Jump to content

Talk:Michael Peterson trial/Archive 1

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

Untitled

Please contribute new comments at the end of a section, or the page. Please sign all comments with ~~~~ (IP Users can do this too), as this greatly helps communications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Hunt_Atwater_Peterson it is biased.. quote "[...] Kathleen Hunt Atwater Peterson was murdered during a homicidal attack from her husband. Michael Peterson was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the notorious crime." could someone with better English skills then me edit this, thx :)


I am watching the film right now. What a circus! How weird was that family??? The bisexual father. The arsenist and pornographer sons. The two retarded adopted chicks. The prosecutors were hicks. The slick lawyer thought he was Andy Garcia.

For the record, here are a few articles which suggest Lestrade's bias:

by David Fellerath Independent Weekly March 30, 2005

http://indyweek.com/durham/current/news.html

In fact, the film indulges in numerous malicious cutaways to Black making a variety of hideous scowls, a tactic that Poncet doesn't deny.

. . .

The film has already stirred the polite ire of Craig Jarvis of the News and Observer. In the N&O's edition of Sunday, March 27, the reporter accused the film of misrepresenting the true tenor of the trial. "The investigation and trial that unfold in the documentary," he writes, "is not the one I covered for nearly two years as a news reporter."

by Brendan Berube The New Hampshire (University of New Hampshire) Published: Friday, April 8, 2005

http://www.tnhonline.com/news/2005/04/08/ArtsLiving/ Theres.More.To.the.Staircase.Than.Meets.The.Eye-917577.shtml

In its obsession with the antics and activities of high-priced lawyers, self-important experts and put-upon defendants, "The Staircase" seems to shamefully ignore the one person around whom the story should revolve: the victim.


article by Lee Siegel The New republic 5-23-05

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050523&s=siegel052305

After all the questions "The Staircase" raises about the American court system--Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?--it raises questions about its own methods and authority. Who will film the filmmakers themselves?

. . .

For one thing, you are never told what exactly was the biological cause of Kathleen's death, an incredible omission in a documentary about a possible murder.


by Heather Havrilesky SALON April 3, 2005

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2005/04/03/staircase/index.html

Yet the filmmakers clearly aim to question not just Peterson's possible guilt, but the justice system itself. The crew skips some of the most damning details of the trial -- the fact that the couple were in serious financial straits, for example -- in order to focus on the circus atmosphere of the trial and hint at the backwater nature of the prosecution team.

==================

This article has some POV and neutrality problems. A few examples:

so the 48-year-old victim, who sustained 7 lacerating blunt force strikes to the top and back of her head in the safety, security and comfort of her home, was not particularly intoxicated.
Comparing the victim's blood-alcohol content and that of a DUI suspect is fine, but the "safety, security and comfort of her home" business is not neutral and suggests bias.
And as is the case with documentaries, this one took the point-of-view of the defense
This is a biased presumption that documentaries are pro-defense, anti-prosecution. This is someone's opinion and not objective. Jean-Xavier de Lestrade stated in interviews he believed Peterson was innocent, otherwise he would not have made the film; however, he did not know how the trial would turn out. I've not read any reviews of Staircase which suggest it was biased. (Apparently, some on the prosecution team believe it was; however, they are not objective parties.)

The article also wobbles between past and present tenses. This needs to be remedied. As well, there's some cumbersome syntax, e.g. a .08 is the BAC level that determines DUIs.

I'm putting this on my list of editing projects but if any of the original authors read this, you might want to examine your work again in light of the observations above. David Hoag 05:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree. The article now has a number of objectivity problems, in addition to being rather poorly written. (what are the units of the BAC, what is the relevance of his son's misdemeanour? It is not possible to claim from an autopsy 18 years later, that there were 7 lacerations causing death...)

Oddly, the filmmakers started their project within weeks of the December 2001 murder, long before the case went to trial in July 2003.
Evidence? The filmmaker's website states 18 months of filming, including the trial itself, and in any case, what is so odd about this?

172.128.237.27 has also altered the web link to the directors site, I am tempted to say 'vandalised' to read "duh Lestrade" rather than "de Lestrade".

The link to the 'counterpoint site to the duh Lestrade film'(sic) is of dubious merit in an encyclopaedia given its vitriolic tone.

