Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway/Archive 2

message: This article contains many untruths and distortions. I have repeatedly tried editing over the last several months, though my edits are then replaced with incorrect info that is biased against Natalee Holloway's mother, Dr. Phil show and tape, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.133.106.199 (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your thoughts.  But this article is closely watched by many people with all sorts of views on the subject.  Nothing here survives long unless a consensus emerges that the edit is fair and accurate.--Wehwalt 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulk of article 

message: Some administrator needs to change the remarks supposedly given by Police Commissioner Gerold Dompig (at #26.)  These remarks obviously did not originate from Dompig as he inaccurately calls the Kalpoe brothers as "black kids."  Surely a police commissioner in charge of a kidnapping would know the nationality of the suspects; they happen to be Surinamese, not black.  Suriname borders Brazil, hence the brothers' Spanish/South American look.  Also, the fact that Natalee is from Alabama has no bearing on whether or not she would get in the car with two or three young men.  Not only are Dompigs remarks obviously fabricated, the source given (#26) does not mention anywhere that Dompig made such statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghipps (talk • contribs) 22:54, 23 November 2007
::At this time, it's ref #25 ... the scrux.com reproduction of the Vanity Fair article, and the text is directly quoted. I agree, though ... it doesn't sound like Dompig, and the Kalpoes aren't black, especially by Antillean standards (I might believe an American saying it, though). Does anyone have text of the Vanity Fair article independent of the scrux.com reproduction to verify the quote against?Kww (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dompig's black himself, as I recall.  I think the quote was as per the VF article, I remember it even though I don't have the magazine anymore.  But Dompig is putting in Holloway's perspective.  To NH, they might well have been black.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The full text of the article is still available online (Missing White Female: Fame & Scandal). The article does attribute the statement to Dompig, who is quoted just as it appears within the Wikipedia article. - auburnpilot talk 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we reference the scrux.com copy if the original is still there?Kww (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like we're currently referencing both. Ref #49 is a link to the original, but only page 2, rather than the article in its entirety. We might as well replace the link within ref49 with the link above, which shows the entire article, and replace the inline citations for ref25 with ref49 (if that makes sense). - auburnpilot talk 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the scrux.com reference and replaced it with the Vanity Fair article. I also switched the link so that it shows the article in its entirety, rather than just page 2.  - auburnpilot talk 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dompig's comments 

message: There seems to be a bot (Shadowbot) that automatically reverts changes made by 74.133.106.199 without regard to content. That seems to be a bit over the top to me.
Kww 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a spam bot and actually reverts anyone based on detected external links, not just that anonymous user. You can see the bot's contributions here. - auburnpilot talk 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that that is the purpose of Shadowbot, and its stated description. The last revert it did on this page didn't seem to meet that description at all.
Kww 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto revert bot 

message: We do seem to be having to do a lot of reverts lately.  Do you all think it is a good idea to request semi-protection?--Wehwalt 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't bother me to do so. The "natalee deserved it" camp seems to be out in full force, and I can't keep up with it.
Kww 10:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be discussion of this article on at least one discussion board.  I suspect they are then coming over here and inserting POV.  We need a cooldown period.  I put in the request by the way.--Wehwalt 11:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I did read the changes. Useless blank lines, and section deletions. The article did not need to have blank lines interspersed throughout to confuse the edit trail, and the section on "Natalee Holloway's Behaviour" needs to stay. Stop deleting it.Kww 13:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm new here, but followed the guidelines while editing - backing up my ONE SENTENCE in the Natalee's Behavior section with a link below to the article the correct info was taken from.  Holly'smum deleted my edit and called it slanderous??  What kind of circus is this? How many chances does a user get before they  are blocked from editing - I noticed that Holly'smum has received her last warning already? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.39.156.140 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Somewhere in the cloud of editing fury, all references beyond 17 got their formatting destroyed, and I can't figure out where the problem is.Kww 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe revert to a version two days ago, and I'll insert my edits, which weren't controversial (I hope) later?--Wehwalt 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be fixed now. There was an extra <ref> tag and a missing parameter. - auburnpilot talk 04:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference syntax problem 

