Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway/Archive 3

message: FYI, Beth Holloway and some of Natalee's family (I believe here brother) will be on Oprah tomorrow afternoon; the show was taped today. I don't expect it to be a source of any new information, but it may provide a reference for some of the information already in the article, including quotes from Beth. - auburnpilot talk 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've heard.  I expect a transcript will be put up on one of the discussion boards, I can't watch it live.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the transcript.  I didn't see anything particularly noteworthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't able to watch it live, but Tivoed it and watched lasted night. It was a lot of fluff, and nothing new. - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oprah

message: Do we want to do anything the Amigoe article here  in which two US private investigators claim that NH was sexually abused and impregnated by her stepfather, as well as other allegations?  I would prefer to wait and see if it gets picked up by off-island media.  Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Dompig's statement that the two investigators are simply "looking for their 15 minutes of fame" is likely accurate. Neither the article nor the investigators provide anything other than speculation, and I believe WP:BLP comes into play here. This is very contentious material, and I agree with you that we should wait for more reliable sources if such assertions are ever to find their way into the article. - auburnpilot talk 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think it is very different from the July Amigoe article.  Saying that you sexually abused a child (as Natalee would have been then, as under 19 in Alabama) is about the worst thing you can say about someone.  If the story gets legs, then we can reassess, but as of right now, it is a wild theory.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AgreedKww (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2008 Amigoe article

message: I don't understand the need to war on this one. It is a quote from the Vanity Fair article. This is an article about Natalee Holloway, not the disappearance, not her trip ... it's about the girl. We've hashed that out enough times. For an 18-year-old, that is a pretty meaningful descriptor. So where's the beef?Kww (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that we have no way of verifying it, and the first paragraph of the VF story is a story being told by Beth Twitty.  While that by itself does not make it unbelievable, we also can't verify it via school records and so forth.  I would have no objection to saying, in the body of the story, rather than in the lede, that "according to her mother, Holloway was a straight-A student."  Incidently, how does it make it more balanced?  And also, why have you never edited any article except this one?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The line appears in an editorial description by the author of the article, not in a quote by Beth. It's at least as reliable as the rest of the article.Kww (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still troubled by the idea of describing someone's educational status when we can't independently verify it.  Educational privacy laws and so forth.  One of the Jena Six was described as an honors student with no criminal record.  Turns out that was oh for two.  As for the editorial voice, yes, I agree, but it is telling the story of Beth Twitty's Memorial Day weekend, which is obviously coming from her.  The whole thing about driving at 110 mph straight through Mississippi has had no independent confirmation and has been told about four different ways (that she was pulled over, that she called 911, that she had a police escort . . . )  In addition, I read that "editorial voice" as setting up the first few paragraphs as "this is the official story" which he then spends the next 9 pages questioning, though he does not mention the straight A issue again.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidently, I noticed that the numeric user is signing his posts "Jon", and we remember Jon and JonAaron's posts.  Is this a sockpuppet issue?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that since we have no means of checking her academic history, that "reported to be a straight-A student" is best.  And given the fact that we report that she may have been to rehab, we have every right to be cautious about whether that is fact or not.  And what is the point of discussing it if you are going to unilaterally make the change?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Straight-A" student edit war 

message: The girl has been gone for 3 years now, and by her description she's obviously the kind of girl who would call her parents over an abduction or anything unless confined, even so, if she was still alive and confined, it would be in the island, proof she hasn't left there. I am assumin she is dead, may I put it on their? --Alisyntalk 02:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can provide reliable proof that she is dead, we cannot call her dead; she is officially missing. Your assumption, though likely accurate, is original research. - auburnpilot talk 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The current lede cleverly evades the question of being dead or alive.  We simply have no reliable sources that prove she was dead.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 yrs... she wouldn't be kept for that long, she would've called her parents if lost, I think she is dead. --Alisyntalk 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably you are right.  However, we don't know for sure.  All we can do is report what is out there, and not report our own opinions.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead 

message: I'd favor getting rid of the paragraph where Dave Holloway (sourced to his book) alleges that Dennis Jacobs wanted to know how much money he had, and asked again four months later (no doubt when you couldn't throw a stone on Aruba without hitting a TV crew).  I think it is undue weight.  The fact that we include that, when the Twittys and Holloways have made claims against everyone from the PM on down, is questionable.  It really adds nothing to the article but a tinge of alleged corruption, none of which has been substantiated.  I would say either get rid of it, or start a new section of "Allegations by Holloway's Family" and include that, the "criminals" comment, the gang rape/kidnap, and things of similar ilk. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there are other sources to substantiate the claim, I have no problem removing the allegation against Jacobs. I'd certainly prefer removing it over including the others.  - auburnpilot talk 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dave and Jacobs