In all, I was tempted to revert it to the previous version, given the NPOV presentation, the irrelevant material and the suggestion that it has been written by someone with a strong anti-Peterson POV.

bignoter 21:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, David Hoag...I thought, like the documentary that seems to have inspired this entry, one could post a factual addendum with some point-of-view. I've edited out the parts you see as most objectionable. However, I must take issue with Bignoter's comments. I've streamlined the BAC bit, but don't understand to what exactly Bignoter refers when he writes "what are the units of the BAC"...BAC itself is a standard measure, and in North Carolina the level of alcohol in the blood at which point a driver is considered DUI is .08. The relevance of his son's felony (not "misdemeanour"--sic) is that the article is about Michael Peterson (Author), at least that's how it was started by whomsoever started it. In a biographical entry, information about next-of-kin is certainly relevant. His older son's earlier troubles are spoken of in the documentary that a previous correspondent saw fit to include in the entry. Bignoter demands evidence, then inserts an out-and-out falsehood when he says, "it is not possilbe to claim from an autopsy 18 years later, that there were 7 lacerations causing death..." Not only does Bignoter misquote from the article, but certainly an experienced forensic pathologist can indeed identify 7 lacerations and conclude that the victim was killed due to a beating with a blunt object. That's what three Medical Examiners/Forensic Pathologists concluded and testified to in court. Evidence? Here's the autopsy report, as posted on the WRAL.com site: Autopsy Report Reveals Elizabeth Ratliff Was Homicide Victim [www.wral.com/news/2163318/detail.html]. WRAL provided complete live coverage on its digital news channel and online. I suggest Bignoter view the public documents posted to its Web site, should he or anyone be interested...http://www.wral.com/news/1452095/detail.html.

Anonymous Editing/Article Still Needs Much Work

Just a note that editorial work is being done on this article by an unsigned contributor or contributors. While that is not a violation of Wiki policy per se, articles should be sourceable per Wikipedia:Cite sources rules. Rapid changes by a wide variety of unsigned contributors --e.g. 172.129.199.77; 172.129.130.170; 202.126.102.70; and 202.134.240.139 -- does throw a cloud on contributors' objectivity. Additionally, this somewhat smacks of Internet sock puppet behavior; otherwise, how did one of these users know to remove a NPOV tag, something a novice Wiki user would not know? I would encourage contributors to sign in before making contributions or create an account if you don't already have one. This makes the veracity of a discussion more legitimate.

With that said, this article still needs work and contains inaccuracies (for example, Peterson was a columnist and author of nonfiction works, too, so calling him "a novelist" is not accurate). It has no "encyclopedic" lede and meanders in a haphazard fashion completely out of chronology. It's still wavering in tense. Peterson is not dead, so why is he being discussed in the past tense, for example?

Compare, for instance, the Scott Peterson article, which has a tighter overall focus and a good chronological structure. David Hoag 06:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added the {{cleaup}} tag to this article for the reasons stated above. Use of headings and improving the text dramatically is badly needed. AnAn 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of a copyedit now. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the trial and the documentary could have their own page: The Staircase (documentary). I've gotten rid of all the superfluous stuff about Peterson being bisexual and having a credit card debt. I've introduced headings. I've tried to make this article more fact-oriented and less journalistic. I've tried to get rid of weasel-words "MP maintains X, although Y is actually true", "autopsy report revealed" etc. Its important to remember that the court doesn't actually determine the facts, it determines what facts were most likely given the evidence presented. No-one will ever know what happened to Kathleen and Elizabeth (except perhaps Michael Peterson), so we can only state what we know to be true - not what we find damning, or sensational, or heart-wrenching. Just the facts please. AnAn 01:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

{{documentary-stub}}

I'm in the middle of making Soupçons as that's the original title of the film, I'll make red-directs from Death on the Staircase (the UK title) and add a disambig link to The Staircase (international title) as well. Most of the material on this page can go there.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! AnAn 00:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, the link is now blue. I moved what was at "the Staircase" to The Staircase (book) and put the disambig at the top of Soupçons as the film appears to be much better known than the book. I've also created (as redirects) The Staircase (film) and The Staircase (documentary) to stop any accidental duplication. There appears to be a tonne of material here, and a good deal of it neither sits well in the Michael Peterson article) nor in the Soupçons article. If someone was very keen, they could create The State of North Carolina vs. Michael Peterson or whatever the naming convention for trials is. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


REALITY CHECK


AnAn states: "Its important to remember that the court doesn't actually determine the facts, it determines what facts were most likely given the evidence presented. No-one will ever know what happened to Kathleen and Elizabeth (except perhaps Michael Peterson), so we can only state what we know to be true - not what we find damning, or sensational, or heart-wrenching. Just the facts please."


When I hear someone coo "just facts please!" it's always a tip-off that they object to the overall truth of the matter. Facts -- taken out of context -- become meaningless trivia.

Now -- while ANYTHING MIGHT BE POSSIBLE in this ever-expanding universe -- there ARE facts that a court of law can determine to be true within a REASONABLE degree of certainty. The court does indeed determine facts through a jury of 12 ordinary citizens charged with doing just that.

In the Peterson case, it was determined -- by evidence that withstood rigorous examination -- that Michael Peterson murdered his wife. It IS damning. It IS sensational. It IS heart-wrenching. It IS true.

To wiggle around the truth by removing facts from their context and playing "neutrality" word games is to lie. This isn't neutral -- this is murder, and the attempt to cover-up a murder.

The FACT is, we have determined EXACTLY what happened to Kathleen Peterson and Elizabeth Ratliff. It has been determined beyond any REASONABLE doubt.

