Talk:Joran van der Sloot/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Background on the prison

Do we want to add any details about where he's incarcerated? I'm curious about it so I assume other people would be too, but maybe that's just me. There is some good info here http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/15/earlyshow/main6583838.shtml

I don't agree. There is a certain desire, since Joran is unpopular, to want to revel in the conditions, undoubtedly unpleasant, under which he is held. That may work well for a popular article in a newspaper or magazine, however we are an encyclopedia and above such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This is really no different than the Lary King article you posted when you started the Where he may be vacationing very soon section; both articles, among others, quote Michael Griffith of the International Legal Defense Counsel on the conditions of Peruvian prisons. The issue is still better suited for a topic more closely related to the Peruvian penal system rather than Van der Sloot to whom this issue is only marginally and indirectly related. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't want to WP:COATRACK the penal system issues here, but a "Current status" section with a link to a page about the prison system would be OK (IMHO). Thundermaker (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that if you want to go on to describe his new living quarter, then perhaps an article on the Miguel Castro Castro maximum security prison and then reference it to Sloot. Any major attempt to discuss the prison beyond location and the reputation I will look upon as WP:BIAS and will quickly delete it. Additionally, if a prison article is created, I will keep a close eye on it for the same reasons. Don't get me wrong, I revel in the fact that Sloot is finally getting what he deserves, but we still must be neutral on the pages. --Hourick (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
And I've been working on the Holloway article for three years and am watching this one like a hawk lest it be a POV fork. I agree with Hourick, we all have views on this, as do my two co-editors on Holloway (our views differ, I think). But it's one style of writing for Foxnews and another for Wikipedia. Neutral point of view, cautious about extreme words, careful about sourcing--that is how this article must do if it is to be more than an excuse to revel in JvdS's situation, and to be an authoritative reference (like, I daresay, the Holloway article is). That is what this article should aspire to do, and we should use the pause in media coverage until Joran returns to court to improve the article. Quality, not quantity, of information.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You are to be commended [or Barnstarred] for that. [Honest!] It's contributors like you that make Wikipedia what it ought to be. Qwrk (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
More my co-editors than me I think. But thank you. Once we have all the information we are going to have for a while, let's start polishing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Rather that focusing on Miguel Castro Castro alone, it may be better to start an article on the Peruvian prison system as there is presently no such topic at Category:Prison and correctional agencies. KimChee (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree for the most part, but finding references for the entire prison system is rather daunting. Starting just with one prison will hopefully allow other people to work on the bigger project. "First step on a journey" kinda' thing. --Hourick (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Go check the external links and refs for Lori Berenson. I remember seeing a few things. Also, I remember seeing some articles on the prison that Fujimori was held in, I think in Callao, forget what paper, might have been the NY times.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Having read a few of the references, I see your point. However, it just talks about the condition of that particular prison, but doesn't state specifications of the prison itself. To say that this prison is deserving of it's own article with relevant and detailed references will be tough. So now there are two prisons which can be put in a single article about the Peruvian prison system. Now there is the matter of finding other prisons? No. It's easier to just work on a single prison, hopefully a Peruvian native will be able to contribute to it. Maybe put something on their talk page?--Hourick (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't get very excited about the idea, but perhaps others have more of an interest, so I am just trying to be helpful by making the suggestions. It is all good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't exactly fascinate me either, but I would hope that someone who has an interest in it would take charge of the matter, otherwise, this entire discussion would simply be an academic exercise. --Hourick (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I took a first step at starting a stub at National Penitentiary Institute (Peru). KimChee (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Very impressive stub, KimChee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the article on Peru's prison system (along with this one on Van der Sloot) is now on tomorrow's queue for Did You Know. KimChee (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Confession section

