Talk:Joran van der Sloot/Archive 1

NPOV

ANybody know whether or not there was an actual confession, the article looks damned unprofessional citing blogs Sherurcij 02:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree and have marked this article with the NPOV tag. I hope this can be cleared up fairly quickly. --Yamla 21:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The page doesn't say there is a confession. The page says that Beth Twitty says there is one. We even link to a video that proves she did say that. The heading even says "Alleged". What more do you want? AlistairMcMillan 23:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

When I initially raised the complaint, the article read as follows

According to Beth Holloway Twitty, in a September 10,2005 interview in the Aruban newspaper Bon Dia, the police reports indicated that Joran admitted to having had sexual relations with Natalee while she was going in and out of consciousness. “This is rape”, Mrs. Twitty said.[1] --- Joran's Rape Confession

According to Beth Holloway Twitty, in a September 10,2005 interview in the Aruban newspaper Bon Dia, the police reports indicated that Joran admitted to having had sexual relations with Natalee while she was going in and out of consciousness. “This is rape”, Mrs. Twitty said.[2]

In a September 11, 2005 interview with [Fox News], Mrs. Twitty repeated her contention that Joran had sex with an unconscious Natalee at the van der Sloot home. [3] Popular blog Hyscience and Mykemyk both noted, "The most alarming news of all came when Beth announced that she held in her possession a statement from Joran van der Sloot saying that he had engaged in sexual intercourse with Natalee Holloway as she drifted in and out of consciousness. Natalee's mother said she had not spoken publicly about the statement for fear of compromising the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of her daughter."

However, Aruba and the Netherlands have a lenient approach towards sexual activities [4] and gang rape by teenaged males. [5]

Hopefully we can all agree that was horribly POV, redundant and apparently claiming gangrape as a Dutch national sport :P Sherurcij 00:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the supposed response by Beth Twitty since the link provided went to an AP story, not an interview with the Guardian, and did not contain the quotation attributed to her.

Admission versus Confession

I changed the header to Admission for the following reasons. In U.S. practice, an party admission is a statement by a party, not a full confession, that admits facts adverse to the party. Here, the following facts are admissions against interest by Joran -- 1. the statement that he lied to the police, 2. the statement that the girl was drunk, 3. Beth's version of that statement - that the girl was going in and out of consciousness, 4. that Joran, and according to Beth, te Kalpoe brothers, all had sex with the girl. These statements may not be a confession to murder, but they may be a confession to rape, and they clearly are admissions.

Good call, just a minor note of support Sherurcij 17:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

External Links Blogs versus Other sources

I revised the external links, but kept most of the blogs. These blogs are noteworthy because they link to television video from MSM, contain photos and references to print stories. But they do express opinions.

If someone wants to research this case, this groups of blogs is a great place to start. And it is easier to find the news articles thru the blogs. Also the bloggers in one case flew to Aruba and conducted interviews. Several of the bloggers have appeared on cable television, so where do we draw the line between a print journalist who did not go to Aruba, and a blogger with some skills?

I also added the AP story.

If these blogger have actually contributed some new information then please add that information to the page and cite them as a source. I realise that external links don't have to follow our NPOV goals but the linked weblogs are heavily biased and therefore don't make good sources of information on the subject. AlistairMcMillan 15:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope that this wikipedia page does not glorify this acne covered weak kid from Aruba, as the Twitty family has been through enough with the botched investigation and no one held accountable.

On the external links, someone insists on having the link to the Good Morning America story go through the JVDS blog. The GMA site is a primary source and though I'm sure the JVDS blog people want web hits, they should find another way.

I have switched the link to the court documents from JVDS to Findlaw as Findlaw has a more efficient interface.

Holloway a minor?

Patrick added the statement, "As the complaint points out, Natalee was a minor under Alabama law (she was 18, the age of majority is 19)". How is this relevant? Holloway wasn't in Alabama and van der Sloot has never, as far as I know, been there. --Yamla 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant for the content of the complaint (see the link for the content). I do not claim that the complaint is justified.--Patrick 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks to me like Twitty is going off the deep end again, but that's obviously just opinion. Thank you for clearing up why that was added to the page. It's relevant to the article even given my opinions of the complaint's legal merits. --Yamla 16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is actually irrelvant for the complaint, because under that premise, I could prosecute someone somewhere in the world where the laws are fitting to my purpose. However, you can not assume that everybody in the world acts within all the potential laws of the whole world. The only law that is relevant is Aruban law in this case. There she was an adult. --KimvdLinde 16:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true (in my understanding of the legal system) but what Patrick added is relevant to the article because what he added is what Twitty is claiming. The article already notes the legal dubiousness of Twitty's claims. --Yamla 16:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I just think it is better NPOV when both sides are pointed out, so I added the difference with Aruba. --KimvdLinde 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've played around with it a bit, to avoid whether Natalee was actually a minor. As an attorney, I can tell you that when the age of majority is older than 18, it is for very limited purposes, usually having to do with child support and the duty to support (New York is 21). For all intents and purposes having to do with self-determination, an 18 year old is an adult in every state. In addition, I've deleted the bit about sexual assault since the lawsuit is a bit unclear on that point. We don't have to insert the allegations. People know what Beth's claims are from the rest of the article and can read the lawsuit themselves if interested.Wehwalt 18:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Info in external links is no reason to dispense with it in the article, especially if the external info is not copied but summarized, rearranged, etc. We do that all the time in Wikipedia.--Patrick 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Age of majority article says "In the United States ... currently 18 is the age of majority for most purposes, except in Alabama and Nebraska where it is 19, but see Legal drinking age. In some states, 21 is the legal age of majority for certain limited purposes, such as receiving title to property transferred by gift, will, or trust.", so it confirms that Alabama and Nebraska are exceptional cases, where an 18-year old is a minor. If you nevertheless think this is wrong, please update that article. (This is apart from the question whether it applies for acts outside Alabama.)--Patrick 01:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it is 19. However, they are curently canging that, just do not know how far they are at the moment. --KimvdLinde 03:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the relevance of Natalee's supposed minority is that it gives her parents standing to bring the suit. That has yet to be tested. Do we have to go further than that?Wehwalt 10:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Propose moving lawsuit to Natalee Holloway article

The whole issue of the lawsuit should probably be moved to the Natalee Holloway article. It involves more than just Joran, since his father is sued. I suggest moving it there, and perhaps just leave a sentence in Joran's article that he is a defendant in a suit filed by Beth and Dave. -Wehwalt 16:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

yeah the whole article is kinda odd, it should be about joran, but is more about the lawsuit, his father and all kind of related things which perhaps could be better placed in other articles. Boneyard 10:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The lawsuit is about alleged conduct of Joran, and of his father (but only to the extent of allowing Joran's conduct), so this article seems a suitable place.--Patrick 12:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, where would the reasonable user seeking information from Wikipedia about the lawsuit go? -Wehwalt 12:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To either of the two articles. The lawsuit should at least be mentioned at Natalee's page, I just noticed that has not yet been done.--Patrick 12:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Natalee's article is already large, we can also make the lawsuit a separate article.--Patrick 12:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is no separate article for the OJ Simpson civil case. -Wehwalt 14:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That section OJ_Simpson#Civil_trial is smaller.--Patrick 15:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD debate link

