Talk:Michael Peterson trial

(Criminal) in page name
I concur the use of "Criminal" is vague and generalized. "Murder Trial & Conviction" He's not infamous for being a "Criminal", that would be Jesse James, Al Capone, Charles Ponzi. He is notable because of 1 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 DAs 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? Isn't part of the allure of the story that there isn't definitive proof he killed his wife? If they were exhuming her body for owl feathers... Zerostatetechnologies (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

En vez de decir criminal debería decir escritor o novelista. Creo que este señor ya pagó, por un crimen que no cometió. Faustomala (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should you use the term Criminal for Michael Peterson but not for other famous people, such as Mike Tyson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.238.138.28 (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree the 'Criminal' in the title here seems rather branding (judgmental), and wrongfully so for a person not actively engaged in crime or whose guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.--Smartypants00001 (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , he pled guilty (yes, an Alford plea is treated as guilty). He can maintain his innocence all he wants, but he is a convicted felon who's notability is entirely around Kathleen's death.   Ravensfire  (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with, putting “criminal” in his article sits in judgement of him, which Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be doing. Stereorock (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is "Trial" in the page name when the page is about Michael Peterson? The trial can default to this page but it doesn't seem to make sense to literally put trial in the title when the page is about a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.43.71 (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There are several people named Michael Peterson with articles about them. This particular Michael Peterson is notable mostly for the trial and the controversy around it - one aspect of that controversy being that the case remains in a sort of perpetual legal limbo. Because of that, "trial" was chosen as the best way to disambiguate without taking a side about the trial's outcome. Gazeboist (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2021
Propose to change the title from Michael Peterson (criminal) to Michael Peterson or Michael Peterson (novelist). The title seems to have been vandalized a couple of times now. 2806:109F:16:3F2A:49F0:4C31:7D25:2E45 (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Archive of last discussion at Talk:Michael_Peterson_(criminal)/Archive_1.  ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 11:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Propose the word "(criminal)" be removed from the title. It is totally unnecessary as details of his trial can be found in the information about him. Booboo828282 (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (criminal) is at the end of this article title to help identify him from the other Michael Petersons.  Grey joy talk 09:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are other words that can be used. “Criminal” is a judgement term.Stereorock (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Criminal is not a judgement term here. He is best known for the criminal trial against him by the state of North Carolina. He will still be seen as a convicted felon at any level of the judicial branch. I came here after watching The Staircase. We're not here to right great wrongs. – The Grid  ( talk )  00:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it “criminal” is always a judgement term. We could rename the article to his full name, or “convicted felon” (which is a legally accurate term but doesn’t carry the baggage that “criminal” does). By using the word “criminal” is implies that not only did he commit the crime of which he was accused, but we know he is morally a horrible person. The word carries a moral weight to it which is not Wikipedia’s place to judge him! I am approaching this as I would when I worked in radio news, and we would not use the word “criminal” for the reasons listed above. This title needs to change to something neutral per Wikipedia’s striving for neutrality. “Criminal” is not a neutral term, it is a judging term. Stereorock (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. I think in the past we looked at seeing if "Death of Kathleen Peterson" could be used but it would run into a similar issue of whether "Murder of Kathleen Peterson" is technically more correct. You could argue the same bias with the current page name. I wonder if another possible avenue is "Michael Peterson trial" or "Michael Peterson murder trial"? I am realizing a discussion has not been made through this route.
 * I looked over WP:CRIMINAL and this does look like something in which the trial is unusual. The first paragraph states A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. and perhaps keeping the focus of the article on the trial minimizes any concerns of BLP violations or undue weight. It has been about 3 years since the last move discussion. – The Grid  ( talk )  14:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point to raise. This has been such an odd and lingering case where there has been significant and sustained public attention that I think this gets beyond the "normally" part of that guideline.  There was a Kathleen Peterson article at one point, but an AFD changed it to redirect here.  Likewise, there is a Murder of... redirect here.  There has been so much focus on Michael beyond a "normal" trial (for whatever that term means in something like this) that I feel the article title is correct.  No objections to a move discussion though, as you noted, it's been a few years since the last.  That was some time after the Alford plea, and the only major event was Peterson's independently published biography.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that’s the way to go: something like “Michael Peterson trial” would cover most, if not all, of the events, people, et al. Most of the article on Peterson pertains to the trial anyway, so with a rewrite & refocus, I think we’ve solved this whole problem! Stereorock (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggest the word "(author)" is used instead. It is unfair and unjust to label him a criminal, which evidence in his trial has proved him not to be! Booboo828282 (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He is better known for the crime, instead of his writing. Not sure where you are going with the whole "evidence in his trial has proved him not to be" thing since he was convicted.  Grey joy talk 11:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with as Peterson was an author before the trial, & putting “(criminal)” puts a definite point of view on the article. Since Wikipedia strives for neutrality, “(author)” is appropriate whereas “(criminal)” is not. Stereorock (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, the question comes down to why is Peterson notable? As an author, he's not notable, his books don't meet WP:NAUTHOR.  He's notable because he killed his wife, been convicted and served time in prison.  Ravensfire  (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair or accurate to say "he killed his wife". That's an oversimplification and is not remaining neutral. Quacktaccy (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

