Talk:Murdaugh family/Archive 1

Wikipedia is not a genealogical history
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)


 * Hey, @Cameron Dewe! I got to the subject from the murder coverage, but when I did I realized that the family legal dynasty and influence in the local justice system might actually be as much of the story. —valereee (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding to my comments. When I first encountered this article, yesterday, I found it very confusing to read. It was flitting from one point to the next so rapidly, I was forgetting the article as I read it because I could not see the relevance of the history before it got to the focus of the article. I found I needed to go back and re-read each sentence to work out who was who. The changes you have made since I added clean-up tags yesterday have made the article much clearer to read. The introductory sentences before the table of contents now articulates why this article has the title it does and now achieves the requirement that "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." When I first read the article I did sense the family history was important background to the murders, but now it has been articulated better it really sets the murders in the family context and I am left wanting to know more about clearly a notable topic, rather than letting someone consign this topic to the deletion process.
 * Even so, the article might benefit from a few more subsections under the Background section to provide potted biographies of each of the main players, and generations, of the family, rather than a single block of text. This would help later in the article locating the biography of Peter in the background where he is mentioned in connection with the boating accident and murders. I skipped through the article and saw his name in connection with the boating accident and suddenly thought: "Now who was Peter again?" This will also help reduce the impression of a coatrack article because information about each person becomes apparent as a separate piece of the jigsaw that readers can skip over and come back to as needed. Wikipedia articles are not always read as you might expect, so making the key information more apparent and accessible with judicious use of headings and sections helps with readability. Keep up the good work. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cameron Dewe, so no objection to removing the remaining tags? I imagine other interested editors will be along to provide input on organization, etc. —valereee (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to seek my approval to remove the clean-up tags. If you think you have done enough to address the issues highlighted, Be Bold and remove them. I have adjusted the clean-up tags to where I think the article could benefit from additional subsections. (See above.) I think each person should have a heading and a small amount of biographic, such as birth date, parents, schooling, job and where, applicable, death. Essentially just enough to say where they fit in the family and the history. Most of the content is already there, it just needs to be put under some sub-section headings, perhaps with a bit more detail. I am also tempted to put the details of the law firm under background too and explain its history by explaining the position each Murdaugh family member held in the firm and not in the background biographies, to avoid too much repetition.  Additionally, I think you need to explain what positions people are being elected to in more detail. I am not clear if this is some thing that is happening in the law firm or the community. I come from a jurisdiction where the Crown appoints both judges and solicitors and the Police prosecute criminal cases, our elected officials are politician, not private lawyers, and are constitutionally separate from the judicial process. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cameron Dewe I never remove tags without trying to discuss with the other editor unless my changes have directly addressed those tags, and those final two tags I wasn't sure had and wanted to discuss. I don't think further subsectioning of the background section is necessary; the section is only four paragraphs, and I'm not even sure how we'd section them off -- a subsection for each person seems excessive to me, so I'm going to remove that one. Background may not be the right name for the subsection, but I originally had the information about the firm in that section and it was unwieldy and confusing; I think it needs its own section too. I'll see if I can find a wikilink for the position of solicitor. —valereee (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made those changes. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Clean-up tags in Background section
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)

new charges
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)

Sheesh
Quote from a prosecuting atty:
 * “I think this Murdaugh case, in addition to taking down Alex Murdaugh is gonna take down some other people and possibly some other entities that will shock the public,”

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, this is some crazy shit. You could not make this up. —valereee (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Things are starting to become a bit more clear? A member of the Laffiette family, who own/founded the county's main bank, may be involved in a long term scheme with Murdaugh to defraud personal injury victims out of settlement funds. There is a new case, Hakeem Pinckney, there may be 7 more in the works, other people involved.  --  Green  C  22:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We're gonna need a bigger boat. valereee (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

