Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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)".
1st AFD. In this 2 May 2006 AFD discussion, the only comments on the title were from

User:DejahThoris: "It seems like it would be more appropriate to have a page specifically about her disappearance, not about her, per se"
KimvdLinde: "Move to Natalee Holloway disappearance case"
User:Grandmasterka: "Perhaps rename to something like Natalie Holloway disappearance case"
User:Thivierr: "Perhaps this article should be renamed "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway", and all other articles merged"

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)"
6 June 2007 Wehwalt: "Well, maybe if the suspects are dismissed as such in the coming days, we can move this article to 'The Natalee Holloway Affair'"
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)."
(Reply) "There is no consensus to move the Natalee Holloway article. Leave it alone. This is the second time this change is being reverted, so do not repeat it. Kww 04:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

On a new editor's talk page: "There is no consensus to move the Natalee Holloway article. Leave it alone. This is the second time this change is being reverted, so do not repeat it. Kww 04:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
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.

2nd AFD. In this 2007 AFD discussion, the only comments on the title were from

User:Terraxos (now User:Robofish): "Move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway"
User:Dhartung: "Move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, even though I think this is a ridiculously unimportant factor, since it seems to sway people"
User:Dougie WII: "I wouldn't be against a title change to Natalee Holloway Case etc."
Wehwalt: "The question of titling has been debated repeatedly on the article's talk page, and the consensus is to have the article under this title"
User:Cuchullain: "the title Natalee Holloway disappearance or some such thing may be more appropriate"
User:J Milburn: "Move as above"
Kww: "Bad faith nomination by someone who's attempts to rename the article against consensus were reverted twice"
User:HisSpaceResearch: "move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway
User:Edison : "Move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway..."
Wehwalt: "Certainly good points, but the question of a move has twice been thrashed out on the article's talk page and been turned down. Shouldn't that be respected?"
Edison: "I saw where a couple of editors on the article's talk page opposed a move to Disappearance of Natalie Holloway. On this AFD I see 5 calling for the move, in keeping with the fact that the disappearance has been widely written about, but the disappeared person was non-notable before she vanished. The"consensus" on the article talk page is not evident. It should be moved."

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. ~~Wehwalt~~ AuburnPilot left a comment here saying, "Mira seems to have left the project, so it's not likely an issue anymore."

3rd AFD. In this February 2008 AFD discussion:

User:Avb: "Keep and move to Natalee Holloway disappearance..." followed by an argument with Wehwalt and AuburnPilot
User:Brewcrewer: "Move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway"

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 a May 2008 FAC discussion

User:Karanacs said, "I'd recommend either a small section on her family life or rename the article to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway (with a redirect from this title)"

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."
Kww responds, "The naming has been discussed multiple times before, and the consensus has been to leave it here..."
and Wehwalt, "I refer you to the repeated discussions on talk page, in archives, and in the three AfD's, in all of which the decision was to keep things where they are ... there is no consensus to change the name, judging by mine, Kww, and AuburnPilot's comments just in the last 24 hours."

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.

I've resumed working on this survey, have filled in missing bits up to October 2008 and will take it to 2013 next. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

On 25 October 2008 SandyGeorgia said "Although every independent editor who has visited the page supports some combination of these changes, the three regular editors of the page Wehwalt, Kww and Auburnpilot resisted attempts to add bio info about Holloway to this article, while simultaneously resisting a move of this article to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway
RFC. In this October 2008 naming discussion, User: Physchim62, Eiad77, Thumperward, Dystopos, Marskell and SandyGeorgia supported renaming, while Garycompugeek, JayHenry, User:Elmmapleoakpine, Kww, Wehwalt and AuburnPilot opposed.
Here

"Many editors have independently said that the name should be changed and each time a small group of editors has opposed. Sometimes perennial proposals are made because they are correct. I won't insist, because I don't care enough to make a huge issue of it, but just saying that it's been rejected in the past doesn't really fairly characterise the previous discussions, in which over time probably a majority of editors has supported renaming. Fences&Windows 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC) ..."
Well, at the RfC, it was a rather large group of editors, and not just those who took this article to FA and TFA. The community was asked for its opinion, and a majority !voted against a move.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In another move discussion:

"...it seems to me that the second AfD had a consensus to rename the article, and that there is also a consensus to rename the article if all the discussions are taken over time. I also didn't see any single discussion that had a consensus to keep the article at the current name. The request for comments seemed evenly split, while the first and third AfDs seemed rather indifferent to the issue of renaming, but with slightly more people between them being in favor of a rename vs. keeping the article at the current title. The other discussions in the talk page archives seemed to not reach a consensus individually, but again I don't think any of them had a consensus to keep the current name and that there is definitely a consensus to rename the article if the discussions are taken collectively. It also seemed to me that in a lot of the more recent discussions, the regular editors of the page would refer to the past discussions as if they had supported your position, but upon actually reading them I found that they supported the opposite position. ... User:Calathan 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)" ...
"You read consensus differently than I do. Arguments are to be weighted according to their strength, and how well they correspond to policies and guidelines. To date, no one has made a strong argument for moving the article. —Kww(talk) 04:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)"
Move supported by and Dystopos, User:Weakopedia, User:Robofish, User:Qwrk, Fences&Windows, User:Nescio, Uaer:JzG
Opposed by User:ÅlandÖland (banned sock), User:Blaxthos, Kww, Wehwalt, AuburnPilot
"It's not a bio, it's about her disappearance. This has been argued before and most editors who've aired a view support the rename, if you dig back through the archives. Fences&Windows 00:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)"
"Yes, it's been argued before, and a slim majority of people present the argument that you just have. Unfortunately, it isn't an argument supported by WP:TITLE. Can you make an argument that is?—Kww(talk) 03:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)"

A July 2010 proposed move to Natalee Holloway case was

supported by User:Brazmyth, Dystopos, Weakopedia
opposed by Kww, Wehwalt, AuburnPilot, HenryJay
and two supported a move but not to the proposed title: User:Innotata and Fences&Windows

These are all the discussions I could find about the title. Feel free to add them if you know of any others. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I see at least one comment that you've attributed to me that was in fact made by AuburnPilot. Could you be more careful please?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm being as careful as I can. If you see an error, please either fix it or point me to it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC) (Misattribution found and fixed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC))

Also, you missed this thread. In which I proposed possibly moving the article to the Natalee Holloway Affair.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for your help. Basically, I'm just looking at threads devoted to the title/move and any relevant discussions they point to, so if you notice any others I've missed, don't hesitate to add them or point me to them. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And could I ask that if you quote me, that you append the full comment? The way you have cut my reasoning seems unfair.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is just a summary, but please make whatever changes you think will help to clarify the state of consensus on the title over time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

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, 40 use the child's name for the title, the remainder use the event. (It seems like more than 40 on the category listing page because many are piped links).

Extended content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

Here is what it looked like when it was created in aug 2010 with sections from Natalee Holloway. I don't see where anyone tried to to remove the page on Beth Holloway. Overagainst (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it very surprising that a position I've heard so often from Wikipedia's hardcore inclusionists ("We should have an article titled for the name of every person, for otherwise such an article would eventually be created anyway") coming from someone who knows better. As to MastCell's point about there not being an "obvious Right Answer" here, there plainly is: the least worst option has been suggested seemingly dozens of times over the years, and the page has been moved more than once under firmly established consensus (the comment above about WP:PSEUDO being "only an essay" is neither here nor there; it's a widely-respected piece of advice, so what colour of stamp it has is irrelevant). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That isn't quite what I said, Chris. I would be much more inclined to be in favor of moving the article if there were a consensus to full-protect any redirect placed at Natalee Holloway.—Kww(talk) 15:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to support that, especially if that's what it takes to get this fixed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I still support a move to a title that communicates the subject of the article. --Dystopos (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I won't stand in the way of a move if that's what people want but I agree with Kww that the redirect needs to be full protected. I am also concerned that Anthonyhcole, in summoning only the editors who supported a move to this page, canvassed in addition to the personal attacks he made which he has not withdrawn.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no online time just now. I ping anyone I mention for the first time in a thread. I listed everyone who discussed the title on this talk page from the first thread to October 2008. Sorry if it's inconvenient for you that every one of those supported naming the article after the event. If this hasn't moved when I get some more online time I'll finish my survey of the archives and then open an RM discussion, per Mark's advice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So you leave your accusations hanging. Nice guy, you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