Based on recent developments, should that section be renamed to "Confession and Retraction"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. KimChee (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you KimChee, my original suggestion was to rename that section "Crazy Bits" but alas, even I was able to determine that would not meet NPOV criteria. So "Confession and Retraction" it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and given that, I suggest we be careful, since this is a BLP, to avoid language that assumes he did it, since Joran now disputes it. There are low key ways of doing this, such as "The police state that" or "According to Juan Whoever Whatever" and avoiding terms like "victim". We await a final judicial determination and keep a neutral tone.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with much of what you say ... but why should the term "victim" be avoided? Whether or not Joran van der Sloot committed the murder, there is still a victim. That fact is not in dispute. And that specific term ("victim") does not violate neutrality or BLP issues. Or have I mis-read your above post? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
I don't think there is a problem with the word "victim" either, but I recall the words in the context of that sentence was "his victim" which is an unnecessary implication until the court case is concluded. KimChee (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "his victim" I felt was unnecessary. "The victim" is fine in a way that Holloway is not, as no crime has been shown to have been committed in the Holloway case.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
We seem to all be in agreement, then. The problem is with the phrase "his victim" ... and not per se with the word "victim". As a side note, I thought that the Aruban authorities concluded that Holloway was a murder case ... no? (I could be wrong, but that was my understanding.) As such, Holloway is indeed a victim, regardless of whether or not a perpetrator was convicted. She was still a victim of a crime, in this case, murder. At least, that is what I thought that the Aruban police concluded. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC))

Not officially. Read the article, I highly recommend it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the article, specifically? If there was no crime (and, thus, no victim) ... how were several people arrested? What were they arrested for ... for a non-crime? I don't follow what you are saying. Please clarify. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
Aruban law allows for investigatory detention on "suspicion". Read the 2005 part, that is where most of that went on.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
"Suspicion", yes ... suspicion of a crime, that is. I don't think there is any doubt whatsoever that Holloway is considered a victim. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC))
Not so, given the appeals court decisions in the Van der Sloot and Kalpoe cases in 2007-08 indicating that the police did not have sufficient evidence even to prove that a crime was committed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was not aware of that. Nonetheless, a person (like Holloway) can still be considered a victim, regardless of whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove that a crime was committed. In other words, whether or not a crime happened ... and whether or not the police can prove that it happened ... are two different questions. It would be tantamount, for example, to saying that Nicole Brown Simpson was not a murder victim, just because the police were not able to prove that O. J. Simpson murdered her. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC))

Habeas corpus

I'm really uncomfortable with our use of the term "habeas corpus". I know CNN used it, but I also remember watching CNN use American legal terms to describe pieces of Kingdom law during the Holloway case. Sometimes it fit well, and sometimes not so well. "Habeas corpus" is a part of English common law, passed by inheritance to the Commonwealth nations, the USA, and a few others. It is not a part of European civil law, from which the Peruvian legal system is derived. Can one of our Latin American editors examine the Peruvian sources and find out what term the local news is using? I probably wouldn't mind footnoting the CNN usage, but I'd be surprised if it's actually the best term.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean like "capital murder" in a country without the death penalty? I remember it well. Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Peru does have the death penalty. It may not apply in this specific case, but the country does indeed have the death penalty and a category of capital murder. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
Kww was mentioning the Holloway case and I was agreeing with him. Aruba does not have the death penalty and US news sources were talking stuff about "suspicion of capital murder".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. I know that Peru has the death penalty. As for Aruba, I do not know ... but I will take your word that they do not. I see your point. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
I rephrased the sentence and instead wikilinked due process which still gets the point across. There will be more details coming out about this anyway. KimChee (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
A separate Associated Press article used this term again in reporting that a judge rejected the defense motion of habeas corpus and ruled Van der Sloot's confession valid, despite his lawyer's attempt to void it. Since there's more than one reliable source using this term, I put it back in the most recent edit. KimChee (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

stuff like this is so obviously nutty, yet no one notices

this article and virtually every other wiki article gives a pronunciation key such as:

Joran Andreas Petrus van der Sloot (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈjɔrɑn vɑn dər ˈslot];

