Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bulk of article

This article contains many untruths and distortions. I have repeatedly tried editing over the last several months, though my edits are then replaced with incorrect info that is biased against Natalee Holloway's mother, Dr. Phil show and tape, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.133.106.199 (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

I appreciate your thoughts. But this article is closely watched by many people with all sorts of views on the subject. Nothing here survives long unless a consensus emerges that the edit is fair and accurate.--Wehwalt 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please add an entry in the article describing the ocean search currently being conducted offshore Aruba? The ship's Blog site: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanexploration (talkcontribs) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dompig's comments

Some administrator needs to change the remarks supposedly given by Police Commissioner Gerold Dompig (at #26.) These remarks obviously did not originate from Dompig as he inaccurately calls the Kalpoe brothers as "black kids." Surely a police commissioner in charge of a kidnapping would know the nationality of the suspects; they happen to be Surinamese, not black. Suriname borders Brazil, hence the brothers' Spanish/South American look. Also, the fact that Natalee is from Alabama has no bearing on whether or not she would get in the car with two or three young men. Not only are Dompigs remarks obviously fabricated, the source given (#26) does not mention anywhere that Dompig made such statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghipps (talkcontribs) 22:54, 23 November 2007

At this time, it's ref #25 ... the scrux.com reproduction of the Vanity Fair article, and the text is directly quoted. I agree, though ... it doesn't sound like Dompig, and the Kalpoes aren't black, especially by Antillean standards (I might believe an American saying it, though). Does anyone have text of the Vanity Fair article independent of the scrux.com reproduction to verify the quote against?Kww (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Dompig's black himself, as I recall. I think the quote was as per the VF article, I remember it even though I don't have the magazine anymore. But Dompig is putting in Holloway's perspective. To NH, they might well have been black.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The full text of the article is still available online (Missing White Female: Fame & Scandal). The article does attribute the statement to Dompig, who is quoted just as it appears within the Wikipedia article. - auburnpilot talk 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do we reference the scrux.com copy if the original is still there?Kww (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like we're currently referencing both. Ref #49 is a link to the original, but only page 2, rather than the article in its entirety. We might as well replace the link within ref49 with the link above, which shows the entire article, and replace the inline citations for ref25 with ref49 (if that makes sense). - auburnpilot talk 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the scrux.com reference and replaced it with the Vanity Fair article. I also switched the link so that it shows the article in its entirety, rather than just page 2. [2] - auburnpilot talk 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Auto revert bot

There seems to be a bot (Shadowbot) that automatically reverts changes made by 74.133.106.199 without regard to content. That seems to be a bit over the top to me. Kww 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a spam bot and actually reverts anyone based on detected external links, not just that anonymous user. You can see the bot's contributions here. - auburnpilot talk 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand that that is the purpose of Shadowbot, and its stated description. The last revert it did on this page didn't seem to meet that description at all.

Kww 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

We do seem to be having to do a lot of reverts lately. Do you all think it is a good idea to request semi-protection?--Wehwalt 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't bother me to do so. The "natalee deserved it" camp seems to be out in full force, and I can't keep up with it.

Kww 10:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be discussion of this article on at least one discussion board. I suspect they are then coming over here and inserting POV. We need a cooldown period. I put in the request by the way.--Wehwalt 11:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

walt - saw your note to me in your revert. please look at your's and mine for comparison and I think you will agree that mine is much easier on the eyes. i'm just trying to make the article a little more concise and easier to read. i also made note on my changes what i was doing and why. just trying to keep things factual, concise and avoid any slanderous comments that may get us into trouble. also, no discussion with anyone on my part, except you and kww. i'll talk to you guys later. have a great day! holly'smum

Holly'smum 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)oops! sorry for confusion. above post is mine. forgot tildes.

Given that you are a new editor, perhaps you are unaware that especially in controversial articles, you should discus before changing. Your edits go far beyond "factual, concise, and avoid any slanderous comments". And, by the way, who are we slandering?--Wehwalt 12:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleting the whole section on Natalee Holloway's behaviour is not minor. Also, your [Holly's mum] habit of saving 50 minor edits makes it nearly impossible to keep track of your changes, and your insistence on adding blank lines makes the edit trail very difficult to follow. The treatment of Natalee's behaviour has been hashed out many times before: the allegations can't be treated as true, because they are inadequately sourced. To ignore the constant cloud of criticism would be whitewashing. The article presents the allegations as being allegations, summarizes the major ones, but does not include them in the recounting of events.Kww 12:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Holly'smum 13:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)wow wow wow! you really didn't even look at the changes i made, did you? it WAS mostly blank lines that i added and i said what i was doing. you were too hasty to delete/revert back without actually looking at the changes. btw, we don't want to slander anyonoe, do we? if we do, the entire article may be taken down.

I did read the changes. Useless blank lines, and section deletions. The article did not need to have blank lines interspersed throughout to confuse the edit trail, and the section on "Natalee Holloway's Behaviour" needs to stay. Stop deleting it.Kww 13:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm new here, but followed the guidelines while editing - backing up my ONE SENTENCE in the Natalee's Behavior section with a link below to the article the correct info was taken from. Holly'smum deleted my edit and called it slanderous?? What kind of circus is this? How many chances does a user get before they are blocked from editing - I noticed that Holly'smum has received her last warning already? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.39.156.140 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Holly'smum 15:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Bunches, I think.


Perhaps you are right. But if you continue deleting portions of the article and refusing to engage in constructive discusion, you will be blocked. And don't think you can come back under a fake name, WP is not as stupid as some think.--Wehwalt 20:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Holly'smum was blocked for 24 hours by Steel359. - auburnpilot talk 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Who Is Joran Van Der Sloot?

This is an odd article the way the Van Der Sloots are put in such a positive light and Natalee Holloway has a negative light. Professor Boris (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

reference syntax problem

Somewhere in the cloud of editing fury, all references beyond 17 got their formatting destroyed, and I can't figure out where the problem is.Kww 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe revert to a version two days ago, and I'll insert my edits, which weren't controversial (I hope) later?--Wehwalt 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be fixed now. There was an extra <ref> tag and a missing parameter. - auburnpilot talk 04:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Random non-sequiter

Was there ever even the slightest evidence produced that a crime was committed. Aruba has a lot of water to drown in - and a current that goes out to sea on some beaches. Boycott Aruba - I wish I had the money to boycott Aruba or any other place with beaches.159.105.80.141 19:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations, maybe?

Would it reduce the opposition to the section on Natalee's behaviour if we retitled the section "Allegations about Natalee Holloway's behaviour"? It does report them all as being allegations.Kww 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I doubt it. I think the (misguided) objection is to the content, which they consider as defaming someone who can't (or, conceivably, won't) defend herself. The content is sourced and relevant, and I will keep undeleting it. I don't think Allegations is even a good term. No one says Natalee or the other MB students broke the law. But we need the section to have an understanding of the circumstances under which Natalee left that bar.--Wehwalt 11:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Natalee's drinking is documented in FBI302 statements by tripmates, in particular by Lee Broughton. Given Dompig's remarks, and that accidental drowning still cannot be eliminated, her level of intoxication is significant. It is also significant because Beth was emphatic in the Vanity Fair interview that Natalee "didn't drink" and therefore goes to the credibility of Beth's many other statements -Rolls 203.122.80.209 15:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange quote

"On June 9, Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers were arrested as suspects believed to be involved in a crime(s) of “reasonable suspicion of murder, manslaughter or intentional containment with the dead as consequence” against Holloway. John and Jones were released on June 13."

