Talk:Peter Madsen

Indecent handling of a corpse
I don't think there is any equivalent charge in the law of England and Wales, commonly referred to as "corpse desecration", that might elucidate this. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 has only "Sexual penetration of a corpse". I think the closest criminal offence might be associated with Preventing the lawful burial of a body. Adding any link to an offence in another jurisdiction would be misleading anyway. So it looks like that will have to remain unlinked unless there is a suitable direct link at da.wiki? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Similar laws are found in the US, and in the UK they can apparently be considered criminal as well ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Daily Fail bacon rashers story mentions "suspicion of causing a public nuisance". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Identity of his wife, and wording in article
A survey of the sources, including the cited one in Danish, indicates that Madsen's wife's identity has not been released by the media. Now, the article is circumspect about this and avoids saying anything about her: "Madsen was married..." which certainly set me to wondering, who is his wife and why doesn't it say? It would seem to me that the best policy here is to frankly tell the reader that his wife chooses to remain anonymous. Comments? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We are tied to sources. If she is not named in any reliable source, we can't name her. Similarly, if there is a statement that "she has chosen to remain anonymous" we can say that, otherwise we don't know. I think we can assume she is still alive, or we would have heard a lot more about her and the circumstances of her death. But again that is just another unsourced assumption. So I don't think we need say any more than currently. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Her desire for anonyminity IS sourced: "BT er bekendt med Peter Madsens ekskones identitet, men efterkommer hendes ønske om ikke at nævne hendes navn. Hun ønsker at lægge sagen bag sig og leve anonymt." So why do you claim it as an "unsourced assumption" and refuse to support its inclusion? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For those of us who do not read Danish, according to Google Translate, that text says: "BT is acquainted with Peter Madsen's exclusive identity, but meets her desire not to mention her name. She wants to file the case and live anonymously." Ok? And I know see that the text appears in the existing BT source. So I have no problem with adding it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A major mistake
Peter Madsen did not appeal the question of guilt. Only the life sentence.--Ramloser 21:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramloser (talk • contribs)
 * Fixed. Captainllama (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Split proposed
The documentary's Sundance showing yielded lots of reviews by reputable sources (I've included just two: Variety and Marie Claire). Discuss. CapnZapp (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Fine with the added critics response to the doc. I understand your request to give "Into the Deep" its own wiki-page, but I find it premature. Let's wait and see what happens to the doc. Right now it isn't even shown anywhere. If it is just pulled off the market and nothing further happens, then it does not require its own wiki-page. --Lechatmarbre (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but non of those arguments are policy based. Sam Sailor 06:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support splitting per nom. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 05:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support splitting. There are plenty of sources to meet WP:NFILM. Sam Sailor 06:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)