'mysteriously' or 'unexplainably' unplugged
@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)
 * It says according to the lawyer. I suppose the 'according to' could be moved in front of the quote. -- Green  C  22:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All I really care about is that we put the source at the end of that sentence. For me letting readers know who said what is key. valereee (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Plus attribution to the lawyer. -- Green  C  23:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How much are we citing to FITSnews? I'm not sure about it, it's well-regarded, but it's still a blog. Are we sure there's editorial oversight? valereee (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The same thing in effect was said by Fox news, they are repeating a quote from the lawyer. The person reporting for FITSNews is Mandy Matney "She's an award-winning journalist from Kansas who has worked for newspapers in Missouri, Illinois, and South Carolina". Her Wikipedia page was created recently, doesn't look like a COI, but it's not the best in terms of notability. Makes her out this story is her special focus (she is localized) so I expect we will be getting information from Matney either first or not covered elsewhere. She writes a blog but is FITSNews a blog? --  Green  C  16:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * According to us, in 2010, FITSNews was named to The Washington Post's list of the "best state political blogs" in the United States. valereee (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah some news sources call themselves "blogs" and some blogs call themselves "news" - what these terms means is pretty fluid. This particular cite does not call itself a blog and the website itself does not call itself a blog. The Washington Post did not call it a blog, it was "Fix users", and they were limited to "political" coverage which is unclear as there might have been a political blog at one point. They even charge money for access after a certain number of free views, which is not typical of a blog. Authorship is by professional journalists. -- Green  C  18:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do still think we should be careful around living people, even if it's...whatever it is, lol. :D Like the bank president, and 'mysteriously' unplugged. That should be sourced to something unimpeachable, it's almost an accusation of murder. valereee (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. We are reporting what the lawyer said, attributing it to the lawyer, there are two sources. Definitely not lol it is part of a pattern of maximizing settlement claims and then stealing those claims which is what the lawyer is contending for multiple cases; and Murdaugh has bodies surrounding him and a person of interest in a double murder involving his own weapon etc.. I don't think it's unreasonable to include what the lawyer said unless there is evidence to the contrary. It's probably public record somewhere since the care facility was sued over the death. --  Green  C  19:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

unexplained/unsourced changes
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)


 * @PeskyTomatoes, no apology needed! It's fine to make a bold change, you just have to be ready to discuss it if someone else asks why. valereee (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

71 or 75 charges
There is a discrepancy among secondary sources if he is charged with 71 or 75 charges. A Google search of  and   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)

Political affiliation
Prominent Democrat supporter. 68.118.144.49 (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Kind of seems irrelevant as this isn't a bio. Valereee (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Right...which I am sure has nothing to do with the current patriarch on trial for murder. I'm sure if this was a Trump supporter, nothing would be mentioned about that link. BTW, oddly enough, Ted Bundy's political affiliation is mentioned. Lol, I mean, you guys are so blatant in your bias, you have to be being paid by the DNC. 2600:8805:A985:4300:78C4:18B9:DE10:D101 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, Ted Bundy is a bio. In a bio we might mention the subject's political affiliation. This article is not a bio. If we ever write a bio for Alex Murdaugh -- which is certainly possible at some point -- we'll likely mention things like political affiliation if they're mentioned in reliable sources. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If we do write a bio. Count me in on helping out @Valereee :) Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

FITSnews

 * Special:Diff/1135181984/1135292213 section "Sex worker Lindsey Edwards"

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)


 * Why? It's a well known news site. The WaPo once called it a blog in 2010 - so what. Since then, many other sources including the NYT call it a news site and its been syndicated by many other reliable news sites.  --  Green  C  22:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's the only source we have for this information, I think it's shaky to include for BLP reasons. Valereee (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the BLP reason? It says "she claimed" and the "accusations are being investigated by [the police]". --  Green  C  22:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It needs to be a really good source for us to include accusations. I just don't think this one single source is good enough for that. If it's worth including, someone else will be mentioning it. Valereee (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the relevant section of BLP? Asking because there may be some leeway given how many other crimes he is involved with, this particular accusation is one the least serious. -- Green  C  03:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME. When charges are filed, no objection to including, but if there aren't charges, this seems over the top unless multiple RS are reporting. This is based on an interview, not on the source having done investigation. FITSnews found her on TikTok. I just feel very uncomfortable with using this as a source, no matter how many RS sites are syndicating some of their content. Valereee (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. If it comes up during the trial or another source I'll try to restore it hen. -- Green  C  20:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me!
 * Jeez, did you see the courthouse had to remove a portrait of Murdaugh's grandfather? Also the sleepy little county seat had to recruit foodtrucks to feed all the reporters and lookie-loos. Valereee (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Trial of Alex Murdaugh
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)