message: We shouldn't update this article every time somebody claims to have cracked the case, are we are going to be at this for years. If, after presentation, De Vries's evidence has credibility, that's the time to add it.Kww (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. This has been covered by numerous print-news outlets, and I've seen coverage on both CNN and FNC. If it turns out to be nothing, we can certainly revise it later, but I believe it is worth mentioning right now. We have somebody claiming to have a confession on tape, Beth Holl-Twitty has traveled to the Netherlands to be a part of the program, and the Aruban investigator has stated that the "truth is surfacing" (or something like that). I don't believe blanking the section is the correct course of action. - auburnpilot talk 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored a decently written version of it. I put De Vries and Geraldo Rivera in the same class of reporter, so I'm not holding my breath waiting for credible information. On the positive note, it might give me something to talk about in Tuesday's Dutch class.Kww (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come to the reluctant conclusion that is better to include something than to have to revert garbage every five minutes.  Absent new developments of credible information, I suggest we keep it more or less status quo, short article in body, nothing in lede, and see what happens on Sunday.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, his reputation is rather mixed.  But let's wait for Sunday and see what there is to do then.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to base our opinions on Peter on very different sources. On the bright side, we clearly agree on the encyclopedic course to follow. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: PS Kww's "Geraldo" comparison borders on a WP:BLP violation. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well, take it up on his talk page if you are aggrieved.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aggrieved? Whatever gave you that idea? I personally couldn't care less. Some facts for you: (1) BLP violations are a Foundation issue and (2) BLP violations could lead to problems for the editor in question should the aggrieved party (i.e. De Vries) take issue. Please comment on the edits, not on (your guesses about) the editor. Thank you. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aggrieved does not imply personal anger.  It is a legal term.  If you feel there is a problem, take it up with Kww on his talk page (I see you posted there, though not on this point) or take it up with an admin.  As AuburnPilot is an admin, and he didn't flag it, I'd say you're a bit off point here.  And besides, this is a talk page, and Kww has expressed his opinion as to De Vries' journalistic credibility as a stated reason for making the edit he did.  His judgment call as an editor, perfectly proper.  Not a BLP issue in the least, because it is not improper to compare someone to Geraldo.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Admin or not, I can't see how anybody would find the comment "I put De Vries and Geraldo Rivera in the same class of reporter" to be a BLP violation. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Regarding his mixed reputation: he is the Netherlands' main crime reporter and has solved or has helped solving some high profile Dutch cases and did some important revelations, as one can read on his page. So he is to be taken seriously. On the other hand, people have accused him of being (or having been) a bit too close with some criminals, as can be read on his Dutch wikipedia page. Also, he is bit of a sensationalist; he overplayed his hand once (as far as I remember) with his investigation into JFK's death. He claimed his two hour special would shed new light and provide new evidence etc (he didn't claim he had solved it though). Afterwards critics said it was just the same old stuff (of course the critics might have been wrong, I don't know). Of course then his reputation wasn't at stake as much as it is now. Mtcv (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously he's a controversial figure.  But it doesn't matter.  As a practical matter, we've done our duty to the reader by posting a summary of what is happening and we are sitting back and awaiting developments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I know nothing about De Vries, 20/20 is typically considered quite reliable, and they are airing a 90 minute special on Monday night, titled "20/20: The Final Hours of Natalee Holloway". If they're latching on, maybe De Vries actually has something. - auburnpilot talk 17:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May well be something to it ... the addition of the confession by Joran is legitimate, and seems to be a valid summary of the Dutch.Kww (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensationalist garbage 

message: And the page has again been moved without discussion, and again reverted back. - auburnpilot talk 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For anybody who doesn't wish to go searching all over the place for the newest discussion, it's on the BLP noticeboard.  asserts that the article title is a violation of policy, and I've refuted that claim. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With all respect to the editor, we've thrashed this out repeatedly here.  I must say that Mira Gambolputty has some, um, innovative interpretations of WP practice and policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mira seems to have left the project, so it's not likely an issue anymore. - auburnpilot talk 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The perennial move discussion