That probably got that way by a mistranslation from Dutch. Depending on context, "dood" can mean dead, death, or kill.Kww 02:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

At some point, we should look at why we are having that quotation only for arrestees whose last names are Kalpoe or Van der Sloot, and not for the others. Since all suspects were presumably arrested on suspicion of the same thing, I might suggest having that quotation for the first arrest only.--Wehwalt 12:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be better if someone can actually chase down the charges. Some of them may have been arrested for concealing information. The Dutch system isn't as ruthless with accessories after the fact as the American one. Kww 12:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll look in some archives that don't charge and see if I can find anything. But if I can't find that language, I may change some of the language, if there is no great objection. It isn't helping the reader understand what went on.--Wehwalt 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

de Kalpoe lineup

I'm not sure I care much for the image, but if we keep it, a better WikiEditor than me needs to caption it so that it doesn't lose context in two days when everyone has forgotten the new search. Me, I'd rather delete it.Kww 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I support removing the image. I don't believe it adds anything to the article and even if it had a fair use rationale, I don't believe it would qualify for use in this article. - auburnpilot talk 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I agreewith AuburnPilot. It is a rather pointless image.--Wehwalt 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Green tick.svg Done. - auburnpilot talk 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest this page be treated with the concern relevant to a living biography

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 - David Gerard 18:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

With this in mind, did you read the article and note any issues with WP:BLP? I believe any potential issues have already been sourced and I, along with others, always add sources with new material. For those who actively work on this article, Court TV has a listing of articles that could be used as sources here. - auburnpilot talk 19:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this article has been careful about sourcing. My major problem with it is that the parts about J2K's stories is unsourced, and I'm not sure enough of the details to know if they are accurate. But judging on recent edits and discussions, I suspect the alleged (and unwarranted) claim is that we are defaming Natalee--Wehwalt 19:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe from this comment, David means he personally received an email. More than likely it's the person who went by Hollys'mum trying to get the same material removed that she repeatedly blanked before [3]. - auburnpilot talk 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No doubt you are right. Despite David's megacontributions to WP, I feel a bit miffed that an article that we've worked hard on is on a noticeboard urging others to watch and apply "strigent content policies" to without letting us know that there actually is a problem. And family friend my tuchis!--Wehwalt 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I added the "Living people" category, which allows the BLP patrollers to monitor recent changes to this article. Please leave the category in place until/unless her death is confirmed. After just a quick pass through the article, the only part that made me feel uncomfortable from a BLP perspective is the section about her behavior, drinking all day, etc. I can't say that I saw any obvious violations, but I suspect that this is the area that may be causing "concern" with the family. Just be sure that everything is sourced in the most reliable way possible, especially anything that might reflect badly on the subject, and try to remember that this is a tragic situation, involving an innocent woman who may have lost her life. I can't think of any behavior on her part that would justify being abducted and/or murdered, so be very careful about the relevance of her behavior in the light of why she is even notable. I know, this probably isn't a whole lot of help, but that's my take on this situation. - Crockspot 20:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The topic of Holloway's behavior on the evening preceding her disappearance has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources (to borrow language from WP:N). The topic is clearly important to the article. The manner in which we have reported it makes clear that the events described were taken from 1st person accounts which were confirmed by numerous witnesses. The article accurately describes the sources of information. Any allegations of libel are, in my opinion, a bald attempt at inserting a POV into a well-cited, factual and neutrally-worded article. --Dystopos 21:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well put. First of all, I don't know what "family" we are talking about. At first it was a self-described family friend, now it has become family. Whatever. Please look at the talk page and see the efforts we have made to keep this article neutral in tone, and the difficulties we have had with people who have come in, made unilateral changes, and refused to engage in discussion. In any event, the topic of Natalee's behavior that day, including drinking, is relevant because, not only do some theories assume she went swimming while drunk, but also Dompig believes she O.D'd. We have to have this info in there, or there is no basis for people to evaluate Dompig's concerns. WP does not censor. The info is relevant, well sourced, and (of course) she did nothing wrong by drinking; she was of age in Aruba. By the way, I wasn't aware she had been abducted or murdered. Your source on this?--Wehwalt 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you guys are defensive. Did you read the part where I said I didn't see any violations, and to just try to be careful? But since we're on the subject, I don't see what is particularly notable about someone on spring break in the Carribean drinking and doing jello shots. That's exactly what hundreds of thousands of young people do every spring. It's worth mentioning, but it does not merit a whole lot of (undue) weight, so just be careful. I don't have any inside info about this case, or who complained, I am just giving an opinion as a BLP patroller in response to a notice on the BLP noticeboard, so give me a break here. - Crockspot 16:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We probably are a little defensive, but it is more like shellshock. Have you looked through the history of this one? Every time I see an edit, it is either someone writing unfounded accusations against one of the parties or trying to delete massive swaths of well-sourced information. It isn't a monthly problem, either, it's chronic. Just to reiterate Wehwalt's point: one of the likely theories is that she died by misadventure. If that is the case, her behaviour certainly is relevant to a drug or alcohol induced mishap. The argument that it is irrelevant only holds if you presume she was the victim of foul play, another likely scenario, but far from proven.Kww 17:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Usually when someone dies of alcohol poisoning or drug overdose, there is a body. While it's possible that she somehow ended in up in the water and drifted away without a trace, it doesn't seem very likely to me. Like I said, hundreds of thousands of students get ripped to the gills every spring, but only a few of them vanish, so while there is some relevance, I don't see a great deal of relevance. But anyway, I think you guys are doing fine here, just keep treating it as a BLP article, and it should be fine. - Crockspot 18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to chime in ... it's been a lot of work keeping this article from becoming either "Keystone Cops bungle investigation of saintly Alabama girl" or "Intrepid Aruban geniuses baffled by disappearance of hard-drinking party animal." If people are getting e-mails about the article and acting on them, I would like to know what the e-mail said, and who it was actually from.Kww 02:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There is also the issue wether Natalee was fit enough to consent to sexual acts. It has been a big deal troughout the case. The family has a WD suit open in LA and their friends want this under some LB protection umbrella? GMAB. Maybe it becomes time to split this up in a bio and a case page.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, 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)
I'm starting to think we should post this discussion on David's talk page, and request that he provide us with the information that Kww wants. I did not think WP worked by anonymous denunciation.--Wehwalt 12:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't repeat the email here, fairly obviously, which is why I suggested just being good with sourcing and too bad for them apart from that. Doing your best with solid references is just fine IMO - I just thought I should flag that there had been a complaint, whether justified or not - David Gerard 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If it is "confidential", then it's a bit unfortunate. WP works best in the sunshine. You choose a name and build a reputation. If there's disagreement, it's done by consensus. If you can't get a consensus, there's ways of determining the matter, from informal comments to the arbitration committee. What is not contemplated is someone unhappy (and, yes, I suspect it is one of the people who tried to make this article unbalanced) going outside the system and crying to mommy. At least, there should have been a check into what's going on, on this page, before we are told to watch our p's and q's.
From what I gather, the other editors who work very hard in this remote corner of Wikipedia to make this page neutral and informative don't agree on Natalee's conduct or what happened to her. But we all believe, and work together, to make this page a good source of information. We may not have brought this up to FA standards, but what we have done is WP at its best, people agreeing on what is FACT despite their differing views.
From what I get, the complaint was "The article is demeaning to Natalee, and I'm a family friend. The family doesn't like it. Do something about it." I suggest that if this recurs, that attempt be made to see if there's anything to the complaint before putting us on a shorter leash. David, I greatly respect your contributions to WP, which far exceed mine. But this could have been handled better.--Wehwalt 18:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Just want to say that I don't think any of the contributors party to this discussion have acted inappropriately with regard to the article. Since everyone has had a chance to weigh in and no specific action is called for, I think it's best to smooth our ruffled feathers and get back to the continuing effort to maintain and improve the article. --Dystopos 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Who has the 4-8 shift tonight?--Wehwalt 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Another thought on a possibility here, I just noticed that some vandalism was just reverted, and it's entirely possible that whoever complained may have loaded a vandalized version of the page before it got reverted. If I didn't know much about Wikipedia, and I loaded a page that called the subject "pretty skanky", I would probably complain too. - Crockspot 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A remote possibility. It fits the pattern of the ongoing campaign since the day this case started.

