Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for Van der Sloot BLP issues, the article is currently full of them. for instance this which is in the lede for some reason "The Aruban prosecutor's office reopened the case on February 1, 2008, after receiving video footage of Joran van der Sloot, under the influence of marijuana, making statements that Holloway died on the morning of May 30, 2005, and that he disposed of her body.[21] Van der Sloot later denied that what he said was true, and subsequently gave Greta Van Susteren an interview (the contents of which he later retracted) in which he stated that he sold Holloway into sexual slavery."!_Overagainst (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Death date discussion - ONLY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sentencing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother's second divorce

I removed "Jug Twitty began divorce proceedings on December 29, 2006, stating the two have "such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together."" and it was restored by User:Kww. I have again removed the text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, Anthonyhcole, let's get the chronology right: NYB Boldly removed it, I Reverted it, and, when it came time for you to Discuss it, you didn't. [1][2].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) For adultery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's an essay: why do you feel it has the status of representing community consensus? The whole of the policy, WP:BLP, applies to this encyclopedia, even the bit that says we must write conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy, and the bit that says when writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced, and the stuff about not further victimising victims. All of WP:BLP applies to this encyclopedia. You know that - or you should. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The text about the 2006 divorce of Natalee Holloway's mother which three editors are saying is perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia policy on BLP goes as follows: "Jug Twitty began divorce proceedings on December 29, 2006, stating the two have "such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together."" As mentioned above I strongly believe this is a BLP violation and I repeatedly gave my reasons in arguing against it being in the article on this talk page only months ago. Now the same arguments are being deployed again at great length with Anthonyhcole who has reached the same conculsion I, BFNY and others before us. I have followed and participated in the long discussion of the issue with Anthonyhcole. I understand the issues and am not requiring clarification. One last time, I still do not see how it is compatible with BLP to have that kind of thing in the article, especially as it's about the disappearance of her daughter. I understand three editors disagree. However, two editors have deleted it recently and I think it should stay deleted.Overagainst (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're free to propose sanctions if you like, but beware of the WP:BOOMERANG effect, given your self-declaration of bad faith. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied on Mark's talk page (permalink). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That's the point I made at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natalee_Holloway/Archive_4#RfC:_Proper_naming_for_article . Our policies pretty much dictate that the only thing we discuss relative to Natalee is her disappearance, but the best place for an article about it is at Natalee Holloway.—Kww(talk) 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And the argument is as wrong now as it was then. An article which has as its title a person's name (and is not exempted by being something obviously different, such as a book title) should present a biography of the person. This is what the reader expects. An article on an incident should be titled after the incident; it is the incident which is notable here and not the person. Invoking BLP1E is absurd: BLP1E most certainly does not recommend that if a person is only notable for one incident that said incident should be titled after the person in question. And of course the only reason we're having this discussion at all is because this subject doesn't seem to have attracted the attention of the stricter-on-BLP portion of the community, who like multiple other participants over the years wouldn't have considered a move remotely controversial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I would favor moving most articles of the form "The disappearance of x" to simply "x" whenever "x" doesn't have an independent article. BLP1E doesn't dictate the title at all, and MOS:TITLE still recommends using the shortest and simplest form. I take that to be the crux of Gerda Arendt's argument, and I don't think it was wrong when I made it five years ago or is wrong now. Your argument that articles named after a person are a biography of said person is generally true, but that's a result of the fact that most people that are the focus of an article have done enough to warrant a full biography.