Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway/Archive 6

Death in absentia

Shouldn't the lead make it clear in the birth/death dates that this is a "death in absentia" case? I ^help_dןǝɥ I 04:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that would unnecessarily clutter the lede sentence. It's still in the lede. You can't put everything first, alas. Perhaps a footnote?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A footnote could work... I ^help_dןǝɥ I 05:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I presently have limited internet access so I will let this, if it is OK, sit for a few and see if anyone objects. If not, I'll add the footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No strong objection to a footnote. Wouldn't want to see more than that, because I don't think what appears to be a successful corpse disposal warrants more than that. Later developments in Van der Sloot's life make it appear exceedingly likely that the death and disappearance took place on the same night, and there's no expectation at all that she is living a secret life somewhere.—Kww(talk) 12:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP category

What BLP category should Holloway be in? I ask because she turns up on this report for people who aren't in a proper living/dead category. Category:Living people obviously isn't appropriate, but what about Category:Year of death missing, Category:Year of death unknown, Category:Year of death uncertain, Category:Possibly living people, Category:2000s deaths etc.? This problem comes up a lot with "missing people" because Category:Missing people doesn't register as a proper BLP category. Someone suggested a category along the lines of "Categorization by death year not appropriate", which seems good but does not exist at the moment... Canadian Paul 15:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say the third one. While it is surpassingly unlikely that she survived the night of May 30, 2005, we do not actually know that, we are merely supposing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be in any BLP category Paul, Check the notes on the BLP page.. "policy does not apply to people declared dead in absentia" Dugodugo (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that is entirely accurate. It's true that the policy doesn't apply to people declared dead in absentia, but it also doesn't apply to dead people, yet we have all the above categories as well as Category:2012 deaths etc. etc. I should clarify in this context that "BLP category" means "category that determines the individual's relation to Wikipedia's BLP policy" rather than "category of biography of living people", if that makes any sense. I agree with Wehwalt that "Year of death uncertain" is most appropriate. Canadian Paul 00:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The category declared dead in absentia Natalee is in already determines that relation. She is on the report because the simple wiki doesn't have this category. That wiki needs fixing, not this one

62.234.58.170 (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway is Chelsea Clinton?

Wellaware1.com makes an interesting case that this is a manufactured event.

see http://www.wellaware1.com/#clinton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.21.139 (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reliable source we can use.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Funny how your "Thinking" somehow outweighs the mountain of evidence that show this event was staged and manufactured. As foe my site not being reliable, you better back that talk up with some facts before you're looking at a law suit. Why is my evidence somehow not reliable? Is it because it's based on scientific principals such as ear biometrics? A proven methodology that is accepted in the court of law, and used by the FBI, and INS, to identify suspects? http://wellaware1.com/docs/FBI_Biometrics04401932.pdf. Or is it the fact that I have two best sellers under my belt and am educated at the University of the arts, along with military service in the US ARIFORCE? Or is it my years of research in the area of Biometrics and my passion for learning the TRUTH about the country I swore to protect? So tell me why the evidence I have uncovered that I receive thousands of emails weekly from people confirming my work and expressing their thanks, as it changed their lives, is not reliable. I look forward to hearing your reasoning as to your comment. As you look at my work realize that I am a real person and use my birth name, Edward Chiarini, I don't hide behind any pseudonym. I stand by my work and make myself available to anyone who can stand up put their reputation on the line while debating the facts. The web is being overrun by idiots who think its fun to attack others and remain anonymous via their screen name. Well that is something that needs to change.

You can hear my numerous radio interviews with various well known hosts.

Dallasgoldbug Ed Chiarini's radio appearances

Here is a show I did with Jim Fetzer that pertains to a COMMON SENSE look at the events of Sept 11th and other well known events of our times.

DallasGoldBug Ed Chiarini on the James Fetzer Radio Show Pt 1

DallasGoldBug Ed Chiarini on the James Fetzer Radio Show pt 2

My research has uncovered the individuals and their families that are behind all the fake media events you seem to believe real. Almost all events you see broadcast on your TV are bunk. The ear biometrics do not lie. The fact that her mother Hillary was there on "Business" during that time means our tax dollars were used to create this bogus event. (That in itself should have you furious) The FACT that the actor better known as Steve O was used (the footage was of him when he was much younger) His real first name is Yair, and he is not American FACT, was the person they claim was the murderer. This event is nothing more than a made for TV movie. So you need to examine this event and look at the REAL evidence that is not provided to you via those behind its creation. IN FACT you should begin to review ALL the events you publish on this site using the information that is SCIENTIFIC in nature to identify the ACTORS involved in their respective productions. If you need a place to start you should look at my work on the Gabby Giffords HOAX. All you need to do is look at the photos of the person on the stretcher with the actor known as Gabe Hernandez standing beside her and realize there is NO BLOOD. link to evidence

I'm tired of people who lack the balls to stand up and tell the truth about what they see. Common sense has been replaced with an actor based reality that is driven by a twisted agenda of greed and selfishness. I challenge anyone to debate any of the events I discuss on my site. I am not backed by any corporation, and don't have ads on my site. Its strictly the evidence that I have uncovered and is presented without bias. I am not registered to vote, never have, and never will, and am not religious. So I have no ulterior motive but to learn the truth.

If you want to interview me about any of the events I cover, feel free to contact me through my contact button on my web site, or via my email I'm registered with on this site.

--DallasGoldBug

"OK be a jerk"

That message was on a little pop up, warning against (and complicating) editing the article, apparently because it's featured and too good for ordinary editors are not likely to make improvements by editing it. Would the person who placed that message care to own up?. Overagainst (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a edit notice. I probably wrote it, though five years ago. When this article was in the news, we got a lot of very poor edits to this article, which were causing myself and the other two admins who wrote this article a lot of work. It has nothing to do with the name of the reference to which you refer, though that is also of the same time period. Possibly childish, but compared to the many poor ways people express pique around here, it could be worse. It has, in other words, no connection to you, though I regret if you were insulted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Tapes

"Aruban police and the FBI obtained the original of the tape, and provided copies to the media. In the version of the tapes provided by Aruban authorities, Kalpoe appears to say, "No, she didn't."[181] The Dutch forensic institute investigated the credibility of the tapes, and concluded that the version aired on the Dr. Phil show was a manipulated version of the original, and that Kalpoe actually said "No, she didn't", followed by, "You'd be surprised how simple it would have been."[182] Beth Twitty, though, continued to cite the tapes as support of her allegations of sexual assault against Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers.[183]"

The whole tenor of my edit was that Deepak Kalpoe did not say all three had sex with Natalee. In my edit it was made clear that the fuller version showed that in the Dr Phil version Kalpoe's words had been edited in a way that may have altered the meaning. However using the word "manipulated" is not neutral language and my text gives the facts in a neutral way. My main objection to the current article text is that the sources given as references do not say that the FBI had the tapes or the Dutch forensic institute concluded what was said as the article currently states in Wikipedias voice. The current version given above uses Wikipedia's voice to give quotes and say what words were used. It is not in the sources given as references that a Dutch forensic institute concluded any such thing and even if they had opposing views would have to be mentioned. Where there is a dispute we give the viewpoints and attribute them giving weight according to the prominence of the source. The assertions about what was said are made by SCHIPPER not Dutch forensic experts. Anyway transcript of Rita Crosby's show explicitly says that the relevant words are inaudible. Kalpoe brought suspicion on himself by initially lying to the police and then makes some highly insensitive and dismissive statements about Natalee in the interview! Twitty continuing to cite the interview as incriminating is not surprising given what it contains. "Beth Twitty, though, continued to cite the tapes as support of her allegations " is argumentative and unencyclopedic language in any case. There is no good reason to think the crucial statements alleged in the Dr Phil version are correct so if you want to add something to that effect by all means. Finally detail of the dating history of the subject's mother is not notable for this article and as she is a living person it is contrary to WP:BLP policy to include it here. It may, or may not, be different for her own article, but this one is not about her. I think the mother of a murder victim who frantically is trying to keep media happy and interested in the case is not a public figure in the same way that a celebrity is. As for her talking about who she was dating "Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE" . Having a source for it is beside the point. Overagainst (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Twitty's activities are part of the story; she is a public figure, has her own article, and notoriety does not expire. As for her personality and rationale for her actions, I don't think it alters the case. She was highly notable, and went beyond being the mother of a likely crime victim (please remember in your comments we do not know how Natalee died). She offered herself on the rubber chicken circuit as a speaker. When you do that, you are accepting you are a notable figure. At the present time, there is an article, Beth Twitty. No recent attempt has been made to delete or merge that article. Until that happens, we are simply giving information relating to a notable figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It may be permissible but it is hardly necessary to mention the information in this article which is about her daughter and is rather too cluttered with similar digressions to be easily readable in my opinion. "Notoriety" is a very strange choice of word for the context. --Overagainst (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a synonym for "notability". I think we need to follow the paths that the story went down, and this is one of them. Ms. Twitty was well-covered. We are simply reporting that coverage. Granted, there hasn't been much in the news recently, but I don't see any reason to cut back the article because of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think that "notoriety" is a synonym for "notability" I suggest you find the dictionary definitions and compare them very carefully. Britmax (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We do not use notability in the dictionary sense here. Beth Twitty is a notable figure. At one point she did not have her own article, but at some point editors felt that she was more than simply Natalee Holloway's mom, and she got one.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Lede

I think in the lede it should be made clear that Deepak and Satish Kalpoe's initial story about dropping Natalee off alone at the hotel and about seeing hotel staff with her was a lie. It's relevant that the Kalpoes could have avoided all the trouble they brought on themselves by telling the truth at the outset, instead of foolishly misleading the investigation and trying to incriminate innocent hotel staff. Details of the search or van der Sloot's insane fabrications are excessive in the current lede IMO. Overagainst (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, we should not be calling people liars or similar. We are not out to tell a morality story about what they could have or could not have done. I prefer that facts be stated dispassionately, and that no one be called a liar. We can say "untrue".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to use that sort of language. How about this for lede starting from second lede para-

"At around 1:30 am on May 30, Holloway's school friends saw her getting into a car with 17 year old Joran van der Sloot and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe. She did not show up for her flight home that morning. The three young men told police they had last seen Holloway entering her hotel after they had taken her there following a brief trip to the beach. A massive search failed to find any trace of her. At the end of June a number of arrests were made including Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes. Soon afterwards the three changed their account to the Kalpoe brothers having taken Van der Sloot and Holloway to the beach and left them there together. Van der Sloot said he had subsequently separated from Holloway who he had last seen at the beach. Van der Sloot later altered his story again to claim the Kalpoe brothers had taken him home and then driven off with Holloway in the car. The investigation failed to progress any further, and the local police were strongly criticised by Holloway's parents.

