Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway: Difference between revisions

What is this list of individuals at the bottom of the page? People who recently disappeared and for whom there were large manhunts? I think this list should be removed, as it is not comprehensive or really related. Tcassedy 15:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

is / was

I think it is time to change the word "is" to "was" in the first line. -vega007

It's still presuming death. "is" is the correct grammar until she's either found (dead) or presumed dead. - Lordwow

she is dead -vega007

Care to cite? --Yamla 22:06, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

body not found; suspects charged with aiding murder; no sign of her a month later;-vega007

Probably true but I'd still like to see a conviction or a body. --Yamla 22:45, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• An official pronouncement from Aruban or United States authorities of "presumed dead" will be the minimum requirement for changing the verb tense. Even then, the presumption will be explained as such. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Dystopos 06:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it safe to say at this stage that she's dead?? -vega007

• Feel free to say whatever you want, but it's not going to be encyclopedic until it comes from an authoritative source. Perhaps Fark.com or LiveJournal is where you really want to be? Dystopos 30 June 2005 04:32 (UTC)

she is most certainly dead at this point -vega

• Nobody disagrees with you that she's probably dead. That's not the point. The point is that an encyclopedia reports on verifiable facts, so unless you've got a death certificate or other verifiable confirmation, just keep it on your blog. Dystopos 8 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)

she's dead -vega007

• Do you just not get it or what? -- Lordwow

why is it so hard for the american public to accept the fact that she got drunk, went swimming, and drowned?? -vega007

• First, that's not a fact, it's a suspicion. Second, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the American public shared your suspicion. As stated many times, this article has to stick with verifiable facts. Dystopos 03:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree that the missing case thing caused a short media attention in the US. This stuff is still going on today. Make this thing a current event, please! As it is she could still be alive, off somewhater on the island.--68.0.39.140 04:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC) or user:steven

this girl is dead. why don't you all just leave her alone and let her rest in peace!! I will continue to change the "is" in the first sentence to "was" every time I get the chance.

I can assure you that in no way are we disturbing Miss Holloway by insisting on verifiable information for Wikipedia. The reasoning for this policy is clear. If you fulfill your pledge to continue, it will be reported as vandalism. Dystopos 17:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we need objective reason to 'declare' her dead on this article. Are we satisfied that an official pronouncement from Aruban or United States is what is required, or is this worth discussing? I'm wondering what happens if the Aruban authorities have to release van Sloot, for example, and/or drop the case. What if nothing more has been heard on the one year anniversary of her death? etc. etc. Do we change the article to say, "missing, presumed dead"?

It is an interesting predicament indeed. While there is a strong possibility that Holloway may be dead, her status is not yet known. In my opinion, this presumption should be made by government authorities, not Wikipedians. Hall Monitor 18:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

At what point do we assume she's dead?? Aruba are hardly going to declare her dead due to the negative publicity they would be subject to. The state of Alabama are unable to issue a death certificate because she did not die in the USA(allegedly). There is a good possibility that ten years from now you guys will still be reverting my edits and saying that she "is" a teenager from Alabama. What happens on her 20th birthday?? Do we change "is a teenager" to "was a teenager". Do we make it "is a 20 year old" or would we put "would be a 20 year old"?? What are the rules on this? -vega007

Age of consent

"According to the Kalpoe brothers, she was making out in the back seat with van der Sloot." I checked whether this means (if true) that Holloway could have committed an act of sexual assualt/statutory rape. This is unambiguously not the case. The age of consent in Aruba is apparently 16, as is the case for Alabama (relevant because it is illegal in the U.S. for citizens to break U.S. law abroad, though I don't remember the specifics here... it falls under legislation passed to prevent sex tourism where such actions are legal in the host country but not in the U.S.). Anyway, it doesn't really fit in the article itself except perhaps as a passing reference, and probably not even then. But I post the information here so nobody else has to bother doing the research. --Yamla 15:47, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Not so fast! It turns out that a different law applies. 18 U.S.C. 2423B. It turns out that if she traveled "for the purpose of engaging in a sexual act with a person [younger than] 18 years of age" [1] then she could be found guilty. I believe that she met up with van der Sloot there and had no previous contact with him, however, so it is unlikely that anyone will charge her with travelling for the purpose of sex. Can someone confirm that she did not know van der Sloot before traveling? --Yamla 16:40, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the Alabama "age of consent" for statutory cases is 18. At 16 you can get a marriage license, though. I have not heard any speculation that she knew Van der Sloot before traveling. Dystopos 17:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? This link[2] seems to imply differently. The age of 18 isn't mentioned at all, though 12, 16, and 19 all are. I don't live in Alabama and I'm not a lawyer so I am just guessing here.

