Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Laci Peterson/Archive 1

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

Merge with Scott Peterson

90% of this article is about the investigation and Scott Peterson's trial. Most of it should be merged into Scott Peterson and reconciled with the existing material there to maintain consistency. However, this article should be maintained as a separate entry, but with a very terse summary after the day of her disappearance. --Tysto 17:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • What is strictly about Laci Peterson should not be merged with Scott Peterson's article. After all, she was her own person, right? I do believe all the trial related info should move to Scott Peterson's article, or an entirely different article about Scott Peterson's trial. If I hear no objections in some time, I will put this into effect and move everything trial related to Scott Peterson's article. Stiles 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The incredibly sad thing about this article is that it only exists because the subject & her child were brutally murdered by her husband, and it made headlines. It should be merged with Scott Peterson, because this page is really only about her death, despite a little biography. That's the only reason the world knows of her, and no one deserves that kind of morbid disrespect.--Wikiphilia 01:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Laci Peterson is independantly notable, she had her own life and she was murdered, her murder is what makes her notable and her +adoreable husband soctty-boy+ is notable for being a murderer. theres a differance and a combined artilce would be too long.CholgatalK! 19:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Old discussion

The first paragraph of this article needs to summarize the case of her death, rather than go into her biography. Kingturtle 21:42 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Has there been a trial yet? Kingturtle 04:02, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why is there an article on Laci but not Scott Peterson? Shouldn't the latter be the focus (as he is a purported multiple murderer) rather than the former (whose only claim to fame is that she died), and therefore Scott should have an article to himself? ugen64 20:33, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

A quite long article for nothing really important? And is "unborn child" really NPOV? -- till we *) 18:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say it's not important. It's a high-profile case which will be referenced in American literature/writing. People like me (who don't live in the USA) need an article on the subject in order to understand references to the Petersons. [I was directed here when I didn't know what "the Peterson trial" refered to.]
How about renaming this article to the Peterson murder case or something like that, and redirecting both the vicitim's name and the accused killer's name to that page? And if you find POV in this article (and I'm sure you do) - edit it out! fabiform | talk 18:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Peterson Double Murder - would be what I would name it.--Lazarias 21:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree that it needs to be renamed something. "Laci Peterson" doesn't begin to cover the situation. Moncrief 21:42, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

one dollar.

for one dollar? can someone check this edit out? name of dealership? Christopher Mahan 01:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The dealer's name is Doug Roberts and the used car dealership's name is Roberts Auto Sales and is on McHenry Avenue in Modesto, CA. Xanxz

Massive rewrite

THIS PERSON OBVIOUSLY BELIEVES IN SCOTT'S INNOCENCE - WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!! PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE ME WANT TO PUKE

The massive rewrite by 69.161.222.82 of Jan 24, 2005, needs to be edited for NPOV and other reasons. I would, however, like to avoid the urge to blanket revert the edits. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:34, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have added various cleanup tags. See HTML comments for reasoning. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:40, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

-It's not our job to post POV on how we feel a trail has gone good or bad, or find perceived errors in the trail and write about them. It's our job to post the facts in what happened during the 'Laci episode'. And leave it at that. Post all you want in this talk section, thats what its for but not in the article. --Anonymous

-She looks like Rachael Ray?? Not at all. This is an opinion. Please omit opinions. --peptidemel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.104.147.200 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of significant errors of fact in this article. -- A Voice of Sanity 03:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Image of Laci Peterson