Well if one does not know how to pronounce "Joran Van Der Sloot" how in the heck would you be able to decipher this "ˈjɔrɑn vɑn dər ˈslot" I mean, really, that is supposed to aid the person who could not pronounce the original with crazy characters and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You either know about International Phonetic Alphabet, or you don't. It's an internationally approved method to know about pronunciation. You appear to be oblivious to higher knowledge. Qwrk (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Watch the civility, please. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the civility as expressed in the choice of words. Not, considering the ignorance displayed by an obviously trolling IP-editor. Qwrk (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Instead of just [ˈjɔrɑn vɑn dər ˈslot] ("crazy characters"), the article uses Dutch pronunciation: [ˈjɔrɑn vɑn dər ˈslot] with a helpful link. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Should his confession be in the article?

I dislike Joran Van Der Sloot. Joran Van Der Sloot preys on young girls and is a rapist and murderer. I hope that Joran Van Der Sloot gets the death pentalty sometime soon. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC is quoting his confession of how he killed her and why, should that be included? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37542848/ns/world_news-americas/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As of your post, this version of the article does include information on his confession. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
cheers to that but I was actually suggesting we quote his confession versus summarizing his confession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, I thought so. MHO is that they should be, when they are translated directly to English by a RS (or not translated at all, if the interrogation took place in English). The MSNBC page says it's quoting La Republica which probably translated what he said from Dutch or English to Spanish; then MSNBC did a second translation back to English. There's too much room for error there (IMHO again). Thundermaker (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)My apologies, I missunderstood what you initially said. I'm not sure that we need to quote his confession but I'll let other editors put in their two cents about the issue. Thanks for bringing it up. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I originally had it in there, but it was removed. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

the only thing that makes van der sloot noteworthy is he is an alleged/accused murderer and according to published reports he has confessed to killing at least one woman. every major news outlet is now quoting his confession, they all seem to have confidence in the translation. I think that should be good enough for wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

for that matter, does wiki have a policy on how to certify translations before they are published? I was not aware of this policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I was stating MHO, not WP policy. News outlets are businesses focused on getting info out quickly. We are an encyclopedia, and we don't make a profit to offset potential libel-suit losses. So we can (and must) be a bit more careful, especially in WP:BLP articles. Thundermaker (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
so let me get this straight, we are hiding the words spoken by sloot that every news media in the world is using because you think sloot might sue wikipedia for quoting him? well that makes perfect sense. I must say at this point watching how the wiki editors refuse to quote the confession of an alleged murderer whose only notoriety is the fact he is an alleged murderer has become comical. if you are really scared about wikipedia being sued, couldn't you simply say "CNN quoted van der sloot's, "blah blah"? seriously, you are clearly unfamiliar with what constitutes libel so the excuse is kind of lame. Odd that wikipedia will not use the confession of an alleged murder in an article about the alleged murderer. Odd indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added an expanded quote and made it less "obtrusive" that it was before. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If the words came out of his mouth, and you are quoting a statement he himself made, then there is no liability. Slander and libel are reserved for statements that are demonstrably untrue or otherwise unsupported. If you nonjudgmentally say that he made a certain statement at a certain time, then you are only citing a historical fact. 150.113.8.138 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
A separate entry has been started at Wikiquote, a more appropriate location for quotes from and about the topic. KimChee (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

His attorney quit

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/14/peru.murder.case/index.html?hpt=T2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite yet, though Nancy Grace's interviews have provided breaking details of wildly varying accuracy. KimChee (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I would advise avoiding the use of Nancy Grace. She still calls Paulus a judge.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Nancy Grace seems to be more about bashing people than actually sticking to facts. Lenachka25 (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Nancy Grace has no facts,she bases a argument and stupidly bashes and accuses whoever the easiest target is to get ratings. She is a good example to our children what a facade or fake person is. Can anyone honestly say they want to be or want their children to spend a life time accusing /judging people on t.v to get attention. BUT NANCY, enjoy a lifetime of servitude because you re only Nancy Grace on Camera following a script. Afterward, your a nobody again whos opinion means nothing as does your unattractive voice, appearance, and evil ways of wanting to point the finger and wish harm so quickly and easily.....you are a evil person! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.201.162 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Keeping the article unbiased / removal of links to major/reputable sources / etc

It's a pretty thorough article, with lots of good links. Thank you for it! I noticed very few things missing, (like maybe the additional versions of Joran's story that he told on the Jaap Amesz reality program, regarding Natalee having supposedly fallen off a balcony, etc.)