White-washing a topic by using the excuse of needing to be "fair" and "balanced" is actually an attempt to re-write history. Peterson's murder left over 10,000 blood droplets spattered across his hallway walls and cielings. That cannot be neutralized or cleaned away.

But give it your best shot. Regardless of how you phrase it -- the truth is that Michael Peterson is a convicted killer serving out a life sentence in prison.

MILITARY SERVICE ===

The description of Michael Peterson's military service indicates he enlisted in the Marine Corps. If he was discharged at the rank of captain after three years, he likely entered service as a commissioned officer, not as an enlisted recruit. He may have gone through an officer candidate program and then through The Basic School at Quantico. His method of entry into the Marine Corps and his rank should be verified.

My 2c

There are basically two kinds of people on any jury. Those that give a verdict based on their opinion or feeling about a matter, and those that can put aside their personal preference and rigorously apply the concept of reasonable doubt to the facts available. In a nutshell it is morality of self interest versus morality based on truth. It is the persistence of the former which retards the evolution of that which is unique and most beautiful about our species. Shorvath 09:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

True Crime category?

I don't understand what the "True Crime" category is trying to do; I am removing. If you put it there, please feel free to put it back but make sure it links to something. KConWiki 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Facts?

The FACT is, we have determined EXACTLY what happened to Kathleen Peterson and Elizabeth Ratliff. It has been determined beyond any REASONABLE doubt.

Indeed, it has! Especially in the case of Ratliff, where the unchallenged FACTS for more than a decade indicated she died of brain hemmorage.[1] Thank God she was exhumed, so a medical examiner could change that FACT to a more FACTY FACT...

That's the whole point of this case, you see. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own FACTS. And if you think FACTS should be changed to suit current circumstances... well, I think they have some openings in the Bush Administration you may wish to consider. (Ooh, cheap shot... but, sadly, supported by evidence. Climate reports? [2]? WMD's?[3])

I think we've just identified Truthiness's lesser-know cousin. Facty-ness, anyone?

Jenolen 10:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Similarly, I suppose we're supposed to accept it is a "fact" that OJ Simpson didn't kill anyone, either. (After all, that's what the jury found! Codenamemary (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Middle Name

Is his middle name Hancock or Iver? There seems to be a discrepency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.140.254.105 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

CSI

The CSI:Crime Scene Investigations episode Bite Me is clearly based on this murder case and I am certain I have seen a British crime drama deal with exactly the same scenario. IS it worth adding them to the page 86.173.98.24 (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Michael Peterson (murderer)"

Well, now it is not clearly established that he is a murderer. So, isn't the title inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.168.178 (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


I agree this is libelous. He is innocent because he has not been convicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.187.162 (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Politician

In July 2010 we called him a fiction writer and politician, the Library of Congress notes(Peterson at LC Authorities, now one of our External links). Perhaps it was best to drop the politician label but we should at least cover the conclusion of his campaign for mayor of somewhere.

We do make clear that his newspaper column was broadly political. And partly cover the campaign for mayor. What happened in that election? Did he run again? Win any elections? Was he politician in another sense? --P64 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Novelist

We now call him simply a novelist in the lead sentence. But we didn't provide any biographical data but the titles of four books until I added it this hour. I changed the infobox Occupation from "author" to "soldier, columnist, writer" but reworded the lead only in other respects.

Previously we said that he wrote "three successful books". LCCatalog records (linked in new section Michael Peterson (murder suspect)#Published books) make clear that those three are fiction, not clear whether any should be considered a collection rather than a novel. Successful? The Immortal Dragon catalog record was created only in 2009, presumably when it was acquired--prompted by the murder case? It's in a special collection, altho that may be afaik because LC collected only hardcover books in 1983 when it was new.

The Duke U Rubenstein Library Guide to Peterson's archive, now another of our External links) names its "three novels written by Michael Peterson: A Time of War, The Immortal Dragon, and The Enemy." Dates make clear that he wrote much of his fiction years before it was published. The archive title "... bulk 1972" and its detail contents --corresp. with publishers beginning 1972, bulk of box 1 evidently The Enemy manuscript-- suggest to me that he wrote The Enemy first, perhaps completed a version by 1972. A Time of War may have been complete by 1983. A Bitter Peace may have been new material, distinct from The Enemy, prompted by Time of War's belated success.