The image added to the article comes from www.lacipeterson.com. It's not perfect, thus it is probably met for WP:CSD due to the lack of confirmed copyright status. Unless the copyrighted work is found, please don't add any image to the article. Thank you. Adnghiem501 00:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This image has been altered from the original, apparently by the media in order to blacken Scott Peterson. I have a copy of the original. -- A Voice of Sanity 04:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Voice of Sanity (talk • contribs)
Please provide a heading and a link when you contribute here. *1* I do not understand the first question please try different wording with a link to my alleged edit. I need your explanation: where is the consensus recorded that 'image not perfect' is a criterion for speedy deletion? -- RHaworth 02:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The heading and the link I asked you about is: Image:Laci Peterson.jpg. I think the image is not good enough to be displayed, though. It can't be verified to be found at http://www.lacipeterson.com. Those are all what I thought. Adnghiem501 04:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Phrases such as 'image not perfect' and 'not good enough' suggest that you are talking about the quality of the image. If so, please note a) poor image quality is not a criterion for speedy deletion and b) although this image is not the world's greatest it is perfectly good enough.
However I suspect you may be talking about the copyright position. If so a) please be explicit and say so and b) note my edits to the image description including {{HistoricPhotoRationale}} which I had not seen until I started looking at your contris but which fits the bill perfectly for this one.
Come clean - what is your real objection to this image? It looks a bit like sour grapes to me after you have had several of your image uploads deleted. -- RHaworth 08:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I am going to go ahead and add her picture then. A new one. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh wait. Are you guys talking about the one where she's sitting down? Oh nevermind. However, I added her pic in her infobox for all to see Punkymonkey987 (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sharon Rocha (named after Almond Rocha)

Why would we merge Sharon Rocha (who is actually named after Almond Rocha) into the Laci Peterson article? Just because she is her mother? I motion that we also merge George H.W. Bush into the George W. Bush article, because that is his father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.180.50 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 27 February 2006

User has been vandalizing other articles, such as Almond roca, with this nonsense. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Klaw , show me the proof that Sharon Rocha was not named after the tasty Almond rocha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.180.50 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 March 2006
The onus is on you to prove your assertions. In the meantime, please stop vandalizing articles. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I believe the original person is correct here. I remember seeing a discussion on CNN when all of this was still in the news, and they spoke about how Sharon Rocha was actually named after Almond Roca. That wasn't vandalism after all.

Skimming Laci Peterson article

I think the article here in question just needs to be about Laci, not Scott. There's too much here about the trial and not enough about Laci's life and all that. Plus, I think Sharon Rocha deserves her own article, too. She did write a book, after all. MammaMia 5:16 May 16 2006 (UTC)

Just did a huge rewrite

Okay, a lot of the information that was here did not accurately cite sources or quotes, so I did some of that. I also cleaned up some grammar, some flow issues, a LOT--but not all--of the prose that was blatantly plagiarized from other websites, and added/reduced some of the details to make it read easier. Also added information on how Sharon Rocha eventually collected Laci's insurance money, not Scott. If I screwed anything up royally, I apologize...I just tried to look at the article from the POV of someone who knew very little about the case, and edit/restructure accordingly. LBoogey 04:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)LBoogey

Scott 'hoped for infertility'?

I'm from Modesto and paid attention to the story, but never heard this. The references are confusing. Is this true or should it have a specific reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.56.134 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Error in title

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(criminal_acts)#Victims

Person does not qualify. However, deleting this article would not be good. As a compromise, rename it "Murder of Laci Peterson" Acme Plumbing (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic material and GREATWRONGS

I've removed 2 paragraphs alleging "Satan" to be involved in Peterson's death per WP:SOAPBOX. This is an encyclopedia, not an opportunity to address WP: GREATWRONGS. Additionally, I've removed links to articles to other murdered women who have nothing to do with the Murder of Laci Peterson per WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:ALSO.

Please don't restore either of these without discussion and consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Much too in-depth

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing that makes her notable is her murder and the ensuing media circus. There's no reason to include information such as

"Sharon Rocha moved to San Jose in 1977, but felt that the city was too large for her. She soon moved back to Modesto. Upon her return to Modesto, her cousin Gwen Kemple introduced her to Ron Grantski. A year and half later, Grantski and Rocha moved into a three-bedroom home with Brent Rocha and Laci Peterson. They never married."

"At Cal Poly, Laci Rocha majored in ornamental horticulture. Her desire was to one day open a specialty plant shop."

"Sharon Rocha feared that Gain would have a negative effect on her daughter's ambitious attitude toward school, but this did not strain the relationship between Gain and Laci. In fact, the two lived together in Laci's new home in Morro Bay, a small town north of Cal Poly."