• • Looks like I'm wrong. Nothing on that page would prohibit an 18 year old woman from making out with a 17 year old boy in Aruba, though. Dystopos 06:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

This is the discussion page on the topic, so lets talk about. Did the Van Der Sloots do it? CaptainAmerica 01:44, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• It is a Wikipedia guideline to use talk pages for collaboration toward article improvement, not for general chatter. WP:TPG. Dystopos 06:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People really need to stop caring about stupid cases like this. If she is worth saving, she wouldn't have been engaging in underage drinking and making out with a foreigner.

• See above. (WP:TPG). Dystopos 23:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoever keeps editing/deleting the references on the investigation page to all of the false leads/fruitless searches in the pond, etc., please STOP IT! While I sympathize with those who don't want to let this case die, it is an indisputable fact that the hair on the duct tape was NOT Natalie's, and the search of the pond yielded no clues and was abandoned. It is both important and honest to describe the lack of physical evidence in this case. (unsigned comment by User:68.194.91.203)

I readded this comment. We don't normally blank comments on the discussion page. The wiki standard is to simply archive the discussions. However, I did not see that the person who blanked this was also the person who initially posted it. I don't know what the wikipedia standards are in such a case. If you believe wikipedia allows blanking discussion comments in this case, please feel free to reblank. --Yamla 21:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Press Coverage

I've heard a number of media commentators discuss the overplay this is receiving, particularly on Fox News. I think it should be mentioned in the article that her disapperance has generated a media circus much like that of Terri Schiavo, well, almost as bad as hers was, anyway. Especially since people disappear all the time.

• I agree that there is definately a lot of playing of this in the media as a whole, but firstly, it is mentioned in the article that it's covered quite widely in the press, so you may consider editing that paragraph, and secondly, I don't think Fox News is covering this anymore than CNN or MSNBC, Natalee has been a headline story in all the news casts pretty much daily since she dissapeared. - Lordwow
• There was a discussion about this on an NPR interview I caught part of this afternoon, referencing a particular show on CNN that made a point to show photos of other missing children, but spend a great deal of time discussing the Holloway investigation. I also remember the Birmingham Post-Herald drawing a comparison between this missing person case and a black woman who has been missing in Birmingham for about the same amount of time. Accounts of secondary discussions such as that are preferred over "original research" of how much coverage we think has been given this case. Dystopos 3 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
  • Strongly dissent with the underlying premise. The primary reason she became news was because crime in general on Aruba is extremely low, and serious crimes such as kidnapping and murder are almost unheard of. With less than 1% unemployment and a crime rate of around 0.5%, police in Aruba literally perform their jobs in tee-shirts and shorts, and the most common crimes they investigate are burglaries and thefts of bicycles. The downside of this is that their police forces are almost completely inexperienced in actually investigating crimes of this nature, and already charges of incompetence are being slung at them from several pundits. Xaa
    • I am not convinced that Aruba's crime rate has fueled the media sensationalism. If you could cite someone for this claim it would merit more space in the article. I've seen plenty of charges of incompetence, even some theories of conspiracy to conceal drug smuggling rings. I haven't seen much talk in the US (where the media circus is being produced) about how this case is of interest do to Aruba's low crime rate. Dystopos 03:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Cite:MSNBC Quote: Why is it that the story of this one girl has had such international reach? Well, I guess because it’s trouble in paradise, for one. It is the place that people go to get away from the problems of the world, not believing it is where you are going to find them. Aruba in the minds of many Americans is considered a very safe place, which it is. But, now you have this story of a beautiful young girl, who is full of so much promise. She came here to celebrate that she is moving on to the next stage in her life and this tragedy occurred. Cite: USA Today Similar article. Note also these tourist's comments. Conclusion: Aruba's nearly-zero crime rate is a major instigative factor. Note that missing white women from America in neigboring areas (like Nicaragua) get virtually zero attention - even when it's a nun. Everyone knows they shoot Americans there. Aruba, on the other hand, was known as a tropical paradise. =) Xaa
        • It's a valid point. I notice that the commentator you cite goes on to say "beautiful young girl" in the same quote. I don't think there's any denying that her youth and appearance are a key factor in how much attention this is getting. I suppose the drawn-out search with it's investigative twists has contributed to keeping the story alive, as well. Dystopos 04:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Agreed on the points of appearance and the investigation. It's why I specifically highlighted that quote in my reply to you. It simply can't be denied that her beauty is a factor - she is (was, most likely) an astonishingly beautiful lass. But, in the end, we've had absolutely gorgeous American nuns go missing in Nicaragua, and the American Media doesn't give it more than a day of coverage (two days if they later turn up shot between the eyes). It's the 'trouble in paradise' angle that started this more than anything else, really. Compare Aruba to Jamaica, and you'll really see what I mean. The official guides from the US government for American tourists to Jamaica advise Americans to avoid the impoverished areas, hand over their valuables quietly when faced by a robber so they don't get shot or stabbed, etc. Xaa