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

message: Would it reduce the opposition to the section on Natalee's behaviour if we retitled the section "Allegations about Natalee Holloway's behaviour"? It does report them all as being allegations.Kww 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I doubt it.  I think the (misguided) objection is to the content, which they consider as defaming someone who can't (or, conceivably, won't) defend herself.  The content is sourced and relevant, and I will keep undeleting it.  I don't think Allegations is even a good term.  No one says Natalee or the other MB students broke the law.  But we need the section to have an understanding of the circumstances under which Natalee left that bar.--Wehwalt 11:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations, maybe? 

message: "On June 9, Van der Sloot and the Kalpoe brothers were arrested as suspects believed to be involved in a crime(s) of “reasonable suspicion of murder, manslaughter or intentional containment with the dead as consequence” against Holloway. John and Jones were released on June 13."
That probably got that way by a mistranslation from Dutch. Depending on context, "dood" can mean dead, death, or kill.Kww 02:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At some point, we should look at why we are having that quotation only for arrestees whose last names are Kalpoe or Van der Sloot, and not for the others.  Since all suspects were presumably arrested on suspicion of the same thing, I might suggest having that quotation for the first arrest only.--Wehwalt 12:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be better if someone can actually chase down the charges. Some of them may have been arrested for concealing information. The Dutch system isn't as ruthless with accessories after the fact as the American one. Kww 12:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look in some archives that don't charge and see if I can find anything.  But if I can't find that language, I may change some of the language, if there is no great objection.  It isn't helping the reader understand what went on.--Wehwalt 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange quote 

message: I'm not sure I care much for the image, but if we keep it, a better WikiEditor than me needs to caption it so that it doesn't lose context in two days when everyone has forgotten the new search. Me, I'd rather delete it.Kww 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support removing the image. I don't believe it adds anything to the article and even if it had a fair use rationale, I don't believe it would qualify for use in this article. - auburnpilot talk 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreewith AuburnPilot.  It is a rather pointless image.--Wehwalt 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. - auburnpilot talk 00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  de Kalpoe lineup 

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

message: Amazon.com lists Beth as "Beth Holloway" as the author of her upcoming book.  So how do we handle the name change in the article?  Do we change all the Twittys to Holloways?  Uggh.  By the way, the url is http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Faith-Natalee-Mothers-Testament/dp/0061452270/ref=sr_1_2/103-7068053-6185455?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180471803&sr=1-2--Wehwalt 21:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Call them Beth, David, Jug, and Natalee. Put in a front note that the first names are being used to prevent confusion, as we are discussing two Holloways, one full-time Twitty, and one part-time Twitty/Holloway. Kww 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably the easiest/least confusing option. I'd also suggest changing the first mention of "Beth Twitty" to "Beth Holloway Twitty". It's still technically correct, and will address any issues that come up if she's only referred to as Beth Holloway within sources. - auburnpilot talk 22:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest Beth (Holloway) Twitty.  While there is a custom, now more or less disused, for women to keep their maiden names as a middle name, especially among the upper classes, people don't usually keep the name of a former husband you are divorced from after you remarry.  Closest thing I can think of is Jackie Kennedy Onassis, who was not divorced, but widowed, from her first husband.  While the former Mrs. Twitty was called Beth Holloway Twitty by some news shows and articles, when she sued Joran, her legal name was Elizabeth Ann Twitty.  God knows what it is now.--Wehwalt 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem with that is that the article now just refers to "Holloway" and "Twitty" most of the time, and writing out "Beth (Holloway) Twitty" is going to get tiresome for both the reader and the writer. Kww 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant in the first reference to her, similar to what AuburnPilot proposed, then go to first names.  Alternatively, what about leaving things as they are, but putting a footnote noting that she's publishing a book under the name Beth Holloway, then modify that once we find out if that is now her legal name.--Wehwalt 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Twitty/Holloway

