![]() | 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 |
Wikipedia is not a genealogical history project. An article's title should be both precise and concise. But it is unclear who or what this article is really about. It commences as a biography of Randolph Murdaugh Sr., morphs into one about Randolph "Buster" Murdaugh Jr. and then into one about Randolph Murdaugh III. It briefly touches on "Murdaugh Country" and the Hampton law firm Peters Murdaugh Parker Eltzroth & Detrick (PMPED) and its influence on the 14th Judicial Circuit of South Carolina. The article then moves on to the crimes of Paul Murdaugh and his subsequent murder, along with is mother, lightly skipping over the generation of Randolph IV, (Randy) and Richard Alexander (Alex) and Paul's sibling Richard Alexander Jr., (Buster) before leaping into being an article about the investigation into the death of Stephen Smith and then ending discussing an embezzlement scandal involving Alex. This article is like a coatrack that has has so many different coats hanging on it I cannot find the one I want. From looking at the sources, I suspect the article is intended to be about the Murdaugh family murders but it approaches the subject so obliquely, that is not obvious. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 01:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I have added several clean-up tags to the background section to seek clarity around birth and appointment dates. Because each paragraph in this section starts by referring to the previous generation who is succeeded by the next generation in the family, I am confused about who is the subject of each paragraph. I think this could easily be solved if each paragraph started by referring to each succeeding generation's and say that that they were their parent's successor. This would make it clearer each paragraph dealt with a separate generation. Concerning Alex, I am unclear on if PMPED is the family law firm mentioned in the first paragraph or something else, as the history of the law firm has not been introduced until after the background, (so I have not read it yet). The acronym also is not defined so I am also left guessing that it is a reference to the law firm mentioned below the background. In the last sentence, I am not clear if Alex and Maggie's sons are twins or not as only one birth date is mentioned. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 13:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
[1] Just saw this about Alex Murdaugh getting some new indictments, in case anyone wants to update the article. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA ( talk) 05:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Quote from a prosecuting atty:
It has no bottom. Murders, drugs, faked suicide, cover-ups, 48 criminal counts, conspiracies, etc.. now expanding beyond the Murdaughs. -- Green C 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@ GreenC, I think this sentence needs to be attributed (to a person if possible but at minimum to a source) and cited directly rather than at the end of the para. valereee ( talk) 22:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
References
Hey, @ PeskyTomatoes, let's talk. It doesn't look like you had a source for those changes, and some of them are pretty major. For now I've reverted. valereee ( talk) 17:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry. PeskyTomatoes ( talk) 02:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy among secondary sources if he is charged with 71 or 75 charges. A Google search of murdaugh 75 charges
and murdaugh 71 charges
demonstrates. Looking at the indictments and Press Releases from the State Grand Jury website it adds up
27 +
21 +
27 = 75. In contrast for example the Associated Press says
71 or Associated Press says
75. The difference between 75 and 71 is 4, and
some sites say the recent indictment was for 23 not 27 charges, a difference of 4. Nevertheless, the
recent indictment is for 27 not 23. I'm going to give weight to South Carolina Atty General since they filed the indictments and consider some sources got it right while some sources got it wrong and copied one another. None of the 71 sources are able to explain why the SCAG says there are 75 charges. --
Green
C
21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The Island Pakcet says 74 charges with 71 from State Grand Jury and 3 from Hampton County grand jury related to the murder for hire suicide scheme. Again it contradicts the state grand jury documents which has 75 charges non related to the murder for hire scheme. -- Green C 19:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The State Grand Jury Press Release which said 27 charges has been modified it now says 23 charges. That, along with the 3 charges from Hampton County brings it to 74, which is what most secondary sources are reporting. -- Green C 23:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Ciridae ( talk) 11:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Prominent Democrat supporter. 68.118.144.49 ( talk) 06:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure this is a good enough source to be the only source for that section. I've removed, happy to discuss. Valereee ( talk) 19:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
References