Van der Sloot was later convicted of murdering a young woman in Peru. The victim, 21-year-old student Stephany Tatiana Flores Ramírez, had been reported missing on May 30, 2010, five years to the day of Holloway's disappearance. In 2011 an Alabama court gave a legal ruling that Holloway must be presumed dead." --Overagainst (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're pushing the tone of it a bit too far for NPOV. You're dismissing the search, which was a major part of the story, to focus on arrests. I see no reason to mention Flores's killing in the lede at all. We do not know that Holloway and Flores's deaths had anything to do with each other (and the May 30 date seems linked to the victim viewing the online coverage and mentioning it to van der Sloot), rather than van der Sloot being some sort of calendar murderer. You seem to be using the language to build a case that van der Sloot killed Holloway (which we must regard as unproven, though certainly very likely). I don't think that phrasing is justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If "We do not know that Holloway and Flores's deaths had anything to do with each other (and the May 30 date seems linked to the victim viewing the online coverage and mentioning it to van der Sloot)" then van der Sloot's murder of Flores can hardly be said to have no link to the publicity about 'Natalee Holloway' relating to van der Sloot. which is an aspect of 'Natalee Holloway' that is very extensively covered in the article. It should not be excluded simply on the grounds of it being too sensational a development to be mentioned in the lede. There is no synthesis in mentioning van der Sloot's murder of Flores; it was very widely reported that van der Sloot said the murder of Flores was linked to to her mentioning his connection to 'Natalee Holloway', and we are simply reporting . There should be more neutral language I agree. The date coincidence may well be an excessive detail for the lede.--Overagainst (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a connection, but it is mostly the other way, requiring coverage of NH in the Flores article. Remember, Flores died five years later. There is a connection as Flores apparently saw the coverage and asked van der Sloot about it, who reacted badly. But it is hardly central to the NH affair. It shed no light on the events of that fateful evening in 2005 (obviously it makes vdS look more likely to have done it, but that gets into synthesis).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Redacted it a bit in light of your comments. "At around 1:30 am on May 30, Holloway's school friends saw her getting into a car with 17 year old Joran van der Sloot and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe. She did not show up for her flight home that morning. The three young men told police they had last seen Holloway entering her hotel after they had taken her there following a brief trip to the beach, but investigators could find no one who had seen Holloway after she got into the car with Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes. A massive search with assistance from Dutch marines and the FBI failed to find any trace of her. At the end of June, after Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes were detained and subjected to close questioning, the three changed their account of Holloway's movements; asserting the Kalpoe brothers had seperated from Van der Sloot and Holloway at the beach. Van der Sloot said he had last seen Holloway alive and well at when he subsequently left her at the beach. Van der Sloot altered his story again, to claim that the Kalpoe brothers had taken him home and then driven off with Holloway in the car. Police expressed skeptisism about his story and conditions were placed on van der Sloot's movements by the Aruba authorities, but the investigation failed to make any real progress and he was eventually able to freed from restrictions. Five years later Van der Sloot was convicted of murdering a young woman, 21-year-old student Stephany Tatiana Flores Ramírez, in Peru. She had been reported missing on May 30, 2010. , and the local police were strongly criticised by Holloway's parents.Shows FBI dispatching team to Aruba

In 2011 an Alabama court ruled that Holloway must be legally presumed dead."

It's not bad, but I'd rather avoid the "Police expressed skepticism (remember, American usages)" bit, and the "changed his story again". We do not have to say that, it speaks for itself. You are trying to lead the reader by the nose a bit, I think, but it really isn't necessary. The reader will pick up on a changed story, you don't have to pound it into his head. Your ending has some textual difficulties in it, please re-read. I'm also not certain what purpose the "She had been reported missing …" sentence has as that information is present earlier in the lede, as well as in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My thought is to say something like, as you insist. "Van der Sloot was subsequently convicted of murder in Peru in the 2010 death of Stephany Tatiana Flores Ramirez" Put that right after the sentence about the parents.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Redacted it a bit in light of your comments. "At around 1:30 am on May 30, Holloway's school friends saw her getting into a car with 17 year old Joran van der Sloot and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe. She did not show up for her flight home that morning. The three young men told police they had last seen Holloway entering her hotel after they had taken her there in the car following a brief trip to the beach, but no one could be found who had seen Holloway after she got into the car with them. Aruba police did not initially arrest the three, which caused public criticism from Holloway's relatives. The police later said they had deliberately left the suspects free so they comunicating with each other under tight surveillance they had been placed under might gather incriminate themselves, but came under intense pressure to make arrests. Despite a massive investigation assisted by a team from the FBI, and a sophisticated land air and sea search of the area that continued for months, no trace was ever found of Holloway.

At the end of June,Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes were arrested and subjected to close questioning while in detention. The three changed their account of Holloway's movements; they asserted the Kalpoe brothers had seperated from Van der Sloot and Holloway at the beach. Van der Sloot said he had last seen Holloway alive and well at when he subsequently left her at the beach. Van der Sloot then altered his story again, to claim that the Kalpoe brothers had taken him home and then driven off with Holloway in the car. Police expressed skeptisism about this saccount, and restrictions were placed on Van der Sloot's movements by the Aruba authorities. Further investigation failed to uncover any evidence sufficient for a prosecution and he was eventually allowed to travel freely. Five years later Van der Sloot was convicted of murdering a young woman, 21-year-old student Stephany Tatiana Flores Ramírez, in Peru. At trial, he testified that the victim had mentioned publicity about the Holloway case to him before he killed her.

In 2011 an Alabama court ruled that Holloway must be legally presumed dead."--Overagainst (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me take a shot at it. I'll do it in a sandbox to save space here and provide a link (and diff, so that anyone reading this in future can follow along even if I use that sandbox for something else). It may not be until tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I really need to start using the sandbox. I hadn't thought of using it that way. In Talk I tend to put things in very rough edit, attend to non-WP matters that are pressing, then come back and then correct it shortly afterwards on the actual page. It's a bad habit that cost me dearly as people are on it too quickly and I lose a lot of unsaved work in edit conflict. I didn't mean to be repeatedly posting different versions, it was just the way the discussion developed and not getting my version in finalised form due to edit conflicts losing the corrections and improvements. I've got a bit of time for doing a proper job now. Putting new that text below old is the best way to make things easy to follow I think

"At around 1:30 am on May 30, Holloway's school friends saw her getting into a car with 17 year old Joran van der Sloot and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe. Informed that had not shown up for her flight home, Holloway's alarmed parents rushed to Aruba where they emphasised to the authorities that they were certain something had happened to their daughter and a determined effort to locate her should begin immediately. Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes, told police that following a brief trip to the beach, Holloway had been taken to her hotel in the early hours. Aruba police could not find anyone who saw Holloway after she got into the car with the trio; Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes were arrested several days afterwards. Holloway's relatives strongly criticised the Aruba police for not immediately arresting the trio. A senior local policeman later said that, in view of the lack of evidence in the case, having the three suspects free had been the best way to further the investigation, as they had been under tight surveillance, including interception of their phone calls, and might have incriminated themselves in private conversations. According to the officer, intense political pressure stemming from the Holloway family's criticisms had led to premature arrests.

At the end of June, Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes were arrested and subjected to close questioning, the three changed their account of Holloway's movements; they asserted the Kalpoe brothers had separated from Van der Sloot and Holloway at the beach. Van der Sloot said Holloway had stayed at the beach alone when he had left. Van der Sloot subsequently gave another account which directly contradicted that of the Kalpoes, saying the brothers had taken him home and then driven off with Holloway in the car. Restrictions were placed on Van der Sloot's movements by the Aruba authorities, but the investigation failed to uncover evidence sufficient for a prosecution and he was later allowed to travel freely. Van der Sloot was convicted the 2010 murder of a 21-year-old woman, Stephany Tatiana Flores Ramírez, in Peru. At trial, he testified that the victim had mentioned publicity about the Holloway case to him shortly before he killed her.

Despite a massive land, sea and air search of the whole area that continued for months, no trace was ever found of Holloway. In 2011 an Alabama court ruled that she must be presumed dead."--Overagainst (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not how we write a lede. A lede sets forth briefly in the first paragraph, indeed its first sentence, its subject, and tells you in the rest of it what you are going to cover. You paint with broad strokes. Your proposed language is very detailed, and it is not fully sticking to a broad outline, but gets very specific. It's not how a lede is written, and I've written probably a hundred of them. In addition, you fail to mention matters which are important to the story. The media frenzy in the United States is a big part of this story. In fact, I'm not quite certain what you think is wrong with the current lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"MOS:LEADThe lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

My proposed text was intended to be merged into the lede following on from the second para.

