Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway/Archive 4

Aw, crap, we are our own reliable source

I've been working on the post-release statement paragraphs. We've been using, recently, as our source Caribbean News, from December 10, 2007, which stated:

Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers, in interviews or statements after their release, have said that he and Holloway were left at a beach near the Marriott Hotel at about 1:40 a.m.

He also has stated that Holloway wanted to have sexual intercourse with him there, but he did not because he did not have a condom. He also has said that he was picked up by Satish Kalpoe at about 3 a.m., leaving Holloway at the beach where he says she wanted to stay. Satish Kalpoe had denied picking up Van der Sloot.

Van der Sloot also had indicated that he was not truthful at first because he believed Holloway would soon turn up, and was somewhat ashamed to have left a girl alone on the beach.[1]

My revision, as of 21:55 on 9 December 2007, stated as follows. At the time, the language was completely unsourced:

Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers, in interviews or statements after their release, have said that Van der Sloot and Holloway were left at a beach near the Marriott Hotel at about 1:40 a.m. Van der Sloot has stated that Holloway wanted to have sexual intercourse with him there, but he did not because he did not have a condom. Since his release, Van der Sloot has stated that he was picked up by Satish Kalpoe at about 3:00 a.m., leaving Holloway there - he says she wanted to stay, while he wanted to go home because he had to go to school later that morning. Satish Kalpoe denies picking up Van der Sloot.

Van der Sloot, in interviews after his release, indicated that he was not truthful at first because he believed Natalee would soon turn up, and was somewhat ashamed to have left a girl alone on the beach, albeit by her own request.[2]

And at some later date, which I can't be bothered to look up, we found the article and fell on it with glad cries to justify our own language, when it was taken from WP's own unsourced statements!

Oy. I think we should rule this out as a source to the extent it copies our language and look elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Somehow this article was removed from my watchlist; very odd. Anyway, that reference looks vaguely familiar, so it may have been my doings. It's amazing how many "journalists" out there simply copy directly from Wikipedia. I glanced over the reference section a few days ago, looking for duplicates, and I believe we're good in that respect. I'll check them better sometime this weekend and check for any moved articles with now dead links as well. - auburnpilot talk 15:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to be working on the refs, a little more standardization of the format would be a good thing to have, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a little more than half of the job, and have found problems with the following links:

Dead/missing

• Crumbly, AnneMarie (2007-11-26). "Holloway Update". WJTV. Retrieved 2007-11-28. A key suspect in the disappearance of Clinton-native Natalee Holloway will stay behind bars.

• "No damages in Holloway case". expatica. 2007-02-15. Retrieved 2008-03-11.

• Wever, Margaret (2007). "Holloway probe continues in Aruba". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-04-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• "Investigators Search Kalpoe Brothers Home". NBC. 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-20. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• "Kalpoe Brothers Home Inspected in Natalee Holloway Case". FOX6WBRC. 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• "The other side of the Holloway-case 'Police Aruba hindered by FBI'". Amigoe. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-04. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• "New Book, Few Leads On Holloway Anniversary". MSNBC. 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-05. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• "Washington refuses to back Aruba boycott". Expatica. 2005. Retrieved 2007-04-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Potentially unreliable

• "Confusion Reigns in Natalee Holloway Case". About.com. 2005-06-10. Retrieved 2007-05-22.

• Montaldo, Charles (2007). "Dutch Police Search Van der Sloot Home". About.com. Retrieved 2007-04-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The two links under "potentially unreliable" are from the same About.com blog. We'll probably need to replace these. I swapped the reference dates from "|month=XYZ |year=123" for full dates where possible. If the links ever die, having the exact date should help us find them. - auburnpilot talk 19:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I suspect we can replace most of those, with the possible exception of the Paulus appeal thing from expatica. Maybe Kwww could do a search or two of the Dutch media on that point? A Dutch source would be better than nothing.

I'll work on replacing the sources as time permits. Given the way things seem to be dragging on, on that crime notability proposal, it will probably be a few weeks before we shoot for FAC, esp given that we'd probably want to have a discussion here about the name first.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick search turned up some copies of the expatica article, but the copies aren't in great places (hyscience, scaredmonkeys). I'll keep digging.Kww (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am slowly getting rid of them. I think, end of the day, the problems will be with the Paulus appeal, and the July Amigoe article. If we can't verify them, they may have to go. I was thinking, though, that we could convert the Amigoe thing to the method in which you cite articles from offline newspapers.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, at last resort, we could leave the ref in, put in parentheses (dead link) and then put after that (article archieved at: . . . ) if the alternative is having to delete the info on WP:V grounds. After all, we can always delete it during FAR if someone raises it as an objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As you say, reformatting them to a {{cite news}} type format is a good option. There's certainly no requirement for our sources to be available online, and anyone who truly has a burning desire to check the few offline sources can call the news agency. I believe the cite/news and cite/web templates are essentially interchangeable, and the only thing we'd need to do is remove the url and swap "web" for "news". - auburnpilot talk 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is all good. I'm presently travelling and my internet access has been spotty. The process for the proposed policy seems to be dragging on. What about going for FA in early May? That will allow for a decent interview since the promotion to GA and we can clean up the remaining refs and individually go over the article in detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've been meaning to finally swap the cite templates, and make a few wording adjustments. There are a few spots that need a little rewording to meet the "brilliant" prose part of the featured article criteria. Statements like "and the Kalpoes were arrested three times each, but each was released each time due to lack of evidence." need a little work (each, each, each). I'll be out of pocket May 1-5, but then I'm ready to get the FA process started. - auburnpilot talk 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the prose is pretty good, and I'll work on improving it. Since a lot of it is what I wrote, and I'm not the best self-editor, as many eyes as possible would be good. I took a shot at changing the each language, take a look at it if you get a chance. I made a couple of changes to your copyedits, see the edit summary for details. Suggest we set D Day for May 6, then, or thereabouts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My main concern with the prose is repetition. We start far too many paragraphs with "On Month Day, Year", which is one of the things I tried to change in my copy edit. I only changed a couple, and haven't looked over the second half of the article in the same way, but I think we need to vary our opening sentences a bit. May 6th sounds good to me. - auburnpilot talk 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New proposal that may be of interest

I see this has actually been mentioned further up, but a new guideline is proposed that could impact on this article, and as editors of a possibly affected article, your comments would be appreciated. The proposal can be found at WP:N/CA and endorse/don't endorse comments are asked to post at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think the most active editors on this article have posted over there or on related pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposal has now failed. One less thing to worry about.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I can't say I saw that coming. I figured it would have passed, but the discussion did die off fairly quickly. Like you say, one less thing to worry about. - auburnpilot talk 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FA in mind

With the featured article criteria in mind (specifically 2.(b)), I've been working to streamline the table of contents and general flow of the article. Right now, the toc is fairly messy and a bit overwhelming. I propose reworking the headers and order of the article, as I've done here. In addition to removing dates from the headers, I moved the "Amigoe Aritlce" and "Skeeters tape and Dr. Phil; lawsuits" sections lower in the article, beneath the criticism section, and moved the "Reward" section up one. This doesn't change any content, but I believe it better organizes the article and gives the toc a better, more concise hierarchy. - auburnpilot's sock 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. I have a long list of typos I caught while reviewing the article on my blackberry with nothing else to do. I'll implement them shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your new organization is an improvement.Kww (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'm sure FA will put us to work, but I think we've got a great article on our hands. Wehwalt, would it be easier for you to implement your changes with the article as it is now? If so, I'll hold off on moving everything around until your done. - auburnpilot talk 21:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just finished them. Go for it!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All done. Should we address the naming issue, or should we just continue as planned? - auburnpilot talk 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of the three of us are advocates of the name change; accordingly the debate would be half hearted. I suggest we lay it aside fo rnow and continue as planned. D Day is still the sixth.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be ready. I ended up not being as unavailable these last few days as I thought, but the 6th still sounds good to me. - auburnpilot talk 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are ready sooner, just pull the trigger and let's get on with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natalee Holloway. Trigger pulled. - auburnpilot talk 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you have your seat belts fastened . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Meridian Star

It seems Brian Livingston, staff writer for the Meridian Star, copied text directly from the intro of this article, and failed to cite his sources. The third paragraph of his article TV show to concentrate on Holloway disappearance is oddly familiar. The exact text he uses was included at least three days prior to his article being published (at first I was afraid we'd copied him).[3] Interesting. - auburnpilot talk 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

People apparently think well of our efforts here, not only did we have the incident with Caribbean Net News, but also see [4]. Not a RS, of course, but they advocate reading this article for a good grounding in the case. Hopefully the FAR editors will think so too.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

With 3 images torpedoed, and potentially more to come, we need to get back to searching for images. I'm searching now, and have already fired off an email to Greta Van Susteren in hopes she'll release some of the images she's taken and posted to her blog. Time to get creative... - auburnpilot talk 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Without making this a travelogue, what about reviving that image of the California Lighthouse we discarded a while back? And I guess it is time to start looking for beach scenes . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:ArubaLighthouse.jpg? Don't see why not. - auburnpilot talk 22:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What about [5]? Mountain Brook High School? put it to the left and below Natalee's senior portrait?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This was my initial thought, but the image of the search party near the lighthouse may need to be moved down lower, within the "Book, search, and inspection" section. - auburnpilot talk 22:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[6] Here's one of Greta. I'm afraid they may get rejected as too decorative, but what else can we do?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a pic of Greta might look a little out of place. Here is the other arrangement, which adds the MBHS image and the California Light house image. What we really need is a pic of the suspects. In my email, I asked Greta for three images.[7] [8] [9] She took them all, but who knows if I'll get a response. - auburnpilot talk 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think that you are worrying more about this issue than you should. Pull the images out that were rejected, and see if the review swings toward "not enough images!" By their very nature, missing people don't generate a lot of photo opportunities.Kww (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Let's hold those photos in reserve. If the concerns are raised, put them in.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion needed on article organization and POV

I would like to see some discussion of the section headings which contribute to possible POV in the article. Highlighting and separating criticism can lead to POV: Wikipedia:Criticism is only an essay (not policy or guideline), but it gives valuable tips on how to avoid separating and highlighting criticism to create POV. There is a section heading, "Holloway's behavior", but there isn't a corresponding section heading, "van der Sloot's behavior" or "Behavior of the Kalpoe brothers", so singling out this content in a section heading creates POV. Similarly, there is a "Criticism of media coverage" section, which separates and highlights that content rather than working it seamlessly into the "Media coverage" section. I'm a bit surprised to find these section headings but no corresponding section heading that analyzes the Aruban reaction to a "missing white girl" (that content might not be thoroughly covered, but what is included is worked seamlessly into the article as it should be, while the content critical of Holloway and her family is singled out and highlighted via section headings). I'd like to see a discussion of possible reorganization of content to minimize the appearance of POV creeping in via the section headings. IMO, there is a subtle Aruban POV present in this article via the article's organization, but I suspect that people who aren't familiar with Aruban society haven't noticed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say I'm a bit surprised by your belief that there are POV problems with the article. I'm not sure if you're not familiar with the case, but Holloway's behavior and criticism of the media's coverage of the case have been significant points of discussion. There couldn't be a "Behavior of the Kalpoe brothers" section, because that aspect of the case doesn't exist (or for Van der Sloot). I would be against removing the separate sections, as these are critical points of the case, and warrant discussion in and of themselves. Can you point to where there is a "subtle Aruban POV present" in the article? - auburnpilot talk 19:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say there was POV: I said I'd like to see a discussion of section headings relative to possible POV. Singling out Holloway's behavior, and not doing the same for van der Sloot, is but one example of Aruban POV. (And perhaps a sexist POV as well, since young female "behavior" is singled out, while young "male" behavior isn't.) Is there a separate section discussing a 17-yo out alone late on school nights, drinking and gambling, for example? A balanced article won't create separate sections to analyze one side of an issue unless it does same for all sides, and working the issues seamlessly into the article is desired. Is there a corresponding analysis of van der Sloot's behavior and the Aruban reaction to the case? If not, there are issues of balance that should at least be discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, possible POV relative to section headers. We're not singling out Holloway's behavior any more than anybody else has. It's a significant aspect of the case, one that has been discussed continuously, whereas Van der Sloot's behavior as a "17-yo out alone late on school nights, drinking and gambling" has not. It's not our place to create an aspect of the case that doesn't exist, and I don't believe that is a POV problem in the least. Van der Sloot's behavior, other than his ever changing version of what happened, has never been discussed. (Addendum to the sexist comment added after I replied: this has nothing to do with sexism, and I believe you are reading into things that do not exist. We've presented facts at face value, and never has sexism been brought up in this case.) - auburnpilot talk 19:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not my job to research the article, but I do watch and read U.S. news sources, and I have read English- and Spanish-language Aruban newspapers on the topic (as well as skimming some Papiamento sources), and I find the statement that van der Sloot's behavior hasn't been discussed by reliable sources to be simply incorrect. If you haven't covered that angle, then there are 1b (comprehensive) concerns in the article, as there has definitely been press coverage of the issue of a 17-yo whose family permits him to drink and gamble late on school nights, and the previous issues with van der Sloot's behavior. That aspect of the case definitely exists: if it's not covered here, there may be 1b and 1c issues, lending to further concern about Aruban POV in favor of young local male against young U.S. female. Please consider attempting to research and cover this side of the story: I understand that most of our readers aren't familiar with Aruban society. Some of us are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It may not be your job to research the article, but if you are going to accuse us of completely ignoring an aspect of the case, one that I don't recall ever being an aspect of the case, it's time for you to pony up some research. I eagerly await the sources you present to back up your assertions that we are failing to comprehensively address the subject. Personally, I find it to be so insignificant, that it would pose an undue weight concern. Whether or not Van der Sloot went out and drank every night, or the fact that he was a high school student, isn't particularly relevant. - auburnpilot talk 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Auburn, please read my words carefully and do not misinterpret them. I am not accusing anyone of anything: I raised a question, I expected it would be easily resolved with some simple reorganization of section headings, but the direction your answers are going is increasingly giving rise to additional concerns. That isn't what I expected would happen when I raised what I hoped was a simple question on the route to article promotion. If this can't be easily resolved via talk page discussion, and if I must personally engage with the article's research, that means entering an oppose, recusing as FAC delegate, and passing the FAC to Raul (I can do that if it comes to that, but initially I thought I was raising a rather simple issue on the route to promotion). I am now concerned at seeing the same authors (I guess?) who created a section specifially highlighting a young female U.S. tourist drinking would then turn around and not miss a beat in saying, "Whether or not Van der Sloot went out and drank every night, or the fact that he was a high school student, isn't particularly relevant". If van der Sloot's behavior is irrelevant (even though it has been covered by reliable sources), then by the same measure, Holloway's drinking behavior doesn't warrant a section heading that singles out similar behaviors. This is the very definition of imbalance: ignoring the exact same aspect of the story for one party, covered by reliable sources, when it applies to a young local male rather than a young U.S. female. Please take some time, without alarm, to consider whether this can be resolved via talk, because in the past three cases where I've had to recuse, there has been considerable delay in promotion because Raul is so busy. I'd not like to see this article get this far and be held up on something I think can be solved with a wee bit of research and reorganization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What I think I will do is refrain from responding for the time being. You either are not understanding what I'm saying, or you are not clearly stating what you think the problem is (something I've asked you to do). Again, if you believe we are missing something, please provide a source to back up that assertion. I've done some searching in the time between my last reply and this one, and found nothing. I say this not as an attack of any kind, but I believe you are allowing your own bias to cloud your judgement. So, I'll allow Kww and Wehwalt to respond to this section before I comment further. Please, be specific in your concerns. - auburnpilot talk 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, the conversation has already veered further off than I expected when I first posted here about section headings, and I may already need to recuse. I didn't expect the conversation to go the direction it did; I initially thought there was some text that might need to be merged to eliminate some section headings, and thought it was a fairly simple issue. If you all are uncomfortable, I'll go ahead and recuse and pass the nom to Raul. Please think it over, no hurry; the responses here have been a bit surprising to me, so it's a bit awkward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Allright, here is one specific example; it is not the only example, I could find scores of others if I engaged with this article and did the research myself, but it is an example which clearly shows how one side of the story has been overlooked. Without even taking the time to look further, the very source that is most often used in the "Holloway's behavior" section includes exactly the same kinds of statements about van der Sloot that I'm referring to (and for which many other references can be found), yet the section heading and content focuses on Holloway, while completely neglecting any mention of similar statements about van der Sloot. That is a failure of 1b and 1c, WP:WIAFA. Some quotes from the Vanity Fair article used to source the "Holloway's behavior" section:

Beth took a hotel employee aside and described him. "She knew exactly who he was: Joran van der Sloot," Beth remembers. "And then she said—these were her exact words—'He tends to prey upon young female tourists.'"

In the first half-hour, Beth listened as Joran's parents lavished praise on their son, though they eventually admitted they had been having trouble with him. According to Beth, the van der Sloots acknowledged that Joran had been seeing a psychiatrist. "Anita told me that," Beth says. "She was saying they were beginning to have trouble with Joran [for a] defiant attitude. The father acknowledged they could not control him. He would sneak out, go gambling, in the pre-dawn hours. They had no control over him."

Moreover, Dompig says, this summer F.B.I. profilers completed a detailed psychological evaluation. "He struck us, and the F.B.I., as a guy who can make you believe he's God's gift to mothers-in-law," Dompig says. "But if you look at his actions, he's anything but. The F.B.I. profiled him as a person who never has been corrected by his parents. He's the boss of what happens in that house. He's the boss in the family. He is allowed to do anything.… If a person like that is in a position where a person says, 'No,' well, that person may change completely. Maybe he blew a fuse when she wouldn't have sex with him, and something happened."

