if he hadn't disappeared. (See Category:New York Supreme Court Justices.) Holloway was a non-notable person, who is only significant for her disappearance. I agree with JzG's argument above: this page should be renamed. Robofish (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
In NY, the Supreme Court is the trial level court, I doubt if we have articles on many of the justices. The New York Court of Appeals is the top NY court.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Deepak Kalpoe and Satish Kalpoe,

whatever happened to these guys, any updates on them? what have they been doing the last 5 years? I can't find much of anything online —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing worth adding to the article, so far as I have ever determined. The notoriety of the case seems not to have attached itself to them very strongly, and they have received no detectable coverage.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe Deepak's lawsuit is moving along and scheduled to be tried in early 2011. I believe I read on a bulletin board that he had a deposition last week.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed from this article information about van der Sloot's recent legal trouble. The subject of this article is Natalee Holloway, her disappearance, subsequent criminal investigation and legal proceedings. Stephany Flores Ramirez and Joran van der Sloot's activities unrelated to the Holloway case are not directly relevant to the subject of this article and are, therefore, not appropriate in an FA-class article. Joran van der Sloot has his own article, this information is already listed there. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted for now, but would be willing to entertain suggestions for trimming as opposed to outright removal. It's one paragraph referring to a major event in the life of one of the major players in the case. In the context of an article this size, it's hardly undue weight. With references it appears to be a huge body of text, but the actual displayed material is "On June 2, 2010, Van der Sloot, now 22, became a suspect in the murder of 21-year-old Stephany Tatiana Flores Ramírez in Lima, Peru. Ramírez was found beaten to death in a hotel room registered under van der Sloot's name and they were allegedly seen together by hotel employees. On June 3, Van der Sloot was arrested while traveling by taxi near the Chilean central coastal city of Viña del Mar. Van der Sloot was also charged with extortion by US authorities for supposedly seeking $250,000 in exchange for his telling the location of Holloway's body and the circumstances of her death." That really isn't much. Having its own subsection may be problematic, though: perhaps it should just be a paragraph in the "subsequent developments" section.—Kww(talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This illustrates exactly why there should not be an article on this woman. See my comment above. Merely mentioning the details in Joran van der Sloot solves this problem. Clearly she is part of the story of his actions, not the other way around!--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 14:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The death of Ramirez and disappearance of Holloway are entirely unrelated to each other; they are separate incidents that do not deserve to be randomly mashed into the same article because of a common link that is the accused perpetrator. Van der Sloot's article deserves all of this information but Holloway's article doesn't. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No one is "randomly mashing". Your logic escapes me: the three sentences we are discussing serve only for context in an article where JvdS plays a pivotal role.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
"JvdS plays a pivotal role." Dare I say: without him there would not be a NH article? Inference being this article is essentially part of his article.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 16:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Van der Sloot's pivotal roles elsewhere don't warrant their inclusion here unless they're directly related. If you disagree, that's fine but my logic shouldn't escape you simply because you disagree. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Imagine reading this article with the knowledge of the Flores case and without. Would that additional information influence the conclusions you would draw? If so, it's related enough to include.—Kww(talk) 17:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
As you suggested I am imagining an article in which the reader is able to find all the pertinent information, you are advocating, should be presented together. If only somebody could make such an article we would not be having this discussion.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 18:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This article will never be merged into the Joran van der Sloot article, so that's an issue you can stop advocating. Again, I can only assume you have not read the article and are not familiar with this case; otherwise, you wouldn't make such a bizarre suggestion. Van der Sloot is not the only aspect of the case. Van der Sloot has not been the only suspect. The article would be moved to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway far sooner than anybody will ever seriously entertain thoughts of merging this article with the Van der Sloot article. --auburnpilot talk 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Several points: 1 I do not advocate, I observe, 2 I am not interested in taking this any further then these comments, which seems altogether reasonable, 3 you appear incapable of entertaining the possibility that two individuals, looking at the same material/information, may arrive at seperate conclusions. This does not mean somebody is unaware of said information. Cheers.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 18:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's a good point and it's kind of along the lines of what I was thinking. Basically my thought process is this:
  • does the information on the Flores case provide the reader with further understanding of the subject of this article, ie Holloway's life, dissapearance, search efforts, criminal investigation or legal processes? I don't think it does.
  • can the circumstances of the Flores case (interlaced with this article) influence an average reader's opinion to make them come to a conclusion that van der Sloot now appears guilty, more so than he did before? If yes, is it possible for that conclusion to be incorrect and proven so in court? I think the answer is yes to both of those and needs to be considered inappropriate, not only appearing in an FA article, but also for qualifying as contentious material about a living person. "He appears to be guilty of crime A. By our completely non-scientific methods, he must be guilty of crime B as well"-type statements, or their better articulated derivatives, are for tabloids, not encyclopedias.
If used in this article, details about the Flores case and van der Sloot's possible involvement will, however inadvertently, serve to influence a reader's opinion to reach a conclusion that cannot be cited by reliable sources to be correct. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not the Flores issue requires an entire section in this article, I don't know. But I do believe it should be given an acknowledgment. I have yet to read an article about Flores (including Wikipedia's coverage) that does not relate it back to Holloway. --auburnpilot talk 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Flores likely died on the fifth anniversary of Holloway's disappearance and the main suspect in both cases is the same person. Yes, this will be mentioned in a news article as a point of interest; CNN is not required to keep their articles focused on one specific topic. But Holloway's disappearance and Flores' death have no proven correlation outside of van der Sloot. This correlation is explained in the Joran van der Sloot article. It has no business here because Wikipedia does keep its articles focused on one subject at a time. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Every editor in this discussion has been participating in this project for years, so I believe it's safe to assume we understand the concept. There's no need to lecture on how Wikipedia works: it's rather condescending. What I'm saying is that it would seem equally foolish to not acknowledge Holloway in relation to Flores just as much as it would be foolish not to mention Flores in relation to Holloway. Whether or not you like it, the cases do have aspects that overlap. A simply mention along the lines of "On the fifth anniversary of Holloway's disappearance, Van der Sloot was arrested in connection with the murder of another young woman in Peru" would suffice. It doesn't need to be drawn out, just acknowledged. --auburnpilot talk 18:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
My intention was not to sound condescending and I do apologize if I came across as such. I was just replying to your point of the Flores and Holloway connection in the media and basically trying to establish the basis on which we need not follow that process. I also do think it's, to a degree, a matter of personal opinion on whether or not the cases overlap. You and I disagree and that's fine. I do not think they overlap and think that it's a mistake to the integrity of this article to state that they do overlap in some essential way. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Where I disagree is the contention that we have a responsibility to avoid allowing the reader to come to conclusions that couldn't be supported in court. We have an obligation to avoid writing such conclusions, but not one to avoid providing the information that would allow them to be made. The probability of drawing that conclusion is why I think it needs to be mentioned: a reasonable person could interpret the information in this article differently based on the knowledge of the Flores case.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you're correct in where our major disagreement lies and, yes, I do believe that we have an obligation to avoid writing information in a way that would lead the reader to a conclusion that can be seen as subjective. I think that our primary obligation should be to the living person about whom the conclusion is being made. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