Thank you for having asked for any criticisms of the lede. After taking a second look I think there are a few things wrong with it. The first sentence in the current lede is OK. This may be a persnickety point, but second part is somewhat overly detailed IMO. By that I mean giving almost full details (eg of her school) which entails repetition as the same info is no more detailed in the main body of the article which the lede is supposed to be. For instance ("graduated from Mountain Brook High School on May 24, 2005, shortly before the trip"). The third sentence ("Her disappearance caused a media sensation in the United States.[5]") is fine in and of itself, but the words "media sensation" link to the page Sensationalism ":a type of editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in news stories and pieces are over-hyped to increase viewership or readership numbers.[1] Sensationalism may include reporting about generally insignificant matters and events that don't influence overall society and biased presentations of newsworthy topics in a sensationalist, trivial or tabloid manner.") which I think it is a totally inappropriate link because it is a point of view, not a fact, that the media attention in this case was Sensationalism. It would be better to say something like "Some media figures thought the intensity and duration of publicity about Holloway's disappearance was excessive". as can be seen here, some thought that but others did not. The second para has "Carlos'n Charlie's, a Caribbean chain restaurant and nightclub in Oranjestad"--irrelevant clutter IMO. Current lede correctly mentions "When questioned, the three men said they dropped her off at her hotel and denied knowing what became of Holloway". If only one account by the trio of what happened is given it should not be the one which they have acknowledged to be untrue; they did so when all three completely abandoned it within a month of Holloway disappearing. It is an essential point that the trio changed their original version of what happened after a few weeks and I don't see any problem in outlining what they told the police and when what they were saying about the night totally altered. Giving an overview, does not mean completely omitting important aspects of a subject just because they didn't happen first. I have no great objection to the details like the name the type of aircraft in the search. What I want to add along the lines of my proposed text (eg Van der Sloot had restrictions placed on his movements) is very relevant and in an article of this length the lede is not going to be too long with it added. I think outlining the 3 different accounts of his movements on the night in question which van der Sloot gave to the police (the last of which directly contradicted the Kalpoes) are also far more important to understanding the case, and thus belong in the lede, far more than crazy stories he gave to journalists and immediately retracted that are currently in the second half of the 3rd para of the lede.

"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]" That quote is sourced from court records according to the reference. Moreover in the ref article it is said the couple declined to comment. How on earth can that quote be justified?--Overagainst (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was sourced from the legal documents. He is responsible for his court filings. The problem is, you have not said what is wrong with the existing lede. Your changes would considerably change the tone of the lede. As for the restrictions being placed on his movements, they were because he was being investigated for murder. What is the relevance? It's no different than bail. As for your point on the sensationalism, where are the sources that say it was not sensationalist? What you may feel, or I may feel, is neither here nor there. As it is, the sources were pretty clear that the coverage was very extensive indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

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

I still think having the words "media sensation" linked to the page Sensationalism as the lede currently does is inappropriate. It is not at issue that "the sources were pretty clear that the coverage was very extensive indeed" but whether sources are in any substantial agreement about it amounting to Sensationalism. Some did say that that but it was so far from a unanimous view, judging by the coverage, that it can't be stated as if it was a fact in wikipedias voice by using that link in the way currently done in the lead. You ask where are the sources that say it was not sensationalist?(!) The NYT article I took the trouble to link tells how Fox news continued heavy coverage of Holloway's disappearance. Surely you do not think that we need a statement from Fox news and others saying that they were not wrong to give the coverage they did and continued to do on the story, just because a media figure like Bob Costas withdrew presenting a CNN prog on the case. That program went ahead so obviously his was a minority view. He had a powerful supporter in the CNN boss, but actions speak louder than words and though those two expressed the opinion that media should stop giving Holloway so much attention the CNN prog went ahead. The NYT article mentions that the really heavy coverage was on Fox News Channel: Greta Van Susteren's "On the Record." CNN are rivals to Fox I believe so they are not exactly neutral sources on the media consensus on any story, especially not the newsworthiness of the stories Fox concentrates on. It is a contentious opinion that coverage was Sensationalism, so it can be mentioned in the lede, but only as a viewpoint some media figures were expressing, not as it was done with that link to Sensationalism, as a fact.

The current lede says " Van der Sloot was arrested twice on suspicion of involvement in her disappearance and the Kalpoes were each arrested three times". I don't see it's any less significant or relevant that van der Sloot had restrictions being placed on his movements than mentioning the Kalpoes were arrested more times than van der Sloot was as the lede currently does. I don't see how mentioning facts so similar to ones already there changes the tone as a matter of tone. By my way of thinking the lede should briefly explain the what the trio said about what happened, because that is central to the subject of the article.

Dubious that he is any kind of public figure. In any case the quote he made was not made about himself in a context of a public expression of opinion intended to be reported in this way. It's a quote from a primary source (ie divorce papers). Furthermore that is not a source which a person might reasonably be assumed to have no objection to being used in article in the way it has been. WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. WP:IMPARTIALTry not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.". Divorce is a heated dispute. I don't know in what previous context the issue has come up before when KWW couldn't see the problem. But, I don't think that quote belongs in this article. If you can't see anything wrong with it, I think we should ask at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons what they think of using a quote from the divorce papers of the husband of a murder victim's mother in the Background section of an article about her murdered daughter, when the papers were filed a year AFTER the murder.__Overagainst (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

All the language says is that neither party is at fault. It's not any kind of direct quote from a party, it's the standard legal phrasing in Alabama for a no-fault divorce. It is of interest that no accusations of fault were made by either party in a legal proceeding. If they had lived in California, we would say it was due to "irreconcilable differences", while in other states we would say the marriage was "irretrievably broken". They all mean the same thing: neither party is accusing the other of wrongdoing. You seem to be interpreting it as some kind of horrendous accusation when you should actually be viewing it as being closer to exoneration.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You act very protective of the Twittys. The thing is, under WP:BLP, we must be protective of all, including the Kalpoes and even van der Sloot, who has been convicted of no crime regarding Natalee. Structuring the lede in a way that you hope the reader draws a certain inference from can be a BLP violation. The reason the divorce is there is simple: Jug Twitty was a part of this story, as were his friends and relations. We explain what happened to their marriage not to denigrate them, but so the reader is not left with the false impression they remain man and wife. They got a no-fault divorce; quoting the language is an assurance that the divorce wasn't for a fault grounds. Even saying nothing isn't so good about the grounds, think about it. I can't reply to everything you said, it's just too much at one time.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

KWW, I have no opinion on whether using a quote from divorce papers in any WP articles is or should be impermissible. In the light of your explaination I agree with you that for a person informed about the relevant laws the quote is not derogatory, and simply means 'he filed for a divorce in Alabama', but that is ALREADY STATED IN THE ARTICLE so the quote is redundant. However, you have had to explain what the quote means so it is not an aid to understanding to use it. It doesn't mean anything for the reader with your (KWW's) level of knowledge. For almost everyone else it will be taken as having a derogatory meaning. At present the article is slighting living people by using deceptive legal phrase quotes from divorce papers.

I'm not clear why it needs to be stated that he filed for the divorce in an article that is not about either of them. There is an article about the mother and this information may be appropriate for a 'Personal life' section of HER article. A misleading quote from divorce papers filed a year after she died isn't background for Natalee who is the subject of the 'Background' section of an article about Natalee Holloway. Tt jumps ahead (he filed a year AFTER Natalee dissapeared) and so does not belong in the Background section of the Natalee Holloway article in any case. . Wehalt says we need to tell peoople that they got divorced, but the Background section doesn't say that, it just says he filed for divorce and then gives that quote. The quote is inappropiate, misleading detail not relevant to what the section is about. In the Background for an article on Natalee it should mention her family, education, ambitions and perhaps a little bit about what others thought of her. Her personality and temperament are what should be briefly outlined in this part of the article. Proposed addition to Background section_

"Holloway was later described by her mother as determined, dependable and independent. Her mother also said that Holloway had "confided to me that she was a virgin" shortly before going to Aruba. (source Good Housekeeping, My Daughter Disappeared)