This is covered in scores of sources; there have been multiple mentions throughout reliable sources of the issue of van der Sloot being a teen with no limits, allowed to gamble and drink late on school nights while still in high school, yet this angle is completely missing from this article. I hope this can be easily resolved by incorporating a bit of the missing text, and reorganizing to avoid POV in section headings aimed at one side of the story while leaving out the other. I'd like to see this FAC move forward. We cannot cherry pick sources to highlight Holloway as a "bad girl" while neglecting the other side of the story, which has been covered in great detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is actually one of the trickiest issues about neutrality. How to write a neutral article when a lot of the sources have an inherent non-neutrality. Much of the media coverage had a sexist, girls-gone-wild bent to it, and this definitely reflects deeper sexism in our society. I think that you're both right in that it does reflect the sources, but the headings also lead to a perception of subtle POV. I think the best option would be to add some of those criticisms of the males (not that they come off looking like saints as it is), as identified above, and to perhaps integrate the material about the trip into the section about the investigation? --JayHenry (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

we have Beth accuse Joran twice of rape in the article; and once of homicide. Must we also allege he was up late? Seems trivial. By the way, he was of legal drinking age. As was Natalee. See, we are not criticising her, we are trying to give the reader some sense of her state of mind, why she got in that car.22:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)~ (Wehwalt, sorry, was on my Blackberry)

But no corresponding sense of van der Sloot's state of mind or, as the article labels them "behaviors". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with the need for a paragraph regarding Joran's behavior, I've tried a couple times now to write something up, but the result was far from neutral (what can I say, I despise the guy). If somebody else wants to take a crack at it, please do. Where do you, SandyGeorgia, believe such a section belongs? - auburnpilot talk 01:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I subscribe to the Wikipedia:Criticism notion that all text (pro and con, criticism and otherwise) should be worked seamlessly into the article; that is, that there shouldn't be separate sections singling out the behavior of either of them (van der Sloot or Holloway). I'd be happy to see all of the text that discusses their behaviors just worked into the story, with neither of them singled out as "bad kid" or "girl gone wild" via a separate section. I also don't generally think criticism sections should be used for anything except, for example, criticism of an art work or literary work (as in critical reception), and that whenever you find yourself with a section that is purely critical, there may be problems with balance in the article. But, not all editors hold that view, it's certainly not guideline or policy, and that doesn't mean you have to do it my way. I guess I'm not much help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no offense, but we're certainly not going to be doing that here. It would require a major restructuring of the article with little to no benefit (emphasis on no benefit). I suppose we'll just wait for others to comment. - auburnpilot talk 01:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Auburn, do you think it might be possible to integrate this information into the section on investigation? The sources of these claims are all from Spring of 2006, and thus if we basically moved those paragraphs to the chronologically appropriate part of investigation and said "An article in Vanity Fair at this drew attention to the behavior..." It's that same information, but without what Sandy feels is undue weight given by the heading. I personally don't feel that it's a dealbreaker as written, but I think we have an opportunity for a logical compromise here. Do you think that might work? I could take a stab at it if you'd like (I know how difficult it can become to rework an article that you've focused on for so long. By the time I get to FAC, I'm generally incapable of editing my own prose any further!) --JayHenry (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All these are good points, and what I propose to do is this. I think we should put the content of the behavior section into the part of the article which discusses the trip. That way, it isn't criticism, it is just what happened prior to Natalee's disappearance. I would also delete the part of the Amigoe section that discusses the rehab center. I have never thought that was relevant, but it was added by another editor.

We may, in the chronology of the article, put some comments, say by talk show hosts, who comment on Joran's changing story, to answer Sandy Georgia's concern. I would rather not put a criticism for which the source is Beth Twitty, she's had her bite at the apple by accusing Joran of rape and/or manslaughter, and that is covered in the article. As for the personality profile thing, I think that would be difficult to include, due to Dompig relating it to Joran's "actions", which are certainly debatable (what actions?) and then going off in speculation. While we are on the subject, I should note that we cover Joran's lies, changing stories, accusation of rape against him (three times), accusation of manslaughter (dumping Natalee into the ocean), use of marijuana, and his very ill considered comments to Van der Eem. I do not think we are kind to him; that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. To accuse him of staying out late on a school night seems almost silly. Did he not eat his vegetables that evening, too? As for the underage drinking, it appears the drinking age on Aruba is 16, and there are enough questions as to whether there was money involved in the poker tournament I've read he participated in (with his father) to make it unfair to cover that critically. If Joran drank at 17, and it was legal there, he does not compare unfavorably with Natalee, who flew several hours to avoid a 21 year old drinking limit.

I do not think the Beth Twitty section is unduly critical, it is based on her quotes. And we give her one of only three blockquotes in the article, to explain her quest for justice, giving her the last word in the section.

Anyway, that is what I propose we do. Integrate the behavior section into the early part of the article, perhaps expand a bit to cover the chaperones, delete the rehab center, and put in a paragraph criticizing Joran for his changing stories. Sandy, does this address your concerns? Incidently, I see no need for you to recuse yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've only had a chance for a quick look at the diffs, haven't re-read the article, I see the section headings that singled out one party and concerned me are gone, what you describe above sounds quite reasonable, and I think it best that I leave you all alone now and get my nose out of your work :-) I'm going to unwatch here now; if anyone feels that I should recuse, please speak up without concern. Good luck on the FAC ! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation question from SandyGeorgia

We had a pretty long discussion on this topic. The original, written transcription of the verbal quote was ...because she is a pretty, blonde, and white. This needed a [sic] somewhere, because, as transcribed, it's a grammar error. However, as spoken, it isn't: ...because she is a pretty blonde–and white is fine grammatically. We enquired on the MOS talk page and here, and got no satisfactory answer. Finally, we decided to treat it as a transription error in the punctuation, and we are providing the exact wording of the verbal source, while providing the exact, erroneous transcription as well. Kww (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V, and many discussions on verifiability, not truth. The safest thing to do, always, is to report what source say. You have a very reliable print source here: deviating from it involves original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concept. Where would you put the [sic], and why? The written source described exactly what the words were that were said, as do we. What does "she was a pretty" even mean?

If people actually made little hand gestures when they spoke, indicating commas and dashes, it would be one thing. She said "she was a pretty blonde and white." That is a perfectly valid sentence, not indicating illiteracy or lack of knowledge of the English language. A transcriber transformed it into bad grammar, with "pretty" being used as a noun, instead of an adjective. If the original source was written, it would be one matter, but here, the original source was spoken.Kww (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a sic at all; just quote the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we change it back to the erroneously transcribed form, it doesn't make sense. We need a sic to let the reader know there is an error and it isn't ours, and he can figure out what was meant. I'd prefer to have it in the corrected form, but if we have to change it, so be it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Copyediting through this article. The introduction to the investigation needs to be at least 3-4 sentences long to summarize the key points of the section. miranda 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Noticed that photos have captions which have fragments that have periods. Correcting these now. miranda 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done miranda 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help, Miranda. - auburnpilot talk 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a controversial article, you need to cite Further, according to Amigoe's report on the interviews, Aruban authorities were obstructed at the highest level in their attempts to investigate Jug Twitty, and they received very limited cooperation in their attempts to question Holloway's fellow graduates.in the Amigoe section. miranda 21:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. It's from the same Amigo article, which reads "Especially when it came to investigating her direct relatives, mother Beth, stepfather George ‘Jug’ Twitty – who apparently has direct or indirect contacts and influence reaching as far as the White House- but also when it came to investigating the more than 120 fellow students and the chaperones who accompanied them in their trip to Aruba." I reworded so the sentence reads "Holloway's relatives" instead of singling out Jug. - auburnpilot talk 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro, copyedit, etc

Working when I can, but there is still a lot of work to be done here. I'm most concerned about the intro length, and the duplication of information within different sections and the intro. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The intro is actually the correct length, per WP:LEAD, as it should be up to four paragraphs and be able to stand alone as a complete summary of the article. Thanks for whatever copyediting you can get done. - auburnpilot talk 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected various small errors that have crept in as a result of the editing, which was mostly quite good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exhuming an oft-defeated proposal to re-focus

• There have been arguments before in favor of moving this article to a name that stresses its encyclopedic coverage of a notable event, rather than as a biography. There have been good arguments both for and against the idea. I bring it up again only to point to a comparable article, Chappaquiddick incident, which is where you get redirected if you search for Mary Jo Kopechne. --Dystopos (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dystopos, we are currently screaming and running in circles trying to address valid concerns to make this a FA. Can we put the title on hold for a couple of weeks?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a course of discussion, not a schedule. --Dystopos (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. And I will engage you on the discussion when I'm not distracted by the FAC. Incidently, as a major contributor to this article, any help with the FAC you could give would be greatly appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, back to this. I'm still of the same belief that this is the best article title because it is the most common search term. And while both are doozies for the spelling bee people, people are more likely to remember Chappaquiddick than Kopechne. And the bulk of missing people are under their own names, not disappearance of. See my comments during the last four times this was brought up.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We've also added basic background/biographical information per the requests at the FA discussion, in order to more appropriately address the current title. I still favor the current location, even more than I did previously (initially objected to bio info, but I must admit it makes the article more complete). - auburnpilot talk 01:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

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

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

Archiving

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

Go for it. - auburnpilot talk 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Done. - auburnpilot talk 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Natalee's Grades

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, please log in before you edit. I assume that you are User:Jonaaron, and it makes it easier to track discussions with you if you log in each time.
I'm not aware that anyone but you thought that that was an important addition to the article. Can you show any support for your position that her grades are sufficiently important to warrant mention? Kww (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Holloway's grades really are irrelevant, and being a straight A student at MBHS is not uncommon. It should not be included, as it merely serves to perpetuate the "innocent angel" vs "devil Joran" perspective. The only place I could conceivably see it in the article, would be as a response to Dompig's statement: "Dompig indicated that there is evidence that points to possession (though not necessarily use) of drugs by Holloway.[15][73] Members of her family have denied drug use by Holloway,[74] and she is described as a straight-A student". I prefer if it wasn't included, but it shouldn't be given prominence as suggested by 24.16.98.233 (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose. It really isn't relevant to anything. And certainly it has no place in the lede. If somehow it winds up in the article, I would certainly insert that Joran was an honors student at Aruba International School, a soccer star, and a role model for the other kids at that school. It's all in reliable sources. If it is good for the goose . .. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kww:

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

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

Auburnpilot:

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

Re: Your comments above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to me that Jonaaron's view is offered to make a point, and runs into this language from WP:NPOV:

"A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias". Jonaaron suggests that it is "relevant to" the allegations that Holloway possessed or used drugs, failed to take the case seriously (I don't see that in the article by the way, they began searching immediately and sent two cops with the posse to the Van der Sloot house). I see no RS which relate these points, thus Jonaaron is offering the allegation regarding grades to make those points, and not for NPOV reasons. There was no consensus then for inclusion, and is none now, and what there is now is what is important. WP is a breathing document, and we many times have reconsidered what was decided on before.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jonaaron, I'm sorry, but you are 100% wrong that straight-A students are uncommon at MBHS. The difference between Holloway's GPA and class rank as a straight-A student and other student's grades as straight-A students is the boost given by AP classes. At MBHS, an A in a regular class is calculated as a 4 when determining GPA, but an A in an AP class counts as a 4.5. Thus, somebody with 4 regular A's and a B would have a 3.8 GPA, while somebody with 4 AP A's and a B would have a 4.2 GPA. Now, this really is all beside the point, and I couldn't agree more with Wehwalt's statement. Simply being able to verify a claim doesn't mean the claim should be included. Unless you can produce reliable sources that state Holloway's GPA was a factor in "allegations she possessed/used drugs / why the case became such a media sensation / the fact that ALE failed to initially take the case seriously" it's all original research. - auburnpilot talk 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

kww- I don't understand the need to war on this one. It is a quote from the Vanity Fair article. This is an article about Natalee Holloway, not the disappearance, not her trip ... it's about the girl. We've hashed that out enough times. For an 18-year-old, that is a pretty meaningful descriptor. So where's the beef?

Dystopos- I think it's reasonable to describe her as a "straight A student" citing the VF article as the source unless someone challenges that characterization in print somewhere else.

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

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

Auburnpilot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm OK with the FBI 302s and the affidavits from the lawsuit. I'm more concerned with the authenticity of the PV's. Like you said, some of them have been put in Joran's book, but some have not. And Greta has indeed read a few more. But a lot have not, and the fact that they are generally accepted in the message board world doesn't count for much here. And we can't vouch for the translations. So those are my concerns. Thoughts from anyone else?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the link would meet the external link guidelines. It amounts to a personal website, and unless all the statements were taken by Feds, a case could be made that it is also a site that contains "material that violates the copyrights of others"; I don't believe Aruba has a public domain release like the US. That, coupled with unreliable translations, I can't support including the link. Personal websites simply are not reliable sources of information and there is no way to confirm the authenticity of the statements. - auburnpilot talk 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I see now that (I assume it is) Jonaaron has linked to a page containing only the 302s. So there goes the copyright and translation arguments. It is still a personal website, though. I took it out feeling that a new consensus needed to be arrived at before adding it. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My only objection is to the one that is hand-typed from a screen capture. I'm willing to accept the scans.
Kww (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Kww: OK, I changed the link to a page with just the scans. [10]

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

Lobby Camera

The line

"it is unclear whether the security cameras at the hotel were actually working that night".

is personal opinion and should be deleted.

Readers can review the evidence and decide for themelves if it is "unclear" whether the lobby camera was working.

If the line were amended to read "it is unclear whether ALL the security cameras at the hotel were actually working that night" I would have no problem with it.

But there are multiple statements from at least two firsthand sources (Beth and Julia Renfro) that they personally viewed the lobby security footage from that morning to determine if a girl seen on the tape was Natalee.

And the supposed basis for lack of clarity on this point, consists entirely of a single comment by Beth in a TV interview, in which she stated that "the Holiday Inn security cameras" were not working that night- but did not specify which HI cameras, and subsequently in her book she again described personally viewing the lobby tape.

So, I think it's perfectly clear that on that one occasion she was referring to other cameras. At the very least it is certainly debatable whether there is any reasonable doubt about what she meant- and hence declaring it to be "unclear" is subjective POV.

There is another problem here as well. On the April 11, 2006 "On the Record" program, Julia Renfro described viewing the lobby tape from that morning. However while the transcript for that interview is available on Lexis-Nexis (I have the relevant portion copied at the link below)

http://www.hollowaycase.com/archive/media/renfro.htm

it's not on the Fox site and so can't be directly linked as a source. And as written, the wiki article is highly misleading, by suggesting there is any doubt as to whether Beth viewed such tape herself, without noting that Beth is not the only person with a firsthand account of viewing it. I'm not sure how to remedy that other than by linking to the copy/pasted Lexis-Nexis tscript.

Jonaaron (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the current phrasing is just fine, and not misleading in any way, except that it kinda implies that Natalee would have had to go through the lobby to get to her room, which we probably all know is not the case (there are multiple ways to get to the C tower at the Holiday Inn Sunspree which do not involve going through the lobby), but to put that would smack of OR. I don't think what we have is opinion. Again, Jonaaron, as we discussed with you some months ago, you're interpreting what Beth said in that interview. That's not our job.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't address my specific objection.

Again, you are declaring (I'm guessing you are the one who posted it) that a particular comment by Beth makes it "unclear" whether the cameras were working. When actually, it's just your opinion that this single comment, regardless of all the other evidence on the subject, is important enough to make that fact "unclear". I disagree with your opinion- I think that based on the weight of the evidence, it's quite clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the lobby camera was working. And I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

If you want to say that Beth has contradicted herself on this issue, fine- that's technically accurate, if you take what she said in that one interview completely literally. However, it is not an objective fact that particular comment is sufficient basis for uncertainty regarding the actual status of the camera- that is an argument.

24.16.98.233 (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and sign in. It is unclear because Beth has gone more than one way on this, and has never actually said, "That statement I gave after Van Cromvoirt was arrested, saying the security cameras weren't working, well that was flat out wrong." Had she addressed her statement, I'd be more inclined to go with your position. But she hasn't, and contradicting herself again isn't the same thing. I think we have the facts, it isn't opinionated, and that the matter should stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I could go either way. either "It is unclear ...", or "Beth Holloway has made contradictory statements..." with some more explanation. Just letting the contradiction sit unflagged isn't the way to go.
And yes, Jonaaron, please log in when you edit.Kww (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine. What I fear, though, is that, since Jonaaron doesn't like the contradiction being in there at all, he'll add in everything he thinks will throw weight on his premise, and we will be hearing about Renfro and who knows what else at this point, and basically sidetracking the reader on what is not a major part in the article (but since God is in the details, the fact that it is a small point isn't stopping us from discussing it!). How about "uncertain" instead of "unclear"? That is accurate no matter what, nothing is certain in this life.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt: "It is unclear because Beth has gone more than one way on this" might be a valid reason, if Beth were the only source of firsthand information on this. But of course she isn't.

Kww: I'm OK with just "Beth Holloway has made contradictory statements..." followed by the specifics.

However, do you disagree that re: the existence of the lobby tape, it's very misleading to note Beth's (technical) inconsistency, without noting that that the tape's existence is corroborated by a second person who also claims to have viewed it?

Ideally, if sourcing rules don't allow for the inclusion of Renfro's interview tscript from Lexis-Nexis, then to avoid creating an incomplete and inaccurate picture, I think it would be best to leave out Beth's comments as well. But I'm willing to let that go, since the tape's existence isn't a major issue (altho it's not totally without significance either: In her interview Renfro suggests that Aruban police originally believed the girl on that tape to be Natalee, which would help explain why the trio weren't arrested sooner).

Jonaaron (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that to take out Beth's comment would be like to delete a comment made by Hamlet because we aren't sure of the sourcing of something Guildenstern may have said.