All of the information in the biography can be condensed into about a paragraph. The sources for this information would be better used to illustrate examples of excessive media coverage and missing white woman syndrome rather than giving the reader every gruesomely mundane detail that has ever been reported by any media source.

Recommendations: a) Trim the biography down to one paragraph. b) Create a section on the quantity and specifics of media coverage. c) merge/delete the 'suspect' part of the article with Scott Peterson, with the exception of the delightfully tasteful few sentences on "finding the body".

I will do this in the next few days. If anyone has any concerns or ideas for a major revamp of the article, let me know and we can collaborate. Detruncate 04:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is way too long. It is much longer than the bio's of many famous people. I don't know Wiki well enough to edit this much, but am hoping someone will really trim it down. I agree with the recommendations above and will try to get back after they are done to give more comments. Plus, there are way too many "feelings" in it, NPOV.--Lorraine LeBeau 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. Laci may not have been a famous actress or a famous singer but her death helped spur legislature regarding the death of unborn children due to violence/crime. There is nothing wrong with having some details on Laci's life. I think the article concentrates more on the murder case and murder trial about her, rather than on her life and death. I do not agree that the article should be merged into Scott Peterson's, either. This woman deseves an article in her own right. It's not her fault she was murdered or that her death led to intense media coverage or that legislature was created due to her death.

If the details are available, why not give out more information, people want to know! We are not a paper encyclopedia so as long as its verifiable and has nothing to do with the womans toe nail length or somthing that stupid, lets keep it here.CholgatalK! 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I intended to point out the same problem: There is simply too much information that is not encyclopedic or lacks in relevance. This is an encyclopedic entry on a murder, not a TV feature intended to make the readers teary, entertained, or personally invested. Stick to the facts, the relevant facts, and nothing but the facts.88.77.140.207 (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to know that her purse was a Louis Vuitton, including helpful and educational linkage for those not automatically designer-savvy? Seems silly. 198.53.208.147 (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fishing / golfing

The article states that Scott returned home from either fishing or golfing. We state this as a fact, but the only source for that information is Scott and he is unreliable. We need to re-write that. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

All police officers reported that Scott said he was boating/fishing (he insisted he was testing the boat). Three other persons claimed he told them he was golfing, but their reliability is in doubt.

All of Scott's statements proved to be true except those to and about Amber Frey, so his reliability is perfectly fine. -- A Voice of Sanity 04:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Voice of Sanity (talk • contribs)