Oppose. We would be presenting Beth Twitty's claims about her daughter, which have not always stood up to scrutiny, as though they were factual.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In the current Beth Twitty's involvement section it is concisely. stated that they got divorced, that is the proper place for the imformation. --Overagainst (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Read what I said. The explanation for the divorce is there to protect living people from inferences that the divorce might be for other things. There is nothing blameworthy about a no-fault divorce. And please remember, this is a long-time Featured Article. That means it was thoroughly reviewed. Changes that you want must carry a consensus of active editors. Coming at this from a partisan side, that is sanctify Beth Twitty and damn the Kalpoes and van der Sloot, are not going to impress us, we've been through all that before. This article is written in a very careful neutral tone so that readers don't go and take inferences about living people. Jug Twitty, Beth, the Kalpoes, van der Sloot, are all living people whom by policy we are darn careful what we say about, especially since more than one of them have the telephone number of a libel lawyer in their contacts.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to the article explicitly saying that they 'got a no fault divorce'. What I think is inappropriate is to have the following in the article (especially the background 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]". As you want to explain that couple got a no fault divorce, and I have no objection to saying so in so many words, we are in agreement._Overagainst (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I am a lawyer and perhaps I assume people see the boilerplate which was quoted for what it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've never found a reliable source that uses the phrase "no-fault" in conjunction with this specific case, and we can't take sources that describe Alabama divorce law and apply it to this article without running afoul of WP:OR.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We can say something like "according to published accounts, did not state specific grounds of fault".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Still a technical foul in my view, but I wouldn't revert it if you wrote it.—Kww(talk) 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm perfectly content with what is there now, actually. Overagainst needs to show that there is a need for these changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My proposed text for the 'Background section':"Holloway was later described by her mother as determined, dependable and independent. Her mother also said that Holloway had "confided to me that she was a virgin" shortly before going to Aruba. (source Good Housekeeping, My Daughter Disappeared) is quite in order. If we say her mother later "described her as determined, dependable and independent" or "said " her daughter had told her somthing, we are stating it as a fact that her mother said those things. If there is a reliable source for it as there is, there is no problem as far as I can see because we are not stating in Wikipedia's voice that what her mother said was true, just that her mother said it. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial"Neutral ways of expressing a statement, such as "said," "wrote," "stated," are the safest.".Overagainst (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this is a "background" statement. I am getting very concerned. Your edits and advocacy amount to two things: Building up the image of Natalee and her parents, and denigration of Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoes. These are living people (other than, we presume, Natalee); none has been convicted of any offense regarding Natalee. The tone of this article is neutral and has been found acceptable by the community on repeated occasions. We should not shift that tone without considerable discussion, and you have shown no need. Beth Twitty's statements have been shown to be less than truthful and candid on a number of occasions, for example, her characterization of the Aruban government as corrupt, her statements regarding her supposed high-speed drive through the South on hearing of Natalee's vanishing, her claims regarding the late Paulus van der Sloot. We should go very lightly on using her as a source, because she is a firsthand source and has not been subject to fact checking. For example, I have never seen that the claims of Natalee as honor student and the alleged full scholarship have ever been verified.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Background section

Let us deal with one issue at a time. I do not understand what you object to (see above Talk section))in my edit of the background section. As can be seen here here I took out that quote from divorce papers which I thought we had agreed was uneccessary as an explicit statement they got a no fault divorce inserted later in the article was better. As can also be seen here the backgound section was short on the most relevant background and disorganised. For example: "At the time of the disappearance, Dave Holloway was an insurance agent for State Farm Insurance in Meridian, Mississippi," Exactly what he was doing back in Miss is just cluttering up the section with excess detail as Natalee was living in Alabama in her stepfather's household at the time she left for Aruba.

You say "I have never seen that the claims of Natalee as honor student and the alleged full scholarship have ever been verified". I did not alter (add or remove) anything about her being a honor student so it's no business of mine, and your vague musings about the general credibility of Natalee's mother is completely tangential to the point at issue which is my changes to the background section. I attribute the opinions and statements of Natalee's mother to her in the text. It is quite in order to use what someone has said as long as one clearly attribute it and phrases it so it is not given in Wikipdia's voice. Where my edit uses Natalee's mother's account it is properly atributed (ie qualified as 'according to', 'said' ect). Natalee's mother can surely be quoted on her own daughter with attribution.

I left that honor student text untouched and in, I do not understand why you bring up the veracity of long standing text in the article with someone (me) who has been here only a couple of days. The article has been saying said she was an honor student for years. Here is a link to 7 June 2010.. See? You are the one saying this is a state of the art featured article and now you are complaining to me who has been here 72 hours about stuff you left on for years, but which I have never had anything to do with! Please give specific objections to the additions to the background section, it seem you object to Natalee's mother's article being used as a source for what Natalee's mother said even though it being made clear that it's according to her, is her account, and was all clearly attributed to her in the proper way as gone into above where I cited WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.-Overagainst (talk)

Primary sources are disfavored on Wikipedia, WP:PRIMARY. What we would be doing is presenting this to the reader effectively as fact, for who would doubt a mother's word? The reader does not have the background on the issues that came up regarding Beth Twitty's statements, which were often at some variance with the facts, as it proved. On much of the background, we are really taking Beth's word for it, there is no independent confirmation of it. It is a question of how far we go in letting one individual, who was not disinterested, and had an agenda in how her daughter was presented, is allowed to go here in how we depict her daughter. The solution we came to was to keep it as backgroundy, that is, very factual. If the reader wants to know more about what Natalee had in her room, that's what Google's for, we're here giving the reader a first resource. Putting things like she confided to her mom that she was a virgin (something we should infallibly take a teenager's word on) is really beyond what I think we should do here, which is give the reader a very brief biography of Natalee up to that point, keeping in mind that she did not live an exceptional life, which justifies our brevity.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There you go, barging ahead, slanting an article to suit your preference, because that is the way you want it. Please revert your edits and discuss things. All you are doing is writing in the sand.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So you think using a mothers statements about her daughter in a Background section of a WP article about the daughter with attribution of the statment to the mother in the text is wrong in principle. I do not understand why you talk about the irrelevance of her room furnishings, this was in the source article that was the ref but NOT in the edit. I never mentioned it at any time. Please do not go off on tangents. This article is about Natalee Holloway. They current back ground section section gives her divorced fathers occupation and the company he worked for at the time she dissappeard which is remarkably tangental information. The current backgrond section gives a quote from her parents divorce papers filed a year after Natalee dissappeared later that has a quote inin technical legalese which virtually no reader will be able to corectly interpret as what it is (a routine phrase in Alabama divorce papers). People assume that if information is provided it is relevant and that quote should not be there. The information that they got divorced a year after the disappearance is not 'Background' and it does not belong in that section. If you look at the article the Background section is formated as a full section but it is far shorter that other sections about specific tv progams or Beth Twitty's involvement section. There needs to be balance _Overagainst (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Article changes need consensus FIRST

Noting the tl;dr above, what strikes me here is that 1) There are attempts to replace solid sources with lesser-quality sources, 2) There are attempts to replace carefully worded NPOV material with speculative information and POV phrasing, 3) Proper syntax and formatting of references and other hidden features is being replaced by improperly formatted material and 4) There is edit-warring on the article. All of these are a problem. (and by the way, in no-fault divorce states like California, there NEVER is assignment of fault at any point in the proceedings, so just drop that stick entirely). I suggest that if there are problems with the existing article, then list them below and your proposed solution. The underlying structure of the article should not change, as this is usually a crucial part of the FA process, any proposed new citations should have their full and proper formatting presented here at talk, and any proposed new material or theory must be thoroughly presented with WP:V AND WP:RS AND (due to all involved) WP:BLP reviewed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The balance of opinion has been 50/50 up until now, It seems to me I have been doing quite a bit more work in talking than anyone else. The opposition objections are very vague and abstract and short.

Are you seriously saying that a mother's article about her daughter is not a reliable source for what that mother thought of her daughter, or that the mother's description of her daughter does not belong in a background section?

Re your points-

1)'Solid sources replaced by lesser-quality sources' is rather too vague for me to know what exactly you are talking about. Please specify the source(s) that I have used as a ref which is not reliable in the context and way in which I have used it and attributed it, and give reasons why you believe that it is unreliable.

2)Please give specific examples of what you think is POV phrasing from my edits, and then we can discuss it.

3)I have used the existing references in their existing format where possible, if I missed some sorry. The main issue is to have reliable sources and I think the necessity of tidying up the refs I add and putting them in the proper format is not so onerous as to constitute a reason for not making the edit. I certainly appreciate the work done by those who do that necessary work.

4)I accepted some things and greatly changed my previous edit per talk which was accepted. Today I discussed the edits were reverted I went to talk and discussed very extensively. I think I have explained how my edits are in line with WP policy at some length.

I filled in some major section which I thought were very thin. There is an awful lot of opinion about her mother in this article and not enough about what happened. It lacked balance. For example all that stuff about the drinking quoting the Aruba cop. Nothing about his accidental alcoholic poisoning theory. _Overagainst (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason why people are responding so shortly is that you are addressing a lot of things at one time and it's not practical to discuss all. What you are not hearing is that contentious changes require consensus, and Wikipedia means accepting sometimes when you do not have it. And you have not addressed my overall point, that you are seeking a radical shift in tone in the article, from neutral among the competing narratives to very much accepting the Beth narrative. We simply report that she came, you want her as heroically on the scene. Your characterizations of how she interacted with Aruban authorities is very much her narrative. You aren't even being subtle about it, you have made clear in your (extensive) comments how you feel about the participants in this saga, and you're letting it flow through your fingers to the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I did start off a liitle out of line on the Talk but you pulled me up about that immediately and i accepted it. Lets go over the my history here. I did a couple of edits the first day. On the the issue of what was said on the tape I didn't just undo your revert I went to talk explained that I had read the ref and it did not support the text,but incorperated what you were saying and changed the edit so it was totally neutral. Which you accepted, so that was collaborative editing--it's supposed to be done that way. About who she was dating I took that off completely, but when you explained that she had talked about it publically I accepted that so you won 100% on that issue. No one else was participating in the discussion as can be seen above so as I said it was 50/50 discussion with you getting your way completely on one edit and half winning on the other.

Wehalt, the opinionated languge was in Talk while you were expressed very strong opinions about the credibility of someone whose sins are a lot more minor than giving a story (which they later admitted was false) about the movements of a missing girl they were with when she dissappeared. Remember what you said above above Wehalt? Let me remind you said-

"Twitty's activities are part of the story; she is a public figure, has her own article, and notoriety does not expire. ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)"

I never said that we should call anyone liars or killers in the article. My suggestion for (and what I gave as proposed text for) the lede can be seen above) was presented in talk and it is still under discussion. I discussed and provided proposed changes to the lede as anyone can see for themelves above. I have still not touched the lede at all. So it can not be said that I went against any concensus.