We need some info on the 2010 accusations against Joran or it will be added by others. I'd rather we did it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If a new search is conducted in response to interrogations in Peru, I don't believe we can responsibly omit the new arrest. --auburnpilot talk 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This does make sense. I was opposing simple recitation of fact such as "Joran van der Sloot arrested for murder of Stephany Flores Ramírez on the fifth anniversary of Holloway's disappearance" because I found that to be irrelevant. However, if reliable third-party sources write about the influence of the Flores case on the Holloway case then, as you say, it would be irresposible to omit that from the article.
I really didn't want to see day by day updates on van der Sloot's prison stay and trial minutiae since the media circus surrounding this is not likely to die down anytime soon. I wanted there to be a clear line of distinction between what is and what isn't relevant to Holloway when it comes to Flores and van der Sloot. There seems to be information emerging that makes some details of the Flores case relevant to the Holloway case and that (and only that, in my opinion) definitely deserves to be in this article.
Thank you for those search results, by the way. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
A general note about this discussion I started. As much as I do feel that some information may be mashed together somewhat arbitrarily, I'd be a fool and a hypocrite to not admit that I may be completely wrong. I can disagree all I want but the consensus seems to disagree with me and I will always cede to consensus. My opinions, although stated firmly, are not required to be followed by anyone. I will not edit war over this and will be more than happy to help develop information about the Flores case to be used in this article as seen fit by the other participants, if that is the consensus. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
In his confession for Flores' murder, Van der Sloot said that she found out about his connection to the Holloway case while using his laptop and that that 'invasion of privacy' was his motive to kill her. (story) --Dystopos (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that at the time of my previous comment. Again, that's a very reasonable item to be included here; the connection is crystal clear. That kind of info was not available yesterday when I started this thread. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Concern regarding additions