Contraction proposal

It occurs to me that this page is more detailed than it needs to be. Each time a new turn is announced in the media it seems to gain material without losing much previous speculation. The case is not particularly notable from a long-term point of view. I'm planning to weed out a lot of material I consider unencyclopedic soon. I wanted to put this notice here in case anyone had any comment. Dystopos 5 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. It may be worth maintaining a brief timeline, but certainly much condensed over what is currently in there. --Yamla July 5, 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Also agree with that. Five years from now, people are going to marvel at how much attention these "cases" received in the American media. Even now, there are very few people outside of the U.S. who know who Natalee Holloway is or was, and there are even fewer people who'd see her disappearance as significant. She's being used as gossip fodder -- nothing more, and nothing less. We've got the media to thank for that, I suppose. --Jeus July 5, 2005 17:47 (EDT)

In Holland (where I live) their is also little attention to this case. The Dutch media are saying that this is just another case that shows how hypocrit Americans are. The're is more attention to the fact that Americans don't know that American teenager are misbehaving in Aruba by using severe amounts of drugs and alcohol (even to Dutch standards (which are according to you quite high because)). From Alkmaar, The Netherlands. Yours, Wiki213ip 6 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with maintaining all verifiable information. If the article were 10 pages long and unwieldy, that'd be one thing, but a one-to-two-page article is certainly fine. We have no lack of space here. --Delirium July 9, 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Kuro5hin

• The Kuro5hin editorial does seem to be a valid reference to a more balanced critique than the title would imply. Thanks for making the citation more polite. Dystopos 6 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)

• Although I too wish the title was changed, I think it's valid to provide both sides of the issue, just as in any other article on here. - Lordwow

For the record, I removed a link containing responses to this article. It's fine to include an article about Natalie Holloway, but including every article about the article is going a bit overboard.

Since the Kuro5hin article is the #1 return on google I think it relevant to include it as I see it was done already. It would be useful to add a criticisms section eventually but it maybe a generally good idea to wait until this story dies down.--ShaunMacPherson 19:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• • The Kuro5hin article continues to attract a lot of attention from well-meaning editors on both sides of the question of whether it should be included. So far the strongest case for including it has been it's status on Google. I'm of two minds on the subject. On one hand, it seems that Google results aren't particularly relevant to encyclopedia articles as such. And people who are interested will probably use google to find it instead of WP anyway. On the other hand, because it's ranked so highly in Google, it has attracted a great deal of attention and comments. (and, to some extent, vice-versa). Therefore...

I propose that we reference the Kuro5hin article, with link, in the context of criticism of the media coverage and remove it from the separate "external links" section. I don't see any need to include the title, which is admittedly provacatory. One contributor gave in and added the title because others kept adding redundant links, not knowing it was already there. WP is not censored, of course, but there's just no need for this particular word here. (Unlike, say, an article on the song "Fuck tha Police"). I'm going to "be bold" and go ahead and do that. Feel free to over-rule my decision, but please consider contributing your reasoning to this page and perhaps a consensus will form. I'll revert thoughtless removals or redundant re-additions. Dystopos 14:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. That said, we are now giving the Kuro5hin article _more_ prominence which may annoy the people who want to see it entirely removed. --Yamla 14:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but hopefully the additional prominence puts it in a context that makes clear that WP does not endorse the site, but mentions it only as having a notable place among critics of the sensationalism. Dystopos 15:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete this article

Why should information about a missing person be part of an encyclopedia? Why should Wikipedia add to the exaggerated media hype around this case? Remove it - it just makes Wikipedia more embarrassing.

