Talk:Drew Peterson/Archive 1

Notability
I was going to tag this for deletion, but got many g hits. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  14:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a new and ongoing case, with sufficient coverage and google links to be notable. It is beginning to look as if could be as big and noteworthy a case as the Laci Peterson disappearance. It will expand quite a bit. (How ironic this is, considering the daughter of the Petersons happens to be named Lacy.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Current event
Where's the Stacy Peterson Wiki page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.39.169 (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this have the box about this being Article documenting a current event... I'd do it, but I'm kind new around here and I'm not sure of the rules regarding that sort of thing.  I know, I know, a failure of Boldness on my part.JordanHenderson (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably right. I added it. Jauerback (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible rename
Does anyone else feel that this article should probably be renamed to something along the line of "Disappearance of Stacy Peterson?" Is Drew himself notable or is it more then situation he is involved what is notable? will381796 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, definitely not. Drew Peterson easily meets the notability requirements.  Jauerback (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just draw a parallel between this case and the disappearance and death of Emily Sander. It was generally agreed on that article that Emily herself was not notable...it was the fact that she disappeared and was found dead (and sensationalized by the media due to her nude modeling) that created her notability.  Thus the consensus was for a name change to reflect the fact that she was a non-notable person involved in a notable situation.  This seems to be very similar to Drew Peterson and the disappearance of her wife. will381796 (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is probably a mistake, but certainly in this case, what with the suspect "dworning" of no.3, it would make Peterson notable for more than one event.Lobojo (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Has he actually been named as a suspect in the death of his third wife? will381796 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but there is notable and open media speculation that "he did it", which alone makes him notable. There are probably 5,000 press cuttings that could be incorporatd into an article about this guy already, so he is WP:N, and I would strongly opose any name changing, it serves no purpose that I can think of. Lobojo (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I bet Drew's innocent, and he'll be pissed that you put all the information about his wife's death on a page with his name as the title, implying that he killed her. --Friedchikinz (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Implying? It's rather explicit that he has been suspected, accused, and formally charged in the death.  No implying whatsoever.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

Seriously?? You replied to Friedchikinz almost 2 years later. Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-referenced additions
I've spent a great deal of time on Wikipedia now, and one of the issues I deal with almost daily when editing is trying to verify information or find sources for contributions that are fact laden with no citations given. Since this is a new and slowing growing article, I would like to suggest that the regular editors who are working on it watch for additions of unreferenced material and remove it unless it can be verified. It will save everyone tons of work at a later date when the article is overburdened with it. Following that thought, there have been a few things added in the last day with no citation, and in actuality, some of the edit summaries even state that it's uncited but it's "widely reported" and citations are out there. Essentially, if they are out there, then they should be added or the material held back until the contributor has the citation at hand. For that reason, I'm going to go ahead and remove a few things until they do have citations with them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could the slant of this article be any worse? I'm not stating that I think he is guilty or innocent, but I am stating that this article is hardly unbiased.  For example, read the list of 18 "domestic disturbance" calls.  Hardly worth mentioning any more.  The "police brutality" charge has been repudiated by the Bolingbrook PD which states that Mr. Peterson was not on duty at the time.  Finally, what is the point of the final paragraph where the charge of Mr. Peterson approaching truck drivers is first brought to light and in the very next sentence shown to be a falsehood?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.51.74 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I resort-ed the information by chronological order and subject. I left a reference to the truckers in, but kept it brief in the "blue container" paragraph.--76.221.184.168 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I'm having a hard time not just outright submitting Stacy Ann Peterson for AFD as it is. Instead, I'll start here first. On her own, Stacy is not really meeting the requirements of WP:BIO. Regardless of your feelings on or towards Drew, he is the one is receiving the national attention, not Stacy. It is really unfortunate that Stacy has seemingly become a footnote in Drew's bio, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote Stacy's disappearance nor to disparage Drew. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some one else submitted Stacy Ann Peterson to AFD. Please feel free to participate in the discussion.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did they meet?
Why can't this article address the one question every +40 year old guy wants to know (some for themselves, others to protect their daughters), and that is, where or how did Drew Peterson meet Stacey?