With a protected redirect (which I think is to prevent creation of a new 'Natalee Holloway' bio article) is anyone still actively opposing the article being renamed 'Disappearance of Natalee Holloway'? Overagainst (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, let us take that the other way, and see if everyone's in agreement. You, Overagainst? If so, and if you don't mind my being the admin to do it, I will implement it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That is fine by me.Overagainst (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's give it 24 hours to ensure the debate has settled. If no one objects, I'll do what's necessary. I will also leave a note with the FAR coordinator, or at least one of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I object strenuously to the rename, as I do to ALL of the dehumanizing "death of foo"-titled articles. But as wikipedia is not ready to acknowledge this problem of systemic bias, I doubt I can prevail here, particularly if I'm the only one even making the argument. So l=Let's just make yet another dead young woman further an object or a thing on wiki, not a person. Or maybe we should be fair and rename ALl the "famous for one thing articles: Make Lawnchair Larry's article Flight of Lawnchair Larry. I'd settle at least for consistency. Montanabw^(talk) 07:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Then let's put it at WP:RM and allow for full outside discussion. Overagainst, do you want to do the honors?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, no thanks, I make too many mistakes with notifications ect when doing things for the first time, like I did at the FA review.

Montanabw, Natalee Holloway's life ended with notable events, and 'Disappearance of ...' titles are consistantly used for those kind of articles with absolutely no objection, not even from the loved ones who have edited the article. I have pointed that out above. An 'event' is the kind of title appropriate if Lawnchair Larry's escapade had resulted in his death or disappearance. In that counterfactual case the title of the article would be different, but it would be nothing like the one your suggesting (ie 'Flight of Lawnchair Larry') . He certainly would never have been known as 'Lawnchair Larry' if his flight ended his life, because that would be an inappropriately jaunty moniker for the protagonist of a tragic story. There were two major events in his life, one was his flight. The article has some merit as a bio of a comically insouciant character who achieved celebrity while he was alive. The other other major event notable in Larry's life was his death by an apparently self inflicted gunshot wound, so the article has a bit more of the full bio to it than you are giving it credit.Overagainst (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Love your hypocrisy here, OA, you argue that she's so non-notable that she doesn't even deserve an article with her own name and yet at the FAR, you are screaming bloody murder about misogyny. Really, at least be consistent. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And yet we do have articles on the Darwin Awards.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I might be up for the WP equivalent of a Darwin award if, having just initiated the FA review, I then took your kind invitation to 'do the honours' by requesting a name change. People might get the idea that Overagainst is the troll from hell.Overagainst (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there's clearly a consensus for the move. As WP:CONSENSUS notes prominently, consensus doesn't mean unanimity. I'm going to go ahead and implement the consensus on this talkpage by moving the article. I will leave the question of protecting the redirect for others - I would personally be fine with Wehwalt doing it, since there's a consensus here. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC) ADDENDUM: On second thought, given the number of pages and discussion archives, perhaps the move should be performed by someone with greater technical expertise than I in such matters. I'm afraid I'd bollix it up. That said, I think there's clearly consensus for the move here. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not me. I'm the sort of admin who breaks for cover at the first mention of a "history merge".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Move request, November 2013

