Talk:Trial of Alex Murdaugh/Archive 1

Archive 1

New article for Clifton Newman

I created an article for Judge Newman, if you want to add any additions or context over there, feel free. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Trial section

We might need to start splitting up the trial by day, but I'm also not sure if we need to cover every single event in the trial. I think adding a couple of sentences about notable revelations each day is probably enough. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Potential Move

@Valereee, I think a discussion of moving this page to Murder trial of Alex Murdaugh may be necessary. I know there are definitely upcoming trial(s) involving Alex Murdaugh's alleged white collar crimes. As it stands right now, this page is only about the murder trial. I'm not sure if the white collar trial(s) will have notability for a dedicated page but it's something to think about. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we keep all the trials on one page unless there are space constraints. It would be something like Criminal trials of Alex Murdaugh, once the new trials begin. Clumping has some advantages over splitting. -- GreenC 20:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'm trying to add an infobox right now. I'll add it to reflect the current ongoing trial and if a future move happens, it can be adjusted then. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion. Do we think his other trials are likely to be as notable as the murder trial? Valereee (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know honestly. I think given the media attention on this trial it's likely depending on the outcome of the murder trial. But I'd like to emphasize that I'm speculating on what the future holds. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a preemptive move is necessary right this second as I created a redirect that will get readers here if they type it in the search bar. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If he is found guilty in the murder trial, the other trials will not be as prominent, going through the motions. It will be all clear soon. -- GreenC 22:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring trial section

I'm going to try to restructure the trial section. Don't know if anyone here has been actively watching the trial but the judge has decided to hear arguments and testimony from witnesses without the jury until he can make a rule on it being admissable. I'm not sure how this needs to be done but I'm thinking a paragraph on the trial in front of the jury and a paragraph on the two days worth of in camera trial. I'm not in front of my desk right now so it'll be a couple hours before I start working on the changes so feel free to tell me to back off! Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna hold off on editing the trial section entirely until it finishes. I'm too lazy to try continuously edit this page and WP:NOTNEWS gives me room to be a little lazy. :) Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on name

The beginning of the article refers to "Richard Alexander Murdaugh" however he is referred to as "Alex" throughout the article. I feel some clarification should be added that he goes by and is referred to as Alex. 162.248.14.105 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The page title is Trial of Alex Murdaugh. The case name is literally SC v. Richard Alexander Murdaugh. I don't think clarification is needed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, the rest of the article refers to him as either Alex or Murdaugh. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The common name is clearly Alex Murdaugh, and that's what he's referred to in literally all media. It's not uncommon at all in English-speaking countries for people to be referred to by a name other than their given first name. I'm not sure there's any likely confusion. Valereee (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Media section

The media section seems a bit strange to me. I'm not certain if there should be requirements for certain media coverage being added to this section or not. Right now it just seems like anything goes for that section. @Valereee, I know you edit the page quite frequently, and was wondering your stance on this.

Also, unrelated but this page had its highest amount of viewers yet, yesterday! Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the section seems a little rudderless. I'm almost wondering if a bulleted list of media portrayals? I know we generally prefer prose, but this prose doesn't seem like it's as helpful as a simple list might be?

@Philipnelson99, Murdaugh testifying was a surprise to most, probably generated the views. Murdaugh family also received a huge spike in views. I wouldn't be surprised if we see another large number of views today as the prosecution continues its cross. Valereee (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee I agree. I saw someone add a current template yesterday, do you think that's necessary today? I didn't think there was a particularly high volume of edits. Typically, I only see those on pages with an extremely large number of editors. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that tag was a good-faith addition by an editor who isn't very experienced, yapperbot came along and removed it. Valereee (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

And to your suggestion: I think a list here would be fine. Also, I think a media entry itself needs to be independently sourced in order to warrant inclusion into said list. I will go ahead and make those changes. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC, we've been discussing this here. Valereee (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC I'm not opposed to using prose but I don't think the section benefits from it. Not sure we need to use prose about each entry in the media coverage section. That just results in an overly long section that doesn't add much value to the article, in my opinion. The article topic is the trial, not the podcasts or episodes about the incident or person involved. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