I am becoming increasingly concerned about the constant addition of material on Joran's problems with at best peripheral involvement to the NH case. Editors should keep in mind that this is only a small part of a long story and there is no great need to add the minute details Joran has his own article, where these circumstances can be given greater play. Unless there is additional information which really adds to our understanding of the investigation, I think we should avoid saying more about the extortion charges, as they will not be heard in the foreseeable future. Since the apparent killing has only peripheral relationship to Holloway's disappearance, I think we should content ourselves in this article with keeping the reader updated on VDS's current status, and leave it at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Since Joran van der Sloot was spun off because it no longer qualified under WP:ONEVENT, would it make sense to do the same with Beth Twitty as a result of her ongoing work and her possible connection to the case in Peru after the most recent FBI undercover operation? KimChee (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Umm. Not sure. She is not a one event, but she is mostly associated with it. I am frankly skeptical of the ongoing work as this is now her fourth, similar project, but I'm willing to see if she takes off with it. What do others feel? Is Elizabeth Ann Reynolds Holloway Twitty Holloway-Twitty Holloway (Ramsey?) notable?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me just throw in a commercial for tomorrow's TFA, written by me, Ashford v Thornton which has a lot of similarities with the Holloway case. It's on in just over an hour. End of commercial break.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Not yet. So far, all of these peripheral activities have been direct consequences of Natalee's disappearance, and none of them have gone far enough to require any substantial discussion.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

There is no such thing as "Nationality - American". Her nation was "The United States of America". The western hemisphere is American, and the two continents are North America and South America, where all the inhabitants are Americans.

41.190.239.178 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly true, sir, I can't fault your geography. However, most people, hearing that she was an "American", will not think she was from Montevideo or Belize City.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway#Skeeters tape and Dr. Phil; lawsuits