---B. TWITTY: You know, we acted with such a sense of urgency. The first thing that I wanted to do with Eric Williams (ph), the DEA, was establish Natalee`s character, so they would see that this is not a missing girl, this is not someone who has just decided not to show up or is having an extended stay on her senior trip. Dugodugo 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Satellite Link fee section

I reverted it for two reasons: it was slanted, and made it sound like the discount was normal, and the press got it reversed. According to the source, the discount was a temporary because of the frenzy, and the normal prices were restored after three months. I also am suspicious of the source, and would like an explanation. The source showed a Google cache of a page, but when I go to the message board, I cannot pull up that article, even though I can pull up articles that surround it. Kww 04:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it is really relevant to the subject matter of the article. Who cares what the press were charged for uplinks? What's that got to do with things? So what? And I agree, it was slanted.--Wehwalt 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is very relevant and Wehwalt knows that, being a member of Refugees Unleashed.

In June of 2005, Robert DiLella and Stephen Cohen met with the Aruba Tourism Hotel Authority (ATHA) and the Aruban Tourism Authority (ATA) in order to create the Strategic Communications Task Force (SCTF). SCTF’s mission was to control the media coverage of the Natalee Holloway case. Members of the Steering Committee for this Task Force included many of the Island’s most influential people who were all heavily invested in Government or tourism. This fact goes a long way toward tying up loose ends in relevance to the dissemination of information in Natalee’s case and the attack on the media. The media increase was such an exorbatant amount that it forced the media to pull out. Their strategy worked!

The post that was removed was taken right off an Aruban Tourism website written by a member of Setar, the telecommunications company Aruba uses. It is fact and most revelant to the case.

Also, at an earlier date, the Procedures for Temporarily Importing Media Equipment into Aruba was posted on the official website for the Aruba Tourism Authority. Interestingly enough, the information was posted on the page reserved for updates on the Nataleee Holloway case and has since been taken down.

http://www.aruba.com/nholloway/mediaequipment.htm

The problem is that there was no exorbitant increase. If I take the posted article as fact, there was a temporary discount from standard rates extended as a courtesy to the press, and that discount was not continued past three months. The price quoted as standard is, indeed, standard for the region. I pay 500 guilders for a 512kbps ADSL line, and, if I wanted a private 5Mbps satellite uplink, I would have to pay an installation fee and and a monthly use fee of about 10,000 guilders for installation and 5,000 guilders per month. Maybe these things are being taken down by Aruba.com because they recognize that they aren't particularly relevant to the Natalee Holloway case? Kww 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole case is no longer an issue for the ATA. The Strategic Communications Task Force is no more, the whole natalee section is gone from aruba.com and the arubatruth.com site that was set up is also closed out. From Amigoe 13/2/7:
"Toen de producent zich eind december bekendmaakte, besloot ATA na intern overleg met de minister, dat ze geen medewerking meer zouden verlenen. “De reden is dat voor ons de kwestie niet meer speelt."
In EN: "When the producer announced himself end of December, ATA decided, after internal consultation with the minister, that they would grant no more collaboration. The reason is that for us the matter is no longer an issue."Dugodugo 17:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


It's funny how everything I had just added was deleted, then a bunch more defense in your favor appears on here. I guess the "lawyer" doesn't know how to defend himself. Or maybe just couldn't stand reading the truth? People on NATALEE HATE SITES need to be BANNED from this article, because they are incapable of forming a neutral opinion on the topic--the entire point of Wikipedia. What these people write about Natalee on the boards, which pertains to Wikipedia, is in the least, considered to be slander. This is a PUBLIC site where ANYONE can add information, not a Refugees Unleashed lair for information to be "biased" as Wehwalt stated himself on the Refugees' board. ~~KRIS~~ (because my name is just so relevant for a proper discussion)

To quote you: "This is a PUBLIC site where ANYONE can add information". Exactly. That includes Wehwalt. If you have something to discuss related to the article, please do so. If not, please find another place to discuss the topic. - auburnpilot talk 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It is my right to discuss something in which I am being badgered on. Wehwalt does not discuss, he takes down posts and then leaves petty remarks about what others write. This has every relevance to this article--people post, these users delete the posts because they are trying to sway the article in their fashion. This is not a theory, but in writing on other websites in which they post. If people do not want to have a neutral opinion, go to a message board--don't hurt the Wikipedia articles, and do not delete facts that can be found on major websites. If people write on Anti-Natalee sites, obviously in hatred of Natalee, I do not know why they bother editing this article--ignorance I suppose. The argument seems to be an objection to conspiracy--a "conspiracy" which has cited information to back it up. To me, what the true conspiracy seems to be is the vandalism of this article by posters from Refugees Unleashed. ~~KRIS~~


Stop deleting relevant opinions and information to this article.

Quote: Kww 15:37, 21 May 2007 Maybe these things are being taken down by Aruba.com because they recognize that they aren't particularly relevant to the Natalee Holloway case?

Exactly right! They are taken down because they are no longer revelant to the Natalee Holloway case since the exorbitant fees for the satellite links drove the media off the island. Mission accomplished! No longer needed!