message: This article is being failed under [Fail Criteria] for the following reasons:
* The article has been the subject of recent or ongoing edit wars
::Comment – The conflict over the name of the article and aspects of the subjects biography, in the space of time since the article has been nominated, meet this criteria.  It also sees quite a number of significant edits each and every day, if the recent history is any indication, leading me to believe it isn’t necessarily stable, either.
Additionally, this article has other problems such as a copious lack of images and being an on-going subject.  To prevent this problem, the editors may wish to create a new article which references “new developments” as they come along.  This would remove one potential element of instability.
If you disagree with my review, feel free to renominate the article -- jackturner3 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe this article meets the quick-fail criteria, and your review does not come close to being "extensive enough to allow the article to be renominated and pass". The move was not an edit war, but an overzealous editor who misunderstood policy, and has now retired from the project. Also, instability isn't a quick fail criteria. I assume the quick fail criteria you are alluding to is "The article specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint" but this is not an unfolding event, and most certainly doesn't have a definite endpoint. Articles are expected to change as the subject changes, and a new development in this case was reported within the past few days. It doesn't change "significantly from day to day". - auburnpilot talk 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that I don't know how to fix it based on this review. Especially the "lack of images". What images would we need? A picture of "Carlo's and Charlies"? The landfill? Someone licking a belly-shot?Kww (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone licking a belly-shot? I'll volunteer to go get that one. ;-) I uploaded an image of the infamous light house  back in July/July 2007 (:Image:ArubaLighthouse.jpg), but I've been unable to find any other free images that are remotely relevant to this article. Flickr has one image of Carlos'n Charlie's in Aruba, but it isn't free. - auburnpilot talk 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a map of Aruba, or at least of the western half, with Oranjestad, the Holiday Inn/Marriott area, and the lighthouse locations noted?  But I agree, the editor who reviewed this article is being silly.  This article is exhaustively footnoted, to a FA standard if you ask me.  Why don't you two colloborate on the belly shot?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If the editors do not feel my review of this article is appropriate, they may renominate the article without making any changes and see if anyone else is willing to review the artilce.  As to my review, the incident over Ms. Holloway's grades was described as an "edit war" and it was sufficiently recent in my opinion for caution.  And, while instability is not a quick fail criteria, the article is frequently edited, which gives me concern.  As for suggestions on how to improve the article, the editors oviously feel there is no further need to improve the article to bring it to GA, so for that reason, I don't seen any particular reason to add any comments.  However, for those who don't have any idea what images would be appropriate, you might try photos of the police investigation, images of her parents, the suspects, and on and so forth.  The suggestion about the map is also a good idea.  But, since I'm "being silly," renominate it.  I won't review it this time.  But I still don't think it's stable enough to be GA quality, much less that the article itself is worthy of FA standard. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to refuse to give a review, please don't review articles at all; allow somebody who is actually willing to take the time. - auburnpilot talk 17:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: First, I still think this article meets the quick fail criteria, so if I were to review it again, I would still fail it.  Thus, saying that I will not review it further is my way of telling you that you should get a second opinion.  I'm not going to recommend it for one because I don't think it's necessary.  Second, the quick fail issue aside, the article's instability and it's lack of images make me reluctant to promote.  Third, I don't appreciate your comment as to what I should and should not be doing on wikipedia.  If you don't like my opinion, write better articles, then I won't have occasion to opine as I do, but don't assume I don't take this seriously. -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the lack of stability is an unactionable complaint. How are editors supposed to keep it stable? Stop being a wiki? Andries (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my opinion.  As I have stated, I don't think this article is ready for GA for the reasons I stated above.  The authors are free to renominate it if the objections I have raised are addressed and I will reassess the article at that time, or, since the authors of this article find my review to be "silly," they are free to renominate it to allow another editor to review the article if other editors feel so inclined. -- jackturner3 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.  Thank you for whatever time, effort, and commitment you used on your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: - Joran van der Sloot appears to be a real piece of work. Is there more material or background that can be brought out about his behavior before and after the disappearance? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have more reliable sources of information that bring up things that aren't in the article, feel free to bring them up. The main problem in editing this article has been the vast amount of mudslinging from all three sides, and sorting out things that are actually verifiable is difficult.Kww (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially when the editor originally posted  that Joran was a scumbag and then got all resentful over my talk page and Kww's and AuburnPilot's because we each deleted his personal abuse!  However, please feel free to contribute to the article in good faith and respecting other editors and WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: apparent piece of work

message: I have removed a blog as an external link. Just because it has been here "along time" does not impress me for going against policy. Also the living category says that people who are listed in the missing category should not be listed in the living category. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection before was that you also removed the Scrux EL.  As for the living category, see section 11 above, we are under orders from Admins to keep that category in.  Suggest you take it up with the BLP patrol.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections to removing the blog, as it appears to be a fairly run-of-the-mill Natalee blog. The Scrux link, however, should remain. - auburnpilot talk 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.  I'm just concerned about the sudden rash of drive-by editors we are getting.  I suspect we will continue to see them through at least Sunday.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of blog

