Talk:Amanda Peterson

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

Death.[edit]

It is true she passed away. Please don't remove that. Her father made a statement. 98.240.76.78 (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death[edit]

Per the article on CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/living/actress-amanda-peterson-dead/index.html) published on 7/8: "She died on Friday morning.". That would indicate 7/3, not 7/5 which was a Sunday. --dashiellx (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cited ET source also states she passed away on Friday. I think it would be safe to set it to 7/3 at this point, but if we want to wait for further verification, that's fine too. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait for the coroner's report to be released. This is still a WP:BLP even though the article subject has died. We need to be cautious with what content the article includes. There is no deadline, and we are not newspaper reporters. This is an encyclopedia that includes encyclopedic, well referenced content from reliable sources. There's no rush to get a death date. Waiting for the official date of death from the coroner is the prudent, responsible thing to do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Completely agree. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's leaning on the assumption the details from the coroner are released. What if it isn't? I found a source already where her mother verified she had died the 5th. Coroner's report is no longer needed, nor necessary at this point. Rusted AutoParts 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article claiming she died that day is dubious since the article also states the coroner hasn't released anything yet. There is no hurry for a death date. This is a BLP and we need to be cautious. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Her mother isn't reliable". That's really, REALLY stupid. Her mother was clearly there the night she died, saying that is not reliable is a crock of shit. You're, as I said, leaning on the assumption the coroner releases the info to the public. Since we have a source, a secondary source as people clammer for here, with her mother discussing her final hours, we can use it. Rusted AutoParts 01:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take it down a couple of notches with the language and attitude. Right now, consensus is for waiting on the coroner's report. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An arrangement you made hindering, again, on the concept the coroner releases anything. I can't help one editor's pickiness resulted in this even being debated. We have a source pointing to the DOD. We no longer need a coroner report. Rusted AutoParts 01:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The case is news, and a police spokesperson has already talked to the press. It's more than likely a COD and confirmed DOD will be released to the public as well. Until then going off of one comment given by a distraught primary source when that piece of information isn't confirmed is reckless. This is still a BLP, and we should err on the side of caution. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just need to know how her own mother, whom CNN cited as saying "she died on Friday morning" doesn't qualify as a "reliable source". They lived together by the sounds of it, so she's the best source we have. Just because one boneheaded newsite fucked up the reporting doesn't water down the primary source of Peterson's death. Rusted AutoParts 01:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The mother is a primary source. Her statement that she died on Friday conflicts with several reliable sources as well as the fact that a police spokesperson has said nothing yet has been determined and the details will be released at a later date. Further, the reports from various sources are also conflicting. Even within the articles that quote the mother. One says she died Friday, another says she died Sunday. At this point, the only source that will be certain and undeniably reliable will be the coroner's report. I've already said it but feel the need to repeat: there is no rush to get her date of death in this article. We are not a newspaper. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with WV and the other two - there is no urgency here - and that RAP needs to dial back the combative tone. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that she had been dead for "several days" before she was found? If true, how would her mother know exactly which day she died? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is another inconsistency that makes the claim of the mother dubious -- possibly the source of the confusion that has resulted in the conflicting stories from sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. So far, all the sources I've come across agree that she was found on Sunday. So it's not logical that the mother, or anyone else for that matter, would know that she passed away on Friday without the coroner weighing in first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent solution, Mandruss. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankth!! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You unable to handle a stern attitude or something? Has anyone raised their voice at you in life? You must be very delicate then, if you think I'm being combative. I'm not trying to start a fight, or pick up arms or anything. No sources say that she "died" on Sunday, they say she was "found" Sunday. Her mother said she died Friday. That's on record. You can wait for a coroner all you want, as I said there's no guarantee anything gets released. Perhaps her mother wants the info private. We have a few reliable sources now offering her DOD. Just saying.Rusted AutoParts 15:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guarantee we'll see a coroner's report, but I'd suggest crossing that bridge if and when we come to it. None of us possesses a crystal ball. And you really haven't responded at all to the excellent points that there is no urgency and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If those points mean nothing to you, and the fact that you're alone in this against three or four four or five editors means nothing to you, my suggestion is to give up on us idiots and pursue dispute resolution. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few sources that say she died on Sunday. The few sources that say she died on Friday are quoting the mother, whose claim is dubious and unreliable absent the coroner's report. News sources, when something like this happens to a celebrity, often just want to get answers, even if those answers are dubious or just wrong. We are to go off of facts. The facts aren't in yet, therefore, we wait until facts from reliable, secondary sources are available. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, does this count towards other people too? Because I see everyday that someone's agent states "they died last night" or "they died June 7" without a coroner report. The mother's claim is not dubious, she was clearly with Peterson the night she died. So if we're to apply the "coroner report" crap to everyone, then we wouldn't know anyone's exact DOD. Rusted AutoParts 15:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The police spokesperson stated she was alone in her apartment when she died. Further, if her mother was with her as you state, why was her body not discovered until Sunday? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Her mother stated she was with her during her final hours. Because she clearly knows a detail that we don't. There's grief, but I doubt her own mother would make up shit in regards to when her own daughter died. Rusted AutoParts 15:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rushed story that has a headline to grab the attention of readers. Her mother last saw her on Friday and she is making an assumption based on when she last saw her, probably out of grief. Or guilt because she was the last to see her alive. Regardless, all of this is speculation until the coroner's report. Consensus is to wait. Like Mandruss says, if you don't like the consensus of the 4-5 editors who don't see it your way, try any another route for dispute resolution. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts: Resistance is futile! Lighten up! It's obvious that something is wrong in quite a few of the reports we're hearing. There's no way she was found on Sunday if her mother knew she died on Friday. Either her mother misspoke, the police misspoke, or the original source that quoted them got it wrong. One of the three must be incorrect, which is why we are waiting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it makes no sense whatsoever if: (A) the mother was with her in her final hours; (B) she died on Friday; and (C) her body was not found until Sunday. None of that makes any sense. My guess (just a guess) is that the mother is merely assuming that the last day she saw her daughter would equate to being the day she died. We will have to wait and see. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(There's grief, but I doubt her own mother would make up shit in regards to when her own daughter died.) Just three words Brittany Murphy's Mother. (in-case anyone else forgotten) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:c4ce:4fe9:a436:526a:e6d1:f5ae (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to cause such a ruckas. --dashiellx (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it. It was a necessary conversation that turned out to be productive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Amanda Peterson's Mother Remembers Can't Buy Me Love Actress' Final Hours: "She'd Had a Wonderful Day"