Posted by: A Concerned American Looking for the Truth (68.197.164.22 19:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

  • is there a good cite that the price fluctuated?Dugodugo 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is any real dispute that the price changed. However, there is no reason to believe that there is bad faith of any kind, which is what the reverted section of the article implied. I live on Bonaire (just a couple of islands away, in the same kingdom, for the geopolitically impaired), and the prices that were placed in effect sounded quite normal to me. The prices given the press when they first arrived were described as a discount, and that description looks reasonable to me ... I'd love to get a 5 Mbps uplink for 1100 guilders. It's the conspiracy flavor in the description that I object to, and a bald rendition of the facts isn't interesting enought to merit inclusion in the article. Kww 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • is there a good cite that price fluctuations mattered at all?Dugodugo 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Auburnpilot, To Quote You: "This is a PUBLIC site where ANYONE can add information". "Exactly. That includes Wehwalt."

From what I have been reading here I don't see many additions by Wehwalt. On the contrary, what I do see is many deletions which seem questionable, in my opinion. The fact is - The truth will set you free! A Concerned American Looking for the Truth (68.197.164.22 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

It's easy to speak in generalities; be specific and your argument might be looked at differently. Also, signing as "A Concerned American Looking for the Truth" is a fairly clear indication you are here with an agenda. The rest of us are here to build an encyclopedia. Provide diffs and be specific. - auburnpilot talk 02:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that everyone is here for an agenda, AuburnPilot, including yourself. As stated by you, "if you have something to discuss related to the article, please do so. If not, please find another place to discuss the topic." If you make a statement, follow the advice you give. Seems like you all are here to rip apart everyone's opinions of what this article should state, not to build an encyclopedia. Again, if these posters are on Anti-Natalee sites, I cannot understand why their posts are superior to others? If certain views are going to be attacked in an article, I suggest this article be removed, because it is more of a scheme than something that belongs in an encyclopedia. I've never come across any of this with any other articles; so quite clearly, this is a slighted article. ~~KRIS~~
Just one fact to point out ... I reverted the change, not Wehwalt, and I don't post on any "anti-natalee sites". Kww 03:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This time that is true, but not other times.. plus I get to read all of the unnecessary comments posted once my posts are removed. ~~KRIS~~


Quote: It's easy to speak in generalities; be specific and your argument might be looked at differently. Also, signing as "A Concerned American Looking for the Truth" is a fairly clear indication you are here with an agenda. The rest of us are here to build an encyclopedia. Provide diffs and be specific. - auburnpilot talk 02:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

auburnpilot, my comment above was quite clear, not a generality. Fact - Wehwalt seems to make more deletions than additions. As far as building an encyclopedia, that can't happen when facts are repeatedly deleted. I'm sorry you don't like my signing but it is what it is. It's very suspicious that a moderator would accuse a poster of an agenda simply because they don't like their name. The only people here with an agenda are those from the "anti-Natalee sites" and it is quite apparent who they are! Are you one of them? "A Concerned American Looking for the Truth" (68.197.164.22 21:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

More sources needed

The area of this article most lacking in refs is the area dealing with the allegations regarding what the suspects supposedly said. We need to tighten that up.--Wehwalt 14:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Twitty/Holloway

Amazon.com lists Beth as "Beth Holloway" as the author of her upcoming book. So how do we handle the name change in the article? Do we change all the Twittys to Holloways? Uggh. By the way, the url is http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Faith-Natalee-Mothers-Testament/dp/0061452270/ref=sr_1_2/103-7068053-6185455?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180471803&sr=1-2--Wehwalt 21:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Call them Beth, David, Jug, and Natalee. Put in a front note that the first names are being used to prevent confusion, as we are discussing two Holloways, one full-time Twitty, and one part-time Twitty/Holloway. Kww 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
That's probably the easiest/least confusing option. I'd also suggest changing the first mention of "Beth Twitty" to "Beth Holloway Twitty". It's still technically correct, and will address any issues that come up if she's only referred to as Beth Holloway within sources. - auburnpilot talk 22:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest Beth (Holloway) Twitty. While there is a custom, now more or less disused, for women to keep their maiden names as a middle name, especially among the upper classes, people don't usually keep the name of a former husband you are divorced from after you remarry. Closest thing I can think of is Jackie Kennedy Onassis, who was not divorced, but widowed, from her first husband. While the former Mrs. Twitty was called Beth Holloway Twitty by some news shows and articles, when she sued Joran, her legal name was Elizabeth Ann Twitty. God knows what it is now.--Wehwalt 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Problem with that is that the article now just refers to "Holloway" and "Twitty" most of the time, and writing out "Beth (Holloway) Twitty" is going to get tiresome for both the reader and the writer. Kww 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I meant in the first reference to her, similar to what AuburnPilot proposed, then go to first names. Alternatively, what about leaving things as they are, but putting a footnote noting that she's publishing a book under the name Beth Holloway, then modify that once we find out if that is now her legal name.--Wehwalt 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Renfro comment

I've restored Kww's deletion of the Julia Renfro comment regarding Beth Twitty. I think it is reliably sourced, and relevant. We have a whole section on the concerns that Beth's actions have raised. Here we have someone on the island, who presumably is well informed, commenting on it. Kww noted in the edit note that Renfro was excessively slanted, I don't know that this is true. Here we have a woman who according to the LA Times article, had ample opportunity to observe Twitty. I think we can fine tune the wording, but this really sums up what the paragraph is all about. In addition, the "get-go" part nicely parallels Dompig's comment about the three suspects, and if we can have the reporting of Jossy Mansur, another Aruba editor, there's no reason why Julia Renfro can't be included.--Wehwalt 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on a version that doesn't send my bias alarm ringing. Symmetry of phrasing is really a matter of the Dutch educational system ... I hear a lot of English phrases used over and over down here, and it comes from them having been drilled into the students from an early age. English education is mandatory, and nearly all of them use the same books. Kww 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd suggest reading the article and maybe some of Renfro's other statements will help. Keep in mind that this is basically a criticisms paragraph, so there is leeway. I'm sure we can get it right, right from the get-go!--Wehwalt 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw your edit. That is fine. I think we have to explain why Renfro considered Twitty's behavior odd. I think it is still a bit slanted, but we are reporting Renfro's slanted attitude and the reader can make what he wants of it. After all, Twitty's perspective is slanted too.--Wehwalt 02:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Link Discussion

I'm looking for the discussion referenced in this edit summary, however I can not seem to locate it. Perhaps I'm scanning the talk page too quickly but I don't seem to run across it. Thanks in advance, Navou 02:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's old. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natalee_Holloway/Archive_1 Kww 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not even think to check the archives. Wish me luck. Navou 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the argument about Google rank no longer holds. It's dropped from number one to somewhere past 500 (I stopped looking at 500). Kww 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't believe it really adds much to the article, but I don't really care either way. Reading over the past discussion, I'm not necessarily convinced on the arguments for its inclusion, but I'll go with whatever decision is/was made. - auburnpilot talk 04:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It can go as far as I'm concerned.--Wehwalt 12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
New group of editors, new consensus. Killing it. Kww 13:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