Probably Renfro did look at the part of a tape, from a camera focused on the front desk, as she said. Whether or not this is the only camera focused on the lobby is not certain. (Do YOU go to the front desk every time you enter a hotel once you've checked in?) I can't see that what Renfro said advances this any further. But I've changed the language. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, here is what was said:

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And does it also disturb you, Beth, that apparently this new suspect has a lot of connections in town? According to one published report -- which I don`t know if we`ve been able to independently confirm -- his relative, I believe a sister, is with law enforcement. His dad runs a security company. He was friends with the party boat guy, who also got involved in the case earlier, allegedly giving some sort of a cover-up alibi to Joran Van Der Sloot. This is all six degrees of separation here.

TWITTY: Jane, it`s just so many different connections that it is just frightening. And, you know, I don`t even know for certain -- I don`t think we`ve been able to definitively rule out that there`s not some photos that could quite possibly have Joran and the new suspect in them. I`m not certain of that at all, but it certainly appears that he may be in some.

And, you know, also, it`s kind of frightening to us to hear about his connections with the father having control of the security cameras on the island, because, after all, you know, the Holiday Inn security cameras were not working that night that the suspects took Natalee.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wow, this is so complicated. --Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Dutch source

Here is a recent article from a Dutch paper:[11]. Does it say anything we want to include? I've read a supposed translation and I didn't see much but others may have other views. Kww? You are our language expert.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The translation I read didn't contain anything of much interest, but it didn't make sense 100% of the time either. Google's translator needs some work. - auburnpilot talk 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Was a high school student

Do you claim that this person is still a high school student? —Centrx→talk • 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Holloway was not a high school student when she disappeared, so the statement "Natalee Ann Holloway was a high school student who disappeared on May 30, 2005" is inaccurate. The opening sentence, as written, is accurate and grammatically correct. It is intentionally worded in the way it is because it avoids the question of whether Holloway is or was, which was previously a point of contention (frequently changed between is/was). - auburnpilot talk 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but she "was a high-school student" in roughly the same sense that all high-school graduates are. She graduated prior to the trip. The main concern is that the "was" carries an implication of deceased, something we are careful to avoid in this article.
Kww (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The sentence is carefully phrased. I see no point to changing it. For us to "choose 'is or was'" as you suggested in an edit summary, would be odd indeed if you mean for us to choose both.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As Kww states, she was a high-school student in the same sense that all (recent) high-school graduates are. Stating she "was a high-school student" who disappeared implies nothing other than that she was a high-school student at the time of the disappearance.

Currently, the introduction is carefully constructed not to state what she is or was at all. This is wrong in an encyclopedia article, which foremost must state what a topic is and which must not be written as though it were another chapter in a continuing narrative, where the reader already knows what "Natalee Holloway" is (see [12] for a similar problem in another article). This is no less a problem than carefully distinguishing between "is" and "was".

That she "was a high-school student who disappeared" is a natural, accurate construction which would raise no eyebrows at the head of any news report. There are other possibilities, such as "is a missing person", which implies an unknown status, not a living status. —Centrx→talk • 21:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, is there anything in WP:MOS that says we have to do it the way you propose? As I've said, this phrasing has been considered acceptable to just about everyone for getting on for two years now, and I see no particular reason to change it. The first sentence informs the reader that she was on a high school graduation trip, and that she disappeared. The only piece of delayed gratification (second sentence) is her nationality and city of residence. Unless we are breaking some WP rule, I'd say leave things as they are. We had a very intense, 25 day FAC and no one ever questioned this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• The lead was "Natalee Ann Holloway (born October 21, 1986), from Mountain Brook, Alabama, disappeared on May 30, 2005 during..." for most of those two years, which is cluttered and even more disjointed: the longevity of such an unclear sentence in the very first line shows that longevity is not equivalent to good. Also, many featured articles, though good articles, have serious flaws--flaws sometimes worse than this one.
• Encyclopedia articles are not about "gratification". The introduction is defective not because it delays some sensationalist reader, but because it does not define, and define clearly, the topic of the article.
• Even if the MOS did not explicitly state that the lead must unambiguously define the topic and establish its context, which it does, the current introduction would still not be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

—Centrx→talk • 01:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS merely states that the lead should start by identifying the subject (which this lead does). It then goes on to give a perfectly acceptable example of a lead sentence that does not use the format "The Subject is/was". This isn't a policy/guideline issue, but one of personal preference and editorial judgment. It is best, in my opinion, to leave the lead as it is; changing it brings up more questions than it resolves. - auburnpilot talk 22:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the lead does not "unambiguously define the topic" (Wikipedia:Lead section); in fact ambiguity was specifically chosen in order to avoid is/was. It also does not "establish the context in which the topic is being considered". Regardless, definition and context are necessary for an article in a general encyclopedia. Also, where does the MOS give the contrary example you mention? If you mean "In an essay, an introduction is ...", that example is still nothing like the current article, and a similar construction here would be something like "An American student, Natalee Holloway...", which would still be better. —Centrx→talk • 01:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Writing better articles#State the obvious and following: "an article on Charles Darwin should not begin with: Darwin created controversy with the publication of Origin of Species... but instead should begin with something like: Darwin was a naturalist who proposed the scientific theory that.... This is a textbook example of this exact issue. —Centrx→talk • 03:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. "High-school student" is a status that ceases upon graduation. She was not a high-school student at the time of her disappearance. It is true that she was a high-school student, just as I was a high-school student once. It isn't an accurate descriptive phrase for either of us.
Kww (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a high-school student who is at a party for high-school graduation is appropriate, and is similar to calling someone a student while he is on summer break, despite the unknown possibility he may drop out or die--which is similar to the unknown of whether Holloway is alive or dead. Regardless, that can be resolved by using "Holloway was a high-school graduate". —Centrx→talk • 01:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Any objection to "is a missing person"? This is a common formulation, is correct whether living or dead, and clearly states what the topic is about. —Centrx→talk • 01:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object. I understand your points, but you don't have consensus for any change here. The lede is not in the least confusing, for all that it does not conform to your personal editorial judgment.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you object to the change, you actually need to provide reasons. None of the above comments, other than my own, discuss "is a missing person". The current introduction only causes an intelligent native English speaker to pause and hiccup while reading; however, making every article a bullet-point list would also not be "confusing", but would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The problems with the current introduction are revealed not by my personal editorial judgment alone, but by reasons explained above, by the MOS, and by most every other article on Wikipedia, other encyclopedias, and nonfiction (and some fiction) works in general. Some novels begin with sentences like "Alfred was lost. Rummaging through the basement, he thought he might never find the microscope with which he won the Nobel Prize.", but encyclopedia articles, histories, academic journals, textbooks, and newspaper articles do not. Definition and context are not concepts I just invented. —Centrx→talk • 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've provided reasons, but in addition, your addition adds nothing to the article, as "disappeared" actually links to missing person. I remind you of AuburnPilot's point that the MOS provides examples lacking "is" or "was". In addition, this is a FA, for which one of the criteria is outstanding writing. If you read the FAC, you'll see we had to make changes to the lede. This was never questioned. For you to repeat ad nauseum that it is "inappropriate for an encyclopedia" at every turn is simply your opinion, and is contradicted by the three experienced editors who monitor this article and the host of editors who examined it for GA, for peer review, and for FA. I oppose including "is" or "was".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• "is a missing person" is to satisfy the purpose of this whole discussion: it clearly describes what the topic of the article is.
• As I stated above, I do not see any example of a lead sentence lacking "is" in Wikipedia:Manual of Style or Wikipedia:Lead section; please point it out. Regardless, the issue is not directly the use of "is" or "was": the issue is that the lead sentence define the the topic, a function which is most often accomplished by "is" or "was".
• As I stated above, many featured articles have serious flaws, of various kinds. They are generally well-written of course, but it is not unlikely that a mediocre formulation was chosen. In order to carefully avoid the issue of "is" or "was", you settled on the current text, not because it was the best formulation. Furthermore, even if some editors thought this was an excellent formulation, I suspect most did not confront the issue at all. Featured articles are not inviolable.
• If I were to characterize your argument as you have characterized mine, it seems you are ignoring my arguments entirely such that I need to repeat them; and ignoring the fact that even if you think the current text is the best formulation available under the circumstances, it is not an excellent formulation: there may be better and I doubt your claims that "experienced editors" and a host of FAC people actually examined this very issue and concluded there was no better way. Where can I find the discussion where "is a missing person" was rejected? —Centrx→talk • 03:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Writing better articles#State the obvious and following: "an article on Charles Darwin should not begin with: Darwin created controversy with the publication of Origin of Species... but instead should begin with something like: Darwin was a naturalist who proposed the scientific theory that.... This is a textbook example of this exact issue. —Centrx→talk • 03:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you absolutely must include a defining term in the lead sentence, I could accept

• Natalee Ann Holloway, an American student from Mountain Brook, Alabama, disappeared on May 30, 2005, during a high school graduation trip in Aruba, a Caribbean country in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Holloway, born October 21, 1986, graduated from Mountain Brook High School on May 24, 2005, shortly before the trip. The disappearance caused a media sensation in the United States.

Of course, other editors would have to agree. Personally, the part of the lead that gets me is the assumption that people who care about what Aruba is are too lazy to click on the wikilink. That set of definitions and qualifiers is what murks things up.
Kww (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What about "An American student from Alabama, Natalee Holloway disappeared..."? (If standard practice on Wikipedia in defining the topic can be ignored, having a preface before the bolded name is no worse.) I still don't see what is wrong with "is a missing person"?

The Aruba things irks me too. Somehow the fact that Aruba belongs to the Netherlands is more important to the article on "Natalee Holloway" than the fact that Holloway is an American student... —Centrx→talk • 03:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're to do this, I much prefer Kww's language. Centrx's is rather awkward. I'd play around with it to avoid lengthy sentences. Now that FAC is safely in the past, I think we can delete the language about what Aruba is. And the reason why we prefer to avoid "is" and "was" has been comprehensively set forth above.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Centrx, if I could ask a favor, could I ask that you add your arguments at the bottom of the page? Your habit of responding simultaneously to several posts is confusing and may have led to the impression we are ignoring some of your arguments.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your grammar feels inverted to me, and I don't see what benefit you gain. "Natalee Ann Holloway, an American student..." gets away from the tense problem, and provides the immediate identification you crave.

The history on Aruba is a circle: if we just call it Aruba, then someone changes it to "Caribbean island", and then someone will change it to something like "a Dutch territory in the Caribbean", which then gets me irritated, because despite what many people think, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are countries, and it winds up as "Caribbean country in the Kingdom of the Netherlands". Then someone will try to simplify it to just "Aruba", and someone will complain that that isn't enough for people that don't know where Aruba is, and it just goes on and on and on.
Kww (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, right now we are leading with what Natalee is best known for, that is disappearing. The fact that she was a student is secondary to that. We may be better off with the status quo.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that she is an ordinary student in America is important to her notability, even if media sources might not be enamored with the story only because she is a "typical white girl". People disappear all the time, but do not garner this sort of coverage. Regardless, "is a missing person" defines the topic specifically in terms of her notability as a missing person. —Centrx→talk • 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion considered, I still don't see any benefit from changing the present wording. In fact, I see nothing but drawbacks from the various alternate phrasings. - auburnpilot talk 12:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just rearranging the furniture, to the detriment of clarity. We start with what she is best known for, stating the obvious about her. We then move on to background information about her. I'm not contending that our language is the ideal, but it is very good, and I haven't heard a better alternative. If we were to insert the student language into the first sentence, we'd be leading with something which isn't what she is best known for. I think we can safely assume that the reader will read at least two sentences; besides, given that we say "high school graduation trip" in the first sentence, most of it is there anyway, other than the specifics of nationality and place of residence. And we've had that discussion before here, nationality doesn't have to be in the first sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

She is best known for being "a missing person", which is what we can start with. The current formulation is not encyclopedic and is specifically "ruled" against in multiple guidelines. Defining terms and explaining context is essential to an encyclopedia article, without which it is not. —Centrx→talk • 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can link the guidelines, but the thing is, they are guidelines, not rules. For you to say over and over again that it is "not encyclopedic" is not advancing any discussion. I think we are at loggerheads here, and I'm willing to listen to you, but I don't think you have achieved consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I said it is not encyclopedic because an encyclopedia article foremost must explicitly define its topic and place that topic within its context.

You were the one who originally asked for guidelines, and you argued that this problem was merely my own "personal editorial judgement" contradicted by all the "experienced" editors. Now you say it is not important that multiple guidelines explicitly describe the very problem I raise and forbid, inasmuch as a guideline can, the very sort of wording you advocate? —Centrx→talk • 04:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd love to contribute to this discussion, but I'm not sure I understand the alternatives being put forth. Unless someone can demonstrate a better alternative, I'm inclined to go along with what AuburnPilot said. --Dystopos (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• On second thought, I don't think I can contribute anything except my bemusement at the ratio of kilobytes between this page and the article. --Dystopos (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your bemusement is appreciated. I start with short simple sentences, but people who seemed to misunderstand or ignore them demanded a detailed wealth of justification they apparently did not see in the simple sentence. —Centrx→talk • 18:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary: Article not explicitly defining its topic

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to describe its topic. That purpose is accomplished by defining the topic and its ramifications, and explaining how that topic fits within its context.

To that end, Wikipedia articles briefly define unfamiliar terms within their text; for example, this very article treats "Aruba" as a potentially unfamiliar term by defining it in the text as "a Caribbean country in the Kingdom of the Netherlands" (an instance of explicit context which may be extreme).

Most importantly, an encyclopedia article defines the topic that is its subject. For example, the article on the Communist Bulletin Group does not begin "The Communist Bulletin Group was founded in 1981 by groups in Edinburgh and Aberdeen which split from World Revolution.", as though the reader were already in rapport with the subject of the article, even though we can from that sentence infer that it must be a "communist" "group" based in Scottish cities. Likewise, the article on Charles Darwin does not begin "Charles Darwin created controversy with the publication of Origin of Species...", it begins "Charles Darwin was a naturalist...". This latter is an example given in Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Provide context for the reader, for the lead sentence of an article should be "a concise, conceptually sound, characterization-driven, encyclopedic definition" (ibid), the lead section "needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader" (Wikipedia:Lead section#Content of the lead). See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#First sentences and the old Wikipedia:Define and describe.

The article Natalee Holloway, in order to avoid implying that this missing person is dead or alive, carefully avoids the use of the words "is" and "was" in reference to the state of the person. To this end, the article begins "Natalee Holloway disappeared on May 30, 2005, during a high school graduation trip...", assuming the reader already has a rapport with the topic, without defining it.

Some alternatives:

• Natalee Holloway is a missing person who...
  • This is a conventional way of describing what a missing person is, and does not imply that she is dead or alive; she is either way still missing and still a person. The argument against this--I presume since no one has explained it specifically--is that "is" implies she is alive.
• Natalee Holloway, an American student, disappeared...
• An American student, Natalee Holloway disappeared
  • The former is the old wording (months ago) of the article. These two explicitly describe what the topic is, though the sentence structure is somewhat clumsy and it does not explicitly state that the topic is or was something.
• Natalee Holloway was an American student who disappeared...
  • This explicitly states that she was an American student, without claiming any knowledge of her subsequent status. The article already states this ambiguously with the clause "an American student..., Holloway graduated from...", which implies she is currently an American student. The objection to this wording is that the use of the word "was" implies she is no longer alive.

—Centrx→talk • 05:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• Oppose I refer the reader to the arguments made by AuburnPilot, Kww, and myself above.

• This article starts off with what Holloway is best known for: disappearing. The word links to "missing person" in case there is any conceivable doubt. The first sentence goes on to describe the place of the disappearance, Aruba, and the fact that she was on a high school graduation trip there. That clues the reader in that she was a student. Perhaps the impatient reader will go away at that point, and not learn, at the start of the second sentence, that she was American, but I rather doubt it. The language fully satisfies all Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

• Centrx cites WP:LEAD minimally and out of context. To refresh recollection, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article." This is undoubtedly true. All information that needs to be in the lede, is in the lede. This was reviewed at every step of the way to the article's current Featured Article status.

• "The first sentence should give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject. If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise one that puts the article in context." That guidance from the MOS on lead sentences is what we've followed. It is not necessary to put "an American student" in the first sentence, since it anyway clearly implies she is a student (she was on a graduation trip), and Centrx's language adds length and awkwardness. Nationality need not be in the first sentence. Centrx's own example doesn't say "Charles Darwin was a BRITISH naturalist . . . "

• I'm not going to embark on a lengthy polemic, but guidelines anyway are not meant to forestall editorial judgment. Prior to the language being inserted, this article was subject to edit wars on the is/was question. While Centrx proposes some language that keeps some elements of the language, his/her proposals are awkward and strained. Centrx's claim of ambiguity does not fly. By the time we mention her student status, the reader already knows that she has disappeared.