I would argue this needs to be attributed differently, maybe "According to Peterson's account...". I'm not trying to make a judgement on this case, nor should anyone on Wikipedia, but it seems to only be himself verifying that. Ali or nothin (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There has been intermittent discussion on the talk pages of both articles about the merging of this with Scott Peterson. Much of the material is duplicated, much of the material on this particular page is extraneous biographical detail. I therefore propose that they be merged. (In practical terms it would probably be easiest to merge this into Scott Peterson and then move that article to this title, as the Scott Peterson article is better written and contains more relevant content). pablo 13:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Merge; I intended to be bold and just merge the content as it is the obvious approach to take, but ran out of time the other night. The content is basically the same, little else can be said about Scott that doesn't relate to the crime - so lets merge it together and keep it unified. --Errant (chat!) 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom and ErrantX. Mlpearc powwow 14:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • question - Will the biographical content on Scott be lost? If so, I would not support a merger. If it is incorporated into the "murder of" article, I would be ambivalent.LedRush (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge—Most of the article content seems to be already included in the Murder of Laci Peterson article and the info in this article can be easily incorporated. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge—Rothorpe (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. --John (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge - but definitely as proposed meaning the Murder of Laci Peterson article into the Scott Peterson one. The Scott article gets more than twice as many monthly hits and has more than twice the number of edits to it. There's some stuff in the less-trafficked article that needs some serious referencing in places. Doc talk 17:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah but ... whereas "Scott" is the better article, "Murder of ..." is the better title. A redirect at Scott Peterson will take care of the hits. pablo 18:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I'm a little torn. I'm looking at "similar" situations (i.e. unknown individuals becoming famous because of a highly-publicized murder), and a couple stick out. With a Murder of Polly Klaas we still have a Richard Allen Davis article. In this case the "Murder of" article has many more hits than the "perpetrator" article. I don't think in that case it would be appropriate to merge the two articles: the Davis article needs citations, but his lengthy criminal record doesn't need to be in the "Murder of" article. An even starker contrast is with Megan Kanka. In that stub it says "For information about her death, see Jesse Timmendequas, the man convicted of her murder." If there's a merge here I'm more of the mindset to make "Murder of Laci Peterson" a section of the Scott Peterson article rather than use a redirect. Or just leave them as two articles. I seem to be in the minority, but that's my opinion at this time. Doc talk 22:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
        • The relevant policy to consider here, I think, is BLP1E which basically says "how much of the biography is about one event". In this case very little else if of significance about Scott Peterson (in fact only one paragraph in his article does not relate in any way to the crime - the bit about his parents) and, so, a "Murder of" article is the right approach. The Davis article has more clear claim to staying as a biography (hopefully much improved) given the claim about the three strikes law in the lead - that needs to be fleshed out, but if true his actions outside of the one crime become significant for me. Megan Kanka is an interesting fringe case. I'd be inclined, still, to make it a "Murder of..." article in tandem with expanding the "Megans law" article - given that no biographical information of relevance is likely to exist about her. The Timmendequas article could safely be renamed to a "Murder of..." article because the only other biographical detail about him relates to relevant previous convictions/activity and is actually context to the whole idea of Megans law. Just my 2p --Errant (chat!) 13:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Of course, BLP1E is not relevant here as the second prong of the test, requiring the person to be a low profile individual, is not met here. Scott Peterson is, and has been for some time, not low profile. Doc mentioned some cases with split articles, but there are literally dozens more.LedRush (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Sorry; for what other event is Peterson covered in reliable sources? In what context is he high profile outside of this event. --Errant (chat!) 13:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
              • No other event is required under BLP1E, but, like many others, he is now famous for being famous.LedRush (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
                • Yes it is! Note: and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual If he does not have a high profile with regards to separate events, he fails BLP1E. The policy is very clear in establishing that it is other events that are needed. --Errant (chat!) 15:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
                  • No it isn't!!11ZOMG!! If the drafters of the policy intended to merely restate the first prong of the test and add no new conditions, surely there are more clear ways to do this. The plain reading of the policy is that people famous for one event and who generally remain low profile shouldn't (not can't, but merely generally shouldn't) have their own articles. You are reading far more into the word "otherwise" than logic or plain textual interpretation would support. And, as I've mentioned above, the BLP1E is not intended to be a hard and fast rule...it doesn't preclude an article for people famous for one event.LedRush (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge I think the two articles should be merged but I also understand the questions being asked about how to do it if they are merged. Maybe a different title for the article with the mergering would help some. I'm not really sure to be honest. The way she was murdered brought great sympathy and attentions so respect needs to be given when and if there is a merger. Doc there are a lot of articles split like you mention. We can think about dealing with what to do with them later if you wish but right now we need to figure out the best way to deal with these two articles. Merging them I think is best but I do think a new title for the article may also need to be considered along with some other things that I can't think of at the moment but I'm sure that more questions about what to do will come up. Just my quick thoughts on this, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It's been 9 days since the merger discussion here was started and I think we can call this a consensus at this point. I've personally never done a merger so would someone like to do the honors of merging the two? Thanks everyone, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge Peterson is a perfect example of WP:COATRACK. If I have time soon I'll work on merging them, since consensus is obvious.Foxyshadis(talk) 04:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The trial of Scott Peterson is really the only significant subject. Scott, Laci and the other persons involved are only notable because of it. Unfortunately the trial itself is a topic of extreme differences since on one side you have the (large) majority who were satisfied with the trial and with the outcome, and on the other you have people who actually studied the trial, the evidence and the transcript and can point out in great detail the errors (and some say frauds) perpetrated on the court by the prosecution and their witnesses, not to mention the failures of the defense. The divide between these two cannot be reconciled by any means. All I can suggest is a format where the testimony is summarized and the contradictory information and views are interspersed in some format, tabular or other.
A Voice of Sanity 19:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Voice of Sanity (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Murder of Laci Peterson. 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: 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Murder of Laci Peterson. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Murder of Laci Peterson. 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 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Murder of Laci Peterson. 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) 11:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Who reported Laci missing?