message: Can a link please be provided to where the "Office" instructed certain editorial oversight for this article? I have read alot of the history but it looks like ancient history at this point. At some junction it will be time to move on. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natalee_Holloway&curid=2025310&diff=188654833&oldid=188652212#Suggest_this_page_be_treated_with_the_concern_relevant_to_a_living_biography
Until she is declared dead, we are treating that request from Gerard as being in force.Kww (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that. I don't see how you take that to mean that this article page should be included in the category living persons? We should treat this article based on BLP guidelines as far as what material is included, but if this article is included in category missing persons, per that category page, it should not be included in category living persons. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested that David comment on exactly what he requested of editors in this regard. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is good.  But why is it even a good idea to delete the category?  Seems to me it does no harm.  It may or may not be an anamoly, but what's the harm, really?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not the appropriate category, thats why. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In no way is it inappropriate but your removal of it is. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the category disappeared people, living people category should not be included, but I will wait a while longer. If there is no reply from David about what his specific directions were in this regard, it should be removed. why is this even an issue. There are multiple edits who live here and protect this article like their child so little chance of BLP issues going unnoticed. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people who watch for BLP violations view the related changes for that category. Even if David's comments were no longer valid, keeping the category has more benefits than removing it. - auburnpilot talk 16:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like what beside being against a stated logical guideline? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if guideline is correct, but against what a category page says that makes good sense. The living category makes a unsourced POV while the other category does not. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I did not say office actions do not matter, and there are no owners of this article. I don't see any guideline that prohibits the category from being included, as the text on a category page is not a Wikipedia guideline but a general rule of thumb for the category's use. The benefit would be allowing those who patrol for BLP violations to continue to see changes to this article within the related changes link I provided above. Also, it does not make a POV statement. There is no proof that Holloway is dead, and she is presumed alive until declared otherwise. - auburnpilot talk 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You said that even if David's comments (which people took to many to keep the living category in) don't apply, so that is pretty pickyyouwn. Also, it is POV since it implies she is living when in fact that is not known. Just because you can't prove a person is not alive does not prove they are. This person has disappeared, correct? I would not agree with listing her in the dead people category unless that can be proven. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My original thoughts when this question was asked at the BLP Noticeboard was that both categories applied.  It was pointed out that the categories say that someone in one category should not be in the other.  I initially agreed with that, but looking into it more, I believe both categories should remain and that notice in the category pages should be relooked at.  We need to assume until a reliable source says she is dead, that she is alive and treat the article as such.  Jons63 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Though I was initially not so wild about the idea, I'm happy to have the BLP patrol here.  While we have at least three people who regularly look at this article, we all sleep (sorry, Kww) and have lives.  We're coming up to what I expect will be a trying couple of days for this article, with the De Vries and 20/20 pieces.  We're going to get a lot of drive by editors, as well as those with an agenda.  The more eyes on this article, the better.  Frankly, I'd love to have semi protection, but I doubt there are grounds yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody know what the satutes are for when somebody can be declared legally dead? So we wait until that happens and then remove the category? Listen, if everybody except me wnats to include the category then fine, I am the jackass in here and I will desist. It just seems that at some point, I guess we haven't reached it, the ownous should be for proving she is alive rather than disappeared which is the current facts on the ground. Like I said, however, I will drop this point as other editors disagree. Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much different than it is in the States. Someone will have to file a petition with the Aruban court asking for the declaration to be made. The court will consider it and grant it, if it seems justified in the face of the evidence. If no one ever makes the petition, the declaration will never be made. Usually, the purpose of such a declaration is to divide an estate or collect on a life insurance policy, but those aren't likely to come into play with a teenager. If someone successfully filed a wrongful death suit, a declaration by the Aruban court of the death might come in handy, but that day may never come.Kww (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing based on "Office asked us to do this"

message: I've uploaded the reward poster to .  I suggest we also include the last known photo of Natalee (the one of her dancing in CnC's) and I'll try to think of one or two more.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wehwalt, that image is from an unreliable source and should not be added. What is going on here? I asked that the image be deleted. Can anybody help with that? Thank you--24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't delete images because they come from an unreliable source. The poster in question was released by the Holloway family, specifically Beth, and the source of the image doesn't change that. There is also another poster that was more widely used (seen here), but using both would probably be overkill. - auburnpilot talk 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So images from unreliable sources are ok? I better just leave now. You are going to do whatever you will with this article regardless of anything. Tell me again how you don't own this article together. Nice work. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly your prerogative to leave, but if you remain, please give Wikipedia:Civility a read. We've done some good work on this article, and the image's source being unreliable doesn't change the fact that the image exists. Are you saying that if I called up Beth Twitty today and had her fax me a copy of the image it would be magically ok? The reliability of a source doesn't change the context of an image, as it does textual content. There is no bias or falsehoods presented in an image of a reward poster. - auburnpilot talk 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It absolutely does make a difference where content, either written, or an image comes from. The image from the geocities external link site has not been altered? --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it has not been altered. If you do an online search for the poster, you will find many independent accounts of the poster's text. - auburnpilot talk 17:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if you eqake good work to ownership of this article, then you have done excellent work imo. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. When you're ready for civil discussion, please let me know on my talk page. - auburnpilot talk 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Can somebody remove the 2nd paragraph "Beth Twitty's attorney, John Q. Kelly, indicated that he has little faith that the supposed evidence will prove pivotal to the case and suggests that it will be quickly debunked." since that is not in the citation. Thanks! --nyc171 (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was replaced by another one and ABC apparently used the same link. I've updated the reference to point to a copy of the original article, hosted on another site. - auburnpilot talk 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it should be noted that the friend whom van der sloot claims dumped the body may not be the same person who has come out saying he wasn't in aruba at the time.  the friend has not been positively identified yet, according to the source used in this section 74.131.53.9 (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult to say.  And if the events did not transpire as Joran stated, that's another possibility.  It is difficult to figure out how to phrase without sounding POV or indicating belief.  We might do best just to await developments.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daury from Rotterdam had a different surname. The surname was "beeped away" in the TV documentary. Andries (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Different from whom?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Different from the surname that Joran mentioned in his confession. Andries (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't know what that is.  He mentioned a Daury.  This guy felt he needed to have a press conference about it.  I've rephrased it though, hope it helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jan-Feb 2008 new developments section