I've left a note at WP:RMTR. We have consensus to move Natalee Holloway to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway but neither User:Wehwalt nor User:MastCell is confident they have the technical prowess for the necessary history merge. Would someone like to take a crack at it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you now prepared to withdraw your claims of misconduct, now that you have found more time to work on the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't had time to work on the article. But I'll have more to say about your conduct soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Really. Do you think Kww and I used our status as admins to intimidate people in the 2008 and prior move discussions you say you've checked?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't anything to do with you having admin permissions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh? What does it have to do with?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your behaviour as an editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if there were something wrong with it in this case, which there isn't, stuff that happened five and a half years ago? Wow.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is going nowhere if you and Kww acknowledge that, in the past, you misrepresented consensus regarding the correct title for this page, and tell me you don't do that kind of thing any more. If that happens, I'll get back to patrolling Recent changes/Medicine. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Done by User:Anthony Appleyard.[1] Thanks, Anthony. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You encouraged me (your talk) to place the following here, but I certainly don't want to increase the heat of this discussion: I think that by the logic that moved Holloway, we should think about renaming Adriana Lecouvreur to Opera on Adriana Lecouvreur and Mona Lisa to Painting of Mona Lisa, because otherwise readers might expect a biography, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Noted. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought about it more. What do you think of article name her name, but mention disappearance prominantly above the (unrepeated here) image, similar to what we do for an opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Titles of articles on operas ect which could be mistaked for a biography of what is actually a titular character could be italicized. Or include a parenthetical disabiguation in the title. Or both. By the way there is an Amanda Knox article, apart from the the article Murder of Meredith Kercher which has a long section on her. There has been a Beth Holloway article for some time.Overagainst (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding that last, both Amanda Knox and Beth Holloway have had the opportunity to enter history as the subjects of their own noteworthy actions. Natalee Holloway has been, due to the circumstance of her presumed death, unable to act. Her "biography", such as it could ever be conceived, is that of a typical high school senior who met a tragic end. That end (the disappearance and presumed death of a minor), though tragic, is a relatively common occurrence and gained notoriety more as a media sensation than as a deadly crime. --Dystopos (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

FAR now rejuvenated

I have re-added the FAR tag. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2. --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Y'all, please note that there are over a dozen dead links (see Toolserver report) that should be fixed before the FAR is closed. If these could be addressed, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ttitle change complaint

I will just write my formal complaint about the title change. I have read and re-read the discussion. And I see no consensus for a name change, quite the opposit to be honest. Anyway I think it is wrong to do a name change without a name change !vote at the talk page. Also I think it is wrong to override earlier discussions concerning the name change and also Natalee Holloway has recieved so much publicity over the last 10 years that she is notable as a person beyond the disappearance itself. iw ill not return to this talk page as I can see from the discussion that several users have been rude to each other and frankly that is beneath me. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 June 2014

This edit request to Natalee Holloway has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Category:People declared dead in absentia Shakehandsman (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ttitle change complaint

I will just write my formal complaint about the title change. I have read and re-read the discussion. And I see no consensus for a name change, quite the opposit to be honest. Anyway I think it is wrong to do a name change without a name change !vote at the talk page. Also I think it is wrong to override earlier discussions concerning the name change and also Natalee Holloway has recieved so much publicity over the last 10 years that she is notable as a person beyond the disappearance itself. iw ill not return to this talk page as I can see from the discussion that several users have been rude to each other and frankly that is beneath me. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 June 2014

This edit request to Natalee Holloway has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Category:People declared dead in absentia Shakehandsman (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is the effect of Joran van der Sloot's murder of Stephany Flores relevant?

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a clear consensus that the murder of Stephany Flores is relevant for this article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In 2010, Joran van der Sloot murdered Stephany Flores, causing individuals in the media and criminologists (among others) to connect this case with the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. For example, Larry Siegel, in the book Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies, writes the following:

"How can we explain the behavior of a Joran van der Sloot? What motivates a young man to become a multiple killer? Tall, handsome, educated, and wealthy, he hardly fits the profile of a cold-blooded murderer of young women."