—Kww(talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You might favour that yourself, but it isn't remotely close to the community consensus. At the present title, this is a pseudobiography; pseudobiographies are harmful; therefore the article should be moved. Open and shut. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's an essay: why do you feel it has the status of representing community consensus? What living person is being harmed by this placement? A few years ago, when Natalee was presumed alive, this might have governed (if it was a policy or guideline). Today, it's an inapplicable essay: Natalee has been declared dead, and BLP concerns surrounding Natalee no longer apply. Can you make an argument that its placement harms one of the living people named in the article?—Kww(talk) 13:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Moonriddengirl (quoted above) and Kww have clearly shown that WP:BLP is not relevant to the title question. It is always better, though, to title an encyclopedia article according to its subject - in this case, the disappearance of Holloway - and it's better to follow the guidelines - in this case, as defined in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. But I'm not losing sleep over the title, because everyone will find what they're looking for whether the title includes "disappearance" or not. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no need to link these editors a second time. Linking five people who thought the name should be changed went to five notifications, and duly produced the desired effect of getting a partisan of better reputation than yourself, Anthony.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the 'disappearance of Natalee Holloway'. It should be titled accordingly.Overagainst (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. This article is not structured as a biography of Natalee Holloway; it is structured as encyclopedic coverage of her disappearance. Therefore, in my view the most appropriate title would be Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have long been opposed to that naming convention for anyone. All the "suicide of" or "murder of" or "disappearence of" titles are degrading to the real human being who was the victim. And, for the most part, these articles so titled tend to be women, children, or gay men. If their name is notable for a standalone article, then the article deserves to be titled solely with their own name. Anything else is degrading and an example of the systemic bias problem on wiki. Let's drop this red herring. Montanabw^(talk) 01:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I oppose a name change, for the same reasons I always have. This is the most common search term, and there is no reason why we should redirect thousands of people a week. A look at the stats shows that Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, a redirect, is getting about 30 hits a day, and Natalee Holloway well over a thousand. The thing speaks for itself. As for the complaint that the "owners" are blocking things, we are consistent, not conspiratorial. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Since redirects are automatic and invisible to the end user, I don't think the page-view stats are relevant. Everyone who searches for "Natalee Holloway" will end up at this article, regardless of its title. Montanabw, while I appreciate that you personally dislike the "Disappearance of..." naming convention, it is nonetheless a common and accepted practice on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure we should make a special exception on this article. I'm not aware that anyone has ever raised a systemic-bias concern about it. Please consider the reality that the category "women, children, or gay men" encompasses well more than 50% (and possibly more than 75%) of the human population, so that may be simpler explanation than systemic bias for the pattern you've observed. MastCell ^Talk 06:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That argument could be used to give every article an 11-digit serial number for a title and accomplish all naming with redirects. It's not a universal practice to disambiguate things with "Disappearance of ..." or "Murder of ..." (see Joseph Force Crater for the most notable parallel to this article). My argument remains that this article contains everything that Wikipedia should contain on the topic of Natalee Holloway. There's no need for disambiguation: we aren't going to have separate articles on different aspects of Natalee Holloway. Whatever happened to her, her opportunity to become notable for other things has been taken from her.—Kww(talk) 14:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Kww: earlier, someone pointed to the macabre Category:Murdered American children. Only one of these victims was notable prior to their demise. Of the 134 articles listed, 39 use the child's name for the title, the remainder use the event. (It seems like more than 39 on the category listing page because many are piped links).