message: I don't see how WP can use a yearbook picture. Wouldn't that be copyrighted? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is being used under a claim of fair use, and is an image circulated by the family during her search. As a missing person, no free use image is likely to become available. It isn't actually the photo of Holloway used in the yearbook, but one of the senior portraits likely purchased by her parents. - auburnpilot talk 18:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * The photo was made public in order to publicize her appearance when she was a missing person. I wonder if the claim of publicity fades once she is presumed dead. --Dystopos (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible, but if she is declared dead, the likelihood that a free use image would become available decreases considerably. If that's the case, we can always update the image information to match the claims I've made on :Image:NancyLynn.jpg. I wouldn't presume to contact the Holloway family for a free use image, but in time it may be appropriate. - auburnpilot talk 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I doubt that they would give us the time of day, given the supposed complaint that came from them or a friend that put us on the BLP list (though that's turned out well), and given the number of edits we have had to fend off that want to slant it towards a given point of view.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was the the copyright to the picture is owned by the publisher of the yearbook. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A senior portrait? Probably not. It would belong to Natalee. Usually, the senior portrait is done by an independent photographer, and submitted to the yearbook. Because of the quality, it would appear that Beth grabbed one of those, not that someone rescanned it out of the yearbook. Even if they had scanned it, it isn't clear to me that a copyright from the yearbook publisher would apply, since they are reprinting something that belongs to someone else.Kww (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd tend to agree.  In my day, the photographer held onto the negative of school picture in hopes of reprint orders, but with digital technology, that seems to have changed.  It would belong to NH or one or both of her parents.  I don't think the actual ownership would affect the fair use rationale.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I have the MBHS 2005 yearbook in my hand, and the photo of Natalee is not the one we have on this page. When portraits are taken for seniors at MBHS, it is done over the summer prior to the student's senior year. The students are then presented with a booklet of choices, from which they are able to choose the image that will appear in the yearbook, as well as which (if any) they'd like to purchase. The one within our article would be one that Beth/Jug/Dave likely purchased. - auburnpilot talk 14:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When my daughter had her senior pictures taken, about 4 years ago, the photographer made it clear that we didn't have the right to reproduce the pictures, just buy prints from him.  I'm only looking at this from the point of view of what's legal for WP to do, not what's best for the Holloway family. Sorry about that. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, when I first uploaded the photo, there was a template () which erroneously claimed that images released to the media for purposes of publicity fell into the public domain. (See discussion here.) I used the template in ignorance, and it is clear that the image is not in the public domain. The claim now made is Fair Use, which depends less on the wishes of the copyright owners than on our prerogative in usurping those rights for public benefit. The rationale would have to be that this image has historical importance, its omission would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject, and that it could not be replaced with a non-free image. --Dystopos (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Looking at the descriptions of :Category:Possibly living people, :Category:Living people, :Category:Disappeared people, and :Category:Dead people, I see that you're not supposed to include a single article in more than one of these.  So why are people edit-warring to keep the conflicting categories in place? *Dan T.* (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps we could say why are the categories saying this kind of controversial, edit-warring encouragement. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, what more, besides what has been said ad nauseum, can we tell you to answer your question, Dan T.?  I don't particularly care about the categories dispute, and we've received conflicting and changing advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The owners of this article will not allow the category living people to be removed from this article for any reason, that is why, capche? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't make any sense, you're right. The description of the "Disappeared people" tag explicitly states that it shouldn't appear in an article with a "Living people" tag yet that's the case here. More information for the RfC I'm putting together on this issue. Moncrief (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, how is it in any way POV? It makes perfect sense not to include a person in multiple categories because that would be taking a certain POV. Listing a person just in disappears tells readers that there is no proof either way if the person is living, as is the case here. This person is missing. They might be alive, they might not be. Neutral. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on that 100%. Makes logical sense. See also my additions today to Talk:Natalee_Holloway#Removal_from_living_category Moncrief (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the category "living persons" today per all the talk here and above. It seems that this page is watched closely enough so hopefully slander/blp issues are not a problem. Also, was there every a RFC that was talked about? I hate to do a vote thingy but maybe everybody should weigh in? Thank you, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I support the removal of the "living persons" category per discussion above. However I expect we should still enforce the same standards for verifiability that pertain to biographies of living persons. --Dystopos (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: On balance, I would keep it.  But I won't reinsert it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: How about: Natalee Ann Holloway (born October 21, 1986) is an American who disappeared on May 30, 2005 during a high school graduation trip.....--nyc171 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we are avoiding the use of "is" and "was".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Natalee Ann Holloway (born October 21, 1986) an American who disappeared on May 30, 2005 during a high school graduation trip..... This gives the 4 major components of mosbio in the lead sentence.--nyc171 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead sentence