On balance I think the list was more useful for the reader in this instance. It is generally best to use prose, but this prose was so bloated and the various titles so similar that it was just kind of confusing for me. The list looks a lot cleaner. Valereee (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree, and regarding the verifiability RFC, the entries are sourced using secondary sources so those entries are fine. I can look for tertiary sources if needed. I just glanced through the RfC and didn't see anything about providing context for each entry, but again I just glanced at it. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria has been deleting 1000s (?) of sections like this at high volume because of the RfC. So I have been making them into prose and adding context as to why it's notable to at least create a pause and think of this sort of drive-by mass deletion certain user are conducting (now, or years in future). I personally think context as to why something is "notable" is important, be it a list or prose. Otherwise it's left to the reader to guess and looks like original research. It also encourages editors to add every single thing that comes along since they don't need to justify it in the text except to add some source which may or may not assert notability. -- GreenC 15:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

But don't the sources provided in that section fulfill the verifiability requirement? Are any of them only self-sourced? Valereee (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The RfC : "The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance". The "significance" is subjective, best stated in the text so we know why it's considered notable. -- GreenC 15:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Significance is derived from the coverage at least that's my impression. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

My read on the RfC is that what we're trying to prevent is dozens of things like "The murders were referenced in Season 5 Episode 8 of The Simpsons when a man named Malick Urdock was tried for murder" in long bloated lists of every mention ever made in any bit of pop culture. These media are completely about the case. Other media are mentioning these media. Valereee (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, we aren't linking the media, we're referencing media coverage of notable media specifically about the trial. Turtles all the way down or something like that... Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for context. I've argued about reliably sourcing lists for a month or two now (even though I've definitely been in the minority), so I understand your point. But in this case all of the entries are sourced, as @Valereeejust pointed out. If an editor is deleting lists in articles that are sourced and those lists are relevant, then that's an issue that should be addressed, in my opinion. I'm not sure this means that lists of pop-culture phenomena need to be expanded to prose in order to combat that issue. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Shows Airing Pre-trial or prior to trial conclusion 1. I corrected the titles of the HBO Max series and the ID series. 2. The earliest TV show about the Murdaugh case was a Dateline (NBC) episode entitled “Dark Waters.” It originally aired 11/14/22 (S31 • Ep8). 2. Since the trial conclusion, Dateline (NBC) and 20/20 (ABC) have aired episodes specifically about the trial.

  A. “The Trial of Alex Murdaugh”
       (S31 • Ep20) aired on Dateline 
       on 3/3/2023
  B. “Murdaugh Family Murders”
       (S45 • Ep22) aired on 20/20 
       on 3/3/2023

I made my first edits today, thus, the information I’ve provided are suggested additions. MerelyMartha (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Estrangement

@Valereee, I'm to remove the section about Alex and Maggie's alleged estrangement. I read the source and it doesn't actually indicate where the claim comes from and I've seen the reliability disputed online. notably, Avery Wilks from the Post and Courier just tweeted about it. If you or anyone else thinks that paragraph is necessary, then we can keep it if we can find a better source but at this point it's speculative at best.

https://twitter.com/AveryGWilks/status/1629252910075789312?t=8OjNsYMmUXPBqltEW7_3Cw&s=19 Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the estrangement thing isn't supported by RS. The fact she stayed in Edisto while he was at Moselle doesn't mean they were estranged. Valereee (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee I see that someone has added the alleged estrangement back. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Just removed it. I don't know why the structure of the article was changed either, it just looks awfully disjointed now, imo. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Added more info about trial

I've tried to add more info about the trial, specifically outlining key points of testimony for each side. Right now, I've referenced only the Post and Courier's coverage. I will add in more sources, and potentially more detail later. If someone doesn't like the changes feel free to change it. Just let me know here, thanks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)