Wikipedia has no space limitations, so we generally write up pretty much everything that's verifiable. --Delirium July 9, 2005 19:18 (UTC)

If you believe this article should be removed, please feel free to follow the guidelines and propose it for deletion. It won't survive, but you are free to try. --Yamla 19:41, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

-I vote for deletion -vega007

That's not how it is done. The page needs to be nominated for deletion first. --Yamla 01:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

As a person who lives in Canada and doesn't really watch network news, I wasn't really aware of Holloway until I read the Kuro5hin article. When I did, the first thing I did was look up her name in Wikipedia. Although I agree that the american media seems to be overdoing this story (like so many other missing persons stories), I believe it's still relevant and helpful to have an article like this.--LucidGA 06:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I expect it will be several years before a deletion proposal is taken seriously. The media frenzy is notable, which makes an open-content NPOV article valuable. Dystopos 13:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

When did WP turn into a newspaper? Guys, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - what exactly did Holloway achieve to deserve an article? Are we going to have an article for anyone getting kidnapped and/or killed? Should I start creating articles for each of the Guantanamo prisoners?

The media frenzy has been critisized here but we're actually contributing to it by working on this article. Being able to create an article shouldn't be enough. It's not quantity that matters but quality. From that point of view, this article shouldn't exist. --Philantrop 05:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The existence of the article reflects interest in the subject. The media creates the interest. I don't think this article contributes much to that process and, in fact, balances it a bit by focussing on the facts of the case rather than the endless speculation. (I'm glad we're not voting about "Natalee Holloway (prior speculation)" like we did with Harry Potter). Presumably once things die down, the article will be further condensed and will exist happily alongside (or even possibly outlive) other trivial topics like Stargate technologies, internet memes, pokemon characters, and individual episodes of "Will & Grace".

Do you have any specific concerns about the quality of the article, or just the worthiness of the subject? Wikipedia is pretty open to verifiable NPOV subjects. It's a shame that individual Guantanamo prisoners are so difficult to verify. Dystopos 14:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of the news coverage

The two top returns from google for the term Natalee Holloway [3] are about how this case is overblown with respect to other (nonwhite?) missing persons. As well the article criticises the infotainment value of this story, and asks why this case should get more coverage then other issues (gay marriage, bombing, etc. there is a list. The two articles are here and here.

Since this appears to be valid criticism, that this story is overblown with respect to stories that in which more lives are directly affected / impacted, it should be included in the article then. --ShaunMacPherson 19:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• In the interest of verifiability and NPOV, the best approach might be to include a short summary/reference to the already-linked article (which seems to be the most notable critical source). If someone has access to the Birmingham Post-Herald's archives, they did a story a few weeks ago comparing the Holloway coverage to another Birmingham missing person case. (Nancy Lewis), which is probably worth a cite. Does anyone know of any other notable criticisms? Dystopos 19:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to do that. If necessary, link to Missing White Women Syndrome once that article is more fully developed--220.238.53.100 12:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Good point. That article is currently on VfD, but appears headed for "keep". The criticisms that it is NPOV by nature are somewhat valid, and more could be done to present more detailed analysis by media watchdogs. Dystopos 14:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Missing White Women Syndrome has survived VfD, and rightfully so, and that and this article now link back and forth. This article, while IMO is clearly a case of MWWS, also deserves to survive precisely because it is a well-known news story, regardless of whether or not it deserves to be. I have great sympathy for the family and friends of Natalee Holloway, but I am ashamed for a media that singles out and so brazenly exploits one case over others with such obvious bias for the victims. For that reason, I take exception to this text:

Other media observers have countered that labelling this case another instance
of Missing White Women Syndrome may be an overstatement, considering the incident
newsworthy because of the longstanding reputation of Aruba as an exceptionally
safe tourist destination.