Should these effects of the Flores murder on the case of Natalee Holloway (such as changing perspectives from criminologists, the media, etc.) be presented in the current section "Van der Sloot kills in Peru"?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am mediating a dispute in this article (please see User:MarshalN20/sandbox), and I personally don't care about the outcome of this RfC. So, vote rationally, my feelings won't be hurt. I also didn't write this article, so please avoid complaining about it to me (unless you want to participate in the mediation). Thanks!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Poorly stated RfC - Can you clarify what you're asking here? Maybe give a specific example of the text you're trying to add? Glancing over this the section heading Van der Sloot kills in Peru seems really inappropriate an not encyclopedic. Perhaps "Murder in Peru"? NickCT (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: I expanded the RfC statement. The RfC has nothing to do with the section title. You want it changed, do it. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Not relevant - Probably best just to stick to the cold hard facts. Analysis of this nature is not really encyclopedic. NickCT (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Neutral a of now. Did the investigation find any link between the Flores and Holloway cases? If not, then there is no need to have an additional section. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: Thanks for the comment. The article currently has a sentence indicating a connection ("On June 7, 2010, Peruvian authorities said that Van der Sloot confessed to killing Flores Ramírez after he lost his temper because she accessed his laptop without permission and found information linking him to the disappearance of Holloway."), assuming this is what you meant. Siegel also seems to make a connection, but one based on his analysis. This RfC also does not ask for the creation of a new section (it's clearly already there!). Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion. By additional section, I intended to say additional detail. The article only connects the two as victims of a common perpetrator. There is no connection apart from that. It makes the requirement of Flores' case here very weak. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: There is also a connection with the investigation ("Aruban and Peruvian authorities announced an agreement to cooperate and allow investigators from Aruba to interview Van der Sloot at Miguel Castro Castro prison in Peru."), which I assume is the reason the section was placed in the article. The bottom line is whether the perspective of criminologists and other such individuals should be included or not.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 10:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevant - Not only there was probably actual speculation within society and media coverage involving and linking both cases, but just the fact alone that we are talking about a major suspect of a murder case, who was involved in the homicide of yet another one, I think it's tremendously relevant. --JimmyBroole (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Relevant If opinion in reliable sources think that Van der Sloot's conviction is relevant to his being a suspect in an earlier homicide, then it should be mentioned. But per "no original research", that connection must be clear in reliable sources, not our assuming that the two are implicitly connected. TFD (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Relevant per JimmyBroole and TFD. The connection must be clear in reliable sources. And I would add that any addition must adhere to the cautions in WP:BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Relevant as pretty much the only reason the Flores murder was covered is because he was a suspect in Holloway's disappearance and many reliable sources discussed how the murder suggested he was capable of killing Holloway as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Relevant per TFD. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bold name?

I'm still fairly new to wikipedia and still trying to figure out all the various conventions, but all other articles had the title in bold in the lead. If I was creating the article, I would have put Natalee Holloway in bold. Why is it not in bold here. Thanks :-) Bali88 (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a faint memory of this being discussed at some point, but I wasn't able to find the discussion in the 10 seconds I spent looking for it. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Format_of_the_first_sentence, and an argument could likely be made for both format choices. The MOS states:

(for bold) "if an article is about an event involving a subject about which there is no main article, especially if the article is the target of a redirect, the subject should be in bold" and

(against bold) "if the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it".

In other words, we shouldn't rewrite the first sentence in an attempt to include the phrase "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway" but we might want to consider bolding "Natalee Ann Holloway". --auburnpilot talk 21:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay. In similar articles I've written, I've either bolded just the first name or bolded the words in a different order (like highlighting Natalee Holloway disappeared) and no one has complained about it. Bali88 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Amigoe section, BLP sourcing

Despite a very lengthy period of being tagged for inadequate sourcing the section still does not meet the burden for sourcing contentious information about living people, ie multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." The FA status neither here nor there. As it is contentious throughout and only has one source, there is not sufficient sourcing. So the section needs to be removed now.Overagainst (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for misrepresenting the situation so thoroughly. It makes it easier to be blunt in response. There's nothing wrong with the section. Your tag for inadequate sourcing has been addressed and removed. That you constantly edit-war it back into existence doesn't make it more valid.

It has been discussed with you to absurd lengths: [2][3]. The section was heavily edited to address the few issues where it was at least conceivable that you had a legitimate point. The article survived yet another FAR while the section you object to was intact and tagged with that false tag that you persistently edit war into existence. Your edits have gone past tendentious to disruptive.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Quote from article: "However, they found that Jug Twitty had already been to the area, spreading "a lot of uproar and panic in the direct vicinity", and nothing could be accomplished." As the subject of that accusation is a living person it ought to be made clear (by use within the sentence of 'according to Renfro' or 'Renfro said') that the aforementioned is not in Wikipedia's voice. If Renfro's account is reproduced, it will be relevant to mention that, according to Vanity Fair, Renfro became involved in an acrimonious dispute with Natalee's parents that included claims by Renfro that she had been assaulted. We can't give a contentious account about named living people without mentioning that the neutrality of the account being quoted is a matter of dispute. ("She's a witch")-Overagainst (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