• When you come down to it, this is a dispute about editorial judgment. No WP policies or guidelines are really at issue here. Unfortunately, Centrx's proposals add only confusion, strained grammar, and ambiguity to the lede. They are inferior to the existing language. --Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• Oppose: Wehwalt has summed it up nicely. This isn't a perfect lead (I would have just wikilinked Aruba and been done with it, myself), but to argue that the lead doesn't tell you what a Natalee Holloway is is simply argument for arguments sake.
  Kww (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. You may think the issue unimportant--in which case you may as well just let me change it--but it is not merely argument for argument's sake, and starting from that premise either begs the question or assumes bad faith. —Centrx→talk • 15:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an assumption of bad faith. You brought this up, it was reverted, you tried again, it was reverted, you tried again, it was reverted, it was discussed on the talk page, you were told you were wrong, and then you went to RFC. You seem to earnestly believe that your change is necessary, so I can't call it bad faith. I can think of it as misguided and unnecessary.
Kww (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the issues remain unaddressed by anyone opposing the change, specifically responses to User:Wehwalt. People can tell me I'm wrong, but without explaining why that advice is baseless. —Centrx→talk • 17:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to simplify it then: your statement that the current lead doesn't define the topic is wrong. Incorrect. Counterfactual. Not congruent with reality. The lead of this article lets the reader know exactly what the topic of the article is. You are insistent on a particular syntax, and are attempting to force that syntax on this article. That effort is misguided. Wrong. Not in the best interest of the article. We have analyzed that syntax in the past, and rejected it. You have brought no new arguments to the table to make anyone revisit that decision. Your repeated efforts to force that syntax into the article are irritating, and wasting people's time. Please stop.
Kww (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Even if we accepted that the the problem is merely one of form, what exactly is wrong with the proposed alternatives? No one still has addressed what is wrong with "is a missing person". Your objection to "an American student", even if it were not common practice to include nationality in the first sentence, is irrelevant to the issue: the objection is easily resolved by using "a student". There is nothing confused, strained, or ambiguous about "is a missing person" or "was a student". —Centrx→talk • 15:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I'm not even sure that we know that she was a student at the time of her disappearance. Do you have any reliable source indicating that she had been accepted to college and planned to attend?
Kww (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really the place for others to comment, but the use of "is" or "was", as has been explained repeatedly, has been the cause of edit wars. As for "was a student", while I can see that that might be technically correct, causes more questions than it answers and will be taken by some editors as us taking a position that she is dead. It is not common practice to include nationality in the first sentence, please see the debate on this point in Archive 3. It is perhaps 60-40. You have yet to convince four longtime editors on this page, who (it was made clear in the FAC) are quite willing to see edits and improvements to this article, that your preferred phrasings are superior. The use of "is" or "was" causes problems here (see Archive 1 and Archive 3), this is an elegant solution that has put a stop to edit wars on this point. By the way, she wouldn't be a student until she actually enrolled. I don't doubt you like your own language, but that doesn't make it superior to what we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The general reasons against the use of "is" and "was" do not apply to wording like "is a missing person", wording which you have not addressed, or "was a student", wording you did not previously address. What questions does "Holloway was a student who disappeared" bring? How does it bring any more questions than "Holloway disappeared"?

The discussion in Archive 1 was about the wording "Holloway is a girl from Alabama". That wording is not like "is a missing person" or "was a student". The problems with alive/dead can be addressed without eliminating the verb of existence. —Centrx→talk • 18:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take it for granted that when I address the question of is/was generally, that I have considered and rejected the various formulations you have proposed which use "is" or "was". They involve the same reasons for which the previous use, in this article of "is" or "was" was found unsatisfactory, and there is no reason to repeat them ad nauseum. I'm agreeing with Kww, your efforts have become counterproductive. This article has been gone through on FAC by the best nitpickers on Wikipedia. They didn't even twig at this language. Sometimes people come along and point out to others things they have been blind to. This is not such a case. Please accept our congratulations on your sincerity and persistence, but please also accept that we sincerely believe you are wrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated numerous times before, as has been stated by Kww and Wehwalt above, the current wording of the lead was intentionally chosen to avoid a point of contention. The question of whether Holloway is or was still comes up (Holloway family and other's believe she "is", others like the Aruban investigators believe she "was"), and the wording of the lead avoids the issue. The lead is written factually, grammatically correct, and within all policies and guidelines. This argument about a "verb of existence" is not supported by policy or guideline. We are not required to say "Holloway is a person". - auburnpilot talk 18:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• Oppose This seems frivolous and unnecessary. I agree this seems more a editorial judgment than any type of policy violation. If consensus is to keep "is" and "was" out to limit contention then so be it. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "KBros" :
  • {{cite news |title=Kalpoe Brothers Home Inspected in Natalee Holloway Case |accessdate=2007-05-12 |year=2007 |month=May |publisher=FOX6WBRC}}
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-12-21-3066205443_x.htm |title=Defense Response to Aruban Prosecutors |accessdate=2008-03-31 |date=2007-12-21 |publisher=''USA Today''-Associated Press}}
• "DavesBook" :
  • {{cite book |title=''Aruba: The Tragic Untold Story of Natalee Holloway and Corruption in Paradise'' |last=Holloway |first=Dave |coauthors=R. Stephanie Good and Larry Garrison |year=2006 |publisher=Thomas Nelson |isbn=1595550631 |pages=124, 150 |quote=Hurricane Katrina had left the door open for the boys to be sent on their way with little publicity and few restrictions because it took the world's focus off of Natalee, but only for a brief time. The huge amount of publicity had waned and, during that time of quiet for us, Joran and the Kalpoe brothers were sent home ... All of the news shows that had followed our every move only a day before had now become fixated on the next big ratings grabber: the victims of Hurricane Katrina.}}
  • {{cite book |last=Holloway |first=Dave |coauthors=R. Stephanie Good and Larry Garrison |title=''Aruba : the Tragic Untold Story of Natalee Holloway and Corruption in Paradise'' |accessdate=2008-03-21 |year=2006 |month=April |publisher=Thomas Nelson |location=Nashville, TN |isbn=1595550631 |oclc=63472537 |chapter=Everybody's Child / Aruba}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Completing the missing bio information

See also: Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4 § Natalee's grades

I see there was a lengthy thread above that was perhaps misfocused on one aspect of the Holloway's life and bio (her high school grades). I am more curious about why the article glosses over her entire early life (of which her grades is only one part), and does not accord due weight to all of the aspects of her life covered amply in the press and many reliable sources.

There is time to address these issues before the article appears on the mainpage, and considering the concerns raised in sections above, I'm unclear why a more complete bio should not be included, particulary in terms of due weight and how much attention to her bio was given in the mainstream press and reliable sources.

In terms of weight, her early life bio now includes only two sentences about Natalee's life and equal sentences about her mother, stepfather and their employment and marriage:

1) Natalee Holloway was born October 21, 1986, in Clinton, Mississippi, to David Edward Holloway and Elizabeth Ann (Beth) Holloway. After her parents divorced in 1993, she and her younger brother Matt lived with her mother, who married George ("Jug") Twitty, a prominent Alabama businessman, in 2000.

2) At the time of the disappearance, Dave Holloway was an insurance broker in Meridian, Mississippi, while Beth Twitty was employed by the Mountain Brook School System. After a brief separation, Jug Twitty filed divorce papers on December 29, 2006, stating the two have "such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together."

Those two sentences are the sum total of what is said about Natalee Holloway's life in this article, even though the daily mainstream media in the US offered much more.

I'm sure the regular editors here have all the sources, but I searched Google anyway. In terms of tracking down some of the common information missing from this article, the first thing that Google coughs up is not a reliable source (about.com), but it does offer the facts that can be easily verified by using them as keywords to locate reliable sources:

• Profile of Natalee Holloway, about.com

She was very popular and respected by her classmates and had a reputation among peers at being very intelligent and focused on her future. She lived up to her reputation, graduating as an honors student from the Mountain Brook High School.

Extracurricular Activities:

During Natalee's high school years she participated several extracurricular activities including:

The American Field Service - A club which interacts with the foreign exchange students.

Dorians Dance Team

Future Business Leaders of America

Mu Alpha Theta - Math honor society

Natural Helpers - A peer based emotional support group.

Outdoors Club

Spanish Club

Spanish Honor Society

Spartan Pride - School pep group.

TASC - Teens Actively Serving the Community

Future Goals:

Natalee received a full scholarship to the University of Alabama. She planned to major in Pre-Med, in order to pursue her goal of being a pediatrician.

I imagine most of this can be easily verified in the books about her (which I assume the regular editors have), but in any case, searching on some of the keywords above easily yields at least the following sources:

• ABC News book excerpt
• CNN.com
• Court TV news

So, it seems that adding two to four more sentences to the Early life section would not be difficult, it certainly wouldn't be WP:UNDUE, and it's hard for me to understand why this bio should not be more complete and why Natalee's life is given only two sentences in the article.

I hope this can be fixed before mainpage day: it doesn't look like it would take much work for the editors who have the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you feel it is necessary, feel free to come up with something and post it here on the talk page. I'd be happy to discuss your proposed additions. - auburnpilot talk 20:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You have the best sources, and I don't really want to propose text based on about.com, but it would just be two to four sentences summarizing the kind of info in that about.com blurb, to the extent better sources verify that info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The local news concentrated 100% on the investigation and on the conflict between the Aruban government and Holloway's mother, so my sources are no better than yours. I could propose:

Holloway was a successful high-school student, with a 4.15 GPA. She was a member of the National Honor society and her school dance team, and was awarded a scholarship to the University of Alabama.

—Kww(talk) 20:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Who has the book? It probably gives more specifics, but even the three news links I posted above provide a good enough start at text that could be expanded to two or three sentences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That was the information from those sources, unless you want to include each and every club she was a member of. I tried to select the most notable activities.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Again. Without having access to all the sources you all have, I hesitate to propose the exact wording, but it would possibly include the nationally recognized organizations and mention of her future plans (and my prose stinks):

• Holloway was a respected and successful high-school student, graduating with Honors from Mountain Brook High School with a 4.15 GPA. She was a member of the National Honor Society and her school dance team, and participated in numerous extracurricular activities including The American Field Service, Future Business Leaders of America, Mu Alpha Theta (the Math honor society), the Spanish Honor Society, and Teens Actively Serving the Community. She was awarded a full scholarship to the University of Alabama, where she planned to pursue a pre-Med major towards her goal of becoming a pediatrician.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to raise a big stink about the difference, but when you consider that there is no connection between her high-school activities and her disappearance (the sole reason for her notability), why is your expansion warranted?—Kww(talk) 21:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, another question would be, on what basis do you oppose it? Please frame your response with respect to due weight. This information was in the media just about every day for a year. On what basis do we put up a bio that has the person going from birth to death/disappearance in one sentence? Would you rather change the article name to "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway" so it's not a bio? If the article is only about an event, it should be named accordingly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The naming has been discussed many times as well. The article is about her disappearance. The article is named what it is because that is the most common search term and the most logical text to use for wikilinking. Since there is no relationship between, for example, Mu Alpha Theta and her disappearance, its due weight is zero. It shouldn't be mentioned. That's the reason why her whole high-school career isn't in the article ... it doesn't serve to identify the subject, nor is it relevant to her disappearance. The only reason any of her behaviour is in the article is because people have asserted that it was relevant to her disappearance. It seems like the version I proposed is a reasonable compromise between not mentioning it at all and presenting information of little to no relevance.—Kww(talk) 21:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps your opposition would be more understandable if you can explain, then, why you chose to include other details, for example, why is her mother's divorce more relevant than Natalee's own bio info, warranting a full sentence, when we can't give three little sentences to the subject? Am I detecting some Aruban POV here? Please explain, again, in terms of WP:UNDUE why you want to exclude information about Holloway that was in the daily US media for about a year? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm not Aruban, I'm Bonairean. The divorce is included because it is generally considered to be a result of the disappearance. I'm not arguing the inclusion of information about her high-school performance. I'm simply inquiring as to why you believe a list of every organisation she belonged to is necessary or relevant.—Kww(talk) 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you were Aruban anywhere; please don't read words I didn't type. The list doesn't include every organization; it's a sample of some of her life activities to help give a flavor of her interests, more info about the person. And I just noticed I left out her outdoor interests, but since I'm sure you all did the thorough research in writing this article, you could pull other info out of Dave Holloway's book that might be more representative (I'm only going by the online sources, since I don't have the book). "Generally considered to be a result of her disappearance"? That's not covered in the article, and how is it relevant, and is that original research? Walking some fine lines here in terms of how decisions are made about what to include: again, please focus on WP:UNDUE. We cover issues in relation to how reliable sources cover them, and Natalee's bio info was well covered by the media (that she was an Honor student, dance squad, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the various books met WP:RS for discussing the disappearance or the investigation, so I never had any interest in reading them. That includes the material by the Holloways, Twittys, Van der Sloots, and DeVries. As for the divorce, I'm not excited one way or the other about its conclusion. I've hacked huge amounts of material out of this article as irrelevant, and I'm not about to claim that every detail that remains should be here, nor that every detail I hacked out should have been deleted.—Kww(talk) 22:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, no book (but yes, self-published sources do have a place in articles, depending on what they are being used to cite ... what better place to get info about Natalee's extracurriculars than from her father?) Anyway, presumably you have Vanity Fair and many of the other sources that should give more bio info, without having to rely on my quick google search. Can you not repair this bio by adding three sentences before it hits the main page, so there will be no possibility that concerns of POV or undue weight will be raised when a broader audience sees this article? Is it not embarrassing that we glossed over this girl's life in literally one sentence, while deciding to explore her mother's divorce, for example? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a reasonable proposal, which differed primarily in not including a large list of clubs. I'll add it in unless you strenuously object.—Kww(talk) 22:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm still trying to get you to focus on WP:UNDUE; why are three sentences on Natalee's life too much, in your opinion, in relation to how often exactly the kind of information I proposed was covered in the mainstream US media? What is your purpose in denying one sentence, that gives the full flavor of the girl's interests and hobbies, to the article when this info was amply covered by reliable sources ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, please step down from your high horse; the only embarrassing thing here is your attempt to discredit editors who've done an incredible job with this article by accusing them of having an "Aruban POV". How dare you. Nobody has to respond in only the terms you demand. Kww has made a suggestion, one that I do not object to, and seems to accomplish what you are seeking. How about commenting on it. - auburnpilot talk 22:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool the aggression: I have been commenting on it. And you all haven't been answering my questions. The archives show that the three of you have defeated previous attempts to include such info, simply because there are three of you. That isn't how consensus works. Please explain, again, why you are all denying due weight to information amply covered by reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake, Sandy, nobody is denying a damn thing. Kww has made a suggestion, one that I support, and includes basic background information. If you don't like his suggestion, build on it and make another one. - auburnpilot talk 22:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I did: I added one sentence to his. Not a big difference. I've got to go read FAC now: I hope you all will consider discussing why the three of you oppose three sentences, wrt WP:UNDUE. I'll check in tomorrow. It's becoming less and less clear to me what's up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've readded it below so you won't miss it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And I asked you to justify your expansion, and instead, you asked me to justify my opposition, which is the direct opposite of what WP:BURDEN indicates is to happen. So, I'll try again: what makes a listing of 5 additional clubs desirable? Or the stated career plan of a high-school student?—Kww(talk) 22:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't raised teenagers yet? For an adult, their bio usually includes typical items from their CV. The equivalent for teenagers is their extracurriculars and their interests; it gives the flavor of their life interests and activities. But you're missing something more important than BURDEN: when you deny UNDUE, that leads to POV. That's a problem, easily resolved. The burden is on you to explain why the article should deny due weight (we're talking about one sentence) to info covered by reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My daughter is 25. Don't attempt to shift the burden. Please explain why you think a detailed listing of clubs attended in high school is relevant to her disappearance. The due weight of the material is, my opinion, zero. I'm willing to listen to inclusion arguments, but you keep bringing up WP:UNDUE, which is a much stronger exclusion argument for the material you are attempting to insert.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I made my points clear in the archives debate Sandy refers to. Nothing has changed to make me change my mind. I do not consider the fact that the article is scheduled for TFA tomorrow night. (I hope that is not dependent on the outcome of this discussion, but if it is, I oppose even more strongly, because any other answer would be putting my desire to have this be a TFA ahead of what I believe to be best for this article).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please discuss, don't vote. With respect to due weight, for what reason is bio info about Natalee Holloway, amply covered by reliable sources, excluded from the article? And I hope I don't have to explain for the umpteenth time that Raul schedules TFAs, not me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sandy, I would remind you that you yourself passed this article for FA for comprehensiveness and for NPOV. There haven't been significant changes to the article. Yet here we are repeating the FAC debate, which was the previous time you alleged "Aruban bias", even though none of us are Aruban. It isn't a question of WP:UNDUE, it is simply editorial judgment that Natalee's high school activities have nothing to do with the case. I'm willing to accede to Kww's proposal; it strikes me as a reasonable compromise, whereas your language is just too much, and we'd probably have to balance it with language about Joran's status as honors student, scholarship recipient, soccer star, etc. The divorce has to be in there so we can explain why Beth Twitty wrote a book under the name Beth Holloway. And no, I don't have a copy. I've read it, at Barnes & Noble, which is also where I read Dave's. But we have the word of the designee of the Featured Article Director that this article is NPOV and comprehensive. Sandy, are you going to disagree with her?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not tied to my proposed language: you all have the sources, but because I was pressed for it, and you all didn't put up anything significant, I put up a proposal. You all should be able to do better, relying on all of the sources you all should have easily accessible, having written the article. I don't care if you list clubs or whatever; what we have now is an article that goes from "She was born" to "she disappeared", oh, and "in between her mother was divorced". That is not a bio. That can be easily remedied: three sentences is not asking too much. And, there is no such thing as a "finished" or "perfect" article or FA: that some concerns were worked out at FAC doesn't mean issues can't still be raised, or the previous poster asking for the same thing I'm asking for should be ignored, particularly when there is no due weight reason for leaving out everything about Holloway's life before she disappeared, when such info is readily available. The nature of the responses here does give rise to concern, though. Her father's book says she worked in a health food store: if you think that's more significant than her extracurricular activities and interests (which were widely reported), add that instead if it pleases you all. Having all the sources, you should be able to come up with three sentences: it's not asking a lot. But please, add something to make this a bio. (It's certainly a concern if none of the main editors read have a significant source for this article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• What? I just told you I read the book. I simply chose not to buy any of the books! I sat in the cafe with the book, a latte, and a notebook, so I could write down anything significant. I'm still not sure if I remembered to bring my pen. Anyway, if you are reasonably content with Kww's language (and Kww can come up with the sources, which I'm sure he looked at before proposing the language) then we can get on with preparing for what could be an interesting 24 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, struck and repaired. Kww's start is too short: we need a bio. Three sentences is not too much. Add what you will, but give the bio some beef. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ms. Peller. Gee whiz, Sandy, this article has been hanging around the template and TFAR for almost three months, helluva time to go with this. As for the books, if I need them, I know where Barnes and Noble is, and probably the county library has them too). I suspect that no matter what we put in, it's going to wind up getting changed by drive by editors on Tuesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And you've known I've had this concern all that time: this isn't new news :-) What changed today, btw, is that when I came here to add maindate, I saw other posts here speaking to the same concern, so I'm not the only one. A few sentences will help avoid problems tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's just add Kww's language and see what develops on Tuesday. Like I said, if we add what you want, we'd have to be fair to Joran (though in my view he doesn't deserve it) by mentioning his accomplishments. If we don't, the reader would be justified in assuming he wasn't an honors student, scholarship recipient, soccer star, etc. etc. Let's just compromise. I think that none of this is needed, but am willing to compromise, you think more is. Happy medium at Kww's language. I have to go, Starbucks is closing, so don't expect a reply from me until tomorrow (Pacific Time Zone)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's really hard not to feel a little insulted by your comments about the lack of sourcing, Sandy. There are, at this moment, 159 references for this article, primarily fact-checked news sources. There are several extremely large non-sources out there: a biased book by Dave Holloway, a biased book by Beth Twitty, a biased book by Joran van der Sloot, and a sensationalist documentary by Peter de Vries. None of these are particularly usable as sources. The article mentions their existence, and references some claims made in them, but none of them can be used to source the facts of this article, because none of them are reliable sources about the disappearance, the investigation, or any of the individuals involved. I never watch Dr. Phil, either ... does that somehow make me less capable of editing this article?—Kww(talk) 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall mentioning lack of sourcing (I said something about none of you having a book), but it could be the cotton brain from my head cold. And, since the bio is about Holloway, and we're only very minimally even saying anything about who she is, I'm unclear why we would include full bio info on the accused, but anyway ... to meet halfway between Kww's two sentences and my three, how about if we shorten mine to:

