Talk:People v. Murray/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Article Quality

This article currently reads more like someone's review of the daily events and is fairly poor at that, if i had the time i would do it but currently i don't Silent1 22:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The proceedings are fairly lengthy and I am trying to get the important points into the article. It isn't my intention to review it, more to note the facts of what was said. Olybeast (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have started recording the video streams from each day. Would there be a problem in my providing download links for the video clips? one clip for each day type thing about 1GB each hosted on my own webspace? please respond Olybeast (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Why has it been tagged as lacking in sources? There are links to the court room video for some of the days! how can there be better sources? Olybeast (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The courtroom videos are primary sources. The article makes assertion after assertion without any inline citations.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the use of primary sources is an issue for references. WP:BLPPRIMARY states that primary sources, particularly court documents, are especially problematic when living persons are involved. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

That assumes that there are better sources available to begin with, and that something should not be included if there are none. It is better to use a primary news source- even quoted material- (and so be able to include the material) than to say nothing and so have faulty and/or incomplete information, or to use no source at all, and therefore by default infringe on copyright laws, personality or privacy laws, or plagiarism regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.133.1 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY is part of Wikipedia's policy for writing about living persons. If you disagree with this policy, please post your arguments at the policy's talk page. An article talk page is not the correct place to argue for changes to policy. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Alvarez

Does anyone have a source for Alvarez denying knowledge of Murray's contract on the stand on October 4 in contrary to previous testimony that she was aware? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

During the trial she is asked if she testified in the pre trial. i don't remember if she answered or the answer, however videos are available online of her testimony in the trial, but likely not the pre-trial. there is another Alvarez, a male security for jackson. need to clarify.

Initials

SuperSonicBaby2 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I just wanted to ask what's up with the initials for Oct. 7th?

Changed myself! Thanks Much,SUPER SONIC BABY 2 (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

the defendant did not take the witness stand

I think the timeline should point that out. CorvetteZ51 (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

People of the State of California v. Conrad Robert Murray → Trial of Conrad Murray – There is absolutely no excuse or reason for the article name to be this long. Only lawyers would look it up under this title. -happy 5214 01:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. At this stage, I can see no reason to name this by the style of the court papers. Even if we did name it as case law is named (which we wouldn't do, since the article is about the trial, not about a court judgment), it would just be California v. Murray. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments

California v. Murray should be the name of this article. Because this is the actual name of this case. --bender235 (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Conrad Murray article?

Why isn't there an article about Conrad Murray? Keying in that name takes you on a redirect to "Death of Michael Jackson". I had to go to "Biography.com" [1] to find out any information on the now convicted Dr. Murray. There must be public domain information on the Doctor. --TGC55 (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not notable other than this single instance. 88.108.210.152 (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

since november 9, Conrad Murray appropriately redirects to this "trial of conrad murray" article (instead of previous redirect to Death of Michael Jackson).--96.232.126.111 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I requested for the change at Talk:Conrad Murray#Edit request. The redirect page has been protected since April 2010. --67.169.28.10 (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Conrad Murray has been in the news for a long time, everyone in the world knows who he is. And he's not notable?? Octomon has her own article and not this guy who killed Michael Jackson. SERIOUSLY, FOLKS? - Szeruvcc (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There used to be an article, but it was not thought to comply with Wikipedia policy. See Talk:Conrad Murray. If you want to see the article brought back, please post your comments on that talk page. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Questionable neutrality

The article as written seems biased toward the defense, especially the unsourced testimony of Dr. White. OccamzRazor (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean ("unsourced testimony")? Are you saying the article's report on the testimony is not sourced, or the testimony itself is not sourced? The article is strangely - and, in my view, inappropriately - sourced in the first place as it apparently relies on editors watching video of the trial and then reporting what happened. But what in particular do you object to about White?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It means that most of White's as well as other specific defense testimony reported in the article has no links to reliable sources. As you state, the article seems to have been heavily edited by people who watched the trial and then edited the article. I recorded and watched the entire trial as well and IMO, some sections of the article have been edited with a bias favorable to the defense, most particularly regarding White. There are too many misstated elements to address on this page. Suffice it to say that IMO his WP reported testimony goes into great detail about some things favorable to the defense but does not include all of the unfavorable things that came out in his testifying, especially under cross examination. OccamzRazor (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could identify at least a few "misstated elements".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Some unnecessary alterations to the article

Who decided to put in the "participants" into the infobox. I also would like to ask why someone had to put the verdict in its own section? They are both irrelevant - if you read the actual article and watch the videos, it does become apparent who's who - I am going to delete the irrelevant bits of the article. --Thehistorian10 (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)thehistorian10

Someone reverted you, and I edited a compromise. I don't see why who's who is irrelevant in the infobox. Just because a reader can look at sources doesn't mean we don't include information in the article. As for the verdict, the verdict obviously must be mentioned in the body of the article, and because of the somewhat strange structure of the article, there's nothing but to make it its own section. The reading of the verdict of the jury adds nothing to the article, so I've removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Capital letters

There needs to be consistency. For a start: Propofol or propofol? Rothorpe (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This article reads like a personal diary or blog

not an encyclopedic article. It's probably the worst article ever on Wikipedia, considering this is a high-visibility subject. TGreen8888 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly it was composed at speed. I've made a start on normalising it, and any help would be welcome. Rothorpe (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Encyclopedic

I agree with some of the earlier comments about this article - it reads more like someone's blog, or a reporter trying to cover a trial in real time. The article relies too much on direct quotation, rather than summarising what was said. I feel that in an encyclopedia we gain more by providing a clear and balanced summary of court proceedings, rather than simply providing a transcript. RomanSpa (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on California v. Murray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)