MWWS in the lede

The lede now very prominently referring to the case having been cited as proving Missing White Women Syndrome. Actually it was the media that didn't cover the NH case that much at all that said there was MWWS, and they were targeting their rivals. It may be of interest that "The actual phrase (Missing white woman syndrome) comes from Sheri Parks, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, who used the term in a 2006 interview with CNN to describe this observed media trend.[1][3]"

The WWS seems to have come to prominence through CNN running criticism of FOX ect who had trounced them in the ratings by running the Natalee Holloway story. Anderson Cooper spoke about this. If you read the source, Cooper explicitly says (see the ref that these are his are his employer's competitors. "COOPER: every night, our cable competitors devote hours and hours to this story, even though, sadly, nothing new is happening. We decided to start tracking their coverage, because to be honest, it's getting downright ridiculous. Here's what the other guys were reporting just last night." They were playing hardball with GRETA VAN SUSTEREN. Who was getting huge ratings for her coverage of Natalee's disappearance. So an academic got given a platform by CNN to accuse their rivals of discreditable behaviour to get the big ratings. Anyway, I don't think that thing added to the lede belongs there.Overagainst (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It absolutely belongs. This case is one of the most routinely referenced disappearances when MWWS is discussed. In no way is this a situation of one media outlet attempting to gain ratings by trashing another.

"...the cable-news media received scrutiny for devoting so much time to the disappearance of one pretty, white young woman from an affluent suburb when similar attention was rarely, if ever, paid to the lost, mistreated children of the urban underclass."
Ginia Bellafante (2011-05-08). "The Mystery That Won't Go Away". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-04-18.
"Many critics have questioned why the story of the disappearance deserves blanket coverage. Some have deplored the emphasis on white women who go missing, while missing women of other ethnic groups are ignored. One critic, Matthew Felling of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, told The Associated Press that the Holloway coverage amounted to "emotional pornography."
Bill Carter (2005-08-24). "Bob Costas Says No to Hour on Aruba". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-04-18.
"ALL suspected murders are appalling tragedies for the families of the victims, but only a few become media circuses. To qualify, it helps if the victim is young, white, female and beautiful. That is the case with Natalee Holloway, an 18-year-old who vanished on May 30th on the last night of a high-school trip to the Caribbean island of Aruba."
"Murder and the media mob: A tragedy in Aruba brings an invasion". The Economist. 376 (8434): 31. 2005-07-07. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
"This excessive attention to particular stories is glaringly evident in the saturated coverage of missing white women, like Laci Peterson, Chadra Levy, Natalee Holloway, Stacy Peterson, and other white women who have tragically disappeared."
"...MWWS percolated to the public consciousness during the intense media coverage of Natalee Holloway..."
Charles Gallagher and Cameron D. Lippard (2014-06-24). "Missing White Woman Syndrome". Race and Racism in the United States: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic. Greenwood. p. 800. ISBN 978-1440803451. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Full article about the concept
Robinson, Eugene (2005-06-10). "(White) Women We Love". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2014-11-01.
"Critics' outcry about media bias grew louder in 2005 during the media blitz about Natalee Holloway, a pretty blond teen who had disappeared in Aruba."
"Missing White Girl Syndrome". Jornalism Center on Children & Families. Retrieved 2014-11-01.
As example of MWWS: "After all, disappearances like those involving Natalee Holloway, Lauren Spierer and Holly Bobo get splashed across the headlines and are the focus of morning talk and true crime shows"
Robin L. Barton (2011-08-22). "The "Missing White Woman Syndrome"". Retrieved 2014-11-01.
Full article
Anne-Marie O'Connor. "Not only Natalee is missing". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2014-11-01.

"Natalee Holloway, who disappeared in Aruba in 2005, fits into that description. Her case sparked heavy debate over the Missing White Woman Syndrome.”