• Holloway was a successful high-school student, graduating with Honors from Mountain Brook High School with a 4.15 GPA. She was a member of the National Honor Society, her school dance team, and participated in extracurricular activities including Future Business Leaders of America, Mu Alpha Theta (the Math honor society), and the Spanish Honor Society; she was to attend the University of Alabama on a full scholarship, where she planned to pursue a pre-Med major.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of the FBLA, it appears all of that is covered in chapter 1, page 3, of Dave's book. FBLA is mentioned here and here, though neither is likely to be considered a reliable source (one is an image gallery, the other is about.com). All of her activities are also listed on page 53 of the 2005 MBHS yearbook, but I've never stopped to consider the reliability of a yearbook. - auburnpilot talk 03:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why it was silly for me to be proposing the blurb: I don't know what all sources you all have. The Honor Society is in the CNN source above (Holloway is a straight-A student and a member of the National Honor Society as well as the school's dance team. She has an academic scholarship to the University of Alabama.) and the Court TV site above seems to have many of the other pieces: (FBI agents have joined with authorities and volunteers in Aruba in the hunt for Holloway, who planned to attend the University of Alabama on a full academic scholarship this fall and talked of joining a sorority. Holloway was in the National Honor Society, studied Spanish and was a member of American Field Service, which works with foreign exchange students. She was a member of the student government and sweated through long hours of practice as a member of the school dance team. But Holloway wasn't just about glitz: she also joined Natural Helpers, a peer support group, and other volunteer organizations.) And it is OK to source a self-published source in a bio about the subject, as long as it's attributed, saying things like "according to her father, her GPA was ... " ... but again, I don't know what is in Vanity Fair and all of the other sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Burrough, Bryan (2006). "Disappearance Missing White Female". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2007-05-14. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). With the exception of a couple of sources, everything including the books can be found online. auburnpilot talk 03:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cotton brain: TMI :-) I assume you know your sources like the back of your hand, as I know the four file drawers of research papers I used in writing an FA :-) To avoid citing her father, you could also just recraft a few sentences from the sources you do have and the two I just listed (Honor Society covers GPA without the need to mention it explicitly, if that helps avoid the problem of attribution). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've toned it down considerably. Since all the descriptions derive from her family (no one got to see her educational records), I've attributed them inline to her family.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Family life"

I'm pulling out my proposal from the discussion above (subject to the regular editors here choosing the best sources):

Holloway was a respected and successful high-school student, graduating with Honors from Mountain Brook High School with a 4.15 GPA. She was a member of the National Honor Society and her school dance team, and participated in numerous extracurricular activities including the American Field Service, Future Business Leaders of America, Mu Alpha Theta (the Math honor society), the Spanish Honor Society, and Teens Actively Serving the Community. She was awarded a full scholarship to the University of Alabama, where she planned to pursue a pre-Med major towards her goal of becoming a pediatrician.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What are the sources for the above material, ie full scholarship? Thanks, --Tom 14:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Full scholarship: Hansen, Chris (2008-02-22). "The search for Natalee Holloway". NBC News. Retrieved 2008-05-28. - auburnpilot talk 14:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations were discussed in the text above: not sure why they weren't added, [13][14] but I've added them now.[15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks better, imho. --Tom 17:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A chunk of uncited text was strangely added, although the citations were already here and in the article, so I repaired it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of Natalee Holloway

This article is giving a detailed description of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway and not of (the life of) Natalee Holloway. In this respect, the article is imbalanced. The detailed description of the disappearance should be moved to an article Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. The sections dealing with the disappearance in this article should be shortened considerably. – Ilse@ 11:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't split the article without violating WP:BLP1E. The naming has been discussed multiple times before, and the consensus has been to leave it here, as "Natalee Holloway" is the most likely search term. People aren't going to type "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway" into to search box.—Kww(talk) 11:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The guideline WP:BLP1E says "Cover the event, not the person". In this case that means that Natalee Holloway should be a redirect to the article Disappearance of Natalee Holloway covering the event. And if someone would type "Natalee Holloway" in a search box, this person would definitely find the article "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway". – Ilse@ 11:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I refer you to the repeated discussions on talk page, in archives, and in the three AfD's, in all of which the decision was to keep things where they are. I believe we're complying with all WP rules, but if you want to call it an IAR case, feel free, there is no consensus to change the name, judging by mine, Kww, and AuburnPilot's comments just in the last 24 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The article certainly does. Nothing in WP:BLP1E dictates the name of the article, just the content, and the article complies with the content guidelines. That's the primary reason it doesn't go into great detail about her personal life.—Kww(talk) 12:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I support the current name for previously stated reasons, but as I am in a hurry, I can't seem to locate those diffs at the moment. I'll be back around 17:30/18:00 UTC and will expand on my reasoning then. - auburnpilot talk 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I concur that the article is incorrectly named, and this issue also came up at FAC. There is resistance to adding information to make this into a bio (as diccussed at FAC when the naming problem came up), yet there is also resistance to more correctly naming the article Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, so we're left with neither a bio nor an article about the event. Most curious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, considering that you stated above we needed to add the bio information or rename the article. We've added the information, yet you still believe it needs to be renamed? I guess what you meant was: add the bio information, then I'll also ask for the article to be renamed...mystifying indeed. - auburnpilot talk 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I get a "Wikipedia has a problem" error every time I pull up the diffs, so you'll just have to trust that I've stated this before (it was on the BLP noticeboard). The current name, Natalee Holloway, is the most likely and common link, as most references refer to Holloway by name, rather than the disappearance itself. WP:BLP1E does not dictate titles of article, and general MOS philosophy is for an article to reside at the most basic/common name/likely search term. While it is true that some articles have been moved to titles such as "Disappearance of..." or "Kidnapping of..." there are many more that still reside at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). For examples of what I'm talking about, see Category:Murdered American children. There are dozens of articles within that category, its subcategories, and all over Wikipedia, where the article resides at a title under similar premises. This is not an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but one to show that there is no determining precedent for such a move, and it is generally left up to each individual article. Here, I believe the benefits of leaving it at the current title outweigh the negatives (including the fact that we have biographical information on Holloway in this article). - auburnpilot talk 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You may gain support for that argument to the extent this article is a bio, but man oh man, what it took to get you all to include three little bio sentences about the subject of the bio :-) If it's not a bio, then it should be moved to the Disappearance article; perhaps it will endure as a bio now, but until yesterday, it was in limbo, neither-nor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Was it worth it? The loss of civility makes me think it probably wasn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then don't do that next time. AGF works (but I've told you that before :-) And what happened to that agreement not to ask for this little ditty to be run on the deceased's birthday, by the way? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I never remember an agreement, just your threats to oppose it based on your personal morality (aka nothing to do with Wikipedia). - auburnpilot talk 00:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I remember you requesting that, and we did attempt to run it on a different date. I don't remember anyone assuring you that it wouldn't be requested on her birthday when that one got yanked. Got a diff?—Kww(talk) 00:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I refer you to the discussion we had on Raul's talk page.[16] in which I said, "if Kww and the rest of us are going to nominate again, we'll have to do it for the 21st, to get that fifth point. It would solve everything if Raul chose to run it earlier". Sandy, I want to work with you, but you are making it real hard. I make a living as an attorney, I don't take being accused of breaking my word lightly. Please withdraw what you said.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I'd hate to read that as a legal threat. Refreshing your memory on the conversation from this point in the archive you linked:[17] "So, is there any reason the article couldn't run on some day that has no association with the story?" Gimmetrow 14:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC) "That is frankly what I am hoping. ... " --Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I took your word and refrained from opposing at TFA/R; you requested it for the 21st anyway.[18] For the record. No big deal, but the bio concerns raised by everyone else who visited the talk page should be weighed now that mainpage day is over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for an agreement. A hope that Raul would exercise his discretion, combined with telling you we were going to renominate for the 21st does not constitute an agreement not to nominate for the 21st and I'm not buying that you viewed it that way. Seems to me your quarrel is with Raul for actually running it on the 21st.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is water under the bridge, but I do not want an incorrect record to be left here. There were no opposes on the WP:TFA/R (we already discussed why I didn't oppose); Raul complied with the community request (as he always tries to), and the regular editors here objected when the article wasn't scheduled on the 21st.[19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I am still in agreement that the article should be titled "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway" to reflect its focus on the events rather than the person whose disappearance triggered them. --Dystopos (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be left as it is. Judge Crater was only notable because he vanished, and his article resides unquestioned at Joseph Force Crater. As the most common search term, I think the article is titled appropriately as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't do much more than reiterate my standard argument: people are going to type Natalee Holloway into the search box. Other articles are going to refer to Natalee Holloway. People aren't searching for Disappearance of Natalee Holloway or wikilinking to it. It aggravates the question of whether it should be Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, Murder of Natalee Holloway, Death of Natalee Holloway, Reckless Endangerment and Willful Disregard for the Safety and Well-being of Natalee Holloway, etc. Natalee Holloway is just the simplest title for the article. If there ever became a need for a true bio, separate from this article, it would be time to move it. Now, there isn't any reason to.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support changing the title to "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway". Cla68 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is voting. Can you explain why you think this?—Kww(talk) 01:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Cla68 intended to express an opinion in the discussion without rehashing all of the same arguments. --Dystopos (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he did. It would be nice to know which of the arguments he believes to be valid, and why.—Kww(talk) 01:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• And I oppose the move, for reasons I explained above. - auburnpilot talk 01:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• I also oppose the move, for the reasons I stated above and have stated repeatedly.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Support move to "Disappearance of..." per above arguments from others and my own at the FAC. Marskell (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. I hate that people reflexively drop into these damn bold-text voting formats, when voting is never supposed to be the way we make decisions. 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. People keep trying to quote WP:BLP1E, which I will reproduce here in it's 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.

To the extent that efforts to include things like her high-school career, elementary school class plays, and hobbies, have been successfully resisted, this article follows this policy. It would be a better article if the recently added biographical information were removed, but that probably isn't possible. The article 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.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I really think that Kww's thoughtful analysis, which references and quotes the actual rules we're so fond of throwing around, makes the strongest case for keeping the name, and any further discussion the opposite way should explain why it is, in their view, that he is wrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'll give it a shot. The rule quoted from WP:TITLE presumes that the subject of the article is clearly defined ("Jimmy Carter" and "James Earl Carter, Jr" clearly refer to the same subject). Since we agree that the primary subject of the article is not Holloway herself, but the events surrounding her disappearance, we should be looking for the title most English speakers would use to name that set of events. ("Jimmy Carter" and "United States presidential election, 1980" cover different subjects, for example). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) --Dystopos (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me a cite on "The rule quoted from WP:TITLE presumes that the subject of the article is clearly defined"?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The most basic (nutshell) formulation of the policy has three parts: ("Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers. Titles should be brief without being ambiguous. Titles should make linking to the article simple."). The second part is the one that covers ambiguity. It is my assertion that the current title introduces ambiguity by using the name of a person for an article about an event. --Dystopos (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The way people would refer or link to this event can be determined by actual behaviour, because both article titles are available. Comparing the access statistics for "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway" and the access statistics for "Natalee Holloway" shows a fairly decisive preference — 25430:3 during September. I agree that Dystopos is logically right, but actual human behaviour is rarely logical.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have redirects and disambiguation. If Holloway were notable for some other achievement, we would reasonably disambiguate her biography from the article about her disappearance. Traffic is, of course, directed to where the articles actually reside. (To use my previous example with your methodology, United_States_presidential_election_of_1980 has 0 hits to 61055 for United_States_presidential_election,_1980 --Dystopos (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are great, and make a lot of sense for directing alternate namings to a primary name. Occasionally, a primary name to an alternate. When there's such an imbalance, I think the best thing to do is to locate the article at the most frequently reference point, and redirects at the remainder, even if a purely logical approach might suggest a different arrangement.—Kww(talk) 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Spinning around the same circle. This is not a bio so resist biographical info, but still title it as a bio. This is more than a little contradictory. "...the simplest and most reasonable title for that event is Natalee Holloway." Natalee Holloway was a person, not an event. Her disappearance was an event. The search box issue is irrelevant. We have redirects for a reason and the google rank shouldn't be affected.

In general, we have no local consensus on the title. Consistently it's people stopping by, rather than long term page watchers, that prefer "Disappearance of..." I suspect that if we tried to gather a wider consensus it would come down in favour of "Disappearance of..." Or perhaps not. Should we try? Marskell (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think my position is contradictory. I just view the title of an article and the topic of an article as being only loosely associated. Others apparently think that there must be a strict correlation between the two.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been considering this further, and realised my underlying reason for this: it's that this article is everything Wikipedia policies and guidelines permit us to say about the subject Natalee Holloway. It's not that the article is about a topic other than Natalee Holloway, which would demand a different article title: this article is about her, within the limits of WP:BLP1E.—Kww(talk) 02:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

wikilinks

Here are the links from actual articles on the first page of results at Special:WhatLinksHere/Natalee_Holloway:

• from Bob Costas: "On August 18, 2005, Costas refused to host a Larry King Live episode where the subject was missing teen Natalee Holloway. Costas said he had no hard feelings about the subject, but that he was uncomfortable with it."
• from Kuro5hin: "On July 04, 2005, a minor scandal erupted over the publication of a front page article titled "Fuck Natalee Holloway" that was perceived to be ridiculing alleged rape and murder victim Natalee Holloway, with new users signing up to denounce the author and Kuro5hin administrators."
• from Economy of Aruba: "Another potential threat to the industry occurred in 2005, when the May 30 disappearance of vacationing Alabama teen Natalee Holloway made international news."
• from Phil McGraw: "McGraw was named a co-defendant, along with CBS Television, in a 2006 lawsuit filed in relation to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway."
• from John Walsh: "In July 2005, Walsh attempted to assist the family of missing teen Natalee Holloway. Walsh was critical of the Aruban crime investigation and, along with television personality Dr. Phil, urged Americans to boycott Aruba."
• from Bob Riley: "On November 9, 2005 Riley called for a citizens' boycott of Aruba, alleging that the local government was engaged in a cover-up of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway."
• from John Bennett Ramsey: "Ramsey then began dating Beth Holloway Twitty, the mother of Natalee Holloway, the Alabama teen who disappeared on a 2005 high school graduation trip to Aruba."
• from September 2005: "A judge in Aruba orders the conditional release of Joran van der Sloot, the 18-year-old Dutch citizen being held in connection with the disappearance of Natalee Holloway."
• from A Current Affair (U.S. TV series): "Suspicions that Ailes pulled the show because the ACA team was competing with, and sometimes besting his cable Fox News Channel, were intensified in October 2005, when, after its cancellation was announced, ACA broadcast an exclusive interview with Natalee Holloway murder suspect Joran van der Sloot, and Rivera revealed to the press that Ailes planned to use the timeslot as a beachhead for the establishment of a Fox News nightly newscast."
• from List of people from Birmingham, Alabama: "Natalee Holloway, missing person/media sensation."
• from Mountain Brook, Alabama: "Mountain Brook was also home to Natalee Holloway, a 2005 high school graduate who disappeared on a school trip in Aruba in a well-publicized missing persons case."
• from Clinton, Mississippi#Noteworthy natives: "Natalee Holloway - went missing in Aruba."
• from October 21#Births: "1986 - Natalee Holloway, American missing person (presumed d.2005)"
• from List of people who have mysteriously disappeared: "Natalee Holloway, an American teenager, was last seen leaving a nightclub in Aruba with three men."
• from Spencer Bachus: "Bachus also has been active in advancing the search for Natalee Holloway, who went missing while on a senior trip to Aruba."
• from Cold case: "Sometimes disappearances can also be considered cold cases if the victim has been not seen or heard from for some time such as the case of Natalee Holloway."