However, the opening paragraph contains bias. It makes the mistake of stating as fact that Joran van der Sloot confessed to the murder in Peru. The correct form would be that JVDS is alleged by Peruvian authorities to have confessed to Stephany's murder, or that Peruvian police released a written confession with JVDS's signature, but that Mr. van der Sloot has stated he had signed the document without understanding it due to his limited Spanish.

Likewise, throughout the rest of the article the word "alleged" had generally not been used in describing allegations. Allegations were stated as fact. I added "alleged" in several places.

Regarding the DNA evidence collection: Just after Stephany's body had been identified by her brother and was still at the morgue, her father stated on Spanish and English language media outlets that she had fought ferociously and that DNA evidence from under her fingernails would convict Joran van der Sloot. I added this, citing a couple of links. My edit and links were removed. It appears that I was told links from youtube are not acceptable sources and that I had linked to a source that had advertising. The video, while available on youtube, was a CNN television program. I was also told that my links had been removed because Wikipedia articles are not meant to be a collection of links. I found that very odd since there were maybe 90 or 100 links already to all manner of materials and I had added only 2 in support of a new item.

Subsequently Mr. Flores said on June 4 that her body would actually have to be exhumed for this DNA evidence to be collected from under her fingernails and that in fact her body had not been cremated precisely so that she could be exhumed later to collect this evidence. I posted the links to the associated press article and another link. For some reason the associated press link was removed as an unacceptable source. A nydailynews link or something was allowed to remain, but my edit was reworded, losing its original meaning. Now I have added CBS and CNN links reporting that on June 24, the Peruvian Police stated skin had been collected from beneath the fingernails and sent to a DNA laboratory. I hope they don't get removed for some reason. Altogether my edits were three very tiny, short statements regarding the timeline surrounding the collection of the DNA evidence from under Stephany's fingernails. Such small additions, and I'd cited reputable sources. In the case of one link that was rejected it was Stephany's own family speaking on the Nancy Grace program.

The point is that DNA evidence from under the fingernails, though mentioned as a concept before Stephany's burial, appears to have not been collected before burial, but for some reason planned to be collected later after exhumation, and by that time JVDS was in custody in Peru. Possibly nothing, but also potentially very important in a number of ways which should be obvious, i.e. potential deterioration or contamination of the evidence being only one possibility. Possibly clarification will eventually emerge regarding this issue, but for now it remains unclear why the evidence would not have been collected originally since it was already being spoken about.

I was shocked to see that I had a notice from someone in my messages saying that I had reinserted links after they were removed and might be in some kind of violation. At the time I did this I had no way of knowing that a link to an Associated Press article or CBS or CNN article would be objectionable in any way or that it had been removed by someone else, I thought I had made a mistake and not sourced my edit/saved the edit. Not all people who use wikipedia are really into HTML and this sort of editing you know! My apologies! I have to say I found it rather biased the way my small edits from what is more of a defense viewpoint than the rest of the article seemed to be pointedly removed.

I understand it's probably out of our hands about youtube links and links from blogs not being allowed and so on, that blanket policy is a shame when the video footage or article clearly originated from a major reputable source. Sometimes the article will no longer come up in a search at the origin source, you can only find it cached out there in other places like on youtube or on other "headline collection" type websites. I object to a statement that was made against me in the history claiming that the video I'd linked didn't include the statement that DNA evidence would convict Joran van der Sloot. Stephany's father did say that in the media in the beginning of the case. His statement was quoted frequently on CNN. I know I linked a CNN video where Nancy Grace was discussing these statements by Mr. Flores' the day before with other family members of Stephany's. It was removed although it didn't include any advertising. Other clips I saw on youtube from CNN could not be linked unfortunately because they did contain a few seconds of advertising before the clip. Oh well.