--P64 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Current status

Is there any new information on the case to be added to the article. The last update stated that he was released on bail and granted a new trial in 2011. It's been five years since now. Has that trial occurred? If so, what was the verdict? Tvx1 13:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Henry Lee

The article states Henry Lee duplicated the blood splatter by spitting ketchup. I just watched a TV show that showed Lee's attempt at this. It was nowhere near identical to photos of the actual bloodstains. I think the article's wording needs to be re-worded to clarify that Lee did not fully (or even nearly) duplicate the splatter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.225.24 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Michael Peterson (murder suspect). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Peterson (murder suspect). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. opinions are divided as to whether the article should be moved to Death of Kathleen Peterson or remain as it is with to and against giving valid rationale. After weighing both arguments, I'd close this as No consensus Mahveotm (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


Michael Peterson (criminal) → Death of Kathleen Peterson – Michael Peterson is notable for the death of his wife and all the legal proceedings relating to it, including at one time being convicted of her murder and currently being convicted of her manslaughter. The majority of content in this article is indeed about that case, and even big chunks of the biographical content - such as his involvement in the Vietnam war and his life in Germany - have eventual relevancy to the case. The media about him is all really about the case and his level of involvement. WP:SINGLEEVENT says "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person", and yet we don't even have an article about this "event". It would be far more appropriate to give this article the name "Death of Kathleen Peterson", with the lead fleshed out to describe the circumstances of her death, and the "Personal and professional life" section renamed "Michael Peterson", as is common in crime articles such as Soham murders. Some rearranging might also be necessary but I'd be happy to prepare a draft in my sandbox before a move if people felt that was necessary. Loeba (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

One comment: I suggested "Death" because the current conviction is manslaughter, so I assumed "Murder of.." would be inappropriate. But if I'm wrong about that or there's a different title that would work then I'm open to other options. --Loeba (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  • To me the question is if there had never been this murder would Peterson be notable for his writings alone? If the answer is no I support this move. If the answer is yes, I think we should still create Death of Kathleen Peterson and move most of the content here to that page but would keep some information about the murder here. My initial looking suggests that Peterson would have been notable as an author and so I would lean towards option B (keep this page, move most murder info to new Kathleen Peterson page). The one downside of this approach is that it feels like people would be more likely to add information about the murder back to this page than if we had a clean redirect to Murder of Kathleen Peterson. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support moving and renaming, and reorganising page; Peterson's unlikely notablility as a novelist in an alternate timeline isn't relevant here. — Hugh (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I want to clarify. I think Peterson likely passes notability for his being an author in this timeline and is thus worthy of a page for that reason. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this article is about the murder far more than it is about this person; if there's a claim of notability separate from that, the page can be split. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination, Hugh and power~enwiki. The section Michael Peterson (criminal)#Personal and professional life may, indeed, be expanded into a standalone article. However, the remainder of the article is about the Death of Kathleen Peterson.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Notability is due to the crime.Icewhiz (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but a rewrite will be needed or I want to also support Roman Spinner's statement about perhaps splitting off the section first. It's no question that you can't mention Michael Peterson without the murder of his wife. It would be hard to determine if he would have notability outside of this event but from my understanding his works were well known. Of course, that goes to claiming notability on its own merits which again, would require looking at anything published before December 2001. I'm probably rambling on as this article is of recent interest to many from The Staircase (and I'll admit I'm one of them). So in summary, I support the move due to the nomination. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose In my view he passes the notability requirement - between his novels, his newspaper column and his bid for public offce - regardless of the crime. Obviously the crime and the interest, recently renewed thanks to the Netflix documentary, have amplified his notoriety. I would rather see this article remain with much of the detail moved to an article about Ms. Peterson's death. Ncjon (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is about the person, not the incident. A redirect should instead be created from the proposed new title. Andrewa (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Only one section is about the person, and many crime articles have a section about the perpetrator so it could stay after a move without seeming odd. The question is whether or not Peterson is notable outside of Kathleen's death, to which I'd argue 'no' since his books were not particularly successful (this article only dedicates 3 sentences to his writing, suggesting there's little material on it) and coverage is all related to the incident. Some criminals become notorious enough that they warrant their own article but I don't think Peterson is at that point (surely 95% of those are serial killers). --Loeba (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
This comment is at least partly inaccurate, see #Discussion. Andrewa (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Only one section is about the person... that's not strictly true, the Books subsection in Media lists works of his own authorship that are unrelated to the (alleged) crime(s). But even if it were true, it doesn't accurately reflect the article scope. The first section, Personal and professional life, is about the person, and could easily be expanded and even given subheadings as is...it's long enough.

His life has been so dominated by these events that having much of the material in the article devoted to them is not undue weight. But that doesn't of itself make this an article on those events rather than on him as a person.

Agree that the issue is, is he notable for any reason other than the conviction etc.? And this is a difficult call, as the web is so cluttered with things related to this more sensational side of his life story.

In the spirit of wp:BLP, I think we should consider Michael Peterson (author) as a better title still. I note the previous move 21:31, 12 April 2013‎ Robofish (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (41 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (Robofish moved page Michael Peterson (author) to Michael Peterson (murderer): Primarily notable as a murderer, not a writer.) appears to have been undiscussed, and the later discussion (several sections above) doesn't support it, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

For some reason I find this deeply troubling. (And it's not because of sympathy for him... and let me leave it at that.)

We are a general encyclopedia. To the layperson, the disambiguator (criminal) carries the implication that he dunnit. But reliable sources are divided on this. The article spells this out in great detail, and rightly so. But our article title should be NPOV. There is no facility to add a reference or a footnote to the article title; The article title is in that sense written in Wikipedia's own voice.