Of those 16 examples, 10 are referring explicitly to the event, while 6 refer more directly to the individual. With a redirect, I don't see where the issue of linking should steer us away from renaming the article to indicate that the event is its subject. --Dystopos (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Other thoughts from looking at comparable cases

I notice while perusing the List of people who have mysteriously disappeared that the older disappearances tend to be those of people who became notable for other reasons (John Cabot, Ambrose Bierce) while many of the later ones are made into a sensation because of the circumstances of their disappearance (Robin Graham, Kristin Smart). There are certainly precedents for using the name of the individual as the title even when little biographical information is of encyclopedic interest (Jorge Julio López, George Allen Smith), just as there are precedents for redirecting to a name indicating that the central information is about an event (Elián González affair, Caylee Anthony disappearance, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann) --Dystopos (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think arguments could be made either way. But I don't think there's a consensus for a change. I will resist the temptation to see if Sandy insisted the McCann article have biographical information ("She successfully completed toilet training at a very early age, and had an unrequited affection for Sponge Bob Square Pants.")--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Recap of misnamed article discussion

See also: Talk:Natalee Holloway § Misnamed, Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 1 § Deletion Nomination, Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 1 § Merging articles, Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 2 § Merge proposal, Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 3 § The perennial move discussion, Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 3 § Requested move, Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive_4 § Exhuming an oft-defeated proposal to re-focus, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natalee Holloway, and Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 4 § Natalee's grades

Since this article passed FAC in May 2008 and appeared on the mainpage in October 2008, every independent editor who has come to the page has favored the inclusion of biographical information about Holloway, reduction of the gratuitous references to Beth Holloway's divorce, or a change of article name to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway since the regular editors resist the addition of bio information to the article.

Although every independent editor who has visited the page supports some combination of these changes, the three regular editors of the page (Wehwalt (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs) and Auburnpilot (talk · contribs)) resisted attempts to add bio info about Holloway to this article, while simultaneously resisting a move of this article to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway; these positions are contradictory. It has been hard to understand why bio info about Holloway is resisted, while her mother's divorce gets a full sentence, which gives rise to questions about POV (Beth Twitty Holloway is disliked in Aruba for various reasons, so giving undue attention to her divorce appears to reinforce that POV). The argument against a bio appears to hinge around Google hits, not whether a bio about Holloway can be written from reliable sources. There has been no reasonable argument for the divorce wording presented.

Editors supporting some combination of these changes include (at least):

• Cla68 (talk · contribs)
• Durova (talk · contribs)
• Dystopos (talk · contribs)
• Ilse@ (talk · contribs)
• Jonaaron (talk · contribs)
• Marskell (talk · contribs)
• SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs)
• SedatedGodzilla (talk · contribs)
• Threeafterthree (talk · contribs)

The divorce sentence needs to be rewritten per the consensus of at least: SandyGeorgia, SedatedGodzilla, Threeafterthree, Durova and Cla68; there is no reason to ignore consensus on that issue, even if other bio information is not included. If her name change needs to be explained, it can simply be stated that they divorced, without the unnecessary detail.

Regarding the page move, Marskell suggests wider consensus might be sought; this could be via a Request for comment or a Requested move. Hopefully a decision can be made here on talk to avoid going to other pages and to hopefully avoid the suggested WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, neither Wehwalt, Kww, or I have an Aruban POV and I am tired of you making that accusation. It is not only a slap in the face to Wehwalt and Kww who have done amazing work with this article, but I take it as a personal insult. Cut the crap, Sandy. Secondly, there are zero "gratuitous references to Beth Holloway's divorce". We're talking about one sentence in a 87 kilobyte article (a sentence that is fully sourced and neutral). I'm sorry that you're offended by Alabama state law, but that's something you'll have to take up with Bob Riley or one of our legislators; that's nothing we can change here. Nobody here is refusing to include relevant information, but I will never accept that Holloway's GPA is in any way relevant to this subject. We've compromised, the information was added, and we moved on. Time for you to do the same.

Now, there is absolutely no question that Holloway does not deserve a separate biographical article under Wikipedia policy. That is a baseless argument, and such an article would be AfD'd and rightfully deleted. As for the suggested FAR, it is clearly a bad faith action by Physchim62, who still hasn't articulated his supposed issues with the article despite ample time and requests for him to do so. As for the consensus for the article to be moved, Dystopos is the only editor in favor of the move who has provided any reasoning beyond "yes I think it should be renamed". I've stated why I believe the article should remain at its current name, and I've backed it up with reasoning beyond personal preference, but I'm not going to fight-to-the-death over the article name. I will, however, fight against separate articles for bio and case. - auburnpilot talk 04:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, your argument and six guilders will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks Oranjestad. If we are all agents of the Aruban government, sneakily inserting Aruban POV into the article, please remind them I expect to be paid regularly, being an evil minion's expensive. What you are saying is because about six people posted about three different issues, that somehow that means there is consensus, and somehow Kww, AuburnPilot and I don't count in the analysis, we're not "independent" enough. Sandy, it is a sad fact of human nature that people only complain, they don't praise, having been involved in three TFAs, I've yet to see anyone post "Hey, great job guys, looks good, no complaints" on the talk page of a TFA. It's like listening to the complaints line of a corporation and concluding all its customers are dissatisfied. You've fallen into a fallacy, Sandy. There's no consensus for anything, because the people who viewed this article on the 21st and were satisfied with it had no reason to post, they didn't know an election was going on. I suggest status quo remains because no consensus for change.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If it has to go to RFC, so be it. Sandy, it irritates me that you refuse to acknowledge my argument at all: the divorce is a part of the timeline. It matters not because of an emotional stance about Beth, it matters because it had an impact on later events, namely the way Beth identified herself in later events. The details of Natalee's life did not. If she had been a saxophone player that tap-danced for the elderly on Saturday nights and selflessly served in soup-kitchens for the poor on Sundays mornings and been an avid fan of NASCAR, the exact same thing would have happened that night, and the exact same things would have occurred.

I also get extremely tired of being told that I'm contradicting myself when I'm not. This article, titled Natalee Holloway, contains what we are allowed to say on the topic of Natalee Holloway. There's no reason to move it. If there were other Natalee Holloway articles that we needed to distinguish it from, there would be, but there are not, and probably will never be. If Natalee is discovered alive and well tomorrow, then there will be an opportunity to say things that are not about the case, and the article can be renamed then. No reason to do it now. Nothing in WP:TITLE says that titles need to be precise, it encourages them to be easiest thing to link to and search for.—Kww(talk) 12:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we can AGF on the POV front: I find the article somewhat non-neutral wrt to the mother but I'll assume it wasn't intentional. What all three of your statements fail to address, however, is Sandy's primary point: no one stopping by the page seems to agree with you. It's not true that Dystopos is the only one who has articulated a reason for renaming, for instance. Note that if it is renamed the rationale for excluding details of her life would be strengthened: if not titled as a bio then biographical details become less urgent.

RfCs suck. I was actually thinking of a poll for renaming on FA talk. This would be unusual but it would generate feedback. Marskell (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, RfCs can generate indecipherable driveby comments. Marskell, are you suggesting WT:FA or WT:FAC (which gets more traffic)? Kww, I'm not suggesting it has to go to RfC; I'm curious what the next step might be considering the amount of discussion about this, the number of editors who have raised the issue, yet continued resistance from the three of you (it's not worthy of a FAR IMO, but neither should the concerns be ignored and archived away again). Separately, it's hard to address the three long comments above because they overlook the input of every independent editor who has visited this page for many months; I'm still unable to understand why such small requested changes have generated so much resistance. I would say that many TFAs get "great job" comments and I disagree with the premise there, Wehwalt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason I resist is simple: the points brought up by people in favor of renaming all seem to be based on either a misrepresentation of the contents of WP:BLP1E or the contents of WP:TITLE. The arguments in favor of expanding the biographical data run directly counter to WP:BLP1E, and the arguments about the divorce language seem to be dedicated to the concept that very legal language that says it's nothing that Beth Holloway did wrong, it was simply a no-fault divorce is somehow attacking Beth Holloway. I'm sitting tight on my opinions not because I am unpersuadable, but because all counter-arguments have been unpersuasive.—Kww(talk) 16:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find your interpretation of BLP unpersuasive. It can just easily as be used to argue that the article should be titled after the event, not the person, and that Natalee Holloway should be a redirect. Nor has anyone addressed the basic contradiction of a biographical title but resistance to biographical material. (A point that was raised as far back as the FAC—I had to argue at length simply to get the Family life section included.)

In any case, I think this talk page has exhausted itself. Sandy, I was thinking of a poll at FAC as it gets the most traffic. Marskell (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt has indicated that he's traveling, and he has a FAC underway; perhaps this can wait a bit out of consideration for his editing constraints? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed that "contradiction" repeatedly. I'll repeat it one more time. It isn't a contradiction at all. Articles are titled with title that makes searching and linking the simplest. There is no requirement at all for that title to be longer than necessary for the material contained in it to be found. There is no requirement anywhere that an article with a person's name for a title be a biography of that person. "Natalee Holloway" is the shortest, simplest, easiest to link to title for an article that contains everything that Wikipedia has or is likely to ever have about "Natalee Holloway".—Kww(talk) 17:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, Sandy, I really appreciate your thoughtfulness. But I can always monitor the discussion via my blackberry (though I won't edit, as you know, the last time I tried that it ended badly) and I am able to get on the net pretty much daily via internet cafe or wifi on my laptop. So full speed ahead.

By the way, in your list of editors who you say supported some of the things you are discussion, User:Jonaaron hasn't edited since June and never edited anything except the Holloway article and its talk page. I think we can disregard him.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I just can't square this circle. The linking and searching issue is literally irrelevant, given redirects. And a title with only a person's name clearly creates an expectation of a biography.

So an FAC poll then? Marskell (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to post a pointer to the RFC that has already started below, using the same neutral language as the RFC itself, feel free, but let's not have two separate discussion.—Kww(talk) 13:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I find that things that are described as "clearly" true, two times out of three at least, they aren't. I agree, let's cut this scattershot discussion and consolidate at the RfC. The commentors (commentators?) aren't going to know to look up here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image and citation issues

The image Natalee Holloway yearbook photo.jpg has no purpose of use description in its non-free use rationale. This should be added, or the image should be removed. The image Lastnatalee.jpg was removed from this article, because the information in the purpose of use description was false: the work is not discussed in the text next to it; also, at the available resolution it is hard/impossible to indentify Natalee Holloway. I have added three citation needed-templates, because not all information in the article had appropriate source references. – Ilse@ 11:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the thoughts. I disagree, I think the fair use rationales in both cases are adequate, and so did the copyright hawks during the FAC. Regarding the lastnatalee photo, I've added a mention in the text, but it serves to illustrate conditions during the last night before she vanished. I saw Kww has addressed one of the three citations needed, I'll look at the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An FAC is not always perfect.

The rationale says (in bold where the purpose of use description is wrong):

"Identification and critical commentary in the Natalee Holloway article, a subject of public interest. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed next to the associated material discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for."

Therefore, the image should be deleted. – Ilse@ 12:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added additional information to Natalee Holloway yearbook photo.jpg to cover source and use information, so we are good there. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 14:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about the LastNatalee image were also raised during the FAC; please re-read the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that directed at Ilse or at the regular editors of this article?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither; it's directed at the general notion that articles are not set in stone once they pass FAC. It comes up more often with images than text because not all FACs (in the past, particularly) get a thorough image review, and some image reviewers don't lodge an oppose even when they're not happy with images, because they regularly get beaten up over images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We need a consensus

Now look, this is getting ridiculous. AuburnPilot, Kww, and I proposed language in good faith, a version of which I added last night and Kww added refs and I believe AuburnPilot also approved. Sandy then went on, and took a mile when we gave an inch by adding in all the language she wanted, and then some. Either we agree on language, reaching WP:CONSENSUS, or there is no consensus for an addition and we stay status quo as of yesterday. That's my understanding of how WP works. I'm still willing to sign on to either what Kww wrote or the version I wrote. There's six hours til midnight. Let's get on with it. I'm concentrating on the edits, not the editors, but it would really help if there were no further discussion of "Aruban bias", personal family members of other editors than yourself, or other things that are causing irritation and impeding getting ready for this article to hit main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, I am not sure what the "issue" is here, but it seems like some background material about the subject of this article is appropriate. Before, her parents had as much or more personal detailed information than Natalee had. Also, is there some dispute as to her grades or future plans. The wording made it seem that that was the case. I might have missed it, but is there a version about Natalee's background that you prefer? Thanks, --Tom 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was content with either the version Kww proposed in the above discussion, or else the version I added last night/early this morning, check the edit history. Either seem supported by the three regular editors of this page as a compromise, though I think none of us thinks it is strictly necessary as Sandy does.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would accept, as a compromise, what Kww has reverted to as of right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't what's there now essentially the same as what was there before, except one is in two paragraphs and the other is in one? Personally, I prefer the direct wording and condensed spacing of the second version. - auburnpilot talk 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the material about her parents divorce, and the associated quote necessary? It seems that is undue weight compared to coverage about the subject's background. Also, is there a dispute over her being a good student or her future plans? If so, maybe add the fact tag, rather than saying, according to her family, ect. Shouldn't that be avoided? TIA --Tom 18:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)ps, I agree or like the version AuburnPilot points to above. It seems pretty good. Thanks, --Tom 18:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What I didn't like about that language, was the implicit cause and effect between the Kalpoe filing and Jug's divorce. Might as well say "Jug Twitty filed for divorce after the family celebrated Christmas together". It was also after the World Series, Thanksgiving, and right in the middle of the Springsteen tour, and as far as we know, had identical relevance to the divorce. And as for the divorce, are you referring to the parents (Beth/Dave) or the mother and stepfather (Beth/Jug)? Regarding the future plans and so forth, I'm OK on talking some about what she did, but a bit leery about talking about plans, after all, she never did them. This is an encyclopedia article, not an eulogy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the personal info was unnecessary and intrusive SedatedGodzilla (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Attribution of statements is the norm, especially if the original record hasn't been examined. I don't think the "according to her parents" language is a major problem one way or the other, but it is probably better to keep it in. The marriage status of the parents becomes important when trying to keep the timeline clear: the relationship of Jug Twitty to Natalie Holloway needs explanation, and Beth is referred to as "Beth Twitty" in early sources and "Beth Holloway" in later sources. She didn't revert to her maiden name (as sometime happens after a divorce), she reverted to the name of the first husband from whom she was still divorced. The simple mechanics of how to refer to individuals got fairly complex in this article — too many matching and changing names.—Kww(talk) 18:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I was talking about the Beth/Jug divorce since that happen after the disappearance. Also, the future plans could be removed if you want. I agree that this shouldn't be a eulogy or tribute, but some background material is appropriate. --Tom 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It actually doesn't look that bad right now, but that could change of course :) --Tom 18:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I can live with what is there now. We should have some mention of the divorce because the article mentions (under Beth Twitty's involvement) that she wrote the book under the name Beth Holloway after her divorce from Jug. Since Jug is mentioned several times in the chronology and is definitely a character in this drama, we should, for the sake of continuity, mention the divorce somewhere before we get to the book. We're not out to slam Beth on the incompatability thing, as a lawyer, that sounds like a standard no fault divorce sort of thing and I don't think it hurts to leave it in. Or rather, to put it back in, since I see you took it out, Tom.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree on the divorce issue, as "such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together" just seems to be a wordy way of stating "irreconcilable differences"; standard stuff. If the last sentence of this version was swapped to read "Jug Twitty filed divorce papers on December 29, 2006, stating the two have "such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together", it would have my full support. - auburnpilot talk 18:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, though as a lawyer and a nitpicker I would say "began divorce proceedings", that is accurate, the other is rather slangy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. No objections. - auburnpilot talk 18:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All this reminds me of the scene in 1776 where the Congress is going hammer and tongs at the Declaration and John Adams says, "That's just our friends, just wait til our enemies get started!"--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why can't Wikipedia work like that Nextel commercial about if firefighters ran the world, its pretty funny. Having 6 billion people open to edit the sum of all knowledge known to mankind is not easy :) --Tom 19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, what a strange thread. Um, Wehwalt, I believe you said you're traveling, so maybe you're not keeping up with the diffs. You added, rather strangely (see the diffs in the section above) a chunk of uncited text, I cited it and added about three words and moved it into the paragraph. Then I replaced one rather inappropriate sentence about the divorce with one more related to the article. Then you blanked the article before I was off Wiki for a few hours. I don't know what has happened since, but whoa there with the confusion about who did what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And, now that I've caught up, I see that the citations and cited text have once again been removed, so no, we don't have a good version here. It's been mystifying to understand what's going on in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the article blanking was caused by a glitch common to the browser on several cellphones. I did the same thing when editing the George W. Bush article from my BlackBerry a couple months ago. The citations are present in the version linked above, which Wehwalt, Threeafterthree, and I have agreed upon (with a minor tweak in wording by Wehwalt). - auburnpilot talk 19:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the commentary, Sandy. I tried editing from my blackberry, it ended badly, but AuburnPilot acted in a supportive and collegial manner. What, if anything, in that paragraph is not in the ref?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah (thx for the explanation, I've never edited from a cellphone). At any rate, we still have incomplete bio info on the subject of the article (with full citations that are already included in the article deleted from the Family life section), and yet we have a full and out-of-context sentence devoted to why the stepfather divorced the mother almost several years later, with text that shows no connection to the article or the subject. Can anyone explain what was wrong with fully cited text about the subject and why we need a full unrelated sentence about the stepfather's reason for divorce? And why are the citations removed still ? The version that I'm looking at right now goes all the way back to the strange edits earlier, where Wehwalt added a reliable source to Joran being an honor student, but neglected to add any sources, or the numerous reliable sources, to the same info about Natalee. We have three independent reliable sources discussing bio info on Natalee: why is this text now only cited to her father's book, and why was uncited text added about Natalee, while text was cited to a reliable source about Joran? Why are the reliable sources discussing bio info about Natalee Holloway removed ? Perhaps editing from a cellphone the day before mainpage isn't a great idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll quote myself from above as to the divorce info: The marriage status of the parents becomes important when trying to keep the timeline clear: the relationship of Jug Twitty to Natalie Holloway needs explanation, and Beth is referred to as "Beth Twitty" in early sources and "Beth Holloway" in later sources. She didn't revert to her maiden name (as sometime happens after a divorce), she reverted to the name of the first husband from whom she was still divorced. The simple mechanics of how to refer to individuals got fairly complex in this article — too many matching and changing names.—Kww(talk) 20:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The only reason the citations are not present, is because we were waiting for any last second objections to this version with the minor tweak in wording as described above. I'll stick it in right now if that makes everyone happy. The reason your wording, Sandy, with respect to the divorce is problematic is because it implies the lawsuit was the reason for the divorce. As Kww says, it is important for the divorce to be clear (though I don't care about the why). - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If the reason for discussing the divorce is to explain the name change, there's no need for the current text, for which no connection has yet been established to the article. I'm unclear why we are devoting unnecessary verbiage to the mother's divorce, but can't added four words ("on a full scholarship") to the subject's bio info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish this conversation didn't keep fragmenting. The language a quote from the divorce filing, and is the Alabama statutory language for a no-fault divorce. Your version makes it sound like there is a cause and effect relationship between Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway initiated a lawsuit against the Kalpoe brothers and Jug Twitty filed for divorce on December 29.—Kww(talk) 20:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Strawman, party of one. Your table is ready... - auburnpilot talk 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My version was a compromise: you're welcome to improve upon it and I'm not tied to the wording I added in any way. But what is there now has no connection to the article, hence, appears as an unrelated smear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromise? "One pound was demanded at the pistol's point. When it was given, two pounds were demanded at the pistol's point. Finally, the dictator consented to take one pound, 17 shillings and sixpence, and the rest in promises of good will for the future."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does "on a full scholarship" trouble you so much? I added it after one of you provided the source above. Who knew it would upset you so?  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep referring to the statutory language for a no-fault divorce as a smear? The whole purpose behind this kind of language is to avoid smearing one party or the other. It says that no one party did anything in particular to destroy the marriage, but the two parties had grown too far apart to live with one another any more.—Kww(talk) 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to make my question more plain: why does this article need that text? If it's to explain the name change, they got a divorce, period. Why go in to that detail at the same time that you all refuse to include minimal bio info on the subject? And please add back the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Progress: as of this version, the reliable sources are now back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid the false cause and effect relationship that comes about from sentences like Jug Twitty filed for divorce on December 29, 2006, after Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway initiated a lawsuit against the Kalpoe brothers. If it were completely up to me, I would just refer to it as a no-fault divorce, but that would be synthesis: I know that's what the language means, but I don't have a reliable source that says that's what it means in the context of the Twitty divorce.—Kww(talk) 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to include anything. They got a divorce. Unless there's a connection to this article, going beyond that isn't needed and risks original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)"You don't have to include anything." OK. Thanks for giving in, Sandy. End of discussion. OK, guys, three hours until M hour, let's get our game face on. Go team!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's hard to keep up while editing from a Blackberry and I'm sure you didn't mean to add uncited text or blank the article; at any rate, I did tell you long ago that I wasn't tied to any wording, but that what is here about the divorce is not appropriate to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Bless me, for I have sinned. Vidui . . . anyway, is your objection to stating the divorce or stating the ground for the divorce?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, per the discussion above and Tom's comment, I added a "According to her family" before the college plans sentence. Incidently, other than the divorce language, are we arguing about anything else? Sandy keeps mentioning four words, "on a full scholarship", but those words seem to be in there? Can we just end this discussion now?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, every independent editor who has come to this article so far has raised the same issues I've raised: you haven't addressed the point Durova raises and there is still no reason given for going into details on the divorce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Durova's discussion was about the child being a "bystander" to a divorce, which isn't particularly applicable. What mystifies me is why you call a brief quote of statutory language "details". There's all kinds of voyeuristic, detailed speculation and gossip about the divorce available if you look for it, and this article very intentionally doesn't get into that. It makes a minimal quote from the filing and moves on.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fully cited bio version