The ABCNews article, written 15 years after the fact, simply refers in passing to "the day he reported his wife missing". The way it's cited here and also at the Scott Peterson article makes it sounds like there is some dispute as to who first contacted police. That doesn't appear to be the case; Scott called Laci's mother, and then Laci's stepfather reported her missing to police. The ABC author most likely didn't give that point much thought; again, this was written 15 years later. DefThree (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@DefThree: Thanks for pointing out these issues. I believe I've fixed them in the article. Nightscream (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Merger

I've attempted to incorporate the content at Scott Peterson with this article, in light of both the merger discussion there and prior discussions here. I had flagged this proposed merger on this page and Scott's page.

Reasoning:

This page is on a murder case—the "Murder of Laci Peterson", not Laci Peterson individually. Neither Laci nor Scott are notable outside of the murder case. With the possible exception of the early-life section in the Scott Peterson article, every section in that article that wasn't already in this article should have been in this article. This article—on the murder case—should absolutely include details about the trial and subsequent appeal. That's standard for articles on criminal events. (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3.) For some reason, that information was previously only contained in the Scott Peterson article. And even the section on Scott's early life very well could appropriately be in this article—moreover, much of it already was in this article.

I'm still working on smoothing out the merger—thus far, I've been focusing on ensuring that there are no duplicate references or inconsistently defined references. I've also tried to make sure that the Scott Peterson article—which most commonly (though not always) referred to Scott as "Peterson"—has been updated to match the most common usage within this article—referring to him as "Scott".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I've also migrated material from the Scott article to the now-merged article, and removed redundancies. Nightscream (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Great work!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Refexample

The tag in the media-depictions section is appropriate, as the tag indicates, @Nightscream. If you click on the link provided in the tag, you'll note a few things—in bold and large text, including: "Examples should be meaningful in the context of the article, explained in the prose and cited to reliable sources". You might also notice that the examples in the section are in list form, there's almost no discussion of the relevance or significance of those depictions, and several of the depictions are self-cited (see, e.g., the E! episode).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The significance is self-evident, as it gives an indication as to the degree to which the case penetrated the public consciousness. Nightscream (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
By your argument, mere depictions is enough to warrant inclusion whenever a case is highly publicized. That's patently false, as both the template, its links, and the police links behind those links all indicate.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Name of lover

I feel like the name of her husband's non-notable lover really provides no information to the reader. I'd like to reword to eliminate this. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to removing that name, though her name was probably publicized enough that, off the top of my head, I'm not sure WP policy wouldn't bar inclusion.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
It probably wouldn't bar inclusion, but from a BLP privacy standpoint, if there's no really good reason to include it, maybe we err on the side of not having this woman's name in here. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm definitely sympathetic to that view. I do just want to flag the issue for @Nightscream, who's worked a lot on this page (and I assume will have thoughts on the matter).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
If you're referring to Amber Frey, no, that's completely wrong. She features heavily in prominent coverage of this topic, as it was her decision to go public, the public statements she made, and her cooperation with police that formed a crucial component into the public's reassessments of Scott's involvement in Laci's disappearance/murder. Frey's involvement in the article topic goes almost as much to its notability as Laci and Scott's. Whether Frey is indepdently notable is not a relevant criterion for inclusion. It would be impossible for the article to detail how the investigation proceeded with Frey's involvement, unless we substitute her name with some series of euphemistic substitutes, and bear in mind that Wikipedia Wikipedia is not censored. Nightscream (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm withholding judgment at the moment unless something more concrete is proposed, but I do think @Nightscream makes a compelling counterpoint there.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not that I want us to censor anything, it's that I'm always concerned about balancing BLP privacy with the needs of the reader. However, I just found that it looks like Frey published a book, which really is enough for me. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Tangentially related to this discussion, @Nightscream: and @Valereee:, I have removed the name of Juror No. 7 from the discussion of Scott Peterson's habeas petition. I don't see evidence that the juror sought out publicity, and, while reliable sources had published her name, I don't think her name is particularly relevant to this article (the decision even called her "Juror No. 7").--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyediting multiple sections