message: I've restored Kww's deletion of the Julia Renfro comment regarding Beth Twitty.  I think it is reliably sourced, and relevant.  We have a whole section on the concerns that Beth's actions have raised.  Here we have someone on the island, who presumably is well informed, commenting on it.  Kww noted in the edit note that Renfro was excessively slanted, I don't know that this is true.  Here we have a woman who according to the LA Times article, had ample opportunity to observe Twitty.  I think we can fine tune the wording, but this really sums up what the paragraph is all about.  In addition, the "get-go" part nicely parallels Dompig's comment about the three suspects, and if we can have the reporting of Jossy Mansur, another Aruba editor, there's no reason why Julia Renfro can't be included.--Wehwalt 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on a version that doesn't send my bias alarm ringing. Symmetry of phrasing is really a matter of the Dutch educational system ... I hear a lot of English phrases used over and over down here, and it comes from them having been drilled into the students from an early age. English education is mandatory, and nearly all of them use the same books. Kww 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I'd suggest reading the article and maybe some of Renfro's other statements will help.  Keep in mind that this is basically a criticisms paragraph, so there is leeway.  I'm sure we can get it right, right from the get-go!--Wehwalt 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Renfro comment

message: I'm looking for the discussion referenced in this edit summary, however I can not seem to locate it.  Perhaps I'm scanning the talk page too quickly but I don't seem to run across it.  Thanks in advance, Navou 02:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's old. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natalee_Holloway/Archive_1 Kww 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not even think to check the archives.  Wish me luck. Navou 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, the argument about Google rank no longer holds. It's dropped from number one to somewhere past 500 (I stopped looking at 500). Kww 03:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't believe it really adds much to the article, but I don't really care either way. Reading over the past discussion, I'm not necessarily convinced on the arguments for its inclusion, but I'll go with whatever decision is/was made. - auburnpilot talk 04:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It can go as far as I'm concerned.--Wehwalt 12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New group of editors, new consensus. Killing it. Kww 13:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Discussion 

message: On a completely unrelated note, this article could use some images. Obviously it'll be difficult to get free use images for any of the suspects, but they would certainly help. A few images of notable places would improve the article as well. Any ideas? - auburnpilot talk 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a couple of screenshots in the Joran van der Sloot article.  I suppose you could appeal for free use photos in the various message boards that deal with Natalee, asking them to upload, but that carries the risk of making this article a war zone again.--Wehwalt 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I certainly don't have any interest in writing it, but it seems that Beth Holloway has made enough news on her own to merit a separate article. --Dystopos 14:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't think she is notable enough of herself (other than as Natalee's mother) for it to be worthwhile and survive an AfD debate.  Maybe if her dating of John Ramsey leads to more attention.--Wehwalt 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe if the suspects are dismissed as such in the coming days, we can move this article to "The Natalee Holloway Affair", and merge Joran van der Sloot into it (he is only noteworthy because of Natalee), and we can have an enlarged section for Beth.  This really isn't a biography article, after all.  We make no mention of Natalie before she's 18.--Wehwalt 15:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, this article is about her disappearance, but the existing title is always going to be the first way people search for it or try to link to it. Anyway, regardless of how Beth entered the public eye, it appears that she is making news on her own, through her campaigning on behalf of other parents of missing children, by writing and promoting a book, and because news outlets put a spotlight on notorious figures regardless of the source of their notoriety. If Wikipedia were to create a biographical article, I think Beth is the more promising subject, with an extended section on her daughter's disappearance. --Dystopos 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that.  Let's see what happens with Beth in the next few months and see where it goes.--Wehwalt 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beth

message: Just a heads up...Haunting Evidence, a show on Court TV, premieres tonight with an episode featuring the Holloway case. The episode (Missing in Paradise) might draw some additional attention to this article. I doubt anything from the show will actually be relevant, or encyclopedic, but it may awaken some of the "concerned" editors we've dealt with in the past. - auburnpilot talk 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it too much to ask for a soft (no anonymous IP address) block in anticipation of the event? Kww 01:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Haunting Evidence]]