message: I added nationality to that. OK?--nyc171 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but it should still be moved in the intro. - auburnpilot talk 16:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why again? Readablity? Editorial oversight or what did somnebody call itsacrifice editorial judgment? Its awkward? I don't like it? Did I miss any? --nyc171 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IAR (if you must) or the fact that nobody agrees with you? This belief you seem to have that we must blindly follow "established guidelines" is absurd. This is an encyclopedia, and readability is important, as is removing awkward wording. From WP:MOSBIO: "objective of this Manual of Style (or style guide) is to provide guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles. Adherence to the following guidelines is not required". - auburnpilot talk 16:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fine, if everybody thinks I am a jackass, I will saddle up :) Seriously, I think there in nothing wrong with having nationality as it is now. If everybodyelse wants to move it for now, go for it. Can you point to other bios that do this? --nyc171 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted myself per a few other editors who disagree with me. Good luck guys. --nyc171 (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: infobox

message: With the threat of deletion temporarily suspended, I noticed the article has been tagged as too long. According to Wikipedia:Article size, this should be based on the main, readable prose of the article. As of now, the readable prose (see here) is only 35 kilobytes long; the suggested "too long" length is 32 kilobytes. Since this is fairly close, and the guideline suggests that for articles around 30k "length alone does not justify division," are there any objections to removing the tag? - auburnpilot talk 04:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any way we could split the article.  "temporarily suspended" lol!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't split it.Kww (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah, I keep forgetting about readable length. Tag removed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long?

message: Image:NataleeHollowayWall-male.jpg|Male signing wall
Image:NataleeHollowayWall-female.jpg|Female signing wall
Image:NataleeHollowayWall-NewsCrews.jpg|News crews
Image:CarlosnCharliesAruba.jpg|Blurry shot of Carlos'n Charlie's
I was searching Flickr for some images, since that is apparently our downfall, and found a few by Flickr user "maryatuab". They were originally licensed in a way that we couldn't use them, but she graciously re-licensed them under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 license. Two of the three I uploaded to commons are of a memorial/prayer wall setup near Natalee's church (if I remember correctly) less than two weeks after her disappearance, and the third is of a couple news crews standing near the wall. The news crews could go in the media coverage section, and one of the first two would likely fit well somewhere near the beginning of the article (disappearance/early investigation sections). (see here) - auburnpilot talk 20:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the blurry shot of Carlos'n Charlie's I found. - auburnpilot talk 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd include the "female signing wall" and the Carlos'n'Charlies shot. That is the Aruba CNC, so far as I can tell. I can see fragments of a sign in Papiamentu, and there isn't a CNC on either Bonaire or Curacao.Kww (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and thrown a few images into the article in the same way I'd set it up in my sandbox. Obviously feel free to add/remove/rearrange as needed. They'll be more difficult to obtain, I'm sure, but some free images of the three suspects would be a good find. - auburnpilot talk 02:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New images

message: I think we've addressed the points used to turn us down for GA status.  The article is stable, no edit wars, the skies are sunny above Aruba with nothing to cause a flood of editors down on us, and we have photographs.  Should we go for renomination?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the worst that could happen? We wait 6 weeks for a review, then are told we don't get one? Hmm...already happened. Seriously, though, I think it meets all the requirements. I support resubmitting it. - auburnpilot talk 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA renom?

message: This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of March 8, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Notability of the changes of lead investigators is not clear, if these changes are not natobale they should be removed. If they are they should be referenced.
:2. Factually accurate?:  templates have been added where the source of the information is not clear. Good references are needed for the use of the case by popular culture, and if they can't be found I don't think the article would suffer by having that section removed. 
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: lastnatalee.jpg needs a completed fair use rationale
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. Million_Moments (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done everything except for the first point regarding the investigators. I'm not sure how notable it is, and while there are sources referring to each of them as commissioner, I didn't find anything that specifically referred to the retirement/transfer of titles. I also cut the entire popular culture section after searching unsuccessfully for reliable sources. Tv.com referenced the case on the episode pages for some of the shows, but I don't think that is an acceptable source. - auburnpilot talk 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you will ever find a reliable, conclusive source giving the reasons for the personnel changes. Aruba's police chief got transferred here, but none of us could ever tell for certain whether it was a slap in the face or done at his own request (general consensus on Bonaire was that he did a good job here). Similarly, we all speculated that Aruba's "request" that the Netherlands take over the investigation was forced, but no one ever knew for sure. However, I think the transfer of the investigation from Aruba to the Netherlands was well sourced, and I don't think eliminating mention of it is reasonable ... we just shouldn't speculate about the cause.Kww (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, as far as I am concerned, we can axe that paragraph.  Dompig is the only one we give "face time" to, neither Van der Stratten nor Richardson significantly figures into the story.  I vaguely remember that that paragraph stems from someone trying to imply Dompig got kicked off the case for saying NH had drugs.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination on hold

message: While being a GA is great, I see no point in resting on our laurels here.  This article could, and should, be an FA.  In anticipation of starting the process after a decent interval and possibly getting a peer review, I'm working on getting more quotes in the article (including a couple from Beth that will allay any contention that the article is slanted against her) and having citations for EVERYTHING.  Some things I am having trouble finding, even though they are plainly true, like the appeal dismissal of the award to Paulus.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find a source for the appeal dismissal either; only unreliable replications of other articles. A lot of work has gone into this page recently, and it already looks and reads much better than it did before. Peer review is a good idea, and will obviously bring in some new perspectives. I have some free time tomorrow and will try to find a ref for the Paulus issue. - auburnpilot talk 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting work on bringing article up to FA standard