Obituary[edit]

For what it's worth, here is her obituary: Phyllis Amanda Peterson. It lists the date of death as July 3, 2015. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this more recent source explains why her mother was confident that she passed away on July 3. She was found in bed apparently and had plans with the family the next day. Although July 3 is very likely the correct date based on these facts, it's still not official (e.g., there are other possible explanations for a July 4th or July 5th date). The obituary gets us closer, and we can likely use it if there's never an update released from the coroner's report, but we should probably hold out a bit longer, IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even with her mother stating she was supposed to meet the family on Saturday, that doesn't give a time/day of death. She could have died on Saturday or could have been sick on Saturday and didn't call or couldn't call. If there was foul play involved (the front door was unlocked) she could have been killed on Friday or Saturday. There's still just too much speculation here. Nothing is certain until the coroner's report is released. Having a specific death date is something we want once it's released, but until then, the article isn't suffering without it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized something, Joseph A. Spadaro and GoneIn60. The obituary is published and sponsored by the funeral home. Funeral homes need official, state issued death certificates to verify things like date of death. Since the funeral has published the date of death via the obituary, I think we are safe to use the same date of death, even without the coroner's report available at this time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. We can always change it again if needed. At least we have a pretty reliable source at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good reasoning. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death section prose[edit]

Per the bold, revert, discuss policy (BRD), I'm starting a discussion on the wording that keeps getting reverted by Mandruss. I realize this is an encyclopedia and articles shouldn't be cluttered up with worthless detail, however, that doesn't mean we write articles to sound like soulless recitations of facts. A little detail supported by a little more wordiness won't hurt the section or the article. Per BRD, I'm reverting back to what it was before Mandruss' 2x reversion. Discussing it is better than curt, impolite edit summaries attacking another's writing style and edit warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think my version is better on several counts. But I'll otherwise sit this one out, as it appears I've ruffled a feather or two. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For convenience and clarity: WV's version, current as of this moment, and my version. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think both versions could use some work. At this point, we should probably just list the proposals here and make a decision. Here's mine, which uses elements from both:

Amanda Peterson passed away at the age of 43 on July 3, 2015. Her body was discovered in her home in Greeley, Colorado, at approximately 6 p.m. on July 5, 2015. A spokesman for the Greeley police department said law enforcement was responding to a request to check her well-being and discovered the door to her apartment was unlocked. Details regarding the cause of death have not been released to the public due to an ongoing investigation. An autopsy by the Weld County coroner was scheduled for July 6, 2015.