message: Renée Gielen subscribes to the Michael Moore theory of documentary production ... he doesn't lie, but can scarcely be accused of neutrality. When the Amigoe reports on his film, I don't think you can report on this summary the same way that you report on a straight news article.(Kww)
:I didn't.  That is why I was hedging with the "the article states" so many times.  A lot of these claims have been floating around the Internet for two years, by the way.  Let's see if they gain any currency now.  Your edits are fine, I may sand off the rough edges to make it smoother later.--Wehwalt 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the article more carefully.  Looks like Amigoe is reporting on the source material, the interviews themselves.  It does not sound like the film is ready yet.  I've rephrased.  If you think I'm off base, feel free to edit.--Wehwalt 18:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renée Gielen 

message: The link that was posted, then deleted earlier in the day might do as a see also.  I'd like to see some discussion on it.  It seems at least somewhat neutral in tone, slightly tongue in cheek, and contains a number of links to articles and other sources.  I'd like the editors working on this article to at least consider it (I had never seen it until today).
http://member.telpacific.com.au/rolyroper/NataleeHolloway/index.htm
--Wehwalt 20:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like nothing more than a personal website to me; along the lines of all those geocities, angelfire and AOL things we keep out. Actually reading it, I'd say "tongue in cheek" is a very nice way of putting it. The index page alone is full of commentary/editorial remarks that are in no way backed up by fact. Interesting read, but I wouldn't support including this link; it seems to be speculation without any sort of verification. - auburnpilot talk 21:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let it go then.--Wehwalt 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New source

message: Until her death is confirmed, we are operating under the assumption that she is a living person. It also can be assumed that but for her disappearance, she would not merit a biography on Wikipedia. In such cases, WP:BLP1E basically states that we should cover the event, not the person. Would it be a good idea to move this article to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, and rewrite it a bit so that it is not a biography, but an article on her disappearance? Then Natalee Holloway would redirect to the new article. I think that would bring it into compliance with the letter of the policy, and wouldn't be a horrible amount of work. Discuss. - Crockspot 21:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mistake silence for acceptance. You've been so active that it doesn't seem worth counterediting for a while. I was planning on letting the flurry slow down a bit, and then going through them all in one pass. That said, I haven't seen anything which jumped out as particularly bad. Kww 11:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead.  I'm pretty much done for now.  There's a few things I'm still looking to source, but it can wait.  For example, I'm not sure the whole jogger/gardener thing is right.--Wehwalt 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on [[WP:BLP1E]]