I was arguing for changes in the lede, one is to to correct what is clearly a flaw in it. The lede mentions the original story of the brothers about taking her to the hotel, but they stopped saying that by the end of June. I was arguing that the lede shouldn't mention their original story and leave reader with a totally false impression of the facts in the case. The Kalpoe brothers had been saying since June 2005 that hey left Natalee on the beach with van der Sloot and (. So how can we have a lede that covers the trio wha are the last to see her that just says: "When questioned, the three men said they dropped her off at her hotel and denied knowing what became of Holloway.[8] Upon further investigation by authorities, Van der Sloot was arrested twice on suspicion of involvement in her disappearance and the Kalpoes were each arrested three times. Due to lack of evidence the three men were released without charge each time.[9][10]"

On the lede I have made no edit merely proposed some changes. Some of my proposed changes may be weaker than others. At least one of these changes (adding to the the lede what the Kalpoe brothers have said about leaving Natalee on the beach with van der Sloot since June 2005) is perfectly reasonable. The lede is not giving an overview of the case if it just gives a story about taking her back to the hotel which has been universally acknowedged to be false and when the three men have subsequently replaced it with completly different accounts of the same events in June 2005.

I don't think I can reasonably be accused of going against concensus with edits when I made the background section edit or the revert to it.I consider those edits uncontroversial and not ones where her mothers credibility is an issue. Her mother wrote an article and my edit uses that as a source for what the mother siad "was later described by her mother as determined, dependable and independent, but also as "very naive". Her mother said that Holloway had "confided to me that she was a virgin" shortly before leaving on a senior class trip". I don't understand the problem with that specific edit. I would like you to address.Overagainst (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If a coin lands heads every time, there is likely something going on with the coin. Every edit you make is in support of a certain POV on this matter. What editors do involves the judgment of credibility; this is a matter of routine as sources often contradict. I have simply discussed my reasons why Beth is a source that although we must use her in the article, we must do so cautiously and not at great length. Reputable secondary sources, such as the Vanity Fair article, have questioned her credibility and the activities of her and her fellow Mountain Brookers. You have been reverted, by the way, by three different editors, all admins. Plainly you don't have consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It still isn't clear, but it seems to me you object to my edit of the background section both becuase you think the text is POV and because you think that the article can't use the 2007 Good Housekeeping article by Beth Holloway as a source for what Beth Holloway says. Here is the text you object to and which was reverted:"Holloway was later described by her mother as determined, dependable and independent, but also as "very naive". Her mother said that Holloway had "confided to me that she was a virgin" shortly before leaving on a senior class trip, which her stepbrother had gone on two years previously. This was a four nights stay in Aruba, an island off the coast of Venezuela and 1800 miles from the US. Drinking was legal for 18 year olds in Aruba, and according to her mother, Holloway was warned to stay with people she knew and to be aware drinking, which she was not very used to, could make her vulnerable.[32]"

Phrased as "described by her mother", " Her mother said", "and according to her mother" the text is attributing the statements as being ones made by Beth Holloway about her daughter and what she was like. Thus nothing that we are relying on Beth Holloway for is being said in Wikipedia's voice, and so it is not the case that we must have cast iron proof from secondary sources as to its verity. This kind of attribution is a staple of Wikipedia and recommended.

There are many examples of Beth Holloway being used as a source with attribution in the same way I did that are the current article already. For instance: "Beth Twitty alleged in televised interviews that Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers know more than they have told", " Twitty stated that...". "Holloway also alleges..." "Beth Holloway stated"

Wehwalt, you say "What editors do involves the judgment of credibility; this is a matter of routine as sources often contradict. I have simply discussed my reasons why Beth is a source that although we must use her in the article, we must do so cautiously and not at great length". A mother's properly attributed statments about her daughter are quite in order for a brief background section in an article which is about that daughter. I'm confident most people will agree with me on this.-Overagainst (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty is, your edits are clearly aimed at altering the tone of this article. We avoid taking any position; you want us to take a position. You want us to paint the Kalpoes, who are subject to BLP, as liars, you want us to paint Natalee as a saint; you want us to take a specific view of her mother which is not supported by many sources, such as the Vanity Fair article. Beth Twitty's credibility has been questioned on a number of matters; accordingly, primary materials authored by her, which have not been fact-checked as one would hope of a secondary source, should not be used. That is why everyone who comes along is disagreeing with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"You want us to paint the Kalpoes, who are subject to BLP, as liars". I did say something about 'making it clear' that they had told lies initially, and I WAS WRONG TO put it that way. (I never suggested explicitly calling them liars). What, as I explained above more than once , I was getting at was that the only version of the events by the three men that is given in the lead is one all three acknowledge was completley untrue by June 2005 and so that version of events being the only one in the lede is not giving an overview of the case. The original story about taking her to the hotel does not have to be in the lede at all, but if it is, the later story has to be given in the lede as well.

OK back to the Background section and the question of using Beth Twitty as a source. Putting aside your odd claim that we can't use her mother becuase mothers will be be believed 100% "What we would be doing is presenting this to the reader effectively as fact, for who would doubt a mother's word? "(!?) You seem to think that what Beth Twitty has publically said about her daughter's life at home (which can have no bearing on any BLP violation whatsoever ) can not be used in the background section of this article about her daughter, when the statments are clearly attributed Beth Twitty in the text. For certain things like this there is no problem using her as as long as it is is attuibuted I am confident that the primary sources issue is not applicable to the edits I proposed. We are have been going round and round this for some tinme and are going to have to take that issue elswhere.

Read this very length part of the artivcle and tell me that there are no statements by people involeved in the case (including Twitty) being used with attribution. Is it a neutral tone ?Overagainst (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As much as possible, but there the coverage is about what she said, and what she did. Her statements are reported not for the truth, but for that she said them, that her statements and actions prompted the reactions stated. That would not be the case, for example, with her statement that Natalee was a virgin. There is reason to doubt Beth's truthfulness. If we do not present them in the background section because we are confident that they are true, what is the reason for presenting them?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So why do you give Beth's statments in the Beth Twitty's involvement section ? Bethsaid that Natalee told her she was a virgin. That statement can be reported and in text attributed in the background section, We have reliable source that for Beth saying that and that is all that we need. In the same way we can give Beth's description of what Natalee was like at home. It really is no different to reporting the statements of Beth in the Beth Twitty's involvement section. You can't have a different standard for sources to suit your purpose in using them.

I do think there are problems with the tone throughout the article. The lede beginning "Her disappearance caused a media sensation in the United States.[5]." Having the words 'media sensation' in the lede link to Sensationalism is very slick, but hardly NPOV That media coverage was sensationalism is an opinion and should be presented as such. I don't know why there that nonsense from retracted Sloot interviews and a unsavory link to sexual slavery in the lede either. The space would could be better used giving an overview of the subject which the lede does not give a good job of doing at present IMO.

When I tried to insert a couple of sentences about Natalee at home from her mother Beth Holloway (and clearly attributed to her) that is was objected to as deeply unacceptable. Yet it's OK to have criticism of the Holloway family and how they were involved. You can not structure the article as if Beth Holloway is unreliable and the account of the police she was criticising is reliable, that is not NPOV when at length and without without qualification, Dompig is quoted about Natalee's drinking early on in the article and at great length When it comes to the interactions between Beth Holloway and the Aruba police she criticised them and they criticised her. Currently police's account is being given weight, prominence and the last word.

Not giving the reader the mother's view of what Natalee Holloway was like at home would be OK, if the article did not bring Natalee's character in those three days in Aruba in repeatedly. For instance that is is done with the cop who is quoted on Natalee's drinking all day every day (without qualifying that by mentioning he had a theory she died accidently due to drinking and drug use). Dompig is also quoted as saying that she had drugs in her possession in the following way " Dompig indicated that there is evidence that points to possession (though not necessarily use) of drugs by Holloway.[17][80] Members of her family have denied drug use by Holloway.[81]" That Dompig was saying she accidentally ODed should be mentioned, he is currently cited as if he is an impartial source on Natalee's drinking or possible drug possession. You need a little balance in an article about an 18 year old person who is going to have something that can be said about her personal qualities and life at home. So we say her mother described her as .... and her mother saidd Natalee confided .... I think this is unpteenth time I gone over this.

Throughout the article it's 'Beth Holloway said'.... then a strong rebuttal of what she said. Here are some examples_

"Beth Twitty has made varying statements as to whether the cameras were actually working that night. According to an April 19, 2006, statement made by her, the security cameras at the Holiday Inn were not working the night Holloway vanished.[45] Twitty has made other statements indicating that they were working, and has stated so in her book.[46][47] In any event, according to Police Commissioner Jan van der Straten, initial head of the investigation until his 2005 retirement, Holloway did not have to go through the lobby to return to her room.[48]"

Beth Twitty alleged in televised interviews that Joran van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers know more than they have told, and that at least one of them sexually assaulted or raped her daughter.[156] Twitty stated that she received copies of police statements stating that Joran van der Sloot admitted having sex with Holloway at his home and described intimate details of her. She has never released copies of the alleged statement, though she characterizes them as admissions of "sexual assault" and Vinda de Sousa, former Holloway–Twitty family Aruban attorney, has indicated that no such admission was made.[157] In addition, Dompig denied that any such statement was made, stating that Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers consistently denied having sex with Holloway.[158]

"The Twittys and their supporters criticized a perceived lack of progress by Aruban police.[177][178] The Twittys' own actions in Aruba were also criticized, and the Twittys were accused of actively stifling any evidence that might impugn Holloway's character by asking her fellow students to remain silent about the case and using their access to the media to push their own version of events. The Twittys denied this.[34]"

"Holloway's family, however, instead criticized the lessening of coverage of the young woman's disappearance. The saturation coverage of Holloway's disappearance by the American media was largely eclipsed in late August 2005 by Hurricane Katrina.[161][202] 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.[74]"

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."