The fact that Aruba is a generally safe tourist destination visited by rich white girls on vacation is exactly why this is a case of Missing White Women Syndrome. Personally, I don't think color matters as much as class and beauty when it comes to winning the "news lottery," but the accusation is valid. Moreover, I think the text should be amended because it is surely the POV of the Wiki writer, not a journalist. I have found no defense of the coverage case in the news media, and there's no link to one in the references. --Tysto 21:18, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

• Scroll up a bit on this 'talk' page, some citations are given there. =) I'll copy the most straightforward of them to the links in the article, which should (hopefully) satisfy what you're asking. The MWWS aspect of this case has been a subject of discussion in many media outlets, both mainstream (TV/Radio/etc) and alternative (blogs), though never the entire subject of an *entire* article on any mainstream source I can find and easily hyperlink to. I've heard it discussed on radio talk shows, but what I hear on the radio can't be linked to the page. Note that this goes both for it being a case of MWWS and for it not being one - it hasn't been the *entire* subject of an article I can link to, though it has been discussed in the media many times as part of larger coverage of the issue. =) And, let's face it, the kuro5hin link to a story titled "Fuck Natalee Holloway" is hardly an objective mainstream observation of the media coverage. This is a blog-ish post someone who finds the media hype annoying - opinion. It is lengthy and well-written opinion (despite what the title might imply), but still one man's blogged opinion. <digression>As there are blogs for people who talk to aliens and snap pictures of bigfoot, as well, I think the Blogosphere isn't necessarily the greatest source for accuracy or public opinion in an encyclopedia, but rather only a source for the opinions of the individual writers. =)</digression> I feel the response I put as a countervailing opinion to follow it is valid, verified by the citations I showed above, which carry the gist of what I've been hearing in the mainstream media (TV/Radio) regarding the subject of MWWS. I acknowledge that there is no direct article I can link to on the web from a mainstream source to counter the "Fuck Natalie" article. I believe the sources I gave, above, are adequate in rebuttal if read in their entirety. I am more than willing to discuss this at length, however, please don't consider me inflexible on this point. =) Perhaps a re-wording of the sentence you quote would be in order? Xaa 21:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I reviewed the links and don't really think they argue that the story is not MWWS but rather seek to explain (not justify) the coverage (and rather weakly). Citing them in the article would help, but I think their logic is very poor (the story is not MWWS because it's "real news" for the reason that Aruba is generally safe). There are lots of very safe places where crimes are nevertheless occasionally committed, but they don't get the attention that Natalee Holloway is getting. IMO, this story simply, as I put it before, won the "news lottery," which I view as a very complicated phenomenon that is much bigger than just MWWS. But I also don't think this article is the place to address it. I think this article should just include a couple lines mentioning that the amount of news coverage has prompted some criticism, link to MWWS at the bottom, and leave it at that. --Tysto 19:28, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

Criticism of the investigation

We've established that the manner of media coverage is of some note. It seems many are convinced that the manner of investigation is notable as well. "Conspiracy theories" involving the Aruban police, the van der Sloot family, the drug/rave underground, etc. don't seem to have anything verifiable to speak of, but it might be worth watching if anything emerges from the criticisms. Dystopos 20:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• There's definately some conspiracies out there, I heard one the other day about her being sent into the slave trade. A lot of the banter comes from blogs, but of course, we're not a research organization. It would be interesting though to at least mention in passing the numberous conspiracy theories, at least for historical reference, if this case is ever solved. - User:Lordwow

Kidnapped

The picture on the page, while obviously legitimate, implies that Holloway has been kidnapped. Should we add a disclaimer? It is clear that she was not kidnapped (and nobody seems to be proceeding under the assumption that she was) though she may possibly have been murdered. --Yamla 15:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• The caption used to be longer and said something about how the poster reflected the family's assumptions, but it has since been shortened (maybe even by me). At this point I'm inclined to agree with you. Maybe just cropping out everything except the portrait photo would be the better move. Dystopos 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Changed. Dystopos 19:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sonar-Equipped F-16's

It had been reported that the Dutch F-16's sent to assist in the search for Holloway were equipped with infrared and sonar sensors. Sonar is apparently extremely unlikely, as User:Dan100 noted. See this discussion for more information on F16 capabilities pertinent to this case. Dystopos 19:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

blogsfornatalee.com

I don't see the meaning of keeping this link. The website is a registered-user-only one, and one need to sign up to get to even the front page of the site. So, I think this can be removed from external links. The other links provide ample information. --Ragib 18:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That sounds acceptable, considering that WP:NOT a link farm. What we definitely do not need is *two* links to the same website, which 141.157.60.113 keeps adding. Hall Monitor 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Just the forum is registration only, not the actual site, idiots.