The last five sentences are awkwardly out of chronological order with the rest of the contents of the section and the last paragraph has more to do with Joran van der Sloot (and is already covered there in more detail) than Natalee. I suggest this be deleted. If the sentences about the civil suit in New York is important to keep, I suggest it be reworked elsewhere into the article. KimChee (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to have at least some mention of everything which has gone on in the NH case, or we are not comprehensive. Not only that, people have a tendency to add stuff if they think you are missing stuff, they add it, usually badly. However, the idea of seeing what can be shortened in the article with the full version shoved next door is in my view worth exploring.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway → Natalee Holloway case — This is not a biography of a person who is notable for what she did in life but overwhelmingly about the investigation of a possible murder case.--Brazmyth (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose As indicated above, this article has been getting large numbers of hits, with very few hits on the redirects to here. We're titling the article with the title the public expects, there is no requirement that we change it, and it is obviously specific enough to uniquely identify the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose It would be nice if you would read the talk page before bring this up again. One more time, for the record, this article is under precisely the right name per WP:TITLE. Last month, eight people searched for "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway", while 95,369 people looked for "Natalee Holloway". There's no way to interpret those statistics as thinking that users and readers expect the content to be titled "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway". Despite what people seem to think, WP:TITLE does not ask for a precise description of article contents: in fact, it counsels against excessive precision. It advises a title that makes finding what content we have most easily. Specifically, WP:TITLE calls for the title to be:
  • Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.
  • "Natalee Holloway" certainly is used in reliable source.
  • Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).
  • 95,369 to 8 kind of settles that
  • Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
  • It's certainly precise enough: it's not ambiguous, and the content isn't surprising.
  • Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)
  • It's the most concise of our choices.
  • Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles.
  • It's consistent.
On a policy basis, it's a no brainer. There is no policy requiring titles to be completely descriptive of the content, only that it is recognizable, easy to find, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
To which title do you support moving this article, Dystopos? I assume you support moving the article to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway more so than Natalee Holloway case. Yes? --auburnpilot talk 04:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Either is fine with me. It seems that now the case might be more confidently described as a murder rather than a disappearance. --Dystopos (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Why are we still here? In the above discussion we had 11 contributors, 4 of which preferred leaving the title as is, 7 of which expressed the opinion that the article is improperly named. Why wasn't it renamed already. We have an article on Van der Sloot, who is someone notable, and a section of that covering Holloways disappearance directs to the main article, which should be Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Natalee Holloway however is not notable enough to have an article of her own. Those in favour of keeping the current title have sought to categorize it as being the most searched for term, but the naming conventions suggest that search results should not influence the accuracy of an article title. The article should be named after what it is about. If folk think Holloway deserves an article, create it and in the Disappearance section put a link to the main article Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. If I type 'Obama' into the search box I am taken to the article on Barack Obama. That is because while 'Obama' might be a common search term the title that most represents the subject of the article is Barack Obama. This is the same - the article is about the disappearance of Holloway, and no amount of people searching for 'Natalee Holloway' is going to change that. Weakopedia (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
"Barack Obama" is the more common search term: 278272 to 40549 so far this month. You need a better example. The article is still where it because it's still the correct title based on the guidelines. If you want to move it, you need a stronger argument than arguing for excessive precision in the title. WP:TITLE specifically guides against excessive precision.—Kww(talk) 04:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

comment on closing discussion

  • The closing comment made by User:Fences and windows, that "the argument for a move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway has been done to death and never quite reaches consensus", strikes me as faulty logic. The fact that the argument has been "done to death" might just as well indicate that the periodic observation by contributors who are new to the topic is being shouted down by the same small group of guardians. The fact that consensus hasn't developed around an alternative is testament to an entrenched defense, not to a shortage of initiative for a change. --Dystopos (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Texas EquuSearch involvement

One thing I have noticed is that this organization isn't mentioned in the article, even though they were extensively used during the searches.[6][7] and was hoping for it to be included into the article. --Hourick (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people searched for Natalee Holloway. No one has been successful. Why include more people who didn't find her?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I recall it being reported quite a bit when EquuSearch initially began searching on Aruba. I don't see it requiring a section of its own, but a mention somewhere wouldn't be out of line. I'd have to double check the timeline, but adding onto a current sentence where we list those who helped in the initial search would seem adequate: "Hundreds of volunteers from Aruba and the United States joined the search, along with search and rescue organization Texas EquuSearch". --auburnpilot talk 20:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My memory is more of an agressive PR campaign by EquuSearch.—Kww(talk) 21:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
John Walsh of America's Most Wanted was also involved. Considering the PR aspect for all parties involved, perhaps this could also fit under the media coverage section. KimChee (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
More self promotion than anything else. I certainly don't remember Walsh doing anything but talk. It's editorial judgment: just because there is some paper out there or the guy made an appearance on Nancy Grace hoping to hop on the gravy train of publicity does not mean we should include it. If we did, this article would be 400K. At least.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Section organization