How about "alleged crime committer" 107.77.169.26 (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

TV and film versions of the case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Staircase_Murders?wprov=sfla1 isn't listed. 80.189.85.38 (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: There's definitely consensus to move, and it looks like the originally proposed title is the one that has most support at the moment. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Michael Peterson (criminal) → Michael Peterson trial – To start off with this discussion, I will say this has been anything but an usual trial. There has been sustained coverage beyond the 2003 conviction with the The Staircase documentary.

The first requested move was in June 2018 for "Death of Kathleen Peterson" which came to "no consensus" as opinions were split. There was an AfD for the Kathleen Peterson article concurrent with the RM. The AfD resulted in the article being redirected here. I believe this is when The Staircase aired on Netflix which piqued interest back into the case. A second requested move came from me in October 2018 for "Michael Peterson (author)" which came to "not moved" to which I admit my reasoning was poor.

My request to move the page to "Michael Peterson trial" I think is a better option than its current place. The article and talk page history will at least show the use of "(criminal)" in the article name wishing for it to be moved but with no solid reasoning or consensus based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

WP:CRIME states A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. The discussion about the disambiguation to be novelist or author in the past has been solid on understanding Michael Peterson is not notable for his published works. Do understand the argument presented is not about whether or not he was a criminal. He is a convicted felon in the eyes of North Carolina. The focus should be kept on the trial as this is the item with sustained coverage. It minimizes repeated concerns of BLP violations or undue weight. Anything about his life throughout the trial up to his Alford plea can be covered in The Staircase which is a separate article. (I just realized there's also an upcoming miniseries) – The Grid  ( talk )  22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support renaming I am one of the ones who think the “(criminal)” attachment to his name created undue weight, and supported the move to (author). In realizing more about this, the focus has always been in the case itself, and in light of learning of the Kathleen Peterson AfD, support this merge into the 2 pages listed: Michael Peterson trial, & The Staircase as put forth by . Stereorock (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to Death of Kathleen Peterson. Not just about the trial and "criminal" is a terrible disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stereorock and support renaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateodrw (talk • contribs) — Mateodrw (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Just want to note I am not in any rush to proceed with this move. I would like to at least have a consensus of comments given the history of this article. – The Grid  ( talk )  18:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Move. The current title is a terrible violation of the spirit of wp:BLP. While it would be good to move it to a stable title, the most important thing is to retire this unacceptable one. Andrewa (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

blow poke
Missing from this article is the fact that the Petersons didn’t just find the blow poke, it was ALREADY FOUND early on by the police. They examined it, determined it wasn’t the murder weapon, moved it to the basement from its original location, and persisted in arguing in court that it was the murder weapon but that it was NEVER FOUND! Such staggering corruption should lead to jail time for the police and forensic scientists who were involved in this travesty and should be reported in the article. It first gets mentioned in either the last or penultimate episode of ‘The Staircase’ on NetFlix. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth it should also be noted that it's claimed by Peterson's lawyer tha the police also handled with weapon without gloves during that occasion, so when it was later rediscovered by the Peterson's and brought into the trial it's integrity as forensic evidence was already compromised. Quacktaccy (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

In the article short notes in the top right the verdict from the first trial is listed as guilty for murder, but there is no mention of the alford plea for manslaughter, why?
He, via Alford Plea, plead guilty to manslaughter. This is covered in the 'Alford plea' section of the article where it says "On February 24, 2017, Peterson entered an Alford plea ... to the voluntary manslaughter of Kathleen". The Verdict in the article short points in the top right only refers to the 2003 guilty verdict. Isn't this a little bit unfair given the widely believed wrongful conviction in the 2003 trial? Even the judge admitted on video he felt that trial had been prejudice towards Michael. Can another line be included to denote the eventual outcome rather than make it look like at a quick glance that the main takeaway from the case is he was declared guilty? Quacktaccy (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)