Anon 141.157.60.113 (talk · contribs), I hope you'd be more decent in your comments. From your other comments in different talk pages, you've mostly left obscene remarks about almost everything. Please maintain Wikipedia's etiquette on Talk pages. Thanks. --Ragib 20:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• blogsfornatalee.com appears to be primarily informational and not commercial. I suggest keeping the link, at least until the investigation is wrapped up. There's no need for a second link to the forum. Comments and behavior that are not WP:CIVIL will be deleted with prejudice. Dystopos 21:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Revert war/Vandalism?

It appears an anon poster is trying to replace the entire article with a picture of Conan O'Brien. =\ Xaa 04:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Addenda: Worse than that, now. =P How does one go about getting the page protected? Xaa 04:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, looks like an Admin stepped in. =) Xaa 05:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit, that is the funniest thing I have ever heard in my life. I literally just fell off my chair laughing at that. --24.251.143.179 05:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

The article is completely written from a biased US based perspective and is therefore distictly anti-Dutch and anti-Aruban. How many people are there in the US that go missing every year and that the oh-so-superior FBI fails to find? If it happens to a Dutch girl in the US can Holland also send police to the US to take the lead in the inverstigation? What are the political reasons behind the whole media-hype? The situation in Iraq?

As a Dutchman I protest against such bias. Simply copying US media hype is a severe threat to the whole wikipedia community af:Gebruiker:Jcwf

You are confusing this article with the actions that have been taken. The fact that the U.S. sent police forces to Aruba does not in any way make this article POV. Also, I am not a U.S. citizen, nor have I ever lived in the U.S., and I do not see a bias against Aruba and against the Dutch in the article. Feel free to tone down any POV statements you find, though. In the end, however, this does deserve a wikipedia article, even if just to provide further evidence in the future for the pretty white girl syndrome. If you disagree, feel free to nominate the page for deletion. --Yamla 19:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• • Beyond the actual existence of an article, I don't know what bias or hype you refer to. You are invited to create, suggest, or discuss changes to improve the neutrality. Bedankt en tot ziens. Dystopos 19:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • I dont think I am confusing anything. I live in the US and can see my country of origin trashed on a daily basis. For no good reason I might add, because the US legal system does not work that ideally either. I think the relatives of all the other missing people would probably agree with me on that. If the whole phenomenon deserves a page it ought to be about how small countries get abused by big ones and how ugly that is. There is none of that in this article. I think the bullied-small-country syndrome is much more pertinent than the pretty-white-girl one.

(Besides, if the parents can put a million on the table are they really middle class? ) The bullying is all the more repugnant given the fact that Aruba has been willing for many years now to have foreign police stationed on its territory. The USA would never,ever consent to such a thing. The FBI's gratitude for that hospitality is that they want to take over the whole island and impose their oh-so-superior methods like the use of polygraphs. No we dont need innocent people on death row and yes the US is rather infamous for such 'justice'. af:Gebruiker:Jcwf

• • • It would appear that your complaints are about America or the American media and not about Wikipedia or this article.

The article is about the facts of the case. So it says "Alabama Governor Bob Riley and U. S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) pressured Aruban authorities to accept more assistance from the FBI." You can interpret that factual statement any way you want. It does NOT say "Because of Aruban incompetence, the most excellent Gov. Bob Riley and hard-chargin' Sen. Richard Shelby were forced to pressure those backward two-bit "officials" to take a back seat to the FB of I, America's best and brightest" nor does it say "Despite Aruba's careful and earnest search for the truth, stupid redneck politicians, notably spineless populists like Bob Riley and fat cat Dick Shelby, tried to overrule Aruba's God-given sovereignty to make a big show for the U.S.'s scandal-crazed media-giants."

