Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2

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

Moved from review[edit]

Extended content

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article contains too much opinion about the subject's living mother's alleged misleading statements in her publicity campaign in the aftermath of her daughter's disappearance, From the top, it links the words 'media sensation' to the page on sensationalism. The link is a way of surreptitiously stating an opinion in WP's voice. The lead names 3 living persons, namely Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes brothers as suspects ('released for lack of evidence') for something they have never even been tried for. Yet the lead does not mention that Van der Sloot was convicted of murdering a young woman in Peru 5 years later. The mother's 2006 divorce should not be 'Background' on a girl who disappeared in 2005; the Disappearance section names living people as part of a group and a police chief is quoted as alleging that the same group engaged in "'wild partying, a lot of drinking, lots of room switching every night'". The Disappearance section does not mention that Dompig, the policeman who is quoted about the Natalee Holloway and her group were drinking all the time, said publicly as early as March 2006 that the investigators had concluded that Natalee had probably O.D.ed and had not been murdered. There is a lot of argumentative counterpoint on Natalee Holloway's mother's complaints about the Aruban investigation, but those complaints appear very differently in the light of what Dompig said about Natalee's death not being murder. Much further down the long 'Continued search, suspects rearrested and released again' subsection does have Dompigs OD theory but it's too hard to find. So the 2006 statements by Dompig about alleged heavy drinking are disconnected from the the relevant theory. It seems they are just there to bring Natalee Holloway's character in. as I understand it the word 'denied' is not recommended for responses to accusations as they are about alleged drug use by Holloway. Overagainst (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I was responsible for promoting this article, and I have long had a policy of not engaging FARs for articles I promoted, but my concerns about the neutrality of this article, and off-topic smears at the mother while text relevant to the daughter's accomplishments are left out, are recorded in the article's talk page archives. I have additional recent concerns about editors who have never engaged the article previously suddenly appearing in support of preserving the text that concerns Overagainst.[1] These concerns go back years, so I suggest the FAR should continue (and will need close monitoring by delegates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There are no grounds for demoting this article. I'm not sure what Sandy's getting at. As for Overagainst, they've failed to gain consensus for their views constantly on the talk page, so they're trying an FAR. I suggest this be speedy closed. The community ruled that this article was neutral when it was promoted, and it was substantially in the same shape then as now. Note that Sandy objected to it, dragged her feet on promoting it, put in comments that made clear her views that the editors who worked very hard on the article had an "Aruban" point of view. I won't bother with diffs, it's through the archives. There are no grounds for an FAR--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
"The community ruled that this article was neutral when it was promoted," If that is any kind of argument then why have any FAR ever. The following is only the most egregious example, in the 'Background' (on Natallee Holloway who disappeared in May 2005) section: "Jug Twitty began divorce proceedings on December 29, 2006, stating the two have "such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together."[32]". The next section starts "On Thursday, May 26, 2005". That quote from divorce papers filed in 2006 by a non-public living person about Natalee's mother is there for one reason only: attacking the character of a living person. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] Overagainst (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The FAC is relevant because neutrality is a FAC criterion, and a promoted article has received consensus that it is neutral. There have been a number of discussions since, including the one you filled the talk page with, that consensus has not been disturbed. The article has been carefully updated for new events since then. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] As for the quote from the divorce papers, I did not choose that the secondary source I got it from chose it. Since the secondary source did not characterize it as a no-fault divorce (which it was) all we could do was quote from it. We did not have the divorce papers before us, searching for the sexiest bits. Why have you not notified the other FAC nominators of this discussion?--Wehwalt (talk)
This is the first time I have ever had anything to do with a FA review, and I got a bit mixed up when going through the procedure, sorry.Overagainst (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed the article and the comments here and have concluded that this FAR is completely meritless. The article seems neutral and fair to me, and I see no grounds for its featured article status to be removed. I don't think the mother is being poorly treated here at all. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] I suggest that this be closed before more volunteer time is wasted. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The article is about Natalee Holloway. The article does not say "no fault divorce", read what it says. Whatever one thinks of using a quote from the 2006 divorce papers of her stepfather (who is not a public person), front and centre in the 'Background' section about the subject of the article (a girl who dissappeared in 2005) it is reasonable to question whether the status of the article should be that of FA. The contex of the police chief's theory about accidental alcohol poisoning in his statements that Natalee had been drinking heavily is not given proper weight, and it is difficult to read it as anything else but saying something about her character. The article lede does not mention the main notability of the case: that one of the men she was last seen with was convicted in a seperate case of murdering a young woman in Peru 5 years later. There are BLP considerations about the naming of two members of a group when the article says a little later that group is alleged to have been involved in 'room switching'. In general the problem is the tone and emphasis throughout rather than the content. I think the way Natalee Holloway and her mother are treated in the article is opiniony, and the article comes across as rather misogynistic in tone. Having it as a featured article is not a good idea.Overagainst (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] Using the proper Alabama legal terminology to describe a no-fault divorce is quite reasonable. It's hard to see where accusations of misogyny come in. Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers were in the forefront of the media coverage of Natalee's disappearance, which is why they are in the lead. Not surprisingly, a crime that occurred in a different country five years later did not play a role in said coverage, which is why it is not in the lead. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)]Kww(talk) 17:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The style in which information is given is objective enough; who could argue with a quote? But the meaning conveyed by that quote is not of a no fault divorce, and it is front and center in the article despite having nothing to do with the 'Background'. At issue is whether the article is of exceptional quality. The most notable event is van Der Sloot's conviction in Peru, and it is not covered in the lede. I think that someone coming to an article about an 18 year old girl who vanished in the company of a man later famously convicted of murdering a separate young woman, and who finds the subject described as constantly drunk, with a mother who is crass in her behavior (that is indeed the overall impression of the article) will detect a certain misogynistic animus in the editing.Overagainst (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Why should it be covered in the lede? That would present BLP issues, I think. Mr. van der Sloot has not been charged with a crime in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Since the lede contains, generally, information important to the article, the reader would be likely to take that as an intimation that van der Sloot is guilty in the Holloway case. On the other hand, if it is not there for that purpose, for what purpose is it there? But that is the problem, you see. Overagainst is for adding information that shows Joran to be a bad 'un and Natalee and Beth to be saints. As for the comment above about Jug Twitty not being a public figure, he was often on Foxnews twice in the same night, if both Hannity and Greta got to him. Tell him that, not us.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: We've been over this ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. It's an FA-class article. A FAR is not reasonable. Overagainst, your endless content disputes need to end. Montanabw(talk) 09:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, this is not about any specific content, I've accepted the article is not going to be changed. The point at issue is whether the Natalee Holloway article taken as a whole fulfills the Featured Article Criteria. I think that anyone who reads the article will get an overall impression of misogyny toward Natalee Holloway and her mother; their flaws are being presented as the context of the disappearance and investigation, instead of the other way about.Overagainst (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
[Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] Overagainst (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There was an edit notice warning people to add sourced information only. I believe it is still there. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] Wehwalt (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Nothing special. I think I am not alone in being able to tell when an article is totally encyclopedic, and when the focus is off what the main topic should be for an encyclopedic article on that subject. In my opinion this one gives the reader far too much subtext for it to be a FA and serve as a guide to how an article should be. Others will have to read Natalee Holloway and decide for themselves.__Overagainst (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I should not have phrased that last comment as I did. The thing is, Overagainst, you've had your discussion, on the article talk page. Consensus was that the article is neutral, and I think you don't get another bite at the apple by coming to FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
You perceived a questionable undertone in your comment; if you could apply that sensibility to the article none of this would be necessary.__Overagainst (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Wehwalt. This horse is dead]. Time to move on. Montanabw(talk) 19:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
[Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] Overagainst (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not that simple. FAR is not a court of appeal for talk page discussions you've given up on. The question of bias was discussed by a group of editors on the talk page, some involved in the past in the article, some not. You were the only person who felt that way. That's not a solid basis for an FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
As Natalee Holloway is being held up as certified better than 99.9% of other WP articles and an example of how they ought to be, it is quite in order for someone who thinks it falls short of that exalted status to ask for neutral observers take a look at it. Anyway, could we stop going round and round about whether I am a fit person with pure motives and discuss the article in relation to the subject and her (living) mother. By the way, on the FA list, Natalee Holloway is classified in 'legal biographies' along with articles about jurists like Learned Hand, and those convicted on serious criminal charges like Elizabeth Canning (perjury) and Mumia Abu-Jamal (murder). Natalee Holloway has a tone about the subject (and her mother) that one might expect about a perpetrator. ___Overagainst (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
OVeragainst, have you noticed that NO ONE is coming over here to review this? Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
[Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] I think the article reads like an antidote to the publicity surrounding Natalee Holloway's disappearance rather than an encyclopedic article on that subject. A true FA article would be a stand alone encyclopedic account, not somewhere to go to find out that a couple of women are 'no saints'.__Overagainst (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not that I don't like you, no. It's just that I don't like that you're insisting on pursuing a FAR here, when the article seems to be in line with the FA standards. It seems like a waste of time, really, since the article is in fine shape (Yes, even the section on Ms. Twitty). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Beth comes out of the article well despite all the the slant against her, because the events are tragic and it's in the nature of tragedy that it makes those who suffer it seem noble. I just don't think the job of an article is to try and correct for that by treating tragic events as farce (as if a sexually loose girl drank herself to death and her crass mother used media sensationalism to unreasonably blame the Aruban authorities for her dysfunctional daughter's self inflicted death). That was the gist of the Aruban police chief Dompig's theory and the article endorses it as a serious possibility by extensive prominent quotes from Dompig about drinking and sexual behaviour. That may have been a tenable hypothesis at the time the article was written, it isn't now. No one still seriously thinks that Natalee may have died from alcohol and drugs overdose, so why is all that stuff with Dompig laying out that accidental OD theory still given such prominence?
Another problem is the article does not explain what Beth was actually complaining about when she advocated a boycott. Beth said the Aruban authorities were not treating Natalee's disappearance as a murder, and indeed they were not as Chief Dompig's public statement he thought Natalie died from an accidental OD proved. So Beth was in fact 100% correct about the Arubans' attitude to Natalee's death. And since van Der Sloot murdered a girl in Peru it is seems that she was right and the Aruban police wrong, because Natalee probably was murdered. I just want the tenor of the article to be adjusted to reflect the events to date.__Overagainst (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Whether Dompig spoke officially or not is unclear, after all, he was about to leave the case. Stating that his views should be ascribed to "Arubans" is to say the least a leap. The article is as it is because those are the things that happened.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"Fox News Published March 24, 2006 Dompig deputy chief of police for Aruba, told CBS television's "48 Hours Mystery" program,"We feel strongly that she probably went into shock or something happened to her system with all the alcohol — maybe on top of that, other drugs, which either she took or they gave her — and that she ... just collapsed,"" Dompig was in charge of the investigation, and laying out a line of reasoning about an OD with all that stuff about Natalee's drinking that is so prominently and extensively quoted in the article. What does not reflect well on Aruba is to have the lead Aruban investigator Dompig quoted so selectively, it makes him sound like a Neanderthal. No one denies that Natalee had a lot to drink that night, that her mother (like the local police) got some things wrong, or that certain media commentators thought coverage of the case amounted to sensationalism. But those facts are not what the whole article should still be revolving around. While the article "seems neutral and fair" just on the face of it, real understanding requires time to be spent reading through the sources to get the back ground (including subsequent developments ) placed in context. An encyclopedic article of exceptionally high quality would be adjusted in the light of van Der Sloot's Peru conviction to place less emphasis on the OD theory and the impression that Beth was wrong about everything.__Overagainst (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • So the essence of your complaint is that the article has not been rewritten with the supposition that because JvdS was convicted of a later murder, this disappearance is now obviously a murder that he committed? Despite there still being no concrete evidence for that? I sympathize with your suspicions, but that's what they are: suspicions.—Kww(talk) 20:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Beth said publicly she thought van Der Sllot killed Natalee. WP:YESPOV "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution." I don't see a problem in the article including the information that Beth publicly accused van Der Sloot of murdering Natalee, as long as we include van Der Sloot's denial, and it's all well sourced.