And seen in that light, and the spirit and letter of wp:BLP, the current title is indefensible. Perhaps not as bad as (murderer) but it has exactly the same problem. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is unlikely that anyone would care about the case but for his status as a well-known writer. The label (author) is much more appropriate than (criminal). Odd that that is now protected. Looks like someone has a grudge.68.33.93.138 (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
That's not true - people only care about this case because of The Staircase series. Anyway, the difficult issue of what to name this article, and the constant back and forth editing, is just another reason to name it "Death of Kathleen". It's totally misleading to disambig as "author" when there's so little to say about his writing, but "criminal (even though he's still a convicted felon) is indeed a bit problematic. This can be solved by just covering his bio within the death article. Loeba (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
That is a solution to the question of choosing a disambiguator, but it's not a good solution. Why people want to read and write about this person is wp:OR at best. But he at least scrapes in as a notable person, so we should have an article on him. Speculating about whether he'd be notable in an alternate and hypothetical universe doesn't change that. And if the article topic is the person, then Death of Kathleen is a poor article title. Andrewa (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

Asaep (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
L293D, looks they were trying to request an article name change but still odd. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting edit

This edit is by an IP with no other contributions. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

How is it interesting? If it's worth anything, within the discussion of the page move above, you can see Ncjon resides or has resided North Carolina from the first entry on their talk page dated 2008. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Why am I getting dragged into this particular sub thread? Ncjon (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Just showing it means nothing, Ncjon. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly what means nothing? Andrewa (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm puzzled too. Andrewa (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
It's interesting because it boldly substitutes Michael Peterson (author) for Michael Peterson (criminal), which seems out of process to me. Not to you? Andrewa (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
That does seem troubling and inappropriate. Why not just revert it? Rotiro (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. Ravensfire (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
What was done? The discussion was about the change from author to criminal. Looking at WP:1E: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. it does seem this situation does present justification to have separate articles. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Guess we need to go through and find every single person who has been charged with anything and mark it as “Criminal”? OJ, Pete Rose, etc.... Kmfm0122 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Kmfm0122, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS called. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You could, to be WP:POINTY to an extreme. I'm assuming you looked at the section right above this one and noticed the requested move where many similar arguments were raised and ultimately failed to persuade. There are multiple people called Michael Peterson (more than I realized...), so a descriptor is needed. While he is an author, most people do know him from him killing his wife. Ravensfire (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yet you didn't answer my question above until a "point" had to be made. Also, "most people do know him from him killing his wife" is a pretty non-NPOV of simply saying he's more known for being convicted. In my opinion, the moving of material related to the death of his wife to Death of Kathleen Peterson looked like the bigger thing to address versus arguments between using author and criminal. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2018

Fbrs12 (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 03:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Article title - remove any reference to "murder"

It was previously Michael Peterson (murderer) and then it was changed to Michael Peterson (murder suspect). If he is acquitted in his new trial is it going to change again? OJ's article is not O.J. Simpson (acquitted murderer).

Why is it not Michael Peterson (writer)? I will change it if there is no valid objection.

— Drcwright (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it should just be Michael Peterson (author) or (writer)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.9.37.7 (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please change article title to Michael Peterson (Author) as he's no longer a murder suspect. He's pled guilty under an Alford plea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:7607:A000:35F2:F0D3:8685:6026 (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to have ANY sort of parenthetical disambiguation following "Michael Peterson" as there is no wikipedia page for that name. Mike Tyson's page does not say Mike Tyson (Boxer) OR Mike Tyson (Rapist), even though these both describe him. This is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies on page names/URLs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.79.136 (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Breach of Wikipedia's article titling policies

There is no reason to have ANY sort of parenthetical disambiguation following "Michael Peterson" as there is no wikipedia page for that name. Mike Tyson's page does not say Mike Tyson (Boxer) OR Mike Tyson (Rapist), even though these both describe him. This is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies on page names/URLs. 108.17.79.136 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You might be correct. I will check the procedures and update here soon. Sdmarathe (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
There is a disambiguation page at Michael Peterson which lists 5 other people with the exact name, Michael Peterson. Shadow007 (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:DISAMB. The issue with usage of criminal is that it might be a WP:BLP violation but at the same time a lot of content about this article is the death of his wife and the trial leading to his conviction. (Note: I am not arguing the usage of criminal as he is a convicted person. That is a fact regardless of how messy the process leading to his conviction was done. We could probably talk about that for years after the fact.) So, there's multiple issues to address at the same time (regardless of this article being brought into the spotlight recently with The Staircase, it does not change the issue of the article). In my opinion, I see it as this:
  1. The proposed move above was an attempt to get the respective content moved to Death of Kathleen Peterson. The death is a significant event to warrant an article of its own.
  2. The usage of criminal versus author for disambiguation.
  3. The possibility that Michael Peterson's article might not warrant its own article.
I don't believe #3 as he was known before the trial to be an author regardless of trying to adhere notability to it. If not just for his books but also his published content in the Durham Herald-Sun. If anything, perhaps these issues should be discussed one by one? – TheGridExe (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