I noticed the subtopic for Adaptations of story presently placed under "Criticism of the investigation", though this may not always be a convenient fit, depending on the content of Paul Ruven's upcoming film Me and Mr. Jones. Also, given how large the Beth Twitty section (and the overall article) has become, I think the time is now more appropriate to spin it off into its own article. KimChee (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What, the adaptations? There were also a couple of TV shows back in '05 with plots which might be based on NH. I know the structure has become a problem, simply because the story has persisted so long and overwhelmed the structure we decided on when preparing for FAC. I hesitate to do too much of a reorganization, with the story live the past few months, I would rather await developments. I do like to end with the Dave Holloway quote, I fell it gives closure to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you remember what TV shows those were? I spun off a new article for Beth Holloway, so perhaps the respective subtopic here can be streamlined. KimChee (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that your spinning off that article was perhaps something you should have discussed first. Please do not delete content from this article on the basis of your having written that article. I am very concerned about BLP1E here and also there is the likelihood of it becoming a POV fork. I will try to remember, it may be in old revisions of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The topic of the spin off first came up in June and I think it is appropriate for more specific biographical information to go there - with NPOV in mind, of course. KimChee (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is not like there was consensus at that time, and Beth ain't making much news the last couple of months. Let's see what other people think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Tend to agree with Wehwalt. Beth is notable solely for her involvement with Natalee.—Kww(talk) 03:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The movie seems to have legitimate notability given its status as Lifetime's highest rated broadcast, but I must agree with Wehwalt when in comes to the Beth Holloway/Twitty article. From where I stand, Beth Holloway/Twitty does not have any notability outside of her involvement in the disappearance of her daughter. The few things she has done unrelated to the search are still related to the case and are already given appropriate mention in this article. I'd recommend reinstating the redirect. --auburnpilot talk 02:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
If both articles were much shorter, I would be inclined to agree about a merge, but WP:SIZERULE recommends a split. The movie, book and other work by the mother, though a largely result of the daughter's disappearance, appear to have gained her some measure of her own notability. KimChee (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Kimchee's edits

Kimchee, I will ask you politely to discuss major edits, or if you are going to do technical stuff with the article as well, make them separately from substantive edits. Please do not refer to Beth Holloway as Beth Holloway Twitty, as far as I can tell, that was never her legal name and was made up by television. There have been discussions of her name in the archives, have you read them? I would ask that you be a little less bold for a while. Discuss. Don't just change stuff. This is an FA, we think it's pretty good, and further improvement is welcome, but should be discussed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, she represented her name on the lawsuits as "Elizabeth Ann Twitty". I know of no reliable source which states that her name changed prior to her divorce.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I hope you do not think any of this is done in bad faith. In another peer-reviewed article such as Hillary Clinton, usage of maiden and present name is based on context of time. You are right about "Beth Holloway Twitty" as that looks like something from IMDb. I'll be more incremental in applying this. KimChee (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
No, of course not. Mild exasperation at worst. Since Kww is busy with other things and AP isn't the most active due to real life, if falls to me to watch the article and try to keep it up to standards. When you get the chance, do read the archives, it tells of our struggles against people not nearly as well intentioned as you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
And you might want to remember, Holloway is not her maiden name ... --Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I am trying one more organizational edit of the Twitty section because this is fresh in my head. I won't take any feedback personally. KimChee (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I won't revert you, but the subsections are too short, after all, this is an article with a lot of sections and we don't help the reader by dividing things up too finely ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
That does make sense; I reorganized the section closer to the way it was before. KimChee (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits reflecting a new break?