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV."Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." The prominence of the view that Natalee accidentally died from an overdose of drink and drugs (and as Dompig told MSNBC in 2006 “We’re not talking about killers here”) is far less now than it was before, so the article should be adjusted to reflect that. It's misleading to have so much about Natalee's drinking front and center as if the largely discredited OD theory was still widely held.__Overagainst (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The article is quite upfront that JvdS is suspected of killing Holloway: "Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers were arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and murdering Holloway." He's still the lead suspect, and I don't think there's any reading of the article that minimizes that. To indicate that there has been some sudden crystallization of world opinion that it was a murder overstates things, though. The theory of it being a death by misadventure in which JvdS was heavily involved remains plausible. Regardless, Dompig's views are necessary to explain the progress of the investigation, even if you believe they have been demonstrated to be false views.—Kww(talk) 22:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Correct. We do not know what happened to Natalee Holloway. Overagainst seems to be running on a theory that as Joran was convicted of killing Flores in Peru, he must have killed Natalee in Aruba. Mebbe. We do not know. Dompig's theory is as good as any. A reputable person, the police chief of the island at the time, opined as to his view as to how she died (if she died, of course). He has not, to my knowledge, retracted the statement. It stands. Plus Joran "killing" can be at all levels of culpability, from improper disposing of a body (they were talking about charging him with that one at one stage) to murder. And then how did he get rid of the body at age 17 against the best forensic authorities of three nations? Nothing in this case is simple.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. We cannot engage in WP:SYNTH or speculate beyond what can be verified. This is an encyclopedia, can only stick to the facts. Montanabw(talk) 05:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't advocate suggesting what happened. I do not see why a form of words can't be found to mention the Peru conviction in the lede without synth, as is been done in the main article already, without any objection of synth occuring. It seems odd not to have it in the lede, still I am open to discussion about that and other aspects of the lede. I think the article should ceasing to quote Deputy Cheif Dompig on Natalee's drinking (and general 'room swapping') at such length, without making it clear in the same section that it was considered significant as part of an accidental death theory. The theory is mentioned later in the article and it doesn't rate a double mention.Overagainst (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I see. Your view of BLP would allow for implications that someone was guilty of murder, and I've explained to you why putting that in the lead would do just that. Yet you object very strongly and over and over and over again to accusing someone of being involved in a divorce. neither has been charged with any crime against Natalee Holloway.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't advocate suggesting what happened. Neither do I advocate giving evidence supporting fringe theories far more prominence in the article that they should have, especially when the actual theory they are related to is not being advanced at the same time. I think the article should cease to quote Deputy Chief Dompig on Natalee's drinking (and general 'room swapping') so front and centre in the Disappearance section and at such length, without making it clear in the same section that it was considered significant as part of an early theory of Aruban police that Natalee might have died by an accidental alcohol overdose. Otherwise it reads like simple denigration. Personally I think that would be too much weight for what is now something of a fringe theory, one which is mentioned later in the article and it doesn't rate a double mention. Natalee had lot to drink the night she disappeared, and it should be mentioned in the Disappearance section. I do not see why a form of words can't be found to mention the Peru conviction in the lede without synth, as is been done in the main article already, without any objection of synth occuring. It seems odd not to have it in the lede, still I am open to discussion about that and other aspects of the lede.Overagainst (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
It is difficult to see why those quotes of obscure legal jargon from 2006 divorce papers would be 'Background' on a girl who disappeared in 2005, unless for the purpose of denigration. Apparently I am not the only one who thinks so.__Overagainst (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Who says it is a fringe theory? Where are your reliable sources that say in light of what happened in Peru, the drinking theory is fatally discredited? Where are you resources for what you want us to have to act on? you're synthesizing your views that Joran killed Natalee into what you want to go into the article. That's not BLP. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] --Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are trying to have it both ways. The idea that Natalee died from a self inflicted overdose of drink and drugs was a hypothesis publicly favoured by Dompig, the lead investigator, in 2006. It was not unreasonable at that time. The article currently has much of the crucial 'Disappearance' section taken up with quotes from Dompig about Natalee's heavy drinking (and heavy hints about sex), but that section doesn't mention the alcohol overdose theory. So, what is that concentration on drinking and 'wild partying doing there? As the OD hypothesis is not mentioned in the 'Background' section it's making Aruban cops like Dompig seem like Neanderthals who publicly made some highly irrelevant judgmental statements about the inebriation of a possible murder victim. (Which is not really true because Dompig was advancing an OD hypothesis when he said those things about Natalee). As the drinking and partying are being mentioned in the article without the OD hypothesis, it reads like creepy misogyny without any point. Once again, I do not advocate adding any implication or accusation that van Der Sloot killed Natalee.Overagainst (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Really. So you are saying that if we were to be consistent, we should have a long passage about how the kids behaved? Woo-hoo Aruba. Well, if we did that, we would certainly be giving good grounds for BLP complaints. Likely that is why we did not.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of complaints about your featured article as it is. Lets stick to discussing the article as you left it.Overagainst (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
None of the other concerns are relevant here. Here, the ONLY issue I see you raising is an attempt to introduce original research and synth by adding guilt by association against van der Sloot. While your hypothesis might be accurate, we cannot hypothesize on wiki, and that is the beginning, the middle, and the end of it. Until he is charged with THIS crime, anything else is conjecture and invokes wikipedia's BLP policy. End of story. Montanabw(talk) 01:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Overagainst, I disagree. There is an issue with the name, but that was all discussed at the time and there was never consensus for changing it. The other issue is the tone of the article. You want the article to be whitewashed of anything negative regarding Beth and Natalee and that it damn Joran. That is a question of POV that FAR is ill-placed to address.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I know what your settled view is. The grounds for me initiating this FA review are at the top of the page. They are general because there are too many instances to give in detail. I think excessive weight is given throughout the article to things about Beth Holloway that are negative. There is no problem with having some of these things, but the extent of it is completely over the top . In my opinion it amounts to an untoward emphasis of the type mentioned in WP:BALASPS "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" Overagainst (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

[Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] Might I suggest that you all stop arguing over details, and engage WP:WIAFA? This article is not neutral, it is not stable, and it does not reflect a survey of high quality sources. It has not been updated since it was written to sources like Fox News. Perhaps a review of better sources will be a better use of time here, since there are ample examples of why the poor sourcing in this article leads to a lack of comprehensiveness and POV. I have done that work, but am uninterested in this ongoing POV battle. Those of you care, go out and do the research and make the case. And will someone please fix the overuse of however and subsequently (10 each as of now), hallmarks of pedestrian and redundant prose? See here and here for discussions of the overuse of however. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

[Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Back to the article. The writing is not "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" as the number one FA criterion says. That doesn't seem to bother many people. There may be an argument about highly unusual BLP considerations which arose in the last few years preventing a fully encyclopedic account of the most notable aspects of the case, so I can see it may pass muster as an article, now (after the removal since this review started). But the question then should be, how could an article labouring under those BLP constraints qualify as an FA when the things of main notability can't be covered in an encyclopedic way? Can't have it both ways, if the article is very much constrained by BLP then it is not a featured article.Overagainst (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Delegate note - enough. We're here to discuss whether this article does or does not meet WP:WIAFA. I've removed several comments above that are not directed towards that goal. Any and all other matters should be dealt with at an appropriate forum, not here (noting the current discussion at BLPN). Personal commentary posted here from this point forward will be removed. What would be most helpful at this point would be for a few people not involved in previous discussions regarding this article to weigh in on whether it meets WIAFA, and for those already involved to deal with the criteria rather than previous disputes or personalities. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is usual for the nominator to state what criteria are not met and why. I shall await specific statements, that do not rely on personal opinion, or upon original research. It goes without saying that any specific prose glitches I can and will fix.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
My view is that the editor who put up this FAR originally wanted to to add "guilt by association" statements about van der Sloot's Peru conviction to the lead in a tone that implied that because he had been convicted of another murder, that he was therefore guilty of this one. This was opposed by other editors due to BLP concerns, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. (We can make this sort of conjecture off-wiki, but we cannot do so on-wiki) Everything else here is window dressing. When this issue first came up (I think a couple months back), Overagainst's views did not prevail, and so now we have a new round of the same issues. There have been new issues raised and some old issues dredged up, but the bottom line is that many of the major suggested changes would a) add POV to a fairly neutral article, b) Insert SYNTH and go beyond the scope of the source material, c) restate legal concepts improperly. The small amounts of material removed recently about the divorce is not a huge deal and of no particular loss to be removed; and clearly, the lead editors can rephrase a few words if use of "subsequently" or "however" is that huge of a deal. But the article passed FAC, it WAS relatively stable until the latest round of drama, and to my eyes, the current article here today is well-sourced, carefully neutral and does not read like a tabloid or Fox news report. I view myself as relatively neutral on this article, as I have not been a significant contributor to it in any way. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] From others who have popped by to take issue with the article, I fail to see SPECIFIC concerns beyond vague overgeneralized complaints that appear to date back to the original FAC [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)] Montanabw(talk) 07:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that above is a fair summary. I blundered badly originally. I am I now to be held to the fire with what I stopped arguing for 3 months ago.
"But the article passed FAC, it WAS relatively stable until the latest round of drama, and to my eyes, the current article here today is well-sourced, carefully neutral and does not read like a tabloid or Fox news report." That is also a fair summary, it has been stable since being granted FA status. But there have been notable events since then including, as it says on the Joran van der Sloot article lead (after mentioning the Peru murder conviction) "Van der Sloot had been indicted by a federal grand jury in the United States for wire fraud and extortion related to the whereabouts of Natalee Holloway". I have now accepted none of that can appear in this article, I question whether in the light of the subject getting away from what can be in the article, it is still FA quality. I'm arguing that an article that is constrained from giving the main notabilty of the case with appropriate weight and prominence (even for good BLP reasons) is not a good enough example of an encyclopedic article on that subject to be trumpeted as an FA. Unless having these unusual BLP constraints gives the article a pass on giving an encyclopedic account of exceptionally high quality, the article is no longer a good enough source of encyclopedic information on the subject to merit the status of FA.
"I fail to see SPECIFIC concerns beyond vague overgeneralized complaints that appear to date back to the original FAC " I was specific about some things: that link of the words "media sensation" to the page on sensationalism , the now removed text, the quote of Dompig about drinking separate from the OD theory. It is unfair to Dompig to front and centre quote him from 2006, as if that is still what he still thinks (ie she ODed), and it's obscured that he was talking about drinking in the context of the OD theory. It is unfair to use the names of others on the trip when it is being said by Dompig there was a lot of sexual promiscuity by Natalee and the others in her group, which is the only construction that can be put on the prominent reference to her group having 'a lot of room switching every night'. It's a totally irrelevant slam against the girl, and I think most will read it as such. No rebuttal of that nauseating misogyny is in the featured article. Van Der Sloot said Natalee told him she was a virgin. See here.Overagainst (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, phrases like "nauseating misogyny" don't make a specific enough claim to fix anything, nor do they appear to be true. This certainly was a media sensation (note that the Vanity Fair article you link to comments on how "the Holloway case is now one of the most popular reality shows in America" and asks "how did we come to a moment when a single missing teenager draws as much television coverage as the war in Iraq? "). Your objection appears to be that the article is neutral: it includes negative material about Natalee and does not state that JvdS is guilty.—Kww(talk) 13:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
As Nikkimaria says, it's time for some others not involved in previous discussions regarding this article to weigh in on whether it meets WIAFA.Overagainst (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe she put it that way, that is not what happens here right now. Have you read the instructions?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone?_Overagainst (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Open invitation now for some fresh voices to comment on how they see it at this point.Overagainst (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Overagainst, how about you take your own advice here? Montanabw(talk) 23:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I think Overagainst has made some valid points that need to be corrected in the article, otherwise I support demotion. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep per Montanabw. I'd also like some clarification from Nikkimaria. Has this article been moved into FARC? If not, why are we voting? Given that the majority, here and on the article talk, seem to support the present version, I don't think this proceeding should be advanced in any way.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It hasn't been moved into FARC. Ideally I'd like to have further opinions from previously uninvolved reviewers before we decide how to proceed - you might consider whether there are any relevant WikiProjects that might be interested, as it appears the nominator didn't notify any. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It needs to be moved to FARC. I had vowed to stay uninvolved, but if somebody doesn't do what is supposed to be done here (lay out the problems in the article relative to sources that have become available since the article was written to sources like FOX news), I may consider doing that work myself. There are many undeveloped areas of this article, because it relied on NEWS and RECENTISM when written. Basically, Dompig's version is what we have, and that hasn't been updated to incorporate views since the NOTNEWS version was written.

    For example, considering that this alleged "bio" has no "bio" information on Natalee (leaving that out helps promote the trashy gringa POV), but paints Natalee as a promiscuous and drunken young woman who had it coming, why has no one asked what sources say about what the Kalpoe brothers had to say about whether she was drunk when they dropped her off and why they changed their story? There is more of that kind that has not even been dealt with in this article.

    As another example, relative to the WIAFA requirement for high quality sources, why is this article quoting extensively from the laypress on "Missing white girl syndrome", when there are journal reports available now that cover that aspect? FAs need to be kept up to date.