I'm thinking something like this probably is what's needed, rather than expansion here at this article. Valereee ( talk) 22:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Excellent article! It is intriguing to me that the 14th district from 1920 to 2006 had a Sr, then Jr, then III as its solicitor. 1-2-3. Eighty-six years. Bam, bam, bam. Amazing! Carry on. Cheers! {{u|
WikiWikiWayne}} {
Talk}
20:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to fight WP bureaucracy so I'm not going to edit the main page, but it goes without saying that any dynastic family in SC had to have owned slaves. It appears to be true for this family of felons as well. [3] THSlone ( talk) 18:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it's time to spin Alex off from the family article? valereee ( talk) 02:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
they don't get a page just because they were local politicians.Local politicians like mayors and district attorney's can still meet WP:GNG which requires
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.You're focusing on the recent coverage of these individuals which has covered the family almost exclusively in terms of the trial and crimes of Alex Murdaugh, but this family has been in politics in South Carolina since 1920, there are over 100 years of researchable WP:RS in newspaper archives like Newspapers.com. Be careful not to fall into WP:RECENTISM, especially
:::::Articles deleted despite concerning notable trans-historical subject matter, because a recentist article has given only flimsy and transient details available in news reports without the accompanying historical perspective, and because editors proposing deletion don't bother to research.TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 14:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.These individuals are not major local political figures. I think both of them deserve a mention here but on their own do not see enough significant coverage of them to warrant individual pages. Casual mentions of them in the press (talking about press prior to any of the murder stuff) is not enough to establish significance.
The recent reorganization is confusing and random. The way it was before had some structure. For example, sorted by chronology of events, which is how Wikipedia works. Now it's a random list of events out of chronological order, and with some events in one section and other events in another section. It leaves the reader fairly confused as to any sort of narrative or what happened. I understand the intent is to organize according to person, but that chops everything up into a confusing mess. No reliable source presents this way. -- Green C 02:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Wikipedia is not a genealogical history project. An article's title should be both precise and concise. But it is unclear who or what this article is really about. It commences as a biography of Randolph Murdaugh Sr., morphs into one about Randolph "Buster" Murdaugh Jr. and then into one about Randolph Murdaugh III. It briefly touches on "Murdaugh Country" and the Hampton law firm Peters Murdaugh Parker Eltzroth & Detrick (PMPED) and its influence on the 14th Judicial Circuit of South Carolina. The article then moves on to the crimes of Paul Murdaugh and his subsequent murder, along with is mother, lightly skipping over the generation of Randolph IV, (Randy) and Richard Alexander (Alex) and Paul's sibling Richard Alexander Jr., (Buster) before leaping into being an article about the investigation into the death of Stephen Smith and then ending discussing an embezzlement scandal involving Alex. This article is like a coatrack that has has so many different coats hanging on it I cannot find the one I want. From looking at the sources, I suspect the article is intended to be about the Murdaugh family murders but it approaches the subject so obliquely, that is not obvious. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 01:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I have added several clean-up tags to the background section to seek clarity around birth and appointment dates. Because each paragraph in this section starts by referring to the previous generation who is succeeded by the next generation in the family, I am confused about who is the subject of each paragraph. I think this could easily be solved if each paragraph started by referring to each succeeding generation's and say that that they were their parent's successor. This would make it clearer each paragraph dealt with a separate generation. Concerning Alex, I am unclear on if PMPED is the family law firm mentioned in the first paragraph or something else, as the history of the law firm has not been introduced until after the background, (so I have not read it yet). The acronym also is not defined so I am also left guessing that it is a reference to the law firm mentioned below the background. In the last sentence, I am not clear if Alex and Maggie's sons are twins or not as only one birth date is mentioned. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 13:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
[1] Just saw this about Alex Murdaugh getting some new indictments, in case anyone wants to update the article. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA ( talk) 05:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Quote from a prosecuting atty:
It has no bottom. Murders, drugs, faked suicide, cover-ups, 48 criminal counts, conspiracies, etc.. now expanding beyond the Murdaughs. -- Green C 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@ GreenC, I think this sentence needs to be attributed (to a person if possible but at minimum to a source) and cited directly rather than at the end of the para. valereee ( talk) 22:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
References
Hey, @ PeskyTomatoes, let's talk. It doesn't look like you had a source for those changes, and some of them are pretty major. For now I've reverted. valereee ( talk) 17:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry. PeskyTomatoes ( talk) 02:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy among secondary sources if he is charged with 71 or 75 charges. A Google search of murdaugh 75 charges
and murdaugh 71 charges
demonstrates. Looking at the indictments and Press Releases from the State Grand Jury website it adds up
27 +
21 +
27 = 75. In contrast for example the Associated Press says
71 or Associated Press says
75. The difference between 75 and 71 is 4, and
some sites say the recent indictment was for 23 not 27 charges, a difference of 4. Nevertheless, the
recent indictment is for 27 not 23. I'm going to give weight to South Carolina Atty General since they filed the indictments and consider some sources got it right while some sources got it wrong and copied one another. None of the 71 sources are able to explain why the SCAG says there are 75 charges. --
Green
C
21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The Island Pakcet says 74 charges with 71 from State Grand Jury and 3 from Hampton County grand jury related to the murder for hire suicide scheme. Again it contradicts the state grand jury documents which has 75 charges non related to the murder for hire scheme. -- Green C 19:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The State Grand Jury Press Release which said 27 charges has been modified it now says 23 charges. That, along with the 3 charges from Hampton County brings it to 74, which is what most secondary sources are reporting. -- Green C 23:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Ciridae ( talk) 11:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Prominent Democrat supporter. 68.118.144.49 ( talk) 06:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure this is a good enough source to be the only source for that section. I've removed, happy to discuss. Valereee ( talk) 19:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
References
I'm thinking something like this probably is what's needed, rather than expansion here at this article. Valereee ( talk) 22:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Excellent article! It is intriguing to me that the 14th district from 1920 to 2006 had a Sr, then Jr, then III as its solicitor. 1-2-3. Eighty-six years. Bam, bam, bam. Amazing! Carry on. Cheers! {{u|
WikiWikiWayne}} {
Talk}
20:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to fight WP bureaucracy so I'm not going to edit the main page, but it goes without saying that any dynastic family in SC had to have owned slaves. It appears to be true for this family of felons as well. [3] THSlone ( talk) 18:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it's time to spin Alex off from the family article? valereee ( talk) 02:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
they don't get a page just because they were local politicians.Local politicians like mayors and district attorney's can still meet WP:GNG which requires
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.You're focusing on the recent coverage of these individuals which has covered the family almost exclusively in terms of the trial and crimes of Alex Murdaugh, but this family has been in politics in South Carolina since 1920, there are over 100 years of researchable WP:RS in newspaper archives like Newspapers.com. Be careful not to fall into WP:RECENTISM, especially
:::::Articles deleted despite concerning notable trans-historical subject matter, because a recentist article has given only flimsy and transient details available in news reports without the accompanying historical perspective, and because editors proposing deletion don't bother to research.TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 14:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.These individuals are not major local political figures. I think both of them deserve a mention here but on their own do not see enough significant coverage of them to warrant individual pages. Casual mentions of them in the press (talking about press prior to any of the murder stuff) is not enough to establish significance.
The recent reorganization is confusing and random. The way it was before had some structure. For example, sorted by chronology of events, which is how Wikipedia works. Now it's a random list of events out of chronological order, and with some events in one section and other events in another section. It leaves the reader fairly confused as to any sort of narrative or what happened. I understand the intent is to organize according to person, but that chops everything up into a confusing mess. No reliable source presents this way. -- Green C 02:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)