Draft talk:Peter Duane Deaver

Relevance and Notability

Is Peter Duane Deaver notable and relevant? Slane00 (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As the original author of the article, I believe Peter Duane Deaver merits his own article. I recognize that there is an extra burden for living people and people who have figured in criminal proceedings. Deaver came to prominence through his testimony in the well-known Michael Peterson trial. But unlike, say, criminalist Dennis Fung, who figured prominently in the O.J. Simpson trial, Deaver is more notable and durable in many ways:

• Deaver testified in numerous cases that were high-profile or became so later:
  • The trial of Gregory Taylor, which sent him to prison for 17 years before he was exonerated based on Deaver's misrepresentation of blood evidence. Taylor later sued Deaver, other agents and the SBI.
  • The trial of Michael Peterson, where Deaver was the prosecution's principal witness, but the same judge later determined Deaver had misrepresented qualifications and evidence and ordered a new trial
  • The trial of Kirk Turner, where Deaver was instrumental in questionable "reconstructions" that the jury felt were tantamount to "fraud." Turner later sued the SBI.
• Deaver was sued by multiple criminal defendants and was charged with possible criminal contempt by the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission
• Deaver was a pivotal figure in the problems unearthed by the 2010 independent inquiry into practices at the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI). The report cataloged numerous problems and mis-reporting; the most egregious cases were all Deaver's
• Deaver was a well-known figure in North Carolina law enforcement circles and figured in dozens of news stories from 2001 to the present

Deaver's key role in multiple high-profile cases, the determination (explicit or implicit) of misconduct in those cases (Greg Taylor exonerated/Deaver charged with contempt, Michael Peterson granted new trial, Kirk Turner acquitted/SBI pays him 200K to settle suit), his pivotal role in the Swecker/Wolf report, and his dismissal from the SBI for causes related toi misleading testimony, all raise his profile above that of a specialist testifying or appearing in a single case. Slane00 (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Slane00: IMO this is an insufficiently referenced, highly negative BLP, and possibly even an attack page, and I have therefore requested speedy deletion to gain administrator attention on this. If deletion is not considered necessary, I am hoping the attending administrator will then comment on whether parts of this need to be stricken and suppressed. Otherwise they will presumably just decline the speedy and unblank the content, at which point you are welcome to continue editing and resubmit the draft in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely not an attack page and that is certainly not my intent. I researched it scrupulously and have tried to adhere to a very high standard for inline citation, because I was aware of the high standard needed for BLP. The tone is negative because the subject is entirely known for his participation in multiple high-profile criminal exonerations. I was careful to cite stories in which Deaver and his supporters disagree with published news reports (which are extensive). I thought the citations were pretty copious but I can certainly try to improve them. Thanks for the review. Slane00 (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked over your profile page and I certainly couldn't agree more about correct sourcing! I'm honestly a bit dismayed you feel the article is poorly sourced -- I spent dozens of hours pulling news stories and articles, and compiled a list of over 100 references in EndNote, of which I chose what I thought were the most appropriate. But as I say, I'm happy to try to improve them. :-) Slane00 (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP1e and WP:SUSPECT?

When I wrote the article I was aware both of the need to make sure the subject was not known primarily for one event, and that the concerns with his work were not merely allegations. Though Deaver came to prominence during a single trial, his work affected the outcome of multiple high-profile North Carolina cases over a 20-year period. He was at the center of the Swecker-Wolf report on problems at the SBI crime lab. He is widely mentioned in the press and also in the legal literature. I compared him to criminalist Dennis Fung, who indeed is known primarily for the OJ Simpson trial and is only profiled in that WP article. As for WP:SUSPECT, I think the article is clear about the nature of the allegations and findings against Deaver, the most salient of which is probably the Superior Court finding that his testimony in Peterson was perjured, and the role of that finding in the HRC upholding his dismissal. Slane00 (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Citation standards

I do hope all these comments don't appear argumentative. This is my first Wikipedia article and I really did/am trying to get it right. @DoubleGrazing, you mention that about 1/3 of the paragraphs lack citation. I am more than happy to clean that up, but I did try to use existing articles on living persons with negative content as a standard; if one looks at the Michael Peterson trial page, there are many substantial paras there with no citations at all -- more than 1/3, I would guess. Is the standard different there? Or is the Peterson trial article also insufficiently sourced? This is not carping, I genuinely want to know. :-) Slane00 (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Slane00,

No problem at all, and the admin who came to look at my speedy request declined it, saying that the negative content seems to be adequately supported, so it seems I called that wrong. And not for the first time, either! :) I just wanted to have a second pair of eyes on it, because BLPs are a bit risky by their nature.