Still too early to tell if it is another wild goose chase: [8] KimChee (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The first time I saw it I assumed it was vandalism. The second time I paused before hitting rollback and checked the news. Based on our experience at the time of the "skeleton in the ocean" search, I have added a brief, tasteful, sourced mention of it. Because we to a certain extent must also meet our readers expectations, and I bet the hit meter is off the charts. Feel free to edit but I think we should not expand it until there is an outcome. My money's on Judge Crater.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw that checked and it was true. Glad you fixed it. Sadly my money is on the old judge too.—Theda 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Possibly. Let's sit and wait and see what happens. If it is her, first word will be a dozen IP changing the entire aritcle to the past tense, and doing it badly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Right on, it would be a mega break in the case and the IPs will come out in droves.—Theda 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
We'll deal with it. I'm dubious, of course, but I guess we will see.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Watchlisted.—Theda 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The more the merrier.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't accuse them of vandalism, in fact, if you read, I ruled that out. I simply mean they would put the stuff randomly in the article unsourced, diminishing its usefulness at a time when this article is getting almost 20K views a day.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand. --Dystopos (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

According to ABC, Natalee Holloway's father has served papers on her mother seeking to have the teenager, who disappeared during a senior class trip to Aruba in 2005, declared legally dead. I've semi-protected for 3 weeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nultiaaliyah1 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

According to CNN, the announcement of the bone test results will be tomorrow. Given the likelihood of vandalism, unverifiable leaks, and general chaos, I've semi-protected for 2 days (to expire around 18:00 Wednesday). If there is significant objection, though, I will unprotect. Any thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also if the bone is hers, I would think that would be enough to call her dead, as people usually don't walk around without jawbones, and we should review the article to see what needs to be changed. Probably, however, that would not be enough to call her murdered. Three years plus of helping out with this article, battling the good, the bad, and the ugly to keep some neutrality here. Will the drama ever end?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, if anyone would prefer for me to undo my semiprotect and instead apply for protection at WP:RFPP because I have edited (or how I have edited) the article), please feel free to comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In case the jawbone is Natalee's, I have prepared a new lede, found here, feel free to discuss or amend, and I will swap it in if there is no objection in the event it proves that she is dead.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

From having first-hand experience of edit conflicts with IPs posting breaking information in half a dozen different locations around Chandra Levy (unsourced, of course), I support the pre-emptive protection. KimChee (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. I'll leave it then. I would take out that bit about what Dave believes, but it will be meaningless in a few hours anyway and I'd prefer not to use up a 1RR. I am monitoring the news and the message boards about the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
As it's not her, I've updated the article accordingly and will lift semi protection, though keeping an eye on things. I may shorten the info on the bone, as it is just another false alerm.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be grouped with the snorkeling discovery. I noticed similarly publicized cycles of hope and disappointment in both events. KimChee (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I could go either way on it. It takes it out of chronological order, that is a problem ... we should keep it where it is during the news cycle, but I am fine with moving it next to the snorkel in a week or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Category Living persons

Hi Folks, I guess we need to revisit categorization every few years? I checked the disappeared category and I guess it has changed? It used to read/say not to include folks in multiple categories, ie living, missing, disappeared, ect? I understand that BLP still applies, and that is a good thing, but the living category isn't really necessary since this is a highly wathced and "protected" bio. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Kww is busy with other things, I haven't heard from AuburnPilot in months, and I'm worn out by the endless battles and may not last. So that the article does not become unwatched, I'd leave it in.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that some of the BLP watchers depend on the "living" category. Logically, I agree with Threeafterthree that "disappeared" should be enough.—Kww(talk) 00:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. Whatever will keep the most eyes on it, especially admin eyes. Someone has to keep this article from becoming a playground for vandals and haters.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)Kww reverted the article in seconds, so I guess he isn't too busy. I have this bio watchlisted as well. I'd be happy to take over "protection" duty if needed :). Seriously, this bio is well watched that adding the living category isn't necessary in order to insure BLP compliance. As always, if consensus says I'am a jackass, I'll be happy to saddle up and ride off. Cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You'll get hate comments like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
woah, not sure what the deal is there, and I am actually glad I don't. I know this article has been contensious but I have avoided drama like that fortuneately. It seems that this bio has been well "maintained" over the years by yourself and others, buy admittidely don't know the "details". I actually haven't edited here in a long time, but do have it watchlisted and noticed that the living category was added/readded. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, smart move. Enough to say it is a FA and TFA which gets 100,000 hits in a week when NH is in the news with no complaints other than that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Insanity

let me first say that speeddialing wikis Random featured Article, is one of the best things ive done on my android. This was my first random featured article and ... wow... i