message: I still can't figure out people's obsession with using this article as a basis for defending the existence of other articles, but with the Lauren Burk and Eve Carson articles at AfD, this article is being mentioned all over Wikipedia right now. Everything from the perennial move suggestion, to some users thinking it would be a good idea to nominate this article for deletion again to make a point. Just FYI...watch your backs. - auburnpilot talk 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  As for AfD, be afraid.  Be very afraid.  I'm more worried about drive by editors who stop and damage and maybe stick around for a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Beware

message: This was brought to my attention in connection with the good article pass of George Grossmith, in which I did a few edits in prep for the GA review.  But WP policy is to place punctuation marks outside quotation marks unless the punctuation mark is part of the sense of the quoted material.  And apparently they get picky about these things at the FAC level.  It's going to be some work, but we'll have to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An automated review of the article was generated for the peer review, and can be found here. Unfortunately, I'm leaving town tomorrow and will have limited internet access until I return on the 23rd. I'll try to pitch in with some of the review items as I can, but will not be much help over the next week or so. Hopefully we'll get a human reviewer with a few more specific issues to address. - auburnpilot talk 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I'm going to concentrate on the stylistic stuff, such as wikifying the dates and whatnot.  I'm not sure we need a bibliography or "Further Reading."--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:PUNC]]

message: The disappearance of Holloway is a widely covered media event. Holloway herself does not meet the criteria for notability. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you are proposing a move to something like Disappearance of Natalee Holloway.  Oppose for the reasons as stated in the three previous discussions on this topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you have an inconsistent, arbitrary policy that makes no sense. As a person, Eve Carson is far more "notable" than Natalee Holloway was. Yet her page was moved to Murder of Eve Carson on the grounds that she was not notable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the proposed WP:N/CA.  Why don't we wait for consensus on that, rather than rushing into this ad hoc?  In fact, I intend to participate on the discussion page there, since this is not necessarily a criminal act (we don't know).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please stop drawing the conclusion that the title of this article makes this a biography. There are many reasons why I believe this article should not be moved, but it has nothing to do with whether or not we have an article on Natalee Holloway, the individual. To say Holloway doesn't meet the criteria of notability is a non sequitur. - auburnpilot talk 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If we're going to wait until the proposed guideline is finalized, somebody should remove this proposed move from WP:RM. - auburnpilot talk 04:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a comment saying that Baseball Bugs agreed to put it on hold pending the finalizing of the guideline.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Support a move; "cover the event, not the person". This goes against most of our "Disappearance of" or "Murder of" articles. Will (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article, and you'll see, the event is covered and not the person. - auburnpilot talk 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: For everyone's convenience, here is the results of the peer review.
Ruhrfisch comments Seems pretty good to me - here are some hopefully helpful comments:
*I would include the ages of the Kalpoe brothers in the Disappearance section (as van der Sloot's age is given here)
*References go after punctuation, so this needs to be changed: Beth Twitty was provided with free housing, initially at the Holiday Inn (where she stayed in her daughter's former room[27]),...
*California Lighthouse photo has white space after it - have you tried adding the "upright" tag to the image (after "thumb|")?
*Should John and Jones were released on June 13. have a reference?
*Ref(s) also needed for the releases of van der Sloot senior and Croes releases...
*...and for At some time during the interrogation, Van der Sloot told a third story: that he was dropped off at home and Holloway was driven off by the Kalpoe brothers.
*Anything that is in quotes chould be cited: ...after an individual ("the gardener") claimed to have seen...
*Why is there an interwiki link to nl here: Combined Appeals Court of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba(nl).[41]?
*I doubt Scrux.com is a WP:RS, also do not make direct external links in the text.
*The investigation continues (September 2005-April 2006) section - lots of short paragraphs (one sentence or two). I would combine them into fewer larger paragraphs.
*I would not include the ISBN for Aruba: The Tragic Untold Story of Natalee Holloway and Corruption in Paradise in the text, put it and full publisher information in a reference.
*Same for van der Sloot's book (ISBN and book details in a ref, use ). I would also translate the title to English. Why is there no summary of the book? Even if it says nothing new, then have a sentence that it repeats what he already said (for example)(or whatever it says).
*July 2007 Amigoe article section - first four paragraphs are uncited - need refs
*Awkward sentence: The article states that the interviews indicate that Renfro and Beth Twitty received a phone call from an unknown woman on June 2, 2005, offering information about Holloway's location and the information that Holloway was still alive but was unwilling to return to her mother, for the sum of $4,000. Makes it sound like the $4,000 was for Holloway to return to her mother as now written.
*Watch for short paragrpahs throughout. 
*Is there any sort of final summary possible - any published theories about what happened to her?
Hope this helps, these are fairly nitpicky Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm crossing them out as I take care of them.  I'm not terribly good at some aspects of wiki so help with the book refs and the photo would be appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I can answer one question: there's an interwiki link to the Combined Appeals Court of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba because there are no good English sources on the subject, and I haven't ever translated the NL article to English (it's pretty advanced Dutch, so I would need help). Is this really an obstacle to FA status?Kww (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the few things left on the list (great work, Wehwalt), is the first light house image even necessary now? It seems a bit cluttered right now, and the white space Ruhrfisch is referring to appears to be part of the image upload. It looks like it was a 35mm image somebody scanned and uploaded. Maybe reupload it without that white space, if we need it, or replace the image with :Image:ArubaLighthouse.jpg. - auburnpilot talk 02:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we have the luxury of getting rid of an image, I'd let that one go.  Thank you.  I would oppose ending with a summary with theories, it will be a honey pot for pov edits.  Aside from that, if someone could take care of the book ISBN and refs, I think we are done.  We should also start looking for mdashes and ndashes, they will be picky about that at the next level.  Also, can we find a ref that says that restrictions of the suspects were eliminated by the appeals court in English?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see a problem with that image at all. What are people complaining about?Kww (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the right side of the image (:Image:Lighthouse-aruba.jpg), there is a line of white space, a bit of black, and a gray stripe as well; its only a few pixels wide. I went ahead and removed it because of this, and because the images were stacked one on top of the other (maybe it was just on my resolution). I also did a bit of spacing work, and moved a couple quotes so they are now within the body of text, rather than stuck at the end of a section. I agree with Wehwalt that adding a section on theories as to what may or may not have happened wouldn't be a good idea. Other than the "watch for short paragraph" issue, I believe that covers the peer review. - auburnpilot talk 18:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of Peer Review