On a completely unrelated note, this article could use some images. Obviously it'll be difficult to get free use images for any of the suspects, but they would certainly help. A few images of notable places would improve the article as well. Any ideas? - auburnpilot talk 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a couple of screenshots in the Joran van der Sloot article. I suppose you could appeal for free use photos in the various message boards that deal with Natalee, asking them to upload, but that carries the risk of making this article a war zone again.--Wehwalt 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Beth

I certainly don't have any interest in writing it, but it seems that Beth Holloway has made enough news on her own to merit a separate article. --Dystopos 14:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But I don't think she is notable enough of herself (other than as Natalee's mother) for it to be worthwhile and survive an AfD debate. Maybe if her dating of John Ramsey leads to more attention.--Wehwalt 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's an interesting question because Natalee is only notable for the sensationalism generated by her disappearance, and it was Beth who generated a great deal of it. I suppose time will tell. --Dystopos 14:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe if the suspects are dismissed as such in the coming days, we can move this article to "The Natalee Holloway Affair", and merge Joran van der Sloot into it (he is only noteworthy because of Natalee), and we can have an enlarged section for Beth. This really isn't a biography article, after all. We make no mention of Natalie before she's 18.--Wehwalt 15:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact, this article is about her disappearance, but the existing title is always going to be the first way people search for it or try to link to it. Anyway, regardless of how Beth entered the public eye, it appears that she is making news on her own, through her campaigning on behalf of other parents of missing children, by writing and promoting a book, and because news outlets put a spotlight on notorious figures regardless of the source of their notoriety. If Wikipedia were to create a biographical article, I think Beth is the more promising subject, with an extended section on her daughter's disappearance. --Dystopos 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I can see that. Let's see what happens with Beth in the next few months and see where it goes.--Wehwalt 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Haunting Evidence

Just a heads up...Haunting Evidence, a show on Court TV, premieres tonight with an episode featuring the Holloway case. The episode (Missing in Paradise) might draw some additional attention to this article. I doubt anything from the show will actually be relevant, or encyclopedic, but it may awaken some of the "concerned" editors we've dealt with in the past. - auburnpilot talk 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask for a soft (no anonymous IP address) block in anticipation of the event? Kww 01:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Renée Gielen

Renée Gielen subscribes to the Michael Moore theory of documentary production ... he doesn't lie, but can scarcely be accused of neutrality. When the Amigoe reports on his film, I don't think you can report on this summary the same way that you report on a straight news article.(Kww)

I didn't. That is why I was hedging with the "the article states" so many times. A lot of these claims have been floating around the Internet for two years, by the way. Let's see if they gain any currency now. Your edits are fine, I may sand off the rough edges to make it smoother later.--Wehwalt 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the article more carefully. Looks like Amigoe is reporting on the source material, the interviews themselves. It does not sound like the film is ready yet. I've rephrased. If you think I'm off base, feel free to edit.--Wehwalt 18:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

New source

The link that was posted, then deleted earlier in the day might do as a see also. I'd like to see some discussion on it. It seems at least somewhat neutral in tone, slightly tongue in cheek, and contains a number of links to articles and other sources. I'd like the editors working on this article to at least consider it (I had never seen it until today). http://member.telpacific.com.au/rolyroper/NataleeHolloway/index.htm --Wehwalt 20:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like nothing more than a personal website to me; along the lines of all those geocities, angelfire and AOL things we keep out. Actually reading it, I'd say "tongue in cheek" is a very nice way of putting it. The index page alone is full of commentary/editorial remarks that are in no way backed up by fact. Interesting read, but I wouldn't support including this link; it seems to be speculation without any sort of verification. - auburnpilot talk 21:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, let it go then.--Wehwalt 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on WP:BLP1E

Until her death is confirmed, we are operating under the assumption that she is a living person. It also can be assumed that but for her disappearance, she would not merit a biography on Wikipedia. In such cases, WP:BLP1E basically states that we should cover the event, not the person. Would it be a good idea to move this article to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, and rewrite it a bit so that it is not a biography, but an article on her disappearance? Then Natalee Holloway would redirect to the new article. I think that would bring it into compliance with the letter of the policy, and wouldn't be a horrible amount of work. Discuss. - Crockspot 21:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak OPPOSE. There was some discussion of that above in topic #9, if you care to wade through that. Sentiment seemed to be against it, that it really was not going to help anything, and that the reader is still going to search for "Natalee Holloway." I don't see the point of moving the article, honestly. And see Joseph Force Crater. Judge Crater was an obscure trial judge and would not merit an article except for the fact that he vanished, yet we have him under his own name.--Wehwalt 21:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Wehwalt here. The article is already about the disappearance, and has very little biographical information. It's current titles is the most likely search term, and the policy is already being applied. Everything is sourced and treated with WP:BLP in mind, and I frankly don't see anything that isn't in compliance with policy. The name is a minor detail, but as this entire event surrounds one person, its current title seems appropriate. - auburnpilot talk 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE. Even if playing a shell game with article names allowed us to say different things, I wouldn't want to take advantage of it. Kww 22:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, if I can ask, has this article been the source of discussion again in another forum? We all remember the incident when the article was anonymously (I gather) complained about; you were part of the discussion. Is something going on again? Just wondering where this is coming from so we can more intelligently reply. I've been doing a lot of work on the article recently which I thought was well received by other editors, since little that I have edited has been changed.--Wehwalt 04:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't mistake silence for acceptance. You've been so active that it doesn't seem worth counterediting for a while. I was planning on letting the flurry slow down a bit, and then going through them all in one pass. That said, I haven't seen anything which jumped out as particularly bad. Kww 11:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. I'm pretty much done for now. There's a few things I'm still looking to source, but it can wait. For example, I'm not sure the whole jogger/gardener thing is right.--Wehwalt 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I was just looking at WP:BLP1E regarding an unrelated article, and this one came to mind. Thought I would throw the idea out there. - Crockspot 04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

American legal terms

Don't any of the sources include the official names of the crimes people are charged with? I don't know the details of our legal system's titles for different kinds of homicide, but I know that they aren't "first-degree" and "second-degree". Kww 13:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that I've seen. And I was unhappy about the word "capital" which implies the death penalty which Aruba, I understand, does not have. I suggest we make it vaguer if we can't find official language.--Wehwalt 13:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There are no chargesDugodugo 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of differences in the legal system, but with regards to the translations, I can say the following
  • rape <-> verkrachting
  • manslaughter <-> doodslag
  • kidnapping <-> wederrechtellijke vrijheidsberoving (not sure)
  • murder-> moord
Andries (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • assault->mishandeling.
Kww (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • sexual assault <-> aanranding Andries (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Security cameras

An editor keeps deleting the article's noting that Beth Twitty (as she then was) made a statement: "because, after all, you know, the Holiday Inn security cameras were not working that night that the suspects took Natalee."