Anyway, please keep the article unbiased! And thanks again for the article. Urthcreature (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are trying to connect various bits of information, each individually verifiable, in order to reach a larger conclusion. This is the very definition of improper synthesis WP:SYNTHESIS. I reverted your latest addition here. I removed your edit which mentioned

After Stephany's body was identified by her brother at the morgue, Stephany's father said in Spanish and English language media interviews such as interviews with the Associated Press and CNN/HLN network Nancy Grace program, that DNA evidence from under Stephany's fingernails would convict Joran van der Sloot. But in interviews in the following days Mr. Flores said that Stephany's body would be exhumed to gather the fingernail DNA evidence, and that her body had not been cremated for this reason.

and

It was not clear why the evidence was not gathered prior to burial.

First you mention After Stephany's body was identified by her brother at the morgue, Stephany's father said in Spanish and English language media interviews such as interviews with the Associated Press and CNN/HLN network Nancy Grace program, that DNA evidence from under Stephany's fingernails would convict Joran van der Sloot. Where are the citations for this assertion? Where are the links? So I removed it. Now you connect the above quote with But in interviews in the following days Mr. Flores said that Stephany's body would be exhumed to gather the fingernail DNA evidence, and that her body had not been cremated for this reason. This connection is not made by a reliable source but by you. The conjunction But is the giveaway here. It connects the first paragraph to the second paragraph. Unfortunately this conjunction is not to be found in any reliable source and it is a dead giveaway of WP:SYNTHESIS and original research WP:OR. Again, this is WP:SYNTHESIS on your part. Thirdly you conclude: It was not clear why the evidence was not gathered prior to burial. This conclusion is not cited, so this is more synthesis and original research WP:OR on your part. Conclusion: It is against policy in Wikipedia to gather facts together from various sources and then compare them and analyse them to reach our own conclusions. I hope this helps. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I never stated any conclusion or analysis regarding this timeline about the collection of the DNA evidence from under her fingernails. I simply cited the statements on the various dates for the timeline.

The word "but" is just the conjunction normally used to transition between two divergent ideas. I.e., Her father was in fact widely quoted in the first day or two of the case while her body was still at the morgue in the possession of investigators, not yet buried, as saying that she had fought ferociously and that DNA evidence from under her fingernails would convict Joran van der Sloot. (I did provide links originally but they were "unacceptable", links to CNN video clips on youtube and associated press articles, they were removed and I don't have time to look them up for you again now, sorry! I spent quite a bit of time looking them up the first time. But you can find them on youtube under CNN and Nancy Grace video coverage June 2, 3, 4, 5 2010 for example on youtube, and in associated press articles cached here and there which can be found through a general google search for example.) Subsequently, after the funeral he stated that her body would be exhumed to collect this evidence, it had not actually been collected initially, the reason they hadn't cremated her body was so this evidence could be collected later. Divergent ideas. The logical transition/conjunction is "but", but that word can simply be removed.

When I first came to the article, the entire article stated the allegations against the suspect as if they were fact, the word "alleged" was omitted throughout the article. That's a whopper of a "synthesis" or "analysis" you can explore. That's a bias. The opening paragraph still fails to use the word alleged in describing the alleged confession, but I added the word "alleged" in many areas throughout the article where allegations were described.