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

True. But given the end of the lawsuit and the fact that there is little going on regarding Joran, I wonder if it is not time to merge this into the the Natalee Holloway article. Any thoughts? I won't make it a formal proposal yet.--Wehwalt 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, again

With no response in three weeks to my proposal to delete or if keep, then merge, I do it formally. Really, there is little in this article which is not in the Holloway article, and we can move any text over. I propose to delete, or in the alternative, merge.--Wehwalt 12:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

merging or deleting will not take up any less disk space on WP. this way the potential murderer gets more focus.<s? I for one think he is as guilty as sin All six foot five of him. Cheers Will314159 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting of POV

I keep having to revert an editor who insists on putting in unverified information such as that Natalee and Joran had "sex without intercourse" and the like, plus POV statements out of place in this article, which I think we have done a good idea keeping neutral.

Incidently, if the two years passes and Joran is dismissed as a suspect, it will probably be time to merge the content of this article into Natalee's. It shouldn't take up much room; most of what is here is already there.--Wehwalt 12:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Joran's father .. licence to practice law ..

I have never heard of such a thing in the Dutch legal system.. the whole section seems to be outdated/inacurate/uncited to me Dugodugo 23:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There was reporting about a year ago about him being sworn in to qualify to practice law in Aruba. It is possible the terminology is wrong, and even a U.S. cite may still get it wrong.--Wehwalt 23:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted unsourced text

Deleted the text about van der Sloots "manhood". Do I need to even delve into an explanation of how the text is ridiculous fiction and is without any verifiable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafgreen (talk • contribs) 08:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Undo merge

This article no longer qualifies under WP:ONEVENT. Joran is now suspected of murdering a young woman of 21 years old in Lima, Peru and should have a page other than in the context of Natalee Holloway. Here are some links: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I propose that a separate article be created in place of this redirect. --166.20.224.12 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have created a separate article for this page in place of redirect given the current developments with Joran van der Sloot.Tessie xo (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Returning a few hours later and the article looks great, thank you to everyone who helped clean it up. Tessie xo (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Quinua, 3 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It says :in the Hotel Tac Sac in the avenue Miraflores district in Lima, Peru It should say: in the Hotel Tac Sac in Miraflores district in Lima, Peru

Miraflores is a district and not an avenue in Lima, Peru. It might be a little mistake from the editor

Quinua (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It did look a bit odd. I'll take care of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge regrets

It's really too bad that this article was merged a long time ago, otherwise it would be in a much better state now that there is so much attention. Now you have a very amateurish article that got over 56,000 views in one day. Sigh. 77.250.200.70 (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The merge didn't happen until Feb 2008. I seriously doubt that much work would have been done between Feb 2008 and May 2010. The only applicable news item would have been the death of his father.

The restore could have been done from the article's history in one fell swoop.

I think Wikipedia policy was followed correctly in the merge, specifically WP:ONEEVENT. If you think policy should be changed, it might be productive to start a thread about it over on that talk page. Thundermaker (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the archived text that could be retrieved with reliable sources was added back in recent edits. KimChee (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick van der Eem

The article states that Peter R. de Vries himself posed as a "friend" of Joran van der Sloot to get a confession of him on camera. It was actually a dutch/aruban man named Patrick van der Eem (see: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_van_der_Eem). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.123.106 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Beaten and stabbed, pool of blood?

you're using a tabloid style TV magazine as the source for the details of her death, yet when I read news reports from credible organizations they all only describe she was found clothed and her neck was broken. I am not saying the tabloid report you are using is wrong, but under the circumstances you are eroding the credibility of this article by making such a fantastic claim and only using a tabloid and sensational tv program as the single source. extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence, please cite some additional and credible sources to substantiate the "beaten, stabbed, pool of blood" claims this article makes. this is a very important article that will be receiving a ton of traffic, you owe it to wikipedia to avoid making wikip3edia look like yet another tabloid, sensational and unreliable resource. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the "pool of blood" text. The ref for "beaten and stabbed" is cbsnews.com which is unquestionably a WP:RS. Here's another [5] from abcnews which says "the room was covered in blood, indicating a struggle had taken place" but the info comes second-hand through the victim's father. Thundermaker (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC

The tabloid television show you use as a credible cite is where I saw the "pool of blood" comment, my mistake. so are you telling me out of every source in the world you think "48 Hours Mystery" is the best we can do to document the details of how the victim was found? And again, I am not saying the CBS tabloid, sensationalist source is wrong, I'm pointing out it is not a very credible source, in spite of your enthusiasm for tabloid journalism. I'm requesting you use a source that is steeped more in journalism and less on shock value.

This story is only notable because it is shocking; therefore, the best coverage is going to be on the sensationalist side. CBS and ABC are both well-respected news sources. I will add the ABC reference but I don't think your objection to the style of journalism of that department of CBS is grounds to remove its reference from the article. Thundermaker (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm sorry, Thundermaker, we are an encyclopedia, not the six o' clock news. This article will be kept encyclopedic in tone.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree that we don't want to be the six o'clock news, but we can use it as a reference, which is what we're talking about here. Thundermaker (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks to whoever made the changes! again, not saying that tabloid tv show was wrong, I was just saying it did not make the claims in the article very credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

His mother and father and their reaction and history are relevant

I cannot modify the article, my point was his living parent is relevant to his back ground, his history is relevant. his mother's reaction is relevant, especially when she gave interviews the last time he murdered a young woman and told the world her little darling was an innocent boy. these are relevant facts to this story. do not delete details about his parents or history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO his mother is indeed relevant. What I got from the press is that she's more obsessed and concerned with what this all does to her family, completely oblivious to what the victims families had to go through. It make you wonder what kind of a mindset these people have. Qwrk (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Spanish-language references

This is supposed to be an English-language Wikipedia. It seems that events in Chili are reported fastest in Spanish, but please wait for a RS to translate to English. There are currently 4 references from cooperativa.cl and tercera.com which are in Spanish. Thundermaker (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to the policy that says all sources must be in English. I didn't think that was the case. Weakopedia (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The policy says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate", and it doesn't say that a translation from a RS should be made available, it says to "please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate.", so it seems that providing a translation is good enough if the foreign-language source is a RS. Weakopedia (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so that's the official policy from WP:NONENG. Which is easier, providing footnotes or waiting a few hours for the news to percolate to US publications? This subject is of interest to Americans, so I doubt that there will be a shortage of English-language sources.