Montanabw has not got spelled out on specific grounds why the background section can't have a brief description of what Natalee was like at home by and attributed to Beth Holloway. Wehwalt seems to want to excluding the same material because Beth was Natalee's mother and everyone would believe her and we can't be sure Natalee was a virgin as Beth said Natalee confided to her. Anyway, we shall see what others make of it.-Overagainst (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

daughter

Yep. We know the policy. And what you fail to understand is that the article has been reviewed, repeatedly, as a whole, and found to be NPOV. We have had DUE/UNDUE discussions. And this is the way the article turned out. To make contentious changes, and everything you've proposed is contentious, you need to build consensus. You don't have it. Build consensus, don't argue, and certainly don't post 7K like you just did. Do you expect people to read and reply to all of it"?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The only objection to the Background edit has come from you and after all the discussion it basically is that you will not accept that we can report what what Beth Holloway said about her daughter. Nobody at all is quoted about her personal qualities before she went to Aruba. According to you at eighteen years old Natallee's personality and social activities didn't amount to anything worth remarking on in a couple of sentence in the background section of a long Wikipedia article about her. The school and classes and that is it.

Her school mates can be quoted but ONLY about about the 4 days in Aruga. And the policeman can be quoted about drinking, drug possession and room switching every night."Police Commissioner Gerold Dompig, who would head the investigation from mid-2005 until 2006, described the behavior of the Mountain Brook students, stating there was "wild partying, a lot of drinking, lots of room switching every night. We know the Holiday Inn told them they weren't welcome next year. Natalee, we know, she drank all day every day. We have statements she started every morning with cocktails—so much drinking that Natalee didn't show up for breakfast two mornings".[34] Two of Holloway's classmates, Liz Cain and Claire Fierman, "agreed that the drinking was kind of excessive".[37]"

It doesn't work that way, You can't put, front and centre in the article, material insinuating the subjects behaviour was characterised by loose morals and drunkenness (sourced to a cop who was insisting she'd ODed and has been heavily criticised) and then say that her previous character (her mother's description of her, attributed as such in text) is not to be mentioned in a relatively tiny background section.Overagainst (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If it will make you feel better, I can go write "me too" after nearly everything Wehwalt has said. This article succeeds in making Arubans think we are too critical of Aruba, Holloway supporters feel we are too critical of Natalee, and Van der Sloot supporters (a dwindling group, but once a major force) feel like it is excessively critical of Van der Sloot. That is a very strong indicator that it actually achieves neutrality: you can't please everyone, but you can make everyone upset.—Kww(talk) 19:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Drop the WP:STICK Overagainst. This article has been through all of this type of material before and it was not used. The article makes no "insinuations"; it relies on multiple, neutral third-policy sources and passed an extensive review before getting FA status. You are basically saying that your source is "reliable" because girls never lie to their mothers and that a grieving mother will remember things with perfect accuracy and no rose-colored glasses. Seriously, what planet do you live on? There is NO consensus for your changes and your endless rants do nothing to enhance your credibility. The article is NPOV as it sits and needs to stay that way. Your suggested edits are not, and hence they stay out. End of story. Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a perfectly accurate and reliable individual. No one thinks Beth Holloway is impartial about her daughter, but the OD-theorising cop Dompig is no more impartial or reliable about what Natalee did in Aruga, than grieving Beth Holloway is on what Natalee did in Alabama. The problem is that neither Beth Holloway nor anyone else's assertions about what Natalee was like in Alabama are in the article. But Dompig is being given a great deal of weight in the article where it quotes his assertions about Natalee's excessive drinking. Dompig being quoted in the article saying there was "wild partying, a lot of drinking, lots of room switching every night." is a clear insinuation that this 18 year old girl was having promiscuous sexual relations "every night".

"keeping in mind that she did not live an exceptional life, which justifies our brevity.--Wehwalt "

Overagainst (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Only in your own fantasies, my friend. The rest of us don't read it that way at all. Kids party. That's typical. Montanabw^(talk) 23:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It certainly states that the student group was ill-behaved, but there aren't any sources that deny that. There are no allegations of promiscuity in relation to Natalee, simply uncontradicted statements by three people that she was drinking to excess.—Kww(talk) 21:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Simply so. If there are reliable sources which say that Natalee spent her time in Aruba helping the homeless, we will happily include them. But right now, the state of things is that the kids partied, which is why they were there and why the parents coughed up dough for the trip. The kids were going to party, and better they should do so without car keys or getting busted by Mountain Brook's Finest. Nothing discreditable at all. They did what kids do.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing discreditable at all Wehwalt? If she was alive that text would be a clear cut BLP violation. The currrent page names two living individuals who were on the trip. They may have agreed to be named and quoted on drinking, but I bet you anything you like they didn't consent to their names being associated with 'room switching every night' on a WP article. From a BLP point of view it would be safest to remove those names. 100plus people on the trip are still alive so the 'room switching ever night' is a blanket implication about the morals of living people who are kids no longer. I would suggest the text be replaced with something like . "Some of her classmates said that there was excessive drinking on the trip".

If Dompig is going to be quoted, or used as a source on, the group's or Natalee's drinking heavily, then it should be noted that he said in 2009 that Natalle had likely died of accidental alcoholic poisoning. This does not discredit what he says, it simply lets the reader know that he may not be totally objective. (Everyone understands a mother is not objective, it is only necessary to say in the text "According to her mother ..." and the reader is made aware what follows is the mother's viewpoint through a prism of maternal love). Dompig viewed Natalee in the light of a theory.-Overagainst (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Only in my fantasies Montanabw? I am not the one who put the link to sexual slavery in the lede. I don't know what motivated whoever did, and I'm scared to guess!

My reading, KWW, is that 2 people are quoted about the group. Only Dompig is quoted specifically about Natalee's drinking. If he is given so much weight then it should be made clear he had a theory Natalee died from an accidental overdose of alcohol.-Overagainst (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we know that she did not die of alcohol poisoning? Certainly the Flores killing places suspicion on Joran that he may have killed Natalee, but we do not know how she died. Alcohol poisoning's fair game. I always liked the scenario at the end of the Vanity Fair article, that she may have swum too far out to sea. The currents come in fairly close there.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to mentioning the alcohol poisoning. I would have to be done by mentioning that Dompig had said it was the probable cause of her death. Dompig said her body had been disposed of. Overagainst (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It's already in the article, second-to-last paragraph of "continued search".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is but it's not very easy to find, and it is quite important that the man in charge of the Aruban investigation publicly said he thought that he was dealing with an accidental death followed by deliberate disposal of the body. How about having it in the lede.

Proposed text for lede

Natalee Ann Holloway (October 21, 1986 – on or after May 30, 2005) was an American student who vanished on a high school graduation trip to Aruba, a Caribbean country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Holloway lived in Mountain Brook, Alabama at the time of her disappearance. She was not very worldly for an 18 year old, according to her mother.

Holloway failed to appear for her flight home from Aruba on May 30. With the help of hundreds of volunteers, Aruban investigators conducted an extensive search for Holloway. Special Agents from the FBI. fifty Dutch soldiers and three specially equipped Dutch Air Force F-16 aircraft participated in the search. In addition to the ground search, divers examined the ocean floor for evidence of Holloway's body. The searches were unsuccessful and no trace of Holloway was ever found.

The last sighting of Holloway by her classmates was outside a nightclub in Oranjestad, in a car with locals Joran van der Sloot and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe. The three men were placed under surveillance. When initially questioned, the three said they dropped Holloway off at her hotel, and denied knowing what became of her. Several days later they were arrested. In late June, van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers altered their account of their movements on 30 May, and said that they had taken Holloway to the beach, where van der Sloot and Holloway had remained when the Kalpoes left in the car. Van der Sloot said he last saw Holloway on the beach, and that he had walked home alone.

The case was extensively covered in the US media although certain commentators thought the amount of attention it got was excessive. When in August 2005, suspects detained in the case were released without charge, Holloway's mother publicly accused the authorities of releasing men who had been involved in the murder of her daughter. In 2006, Aruba Police Commissioner Gerold Dompig stated that Aruban investigators believed Holloway had died from accidental alcohol poisoning after drinking heavily, and that her body had been illegally disposed of. To date, no one has been charged in the case by the Aruban authorities. On January 12, 2012, an Alabama judge declared Holloway legally dead.

In 2012 the Supreme Court of Peru approved the extradition of van der Sloot to the United States, where he is under indictment on charges of extorting money from Holloway's family. The court ruled that van der Sloot must finish a prison sentence that he is currently serving in Peru before he can be extradited.

