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 |
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)
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)
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.
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)
I think the timeline should point that out. CorvetteZ51 ( talk) 11:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The article as written seems biased toward the defense, especially the unsourced testimony of Dr. White. OccamzRazor ( talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
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
There needs to be consistency. For a start: Propofol or propofol? Rothorpe ( talk) 19:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:33, 5 June 2017 (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 |
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)
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)
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.
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)
I think the timeline should point that out. CorvetteZ51 ( talk) 11:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The article as written seems biased toward the defense, especially the unsourced testimony of Dr. White. OccamzRazor ( talk) 00:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
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
There needs to be consistency. For a start: Propofol or propofol? Rothorpe ( talk) 19:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)