Before it's lost in (some inappropriate) edit summaries, here is the version cited to three reliable sources that was removed:

Natalee Holloway was born October 21, 1986, in Clinton, Mississippi, to David Edward Holloway and Elizabeth Ann (Beth) Holloway. After her parents divorced in 1993, she and her younger brother Matt lived with her mother, who married George ("Jug") Twitty, a prominent Alabama businessman, in 2000. Holloway was a successful high-school student, graduating with honors from Mountain Brook High School. She was a member of the National Honor Society, her school dance team, and was a participant in other extracurricular activities. Holloway was to attend the University of Alabama on a full scholarship, where she planned to pursue a pre-Med major. At the time of the disappearance, Dave Holloway was an insurance broker in Meridian, Mississippi, while Beth Twitty was employed by the Mountain Brook School System. Jug Twitty filed for divorce on December 29, 2006, after Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway initiated a lawsuit against the Kalpoe brothers.

The four words that I added (and which apparently led to some rather inappropriate summaries of my addition), based on a citation provided in the sections above, were "on a full scholarship".[20] I added those four words, three reliable sources that were originally left out (the text was added originally with no citation), [21][22] and removed the rather inappropriate reference to why the stepfather divorced the mother;[23] there has still been no connection established between that text and the article, and I'm not sure why it's there. Whatever you put in about the divorce, what is there now is inappropriate and no connection has been established between that text and the article; it appears to unnecessarily smear the mother. It's not necessary to delve into reasons for a divorce to explain the mother's last name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, it strikes me that this is a matter of editorial judgment, rather than "must" or "inappropriate".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a smear ... it's a quote from the divorce filing, and is the Alabama statutory language for a no-fault divorce.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what has been agreed upon above, with the exception of the last sentence. Sandy, your last sentence draws a connection that doesn't exist. Try compromising; there is nothing remotely related to a "smear" within that paragraph. - auburnpilot talk 20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why it's needed, when we can't add four words to the subject's bio? The text I added was also sourced; why has that particular text been chosen and please explain the connection to the subject of the article. I tried to add text that was at least related to the article in some way. I am indifferent to whether you replace what I had added, but what is there now is unconnected to the subject of the article; I merely tried to improve it. I'm sure you all can; that clause is unnecessary to explaining a name change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, how many times must I state that the above has been agreed upon? Read it clearly. It has those four words in it. Focus. Make a suggestion. Compromise. Do something other than argue a point that has already been decided upon. We know it's sourced. We know it's true. We also know that we agreed to include it. Give a little. - auburnpilot talk 20:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, it is your language that smears the mother. It looks like Jug walked out in disgust after Beth filed a (quickly dismissed, at least by California standards) lawsuit against 2K.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's where we are: you all haven't added back the three reliable sources that were deleted (leaving the article open to the claim that the text is only cited to the father), and you haven't improved the divorce wording, which is unnecessary to the article topic. As far as I can tell, even though other readers get it (see everyone else weighing in above as to whether this article is or isn't a bio), the three of you are still opposed to including minimal bio info, even though I have already significantly compromised and added only four words ("on a full scholarship") to your version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done in completely avoiding the subject once again Sandy; it's a real talent. See number 7 here and this article where a former Alabama Governor prepares to divorce a former first lady of Alabama citing the same reasoning. It's not a smear, it's Alabama law. - auburnpilot talk 20:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic here, OK? The question that you haven't answered is why that text is necessary to understanding this article, paricularly when you won't even add bio info about the subject of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm done responding to you, Sandy. Let me know on my talk page when you're prepared for actual discussion (rather than simply repeating the same baseless argument over and over). Unbelievable. - auburnpilot talk 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Auburn, you're going to hit the main page, and as you can see, every independent editor coming to this page has noticed the same points I'm raising, that the three original editors of the article resist. I tried in advance (I expected this to have been an easily resolved issue in under a few minutes: to my surprise, it wasn't.) Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page happens to be on my watchlist and although I rarely pay attention except to look for vandalism, a few words might help. As a general principle it's good form to focus on the actions of a biography article subject. Earning a full scholarship to college is an impressive achievement by the subject herself, but with regard to the parents' divorce it's normally enough to say that divorce occurred, unless independent sourcing were found that the subject played more than a child's usual bystander role in the event. Cause of divorce might be appropriate for a biography of the parents, but I don't see its relevance here. If the order of events creates a false impression about the father, then surely the wording could be copyedited to relieve that impression without going on a tangent. Durova^Charge! 21:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that Beth is a, well, divisive figure, and we are striving to be NPOV with many unlikable characters in this story, since we must mention the divorce, I would rather have the reader know that it was what is clearly a no fault ground rather than having the reader wonder and maybe think the worse of Beth or Jug, that it was a fault grounds divorce. There is nothing wrong with getting divorced for incompatibility, which is what this is. We've elected a divorcee as president, and may do so again. The important thing is to tell the reader that there was no act (at least that we can verify) that caused this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the best solution is to mention a fact briefly. When an article goes out of its way to dispel a concern that need not be raised, a significant number of readers are sophisticated enough to infer oh, this is an issue? Many American families get divorced; it is not customary in Wikipedia articles to discuss the details of a subject's parents' divorce. The alternative versions convey different tones: one version suggests a troubled childhood, and the other identifies her academic achievement. Readers are more likely to infer high risk behavior of a young person from a troubled family than from a scholarship student. And in light of her disappearance those are relevant concerns. Durova^Charge! 23:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The divorce we are discussing came after her disappearance, not before. The language in the article is a brief quote of the filing, and is basically the Alabama statutory language that means "no-fault divorce."—Kww(talk) 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been off reading FAC: then why not just say something about no-fault divorce and avoid the potential problems Durova mentions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said to you above, If it were completely up to me, I would just refer to it as a no-fault divorce, but that would be synthesis: I know that's what the language means, but I don't have a reliable source that says that's what it means in the context of the Twitty divorce. The problems that Durova mentions do not apply, as we are not discussing a divorce that took place at a time when Natalee was aware of it.—Kww(talk) 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Since she was not even aware of it, then, is there a need to describe what type of divorce it was? Durova^Charge! 00:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If it simply stated "Jug Twitty filed for divorce on December 29, 2006", I'd read it and think "Why?". Maybe that's just me. - auburnpilot talk 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In an article about him I might wonder the same thing. Here it seems, at least to some eyes, to be a bit tangential. Durova^Charge! 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)We have to mention the divorce to explain why Beth Twitty is writing a book under the name Beth Holloway. That is the big reason. Also, since Jug is repeatedly mentioned in the story, it is helpful to the reader to know that he is no longer in the picture. By the same logic, we'd mention it if he had died.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the major point is to use a brief, well-sourced, neutral description. If someone can suggest a description that is briefer and well sourced, I'm open to listening.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself over and over and over: you don't have to say anything. What is wrong with something like: "The couple separated on December 15, 2006 and Jug Twitty began divorce proceedings on December 29, 2006." The reason has nothing to do with this article (or at least, no connection is established in this article ... we're left wondering if the time apart due to travel, or some other factor, was involved ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It leaves an easily answered question open, and one that we've answered with a short, neutral, well-sourced phrase. As Auburn Pilot says, a common reaction to reading your phrase is "Why?". If we had an article on Beth or Jug, I'd just wikilink it. We don't, so I think it's justified. By the way, if you read my answers to your questions the first time I wrote them down, there would be fewer cases of repeating yourself. It probably wouldn't completely eliminate the necessity, but it would certainly help.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I would rather just leave out the reason for the divorce. They got divorced, so what. If this was a bio on the parents, then include it. Didn't folks argue that this should be about the event of the disappearance and not the subject of the article? This seems like over kill compared to the amount of coverage given to the subject's background. --Tom 13:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go on record here as agreeing that the reasons for the divorce should not be included and the article needs to be renamed, because it isn't a bio. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Can we use this site as a means of saying it was a no-fault divorce?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I think you would be committing a WP:SYNTH violation, because you would be drawing a conclusion based on reading the language in the filing, comparing it to a printed statute, and then relying on an incomplete definition of no-fault divorce contained on that site. In practice, I wouldn't be inclined to revert such a change on those grounds.—Kww(talk) 02:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's on

For future reference, this link is from 23:59 20 October 2008. In 24 hours, compare the article to that diff and we'll see if there's really a benefit to being the TFA (and allowing the article to be hammered). - auburnpilot talk 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

During Jena Six's spell, I broke 3RR six ways from Sunday. I think there's a tacit understanding that it has to be done for TFA under WP:IAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is an exception to the 3RR, so you're covered. - auburnpilot talk 00:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

One perk of being TFA, no one can be bold and move us.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise following the advice to break 3RR on mainpage day: I know editors who have been blocked, and mainpage day doesn't excuse 3RR in any way. Vandalism is a separate matter. The WP:OVERLINKing is what makes me crazy, it always happens, but you may have to live with it until another day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a word with the editor in question. Hopefully he will come back and revert at least some of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Misnamed

This article really isn't about Natalee Holloway, it's about her disappearance. So, it really should be titled something like, "Natalee Holloway disappearance". Cla68 (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See the above section, titled Talk:Natalee Holloway#Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. - auburnpilot talk 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• See also Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 1#Deletion Nomination, Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 1#Merging articles, Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 2#Merge proposal, Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 3#The perennial move discussion, Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 3#Requested move, Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive_4#Exhuming an oft-defeated proposal to re-focus. In the more recent instances, some participants objected to discussing the matter while the article was being improved to featured article status and suggested taking up the issue after the article's status was elevated. I don't know if those participants are interested in discussing the proposal on its merits now, or if they will merely refer back to unresolved prior discussion as if there had been consensus. --Dystopos (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You are free, as is Cla68, to join the discussion I linked to above. - auburnpilot talk 18:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus to change the name of the article. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go calling consensus less than two hours after we've gotten off the main page. The discussion has barely started, and from where I'm standing, appears to be split down the middle. Not even close to a consensus. - auburnpilot talk 01:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Should not be FA

Nice job on getting to FA status, but it seems pretty depressing and morbid to actually use it. No offense to those doing the editing, but we all know this would never have enough attention to achieve FA, if it wasn't for Nancy Grace, who is an idiot. Why WP is supporting that agenda is beyond me...

This has been going on in the US for many years and I have yet to see one thing it has accomplished besides ruining the future lives of numerous young people (both dead and alive)... why WP propagates the cycle is unknown...

and surely you must be aware of the criticism of the Holloway phenomenon: that a vastly greater number of "darker-skinned" and/or "ugly" people go missing every day in the US, and TV heroine Ms. Grace does not behave in a nearly similar fashion... leading to dangerous whispers from dangerous birds, that this article (and its ilk) might be displaying a nascent POV disconnect...72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but what does all that have to do with the FA criteria?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Beth

Has there been any discussion in the media why Beth choose to go back to the name Beth Holloway? It seems a bit of an odd choice to me. I would presume most double divorcees either go back to their maiden name or keep the current name (unless they reconcile with the first husband of course) although I admit I'm not an expert on American/European naming customs. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting we engage in original research/speculation, simply wondering if this has been commented on in the media. I'm presuming of course her maiden name was not Holloway (From Google it appears her maiden is Reynolds) Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed unusual. I've seen speculation on the point, but not from reliable sources. Basically, I didn't see anything I could put in the article. It used to be the practice for upper class women (which Beth, with all respect, is not) to keep their maiden name as a middle name upon marriage, but that would make Beth, Elizabeth Reynolds Twitty or the like. During much of the case, she was referred to by some of the media as Beth Holloway Twitty, but that is not a standard naming practice either. Bottom line is, we have no reliable sources on the point and can't speculate in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You can tell Wehwalt and I set our alarm clock for the same time. I looked once, and came up empty. It is unusual, but considering that she is best known as Natalee Holloway's mother, it isn't too surprising that she took the name her daughter bears.—Kww(talk) 11:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope your coffee is better than mine.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo

What is a senior portrait? We don't all follow the American educational system, and I for one have no idea what a senior is. Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia: can the caption be rephrased so it is understandable to everyone who might read this please? 86.152.22.234 (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it could be rephrased, as a senior portrait is a specific thing, referring to the formal portraits taken by students in their senior year of high school. - auburnpilot talk 13:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, linking the first two words to senior portraits would do the trick, rather than rephrasing the caption. Any objections? Steve ^{T • C} 13:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Linked. I think it's a term that would be linked in the body of the article, so it should be fine with respect to WP:OVERLINK. - auburnpilot talk 13:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I know. 86.152.22.234 (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I suggest that on Thursday or Friday we archive all threads that don't continue beyond today.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, gee whiz, we don't need Natalee's weight in stones. We might as well have her height in hands, then. High on my list to edit once the day is over.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out if you were being facetious or not, and I didn't add the measurement to the article, but in case anyone is actually confused: the stone is a unit used in the UK for body weight. María (habla conmigo) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what it is, point is, I don't think it is really needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems about as useful as expressing her age in fortnights.—Kww(talk) 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't suggest archiving. Altering an article during mainpage isn't wise, and experienced editors avoid doing that, but as the talk page shows, every editor who came to this page during and before mainpage had the same thing to say about issues that still need to be resolved; only the three original editors have expressed a different opinion. With several books about Holloway, and a movie being discussed, there is room for a full bio and certainly there are and will be more sources, so what to do about the Disappearance article, and what to do about the gratuitous statements about the divorce still need to be resolved (Wehwalt, please review the FAC for the wording you proposed there about the divorce, it's quite adequate). Anyway, the naming issue still needs to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggested archiving ended threads, nothing unreasonable about that. As for the language about the divorce, the problem with that was, as I discovered, while there were multiple reliable sources about Jug filing for divorce, I could find no reliable sources that said the divorce went through (it did, I know from unreliable sources, so to speak, but I can't use those). The naming issue is resolved; no consensus for change. The rest of what you said is either inaccurate or advocacy, and I see no need to reply.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

With the RFC over and obviously no consensus, again I suggest we archive all threads except the ones that have had recent comment, perhaps allowing a couple of days in case anyone has some final comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro

In keeping with Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and not a series of murder/mystery novels, I think the introduction of this article should include the most recent status of this case (ie: "Her remains have yet to be found and so far, no one has been charged with her murder" or "Her remains were finally found in June of yada yada and Joe Doe was charged". Know what I mean? It seems this article was written to keep you in suspense. You can't find out what happens unless you read the whole book. :p