After a move by @Mp2bill:, the current title is Michael Peterson (author and convicted criminal), which actually IS a breach of Wikipedia's article titling policies (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Disambiguating: "Try also to limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term."). So let's decide whether to stick with Michael Peterson (criminal) or switch to Michael Peterson (author). Λυδαcιτγ 02:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I'd suggest Michael Peterson (author) on WP:BLP concerns. Per Andrewa above, "We are a general encyclopedia. To the layperson, the disambiguator (criminal) carries the implication that he dunnit. But reliable sources are divided on this. The article spells this out in great detail, and rightly so. But our article title should be NPOV." Λυδαcιτγ 02:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Part of the problem is, we can't have an inline citation on an article title to give its source. Article titles therefore speak with Wikipedia's own voice. (Oops, I made exactly that point before. But I think it's important, and particularly so in BLP article titles.) Andrewa (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn’t realize that I violated the titling policy. I felt that because he is known for more than one thing, simply labeling him as “criminal” wasn’t appropriate.

I agree that Michael Peterson (author) is the appropriate title as that is what he is originally known for and the fact that he was convicted is a secondary part of his biography. Mp2bill (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That's what is causing a lot of sudden edits when at the same time trying to follow policy for WP:DISAMB - I don't see it as users purposely stating Michael Peterson is a criminal. (Assuming good faith edits.) He is a convict by definition and, at the same time, I agree with Andrewa. I know I mentioned WP:BLP before. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the move, and moved it back to Michael Peterson (criminal), as the 'established' title, with no comment as to whether or not that is actually the correct location for it. I suggest @Mp2bill: or somebody else use WP:RM if they want to move it again. GiantSnowman 13:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit confused here... Everyone seems to agree that Michael Peterson (author) is the best title. Why is it back to Michael Peterson (criminal)? 130.161.210.232 (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The previous discussion did not reach a consensus. A new proposal might though. Λυδαcιτγ 08:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It might, but there needs to be some solid evidence that Peterson is known as an author. The article is overwhelming focused on his murder of his wife as that's the weight of information in sources. His books aren't really known and don't appear to merit an article on their own, or even more than a couple sentences here. There's a feeling of a coordinated reputation management effort to remove mentions "murder" or "criminal" from the article. Ravensfire (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the article is protected once again from vandals. I am questioning if an edit filter where the removal of the criminal template would just be sufficient instead of protecting the page. Perhaps it's time to make a proposal to prevent persistent vandalism? – TheGridExe (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Motion to Test Feathers

With the page locked, I cannot add this edit, which presumably is uncontroversial. I'm assuming someone above my pay grade can please add this material while the page is in editing limbo.

At the end of the section discussing Owl Theory, I propose adding: "On March 2, 2017 (following his Alford plea), Mr. Peterson's attorney filed a motion to allow him to pay for a bird expert at the Smithsonian Institution to examine feather fragments found in Kathleen Peterson's hair to determine if she was attacked by a raptor.[1]

MarpleMiss (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)MarpleMiss

References

  1. ^ https://wwwcache.wral.com/asset/news/local/2017/03/13/16582208/20170313112617080.pdf
 Done Danski454 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2018

Ch4rc0ll1ng (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Michael Peterson (criminal) → Michael Peterson (author) – After the initial failed proposal, the issue that's more necessary to address is the potential WP:BLP violation.

I'm going to make it blunt here from the start as it's stating the findings of fact and to not base discussion on feelings: Michael Peterson is a convicted person in the state of North Carolina. One can argue that Michael Peterson is best known due to the murder trial of his second wife. However, he also did have a career as an author and a columnist writer.

I bring forward this proposal per WP:BLP and present a WP:NPOV for the article title. Yes, a good chunk of this article is about his conviction which can be moved to a new article or with The Staircase provided I'm looking at WP:1E: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. it does seem this situation does present justification to have separate articles BUT that argument can be made in the future.

Again, I'm proposing this move for the potential WP:BLP violation. Please note similar guidelines from WP:CRIME - we cannot put a presumption of not guilty. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose for all the reasons above. His notability is NOT from being an author - if he hadn't killed his wife I seriously doubt there would be an article as I don't think he meets WP:NAUTHOR. And everything from the previous move discussions about this. Ravensfire (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Then I guess it's time to propose an edit filter for the IP addresses changing the template. Protecting the page just postpones the eventual edits. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose title move, and strong oppose to moving information about the real-life death of Kathleen Peterson into an article on a television miniseries! This is not a BLP issue, proposer agrees that it is accepted fact Peterson was convicted, with Alford plea later making that conviction still valid, so yes, the "neutral" in NPOV means accepting this and not hiding it because it reflects poorly on Peterson. Per Ravensfire, they were not a notable author. If we absolutely, absolutely had to avoid "criminal" as disambiguator, there is "(born 1943)" as a possible disambiguator that is better than author, but I think (criminal) is fine anyway. SnowFire (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this disambiguation is correct in identifying the characteristic that makes him notable - and is not a BLP violation. I don't see how the event vs person discussion affects how titles about persons are disambiguated. --В²C ☎ 18:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the rationals above me. Seriously though, something should be done to block IP editing on this page, most if not all of them have been reverted. Seems very suspicious behavior for editors, most of which only edited this page. --Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Wonder if it's a low-end reputation management company. Not very subtle but persistent. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I just protected the thing 'cause IP's keep changing the info box to "criminal". I think we should have the info box congruent with the title. Don't care which, but I think we should choose one or the other.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion on article title