Mug shot?

One thing that our Spanish-speaking editors can really help with is a current mugshot. There should be a public-domain picture somewhere on a Chile government website. Thundermaker (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that is up to who is adding the source - which method they choose to validate the source with translation, but I guess they really should try and provide one. In reality this will often be overtaken by english sources and we can just use one of them, but if the person adding the original, foreign language, source has provided a translation then there is no reason not to use it. Weakopedia (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Acolitti, 5 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

slight change in text required [...] Van der Sloot was He was subsequently transported by Chilean police [...]

to be replaced with [...] Van der Sloot was subsequently transported by Chilean police [...]

Acolitti (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing that out. Weakopedia (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunno how to change this edit request box to say done though. Weakopedia (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the template for you. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 18:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I've had it explained to me now - and I get to do this...

 Done Weakopedia (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

van/Van der Sloot

I am pretty sure it is always van der Sloot and not Van der Sloot, even when beginning a sentence. van der Sloot then. I changed some, but I thought it best to say something here before changing them all to see if anyone has any other ideas. Weakopedia (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's confusing. I speak Dutch, but some of the rules for writing it perplex me. The edit notice has been corrected by a native speaker, and I've verified the rule by matching it against usage in Dutch Wikipedia and the website for De Telegraaf.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

See this discussion on this very topic: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Correct capitalization for surnames. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks also. Weakopedia (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's always capitalized when beginning a sentence without the first name, according to English rules of orthography, thus: "Van der Sloot said ..." —Quicksilver^{T @} 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Being Dutch, I can perhaps shed light here. The rule is quite simple: If you only use the last name, the "van" gets capitalized. If you use a first name or an initial, the "van" is not capitalized. E.g. Vincent van Gogh or V. van Gogh, but "a Van Gogh painting." Whether it is at the beginning of a sentence or somewhere in the middle does not change this rule. It also works for other multi-part family names such as "De Bruin" (or "J. de Bruin"). If you have a three-part last name, only the first part gets capitalized per the above rule. The last part of course always is capitalized. E.g. "Van den Heuvel" or "M. van den Heuvel." In American English, the rule is the same as the Dutch one I think, but most multi-part names have been merged into one. E.g. "Van den Berg" became "Vandenberg" so the issue does not arise as often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhg88 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That is indeed helpful. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

Saying the same thing twice, having two sentences say the same thing

The first two sentences in the "murder investigation section" are repetitive:

"Peruvian officials named Van der Sloot as the sole suspect in the murder investigation.[25] No other suspect is connected to death of Flores Ramírez."

Well if he is the sole suspect, then there can be no other suspect. It doesn't need to be said twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.36.221 (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.--Patrick (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Criminal complaint

the criminal complaint for extortion can be found here http://www.whnt.com/media/acrobat/2010-06/54092672.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.36.221 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Charges

{{editsemiprotected}}

The infobox in this article lists extortion and wire fraud as the charges against Joran van der Sloot. However, murder is not listed. Is there any reason for this glaring omission? I assume that the Peruvian authorities have charged him with murder, no? Or has that not happened as of yet? Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

The newspapers have only said "facing charges of", and it isn't clear if he has been formally charged at this time.—Kww(talk) 02:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. It looks like charges were formally brought today (June 11). Thanks! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

Quotes of Peruvian interior minister via CNN

CNN is quoting, or attributing comments of the Peruvian Interior Minister that warrant inclusion I think. Read more here http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/06/peru.murder.case/index.html?hpt=Sbin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

mother's maiden name?

What is his mother's maiden surname? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.160.141.90 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Want to hack his twitter account or something? Unless it's relevant to the article in some way, we should keep it private. Thundermaker (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

None of his life should be private, it leads to tragedy.

he did NOT say he beat her to death

the article wrongly states "He said he beat her to death" he did NOT say that. this is yet another reason that he should be quoted instead of wiki putting their own spin on it. He NEVER said he "beat her to death" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

HERE Is what he actually said ""I did not want to do it. The girl intruded into my private life," he told investigators, according to La Republica . "She had no right."

"I confronted her," he continued. "She was frightened, we argued and she wanted to get away. I grabbed her by the neck and I hit her."

did he say he "beat her to death"?? no he did not. does anyone here care about accuracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

you accuse me of promoting libel and you distort what happened by claiming he said he "beat her to death" too funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

the source/cite for "he said he beat her to death..." says nothing of the sort. go read it. can we please put a little effort into being accurate here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed You are both absolutely correct that it was not correctly stated in the article. I'm sure it was a simple mistake, and no one intentionally tried to put their "own spin on it". Anyway, it's corrected now, with a quote from Van der Sloot. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That was taken from a pair of CNN articles that appeared this morning. Interestingly, that detail vanished as the articles were updated over the course of the day. KimChee (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks bro. I just found this blog that is translating some of the article from the Peruvian newspaper that first published the details of his confession. http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/06/joran_van_der_sloot_peru_newsp.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

here is a peruvian official stating sloot confessed, Colonel Abel Gamarra, a spokesman for Peru's national police. http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE65739W20100608 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Security image

Certainly violates NFCC. Copyright image, no justifiable fair use as Joran lives.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed for the infobox, but it should be justifiable for the section regarding the murder as this is the only known video released by police from the crime scene. KimChee (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

no mug shots published yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

neither are PD as far as we know. It is inappropriate fair use.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The image isn't used as an example of what he looks like, it's used because it's a shot of them together. Even with a free image of him available, there would still be a fair use justification for using the CCTV shot. Fences&Windows 00:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not one that could surmount WP:NFCC#8. What would a reader fail to understand before seeing the image that he would understand afterwards? Why couldn't that thing be conveyed in words?—Kww(talk) 00:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's also an issue of "a picture is worth a thousand words" -- the type of hotel, the type of clothes they're wearing, the fact that she isn't forcibly brought into the room -- are all details not conveyed by the text alone. KimChee (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