message: An editor keeps deleting the article's noting that Beth Twitty (as she then was) made a statement:  "because, after all, you know, the Holiday Inn security cameras were not working that night that the suspects took Natalee."
The thing is, she made that statement, and until proof comes in that it was a mistake, I think we have to leave it in.  It is relevant and sourced.  It satisfies WP:V.  Taking it out is censorship and POV.--Wehwalt 11:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you suspect that Beth meant isn't particularly relevant. She was clearly wrong about a huge number of things, but that doesn't mean we don't quote them. If you can source the contradiction, then we can add text to highlight the contradiction. That doesn't mean we delete sourced material. Kww 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: This is what O'Reilly said. Though it is not conclusive it is still important:
The Factor has learned from sources we have to protect that Natalee Holloway, the 18-year-old Alabama woman who disappeared two years ago in Aruba, died from cardiac arrest brought on by an overdose of cocaine.According to top law enforcement officials, Natalee ingested the cocaine with Jordan van der Sloot and one of the Kalpoe brothers. Her body was then disposed in the ocean. With us now, FOX News anchor Geraldo Rivera, who you can see Saturday and Sunday at 8 p.m. in "The Factor" slot.And I've got to give a viewer advisory here that this is information that "The Factor" has not been able to confirm independently because there is no body. But law enforcement officials believe that exactly what I said, that Natalee took a massive overdose of cocaine and when she died these these boys disposed of her body. O'Reilly factor and Geraldo
Muntuwandi 04:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the absence of a body or a confession, gossip is all that's left. I think as controversial as Mr O'Reilly can be, and he definitely does spin sometimes, he still has some credibility when it comes to his sources. His show is the number one news talk show in cable television, I am sure they have a very strict vetting process about what gets to go on air. Muntuwandi 04:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that this is an unconfirmed rumor, by O'Reilly's own admission, I don't believe it would be appropriate to include such allegations just yet. Until sources are provided, O'Reilly could be pulling this from anywhere; it's merely unconfirmed conjecture. - auburnpilot talk 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is unlikely that there will be any new evidence coming out. So these reports are all that there is. There has always been the feeling that all parties involved know a lot more than what has been told to the Media. This article needs to reflect the latest information comming out. I see no problem with placing this in the article as long as we add the caveat the O'Reilly said "that his source cannot independently confirm" but that it is from a "top law enforcement officer". Thus we do not attach any more credibility to it than does O'Reilly.Muntuwandi 05:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well . . . I wouldn't put it in personally, but I won't stand in the way if an emerging consensus says put it in.  If it were sourced, say, to Dompig or Jacobs or some actual person, I'd be OK with it, with appropriate caveats.  But without that, it seems to me to be speculation.  We do have some of it in the article, see Dompig's statement just before he left the case.  But at least we know who said it.  As I said, I'd leave it out, but I don't have strong views on the subject.  I'd also support putting it in if this story gets "legs", which it has not done to date.--Wehwalt 09:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is the emerging consensus on what happened to Natalee. Dompig basically says the same thing but his statement is hidden in the paragraphs and does not give as much detail as O'Reilly. I think it should be included. Many people believe that Van der Sloot or someone else  may have harmed her. But this theory states that she was not murdered by anyone but died accidentally from an OD. This is significant because Van der Sloot may have disposed of the body. What the motivations to do so are  unknown. Instead  he could have simply taken her to hospital. So as O'Reilly mentioned he would still have a case to answer. I think this is the most important information to come out in two years.Muntuwandi 13:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm.  I'm torn.  The thing is, we don't know the source; it could be Dompig, in which case what you say is an emerging consensus is really Dompig repeating himself.  And, when you come right down to it, it is a guess, as far as we know.  How do you prove that a missing individual had a heart attack?  We cannot work on guesses or feeling.  All the same, what would editors think if we added a sentence about the one on Dompig's allegation stating "A similar theory, without a named source, was detailed by Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly factor. on July (whatever), 2007."--Wehwalt 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with it is that the comment is completely unverifiable. Without the ability to confirm the claim, and O'Reilly even stated it could not be confirmed, can we consider O'Reilly a reliable source in this instance? To me, this seems like nothing more than somebody making a remark in a blog...it's self published and unconfirmed/unverifiable. Something about it doesn't seem appropriate, but I'm not sure if policy agrees with me. - auburnpilot talk 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  I am trying to find a difference between Dompig's comment, which we reported, and O'Reilly's reporting of someone else's statement to him, other than the obvious named/unnamed.  I'd like to be consistant.--Wehwalt 00:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we should ever count Fox News as a reliable source, but obviously precedent is against me on this. Kww 01:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is evident from the case that there has always been information that has been withheld from the public. One of the Kalpoe brothers was said to have confessed and then retracted his confession. So it is entirely possible that one of the policemen leaked this information. That is all speculation though. What is important is that the case was generally considered a homicide, but now it is being thought of as an accidental overdose.Muntuwandi 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Kennedy assassination theories has several theories but probably only one is correct, maybe none is correct, and they are all just hearsay or rumours. There is no harm in reporting speculation as long as it is mentioned that it is a theory that has not been verified.Muntuwandi 03;22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far.  There are many theories about what happened to Holloway, from export for use in the white slave trade to dismemberment followed by dumping the body parts in a crab trap.  The evidence for each is virtually nil, and the idea of reporting each conspiracy theory appalls me.  I think the Kennedy thing is rather sui generis.  The Natalee affair is bound by more conventional rules.  I'm coming down on the side that rumor is not made notable by the fact that the rumermonger is Bill O'Reilly.--Wehwalt 01:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: While it's true that most of the content in that section is relevant, the term "behavior" sounds negative and judgemental, and understandably comes across as victim-blaming. Particularly when the section is essentially just a list of unflattering information and allegations about Natalee and her classmates, without any other discernable common purpose.  There is no similar section called "Joran's behavior". 
Since most of the "Natalee's Behavior" section has to do with Natalee's drinking and speculation about an alcohol/drug  overdose, I think it would be better to retitle it something like "Dompig's Theory" or "Theory that Natalee Died from Alcohol and Possibly Drugs". That way the section is focusing on a specific, relevant subject, and is not just a collection of anything that makes Natalee look bad.      
Then, the information about jello shots should be moved elsewhere in the article.  
And I'm not sure the allegation about MB students as a group behaving badly in Aruba and not being invited back, is worthy of inclusion at all- any more than are activities by Joran's friends that have no known connection to the disappearance.  Jon 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Natalee's behavior has been the focus of many reports and theories as to what happened that night. All of it is properly sourced, and in my opinion, very relevant to the case. I'm not saying her behavior resulted in her death, and I don't believe the article does either, but many have asserted such a connection may exist. I'm not opposed to a title change, but Theory that Natalee Died from Alcohol and Possibly Drugs is a bit overkill. The section is about Natalee's behavior, so I'm not sure what title would better describe the content. - auburnpilot talk 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with AuburnPilot.  In addition, the drinking and partying is necessary to an understanding of why Holloway would get into a car with three men she barely knew.  Some adhere to the theory that Natalee went swimming while drunk and never returned.  I think the article is quite restrained in its discussion of the MB kids.  As for Joran, the focus of this article is on that weekend in Aruba and what came after, both for the MB kids and for J2K.  Do you want to put in that he aced his finals?  Besides, this article is about Natalee Holloway.--Wehwalt 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidently, I am not sure what in the article makes Natalee look bad.  She drank.  Even the MB kids admitted that.  She was entitled to drink, she was of legal age in Aruba, and she had just graduated, and by her parents' account, done quite well.  More power to her.  It does not make her look bad to say she drank.--Wehwalt 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, what are "jello shots"?--Timtak (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alcohol in gelatin, which is licked by one person off another's midriff.  So I'm told.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been told correctly. See Jello_shot#Gelatin_shots and Body shot. - auburnpilot talk 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Natalee's Behavior" section should be retitled and some contents moved   