Given the overwhelming amount of reasonable doubt and openly acknowledged corruption on the part of expert witnesses in this case, this title is both demeaning and reflects poorly on the credibility of Wikipedia. In my research of several prominent people with criminal convictions - even those clearly guilty - I have yet to find anyone for whom “(criminal)” is used as a subtitle. And it is especially unbecoming that it is used in a case of a man who very likely is innocent. This subheading needs to be removed by any fair standard of honest intellectual rigor. Benfrankln (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone Benfrankln (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dillinger Benfrankln (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_James Benfrankln (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden Benfrankln (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson Benfrankln (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

There are a rather substantial difference between this article and your example - there are no article about people with the same name that are even remotely as well known. This isn't the only Michael Peterson who's got an article, in fact, there are quite a few. Surely you've done this, but you can just search for the name on Wikipedia - Michael Peterson. So, what makes this Michael Peterson notable? He killed his wife and everything around the ensuing case. That's it. That's his claim to notability on Wikipedia and hence why the disambiguation uses criminal. Other articles in similar circumstances have also used criminal or murderer as the additional text.Ravensfire (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That is the mistake you are making in your reasoning about this. There is so much overwhelming reasonable doubt that this man killed his wife that the judge has acknowledged such and implied there is likely injustice in his case.

It is possible that you are not familiar with the case. But assuming he killed his wife in this case is the problem.

The title needs to address this very real concern rather than ignoring it. Benfrankln (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Staircase

Dear Wikipedia,

After watching the series ´´the staircase´´ I become so interesting in the whole story. Unfortunately I see that Michael Peterson is wearing the name of a ´´criminal´´ on Wikipedia. I think that´s wrong. He was also a writer and maybe also a victim in this sad case. Is it possible to change the word ´´criminal´´ into ´´staircase´´? He has already suffered enough.

Please, thank you.

Ivy Els — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.62.157.71 (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

escort Brett Wolgamott?

No mention of the male escort Peterson was emailing? Prosecutors contended that Peterson's interest in males may have been a motive for the murder.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.195.254 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/12/ctv.novelist.trial/

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2019

Hi, I am the person this page is about. I would like to add a reference to my latest book written in 2018 about my trial, conviction, and eght years in prison, Behind the Staircase, which is available online at https://www.amazon.com/Behind-Staircase-All-Profits-Charity/dp/1796306924 . How can I get this added to the page?

I would also like to correct: He is the son of Eugene Iver Peterson and Eleanor(Bartolino)ancestory. (NOT AUSTRIAN) Thanks, Michael Peterson MichaelPeterson1943 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please see your talk page for addressing conflict of interest. – The Grid (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2018

Criminal in brackets should not be there in the title. That is unnecessary and inappropriate. 120.22.205.135 (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please note that Michael Peterson exists as a disambiguation page, and that the "(criminal)" used in the title here is to distinguish this Michael Peterson from the numerous others. NiciVampireHeart 14:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

What are you scared of, exactly, that you’d need to hide discussion contrary to your thought process? Benfrankln (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing being hidden. You're clearly ignoring previous discussions on the same matter - mind you, I proposed a similar discussion that could be aligned to your argument but there's guidelines to understand on why the article is named as such. The new section is to provide a new visible discussion piece for conversation. – The Grid (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

So why hide my discussion if you’re so confident of the judgment made on this? Benfrankln (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I found the second discussion thread. I apologize. Thank you. Benfrankln (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Could have used author Southerndan33 (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

(criminal)

This seems unnecessarily pejorative and vague. If we're trying to differentiate between different Michael Peterson's shouldn't it be something specific like, (Convicted Murderer)? Cap'n Scoots (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Cap'n Scoots, There have been multiple prior discussions about the page name and multiple prior proposed page moved that have all kept the page here. There are multiple Michael Petersons, so a disambiguation is needed here. The most common disambiguation used for situations like this is criminal. Shrug - it's a descriptive term that covers the reason he's notable. Ravensfire (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. I know a lot of people seem to have personal opinions on his guilt since the Netflix show so I thought maybe it was classified by somebody upset about the leanings of that program. Cap'n Scoots (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

If none of the others are an author, then why not call him (author)? 2A00:23C3:E284:900:B055:144A:A8A3:2BED (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation - (criminal)?