none of which is valid per NFCC.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the picture it does seem that an argument could be made that it might "increase readers' understanding of the topic". Since the image is "not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" and has "been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia" it seems like an argument could be made for it's inclusion here. It certainly could not "be replaced by a free version that has the same effect", and a picture of a murder suspect approaching the eventual crimescene alone with the now deceased shortly before their murder does seem to have some significance and potential value to the reader. Weakopedia (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that all ten prongs have to be clearly and simultaneously met. You haven't named the thing which would not be understood by the reader in the absence of the picture that could not be dealt with in words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the last prong is WP:NFCC#8 and I feel this version meets that as it visually presents details not conveyed by the text (e.g. alleged assailant is bigger than the victim), plus other details mentioned above. Is there something I'm missing? KimChee (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Must be. You need to demonstrate that the explanation cannot be made in words. Otherwise, all you have demonstrated is that the text of the article is inadequate.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to sound subjective to me. Under that rationale, many otherwise qualifying images would be broken down into words if there were no length guidelines for articles. I think this a significant non-replaceable image from the event like the screenshot from the Rodney King article. KimChee (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think KimChee has it right - this is a significant non-replaceable image from the event. It isn't just showing you what he or she looks like, and I don't think wikipedia has the scope to adequately describe in words the scene that the photo conveys. There is no doubt that the image is significant and encyclopedic, and I think there is sufficient argument to qualify the fair usage of it. Weakopedia (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If that were the rationale, Weakopedia, we'd have an awful lot of non free images. I've placed a deletion tag on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've removed it from the article once again. It's a blatant violation.—Kww(talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we stop with the edit warring on this? It's just going to get the article fully protected or someone blocked (not by me as I'm "involved"). I would error on the side of leaving the image out of the article until the issue is settled, though. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Kww, but that image has been nominated for deletion, and until that process is concluded your reversion is, I think, inappropriate. You could better discuss your issues at the talkpage of the file itself. Since the best reading of this discussion is "no consensus" I think it reasonable to allow it to remain until the deletion process is concluded, so on that basis I am reverting your removal of it. Weakopedia (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the issue of whether the image has any possible use, not whether it is usable in this article. Your reversion was completely inappropriate: it fails WP:NFCC#8 in relation to this article.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And Weakopedia, this is not a democracy, and consensus is not a vote. I should note that those who display a knowledge of NFCC are voting to get it out of this article. There is no valid fair use rationale, and so we are displaying a non free image improperly to tens of thousands of readers each day. It needs to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion. The image has not been speedily deleted. You have made an argument against it's inclusion, there has been a counter argument against that. The image may or may not be deleted but until that process has concluded I am not sure that your opinion alone is enough to certify that it fails NFCC. If the file passes NFCC at review then there is no argument against using it in this article, so until that review is completed or consensus here swings in a definable direction I just don't see how your can remove the file in good faith. Since you have again removed content that has a free use rationale and a copyright image, and is currently awaiting deletion review, and you are acting without a strong consensus, I must again revert you and ask you to contribute to the discussion, here or at the file review page, as well as remind you of the 3 reversion rule. Wehwalt has already started down the proper avenue of nominating the file for deletion and asking an admin to validate his concerns - you would better not continuing to edit war and wait the short time for that process to be concluded. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia, well, you have two admins in this discussion telling you that it should be taken out until the discussion is over... Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that being an admin isn't a big deal, I don't usually check out peoples userpages to see who they are when evaluating their statements about an article. Anyway, my reading was that the uploader had satisfied his burden enough to be given the (in the end, very short) time needed to establish by consensus whether the upload was legitimate, which is in fact what happened. Done deal. Weakopedia (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I submit that the NFCC failure qualifies at blatant, and, as such, removing it is immune from 3RR. I'd like to hear someone else confirm my take before I proceed. Weakopedia, you seem to be under the assumption that controversial material is retained until there is a consensus to remove: that is a direct contradiction of WP:BURDEN.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The thing is, I don't feel the editor who added it is really conversant with our NFCC policies. That is, no doubt, why the claim for this as a screenshot (which goes to television shows) is present in the fair use rationale. I think there is considerable noncompliance with NFCC and that editors are fixing on certain phrases in there, rather than reading the whole thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Review invited at Wikipedia talk:Non-free_content#Review requested of actions at Joran van der Sloot.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• This usage fails our WP:NFCC policy. There's a claim that this image conveys information not available in the text. This information is supposedly "type of hotel, the type of clothes they're wearing, the fact that she isn't forcibly brought into the room" and "alleged assailant is bigger than the victim". I concur with Kww that the text of the article is inadequate. The proponents of the position that the image conveys information not in the text demonstrated themselves that it could be replaced with text, as they did it themselves in their postings in this thread. Further, the fair use rationale's purpose for this image is "The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article with the subtopic." The subtopic it is used in the death of Stephany. This is not the murder scene. She's not in the act of dying. She's not being assaulted. In fact, you can't even identify the people in this image, as no faces can be seen. Weak, weak, weak. It must go. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This most recent comment "The subtopic it is used in the death of Stephany. This is not the murder scene." does makes sense to me. It would make more sense under the Joran van der Sloot#Homicide investigation subtopic as this has been an important piece of evidence widely released by the police in Peru. I did elaborate more in the text about the published details of the video, but I'm concerned about entering into the territory of "original research" as noted elsewhere by Weakopedia if I go any further into words. I have an additional question regarding one of Wehwalt's comments: if claiming this as a screenshot (which goes to television shows) doesn't apply to this image, what would? I was looking for similar images of historical newsworthy significance and found the Rodney King screenshot and thought that it would apply in a similar manner. Perhaps you can help me understand this. Thanks. KimChee (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

KimChee also left a note on my talk page, I will reply to both here. The screenshot exception applies to dramatic productions such as TV shows; the text is necessarily all about that production and so it's deemed OK. It does not apply to random news footage, or anything that was ever in a news video could be brought in if it is ever shown on the five o'clock news. Regarding Rodney KIng, I would say it sounds improper to me, but it is a lot less so then here, since after all, the article concentrates on the beating, rather than two people in a hallway without their faces showing. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, anyway, it's a big encyclopedia and we have less than a thousand active admins (four of which, btw, are of the opinion that the use here is improper, plus Hammersoft who is one of our best people on image policy). I do not think you could move the image within the article and make it fit NPCC. What you would need is a RS talking, at some length, about that particular image. I would suggest that you, to get more informed eyes on this, post whatever salvage proposal you want on the noticeboard cited above. I am sympathetic. I've tried to push the limits of NFCC, especially since my main focus here is mid-20th century politics, for which it can be near impossible to get free images if the guy died in 1984 and had his political career post 1923. Incidentally, I've seen some talk about evidence "released by the police". I do not know Peruvian copyright law, but I doubt if that happening would deprive the copyright owners (the hotel, I guess) of their copyright, and it almost certainly would not deprive them of their Berne Convention copyright rights. Note that the United States is a signatory to the Berne Convention and our servers are located in Florida.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference problem

{{editsemiprotected}} The reference Van der Sloot confession: Peruvians now warn women of 'psychopath' foreigners". The Christian Science Monitor. 2010-06-08 (currently #59 in the reference list) has a wrong link to a CNN article. It should be exchanged with the correct link for the article. 212.10.95.14 (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done—Kww(talk) 00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The lead paragraph ends with the following sentence: While in Peruvian custody on June 7, 2010, he confessed to causing her death. The word "her" should be replaced by the female victim's name (Flores). As the sentence now stands, it (ambiguously) could be read to mean that van der Sloot confessed to the death of Holloway or to the death of Flores. In fact, it (incorrectly) looks more like it refers to Holloway, as Holloway's name was the name most recently mentioned as the antecedent immediately prior to the "her" pronoun. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

 Done. KimChee (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Archive

Suggest all pre-2010 threads be archived.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Joran van der Sloot.jpg

Excuse my skepticism, but I'm having a very hard time believing that File:Joran van der Sloot.jpg is in fact a freely licensed image. I know I've seen that image on a news article somewhere but can't pinpoint it given my current internet access (cell phone). --auburnpilot talk 03:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I found it in Wikimedia Commons after it turned up on the Spanish Wikipedia page. Can someone confirm (or rule out) its provenance? KimChee (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It was uploaded by a new editor on June 8 - their only edit to commons, which does seem slightly suspicious. Also it looks to be a cropped version of one of a series of photos taken for the AP news service. It was used here 2 days before being on commons, so am guessing the 'own work' part may just refer to the fact they cropped someone elses photo.