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

message: I think "Aruban" is fine. Judges in the kingdom rotate, so a judge on an Aruban court may consider the Netherlands, the Antilles, or Aruba to be "home", but while they are on duty in Aruba, they speak with the authority of the Aruban legal system.Kww (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with that.  It had been my understanding that in '05 they brought in judges from the Netherlands Antilles because of the Paulus involvement.  Joe Tacopina last night on Greta said that the same judge who released Joran in '05 heard the case yesterday.  I am trying to avoid having a reader unclear as to whether the judge was actually from Aruba because of the discussion of Paulus's supposed influence.  Also, there was an article a while back that said almost all judges on Aruba were from the Netherlands because of the small population on Aruba leads to few people becoming eligible for a judgeship.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. On the other hand, many people don't seem to grasp that Aruba has its own legal code and courts. Even when a case gets appealed to Den Haag, it is judged according to the intersection of kingdom law and Aruban law, not Dutch law. It is true that most judges are from the Netherlands, both here and in Aruba. You can get a degree in law from the University of the Netherlands Antilles in Curacao, and that degree covers Aruban and Antillean law, so it is at least possible for an Aruban to become a judge without ever going to the Netherlands. In practice, it doesn't happen.Kww (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand.  We can play around with the phrasing, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aruban" judge 