@User:Nightscream :

  1. As I explained in the edit summaries, the comma in this sentence is an error: Laci worked on the farm from a young age, and also enjoyed gardening with her mother, an activity from which she developed an appreciation for plant life that influenced her later life. That is a two-item list. At bottom, it's the equivalent of "he bought apples and bananas." No comma should be before the "and". The fact that there are two verbs doesn't change that: "She liked apples and loved pears." Nor does the inclusion of "also": "He ran track and also swam laps."
    1. First, I removed the comma, but you added it back because "there is indeed a pause in speech here." But that's not a comma rule—it's a heuristic used for people learning comma rules.
    2. Then, I added "she" to the other side of the comma, which rendered the comma correct—a compound sentence. But you removed "she" saying it was a redundant pronoun [1]. You can either get rid of the comma or make a compound sentence, but it's not appropriate to do neither. Moreover, while I'm sure you're acting in good faith, it might be worth reviewing WP:OWN. You did a fairly substantial revert and the only thing you said in the edit summary was "removing redundant pronoun"—that's not appropriate.
  2. In addition to being somewhat silly in this article (why do we need a full sentence on just Mickelson?), the citation for Mickelson's "highly successful" career is actually not correct—I'm sure you could find a page calling Mickelson a highly successful golfer, but posting to his pga tour page, which doesn't use that phrase, and then interpreting that page as denoting a highly successful golfer, is WP:OR.
  3. You seemed to take issue with the fact tag here. I'm glad you addressed the issue, but just to be clear, the fact tag was appropriate. A fact tag is appropriate if any portion of a sentence isn't supported by the connecting citation.

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Nightscream, Seeing as you've once again removed the subject from the second portion of the compound sentence, I've removed the comma, since, as I explained above, it's a two-item list.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to compromise by omitting the comma. However, adding the word "she" there is redundant. We know who the passage is talking. You don't have to reiterate the sentence's subject.
  • I did not restore the word "highly" in the Mickelson passage, so I'm clear on why you're bringing that up. I left it out when I reverted some parts of your edits.
  • Right. And you should place the tag after the portion that is uncited. You didn't. Nightscream (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
    • It's an objective grammar question. If you'd prefer not to have a compound sentence, then no comma. Fine.
    • As to the fact tag ... Yes I did? Feel free to check again for yourself. [2] I added the fact tag after "a result of time he spent with his father"--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Nightscream—if you do this again, we're going to have to head to WP:ANI. If you disagree with a particular edit, you can undo that particular edit. You cannot perform a massive revert because you find it more convenient. I'm not even sure what your edit summary refers to, since the quoted language you provide—"told Mell"—wasn't in the article when you made your edit.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to do a blanket revert, only restore the exposition on Randall Mell. I don't know how that happened, though I guess it was absent-mindedness on my part. Mea culpa. Nightscream (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
No worries! Since you had done that once earlier, I figured the harsher language was appropriate—but I, too, have forgotten that the undo button will revert all subsequent edits.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I didn't use the undo button. I must've accidentally clicked on the previous version instead of the current one by habit, and edited that. And now, for my next trick... Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Multiple edits