I have found where it appeared on June 3, with a tag saying it was taken by Aliosha Marquez for AP, so unless Mago17 is Marquez I would say it is not their own work. Unfortunately it was first used by the Examiner, and I cannot post a link to it as wikipedia says it is banned. Weakopedia (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a version of the photo you can click on, it shows that indeed it was Aliosha Marquez who took the photo, and someone (who may or may not be Marquez) uploaded it as their own work. Weakopedia (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The one on commons is clearly higher resolution than the first link and the second link is cropped much tighter, so it's not from either web source, but it's clearly from the same original photo. I'm curious where the uploader got this from. KimChee (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The resolution of the commons shot is 296 × 400 - it would seem that either Marquez or AP decided to crop on of the many photos that she took on that day and that other services have used the photo but at a lesser resolution. It still could be that Marquez is the uploader to commons, but with that being their only edit there, it does seem a bit unlikely. And I don't know how far one can go in pursuing the answer without publicly identifying a user which might be bad. Weakopedia (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a copyvio until proven otherwise, and I will nom it for deletion. There is no way that an AP photographer would diminish the value of her photographs by donating one here, so that anyone needing a photo of JvdS would not have to pay. No way. If I am wrong, though I doubt it, she can contact OTRS to have her permission registered. Not holding my breath.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the deletion request on commons is incomplete, as it lacks the needed subpages. In any case this clearly qualifies for speedy delete using {{copyvio|optional URL}} with optional URL being this (wiki version just contrast enhanced & cropped). If there should be any doubts about AP's stance on this photo, their sales page makes it absolutely clear. As the deletion request was started by someone else, I have refrained from making subpages/changing to speedy. 212.10.95.14 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've nommed it as a speedy now. THanks for the advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

An admin on Commons deleted it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

the lead paragraph/intro

is exceptional I think. very professional sounding. bravo to the editors who contributed to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Entire Alabama criminal complaint on the smoking gun

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0610101joran1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Where he may be vacationing very soon

Prison life in Peru doesn't seem quite as posh as what we have in the USA. http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/11/joran-van-der-sloot-to-face-worst-of-the-worst-in-prison-if-convicted/ question is, does this go in the article? It's only speculation that he will end up there, but it does indeed shed some light on prison conditions in Peru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course this is all very interesting, but it's all supposition right now. Assuming he's found guilty, we don't really know where they'll send him or what kind of treatment he'll get. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something more academic that sheds some light on Peruvian penal system (and history) would be worthwhile http://www.photius.com/countries/peru/national_security/peru_national_security_penal_system.html I would think readers outside of Peru would be interested in knowing more about the Peruvian penal system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They might be but that's more suitable for another topic. It's only indirectly related to Van der Sloot. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This US State Department briefing seems good. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27916.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't sent to Lurigancho; he was sent to Miguel Castro Castro maximum security prison instead. KimChee (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Van der Sloot is also a writer

Albeit with a ghostwriter. Would the cover of his book seen here be acceptable use of a non-free image in the section of the article mentioning this? KimChee (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so ... if the article were on the book, that would be different.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCI states as appropriate "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." In the book article, it would make sense. Here, it would be acceptable if the image significantly contributed in terms of "critical commentary" about the book. As it stands, the image would only serve to identify the subject (book) so it would be inappropriate, in my opinion. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of his direct quotes in that article might be worth of inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be permitted, per WP:SELFPUB. How's your Dutch?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

the Kalpoe brothers

I wonder why none of the media seems to be seeking out the Kalpoe brothers? You would think every media outlet on the planet would be trying to get an interview with one of them or updating their story. I keep searching in vain for any new information about them, clearly anything new on them would be relevant to the article. But so far I have found absolutely nothing. Has anyone seen or read anything new on the Kalpoe brothers?

I'm uncertain that there would be any relevance to having up to date info on the Kalpoe brothers in this article. As I understand it, Deepak Kalpoe's case vs. Skeeters and so forth is scheduled for early 2011 and there was recently a deposition of him.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. If they make any current comments on the case, that would be relevant. One would think CNN/MSNBC/ABC et all would be camped out on their door step seeking to interview them now that van der sloot is safely behind bars and it is apparent, based on media reports of his confession, he is indeed a murderer of at least one woman. What to the Kalpoe brothers have to say on this new development is the source of my curiosity. And what do they have to say about van der Sloot's alleged extortion scheme? Those are things I would think would be relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think the Kalpoes' opinion on the Flores case is relevant? They have no connection to her or the current criminal investigation. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about Flores, it is about van der Sloot. They, along with van der Sloot, were considered prime suspects in Holloway's disappearance. They ALL claimed they were innocent of any crime. Back then van der Sloot said "I would never murder a woman" well he recently changes his tune. I wonder if the Kalpoe brothers might change their tune in view of recent events. Perhaps they are no longer as loyal to Sloot as they once were. Who knows, this is why I am wanting to see some updates about them by the media. I think what they have to say could be of critical interest to the article. Don't get me wrong, I don't see them admitting to anything, but if they were previously protecting van der Sloot, perhaps their loyalty might have changed, due to recent developments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If they speak, we look at what they say and decide if it is worthy of inclusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well of course, that goes without saying, my point is clearly made in my opening paragraph. Where is the media? Has anyone her read any updates on the two boys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Robbery motive should be removed from page.