• Michele Avila
• Christopher Barrios, Jr.
• Judith Barsi (already notable)
• Cassie Bernall
• Nicholaus Contreraz
• Kirsten Costas
• Dantrell Davis
• Marcus Fiesel
• Jetseta Gage
• Delia Green
• Nicholas Green
• Bobby Greenlease
• Trang Ho
• Shauna Howe
• Elisa Izquierdo
• Sylvia Likens
• Nadine Lockwood
• Adriana Marines
• Amy Mihaljevic
• Lisa Ann Millican
• Tiffany Moore
• Justina Morales
• Elyse Pahler
• Ronnie Paris
• Marion Parker
• Elsie Paroubek
• Terrell Peterson
• Holly Piirainen
• Precious Doe
• Princess Doe
• Rebecca Riley
• Jimmy Ryce
• Robert Sandifer
• Riley Ann Sawyers
• Rachel Scott
• Kelsey Smith-Briggs
• Emmett Till
• Joseph Wallace
• Christina Marie Williams
• Timothy Wiltsey

Someone mentioned in an earlier discussion that the more recent an article is, the more likely it is to be named after the event (I haven't looked into that). So, clearly, some such articles are named after the victim but most after the event.

My reading (and Moonriddengirl's) of Wikipedia:Notability (people) is that we should name this article after the event.

I've provided a long list of people who support naming it after the event (I couldn't find any who supported your position except the 2 you pointed out), so usual practice, the notability guideline, and consensus all support naming it after the event. If you doubt that consensus supports naming after the event, let me know and I'll continue with my survey of the archives. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Except for the other two editors that have spent hundreds of hours considering the article and Montanabw above? In the sense that no one has provided an policy-based argument for why we would not follow MOS:TITLE, yes, I challenge the existence of a consensus to move. There's certainly a precedent for moving it, but no actual policy-based or MOS based argument for doing so. WP:N and its derivatives are not normally used for guidance as to titles, and, at least in this case, they contradict MOS:TITLE's clear guidance to use the simplest form and avoid unnecessary qualifiers.—Kww(talk) 16:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of WP:TITLE, rather than MOS:TITLE. The former policy does, indeed, list conciseness and simplicity as one (of five) considerations in choosing a title. However, it also lists consistency as a consideration, and explicitly states that in borderline cases "it may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus." The policy repeatedly suggests referring to previous precedents, which certainly seem to favor a "Disappearance of..." title (as Anthony has described above). The bottom line is that this is a matter for discussion and consensus; policy explicitly says as much. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A move discussion would open up the whole broader issue that crosses dozens, if not hundreds of articles. There is no "policy" here, only guidelines. The "consensus" on these degrading "death of foo" titles is mostly that of the usual cabal of tendentious bullies who simply cannot see the dehumanization of victims inherent in such a policy or guideline. The only "consensus" there is "run off anyone who disagrees with us." If the person is notable enough for a standalone article (the classic case being the victims of Columbine, who do not have individual articles, for the most part), then they are notable enough for an article titled in their own name. For pete's sake, Lawnchair Larry is only notable for one event, and he has his own article. (sigh) Montanabw^(talk) 19:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think your view of the proposed title as "degrading" is not widely shared. I also don't think it's helpful to post a condensed stew of unsubstantiated accusations against some amorphous cabal. To your last point, it is of course possible to identify anecdotal examples and counterexamples, which is why we're having this discussion. If there were an obvious Right Answer, there would be no need. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The title of high profile article Disappearance of Etan Patz has not been objected to by Etan's father, who did some editing and appeared on the talk page. Nor has there been any apparent objection to the title of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann by her family. Apparently those most concerned don't think those titles degrade. Having just the name as the title is misleading as to what the article is about; the article should be titled in accordance with the subject, which is the 'disappearance of Natalie Holloway'. _Overagainst (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that such a title would be degrading. What I'm most concerned about is creating an unnecessary vacuum: once the article is at "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway", there's a natural desire for people to create one at "Natalee Holloway" that would detail her school years, including her career as an honor student and as a winner of various awards during her high-school years. There have been a few such shrine versions of the article proposed over the years. The tendency to have one may have lessened over time, but in the early days when the issue of the disappearance was such a polarising issue it was a very real issue. As it stands, the additional disambiguation would still be superfluous: what would anyone expect us to discuss in relation to Natalee Holloway aside from what is in the article?—Kww(talk) 00:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. It's the 'no-saint' stuff which seems to multiply and spread through Wikipedia like a chancre. It even got its own article: Beth Holloway. When a NPOV article 'Disappearance of Natalee Holloway' is in place there will be no vacuum, or even room for any other article on the people involved. We can use the already existing 'Background section to give an account of her studies, intended career and interests in a couple of sentences. And a sentence on aspects of her personalty that may be relevant to the subject 'disappearance of Natalee Holloway', something alone the lines of "her mother described Holloway as not particularly worldly for her age".__Overagainst (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware Beth Holloway had been split off. I'm not sure it should exist.—Kww(talk) 13:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)