The thing is, she made that statement, and until proof comes in that it was a mistake, I think we have to leave it in. It is relevant and sourced. It satisfies WP:V. Taking it out is censorship and POV.--Wehwalt 11:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That statement should be deleted because it is clearly wrong. It has been stated many times by multiple individuals, including Beth Twitty herself, that Beth, Dave Holloway, Julia Renfro and others reviewed tape from the security camera at the front desk to see if another girl caught on tape at about 3 am on May 30 was Natalee. Obviously that would be impossible if the camera wasn't working. I suspect what Beth meant in the cited interview was that the hallway camera wasn't working, since Joran's lawyer Tacopina was saying that about the hallway camera at about the same time.-- JA 19 July 2007

What you suspect that Beth meant isn't particularly relevant. She was clearly wrong about a huge number of things, but that doesn't mean we don't quote them. If you can source the contradiction, then we can add text to highlight the contradiction. That doesn't mean we delete sourced material. Kww 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, this quote is obviously false, other people and even Beth herself have said there is security video from that morning, and they watched it. So what's the point of leaving this in, even with a sourced contradiction? Just to prove Beth was wrong about something?

If necessary I suppose I could post a comment that no one else has ever said this about the cameras, along with 10 different sourced quotes contradicting it, including some from Beth herself, just to completely eliminate any mistaken impression a reader may have that there is actually the slightest bit of controvery about this. But rather than distracting from what should be a concise and simple introduction, with a non-issue, wouldn't it be better to just delete the wrong information? JA

It actually is necessary that you provide those 10 different sourced quotes; not necessarily 10, but some reliable source. Things must be verified, or it amounts to original research. If you can provide the sources, then the article can be changed. Also, please note your username is Jonaaron, not JA. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 17:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This was posted to me on an internet bulletin board by someone named Jonathan: "That statement should be deleted because it is clearly wrong. It has been stated many times by multiple individuals, including Beth Twitty herself, that Beth, Dave Holloway, Julia Renfro and others reviewed tape from the security camera at the front desk to see if another girl caught on tape at about 3 am on May 30 was Natalee. Obviously that would be impossible if the camera wasn't working. Rather than forcing me to waste my time coming up with all the quotes about how Beth ect reviewed the security video from that morning, I'd appreciate it if you would just delete that from the wiki article yourself, because this is not an issue, the front desk camera indisputably was working (in the quote you posted Beth probably meant the hallway camera). Thanks." Of course, I will do no such thing, as that would be censorship and POV. As for the hallway thing, that is an interesting guess, but given as how the context of the quote (see source) was Beth talking about Von Cromvoirt's father running the security cameras on Aruba (supposedly), what is being implied is that all the cameras at the Holiday Inn weren't working, possibly intentionally.--Wehwalt 10:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The sourcing seems adequate. I've stressed, in my edits, that BT's statement contradicts earlier reporting and statements, so far as I know, she's never come back to the subject.--Wehwalt 12:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

This is what O'Reilly said. Though it is not conclusive it is still important:

The Factor has learned from sources we have to protect that Natalee Holloway, the 18-year-old Alabama woman who disappeared two years ago in Aruba, died from cardiac arrest brought on by an overdose of cocaine.According to top law enforcement officials, Natalee ingested the cocaine with Jordan van der Sloot and one of the Kalpoe brothers. Her body was then disposed in the ocean. With us now, FOX News anchor Geraldo Rivera, who you can see Saturday and Sunday at 8 p.m. in "The Factor" slot.And I've got to give a viewer advisory here that this is information that "The Factor" has not been able to confirm independently because there is no body. But law enforcement officials believe that exactly what I said, that Natalee took a massive overdose of cocaine and when she died these these boys disposed of her body. O'Reilly factor and Geraldo Muntuwandi 04:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A ... it's gossip. B .... it's Bill O'Reilly.

I'm taking it out for now. In the morning, Wehwalt and AuburnPilot will see this exchange, and either side with me or with you. I won't fight either answer, but let's keep it out until then. Kww 04:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of a body or a confession, gossip is all that's left. I think as controversial as Mr O'Reilly can be, and he definitely does spin sometimes, he still has some credibility when it comes to his sources. His show is the number one news talk show in cable television, I am sure they have a very strict vetting process about what gets to go on air. Muntuwandi 04:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that this is an unconfirmed rumor, by O'Reilly's own admission, I don't believe it would be appropriate to include such allegations just yet. Until sources are provided, O'Reilly could be pulling this from anywhere; it's merely unconfirmed conjecture. - auburnpilot talk 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It is unlikely that there will be any new evidence coming out. So these reports are all that there is. There has always been the feeling that all parties involved know a lot more than what has been told to the Media. This article needs to reflect the latest information comming out. I see no problem with placing this in the article as long as we add the caveat the O'Reilly said "that his source cannot independently confirm" but that it is from a "top law enforcement officer". Thus we do not attach any more credibility to it than does O'Reilly.Muntuwandi 05:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well . . . I wouldn't put it in personally, but I won't stand in the way if an emerging consensus says put it in. If it were sourced, say, to Dompig or Jacobs or some actual person, I'd be OK with it, with appropriate caveats. But without that, it seems to me to be speculation. We do have some of it in the article, see Dompig's statement just before he left the case. But at least we know who said it. As I said, I'd leave it out, but I don't have strong views on the subject. I'd also support putting it in if this story gets "legs", which it has not done to date.--Wehwalt 09:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the emerging consensus on what happened to Natalee. Dompig basically says the same thing but his statement is hidden in the paragraphs and does not give as much detail as O'Reilly. I think it should be included. Many people believe that Van der Sloot or someone else may have harmed her. But this theory states that she was not murdered by anyone but died accidentally from an OD. This is significant because Van der Sloot may have disposed of the body. What the motivations to do so are unknown. Instead he could have simply taken her to hospital. So as O'Reilly mentioned he would still have a case to answer. I think this is the most important information to come out in two years.Muntuwandi 13:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm. I'm torn. The thing is, we don't know the source; it could be Dompig, in which case what you say is an emerging consensus is really Dompig repeating himself. And, when you come right down to it, it is a guess, as far as we know. How do you prove that a missing individual had a heart attack? We cannot work on guesses or feeling. All the same, what would editors think if we added a sentence about the one on Dompig's allegation stating "A similar theory, without a named source, was detailed by Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly factor. on July (whatever), 2007."--Wehwalt 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
My problem with it is that the comment is completely unverifiable. Without the ability to confirm the claim, and O'Reilly even stated it could not be confirmed, can we consider O'Reilly a reliable source in this instance? To me, this seems like nothing more than somebody making a remark in a blog...it's self published and unconfirmed/unverifiable. Something about it doesn't seem appropriate, but I'm not sure if policy agrees with me. - auburnpilot talk 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I am trying to find a difference between Dompig's comment, which we reported, and O'Reilly's reporting of someone else's statement to him, other than the obvious named/unnamed. I'd like to be consistant.--Wehwalt 00:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should ever count Fox News as a reliable source, but obviously precedent is against me on this. Kww 01:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It is evident from the case that there has always been information that has been withheld from the public. One of the Kalpoe brothers was said to have confessed and then retracted his confession. So it is entirely possible that one of the policemen leaked this information. That is all speculation though. What is important is that the case was generally considered a homicide, but now it is being thought of as an accidental overdose.Muntuwandi 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Kennedy assassination theories has several theories but probably only one is correct, maybe none is correct, and they are all just hearsay or rumours. There is no harm in reporting speculation as long as it is mentioned that it is a theory that has not been verified.Muntuwandi 03;22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. There are many theories about what happened to Holloway, from export for use in the white slave trade to dismemberment followed by dumping the body parts in a crab trap. The evidence for each is virtually nil, and the idea of reporting each conspiracy theory appalls me. I think the Kennedy thing is rather sui generis. The Natalee affair is bound by more conventional rules. I'm coming down on the side that rumor is not made notable by the fact that the rumermonger is Bill O'Reilly.--Wehwalt 01:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had to pick two, which would they be. I would pick homicide or accidental OD. The fact that there was several inconsistencies in testimonies of the 3 suspects rules out many of the wacky theories. O'Reilly is a descent source when he is not reporting on politics. This story is of no use to conservatives. I mean O'Reilly wouldn't report that she was abducted by aliens.Muntuwandi 01:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I've speculated as freely as the next person. But I'm here as an editor for Wikipedia. I stick by the guidelines in that role. I don't guess. I don't pick two from Column A. I just report the relevant facts that I think fit within the guidelines and which I think will be of interest to the reader. Until O'Reilly's source becomes public, it is just too speculative and remote to have within this article. But within several months, we were told in that LA Times piece, Aruba will have to fish or cut bait, either bring charges or cut loose the suspects. Possibly enough will shake loose then so that we can intelligently report this theory.--Wehwalt 01:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Natalee's Behavior" section should be retitled and some contents moved