The sidebar on this page offers "Robbery" as motive to van der Sloot's crimes. I request that this documentation be changed to something more appropriate or removed. It appears extremely unlikely that this was his motive in killing two girls and I believe it represents a biased opinion to document this apparent fact as a sidebar statistic with his date and place of birth, etc. In my opinion, van der Sloot is most likely a serial killer. But in the interest of fairness, I am not suggesting that the listed motive be changed to "mental derangement." I am, however, making the strong request that "Robbery" be removed. Let's not do this jerk any favors. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.122.4 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Many people will have many opinions of Mr. Van der Sloot, but this was the motive identified by the police chief on the case. KimChee (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought he killed her because she went on his computer and found something regarding Natalee Holloway? We seem to have a contradiction here, and perhaps there is a mistake in understanding. From what I'm seeing , he robbed her body to aid in his escape.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

By his own admission he took her credit cards before fleeing to Chile. A 10 page statement [PDF, in Spanish] can be found here; http://images2-telegraaf.nl/multimedia/archive/00730/Jorans_bekentenis_730395a.pdf

Qwrk (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

He has been CHARGED in Peru with murder and robbery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/Citer8888 (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:Citer8888 (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)|talk]]) 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is, he did not seem to kill her for the money. After he killed her, then he took her money to help him flee. I would also remove it from the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As is it makes no sense - the infobox has his name, his birth details, and then his 'motive' - motive for what? Being Joran? The article is about him, not a specific crime. Also, the only thing there is to go on for the motive until it is established by the judge are Jorans statements, which are generally unreliable. At the very least it is 'suspected motive' and it is in the wrong place. There are now two versions of his motive, that he killed her over the laptop and that he killed her for her money. Leave it up to the judge to work it out. Just because he was charged with robbery does not make that his prime motive for the murder - if he forgot to pay his hotel bill he will probably get charged for that too, it doesn't make that the motive for killing this girl. Weakopedia (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't make sense in the infobox, so I have removed it. It's speculation which is notable because it comes from a major Peruvian law officer, but it needs to be identified as that person's POV in text rather than a simple motive=robbery in an infobox (which as you point out is about a person not a crime). Thundermaker (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the police chief's motive in identifying robbery as a motive is because murder in the commission of a robbery carries stiffer penalties (up to life) than murder by itself. Either way, the current layout of the infobox doesn't do a good job of connecting motives to their respective charges or convictions, whenever that may happen. I'll also try adding some notations to separate the Peruvian charges from the United States charges. KimChee (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. It is significant that he was charged with murder and robbery in Peru. There have also been many reports as to how much money he took -- anything from $100 to $10,000 plus jewelry; the amount does not appear as yet to have been settled. "Peruvian judge Juan Buendia has ordered van der Sloot jailed on murder and robbery charges, and described van der Sloot as having acted with 'ferocity and great cruelty.'" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20007448-504083.html Citer8888 (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where it mentions "motive", I only see where it mentions what he has been charged with. Where is an infobox that says "motive"? Amd I being dense or overlooking the obvious? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It was removed very recently. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh a wise removal! thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Forensic investigation

Much of this section is incorrect

Police released hotel security video showing Van der Sloot entering the Hotel TAC together with Flores Ramírez at about 5:00 A.M. on May 30.[77] At about 8:10 A.M., he is shown walking across the street to a supermarket and returning with bread and two cups of coffee. Nearly an hour and half later, he is seen in the video leaving the hotel alone with his bags. An autopsy ruled out that Flores Ramírez had sexual intercourse before her death and that she was under the influence of enough alcohol to prevent her from resisting an attack.[74] Both Van der Sloot and his victim tested positive for the presence of cocaine.[78] The stains on Van der Sloot's clothes matched the blood type of Flores Ramírez.[79] DNA tests are being conducted on the clothes and the previously recovered tennis racquet.[52]

I think that there is a 40 minute gap? Not 90 minutes between going for coffee and leaving for good. Also, there is video showing him fake-knocking on his room's door, and later having a hotel employee open the door for him.

I believe that there were no drugs found in either Van der Sloot or his victim, and that rape had been ruled out (altho she was found with no pants on).

Also, the tennis racket has been ruled out as a weapon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/Citer8888 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:Citer8888 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)|talk]]) 14:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any new reports on the racquet other than it visually didn't appear to have blood and was still being tested. If you can provide a link to a reliable source that says otherwise, that's fair game. KimChee (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Arrival in Aruba

I'm sure I read in a Dutch magazine that the family moved to Aruba in 1990-91 (when Joran would have been 3-4) and that his two younger brothers were born in Aruba. I don't believe he arrived at the age of 16, the year before the Holloway disappearance. Also the reference to that piece of info says that Aruba is in Jamaica, so I don't know how much credence we can put in the article as a whole. Any one have any better info? Ravenscroft32 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Joran had lived for several years in Aruba pre-Natalee. However, I can't give you a definite source. You might want to look through the Vanity Fair article, there was quite a lot of background in that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the mag is credible but the authors had The Beach Boys in mind instead of Van der Sloot. --an odd name 23:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked this until more information becomes available from additional sources. KimChee (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Look through the Vanity Fair article cited in the NH article. It may be helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit dated, but still helpful. Thanks! KimChee (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC) It turned out to be very helpful. KimChee (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of biography ref

I'm concerned by the use of this reference from the Biography Channel. I can only judge its claims by what I know, which in this case is quite a bit, and it says Paulus was a judge. Paulus was never a judge. It says that Joran had a 5,000 dollar line of credit and gambled extensively. The only allegations of gambling I have seen sourced were that he entered poker tournaments which had entry fees and prizes. This is a BLP and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Given the clear error regarding the judgeship, I do not think we should rely on that source as reliable and should either exclude the information or else require an inline mention of where it came from.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Biography channel is notoriously unreliable. If you know anything about any of the subject matter they cover and you've watched a show then you know what I mean. They are all about sensationalism and poor scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That has all been trimmed out and replaced with more reliable sources. In the process, I found confirmation that it is his mother teaching at the school that he attended. KimChee (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was my understanding that this was so. Thanks for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Public Reaction

Can someone explain the purpose of this section? Up to this section, the entire article is a collection of facts, dates and quotes, then comes this section which could have been interesting if its purpose wasn't immediately clear upon reading the opening line: "Public outcry in Peru has been fueled by local media,..." Perhaps, but, any chance that there is also outcry because a girl was murdered??? It seems like this paragraph is intended to cast Joran van der Sloot in a more positive light, by casting doubt over Peru, its investigation and motives. This is not meant to be a nationalist rant, there are many places to discuss the PLETHORA of problems Peru has, it seems out of place here, or at the very least, written with a specific POV. 70.171.222.60 (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The section does seem to be misnamed. It's called "public reaction", but it's mostly about the press coverage. And only the Peru press coverage. For the Holloway case, the section is titled "Media coverage". Thundermaker (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it does need to be renamed, but I have to admit, the "public reaction" almost seems appropriate due to VDS' Lawyer having to quit because of death threats.--Hourick (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