    Additionally, as of now, the article is still under enough discussion (on talk and at the BLP noticeboard still), that we cannot claim there are no NPOV disputes or that it is stable. On the other hand, considering the absurdity of the discussion here and elsewhere-- and that no one will just go out and consult sources and use FAR appropriately-- I may decide this is still Not My Job and Not My Problem. The slurs on Natalee's mother (BLP vios) have been mostly removed, so why should I get involved. On a technical note, at least moving it to FARC for more work and eventual !voting might help prevent future reinstatement of the off-topic slurs on Beth Twitty (where no case justifying this notion that they are there because of "no fault divorce" has ever been made). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You know what Sandy? Just fix it then. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)] While I personally don't read this article as saying Natalee was a "promiscuous and drunken young woman who had it coming" (I do read it as a bunch of kids off the leash misbehaving on Spring Break), let's see if there can be actual improvements here. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)] So then, if we disagree with what you do, (please be aware that there are legal standards of proof that militate against conjecture) that would be a different - and new - discussion. Instead of farting around for months with another dramaboard, as even if the FARC demotes the article, it can't mandate changes, just fix the problem. Montanabw(talk) 20:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I won't respond to that [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As her cite of WP:NOTNEWS indicated I think Sandy was saying she might reluctantly, spend time looking for non-news sources to draw on for more encyclopedic content. I am a complete novice at this, but I should have been more careful. I want to apologise for the lack of uninvolved reviewers due to me not doing the proper notifications. I agree we need to hear from more uninvolved reviewers before proceeding. I think Talk seems to be working fine, consensus has already been reached for changing the title.Overagainst (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not saying I might "spend time looking for ... sources"; I don't shoot blanks, and I've already looked at sources. I am not the one bringing this FAR. I do not have time for work that in the past has only been reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Given the number of editors who have weighed in that the article is indeed neutral , is there any reasonable chance of reaching consensus for demotion? This article should not be moved to FARC. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)] At this part of the procedure, the goal should be keeping the article at FAC. We've never even been told what criteria are supposedly not met by this article [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)] At this point, this should be closed. Or the coordinator needs to step in again to focus this. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)].--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course there is time to reach consensus before demotion (nor is demotion a given). Articles stay at FAR for at least four months these days, and as long as work progresses, FAR typically stays open. Perhaps now the arguing will stop and the work will get underway. I do not have additional sources to offer: I am telling you to look at the abundance of sources you already know about and are not using, or not using completely. If you want another example, let's see: you have one sentence stating that Paulus van der Sloot (Joran's father) was detained. Strange. No explanation for that. Make sense ?? What do sources say about why he was detained? [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)] Consult the sources; confine discussion to what they say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
[Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)]--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I am minded to supplement this by saying look, Kww and I are old wikihands. Compromise is the name of the game here. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)] --Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
[Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)] FARs always have a rough start, but folks eventually get down to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
[Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)] The burden is on Overagainst and he has failed to meet that burden. He says we should discount the death by misadventure theory, but where are his sources that say we should disregard it since VDS's conviction in Peru? [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)]--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment - I realize people are getting frustrated with this review, but the personal commentary needs to go if this is to go anywhere, as it's making it even more difficult to get a clear picture of what are real issues versus what are interpersonal disputes that belong elsewhere. I have two questions for those previously involved with this article. First, has this article since its promotion been the subject of noticeboard posts other than the recent thread at BLPN? I checked quickly and didn't see any; if there were, links would be helpful (content noticeboards only, not AN/ANI). Second, can you briefly describe any efforts made to update/improve sourcing since the FAC? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point and it's kind of along the lines of what I was thinking. Basically my thought process is this:
  • does the information on the Flores case provide the reader with further understanding of the subject of this article, ie Holloway's life, dissapearance, search efforts, criminal investigation or legal processes? I don't think it does.
  • can the circumstances of the Flores case (interlaced with this article) influence an average reader's opinion to make them come to a conclusion that van der Sloot now appears guilty, more so than he did before? If yes, is it possible for that conclusion to be incorrect and proven so in court? I think the answer is yes to both of those and needs to be considered inappropriate, not only appearing in an FA article, but also for qualifying as contentious material about a living person. "He appears to be guilty of crime A. By our completely non-scientific methods, he must be guilty of crime B as well"-type statements, or their better articulated derivatives, are for tabloids, not encyclopedias.
  • If used in this article, details about the Flores case and van der Sloot's possible involvement will, however inadvertently, serve to influence a reader's opinion to reach a conclusion that cannot be cited by reliable sources to be correct. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding sourcing. The FAC was, I believe, in the spring of 2008. Obviously there were a number of developments after that, when there were, the article was updated. News coverage was looked at to see what could be gleaned for the article, and there are discussions in the talk page archives. Not much has really happened in this case since 2010, so there hasn't been much done since. I have a Yahoo! news alert set for NH and for JvDS and generally keep an eye open for new sources, but things had been pretty quiet the last couple of years. The question of how to deal with the Flores murder and the indictment for fraud in Alabama were obviously matters that had to be carefully dealt with, and I think they were successfully. At least there was no serious objection to how we did it at the time. Noticeboards, so far as the substance of the article, I am not aware of any. Basically until Overagainst came along, it was my impression that the Holloway matter was fairly settled, and that the community (leaving aside those who had opined in the past) was generally content with it. It still gets over a thousand hits a day and there wasn't much talk page traffic.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to draw your attention to this from the archives, when an editor removed the Flores material from the NH article, and AuburnPilot, Kww, and myself argued to keep it in. That and surrounding sections show that we reacted soberly to events and worked, in an open manner, to figure out how best to fit it in the article. This diff, by Big Bird, is very thoughtful and I think it was his line of thinking we followed in deciding what aspects of the Flores murder to include in the NH article. It explains why, I think, we are not willing to have, as Overagainst put it, "some form of words" about the Flores murder in the NH article lede. Joran van der Sloot's actions are reprehensible and he is paying the price for them, but he's entitled to BLP protection just like anyone else, and we've held our noses and done what we had to. To emphasize: how the Flores murder was integrated in the article was a matter which evolved out of discussion which did involve community members outside the usual suspects, and I think that's entitled to a lot of deference.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt. Noting Sandy's comment a ways up (and now below) about potential journal sourcing for missing white girl/woman syndrome - is that something you had considered? I do see that such sources exist, though I haven't examined their content. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I checked JSTOR. I saw three articles, here that mention Holloway, each more or less in connection with MWWS. Each is fairly scanty, though I saw a couple of useful items (that Fox chose to run the split screen of Natalee with the dark-skinned Kalpoes but never with light-skinned Joran, for example). That being said, MWWS may be usefully considered by experts, but there's nothing wrong with lay reports/articles. After all, the use of the term "Syndrome" doesn't mean this falls under MEDRS. I've downloaded the articles, and when I have a bit of time, possibly Friday, I will add the useful bits (not much) and possibly consider the others as "further reading" though I don't know how useful those are in that role. If there are other useful sources that anyone wants used, I will be happy to look at them. Please make sure I see them, I only saw this question to me by happenstance.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Nikkimaria, but five years is a long ways back for me, and I can't recall what noticeboards may have been involved-- old dog. There was a FAR initiated right after it ran on the mainpage (raising many of the same issues still present today, and that have been repeatedly raised on talk), but that FAR was closed per instructions on procedural grounds (not to bring a FAR right after TFA). I attempted to work on the article in 2008, and without characterizing what happened then, I haven't returned to the article since.
1a, prose: the issues I raised above are relatively minor (overuse of however, subsequently), but if new and less newsy sources are consulted, some rewriting will be involved. There is also a (slight) tendency to overquoting which gives the article a tabloid, newsy feel (less than engaging prose-- it is evident it was written from a chronology of news sources available at the time). This can be seen, for example, in the discussion of "Missing white woman syndrome", which really can be summarized to what multiple journal articles published say. And, as I mentioned above and below, there are many gaps in the story-- things that just leave the reader saying, 'Huh'? Like, why was Paulus detained? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
1b, comprehensive: is a big flaw (perhaps the biggest). Because the article was written when only sources like Fox News and CNN could be relied on, there are numerous gaps. I've given examples above already-- there is more. The parts that aren't covered create POV, because what could be covered when the case was still open was limited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
1c, well researched: as I've already said, it was written at a time where it mostly used news sources. There are journal reports that are not used on "Missing white woman syndrome", and there are multiple books that have been published since, but efforts to get those sources included in the article have not succeeded.

I am not following the talk page at all (other than seeing the edit summaries that pop on my watchlist), so it is unclear to me if this article is going to move to a "Disappearance" article to make way for a bio article on Natalee, or if they are going to include a bio on Natalee in her current non-bio bio article, but the problem has been that there is no "bio" in this bio, yet no place to put a bio article, which adds to the "drunken promiscuity" notion of who Natalee was. If this is to be the Natalee bio, there needs to be a bio, and it is quite possible to cautiously, and with attribution, make some statements about Natalee the person based on her parents' books. We don’t just leave the bio out of the bio because we don’t want to say anything her parents might have added about her. If this is not to be the Natalee bio (via an article name change), then her bio can be written, and there is room for making some selective statements about the person from her parents' books, with attribution, in her new bio. Otherwise, it would be appropriate for Natalee the person to have a paragraph in this bio.

Another book, written by Lisa Pulitzer (a former writer for the New York Times), is mentioned in the article but not used at all (Portrait of a Monster: Joran van der Sloot, a Murder in Peru, and the Natalee Holloway Mystery). Because the authors of that book gained access to information not available when this article was written, it can be used to fill in some gaps in the story and minimize POV, while reducing the newsy/tabloid chronology. Some contributors here may not like the title and may say it contributes bias, but we don't just discount a source because we don't like it: it can be used selectively, with attribution when needed. I have already raised two examples: it says that the Kalpoe brothers recanted their story of Natalee's drunkenness, and it tells how Paulus came to be detained. We cannot just leave out some accounts because we may not like the book title; information from this book can be used carefully, with attribution. It offers what we specifically seek relative to NOTNEWS-- an analysis of the events long after the fact, incorporating information not available during the investigation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

1d, neutral: the text that is missing leads to POV (what we sometimes call "cherry picking" of sources, but I am not saying that is what happened here-- just that it is hard to write a neutral story when an investigation is underway and there isn't full access to information that may come out later-- but the result is the same-- we have Dompig's story, unbalanced).