I don't see enough here to warrant multiple paragraphs. I think it'll find some middle ground between your two proposals. Thoughts? Suggestions? --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WV, You reverted a recent edit claiming better wording, but I see you never responded here to the proposal, nor did you make one of your own. First of all, the use of "due to" in a previous version you protected was incorrect. If you want to learn why, read this. Secondly, the opening in this section has been radically changed since we last approached this subject. Instead of covering several details in two sentences, it has been condensed down to one sentence which contains a LOT of commas. I would hardly say that's "better". And finally, there should always be a comma following a "city, state" occurrence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2015[edit]

The information about the names of her husbands, as well as information about two children, cannot be independently verified.

"Peterson was twice married, first to Joseph Robert Skutvik then, following their divorce, to David Hartley. Together with Hartley, she had two children.[7]"

The name "David Hartley" has appeared on IMDB for years, along with information that they had two children. However, it seems other media have simply copied that information, as there is no confirmation of this, in any available reports, including Variety. (IMDB also said she and Hartley lived in Napa Valley, California, and that the children were named "Katie" and "Jonathan." That information has since been removed, though a reference to Hartley and two children remains.)

In addition, her friends only mention a daughter named Stella. Here is a mention of Stella by a friend: 

http://www.people.com/article/amanda-peterson-death-friend-mourns-actress-passing

There is another mention of Stella on the obituary tribute page:

http://www.allnutt.com/obituaries/Phyllis-Peterson-2/#!/TributeWall

Artdogs (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Artdogs: Let's look at the David Hartley factoid for the sake of discussion. CBS News says "Peterson is survived by second husband David Hartley and two children." We generally consider CBS News to be a reliable published source, and we don't expect Wikipedia to be more accurate than reliable published sources. If they're wrong, we're wrong. There aren't any paid private investigators working for Wikipedia. What kind of "confirmation" did you have in mind? Must CBS News say, "Peterson is survived by second husband David Hartley and two children, as verified by CBS News reporters from public court records"?
Sometimes it can be shown that a reliable source got their information from Wikipedia, usually because the text is identical to that in a current or past revision of a Wikipedia article. In that case we can't use it. But that's not the case here.
We should probably add a citation for the Hartley marriage, but I don't know what else we can do, until a reliable source reports that no such marriage ever existed, and it looks to us like that source is more likely correct than the others.
I haven't looked into the other factoids you mentioned. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - I received a "thanks" notification from the requester so I guess they are satisfied and I'm closing the request. The discussion, of course, can be continued here if anyone wishes to. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added the CBS News citation. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2015[edit]

Thanks Mandruss. I understand the logic of leaving the info until proven otherwise.

I will continue looking into this. The name "David Hartley" is a person from Greeley, Colorado, who was killed jet-skiing between Texas and Mexico several years ago. I still suspect someone put false info on IMDB, and it was just copied from there. I will continue seeking verification. Thanks again. Artdogs (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC) [1] Artdogs (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - @Artdogs: This is formatted as a second edit request, but it reads like simply a follow-up comment to the previous one. Therefore I'm closing it, too. If you want to add a comment to an existing section, click [edit] beside the section heading and add your comment at the bottom, being sure to sign it with ~~~~. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ http://www.denverpost.com/ci_21725566/cartel-chief-mexican-custody-2010-lake-slaying-colorado

There is no David Hartley.[edit]

People are correct that there is no David Hartley. And who knows if she was ever married. Variety and CBS are just pulling info from IMDB, which is not verified info. Her obit doesn't list her as survived by any children,or a spouse. Why is Wikipedia using a source from variety and CBS,when her own family that wrote her obit, stated that she was not survived by a spouse or children? 98.240.76.78 (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how you know where Variety and CBS got their information? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect info[edit]

The text incorrectly stars 'the lawless years', when it should state the 1988 movie as 'the lawless land'.

Also, there is no evidence online that she had two children. Pictures and quotes from family and friends online only state that she had one daughter, Stella. StratoBlaster (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources that state she had two children. One has been cited. I don't know why you insist otherwise. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not credible sources. There have been pics of Amanda with one daughter. I am Facebook friends with her brother Jim, and people have been leaving condolences for Stella. Amanda's hairdresser friend also stated that Amanda was 'all about her daughter', singular. StratoBlaster (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are considered, by Wikipedia, to be reliable sources. Your personal info is not verifiable for Wikipedia purposes and is considered original research. We cannot allow or accept original research. Numerous reliable sources state she has had two children with her second husband. That is good enough for us to include as content. Please also see WP:VERIFY. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rape Survivor[edit]

This article is a disgrace. Amanda Peterson was raped as a child, was clearly traumatized and never got over it. This article recites all of her arrests and drug issues without giving proper context. Fielding99 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amanda_Peterson&oldid=1220205640"