I'll leave the opening paragraph to you or whoever wrote it to fine tune, properly identifying allegations as allegations rather than facts, to make the article less biased and avoid improper "syntheses"/"analyses"/"conclusions". Thanks for everything! Urthcreature (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As long as you cite each fact to its source and you don't aggregate them on your own and you do not use conjunctions to join different paragraphs (on your own and without an independent reliable source doing so) to draw conclusions that do not appear in reliable and verifiable sources, however logical or truthful these conclusions may appear, I have no objection to including them. As far as the verb "to allege" I did not revert these edits because according to logic and WP:ALLEGED it is ok doing so in such cases. I also have done very little editing of this article and I am not planning to do much more. It is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR I am after, project-wide. Good luck with your edits. Bye for now. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If you can assure me the dispute is over and so is the edit war, then I suggest going to the protecting admin and asking for the protection to be lifted. If perchance he doesn't respond in a reasonable time (say by tomorrow morning, US time) and you can't get anyone else, I'll look at the matter in my adminly capacity.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Wehwalt you've got this wrong. This is a WP:BLP article for everyone concerned not only the subject of the article. I never came to edit-war here. I came to fix WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because it is important in BLP related articles that we do not creatively advance our own theories by synthesising sources. We should only report the facts faithfully. So as far as I am concerned if the facts get into the article without synthesis I am ok. But it is not up to me to guarantee that. Except if you disagree with my analysis above in which case you just point to my errors. I'll be glad to correct them. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. In that case, I suggest you take advantage of this pause while the article is protected to make your case at the BLP noticeboard. Aren't transcripts of the Nancy Grace program available on cnn.com?-Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice regarding BLPN Wehwalt but what I think you are proposing essentially, (although I am not familiar with the exact function of the BLP noticeboard), is that BLPN renders a finding of WP:SYNTH. I am not sure why it is necessary to go there to just be told this is synthesis, since this is a rathet clear case. I would prefer if we discussed this edit with the editor involved and after I highlighted my concerns in more detail and maybe proposed an alternate form of the edit we could see if they agree. But I need time to form the proposal. I will come back to this later. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So here we go. I have marked the segments where synthesis is suspected in the contested paragraphs:

After[who?][improper synthesis?] Stephany's body was identified by her brother at the morgue, Stephany's father said[who?] in Spanish and[who?][improper synthesis?] English language media interviews[who?] such[who?][improper synthesis?] as interviews with the Associated Press and[who?][improper synthesis?] CNN/HLN network Nancy Grace program, that DNA evidence from under Stephany's fingernails would convict Joran van der Sloot.

If there is no reliable source to provide the answer to the [who?] tags we have a synthesis problem. I think the above paragraph is synthesised by the editor involved and not by a reliable source. However if there is a single reliable source stating the complete paragraph as written above I would, of course, not object to its inclusion. Same goes for the second paragraph:

But[who?][improper synthesis?] in interviews in the following days[who?][improper synthesis?] Mr. Flores said that Stephany's body would be exhumed to gather the fingernail DNA evidence, and that her body had not been cremated for this reason.

The same goes for the conclusion:

It was not clear why the evidence was not gathered prior to burial.[who?][improper synthesis?]

Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

While that is helpful, I suggested taking it there to get more eyes on it. As I have done some editing on this article and am one of the principal editors of Natalee Holloway, I prefer not to act as an admin here and would rather other admins see it and take action if they deem it appropriate. I take a very conservative view of WP:INVOLVED.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Your idea about what it means to be involved shows sensitivity and it is to be commended. Unfortunately I will have to learn how to present a proposal at BLPN since I have never visited there. So I may do just that. Thank you very much for the advice. Meanwhile I will wait for the other editor to reply to my concerns here. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Is indefinite full protection necessary for WP:3RR involving only one editor (see here)? However, the burden is still on User:Urthcreature to demonstrate that the WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL issues have been overcome. KimChee (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Good points. To the extent that indefinite doesn't mean infinite I guess we can wait a little more. I get the impression however that user Urthcreature may not want to continue their edit war since they have not raised any objections to the points I raised thus far. Maybe we can follow protocol and ask the protecting admin Jmlk17 to unprotect by tomorrow if no further arguments are advanced regarding these edits as by then the discussion will have grown stale. However if Jmlk17 sees this and wants to unprotect even earlier I think it wouldn't be such a bad idea. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that indefinite full protection would be allowed, that goes contrary to WP being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. More likely blocks to change the editor behavior.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I was also thinking about such a scenario. So let's ask Jmlk17 for unprotection while keeping an eye on preventing disruption if needed. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to ask him. I'm just eating popcorn here, or the local equivalent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. I'll now sit back and enjoy the show :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection has been removed. Best of luck! :-) Jmlk17 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Take care :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Edit war" What are you smoking? Urthcreature made several very good points (some are still being ignored) on how to improve the article and also attempted to make several very good improvements (that were reverted). Some of you do would not know good writing if it bit you. Urthcreature is the kind of person you want helping write an article. Ha ha ha. Some of you are just too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He may very well be a competent writer, but any asserted facts need to be verifiable. KimChee (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A&E program