The text that was a slur on Beth Twitty (information about her dating life and her divorce, with no reason established for mentioning the mother's divorce while no bio was given for the victim-- the mother's divorce has no bearing on the daughter's death) has, I believe, now all been removed (I haven't checked), so that particular POV/BLP issue is (I believe) finally resolved. A lot could be done to correct the remaining POV by dealing with issues like those I gave as examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

1e, stable: [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)] I haven't followed the talk page at all, or the article closely, so I don't know if that is resolved.

I'm assuming that 2 thru 4 are ok, but haven't checked.

In summary, I don't think it currently meets any of the 1-level criteria, but neither do I think there is a large chore ahead nor that major changes are needed to get there. But I didn't bring this FAR, I don't have time to help, and if Overagainst wants this work done, then she or he needs to consult those sources and help in the rewrite. I am glad the BLP issues with Natalee's mother are (apparently) resolved, and beyond that, I just do not have time for this article, nor is it high among my Wikipriorities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

page break for ease of editing[edit]

I have ordered that book from Amazon, fortunately it was very inexpensive, only about one-seventh of its cover price, and new at that! Used was even cheaper, $.01, but book rate takes forever, and I should have a copy Friday. I'll see what it says. Nikki, I take it there will be no issue of time? This is the first time we have gotten, all in one place, something hinting at what the detractors feel might be wrong with the article. I do remember Sandy "working on the article" in 2008, rather than characterize what she wanted the day before the article was to TFA, I link here, though it is rather rough reading although we did our best to calm things down so the article would be stable for the TFA, despite the personal comments made.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to take time as you need. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have four PR promised and not yet done, several articles in various stages of development, and all my Rodgers & Hammerstein books spread around me gathering dust. So it may be a few days though I will not unduly delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, you know "The text that was a slur on Beth Twitty" to be a false statement, Sandy. It indicated a no-fault divorce. This has been explained multiple times [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)] Kww(talk) 05:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Sandy, if you want to argue for things to be added you should go to the talk page.
Big Bird I agree. The article lede links currently links to the Joran van der Sloot article, that link should be removed in my opinion. As he is a living person and has not been convicted of anything in relation to the dissappearance of Natalee Holloway it would be safest to remove the name of Joran van der Sloot from the article completely. As I have already said, we should not mention the names of the brothers as they have not been convicted of anything. The names of the security guards given in the 2005 arrests section as having been arrested as suspects in the case should be removed too, along with the BLP violation of in the text about their alleged reputations.
The matter currently under discussion on the talk page is about whether innuendo about Natalee Hollway having been sexually promiscuous should be removed from the article.Overagainst (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You may misunderstand, Overagainst, Big Bird has not edited in a year. I reproduced his post in a quote box. At this point, as I have ordered the book Sandy mentioned and also plan to use the opportunity to take care of the issues Nikki suggested I look at, and to do some general work on the article, why don't we all take the rest of the week off and reconvene on Monday?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I do agree with what Big Bird said. If anything I think the names of suspects merely arrested (like those security guards being slandered) and never convicted of anything in relation to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway should not be in the article at all. That applies to the brothers names, and maybe to Joran van der Sloot. I don't think anything should be added about any of them. There are BLP violations on the article in relation to other people named. In addition to the security guards, there is a BLP violation in giving the full names of "Two of Holloway's classmates" in the article just after that nasty innuendo of sexual promiscuity among Holloway's classmates in Aruba.Overagainst (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
First things first. Those four BLP violations on living people come before anything 'general'.Overagainst (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me look those things over as I implement what Nikki suggested (the journal articles on Missing White Woman Syndrome and the book on Joran). After all, they can always get the names from the sources. I think it's harder with the security guards than with the kids, because if we mention them and don't name them, it looks a bit funny. The kids are easier. And please give some thought to what I suggested on talk, to let us know where you stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the names of suspects merely arrested (like those security guards being slandered) and never convicted of anything in relation to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway should not be in the article at all. That applies to the brothers names, and maybe to Joran van der Sloot. I don't think anything should be added about any of them.. If you require further clarification please say so Wehwalt.
You were always at liberty to look for better sources. Nikkimaria told you go ahead and take time to do that by all means. He did not suggest you 'implement' anything beyond that. Of course, if you want to alter the article in the next few days you can propose text on the talk page, where any and all can discuss it together. In my opinion it is a waste of time looking for new material on Joran van der Sloot, because I can't see how anything about him could to be added to the article at this point. You said it was a BLP violation to add anything about him and you were right. I'll let Sandy speak for herself from now on, but please please don't anyone bundle what she wants to do with my concerns with the article currently containing BLP violations on Beth Holloway and inappropriate innuendo about Natalee having been sexually promiscuous. I think the article has those BLP violations which I just mentioned and they need to be removed. We are in the process of discussing one, the innuendo about Natalee's sexual behaviour, on Talk right now.
And on this page please don't add to the the BLP issues by making explicit assertions about the sleeping arangements of Holloways's roomates, as you did on Talk the other day. These are living people who are easily identifiable, and what you wrote might be read as something about their sexual behaviour. BLP applies here as elsewhere.Overagainst (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It would be impossible to adequately cover the story of the investigation without identifying the suspects.—Kww(talk) 13:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well an FA should be written in line with policy. WP:BLPCRIME says "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Is giving their full names compatible with that?Overagainst (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
At the top of the this page in my reasons for initiating the FAR I said "The lead names 3 living persons, namely Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes brothers as suspects ('released for lack of evidence') for something they have never even been tried for". My reading of WP:CRIMEis that the brothers should be named at all. An article has been created on Joran van der Sloot despite WP:CRIME "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person" so it seems it does not apply to his case. I have no strong veiw. I think there are ways to say what happened without giving the full names of the brothers, who have not been convicted of anything as far as I know.Overagainst (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it would be compatible. "Give serious consideration" instructs editors to think, and does not mandate content. Trimming the security guards' names is something I could probably agree to. I'd have a harder time with the Kalpoe brothers, and don't think that I could ever agree to removing JvdS.