(my tangent went on too long so I moved it to my talk page. Summary: thankyou wiki for fairness, I hope some good for all of us can come from this somehow) --ARKBG1 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. We worked hard to keep it fair and it wasn't always appreciated by the partisans.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

just my support...

i would just like to add support for the name of the article. in case the renaming discussion comes up again. i googled natalie holloway and this came up. Although interested in her disappearance i would probably have skipped the wiki article looking for something more comprehensive and informative had it been under a different name. This article is amazing thanks gatekeepers Killemall22 (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks on both counts!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Legally declared dead

is she still listed as "missing" or has she been "legally declared dead"? Norum 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no information that she has been declared legally dead, and I think I would have seen it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, we'd have have had half the internet adding the word "was" to the article's first sentence! This would not have been small news, Norum, it would have been headlines big time. However, the three editors who brought this article to FA continue to maintain it and add news as it happens, like the Kalpoe trial coming up this fall.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


Well, is so, we'd have to form a question and add "was she legally dead?"...but then, the subject would be the same as the whole question. Norum 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What we would do is change the first sentence to the past tense, and add something both to the lede and the body. I do not know if Alabama follows the old "seven year rule". Or Aruba. Or whatever.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Natalee will be declared dead RSN. Years ago this page was tossed into BLP without consensus after a certain David Gerard got confidential letters/emails. Lets get it out as soon as the judge in 'bama declares her officially dead. 145.221.193.40 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, we will change the first sentence at last to "was" and make any other changes needed. And remove the template. I went through the article a while back to ensure that the minimum of change would be needed if we went to the past tense. Any word on the Kalpoe suit? I couldn't find anything with a google news search.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
LA Superior court pages are hard to deeplink, this is what is scheduled. I was young when this case started.

04/18/2012 at 08:32 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Final Status Conference (T/D 4-23-2012)

04/23/2012 at 08:33 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Jury Trial (J/T 35 DAY EST.) 62.234.58.170 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I see this article got tagged with eleven dead links this morning. I'd be grateful for help in dealing with them. Obviously we don't want to wind up at FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Declare dead

To prevent chaos, I've semi-protected the article. I will shortly add the information that a judge will sign the order declaring her dead. Until he signs the order, and it is reported in the media, we will not go to a past tense. Judges act through orders. He has announced his intent to declare her dead but has not yet done it. The written order is the instrument.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if people would post here links to reliable sources (that is, newspapers, high quality news sites, and the like) that say that he has signed the order, and if it carries with it the date of death.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.wthr.com/story/16508773/missing-teen-natalee-holloway-declared-dead. Should we update the page now. The judged signed an order to declare her dead. I'm not sure how much more we need to wait now to update the page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm on it. How it is now? I'm sure there are places the article will need to be tweaked; I will be working on that this evening.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'd like to thank Alarbus for organizing the refs better. As I think I said somewhere in the archives, the declaration of death is a good time to go through the article and clean it up. We have a considerable number of dead links, and also some information may no longer be needed now that she's officially dead. I'll be doing some work in the coming weeks, obviously, this is a project, others too are welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "LMN preps Natalee Holloway story". The Hollywood Reporter. 2008-10-07. Retrieved 2008-10-06. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ "Natalee Holloway Movie site". "myLifetime.com". Retrieved 2009-04-02.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disappearance_of_Natalee_Holloway/Archive_5&oldid=1136310834"