A&E will be airing a show titled Who is the Real Joran van der Sloot? this Saturday, August 21 at 10pm Eastern/9pm Central (0200 UTC?). It's rather doubtful that it will result in anything new or worthy of inclusion, but FYI just in case. --auburnpilot talk 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this privilege and honor falls to KimChee!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
A&E is running a marathon that evening with a re-run of What Happened to Natalee Holloway? immediately after. While checking the schedule on the DVR, I found it ironic that the World Poker Tour has been scheduled to be broadcast at the same exact time. KimChee (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Advise checking the cards out, much more relevant to the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
By the by, I expect we will see very high page views on the 22nd, then, we should watch out for vandalism and unhelpful changes on both articles. Incidentally, I have no objection to the breakout of the movie article, I wasn't terribly wild about having so much info on it in the NH article. Don't care much about the book. Dare I suggest a hatnote?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The show mostly covered what is already in the article with a lot of speculation. A few additional details were added to the article. Which one needs the hatnote? KimChee (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Tone of this article

The tone of this article is really not encyclopedic. It reads like the transcript of an A&E "Investigative Reports" show. Right in the first section - why quote Holloway's mother commenting on Van der Sloot's personality? Why is she a valid resource? That's something sensational that the narrator would say, with ominous music. And why all the free-floating quotes? It's not encyclopedic - that's just commentary, like the epigrams in chapters of nonfiction books. This entire article has been approached from the wrong direction. 24.20.200.67 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Holloway sentence:  Done — the background section has enough material to make that redundant, but the other quotes are attributed to Van der Sloot or his immediate family. Wikipedia has guidelines on the use of sources and quotations. If you would like to improve the article, by all means be bold and try to fix the problems while maintaining a neutral point of view. KimChee (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Death of Stephany > Forensic investigation > tone of evidence is deceptively mild

I think the last paragraph in the Forensics section portrays a deceptively mild tone with a few key words and omissions. 1) The mention of blood stains on Sloot's clothing precedes the statement of Blood was also found on the floor, hallway, and mattress in the hotel room. This simple positioning and use of the word also and found gives the impression that forensic investigators had to go searching for blood evidence. The fact of the matter is, the hotel room "was covered in blood" and "there was blood everywhere" according to witness statements. There was much more blood than the implied "stands were also found".

Secondly. Stephany was beaten so brutally that one of her eyeballs was missing from the socket. It is especially rare for an eyeball to dislodge from its socket, giving credit to the brutality of this killing, that included continuous beating postmortem. Mention of the missing eyeball needs to be included in this section.