Kristen McDaniel (2010-05-05). "If you're missing, it's better to be white". Retrieved 2014-11-01.
"The phenomenon, known as "Missing White Woman Syndrome," is particularly noticeable at the television network news level. Think about it. Who hasn't heard names such as Natalee Holloway, Caylee Anthony, Robyn Gardner, Elizabeth Smart or Jaycee Duggard?"
Ava Thompson Greenwell (2012-01-20). "What's Missing From Television Coverage of Missing Persons?". Retrieved 2014-11-01.
"The discrepance has come to be referred to as the missing white woman syndrom. Essence magazine and other media outlets have noted how mainstream news programs such as CNN devote hours, days, and even weeks of coverage to cases that feature a missing white girl or woman. The examples are seemingly endless: Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway..."
Stephanie Brzuzy and Amy Lind (2007-12-30). "Crime and Criminalization". Battleground: Women, Gender, and Sexuality. Greenwood. p. 106. ISBN 978-0313340376. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
"Some cynics have labeled the coverage Missing White Woman Syndrome, nothing that many individuals who are poor, minority, gay, or unattractive go missing all the time, with barely a peep from the media. Clearly, there's a double standard...We have to look at ourselves and ask, Why are we so interested in the Natalee Holloway case, as opposed to a disappearance in South Central Los Angeles..."
Jane Velez-Mitchell (2008-06-10). "Secrets Can Be Murder: The Killer Next Door". Touchstone. p. 302. ISBN 978-0743299374. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |chapter= ignored (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
"The case of Natalee Holloway is indicative of MWGS [missing white girl syndrome] in that international media attention became focused on the plight of a single, Causcasian, pretty youth."
Christopher J Ferguson (2013-03-29). "How Does the News Media Portray Crime?". Adolescents, Crime, and the Media: A Critical Analysis. Springer. ISBN 978-1461467403. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
"The sad trajectory of the case mirrors that of the increasingly bitter relations between Holloway's parents and the people of Aruba, arcing downward from the moment two years ago when islanders took the tragedy to heart and joined in the hunt by the thousands to today, when locals mutter about American media distortions and missing white woman syndrome."
"Although leads have faltered and investigators no longer seem to be focusing on the three named suspects, the case of the "missing white woman" promises to live on for years, at least in the legal TV and unsolved-mystery broadcasts."
Carol J. Williams (2007-06-04). "In Holloway case, Aruba also suffers". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2014-11-01.

I could list dozens more. --auburnpilot talk 03:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"which has been criticized in some circles as proving correct the missing white woman syndrome theory." That is to put the cart before the horse as the theory was mainly in response to the publicity about the case. Moreover, your examples relating NH to MWWS are very much of their time, because at the time that was being said the case was indeed a missing person case, and the lead investigator specifically said Aruba police did not think there had been foul play. The case appears in a very different light now. Overagainst (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

change article name

I vouch that we change page's name to Murder of Natalee Holloway. I mean, shes been legally considered dead for years, and those familiar with the case know the sociopath Joran van der Sloot knows things about Natalee only her killer would know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.27.105 (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, there really is no reliable sourcing for this. For all we know, she could have died of a drug overdose and he hid the body. Clearly he knows something more than what he's saying, but there just isn't enough to justify that change, imo. Bali88 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

second film

Dont see why we cant add more details on the sequel, Justice for Natalee Holloway. anyone agree with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.27.105 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would we do that?—Kww(talk) 17:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Should we mention the Lima murder in the lede?

I mentioned in the lede that Van der Sloot had murdered a young woman in Peru five years after Holloway's disappearance [4] because this is highly relevant and salient information that is mentioned in most (all?) reliable sources published since his conviction. I think the average reader (who doesn't get past the lede) would benefit from knowing the chief suspect is, in fact a murderer. Kww reverted. Others' opinions would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Added more 01:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding that material to the lead is inappropriate for a couple of reasons, but the primary reason is that it's prejudicial. JvdS did several bad and suspicious things directly related to the disappearance that are well-sourced and I would have no objection to amplifying somewhat in the lead: the constant stream of contradictory stories, confessing and then recanting, leading people on wild goose chases, etc. The murder five years later isn't strongly related to the disappearance, and serves only to prejudice the reader. That said, it is well enough sourced to be covered in the article, which it is.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