Overagainst (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The final sentence is certainly a BLP violation. As for Dompig, why is it necessary to have it in the lede? Why this among the various competing narratives of how Holloway died? And I see you are still concentrating on stories, not searches.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a section of the article called " Van der Sloot kills in Peru". Are we to apply a different BLP standard to the lede than to the article? I altered the proposed text in that final line nonetheless. Commissioner Dompig was in charge of the investigation, he made a public statement about the conclusions of the Aruban investigators, which represents the official view of the police in Aruba about what happened to Natalee Holloway. What could be more pertinent to the lede that that? I can't see how the current text about van der Sloot's retracted statements to Greta Van Susteren belongs in the lede. I think the search is well covered in the current text so I didn't take anything out about the search. AT ALL. What 'stories' and 'narrative' are you referring to? An account of their movements on the night in question by the three men who were the focus of the case according to Dompig is given in a very concise form. According to the current article the account currently in the lede was abandoned by the three men in mid 2005 so it should not be be in the lede. Ledes are there to give an accurate overview of the article. -Overagainst (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the page and Talk alone for a while so that those with an established interest in the article can work out among themselves if they want changes and whether to incorporate my suggestions throughout the article, along the lines of overview in the lede I have proposed (see above). I would advise taking out the divorce papers quote for sure and the schoolmate's names along with the reference to "room switching' is BLP Violation. I think the material on news stories, tapes and Beth Twitty needs to be condensed. In my opinion the article would need quite a bit of work to pass review as a featured article._Overagainst (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I bow to your clearly superior knowledge of what can pass review as a featured article. Speaking only for myself, I see no need for changes. The article stands well for its age, and without some new development, should be fine as is for quite some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. BLP articles need not whitewash a person's life and remove all possible criticism, (Anthony Weiner, for example?) But neither should they violate other BLP individuals' lives either. We have neutral, third-party sources for all of this, and if this contains uncomfortable truths, well, so does the article on Bill Clinton. Montanabw^(talk) 03:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, a Wikipedia article is there to give an encyclopedic account of a notable subject. The issue of removing all possible criticism should not arise, because nothing that could possibly be 'critical' should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Facts should be presented in a neutral tone and left to speak for themselves. The opinion of persons taking a particular view of a dispute can be mentioned, but there should be representation of opposing viewpoints in reasonable proportion. It really will not do to present what you may think is a corrective to a misleading impression or whitewash of a person's character, if no account of the whitewash is in the article. Moreover, facts need to be relevant to the article and not a BLP violation on others.

The 'Background' section for Natalee (who died in 2005) contains the quote of legal jargon from 2007 divorce papers (not a public statement) which George Twitty filed: ("complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together"). A stock phrase, as has been admitted by KWW. But it sounds like it is saying something about the personalities of living people; G.Twitty is living, not a public figure. I do not think the quote should be used in this article.

The article contains material about "room switching every night" in the group that Natalee was with was with, and in the next sentence it names 2 living women as members of that group. So there is a clear cut BLP violation for 2 named women, and possibly of the 100 plus members of the party. There is nothing in the article about what the mother said in the media about her being chaste; quite correctly as it is not relevant. I understand some people are still steamed up about Beth Twitty, but it is an irrelevant partisan digression and most importantly a BLP violation to talk about room switching. The source does not mention room switching by the subject, but about 100 plus living people in general;, by implication the 2 who are named in the article. That should be removed.

Quoting Commissioner Dompig on Natalee Holloway's drinking, without noting that he said in 2007 she had died from an accidental overdose of alcohol, is misleading the reader as to the objectivity of the quoted source. It's taking sides in a controversy. Beth Twitty insisted that her daughter had been murdered. Dompig said Natalee had been had been drinking heavily, and had died from an accidental overdose of alcohol.

The two security guards who worked near Natalee's hotel, where the Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers initially said they had left Natalee, who were arrested then released are named, and it is alleged they had a certain reputation. Those men should not be named. BLP.

In relation to allegations by Beth Twitty/Holloway. the article says: "Dompig denied that any such statement was made, stating that Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers consistently denied having sex with Holloway.[158]" It may be true they denied it to him', but the Vanity Fair article is quite clear. According to Charles Croes the Aruban business man who was present when Van der Sloot gave his first account, van der Sloot said that Natalee had performed oral sex on him. The article is giving the impression all three said they had no sexual contact with Natalee. There is no need to mention the issue, but if it is broached Dompig's information should not be given as if it is the whole story.

The material on Beth Twitty/Holloway in the "Beth Twitty's involvement" section and elsewhere, needs to be condensed. The Vanity Fair article is a secondary source that says some of the things she said about the suspects having previous mysterious deaths associated with them was not true, so use that. And it is in the article she did apologize to Arubans if what she said had offended them. A couple of mentions are enough. There is too much recounting of news stories with back and forth assertion in which Beth Twitty is getting things wrong and Dompig is an objective voice of reason. If anything the opposite seems to have been the case, at least about the main issue (how Natalee died). That does not have to be stated in the article, but the opposite impression should not be given.

The current lede completely omits mention of essential points that are in the main body of the article._Overagainst (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, which essential points? I think the lead is OK as it is. It's only supposed to be a summary, you know. Britmax (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

An overview or summary, yes. Let me just give the lower half of my proposed new lede with text bolded where it contains points I think should be in the lede. The truly essential points are bolded and italicised

"The last sighting of Holloway by her classmates was outside a nightclub in Oranjestad, in a car with locals Joran van der Sloot and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe. The three men were placed under surveillance. When initially questioned, the three said they dropped Holloway off at her hotel, and denied knowing what became of her. Several days later they were arrested. In late June, van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers altered their account of their movements on 30 May, and said that they had taken Holloway to the beach, where van der Sloot and Holloway had remained when the Kalpoes left in the car. Van der Sloot said he last saw Holloway on the beach, and that he had walked home alone. The case was extensively covered in the US media although certain commentators thought the amount of attention it got was excessive. When in August 2005, suspects detained in the case were released without charge, Holloway's mother publicly accused the authorities of releasing men who had been involved in the murder of her daughter. In 2006, Aruba Police Commissioner Gerold Dompig stated that Aruban investigators believed Holloway had died from accidental alcohol poisoning after drinking heavily, and that her body had been illegally disposed of. To date, no one has been charged in the case by the Aruban authorities. On January 12, 2012, an Alabama judge declared Holloway legally dead. In 2012 the Supreme Court of Peru approved the extradition of van der Sloot to the United States, where he is under indictment on charges of extorting money from Holloway's family. The court ruled that van der Sloot must finish a prison sentence that he is currently serving in Peru before he can be extradited."_Overagainst (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's too much detail for the lead which I still consider fine as it is. Britmax (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A led should present an overview that can stand alone. The article revolves around the movements of Natalee and three men in the early hours of 30 May 2005, The three young men gave two 2 basic accounts of their movements which differ completely. You want the lede to continue giving only one of those accounts, which happens to be the account that they abandoned in late June 2005. Sorry , but IOM it would mislead the reader to continue doing that. Readers of the lede should not be in for a major surprise when they read the article in full.

Many details in the current lede are hardly necessary for giving a summary or overview of the case, and some seem to be there for their own sake. For instance (bolded text is IMO unnecessary detail. " Carlos'n Charlie's, a Caribbean chain restaurant and nightclub in Oranjestad" Upon further investigation by authorities, Van der Sloot was arrested twice on suspicion of involvement in her disappearance and the Kalpoes were each arrested three times. Special Agents from the FBI,[11] fifty Dutch soldiers and three specially equipped Dutch Air Force F-16 aircraft participated in the search.[12][13][14] In addition to the ground search, divers examined the ocean floor for evidence Aruban prosecutor's office reopened the case on February 1, 2008, after receiving video footage of Joran van der Sloot, under the influence of marijuana, making statements that Holloway died on the morning of May 30, 2005, and that he disposed of her body.[21] Van der Sloot later denied that what he said was true, and subsequently gave Greta Van Susteren an interview (the contents of which he later retracted) in which he stated that he sold Holloway into sexual slavery The family also called for a boycott of Aruba, which gained Alabama Governor Bob Riley's support but failed to gain widespread backing.[22][23_Overagainst (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I made some edits earlier that got reverted and maybe they were a little out of line. But I have now quoted text I think has problems, in the lede and the rest of the article at great length (the 7K one above). I have made general points too about the tone. I'm going to leave any interested parties to chew all this over, for a little while.

Here is how the article appeared on the main page as Today's featured article on October 21, 2008. The lede did not give the 'took her back to the hotel' story at that point. I suppose it is fair enough not to give any of the trio's stories of what happened in the lede, but now the lede has the first and, since June 2005 admittedly false, story of the three suspects--and only that one.

The current lede has "Holloway's family has criticized Aruban investigators throughout the search for a perceived lack of progress in finding her", but not the fact that Dompig said publicly in 2007 that it was an accidental overdose of alcohol that killed Natalee. In reality, Holloway's mother criticized Aruban investigators for not catching her daughter's murderers, while Dompig publically said that the suspects were not killers. In my opinion one should not introduce one side of an issue in the lede without any indication of the other side of the controversy in the lede. Actually I feel that is how one should proceed throughout the article, but especially in the lede. _Overagainst (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