This section needs to emphasize these facts by presenting more complete forensic findings, and use caution to avoid words such as "and also" and presenting a larger quantities following small quantities. Larger always comes first. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a BLP, and a matter in which both sides have not yet been heard. I'd rather err on the side of caution.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Upon looking up the detail about the eyeball, it did not appear in any major news source other than the transcript of a conversation with Flores' brother (in which he was recalling what another brother said) on the Nancy Grace show. When she reviewed the autopsy report on the air, there was no mention of the eyeball. KimChee (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Joran van der Sloot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aaron north (T/C) 02:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

☒N This article appears to be fairly well-written and sourced on the surface. Unfortunately, I am not proceeding with a full GA review because this article is currently unstable. This article fails on "quick-fail" guideline #5. (5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. ... If the article has any of the above problems, it can simply be failed (as described at Wikipedia:Good article nominations) without going through the on hold process of improvement based on specific issues.) Aaron north (T/C) 02:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Van der Sloot is still being held for trial, Peru is currently debating whether to accept or throw out his confession, etc. He has not yet been convicted of a crime for which he will be tried soon. This article simply can not pass review until the subject's situation is more stable. Perhaps when he is convicted or aquitted, then even though there may be appeals or extradition attempts, his situation will probably be stable enough for review after trial. Aaron north (T/C) 02:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, if the editors still want to work on improving the article in anticipation of a future GAN, I would suggest asking for a peer review. Aaron north (T/C) 02:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I reluctantly agree. It is a different situation from Natalee Holloway, which got a GA on its way to FA, because though the matter was ongoing, there was (and is) no endpoint in sight. A PR is a good idea, and as FA contains no equivalent criterion, that may be a goal. I do not think it is FA worthy at present, it is well referenced but I think it is overdetailed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This sounds perfectly reasonable. Thank you for the PR suggestion. KimChee (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Post-review update It has been brought to my attention that under the laws of Peru, Joran might not go to trial for up to 18 months, which is an extraordinary amount of time by most standards. A quick check seemed to confirm this. Given that fact, my quick-fail for instability is a little difficult to sustain, and it may not be reasonable to insist that the editors wait over a year for the trial to begin, and another year or so past that for decisions and appeals before they can request a GA review. A future reviewer may decide to fail or hold it for other reasons since this article did not receive a full review yet, and the article would need to be kept up to date under the GA criteria when the case finally does proceed, but for what its worth, I no longer believe the article is unstable. Aaron north (T/C) 03:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Joran van der Sloot/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: one found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I find the article reasonably well written, complies with key elements of MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Well referenced, sources RS, no OR, one EL is a dead link. Done/June%2030,%202010%20VD%20Sloot%20%20Indictment.pdf
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Thorough, without needless trivia
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Licensed and captioned
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just one dead link to be fixed or removed. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
    As the dead link has been fixed, i am happy to list this. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Interpreting problem

The article states that his trial in Peru has been held up by the lack of certified Spanish-Dutch interpreter. However, there are surely certified Spanish-English interpreters in Peru, and van der Sloot is clearly fluent in English (among other things, the school from which he graduated is an English-medium school). I wonder if anyone can clarify this. Is he claiming not to be fluent in English, or does Peruvian law require interpretation into the official language of his country?Bill (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs copy editing in the later sections for tense / details

The later sections have been repeatedly updated and appended, creating a problem in which the parts from around 2010 repeatedly state things that "will" happen or "have not yet" happened (such as verdicts the court planned to seek, or that sort of thing) even though as of January 2012, they either have happened already or won't happen at all. I'm not up to the task of sorting that out, but someone needs to do it. In some places, a simple change of tense ("will seek" changed to "would seek" and the like), while in other places something more complex is needed, such as clarifying what actually did take place vs. what was predicted back in 2010 or 2011. Lawikitejana (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no page about Stephanie?

She was also a victim, she also deserves a pageUndead Herle King (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joran van der Sloot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Joran van der Sloot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

National Enquirer source

In the 3rd paragraph under "2008 Dutch television sting operations", The National Enquirer is cited as a source. This is a well-known tabloid that virtually no one takes seriously as a source. In fact, it is specifically called out in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources, noting "The more extreme tabloids such as the National Enquirer should never be used, as most stories in them are intentional hoaxes.".

That reference and information should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.133.52 (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joran_van_der_Sloot/Archive_2&oldid=1136854425"