I agree with others that using the word 'criminal' for disambiguation is unnecessary and unfair. Why not 'novelist'? Whatever your views on the case, the fairest approach would be not to pick a side (I would object to using the words 'wrongfully convicted' as disambiguation for the same reason.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.16.109 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

See multiple prior discussion where the consensus has been that the term is correct and needed. Ravensfire (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I am concerned because "criminal" would appear to be an incorrect and misleading term. Perhaps "alleged criminal" would be accurate but labeling his primary disambiguation as "criminal" seems wrong to me; at least have the page name as something accurate, even if you don't like using the word "novelist". Seems like an obvious point to me - articles should be factual rather than driven by politics or subjective opinions. Officially Mr X (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking through all of the previous comments on this subject, and also in the talk page archive, it seems like the clear majority of people are opposed to using the word "criminal" or any other word which assumes guilt on the individual. Even if he was guilty, it hardly seems correct to use this as the primary disambiguation descriptor when labelling him - words such as "novelist" or "writer" are at least factually indisputable, whereas "criminal" is easily debatable and arguably slanderous. I suggest re-naming the article. Officially Mr X (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Officially Mr X, problem one, it's hardly slanderous when he was convicted of killing his wife. It's factual. Problem two, the disambiguation is there to identify why a person is notable. Peterson isn't notable for being an author, he's notable for the death of his wife and every thing around that, culminating in his alford plea. That's his primary reason (and essentially only reason) for the article existing. Take that away, and there's frankly not enough to support notability. He was convicted of manslaughter - that's factually indisputable. Strongly object to any renaming. Ravensfire (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Officially Mr X, I came here after watching The Staircase like many others. However, looking at the BLP policies and even from watching the series - you are left with the fact that he was convicted in regard to the murder of his second wife. His notability is unfortunately due to the murder more than his time being an author and writer. – The Grid (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2020

I concur the use of "Criminal" is vague and generalised. He's not infamous for being a "Criminal", that would be Jesse James, Al Capone, Charles Ponzi. He is notable because of one alleged crime that in the end he chose not to fight because the Alford Plea was a guaranteed release, a retrial might not have been. The part about maintaining his innocence and not getting the death penalty, life in prison without parole, etc. The Alford Plea allows District Attorneys to release a convict without having to pay reparations for false imprisonment. "Convict" or "Conviction" would be much more accurate than "Criminal". He's still alive, is he currently committing crimes? Jayoheh (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. Sundayclose (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2020

Michael Peterson (Novelist) D.A.P.Davies (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If I've misunderstood your request, please be more specific and make your request in the form "Change X to Y", providing reliable sources if necessary. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Who is a criminal?

Is a person criminal after having served the sentence? I.e. is he/she a criminal for the rest of his/her life? That sounds like "a life sentence" for no good reason. Ilkkahh (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Implication victim had negative view of homosexuality is defamatory and unsubstantiated

"According to Assistant District Attorney Freda Black, Kathleen

would have been infuriated by learning that her husband, who she truly loved, was bi-sexual and having an extramarital relationship—not with another woman—but a man, which would have been humiliating and embarrassing to her. We believe that once she learned this information that an argument ensued and a homicide occurred."

I propose that the wording be changed from "humiliating and embarrassing" to "surprising and upsetting." Unless you have documentation that Kathleen felt negatively (shame, humiliation and embarrassment) towards homosexuality, this presumes that she does not like homosexuality and would be embarrassed by association to it. It is safe to suppose she would be surprised and (therefore) upset by finding out this information about her husband, because that does not presume any feelings towards the subject of homosexuality per say, and only presumes a negative feeling towards finding out new information about her husband's sexuality specifically. Without a direct quote from Kathleen, this choice in wording is defamatory because it implies Kathleen feels negatively towards homosexuality. If this is a quote from Assistant District Attorney Freda Black, I think it is unnecessary to include this precise wording unless substantiated by evidence that Kathleen did in fact feel this way towards homosexuality. Surprise and shock are fair assumptions if she was unaware of her husband's sexual orientation. However, humiliation and embarrassment add another layer of negative judgment that cannot be assumed without any supporting evidence. It is particularly unfair to assign this judgement to the victim post-mortem, because it is unknown, and even if her initial reaction was known to be negatively judgmental towards homosexuality (and I am not aware of any account of this), she may have developed her opinion towards homosexuality if it were ever negative to begin with. Finally, regardless of her inner feelings towards homosexuality in general, these feelings are irrelevant and what is relevant are her feelings towards supposedly discovering her husband's hidden orientation. If this is a quote from the attorney and it is deemed necessary to use, a disclaimer and reference is needed. TTLERAND (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from Freda Black and is presented as such, we do not alter people's quotes. I do agree that it should be referenced so I have added a reference for the quote. Greyjoy talk 11:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Peterson_trial/Archive_1&oldid=1145698067"