I wanted to create this section in case there was any controversy over the edits I just performed. Most, I imagine, will be non-controversial, but if anyone finds themselves disagreeing, feel free to revert those specific edits and note so here!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, and for your transparency. I haven't had to time to review the edits, but will soon, hopefully tomorrow. Nightscream (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course! I won't be on here much—if at all—this weekend (maybe a little early tomorrow, but that's it), but if you see anything you want to flag, definitely let me know! I've most tried to remove either extra details or details that weren't supported by a source. Occasionally I've added details if I thought that omitting them was creating a misleading impression, as I just did in relation to Scott telling some people he had been golfing. (Until I looked at the source that was used at the time, and I noticed that it specified that Scott hadn't told the police he had been golfing, I had assumed, since this was all in the investigation section, that Scott had told the police he had been golfing and then changed his story!) Have a great night.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Nightscream—just wanted to flag this diff [3]. I do think there is a problem with that intro as written: It's actually a bit distinct from the source because of the context—unlike the source, it's including that language in a section called "Investigation". If you introduce detectives in an investigation section, and then later say "Scott initially said he went golfing, but he later told police that he went fishing" ... I think the natural conclusion is that he first told the detectives he went golfing. (Also worth pointing out that that source only touches on this issue extremely briefly—there are much more detailed sources out there.) Either way, instead of entirely moving the intro, as I had, I modified it just slightly to ensure there was no ambiguity.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Jerome, I'm not sure what you mean by "intro", but the passage pretty much says exactly what the source says. source reads:
While Scott Peterson at first said he had spent the day golfing, he later told police he had gone fishing at the Berkeley Marina. He even left a message that afternoon for Laci that said, "Hey, Beautiful. It’s 2:15. I'm leaving Berkeley."
The passage in the WP article doesn't provide or imply anything beyong that passage from the source.
We cannot control what conclusisons the reader draws; we're limited by what the sources say. Omitting a source-supported piece of information because of what you think readers may infer from it --- correctly or incorrectly --- is not reasonable. The point is relevant to the topic, and censoring/omitting it is not justifiable.
Re the modification you made while I was composing the above:
The cited source **doesn't say** that the people he told this to were "others". It doesn't specify one way or the other who it was he said this to. Nightscream (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, we can go to WP:30. Also you left in the citation that did say he told that to others; I'll remove that.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I see now the earlier passage that indicates a neighbor overheard him say he was going golfing. The question is, is this the person or conversation that the Mercury News was referencing. I'm not sure this will help, but I just emailed that paper to ask them for clarification on this.
However, removing the citation pending the outcome of this is not reasonable. You don't remove a citation becuase you don't like what readers may incorrectly infer from the passage. Even if realized, such a fear does not justify violating WP:V/WP:CS, et al. by removing the citation support for a passage. Nightscream (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
UPDATE: Okay, this source seems to clafiy that point. If you agree, I'll add this clarification to the disputed passage. Nightscream (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't mean any disrespect, so forgive me if this comes across as flippant, but you need to slow down. Full stop, you're not being careful. First, I already added that source to the article when I deleted the "Although" portion of the sentence: [4]. Second, I have not removed any citations. Your claim above and your edit summary here are both mistaken. This was my edit—look at it closely. Before that edit, we had two identical citations. I used a ref "name" to combine them. The citations still appeared in the article. And look closely at your own edit—all you did was cut the citation from the first invocation and paste it at the second. You didn't re-add a citation that had been taken out of the article. Almost all of this discussion could have been avoided if you had just looked at what I had actually done rather than jumped to a conclusion too hastily. We're working together decently well, but these types of discussions detract from what we should be focusing on—improving the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
No disrespect taken, though you could be a bit more open-minded that mistakes can even when one does indeed look closely at edits, which I indeed did. Visually sifting through those large blocks of text --- in particular all that code and cite template info -- can sometimes be difficult, and mistakes happen. I'm sorry for my error, but there's no reason to assume that I did not look at it, nor argue that these discussions "detract" from improving the article, since such discussions are one of the ways in which we improve the article.
Hopefully we've resolved this issue, correct?
Thanks again for all the work you've done on this. Nightscream (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure! But given that you (1) missed that I added a source and then pointed to that source as new ... and (2) said, in bold and italicized text (and also in an edit summary), that I removed a citation, when you clearly cut and pasted that exact citation ... I'm going to leave my "slow down" reminder. That said, of course we can move on to other issues.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Evidence section