While it's true that most of the content in that section is relevant, the term "behavior" sounds negative and judgemental, and understandably comes across as victim-blaming. Particularly when the section is essentially just a list of unflattering information and allegations about Natalee and her classmates, without any other discernable common purpose. There is no similar section called "Joran's behavior".

Since most of the "Natalee's Behavior" section has to do with Natalee's drinking and speculation about an alcohol/drug overdose, I think it would be better to retitle it something like "Dompig's Theory" or "Theory that Natalee Died from Alcohol and Possibly Drugs". That way the section is focusing on a specific, relevant subject, and is not just a collection of anything that makes Natalee look bad.

Then, the information about jello shots should be moved elsewhere in the article.

And I'm not sure the allegation about MB students as a group behaving badly in Aruba and not being invited back, is worthy of inclusion at all- any more than are activities by Joran's friends that have no known connection to the disappearance. Jon 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Natalee's behavior has been the focus of many reports and theories as to what happened that night. All of it is properly sourced, and in my opinion, very relevant to the case. I'm not saying her behavior resulted in her death, and I don't believe the article does either, but many have asserted such a connection may exist. I'm not opposed to a title change, but Theory that Natalee Died from Alcohol and Possibly Drugs is a bit overkill. The section is about Natalee's behavior, so I'm not sure what title would better describe the content. - auburnpilot talk 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with AuburnPilot. In addition, the drinking and partying is necessary to an understanding of why Holloway would get into a car with three men she barely knew. Some adhere to the theory that Natalee went swimming while drunk and never returned. I think the article is quite restrained in its discussion of the MB kids. As for Joran, the focus of this article is on that weekend in Aruba and what came after, both for the MB kids and for J2K. Do you want to put in that he aced his finals? Besides, this article is about Natalee Holloway.--Wehwalt 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Incidently, I am not sure what in the article makes Natalee look bad. She drank. Even the MB kids admitted that. She was entitled to drink, she was of legal age in Aruba, and she had just graduated, and by her parents' account, done quite well. More power to her. It does not make her look bad to say she drank.--Wehwalt 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, what are "jello shots"?--Timtak (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Alcohol in gelatin, which is licked by one person off another's midriff. So I'm told.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You've been told correctly. See Jello_shot#Gelatin_shots and Body shot. - auburnpilot talk 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Birth place

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is any dispute regarding where Holloway if from. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk · contribs) requested a source, a source that isn't needed in my opinion, but I've provided one anyway. The source reads "Holloway, of Mountain Brook, Ala., vanished May 30 while on a five-day trip with more..."[4] Bramlet Abercrombie has now removed this source, and restored the {{fact}} tag. Is this a debate I've missed? - auburnpilot talk 14:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly "of Mountain Brook" here means "lastly residing in Mountain Brook". She might well have been born elsewhere. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) In fact, I think I may have been wrong. If I remember correctly, I believe Holloway was actually born in Mississippi and moved to Mountain Brook in 2000. I'll see if I can find a source...I'd forgotten about her move to MB. - auburnpilot talk 14:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Holloway lived in Mississippi when she was younger, and her father still lives in Meridian." AP article 11/21/07
  • "When Natalee and her brother Matt were young, we lived in Clinton, Mississippi...When Beth remarried in 2000, she and her husband, Jug, moved to Mountain Brook, Alabama, and Robin and I moved to Meridian, Mississippi" Dave Holloway's book
  • "She moved here from Mississippi." Scarborough Country
A few sources allude to Mississippi, but none state it straight out. - auburnpilot talk 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how it adds anything to have where she lived when she was younger. If we knew her birthplace, I'd put that in, but just previous residences aren't terribly helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of contention is the birth place mentioned within the infobox. If there is no solid source pointing one way or the other, we might as well comment out the birth section for now (or simply leave it as United States). - auburnpilot talk 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
According to the AP she was born in Clinton, Miss. I've gone ahead and fixed the infobox.--Rise Above The Vile 01:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, that article (Wever, Margaret (April 2006), "Natalee Holloway's father unfamiliar with latest suspect in daughter's disappearance", Associated Press  ) doesn't mention Clinton, MS. - auburnpilot talk 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...I might have mixed up the articles when citing it. If found another article that mentions it so I'll change the cite.--Rise Above The Vile 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I finally found two online sources that refer to Holloway as a "Clinton-native" so I've added them to the section as well. Might be overkill, but I find you can never have too many sources. - auburnpilot talk 22:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

I've been meaning to expand the introduction for months now, and finally had time to do it today. WP:LEAD states it should be able to stand alone as an overview of the article, so I tried to include what I believe are the main points to the story (Joran and Kalpoes rather than the security guards and DJ for example). It was more difficult to condense the article than I was expecting, so I may have left something out. Please reword/rework/add/remove/etc as needed. - auburnpilot talk 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Aruban" judge