So feel free to write about your opinion of the case on any other forum, but this page is to be used to discuss the content of the Wikipedia article, not to discuss our opinions of the phenomenon itself. Dystopos 16:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Quote: "As a Dutchman I protest against such bias." Reply: I think you protest too much in this case. The article makes no claims as to the competence or incompetence of the Dutch authorities. Yes, one could assume incompetence because the girl has not been found and Aruba is only approximately 5 miles by 19 miles in size (I.E. there's not much land to actually have to search - only about seventy five square miles or so, according to Travelguide.com). But the article itself makes no assertions as to the competence or incompetence of the Dutch authorities, it simply presents the facts - they've spent two months searching and come up dry. That's it. Xaa 17:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

influence networks

An influence network operated to bring Natalee Holloway and Joran van der Sloot together; a close reading of a map of the City and County of San Francisco (California, USA) reveals the plausability of a real conspiracy which has caused her disappearance as a result. That such an influence network has operated to bring together other teens, such that other dis-appearances have resulted, is a premise which cannot be ignored by investigatory agencies. A use of telephone call-demand strategies is not uncommon, with which any response is used somewhere, somehow. >[email protected]

Wow. Is the previous paragraph even a coherent thought? --Yamla 14:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

It did arouse my curiosity. Best I could come up with was a Holloway Avenue that stretches from Font Blvd and the SFSU campus west to Harold Ave near the Phelan Reservoir and City College of SF. Dystopos 15:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The real problem is that there is zero real evidence in this case. The girl is simply gone, with no trace of where she went. And, the people who MIGHT know, won't talk. Natalee's mother said in an interview the other day that she confronted VanDerSloot Deepak Kalpoe in the Internet Cafe he works in. This was after she raised the reward to a quarter million bucks. She told him about the reward for *ANY* information leading to Natalee being found. The kid He refused to look at her, and just said "you'll have to talk to my lawyer."[4] Now, one can speculate that if he knew nothing, he'd say "Hey, I'd love to help but I don't know a damn thing." And one can speculate that he's being silent because he murdered her and hid the body and hopes nobody will find it. And one can speculate that he's being silent because he's involved in an elaborate conspiracy to conceal a sex-slave trade between Aruba and aliens from the Andromeda Galaxy. But, either way, it's all speculation - the only people who *MIGHT* know something refuse to talk, and the cops haven't found a shred of evidence. That's the real problem. There's just nothing to go on, and because of that, we're getting a lot of conspiracy theories and wild speculation. Like this post, above, where the author seems to think that people who named a street in San Francisco back in the 1930's are somehow involved in a conspiracy to kidnap this girl that spans over a quarter of a century. =P Xaa 16:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought Van der Sloot was still being held without bail. Did Mrs. Twitty really say she confronted him recently in an Internet cafe? If so, she would presumably be lying. On the other hand, maybe she confused the dates somewhat and is talking about confronting him well before she raised the reward to that amount. --Yamla 17:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

No, wasn't her getting confused, it was me. =P Correction made to comment above, the hyperlink takes you to the article. =) Xaa 17:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of deletion propose to Rewrite

Let me be clear on where I stand on the Natalee Holloway case, I think it is tragic for the family to loose a loved one. I also believe that this story has been become 'ridiculous' (quoting [Anderson Cooper] from CNN) with the amount of coverage and more importantly the type of coverage this story has receive. Especially since nothing major has happened in the case for weeks. Believe me I know, I live on the Aruba.

After reading this article and seeing it develop for weeks now, I simply thought it should be deleted because it really has no encyclopedic value. Here is why I believe that it has no encyclopedic value:

A majority of the article deals with the details of the case, what happened and when it happened. This case is about a simple missing person, that's it. If that were to make it encyclopedic then every other case in the world that included a missing person would need to have a wikipedia article, even the missing persons coming from families that can't put a million dollar reward for her return. Even though I am new to the game I don't think that is rational.

The article is implicitly bias or in wiki-jargon POV. Why implicitly, because the article itself technically when read has a NPOV with some minor POV elements in it[hey that's my opinion]. But the fact that the article exist stems from a bias for Natalee Holloway, you may connect to pretty white woman missing syndrome if you like.

I don't mean to be cynical with my remarks, I am just trying to be vividly clear about why Ms. Holloway in her own right doesn't deserve a article. What does deserve an article however is the phenomenon and the media circus that her DISAPPEARENCE has caused. Which are minor part in the article as it stands now. I believe it should be rewritten with focus on the events and the media circus surrounding her disappearance, even the actions of the family and the public reaction in the US and Aruba. That's where the Kuro5hin article carries some weight, though controversial.

Now since typically what I am proposing constitutes a major revision of the article I thought I would put it on the talk and see what people think.

To sum it up: The artical should be rewritten to show what the public and media have made of the story, instead of what it actually is.

PS Don't hate for having an opinion. --dirtyliberal 19:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)