his teenage girlfriend

the article states "His teenage girlfriend said that she left him because of his "problem with lying" and I'm not convinced this is what you would find in an encyclopedia. My teenage girlfriends might say all sorts of things about me, but are they relevant? Now, had he been charged with beating a teenage girlfriend, or something along those lines, I think there would be a case for including it. But the fact that he had a girlfriend when he was a teenager and she claims he was a liar at the time does not seem very relevant. I could name a few teenage girlfriends who could claim I lied to them back then (and I could make a counter claim as well). That's pretty ordinary stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah People magazine claiming and unnamed girlfriend broke up with him because of his lies is not exactly what we would consider scholarship. I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. People need to remember that this article is not a collection point for accusations again JvdS.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

jailhouse video of "the psychopath"

should we link to this jailhouse video of him? http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978303995&grpId=3659174697244816 and did you see where the assassin (the "clown") that he shares prison quarters with has given him the nickname "psychopath"? Would it be sensationalism to note that? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/06/17/2010-06-17_joran_van_der_sloot_well_talk_to_you_about_natalee_holloway_aruban_authorities_s.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The video should only be linked if its content is useful and informative to the article which I don't think this video is. WP:LINKFARM advises against simply linking to the video out of any context. And yes, it would be sensationalism to make the next statement. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to hold on through the sensationalism. Incidentally, semi protection has expired and I haven't seen any reason to reinstitute it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

how much do you want to wager that "the clown" is asking "the psychopath" about the location of Holloway, so he can use that information to get himself a better deal? ahh to be a fly on the wall of a certain Peruvian prison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Father's name Paul/Paulus

Joran's father went by the name Paul. Paulus is his legal name but biography policy is to use the legal name once and then the name the person went by. See the Bill Clinton article - his name is William but he goes by "Bill" so that's what we should use. Dutch wiki [6] and media [7] all use the proper "Paul". See WP:NAMES Rpvdk (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

How do we know he went by Paul? Just because the Dutch wiki and one article use it?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Google for Dutch news on the issue and you'll see that the use of Paul by far outnumbers Paulus. Qwrk (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's very common for Dutch people to have full legal names like this and go by a different name (usually a shortened version of the first legal name). A full name like Paulus is never used in everyday life, only on legal documents, passports etc. Note that all dutch media use "Paul". Here's four of the country's largest newspapers:[8] [9] [10] [11], top news broadcaster NOS: [12] and Peter R. de Vries [13]. Also, an english language video from AP that uses Paul here [14]. If you have a look at a few other articles on Dutch people you'll see that many have names like this, especially people of Paul's generation. Some examples: Ruud Lubbers, Dries van Agt, Pim Fortuyn. Rpvdk (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Incidentally, was there a shortage of vowels on the day you guys got your usernames?:)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You might think that!  ;-) No, Qwrk is just a quirk within the Quirk. As for the Paulus / Paul thingie; officially my Christian names are Andreas Everhardus Aloysius Maria, but I go by the name of Bob. It's what they do with them bleeding Dutch. Qwrk (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, between you and Rpvdk, I just assumed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Flickr images

I didn't think of this option before, but what about some of the images hosted on Flickr here for use in the article via commons? KimChee (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if there are any that are uploaded by the photographer, of Joran (not photoshopped) and the the copyright tag on the flickr page is one we can use. I forget exactly how it works, but if it says "All Rights Reserved", fuggetaboutit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And even if they were uploaded to Flickr by the photographer (which clearly isn't the case for most–if not all–in the above search), only photos that allow for commercial use can be transferred to wiki. When that is taken into account, the Flickr search result is less impressive. 212.10.95.14 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

About what I expected, but I did not want to discourage KimChee.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not savvy at all about wiki policy on using photos, but the ones we're currently using sure add to the article. Could we post one of the prison where he is staying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If we have one at Commons or if we can get someone in Peru to take one (safely) and upload it under a suitable license.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Psychiatric institution?

Is there any truth to this latest info coming out of the Netherlands, that Joran was due to enter a psychiatric institution shortly before he went to Peru? http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/06/my_son_is_sick_in_his_head_say.php Ravenscroft32 (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all over the broadsheets and tabloids today, after his Mum gave an exclusive interview with the Telegraaf. You'd have to be able to weigh her words for truth and honesty. Qwrk (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess we can ref inline to her.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Vanity Fair interview with Holloway's mother mentions that the parents were sending him to a psychiatrist in 2006 or earlier. KimChee (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Beth said that. Given Beth's ... inconsistent statements, I would certainly advise attributing inline anything she says--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Van der Sloot's mother

This Associated Press article adds further details: Van der Sloot's Mother Claims He's Mentally Ill. The mother clearly seems to backing off in her support of her son, according to this article. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Tattoo

I am pretty certain that this article once contained a reference to Joran van der Sloot's tattoo (that said "never mind", in Thai, I believe). Now, I cannot seem to find that section. Was that information removed? Why? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

I don't remember removing it, but I support its removal if it was there. We are not a collection of trivia, or a collection of all possible information regarding Joran. We don't need his hat size either (I almost said shoe size, that is relevant, actually)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we are not a collection of trivia. One could, however, make the argument that the presence of a tattoo (in general) and the contents of that tattoo (in specific) are indeed relevant and not trivial. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Yes, we could, but that is what is called WP:OR original research. If a secondary source ties it to the allegations against Joran, then we might want to put it in. And I have friends of Joran's generation who have tattoos and are the nicest people you'd want to meet (I don't have any).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It would not be original research, if reliable sources mention his tattoo (which they have). Also, this is an article about Joran van der Sloot generally ... not about his crimes specifically. Therefore, nothing needs to be "tied into the allegations against him". The article is about him ... not solely about the allegations against him. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

This article mentions (reliably sourced) facts and information about Joran van der Sloot. Examples: his mother was an art teacher; Joran was an honors student; Joran played on the soccer team; etc. If the tattoo fact is trivia, how are these other facts not trivial? And how are these other facts "tied into the allegations against him"? All of these are merely facts about his life (i.e., his biography). They are neither original research, nor are they trivia. Nor are they "tied into the allegations against him". (As they need not be.) The reliably sourced tattoo information is no different. It is a fact about Joran's life, and it is appropriate for his biography. No different than the fact that he was an honors student; the fact that he played soccer; the fact that his mother was an art teacher; etc. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

That's called a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. I agree with you, we have information in the article which is overdetailed. With the flood still coming in, this is not the time to fine tune the article. Some of that information will go away as people edit the article and seek to improve its quality. That does not mean, however, that we reinsert the tattoo. It is really not relevant to anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely do not care if the article mentions his tattoo or not. My point is that it (the tattoo detail) is not original research; it need not be tied into his criminal allegations in order to merit mention; it is not trivia; and it is appropriately a part of his "biography". No more – or less – than any of those other biographical facts (honor student, soccer player, art teacher; etc.). Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Among Dutch people of JvdS's age tattoos are so common that it would be more notable if he had none.—Kww(talk) 16:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been to Amsterdam, and music halls such as the Melkweg and the Paradiso there, and I've seen. Obviously the IP hasn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Trivia.—Kww(talk) 16:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

should we really link to a blog that has not been updated in 5 years?