He is the primary suspect in the disappearance of Holloway. Five years later he murders another young woman. That last fact is highly relevant to the first, and almost all reliable sources since his conviction that address the Holloway disappearance have thought so. Most readers only read the lede. We shouldn't deprive those readers of this very salient fact, even if it doesn't look good for Van der Sloot. Do you think anyone aiming to give an unbiased five sentence summary of this case would leave out this fact? This is an encyclopedia, not the case for Van der Sloot's defence. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Of this case? Certainly I think so, or I wouldn't be arguing in favour of it. Including it as one of the most important features of this case serves only to encourage the reader to draw the conclusion that because he killed Flores, he must have killed Holloway as well. Since there has never been enough evidence of that to even bring him to trial, we shouldn't appear to be making that leap ourselves.—Kww(talk) 05:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

We're not drawing any conclusions. This edit would be following all or most reliable sources that address the Holloway disappearance since his conviction in Peru. That is, all or most reliable sources that address the Holloway disappearance since his Peru conviction feature the fact that he murdered a young woman in Peru five years later. It might not look good for Joran but we're supposed to be informing the reader, not hiding stuff from them lest they draw conclusions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

I've added in the introduction, along with her birth date, the date of her disappearance, as well as the date she was legally pronounced dead. It is incorrect no to include both informations, since it possibly implies she is still alive, or have a missing person status. Since she was pronounced legally dead in January 2012, she is not a missing person anymore. So it is more accurate and correct to fulfill the complete descriptive informations regarding her current status, introducing, along her date of birth, the date of her presumed death, as well as the date of her disappearance. Wagner Johns (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

All of that information was already in the lead. Your addition included incorrect grammar and capitalisation, but added no new information.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 new clues

New clues, questions in Natalee Holloway case. Man says he saw Holloway's body buried under the foundations of high-rise Marriott Aruba Surf Club resort in 2005 then under construction. -- GreenC 14:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

According to your own source, the claim isn't credible: the Marriott Aruba Surf Club wasn't under construction on that day. We have not been in the practice of listing all of these uncorroborated claims: the article would triple in size without much added value.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The source doesn't assert the claim "isn't credible". It presents a nuanced picture of two competing parties with competing information, along with motivation for the police and the hotel to not pursue it even it was true. The police said in a press release that the story is false because there was no construction site at the time, but an investigative journalism pieces by WGNTV Chicago shows Google Earth pictures which showed something at the site. Holloway's father believes the story to be true, according to a piece on Fox, but his wife doesn't in other pieces. In any case it is being reported in dozens of reliable sources, Google "holloway marriott", so the truth of it hardly matters so much as how widely it is being reported, it is part of the history of the case. -- GreenC 19:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I only have editorial objections, not strong policy-based ones. If you think it's worth a a small one- or two-paragraph section, go ahead. I would object on WP:UNDUE grounds if you made it larger than that.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I came here looking to see if these most recent claims had been debunked yet, or investigated (seems the cops aren't?). I feel it should be mentioned, and a cite given so interested people could follow-up on it.

~ender 2015-07-23 17:23:PM MST

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120730055241/http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/10/2256099/van-der-sloot-is-moved-after-confessing.html to http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/10/2256099/van-der-sloot-is-moved-after-confessing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsolved?

"Her disappearance . . . remains unsolved." Is this the best way to word this? I know no definite proof was found, but it should probably be noted that Joran van der Sloot is extremely likely to have committed it. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway/Archive 9

The title

Move request, November 2013

FAR now rejuvenated

Categories

Side notes

Ttitle change complaint

Protected edit request on 2 June 2014

Ttitle change complaint

Protected edit request on 2 June 2014

RfC: Is the effect of Joran van der Sloot's murder of Stephany Flores relevant?

Bold name?

Amigoe section, BLP sourcing

MWWS in the lede

change article name

second film

Should we mention the Lima murder in the lede?

Introduction

2015 new clues

External links modified

External links modified

Unsolved?