I also agree with the others, that this article is not an article about "Natalee Holloway", but more "The Disappearance of Natalee Holloway". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.208.60 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The intro already states that searches for Holloway were unsuccessful, Aruban authorities believe she is dead, all suspect were released after arrest, and the case was reopened in February 2008 (even though nothing has been done since). Where's the suspense? - auburnpilot talk 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. "the case was reopened in February 2008" (END OF INTRO). Just complete that idea with what you just told me, "nothing has been done since" or "At this point her remains have yet to be found." One more sentence would make the introduction complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.208.60 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear enough. It is hard to say anything about her remains, as she may still be alive, or there may be no remains to be found if she is dead (tropical water is hard on the dead). And we cannot verify that "nothing has been done since".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Date of death

Even if Holloway is proven to be dead, can we really be sure of a date of death? Not really. For all we know, several days might've gone by after she disappeared and before she died, if she died. So maybe we should be vague about any date of death, like in the case of Anne Frank ("(12 June, 1929 – early March 1945)" . 204.52.215.107 (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cross that bridge when we come to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, but my mind's always working. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR

I can only assume it was a failed attempt at a joke. - auburnpilot talk 23:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's against procedure. The FAR rules say you should not nominate the TFA for FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the nominator should at least make a comment on the review page first as well, otherwise it is an empty nomination for review, so I'm taking the template off. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

From my history with the nominator, I would guess not. Next time someone says "Hey, Kevin, why don't you nominate an article you've worked on for the main page?", I'll have a witty reply of some kind available. Rest assured, the meaning will not be capable of being interpreted as "yes." —Kww(talk) 23:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What was it Mark Twain said about getting ridden out of town on a rail? Something like, "If it wasn't for the honor, I would have walked."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems it wasn't a joke, but a misguided understanding of how to improve an article: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway‎. He'd just like us to add a fair amount of original research to the article, which in his opinion will make it better. I've commented there. - auburnpilot talk 00:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we put back the template?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should, actually. Physchim62 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It will take a bit to sort this for three reasons. First, this FAR will not run. The instructions at WP:FAR are quite clear about TFAs, and there has never been an exception. The point is to allow time for issues to be resolved after mainpage day (they usually are). But, second, Marskell is in a different time zone than most of us, so there's a delay for him to come around. Normally I deal with these premature noms at FAR, removing and archiving them, but not on the FACs that I promoted, so we wait for Marskell to log on. Third, and worst, because Gimmetrow (who operates GimmeBot) quit today, the premature out-of-process FAR file will have to be manually processed, which is tedious and time consuming, and not something Maralia will want to do until Marskell is on board. I will suggest to her that she save time by not entering it into articlehistory, since it was out of process, and doing so without GimmeBot is so much work. So, the FAR is not valid, a FAR on a TFA has never run, there's no need to respond to it, but it will take a bit to get it dealt with because of all those factors. Psychim62, by ignoring the FAR instructions, you've only created extra work for several other editors, as we now have to manually process the FAR page. Please take some time to resolve your concerns via the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging by what Psychim62 wrote over at FAR, there's little to discuss. We're not going to put in speculation about what may have happened to Holloway.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, if you're going to insist on enforcing rules, it's simple: I will relist the the FAR at three days and one minute after the article left the main page. Featured articles themselves create "extra work for several other editors" and, if this is the result, then maybe the whole system should be brought into question. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As for Wehwalt and others, I'm not asking that anyone engage in speculation. The sources seem to meet the standards of WP:V. However the layout of the article is appalling, in that it doesn't help the reader in any way. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The title alone obviously doesn't describe the content of the article, and for that reason on its own it should have been denied FA status, if the FA barons actually did their job. Physchim62 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[24] "are there reasonable hypotheses other than murder by one or more of the people who have been arrested to date?" WP:DUCK. It looks like speculation, it quacks like speculation, it is speculation. As for the title, what in the MoS are you referring to? Did you actually read the FAC and see the discussion in there? Are you aware that this has been considered multiple times, including in the FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, for contacting the necessary editors to get this review closed. Hopefully Physchim62 will actually address his concerns here on the talk page. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing these reliable sources he claims to have for the speculation he'd like added to the article; should be interesting. - auburnpilot talk 14:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's closed, with Marskell instructing Physchim62 to engage on this page to address his issues. I agree with AuburnPilot's comment and put Physchim62 on a friendly fair warning, if he brings this back to FAR in three days and one minute past its TFA as he suggested he would above without constructively engaging on this talk page (and the proposed sources suggested by AuburnPilot would be a good start, but only a start), I will certainly bring that up as an issue in the FAR and ask for it to be speedy closed. FAR is not intended to be a blunt instrument, but rather as a supplement when the standard means of improving articles can't work or don't work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, was it GimmeBot that updates the talk page? If so, we will need to do so manually. Apparently someone accused the bot of breaking its word, and it rightly took umbrage and left :/ --Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, closed. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway has been moved to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive1. The redirect at the former has been deleted and the target is full-protected for five days. Sufficient time for things to settle down.

I think there are legitimate POV concerns on this article; if Physchim62 could raise them in a more collegial manner, the page might be further improved. Marskell (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We'll wait on Physchim62 to enlighten us. Should we update the article history?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please no one here touch article history. I'll work it out with Sandy and Maralia. Marskell (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. It's why I asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I will review this with Marskell on his talk page separately (usually, I do all of this sort of work, and since virtually no FAs that I have promoted have come to FAR, I rarely have to recuse, and Marskell hasn't had to do this work himself, so he hasn't dealt with the articlehistory and GimmeBotification issues before, and we're in very different time zones :-) The precedent at FAC and FAR on premature noms that are withdrawn has been to not add them to articlehistory, as they aren't true events; they occurred out of process and don't involve a true "keep" or "delist" decision, rather the FAR was withdrawn, and we don't have a means of recording that as an event in articlehistory. Maralia (who helps me with manual botification when Gimme's not around) and I usually leave a "previous FAR withdrawn" in the FAR cleared redirect page, so it's recorded if/when another FAR is ever initiated, but since Marskell already deleted the file, that's not a problem (that link could be re-added if ever needed, or Maralia can recreate if after the page is unprotected). Moving the file to the next open N archiveN is usually all that's done, as GimmeBot looked for the next open N when archiving the next event, and didn't care if the previous was in articlehistory. Physchim62, yes, there are concerns about the article name. That alone is not a reason to defeature an article, and FAR is not dispute resolution. There are many ways of working out the article name, including the dialogue we have been having on talk (which I may have to neglect for a few days while I deal with the missing GimmeBot). If the article comes to FAR, I recuse since I promoted it (I don't believe I should be judging articles at "both ends"), but in terms of past precedent for what remains listed at FAR, Physchim62 has not put forward "actionable" concerns or issues that couldn't be worked out on talk. I suggest continuing to use the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. TMI, Sandy. Sorry I asked :). But thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep :-) Well, we have quite a combination of factors here! Best to spell it all out to avoid any confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

[25] Seems Physchim62 has made his intentions clear. - auburnpilot talk 17:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it was hardly necessary to put it those terms, but yes. This article should never have been promoted to FA, IMHO, and I am more than annoyed with those who bar the way to a discussion on its merits with respect to WP:FACR. If those editors who have a particular interest in the FA process want to put procedural barriers in the way of discussion, so be it. It will be noted by the majority of editors who actually want Wikipedia to grow independently of such personal pressures. Physchim62 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that will be noted is your unwillingness to address your concerns right here on the talk page. Your actions make it seem your only intention is to remove this article from featured status, for reasons unrelated to the featured article criteria, rather than actually improve it. So again, I'll ask for you to address your concerns here. What's the issue? - auburnpilot talk 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see those concerns detailed a bit. As I read them, it seems that Phsychim62 is concerned primarily with the fact that this whole case never came to a satisfactory conclusion — not only is the evidence inconclusive, there isn't even widespread agreement as to the details of what probably happened to her, even though most people take her death for granted, now. I don't see how the article can be blamed for the failings of reality.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Will be noted"? Not a phrase I've heard much since they stopped making B movies about totalitarian regimes. May I assume that come the revolution, the notes will be brought out and the three of us taken out to the courtyard and shot? I'm curious, Physchim62, exactly how many FACs and FARs have you been involved with to give such an informed opinion?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Very drôle. Physchim62 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting, Physchim62. - auburnpilot talk 00:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's off

Whew. How bad is the damage?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a few unnecessary changes, but nothing Earth shattering. - auburnpilot talk 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Some cleanup needed, I think Caribbean is linked twice, but nothing horrible.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur that it's nothing serious. It's been worse dealing with seriously POV editors. The clarification to "senior portraits" is probably good. Wikilinking things like "Suriname" is harmless. I already removed the conversion to medieval units of weight.—Kww(talk) 00:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably inserted by a stoner.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The stones came back. - auburnpilot talk 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a thorough reread and clean up anything outrageous when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Proper naming for article

There is a debate as to the proper naming of this article. Since the article is primarily devoted to Natalee Holloway's disappearance, some feel that it should have a name reflecting disappearance in the title. Others have stated that the primary topic remains "Natalee Holloway", and the fact that other policies restrict what aspects of Natalee Holloway can be discussed should not impact the title.

---

• Support maintaining name as "Natalee Holloway". 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.

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".

People keep trying to quote 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.—Kww(talk) 18:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• oppose keeping the current title on the grounds that the article is not about Holloway, but about her disappearance and the ensuing investigation and media sensation. I simply think the name of the article should indicate what the subject is. --Dystopos (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• support keeping title as is, per Kww. This is a common practice on Wikipedia, and consistent with the rules. My favorite example is Joseph Force Crater, an undistinguished NYC trial judge who was a cause celebre because he vanished, last seen getting into a cab. The article is not Disappearance of Judge Crater, it is under his name with a minimum of biography and a considerable discussion of his disappearance. Dystopos's argument seems little more than personal preference.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer "editorial judgment". --Dystopos (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ah so. Well, looking here [26], our list of people who have disappeared, except for the McCann and Anthony cases, all seem to be under their own names, not under a disappearance name. Judgment seems to be running pretty considerable one way. And some of those cases are fairly notorious, George Allen Smith and Amy Bradley. Maybe you only do a disappearance article if they are female toddlers?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Many of the persons on that list are notable for other reasons (Jimmy Hoffa) or at least have a biography of general interest (Bruno Manser). Of those "notable" only for the circumstances of their disappearance, many are passing as biographies with heavy "disappearance" sections and several are redirected (George Allen Smith>MS Brilliance of the Seas; Ben Charles Padilla>N844AA; Ben Needham>Disappearance of Ben Needham; Kirsa Jensen>Kirsa Jensen case; Azaria Chamberlain>Azaria Chamberlain disappearance; and at least one, Louise and Charmian Faulkner disappearance, gets by without pretending to have a biography anywhere). In any case, since this is probably the most complete and mature article of the group, I think we should use the opportunity to set a reasonable precedent rather than to follow the lead of a bunch of inferior articles. --Dystopos (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Shut down. Useless to do an RfC on this talk page. We need a separate forum. Marskell (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why a separate forum? If you want to do it on FAC, you can link to this RFC from there, and receive all the extra editor attention you might desire. This is already linked externally from the RFC biography list. —Kww(talk) 16:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It'll show up on watchlist's once. Never works to get editor throughput. Marskell (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, RfCs generally don't work at all anymore. Coincidentally, when I followed the link above to bio RfCs, I found an RfC listed on an article that I edit and that was featured weeks ago. The RfC was never paid any attention, yet never removed. To my knowledge, no independent editors came to that article for that RfC, and I forgot it was even there. RfCs don't generate feedback anymore: I'm not sure why. I had similar on another RfC, that generated not one comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Think it's specific to biographies? I don't have problems on the science or pop culture type articles, and generally get good participation. I'd happily stretch things a bit to put this into the history and society areas.—Kww(talk) 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure: it's possible, since there is now a noticeboard that deals with bios, and that could be draining attention from RfCs, but I also saw a Politics RfC that got not a single response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost every RfC I've participated in has brought in ample outside opinions. I see no reason for this discussion to be closed or for something bizarre like a straw poll on the FA talk page to be started. - auburnpilot talk 22:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jurisdictional issues aside; strong support maintaining name as Natalee Holloway. Kww nailed the rationale here. WP:BLP1E doesn't conflict with WP:NAME, and it certainly doesn't overrule it in this case. Someone searching for this content would absolutely search for this title, and this article is precisely what they'd be expecting. Therefore the rest is pedantry, by which we needn't be bound. Actually, suggesting this isn't actually a biography is more than a bit pedantic as well. I think we forget that Biography is a far more malleable concept than our overly-formulaic Wiki approach to everything suggests. --JayHenry (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support current name per Kww, Wehwalt, and JayHenry. As I've said many times before, there is a precedent for articles to reside at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). WP:BLP1E does not dictate titles of article, and general MOS philosophy is for an article to reside at the most basic/common name/likely search term (which is what we have in the title Natalee Holloway). - auburnpilot talk 22:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support current name. Just because her disapperance made her famous (and the meat of the article) is no reason to rename article. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete sorry, I forgot, this is an RFC. Of course this article is not a biography, so why should it be titled up as one? I don't see any real assertion of notability either – are you saying that a 19-year old going missing immediately makes them notable? For whatever's sake, the infobox says "known for: missing person"! See Wikipedia:9/11 victims for discussion from the good ole' days. If I must be constructive, I would suggest Natalee Holloway case as an appropriate title for what the article actually contains. Physchim62 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  All your points have already been addressed. If you're seriously questioning the notability of the topic that would strongly seem to indicate that you didn't actually read the article. --JayHenry (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  The amazing thing is that none of my points have been addressed! Physchim62 (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  This article should be titled as Natalee Holloway because WP:BLP1E doesn't conflict with WP:NAME, and it certainly doesn't overrule it in this case. Someone searching for this content would absolutely search for this title, and this article is precisely what they'd be expecting. --JayHenry (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  If you're actually unclear about notability it may help to review the General notability guideline and then look at the 160 items in Natalee Holloway#References. The notability is pretty clearly established here, but I suspect you're aware of this. --JayHenry (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  As were on insults already, why don't you read WP:NOT? To be slightly more constructive, you could try Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher (note the title), just to show that I'm not the only one who thinks these things are overhyped in WP. This isn't even a good article about the media showcase, let alone a biography of a young woman. Physchim62 (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  It was not my intent to insult you. Apologies for that. Best wishes. --JayHenry (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  Apologies accepted, and please accept mine for raising the tone; it is just rather hard to get anything changed here. My view is that the article, as it stands, is not encyclopedic, merely an uncritical description of media hype: the fact that it has been classified as "one of our best" makes this worse. Physchim62 (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  Indeed, I could take an axe to this article just for BLP reasons! (I won't, I've got more constructive editing to do) Physchim62 (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Highly doubtful that you could take an axe to this article under the guise of BLP. Please, point out the "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" that you would "axe". - auburnpilot talk 03:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just to ask the question indicates that you haven't read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, although I shall assume that you have and we merely have very, very different views of what that means, especially as regards to those people who are very certainly living. Physchim62 (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Those who are very certainly living"? Have you read the article? I have, of course, read that section of BLP and feel we are not violating policy in any way. If you could provided examples, it would be easier to address your concerns. - auburnpilot talk 03:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well it would be hard to know where to start! Virtually every person named in the article, other than members of the Holloway family. Just because they have been named in U.S. newspapers doesn't mean they have to be named here (a much wider viewed site). Nor does the speculation in a single newspaper have to be repeated, as happens several times. Note that one of the people you name was a minor at the time of the events (or didn't you even notice that) Physchim62 (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Pointless to argue further with him, AuburnPilot, just note that his view is that the article should be deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• oppose current name the article is almost exclusively about the disappearance, and Natalee Holloway is not noteworthy for any other reason. Eiad77 (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Rename. This is a no-brainer; I don't see any argument at all being advanced which counters WP:COATRACK. Arguments about "precedent" are no stronger than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and evidently plenty of examples exist on either side (Scott Thomas Beauchamp anyone?). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting essay. Hadn't seen it before. Marskell (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• WP:COATRACK?? How do you view this article as attempting to promote a particular bias or point of view? One of the methods I use to determine whether the language in this article is appropriate is that no one likes it: it isn't nice enough to Beth for some, and is too critical according to others; it doesn't criticize the Aruban police enough for some, but others think it doesn't praise them enough for their detective work; it doesn't go deep enough into Natalee's behaviour for some, but others accuse it of smearing her; it doesn't praise Joran enough to satisfy some, but doesn't paint him as the devil incarnate, either. It's been difficult to steer a neutral course, and I think this article is the closest to being a neutral source on the case that can be found.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• D'oh. I meant WP:PSEUDO. I'm blaming this on the caffeine. The actual content of my last post stands. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• OK, that one is at least applicable. It's an essay, so its weight in guiding decisions will vary from editor to editor, but I agree that that essay would support your stance.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Rename. I suppose I'll make it official:
  1. Article is almost exclusively about the disappearance and not her bio despite the biographical title. Editors are resistant to more biographical material.
  2. Insofar as the BLP language applies, I interpret exactly opposite to Kww: it should be titled after the event, not the person, and the person should be a redirect.
  3. The linking issue is irrelevant because of redirects.
  4. That her bio details are not relevant to what happened to her that night merely reinforces the argument in favour of renaming. Marskell (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Waht would you rename it to? Disappearance of… seems to be the most solicited. Physchim62 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this on the community portal and I have not read the article, but I think that in fairness to Natalie Holloway and her family, the name should not be changed. Is the only thing that is notable about her the fact that she disappeared? (Maybe in an encyclopedia sense, but there are real people who are affected by her disappearance and they should be considered in this title. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)