message: I see Andries has proposed a merge with the Joran van der Sloot article.  I've suggested this before.  There is little in the Joran article that is not in this one.  The useful info in the Joran article that is not already here won't take up much room.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any new information at all. What would be added from a merge?Kww (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here. I haven't read the Van der Sloot article word-for-word, but in skimming through it, nothing stood out that hasn't been covered in this article. A simple redirect seems appropriate. - auburnpilot talk 20:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only thing that I see that isn't already in this article is Joran's book.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't realise that we didn't have a mention of that in this article. I would supporting adding a mention and then redirecting. We probably should have redirects for the Kalpoe brothers as well ... I'm surprised that they don't already exist.Kww (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with all that.  Frankly, the JVDS just serves as a target for those with a strong POV on the case who want the article to reflect it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Satish Kalpoe and Deepak Kalpoe already redirect here. As for Joran's book, I was looking at this article and I'm not really sure where to mention it. Under the Physical search section, it is mentioned in passing: " Investigators did not comment on what prompted the new search[51], except that it was not related to Van der Sloot's book". It certainly doesn't need its own section. - auburnpilot talk 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it's not time to reconsider the idea of changing this from a biographical article to an article about Holloway's disappearance and the subsequent investigation and sensationalism. This is already the heart of the article as the girl's previous accomplishments are of no note. Redirecting the numerous minor players in the drama to an article called, say Disappearance of Natalee Holloway seems more evident than the current merger proposed. We might keep a short article with this name providing some biographical context and preserving the current categorization. --Dystopos (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would still oppose the move.  People are still going to search for the NH article, the information they want should be where they are looking for it.  I don't think it would change the now and then battles we have with those seeking to preserve Natalee's good name (or whatever they are doing).  And there is very little if anything to say about her on a biographical basis.  She lived, she went to school, she went to Aruba, something bad happened.  I would support redirecting the JvdS article here, but do not support a move to a disappearance article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. Natalee Holloway redirecting to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway would be just as available and findable as an article named Natalee Holloway. As long as the base article hasn't got a biased name, I don't care much what the base title is. I can see an argument that redirecting all the personal names to a central article about the case itself is the most balanced and straightforward approach.Kww (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As auburnpilot said in discussion above, Natalee Holloway is the most likely search term.  It makes sense to have the article there.  And if we keep a stub at "Natalee Holloway" and move the material to the disappearance article, we force the reader to click another time to get there.  --Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference is still for the article to remain at Natalee Holloway rather than Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, but I'm not as opposed to the move as I previously have been. I think the current title is preferable in terms of linking, as most references to this situation are to Natalee by name, rather than the case itself. Looking at the main space links to this article, only 5 of the 32 articles refer in some way to "the disappearance of Natalee Holloway" whereas the rest refer to Natalee specifically. To me, it makes more sense to have it at the current title as the most common usage. Of course a redirect would solve this, but I still prefer it here. - auburnpilot talk 18:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also some possibility that the matter may be solved, or that (though I doubt it) someone will be convicted of her killing.  Would we then change "Disappearance" to "Killing" or "Murder"?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are good points, and the precedent for entitling similar events is small. I thought it was worth bringing up in discussion, though. --Dystopos (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it was worth discussing, as I think there will be a time when the title of this article will change. Hopefully there will be more of a resolution to the case that will help decide where it will be moved, but I don't think we're there yet. - auburnpilot talk 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: The category "Possibly living people" says "Category:Living people (don't include there);
Category:Disappeared people (don't include there)".  However, this article has been placed into all three categories.  Is this proper? *Dan T.* (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea.  Per the discussion, see section 11 above, we can't delete her from the Living People category or Jove will smite us with thunderbolts.  She is undoubtedly disappeared, and has not been proved to be dead (I know there are official opinions on the subject, but we'll wait for proof or a judicial declaration).  I don't have a problem with deleting from "possibly living people".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that, if it's unknown whether she's living or dead, that the appropriate category for her would be "Possibly living people" rather than "Living people", with the latter being a POV statement that you think she's actually living. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to do with that.  We're under orders from admins (again, see Section 11 of this talk page) not to remove the living people category unless there's confirmation she's dead.  Not holding my breath here.  Personally, I think she's been holding her breath for quite some time, but what do I know?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

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