the joran van der sloot blog, which is clearly not HIS blog, it has not been updated in over 5 years. why link are we linking to it? just curious. call me curious borge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That blog was fairly helpful in locating links to old news stories for a lot of unsourced parts of the article covering when the Holloway case first broke. Do you strongly feel that it doesn't belong here? KimChee (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly, I'm just disappointed in the source and wonder if something better out there exists. Scared Monkeys seems to have some historical articles. Again, I am not losing sleep over it, but the fact that it has not been updated in 5 years makes me think why bother. If you think it has value then I'll cheerfully fold my hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the Scared Monkeys link should be removed. It is a website set up by biased followers of Beth Twitty and contains a lot of negative speculation. When people around the world rely on factual information appearing on Wiki, it is negligent for Wiki to have links to sensationalist websites. I could suggest the same about 95% of the news article links but I think the Scared Monkeys link is significantly full of gossip and opinions to negate its relevance to this Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellyrel (talk • contribs) 09:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. I think it is the second time I've removed it. Yes, they do link to some articles, but their commentary rules them out and I would say that a reader is much better advised to go to google news. Which we do not need to add, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt :)Mellyrel (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mugshot

and his mugshot has been made public. is it against the rules to post his mugshot? the fact he is an alleged criminal is the ONLY thing that makes him noteworthy, so I would think his mugshot would b e appropriate. I admit I'd not wiki rule savvy when it comes to mug shots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we know if a Peruvian mugshot is copyright?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the highest quality version I could find of the mugshot -- it's labeled "Policia Nacional del Peru." What's the consensus on its use? KimChee (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

An even larger image can be obtained from here (468 vs. 341 pix wide) Qwrk (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

An 853x1280 image has been published here Qwrk (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Somebody needs to show that this is free use, or that this has an acceptable fair use rationale per NFCC, and since Joran is alive, the latter might be difficult. Note that American mugshots are very often free use because the Federal Government's works are not copyright, and often there are state statutes are on point. I have no idea what the situation is there. You might want to review this and the link to the Peru statute (translated) therein. I saw no obvious exception for a police mugshot, but it is eighty pages long.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to ask at WP:IMAGEHELP. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Better, I think at WP:MCQ.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe WP:ICHD? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, never there! They know nothing, nothing I say!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand the Licensing Articles of Peru, I'd be inclined - as per Art. 86 and Art. 87 - to say you'd be able to use this mugshot on Wikipedia. Please have a look at these specific articles and tell me that I'm wrong. Qwrk (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at it. What it says that if a press organ is given authorization to use an article or photo once, that doesn't impact on the copyright holder's rights. We are not press. We have not been given authorization. So it doesn't apply, that I can see.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I found an interesting and lengthy discussion on non-free mugshots from 2006-2007. State and local mugshots can often be copyrighted, but public policy trumps that in an official response posted by the U.S. Copyright Office. Any thoughts on how that may apply here? KimChee (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how an opinion of the Copyright Office regarding public policy would trump an international treaty like the Berne Convention. If it is copyright in its home nation, we respect that. I've yet to see something that says it is free of copyright. One idea might be to contact the agency (surely they have a public relations bureau) that took the image and see if they will license it on a free license.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I just rolled back a stray link posted by a new user. I checked and it contains some Interpol information on Van der Sloot with some mug shots as part of the arrest warrant from the U.S. District Court. Thoughts on the usability of the mugshots? KimChee (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I might have finally found our public domain mugshot from that Interpol link. (see Dutch_copyright_law#Works of the government and laws and court rulings) KimChee (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to look to Aruban copyright law, not Netherlands, as copyright does not seem to be a Kingdom matter. However, it appears substantively the same in this case, see here. Yes, there may be a law or regulation on point, but I think at this point, we've done our due diligence to show that this is copyright free in Aruba, and anyone who is aware of a law on point can bring it up. So I think we can use it. If we want to cover ourselves, I guess we can post at WP:MCQ, but I'm thinking it's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is prejudicial on behalf of Wiki to post a mugshot of an (at this point) innocent man. It removes impartiality, if I go to a website and read a profile on someone who has a mugshot I would assume that person was guilty. Noone just assumes the person was arrested.Mellyrel (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit out the top of the mugshot and change the description on the article. That should satisfy your argument and it still gives the article an image since there don't appear to be any other free ones. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I'm not sure how much we can affect prejudice on a practical level with the widespread media coverage, but this is a fair argument because he has not yet been convicted of the charges against him. KimChee (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Height indicated in mug shot

I posted this on the Dutch discussion as well because there the Peruvian mug shot is used. I question whether Van der Sloot is as tall as the Peruvian mug shot suggests--2 meters. Mind you, this is six feet, eight inches. He doesn't strike me as that tall--1.85 meters, or 6 feet, two maybe three inches at most. Note that the shot is taken slightly from below. I query whether the Peruvians are not trying to make him look taller, and thereby more dangerous-looking, than he really is. Some years ago, Van der Sloot and his parents were on a Dutch talk show (Pauw & Witteman, where the infamous "wine incident" took place). One of the hosts, Jeroen Pauw, is almost two meters. He appeared much taller than Van der Sloot. Of course, he may have grown some more, but I'm skeptical. Anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhg88 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have always heard that Joran van der Sloot is about 6' 3" or 6' 4" tall. Also, a police mug shot is not necessarily calibrated and accurate to any scientific precision, if you will. The photo is typically done rather quickly, as the inmate is processed and rushed along (with many other inmates). So, the inmate could be standing tall on his heels or standing while slumped down a bit, etc. The photographer is also not worried about the "angle" of the shot, etc. Sometimes, the prisoner may not be standing on a perfectly level floor; it may be on a slight incline or angle. Also, sometimes the "background" of the photo is a portable poster-type of thing that can be moved about from room to room or from wall to wall. So, the official who "hangs it on the wall" may not be precise in exactly where he hangs the portable poster. The mug shot is really just a quick-and-dirty estimate, as far as height is concerned. In all of a few seconds, they tell the prisoner "stand here on this spot" (in front of the measurement lines), and the photo is quickly snapped. It is not "posed" and prepared with any degree of care or thought. It is simply processed as quickly as possible, as the intake officer processes many other inmates and then moves him on to other tasks (finger printing, etc.). All in a rather rushed state. Also, the goal of the mug shot is to photograph the prisoner, not to measure him. So, that objective is how the whole process is treated. That the photo contains a rough estimate of height is simply an added "bonus" to the identification goal. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

My guess is they took some care with Joran ... there's really nothing we can say about this until and unless some source comments on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Interpol documented his height at 1.91m (6' 3"). The camera was likely set at the more usual height of other inmates. KimChee (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an alternate angle of the mugshot that provides another frame of reference. KimChee (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)