 * From this MSNBC interview : Drew Peterson was one of Bolingbrook’s finest -- a police sergeant with more than two decades of experience -- when he met Stacy in 2001. At the time Peterson was 47 years old. Stacy, a high-school graduate, was just 17 -- 30 years his junior. But Peterson says he squared the age gap with Stacy.  Drew Peterson said, "Do you mind that I’m 47?" and Stacey goes, 'Do you mind that I’m 17?' Just like, kind of like, a weird feeling. But I-- she was beautiful. And it was exciting having a young, beautiful woman interested in me. And I pursued the relationship."  And, he says, Stacy did too.  Drew Peterson said, "Every time I tried to get out of the relationship, she would pursue me. Leaving little roses and notes on my car and stuff. So it was like it was exciting."  Peterson was offered in an interview by Hoda Kotb, "So the relationship started. She was like a kid, I mean, in a way.  Just very naive."  Drew Peterson replied, "Well, she was very mature for her age in a lot of senses because she had a very tough upbringing."  Stacy Ann Cales was the third of five children born to Anthony and Christie Cales. Two siblings died young. Court records show that Stacy's mom was in and out of trouble with the law. Her mother took off for good in 1998 and her dad began moving the family around the country.  Pam Bosco, a family friend who was close to Stacy, added: "[She was] very much a family girl. Someone who wanted a family and wanted to be part of a family."  Peterson, age 47, was accused of charming Stacy, a naïve teenager, taking advantage of her naivete and manipulating her emotions.   So, that is worth a read.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

She ran off?
this is just too fishy. drew has said that stacy ran off with a boyfriend but yet the defense for drew has YET and also Drew himself has YET to even suggest who this person is. theres just way too many coindidences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.241.84 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Drew is claiming that Stacy told him that she ran off with a new boyfriend. (Now, mind you, I don't believe it myself, either.)  But ... if his story is true ... then, of course, Stacy would not tell Drew the name of the new boyfriend.  They (Stacy and the new boyfriend) wanted (supposedly) to run away and hide and start a new life.  So, it does make sense that Stacy never offered up the actual name of the guy to Drew.  That would just be one more way that she / they could be tracked down.  Again ... I do not believe Drew's account.  I am just saying that it does make sense that, if true, he (Drew) would not know the name of the new boyfriend.  More troubling, I think, is that a mother would simply run away and leave her little kids behind.  Her husband, yes.  But her young kids?  Nope ... no way would I believe that story.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Should the BOOK be listed?
Here is a link to the book "Fatal Vows" on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Vows-Tragic-Sergeant-Peterson/dp/1597776068 Not sure if the front page should say "There is also a book written about the subject"

ALSO: I had heard that the movie was based on that book, it's possible that should be mentioned in the movie piece.

ALSO: For some reason the BOOK does not have a Wikipedia Page, but I do not know the standard used to determine what books have and do not have their own Wikipedia page? Thank-You!Lesbrown99 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable reference source
Under the Wikipedia guidelines, ref 3 to http://www.acandyrose.com/stacy_peterson_recap.htm does not count as a valid source.

If there is no record of this military service, the title of this section must be changed.

Please also see military police

"Each branch of the military of the United States maintains its own military police force, except for the US Coast Guard which is its own law enforcement agency; the coast guard uses its shore patrol, Reserve Investigators, and members of the Coast Guard Investigative Service to regulate its own population. Here is a list of military police forces:

Military Police Corps/Office of the Provost Marshal General—United States Army Provost Marshal's Office—United States Marine Corps Masters-at-Arms branch (occasionally aided by temporary members of the Shore Patrol)—United States Navy Air Force Security Forces (formerly known as Military Police, Air Police and Security Police)—United States Air Force U.S. Naval Security Forces (NSF)[9]

Each service also maintains uniformed civilian police departments. They are referred to as Department of Defense Police (DoD Police)."

Which branch is he supposed to have trained in? Is there any record of his attendance even at the Dupage college ? Has no journalist verified either of these claims with sources? G. Robert Shiplett 18:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)