When this article ran as TFA in 2008, the case, of course, was still ongoing. Obviously adjustments were made as we got new developments, probably most significantly at the time of the declaration of death, when things were shifted to the past tense. That's routine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a question of altering tense. The current lede has: "Holloway's family criticized Aruban investigators throughout the search for a perceived lack of progress in finding her." That is incorrect. In August 2005 (2 months after Natalee disappeared) the Holloway family spokesperson Beth Twitty/Holloway, publicly accused the authorities of releasing men who had been involved in the murder of her daughter. In 2005 Beth Twitty/Holloway said her daughter was dead, and that she had been murdered. The main body of the article is quite clear on that point. So the criticism was by no means "throughout the search for a perceived lack of progress in finding her". The lede is currently misrepresenting information that is in the article about what Beth Twitty/Holloway was on record as saying in August 2005.Overagainst (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt said: "Obviously adjustments were made as we got new developments". The current lede does not mention that Joran van der Sloot has been convicted of a 2005 murder in Peru. Given that the main article mentions Joran van der Sloot's murder conviction in Peru, not having that information in the lede can not be on the grounds of a BLP violation. BLP does not just apply to the lede; in principle, the information is OK for the lede if it is in the article . Wehwalt objected to my proposed text for the lede mentioning Joran van der Sloot's murder conviction, on the grounds of BLP. So it seems my my wording contained the BLP violation. OK I'll take a back seat. Wehwalt or anyone else can word some text about van der Sloot's conviction for murder in Peru, (based on information in the 'Van der Sloot kills in Peru' section in the main body of the article) with a view to putting it in the lede .-Overagainst (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr, Overagainst. We aren't going to make substantial rewrites to the lead. As far as I can tell from your wall of text above, your main point is that you disagree with the tone and slant of the article overall, not that something new has actually come up that is worth updating. Most of your proposed changes insert a POV into a neutral article and that's the problem here. Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Montanabw, but saying I want the lede to give an accurate overview of the rest of the article is by no stretch of the imagination saying I want to insert POV. You say "As far as I can tell from your wall of text above, your main point is that you disagree with the tone and slant of the article overall, not that something new has actually come up that is worth updating." My spaced para just before your last comment was very specific about altering the lede to include a brief summary of the article section. Van der Sloot kills in Peru. As the information is already in the article in the Van der Sloot kills in Peru section, how can putting the same information in the lede constitute POV?_Overagainst (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:UNDUE and false analogy. The information is not significant enough for the lede. You also need to read WP:LEAD to understand why it is written the way it is, and why speculative trivia and false analogies don't belong there. But I'm not arguing with you further; there is no consensus for your proposed changes, they are "been there, thought about that" by the editors who worked on this article. Dro the stick and let it go. We're done here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I (re)read the linked section WP:UNDUE, it is about the weight to be given to theories, or sides in a controversy. I'm afraid I don't see the relevance to my suggestion of having the information in the section Van der Sloot kills in Peru summarized in the lede, as that information is established fact, and already has it's own section in the article.

MOS:LEAD"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

As I read that guidance, a section already in the article such as Van der Sloot kills in Peru does not constitute a fringe theory or a trivial fact, and should be briefly summarized in the lead. I read false analogy. I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of it to having information that already has it's own section in the article briefly summarized in the lead. Let me just make clear that I am not trying to single out Aruba in any way. Police in the US, Britain and Italy have made worse mistakes than any that may have been made in this case.Overagainst (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm being very specific about a proposed change and I would request that it be addressed. The article section Van der Sloot kills in Peru is not being represented in the lede of the article. Montanabw who has signed off, has edited the article once, a revert. Wehwalt has 1300 edits well over 20% of the total. Could he explain why Van der Sloot kills in Peru is not summarized in the lede?_Overagainst (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It's worth having in the article, but putting it in the lede is unduly suggestive that VDS may have killed Natalee. Which may be true, but we don't know that. Though I rather suspect that insinuation is the reason you want it in the article. Additionally, on its facts, it has nothing to do with the case. Someone who was a suspect in the Natalee Holloway but who was never charged killed someone. Placing that in the body of the article is OK as we are covering the subsequent developments. Putting that in the lede would be suggestive and violate our BLP policy, which you are very fond of when it comes to Beth, and the Mountain Brookers, less so with J2K.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

By my reading of WP:BLPCRIME, there should have been serious consideration to not naming the Kalpoe brothers as suspects in the disappearance as they have not been convicted. If Beth is a sort of public figure through her voluntary media appearances (as you've said), then Jorans Van der Sloot, who has written a book and appeared on a Dutch tv show talking about his involvement with the investigation into Natalee's disappearance, is as well. So mentioning van der Sloot in relation to his arrest as a suspect in Natalee's disappearance and Beth's accusations of murder is OK I suppose.

I would not put in the article that "Someone who was a suspect in the Natalee Holloway but who was never charged 'killed' someone." because that is not the way things are put on WP. I don't see where BLP is relevant to having in the lede the information that a public figure (in relation to the case) has been convicted on a charge of murder, if there are published reliable sources.

I can't find any guidance at all to the effect that information for which there is a multitude of published reliable sources in relation to the subject, should be excluded from the lede for being 'unduly suggestive '. MOS:INTRO:"According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.[...] This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." It isn't WP:ORIGINALSYN ie"when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources" either as far as I can see. No new thesis is being introduced._Overagainst (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You are going on and on and on over a topic where you keep insisting on overturning existing consensus on the article. Your tendentious arguments fail to understand the spirit and substance of the situation. You are not going to win this, and the longer you argue the more you look like an obsessed lunatic, so please drop the stick and let it go. Montanabw^(talk) 23:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen above this issue has only been focused on since 29 July, and not very intensively (a day before a rejoinder). Perhaps you could be a little more patient. Consensus can be contrary to WP policy I presume, else why was an admin on the page.(Wehwalt only took this article off protected status in 2012). This isn't about a particular phrasing, as I am not insisting on a particular text being in the lede. Wehwalt cited BLP, yet the information that van der Sloot has been convicted of a 2010 murder in Peru has been reported by a multitude of published reliable sources. The principle Wehwalt is applying is not explicitly formulated in his cite: BLP,WP:BLPCRIME. I looked in WP:ORIGINALSYN, or MOS:INTRO, it's not there either. The 'spirit and substance of the situation' should exist in an explicitly formulated maxim of WP policy or guidance, and I can't find it. I am awaiting Wehwalt's reply._Overagainst (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's my experience on how BLP should be done. You avoid unwarranted inferences about living people if the matter's in dispute. In this case, Joran several times denied killing Natalee. I have not heard that his position has changed, and he is a living person to whom BLP applies. That's my experience with seven years as an editor here, five as an admin (almost), and having read a whole bunch of arbcom decisions, RfCs, and AN/I threads dealing with the issue, plus a fair amount of reading at the noticeboards.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There may be an argument about the brothers being named. The lede currently states "Van der Sloot was arrested twice on suspicion of involvement in her disappearance... Due to lack of evidence the three men were released without charge each time" That is the part of the article which might lead to inferences about Van der Sloot having been guilty of a murder that he says he is innocent of and has never been convicted of (but has wrote a book and talked publicly about). Van der Sloot chose to be a public figure in relation to accusations of murder and he is mentioned as a suspect in the case of Natalee Holloway. No one has a problem with that.

Could we have a link to the most relevant of those "arbcom decisions, RfCs, and AN/I threads dealing with the issue" please?. "You avoid unwarranted inferences about living people if the matter is in dispute." Quite. It is not in dispute that 'Van der Sloot has been convicted on a charge of committing a 2010 murder in Peru'. If it amounted to a living persons issue that information would not, could not be mentioned at all. As it is, the information is factual, has a multitude of reliable sources, and is currently in its own section of the article; I don't understand why it should not be in the lede on BLP considerations; they are not only applied to the lede. The issue, as I see it, is a POV fork within the article._Overagainst (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

'existing consensus'?

Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 5, 22 Something New About Joran van der Sloot.:_

"He is unquestionably notable now as his fame extends beyond the NH case. Poor taste on Joran's part, he should have nailed Lori Berenson, she's there in Lima and everything. Miraflores, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)". See here.

_Overagainst (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. For a long time, we had been having a discussion on whether VDS needed a separate article. The Flores case made it clear he was not just a part of the Holloway case. Thus he got his own article. Sorry if you're offended about Lori.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"Poor taste on Joran's part, he should have nailed...." Poor taste in selection of victims to be "nailed". Do you get a barnstar for using that kind of locker room language about young women becoming murder victims. Maybe it's that one for 'subtle humour' I see you have._Overagainst (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Van der Sloot kills in Peru section

The article and specifically the Van der Sloot kills in Peru section lacked info that he was convicted and sentenced for killing Flores. One edit summary for undoing my edit cited lack of consensus. But it is simple factual information relevant to what the section has already in it as the section already contains the text:"Van der Sloot pled guilty to murdering Ramirez on January 11, 2012". How can his conviction and sentence be omitted from a section that has the foregoing text already in it. It is absurd.

Another edit summary for undoing my addition of the information that Van der Sloot was convicted and sentenced for killing Flores was "This section is not about van der Sloot. It belongs elsewhere in the article if anywhere.". I think anyone who cares to look will see that I added the information to the section called Van der Sloot kills in Peru How the article section looked after I added the information can be seen here._Overagainst (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Silence does not equal consensus when you keep beating on the same drum over and over and we're all sick of listening to your endless obsession with this case. Go away now, please. You are annoying everyone. Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the sentencing should be mentioned. Without a one sentence mention of it here the van der Sloot element of the events just end in mid air with the guilty verdict. I don't think it needs more than that as any more belongs in van der Sloot's own article. Britmax (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I cant get over how conditioned everyone is when the truth is always much more simple then people believe. The TV is not to be believed. Lets look at the case and use critical thinking as your logic. If your child what murdered in another country do you think for one second that the case would be all over the US TV before and investigation, before an arrest was made, before any legal steps WITH a lawyer were taken in order to protect the innocent and make sure that the family of the victumes were not put in undue stress as they watch their loved ones face all over the TV causeing them to suffer enabiling them to file suit against the networks? If you know the news industry as well as I do you know the lawyers have final say as to what is broadcast. EVEN IF THEY WERE TELLING THE TRUTH the lawyers would not let this story air becoiaseu they would fear they could poison the jury or cause some evidence to be thrown out. Therefore they do not air things that are still under investigation when they know there is a possibility of a civil trial. This is fact, ask any laywer, they dont allow their clients to talk on the TV before any investigations or trial is completed.

Therefore when you see nancy grace on TV spouting off about this piece of evidence or that piece, rest assured its fake, and a made for TV production.

With that being said the photographic evidence is clear. The fact that Hillery Clinton admits she was there durring this event is your other big piece of evidence. Here are the images you need to review to know the murder was sinmply a HOAX.

Holloway Photographic evidence--DallasGoldBug 02:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)