—Kww(talk) 14:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no strong view on naming van der Sloot, but this is an issue that should be discussed. How about van der Sloot's name not being used until the subsection on his Peru conviction. "One of the men last seen with Holloway before she dissapeared was convicted of an unrelated murder in Peru in 2010". Untill that point in the article I think there are ways to cover the story without giving the full names of the brothers (who have not been convicted of anything as far as I know) or van der Sloot. Why give the name of the brothers? We can call them "two local brothers", and 'the brothers' thereafter.Overagainst (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's feasible. Joran and the Kalpoe brothers are major figures in this story. I don't think it is practical to remove the names, and if we left it that way, an IP would probably just add it back. I agree with Kww, I could see the security guards not being named, and the students as well. But Joran and the Kalpoes are not "relatively unknown". I typed into my browser "deepak ka" and it autocompleted. You can't unring a bell. But I'm very pleased with the way we are making progress here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the question is whether the brothers should be named. I am not sure they are not "relatively unknown". (If you type in "overagai") I come up. But the main thing is we are currently naming them as suspects. At one time they were suspects in what might, or might not been a murder. Many people thought then (and still think) they and Van Der Sloot were being unfairly treated. There has been a shift since 2010. It is far more damaging to them to name them alongside van Der Sloot now, especially as the article is saying they initially supported the untrue story Van Der Sloot told at first. So, whatever one thinks of them being named originally, I think their names should cease to be used on BLP grounds.Overagainst (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, my complaints were the BLP violations in the 2006 divorce and dating (both of which were taken off by others), and the innuedo about Natalee. I still have not got a single thing removed, though there is a little movement now. Sorry if I seemed to advocate a complete re-write and then left it all up in the air. In fact I wasn't asking for it to get a re-write, I have no problem if you or anyone wants to try that. [Content removed by Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)] I think the use of words like 'however' is not the problem. IMO it's the argumentative tone in counterpoint to Beth Holloway that those words are used in, and the lack of encyclopedic condensing of all those news stories that are cluttering tha article. Like the ones about bones that turned out to be nothing to do with the case. The whole thing needs to be pared down in the latter sections.Overagainst (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, there you see, there's more that you're asking. That's why I asked you to put down what you wanted done so we could talk about it. I am reluctant to kick at goalposts that might move. I think I can clear up the minor things and integrate the book well enough that this article should survive without having it turn into an endless time sink.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the main problem is any shortage of reliable sources for the facts. Books are going to contain some things that will be very hard to put in an article.
Sandy said above "For example, ... why they changed their story?". (comment: Anyone reading the article right now would have that occur to them automatically I think. I just don't see how we can start explicitly pointing out holes in their stories, especially while we are naming them. Using a book as a source does not charge that I think).
Sandy said above "As another example, relative to the WIAFA requirement for high quality sources, why is this article quoting extensively from the laypress on "Missing white girl syndrome", when there are journal reports available now that cover that aspect? FAs need to be kept up to date." (comment: I don't think academic studies on an alleged "Missing white girl syndrome", have got much to do with the subject of this article, even if they do mention the case. Opposing views may not be properly represented in a journal. There was criticism from, I think, a figure who works for a competitor of Fox News. That could be used and attibuted. And then we give the countervailing view, attributed to a leading proponent. Unless you can find one source that everyone will agree is neutral.)Overagainst (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The 'Media coverage' section is written as if there is only one side and the other is a fringe view. It does not give equal representation to both views as, in my opinion, it should. It quotes Anderson Cooper. 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." GRETA VAN SUSTEREN. Who was getting huge ratings for her coverage of Natalee's disappearance.
After Cooper, the section has "political commentator and columnist Arianna Huffington" makeing similar complaints about the coverage in a few more lines. Huffington is no fan of Fox News so she is a bit of a partisan. Her book, mentioning the case in a chapter called 'The Media equal Time For Lies", is called "Right is Wrong".
El Diario AND "CBS senior journalist Danna Walker" are both quoted, El Diario at some length. Both make a strong attibutions of racial bias, which is a very serious allegation to be made. Especially without giving any specific rebuttal to the charge.
The only media figure cited in this section against all the above is Chris Cuomo. Near the begining of the section it says "As the case wore on, much of the attention was given to Beth Twitty and her statements. The section ends with the Holloways selectively quoted as complaining they did not get enough publicity: "Holloway's family, however, instead criticized the lessening of coverage". So the overall impression of the section is almost 100% a slam on the Holloways. Note that opiniony argumentative tone, which goes with the use of 'however'. Another example follows immediately after the aforementioned one: "Beth Twitty and Dave Holloway alleged that Aruba took advantage of the extensive coverage of the hurricane to release the suspects.[161] However, the deadline for judicial review of Joran van der Sloot's detention was set long before the hurricane.[73]". It is atrocious writing, and POV. There are other sections that have the same problems.Overagainst (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You are trying to sanitize the article by removing links and references you do not like. You have no consensus to do this. Please stop.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem with presenting a statement and the counter-evidence in juxtaposition is precisely what?—Kww(talk) 13:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Wehwalt, there is a section in DoNH Talk for that subject now.
Kww. we don't usually do things that way. If someone made a mistake we just use good secondary sources to say that in so many words. "However, the deadline for judicial review of Joran van der Sloot's detention was set long before the hurricane". In this context 'however' can only mean that what they said was wrong. The review was set, but who can say if the review would have freed them without the hurricane. So, that text in WP's voice sounds like it is determined that something is the case, although it actually isn't. You do not have a good secondary source that what you are saying in Wikipedia's voice there is actually true. It's POV in Wikipedia's voice. and it's atrocious style. Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to you having a instance where Beth Holloway said something or made an allegation which turned out not to be true. The Vanity Fair article would be a good source for the thing she said about the brothers' family being involed in a suspicious death, in VF it explicitly says that was not true and she got them confused with a seperate family of a similar name. In that instance there are good source instances for Beth saying something that turned out not to be true, and we can just say that in Wikipedia's voice, as there is a reliable souce.Overagainst (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
No offense, but this is why this is such a difficult matter. We get tens of kilobytes per day every day, stuffing this page and the talk page. It is enough to make a decision possible on the basis of exhaustion. Several editors have declared the article neutral and unbiased. I cannot deal with the endless badgering. Just reading and attempting to reply to Overagainst takes an hour a day. to say nothing of the energy lost which could be usefully employed on improving the encyclopedia. I ask the coordinator to step in to put this thing into some sort of order. We can't go on like this. It's not fair to us. We are attempting to deal in good faith with Overagainst, but the filibustering is impossible.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I had a long post saying the same thing, which I didn't post for fear it would just be redacted. Overagainst does not understand the purpose of FAR or how to use this page. I am tempted to go to his or her userpage to explain how FAR works, but afraid that will draw me even further into this mess. So basically, yea, I endorse what Wehwalt is saying, and ask that someone explain to Overagainst how the FAR process works, remove a huge portion of this FAR to the talk page of this FAR, and let the editors work on the article in peace. I have attempted to state this in a way that won't result in redaction. Alternately, would Nikkimaria mind if I went to the talk page of this page to explain to Overagainst how FAR works? Actually, I'm not even that sure that others understand the deliberative nature of FAR-- that is, plenty of time is always allowed, and the process is not being used correctly here because of what looks like misunderstanding of the process. Nikkimaria and Dana, specifically: may I post to the talk page of this FAR page a description of how the process works optimally, so that work on the article can get underway without unnecessary verbosity that is overwhelming the page and preventing article work, and then you can redact away if I inadvertently step on someone's toes ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of FAR[edit]

Thanks, Nikki. It is not my intent to offend anyone, I apologize in advance if I do, and I have full confidence in Nikkimaria to redact anything she sees fit. It is my good faith attempt at doing the same thing I have done historically at FAR since 2006 (I believe I am still the most active editor on Wikipedia of FAR and articles at FAR, I was part of its design and active here at a time when we processed hundreds of FAs through here, and I say that not to appear <whatever> but in hopes that Overagainst will listen to me and that everyone will gain an understanding of how better to use the page.