message: Created the article today, and put a note on the corresponding talk page in the Dutch Wikipedia requesting them to look at the article and review my translation for accuracy. The inter-wikilink has been removed from this article, and is included in that one.Kww (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Combined Appeals Court of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba]] 

message: AuburnPilot moved the lengthy quotation from Beth Twitty from the end of the Twitty section to the middle.  My thought on having it at the end is, that as the section, while in my view npov, does not present Twitty in the happiest light, we could allay any concerns about pov by giving her the last word with a quotation which is fairly sympathetic, presents her view that she needs to keep going on the case or it will grind to a stop, and also certainly notes her focus on J2K.  I'd move it back to the end.  Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care if it's move from its current position, but having the quote just stuck on the end, without any introduction or follow-up seemed odd. When I first read it, I couldn't figure out whether the quote supposedly came from the book or why it was even there. If we move it back to the end of the section, I'd suggest using  to attribute it by name and remove any confusion. - auburnpilot talk 20:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind doing that?  I tried cutting and pasting and got a mess in preview.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  - auburnpilot talk 03:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Twitty quote

message: I don't think it's an extra article or extra word. I think it's a punctuation error. In speech "a pretty blonde - and white". And before you protest, yes, I see non-white blondes every day. Bottle-blonde, but so are most white blondes.Kww (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense.  I guess put an mdash in with non wiki'd brackets.  I know what you mean about the bottle.  The rail thin platinum blondes that they seem to stamp out of a mold these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if I did that, there'd still be an extraneous comma.  How do we handle this?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is criticism that it is only a story because she is a pretty blonde – and white – and it is criticism that journalists are taking to heart and looking elsewhere for other stories.. As for how Wikipedia wants us to handle the case where a written transcription of a verbal statement mispunctuated the verbal statement, I'm not sure.Kww (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I mean.  I'll start looking through MoS, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MOSQUOTE is unclear, this point really isn't addressed.  I've asked for help on the WP:MOS talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not really clear on how it should be done either. Obvious spelling mistakes and the like can be fixed with  or , but I'm unsure about a transcription error in punctuation. - auburnpilot talk 18:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we will see what comes up from my request.  In the meantime, nice link to the Mammana article.  Have you read it?  Ouch.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mammana is definitely not shown in the best light. Spelling quiz: Is it guerrilla or guerilla? Or is this an American vs British thing? - auburnpilot talk 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have gone one r.  Shows what I know.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that we leave the spelling the way it is in the source, since one-r seems an acceptable variant.  However, if we can find that quote with two rs from another source, use that instead.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... a pretty, blonde, and white..."

message: The Post Chronicle website is not a reliable source.  The content disclaimer on its front page disclaims all responsibility for reliability and also acknowledges that some content may be hosted without copyright permission. It is an aggregator, and much of the content comes from blogs and other untrustworthy sources.  Feel free to cite the sources from which PC takes the content, as long as they are reliable, but PC is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can accept that.  I've reverted your last edit, not because I disagree, but so we can know where we need better sources.  Please look back on us in a week, if it is OK, by then we should have them all replaced.  None of the postchroncicle cites look to be anything we can't get from CNN or FOXNews.  I gather that you are going from article to article, searching for postchronicle references, and that there is some question about it.  However, I agree to the extent I'd rather have a news source closer to the action, and besides this is the sort of thing that can cause us issues on FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I got rid of them.  I would rather have an article talking about the Skeeters tape manipulation, but the media, which was so fast to rush into pixels about "she did" was more reticent about "no, she didn't."--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PostChronicle