Talk:Georgia v. Smith

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law C‑class Low‑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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This article and the comments below are strongly slanted to favor Remnant Church and the defendants, who were members of the same. Will someone please clean this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.163.40 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this case SO noteable[edit]

Much more information is available about this amazing high profile case and trial. I watched (and also recorded) the entire trial as it was broadcast live on Court TV's website in February, and have been interested ever since. Even the Judge in this trial told the jury how inaccurate all of the press coverage was. Having said that, I was disappointed daily by the discrepancies and blunders in the press reports and TV blurbs. Oddly, even what Court TV's website editorials ended up reporting was a poor reflection of the actual trial. I will try to follow the appeals process related to this trial closely, and would like to find the complete court transcript (from the court reporter, I mean). If the court transcript is available (anywhere) as an online reference, it would probably be a helpful and neutral reference in relation to this trial which was very interesting indeed.

I'm having to start using the news articles, but am certainly not interested in re-hashing what was reported about this case because they were boringly repetative and unnecessarily sensational (probably due to time, readership goals, ratings, etc.) The truth IS often stranger than fiction. These court proceedings were intensely dramatic and deeply informative without the extra hype. There is no need to add outside opinions or anything more than the facts here. Anyway, I would like to contribute much more to this article in the hope that it reflects the trial accurately (and not the news). This high profile case is very interesting, like Mike Nifong interesting, and could be for a long time. SqwikiKlean 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Georgia v. Smith. 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) 14:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Georgia v. Smith. 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) 12:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]