The rule on BLPs is that anything "potentially contentious" must be clearly supported by an immediate inline citation to a reliable published source. Ditto, anything potentially sensitive – obvious ones being political views, sexual orientation, etc. of course, but also things of private nature such as family details, DOB, and so on. I tend to add to this that "every material statement" needs to be clearly supported, because when you say something substantive you need to tell us where you got that from, because it may be "potentially contentious" to someone. In practical terms, every paragraph needs at least one citation supporting it, as a bare minimum, and if in doubt, I think BLPs should be over- rather than under-referenced (by which I mean the number of inline citations, not necessarily the number of sources cited).

If you want to model your draft on existing articles, you should only look at ones that are rated Good, as anything below that grade may have problems that just haven't been picked up yet, and which you won't want to replicate.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, great point about choosing higher-quality articles to model on. Totally understand about caution with BLPs, I knew this one would warrant a very high level of scrutiny and so it should, so I want to take that very seriously. Looks like my job is to raise the density of citations and look out for anything that looks like original research or synthesis. Thanks! Slane00 (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Another question -- do I need citations in the opening paragraph? My understand was that the opener serves to summarize the article, so the statements there were meantto just summarize what follows and not link directly to sources. Is that the right approach? Slane00 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Slane00: that's correct... at least, technically. As you say, the lead section is meant to summarise what is said elsewhere, and as long as the 'elsewhere' is appropriately referenced, the lead doesn't need to be. That said, if you make a highly contentious claim and don't reference it, you're bound to attract scrutiny or even pushback, so it would probably be safer to reference such a statement even if you don't strictly have to. (Personally, I reference the lead section just like any other text, but that's just my own preference.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @DoubleGrazing, that's helpful. I do think I'll go that way for an article that seems like it'll attract a justifiably high level of scrutiny. Slane00 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @DoubleGrazing, another question -- when the article is ready to resubmit, should I let you know specifically, so that there's a consistent editorial oversight, as it were? Or, given that all Wikipedians are volunteers and neither you nor anyone is obligated to ever look at the article again :), do I just do a general resubmit? Thanks! Slane00 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Slane00: I think it would be good to get some more eyes on this, even though it was already cleared (sort of) by the admin responding to my speedy request; so just resubmit it back into the pool, no need to ping me. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Slane00, please see WP:BLPPRIMARY, especially Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Schazjmd -- I did note that guidance, and of course I could and maybe should and will follow it literally and omit all such documents. The practice I tried to follow instead was never to have such a document be the sole reference at a citation point -- the idea is that these docs are not the chief support for any contention, but are there if a reader wishes to see them. In many cases I came to those document via news stories that explicitly link to them. I think at this point I'll follow one of two paths, either be completely scrupulous and drop those references entirely, or make sure that they are never primary support for a contention. Thoughts? Slane00 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, ref #15 is used 5 times as the sole reference for a statement. The court records might be useful to readers as external links, but I wouldn't cite them as sources at all. Schazjmd (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Good guidance @Schazjmd thank you. I may add them back in as external links, or not, but for now they're gone. Slane00 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Article title

If this article is accepted, it should be moved to Duane Deaver per WP:COMMONNAME. I couldn't find "Peter" in any of the sources, although I gave up on the many Herald refs since I have look for each individually in the Wayback Machine because of their paywall. @Slane00:, what is your source for his first name being "Peter"? Schazjmd (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Mostly it is court documents and official records of that sort that show that his first name is Peter. Since those aren't generally supposed to be used in BLPs I stripped them out. The Rudolf 2022 book does cite his full name though, and I can add that in. Slane00 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm wrong, the Rudolf book gives it as P. Duane Deaver. Suggestions about how to handle? Court sources give his full name, so I know what it is, but the BLP guidelines as well as the NOR guidelines would inhibit quoting those. Slane00 (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Title the article Duane Deaver, then in the first sentence give his full name: Peter Duane Deaver is a..." Here's a ref that supports Peter Duane Deaver: <ref>{{cite news | newspaper=The Chapel Hill Herald | date=August 8, 1991 | page=1 | last=White | first=Julia | title=Witness links blood stains to husband | url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-chapel-hill-herald-peterduane/142102085/}}</ref> Schazjmd (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! Slane00 (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about their paywall, by the way. Do you recommend I add Wayback links to everything? Shouldn't be too hard. Slane00 (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It's up to you. I don't think it's a regular practice that would be expected of you, but it might make it a bit easier on reviewers. Schazjmd (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)