Okay. In what way do you feel the Evidence section can/should be expanded? Nightscream (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind—I de-indented to start a new section. To start, I should say I'm a little skeptical that we should try to distinguish between the "Trial" section and the "Evidence" section. That strikes me as really fine line to walk—except for opening and closing statements, everything in a trial is evidence presentation (or, at least, interrogation of that evidence). But we don't need to address that right now. As to what should be expanded: I have to admit I have no background familiarity with this trial. But, in doing research related to the other sections, I came across some stories that I noticed weren't in the trial/evidence section, which led me to tag it.
For example, in searching what happened the day of the disappearance, I found this Time Magazine article on "Peterson's Martha Defense". It sad: "Peterson had said that on the morning the prosecution says he killed Laci, she was watching Stewart talk about meringue. The Modesto, Calif., police department claimed no meringue was mentioned on Stewart's show that morning. But Peterson attorney Mark Geragos, in his opening statement, played the tape and showed otherwise." It surprised me to find an entire blurb dedicated to this one issue, because, to that point, I didn't see Martha Stewart mentioned in the article. And when I searched for Scott Peterson and Martha Stewart ... I found other reliable secondary sources (and, admittedly, a bunch of non-reliable ones) that mentioned this event. See this CNN article, for example, which covers it about halfway down, or this Fox News article, which called it a "huge problem" for the prosecution. (As a completely tangential note .. I work in law, and I don't understand why an attorney was allowed to present evidence during an opening statement? Oh well.)
Now, I don't know if you have a position on whether or not Scott is guilty—it doesn't really concern me either way—but I also have to say that the way the evidence section starts out makes the prosecution's case, I think, unfairly laughable. Like, the third sentence is essentially "He ordered porn—so he must've known his wife was dead!" I'm not saying prosecutors didn't argue that—I'm sure they did—but I'm not sure it should get such prominent placement in the article. At the very least, we should probably address the hair first.
That's all for now :) --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "hair" comment, though I remember the merengue bit. Martha Stewart is mentioned twice in the article, and the second instance does allude to something Scott/Gergagos would later cite as evidence for his defense. I wasn't aware that the mergengue wasn't in the article (though I mentioned it in an earlier discussion above).
I think he's obviously guilty, but it doesn't really matter what I think about his guilt or innocence, since I've never used Wikipedia to push my own opinions, as we're required to follows the sources, and the weight of coverage. Nightscream (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Hey sorry I somehow missed this comment—been in a lot of conversations recently. By the hair issue I meant the strand of hair on the boat :) I had added both Martha Stewart mentions to set up the eventual edit to the trial section, but I just don't have a clean enough plate to tackle the trial section myself.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:3O Debate over phrasing

30 issue resolved

Hello! We are in a debate over phrasing. The sentence in question:

Although Scott had earlier stated that he had spent the day golfing, he told the police that he had gone to fish for sturgeon at the Berkeley Marina.

I do not deny that there is a reliable source that uses that wording, almost to the tee.

But, after editing this article for some time, I objected to this passage. Importantly, from my perspective, the passage is in the "Investigation" section and comes after conversations between the police and Scott Peterson are described. When I first read the passage, I assumed that Scott had told police he had gone golfing, and then changed his story. But because I thought the phrasing was a little odd—the direct object not being listed in the first part of the sentence, I went to the source and checked.

So, here's where the source comes in. First, the source is a San Francisco Mercury piece covering a 2019 moratorium on death sentences announced by California governor. It provides short background on of three persons who were then on death row. The first two subjects get one paragraph each, and, then, Scott Peterson's story is listed. It's given 4 short paragraphs. The supporting text in question says, "While Scott Peterson at first said he had spent the day golfing, he later told police he had gone fishing at the Berkeley Marina."

I searched the subject a bit more and found that the paper was most likely referring to testimony given at Scott's trial by two neighbors and a relative of Laci's, who all said they had heard Scott tell them he had gone golfing the day Laci went missing. I could not find a single source that said Scott told the police he went golfing, and, in fact, I found one that said just the opposite—that Scott had always told police he went fishing. As such, I added the details of those conversations, above the investigation section, and changed the intro to just what Scott told the police. User:Nightscream reverted me as to the paragraph in question. To try to reach some compromise, I kept the start of the intro but added that Scott had told "others" that he had gone fishing. I attributed the first half of the intro to the source I had discovered describing Scott's conversation with the relative/neighbor. But Nightscream reverted me again, since that detail was not in the San Francisco Mercury piece.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Laci_Peterson/Archive_1&oldid=1158430002"