FAR is intended and was set up to be quite intentionally deliberative; we do not remove an article's featured status lightly or without giving the principle editors time to deal with issues raised, and then the broader to community to opine on whether WIAFA is still met. In the past, a typical FAR took about a month (two weeks in the FAR phase, and when needed, another two weeks in the FARC phase.) Because of declining reviewership everywhere on Wikipedia, the process has grown more lengthy. Up to four months is not ideal, but neither is it uncommon.

FARs may be closed at the FAR phase, they may be advanced to the FARC phase where even more time is allowed, and after more time at FARC if there are still issues, only then are Keep or Remove votes declared. EVEN IF the article moves to FARC, work may still progress. Experienced FAR reviewers understand that it is a deliberative process, rash decisions are not taken, and the editors should be given time to work on issues in peace. FAR reviewers may help in the work needed, but that is not required: the role of FAR is only to determine if WIAFA is or is not met, and that is after considerable deliberation and time to deal with any legitimate issues raised.

The page should not be used to revisit talk page content issues, but for a concise description of the issues as they directly relate to WP:WIAFA, and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Issues are raised, briefly (1a, 3, 4, etc as relate to WIAFA). Editors are given time to work on the issues. Periodically, brief updates are made to the FAR page (still working on 1a, POV unresolved, most of the work is done but we are cleaning up citations-- things like that) or delegates will query how work is going if they haven't heard anything in a while. I tried to model a sample of how that should be done. Wehwalt indicated he would work on that list; increasing his workload at this juncture is ... how to characterize this so it won't be redacted ... well, not helpful.

Revisiting entire content matters on this page does not advance anything. Working out the issues raised on the FAR is best dealt with on article talk, and even then, allowing editors time to work. I am seeing many things on this page that reflect misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and guideline, and those things could be more effectively dealt with on talk, or at different content resolution noticeboards (I see significant misunderstanding here of BLP policy, but who am I to say), and then summarized back to the delegates once they are or are not settled. When the deliberative process is exhausted or in the delegates' opinion(s) things are either stalled, or done, or whatever, then they may be ready to consider Remove or Keep declarations. They are also empowered to close a FAR that isn't, well, FARing. FAR is not dispute resolution; it is for determining if WIAFA is met.

Filling up this page with walls of text and constantly new items is not helpful or deliberative.

Wehwalt said he was ordering a book, and he hasn't been given the chance even to get the book much less to decide whether and how to use it, much less to work on incorporating some of it if that is decided. The page would be more effective if used appropriately; that is, article work commences, editors are given time to work, and issues are periodically reported back here for the delegates and the broader community to then decide what step is next and if more work is in order, or if "voting" is called for. Many a star has been saved months into a FAR, and the long FARs sometimes occur because there is too much off-topic bickering early on, and before folks settle in to do the work.

I also submit that in the interest of kindness, FAR has always allowed for events such as the approaching holiday season, so a lessening of the volume of postings here would be ... well ... not just helpful, but kind. We do not quickly or easily remove a featured article's status. What is happening now is that Wehwalt-- not even having received the book yet-- is being expected to deal with extended commentary both on this page and on the article talk page. I hope this helps; I have no problem with whatever redaction the delegates feel it helpful, because the delegates are tasked with keeping a FAR on track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy, that was very well said and I don't find a thing to disagree with. Let me just put into my own words some of what you said: Overagainst, give us space! Go away and come back in a while. The book is arriving today (Amazon is wonderful) but if you look at my talk page, you'll see people enquiring on peer reviews I'm in the course of doing or suggesting other reviews where I might be helpful. That is important work because we are very short on reviewers. I GET what you are saying about the article. Give me some time to work on it. I don't think we will agree on everything, almost certainly not, but I think what I will do is a lot closer to what we both can live with. The case is, for all intents and proposes, over, and it's possible to take a more historical viewpoint on it that glosses over some of the raw nerves of the day-to-day coverage that we worked on as events exploded around us. Go take a break. We'll still be here when you come back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
And I left all those typos so we wouldn't edit conflict! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I like it, typos and all, Sandy!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I don't-- they are embarrassing. I will come back when I'm sure there will no edit conflicts and fix them. Happy holidays to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
  • The article currently contains a link to in the "External links" section. This link appears to lead to a personal website containing, among other things, a repository of "unsubstantiated information" about the deceased subject of the article. In my view this link is clearly inappropriate on general encyclopedic grounds, per WP:EL, and per WP:BLP, yet it is being defended staunchly on the article talkpage. Insofar as FA's are supposed to be exemplars of Wikipedia's best work, the presence of links like this seems highly questionsable. I have no experience with WP:FARC, so I apologize if this comment has no relevance to the discussion, in which case please ignore it. MastCell Talk 19:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There, you see! And MastCell has urged Overagainst to go to the BLP noticeboard, when there was a discussion already started on article talk. How many venues? I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. It's now clear we are not to be allowed the opportunity to work on the article in an appropriate manner, but there will be demands, and when stymied, even for a couple of hours, they'll just shift to a friendlier venue. FAR is not being used for the intended purposes. I think this should be closed, with reopening allowed if we do not make an effort to work on this article and address the concerns expressed by Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not familiar with the intricacies of FAR; if my comment is inappropriate in this venue, then I trust someone experienced (for example, Nikkimaria) will hat it or otherwise dispose of it, which is fine with me. The inclusion of this inappropriate external link is a BLP violation—a situation in which we're expected to act expeditiously. I raised it here because I would expect a potential BLP violation to be an issue in determining the Featured status of an article, but again, I have no experience on how things are handled in this venue. MastCell Talk 21:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
And to you.
Judging by the latest Overagainst matter, spread from talk page to FAR by MastCell, we're not going to be allowed leisure to make an attempt to deal with Sandy's comments, but we will be subject to interventions to get ways. I question the continuation of this FAR. There has never been meaningful talk page discussion, which is supposed to be a prerequisite to an FAR. Overagainst's walls of text don't count, because they were not made in a way we could engage with.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps part of my message above wasn't clear; listing the issues here on the FAR is always appropriate. It's the extended discussion of them that becomes a problem. I haven't looked at the article talk page, but I did click on the link just now, and I have a hard time imagining any justification for that link in any article. Who is this guy (domain name lookup)?
Registrant Name: Bret Redman
Registrant Organization: Bret Redman Enterprises
Registrant Street: PO box 2426
Registrant City: Venice
Registrant State/Province: CA
Registrant Postal Code: 90291
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: 1.9729911202
A google search on him doesn't look good. I can't figure how that is not a basic violation of WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not the point. It's that the same three editors: Overagainst, MastCell, and Anthonyhcole, are acting to not allow discussion but to get their way. That makes this FAR at the point of a gun as if anything happens that they don't like, they will allege BLP and push to get their way. Anthonyhcole just removed the material when few people have had a chance to comment, and he cannot be said to be neutral. This FAR is being used as a hammer. I have the book, but there's no possible work I could do like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

Review on hold for three months [2]. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)