I think "Aruban" is fine. Judges in the kingdom rotate, so a judge on an Aruban court may consider the Netherlands, the Antilles, or Aruba to be "home", but while they are on duty in Aruba, they speak with the authority of the Aruban legal system.Kww (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. It had been my understanding that in '05 they brought in judges from the Netherlands Antilles because of the Paulus involvement. Joe Tacopina last night on Greta said that the same judge who released Joran in '05 heard the case yesterday. I am trying to avoid having a reader unclear as to whether the judge was actually from Aruba because of the discussion of Paulus's supposed influence. Also, there was an article a while back that said almost all judges on Aruba were from the Netherlands because of the small population on Aruba leads to few people becoming eligible for a judgeship.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. On the other hand, many people don't seem to grasp that Aruba has its own legal code and courts. Even when a case gets appealed to Den Haag, it is judged according to the intersection of kingdom law and Aruban law, not Dutch law. It is true that most judges are from the Netherlands, both here and in Aruba. You can get a degree in law from the University of the Netherlands Antilles in Curacao, and that degree covers Aruban and Antillean law, so it is at least possible for an Aruban to become a judge without ever going to the Netherlands. In practice, it doesn't happen.Kww (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand. We can play around with the phrasing, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I see Andries has proposed a merge with the Joran van der Sloot article. I've suggested this before. There is little in the Joran article that is not in this one. The useful info in the Joran article that is not already here won't take up much room.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any new information at all. What would be added from a merge?Kww (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No objections here. I haven't read the Van der Sloot article word-for-word, but in skimming through it, nothing stood out that hasn't been covered in this article. A simple redirect seems appropriate. - auburnpilot talk 20:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Only thing that I see that isn't already in this article is Joran's book.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Didn't realise that we didn't have a mention of that in this article. I would supporting adding a mention and then redirecting. We probably should have redirects for the Kalpoe brothers as well ... I'm surprised that they don't already exist.Kww (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with all that. Frankly, the JVDS just serves as a target for those with a strong POV on the case who want the article to reflect it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Satish Kalpoe and Deepak Kalpoe already redirect here. As for Joran's book, I was looking at this article and I'm not really sure where to mention it. Under the Physical search section, it is mentioned in passing: " Investigators did not comment on what prompted the new search[51], except that it was not related to Van der Sloot's book". It certainly doesn't need its own section. - auburnpilot talk 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I wonder 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 is already the heart of the article as the girl's previous accomplishments are of no note. Redirecting the numerous minor players in the drama to an article called, say Disappearance of Natalee Holloway seems more evident than the current merger proposed. We might keep a short article with this name providing some biographical context and preserving the current categorization. --Dystopos (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I would still oppose the move. People are still going to search for the NH article, the information they want should be where they are looking for it. I don't think it would change the now and then battles we have with those seeking to preserve Natalee's good name (or whatever they are doing). And there is very little if anything to say about her on a biographical basis. She lived, she went to school, she went to Aruba, something bad happened. I would support redirecting the JvdS article here, but do not support a move to a disappearance article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. Natalee Holloway redirecting to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway would be just as available and findable as an article named Natalee Holloway. As long as the base article hasn't got a biased name, I don't care much what the base title is. I can see an argument that redirecting all the personal names to a central article about the case itself is the most balanced and straightforward approach.Kww (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
As auburnpilot said in discussion above, Natalee Holloway is the most likely search term. It makes sense to have the article there. And if we keep a stub at "Natalee Holloway" and move the material to the disappearance article, we force the reader to click another time to get there. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
My preference is still for the article to remain at Natalee Holloway rather than Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, but I'm not as opposed to the move as I previously have been. I think the current title is preferable in terms of linking, as most references to this situation are to Natalee by name, rather than the case itself. Looking at the main space links to this article, only 5 of the 32 articles refer in some way to "the disappearance of Natalee Holloway" whereas the rest refer to Natalee specifically. To me, it makes more sense to have it at the current title as the most common usage. Of course a redirect would solve this, but I still prefer it here. - auburnpilot talk 18:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There's also some possibility that the matter may be solved, or that (though I doubt it) someone will be convicted of her killing. Would we then change "Disappearance" to "Killing" or "Murder"?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Those are good points, and the precedent for entitling similar events is small. I thought it was worth bringing up in discussion, though. --Dystopos (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree it was worth discussing, as I think there will be a time when the title of this article will change. Hopefully there will be more of a resolution to the case that will help decide where it will be moved, but I don't think we're there yet. - auburnpilot talk 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Though in any case, Holloway was not a child, she was 18. And as for murdered . . . In any event, we still have the Joran merge to deal with. I suggest that we do a redirect on Joran to here, and put in small amounts of info about the book, and about his father.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we've moved usable content from the Joran article to here. Does anyone want to pull the trigger on the redirect?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirected. - auburnpilot talk 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Can the merge be undone? Van der Sloot has come out with his own book, which probably makes that article in itself notable, as well as an incident two days ago: Former suspect in Holloway case gets in spat on Dutch TV show Intangible2.0 (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that he threw wine in the face of a guy who had basically spent the last hour accusing him of murder doesn't make him any more notable than otherwise. And the book was out long before the merge proposal, and only in Dutch. I won't say what you should do or not do in the Dutch Wikipedia, but here, he is not notable in and for himself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
But he gets regularly mentioned in the media, also outside of the Netherlands. Prosecutor: Crime reporter's info may help Holloway case. Intangible2.0 (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Regularly? He's mentioned whenever the topic of NH comes up, not for himself. If he is tried, I would say then reconsider.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Holloway documents page

Jonaaron, whom we all remember fondly, has added a link, [5] to supposed case documents and alleged translations, where applicable. It was my understanding that the feeling on this page was against such documents, as they are not authenticated (except for the 302s, which look like the same attached as exhibits in the civil case). I deleted the link pending discussion here. I'm reluctant to put it in. We don't know these are real, and even if real, may be cherry picked. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I've nominated this article for GA status. It isn't perfect, but we've been fairly stable and avoided major disputes (leaving aside that nutty AfD nomination) for quite a while. Even if we don't make it, it will certainly improve the article to have it reviewed by outsiders.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories

The category "Possibly living people" says "Category:Living people (don't include there); Category:Disappeared people (don't include there)". However, this article has been placed into all three categories. Is this proper? *Dan T.* (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Per the discussion, see section 11 above, we can't delete her from the Living People category or Jove will smite us with thunderbolts. She is undoubtedly disappeared, and has not been proved to be dead (I know there are official opinions on the subject, but we'll wait for proof or a judicial declaration). I don't have a problem with deleting from "possibly living people".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I would think that, if it's unknown whether she's living or dead, that the appropriate category for her would be "Possibly living people" rather than "Living people", with the latter being a POV statement that you think she's actually living. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to do with that. We're under orders from admins (again, see Section 11 of this talk page) not to remove the living people category unless there's confirmation she's dead. Not holding my breath here. Personally, I think she's been holding her breath for quite some time, but what do I know?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Downright ridiculous"

I've phrased it so that it is CNN's perspective, not the articles. We can't be in the business of judging whether or not the coverage is excessive, we simply report on those who feel that way and otherwise. But fn 102, the link to the MSNBC article, I think is to the wrong article, it is about the effect on the tourists and locals of the then-search. It doesn't seem to have much to do with things. Maybe the link is to the wrong article?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the reference was misplaced. Text deleted, spackle applied.Kww (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)