Talk:People v. Murray

Law Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: Los Angeles Start‑class Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

Michael Jackson Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?[reply]

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

Requested move

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)[reply]

the defendant did not take the witness stand

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.