 * Created. Valereee (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

1-2-3
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! 20:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Slavers
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. THSlone (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * A blog is not a reliable source for that kind of info. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, the blog gave a specific citation to the 1850 census for slave ownership and a citation to the slaver's family tree. Not every blog is unreliable. 2600:1700:5B20:CAA0:DC93:4A1E:E2F3:BB62 (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't really consider any blog reliable enough for information like this, and using census data is considered WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. There are upcoming books, that'll be soon enough to update. Valereee (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is currently WP:RS for the Murdaugh family being Confederates in the 1860's, but I haven't reading any RS saying slave holders yet. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Spin off Alex Murdaugh?
I'm wondering if it's time to spin Alex off from the family article? valereee (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm could be a bio for Alex, we need one central place for all these crimes. It depends how big the web gets, how the case proceeds new information comes out. For now the family article is pretty accurate as many of the events concern Murdaugh members including Alex. Reminds me of the Sackler family with complex crimes spanning multi-generations and across decades. --  Green  C  02:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, the organization is so completely unorganized. — 69.181.192.29 3:43 pm, 25 January 2023, Wednesday (1 month, 9 days ago) (UTC−8)


 * It's a very complex and messy life, and some of the most important events have yet to be settled. Soon enough, but if we jump too soon the bio could end up being equally messy. If we know he was found guilty of murder from the start, it makes it a lot easier to write and frame the story. -- Green  C  02:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am puzzled that there hasn't been an Alex Murdaugh article yet. He is the tail that wags the "Murdaugh" dog. It remains to be revealed whether he was involved in drug dealing other than as an end-user. Any financial malfeasance trial should produce some interesting findings. Nearly everyone else is dead, except Buster, who lives in a reasonably-priced condo now.-- Quisqualis (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still unsure if Murdaugh would meet the notability threshold for an article. WP:NCRIMINAL addresses this:
 * "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."
 * I suppose the unusual motive or execution piece is satisfied but the beyond contemporaneous news coverage piece is still unsatisfied. I think there may be room for an article once some of the books about Murdaugh are released but for now an article about the murder trial and the family is enough, in my opinion. Happy to hear disagreements and points to the contrary though! Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Alex probably meets WP:NCRIMINAL for two reasons: first, the documentary coverage that is coming out indicates that it has some noteworthiness or cultural significance. Second, Alex has committed multiple crimes and has multiple pending legal actions. The volume of his crimes kinda increases his notability. It's still important to keep WP:NCRIMINAL in mind though, because I think Paul probably does not meet notability and his bio probably belongs here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I firmly disagree, I personally don't think any member of this family is notable enough for a page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sectioning to allow for easy nav from other articles

 * Comment: There could honestly be a few biographies spinned from this if editors want to do the research. Randolph Sr and Jr both served in political office for decades and there is probably enough sourcing in either upcoming books on the family or in newspaper archives. Alex probably has enough WP:RS on his life readily available online now that he could have an independent article put together pretty easily. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and wrote Randolph Murdaugh Sr. and I might write pages for the other two elected Murdaughs. I don't foresee myself writing Alex's page tho if someone else wants to try and do that one. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Randolph "Buster" Murdaugh Jr. & Randolph Murdaugh III now have articles. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure why those pages were created. Neither of those individuals meets WP:GNG, and per WP:POLITICIAN, they don't get a page just because they were local politicians. And the coverage seems of them seems to be very limited beyond the trial and crimes of Alex Murdaugh and alleged crimes of his immediate family. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * An upcoming book about a specific topic isn't enough to meet a notability threshold. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN is a presumption of notability policy; they don't have to meet its requirements to have a page and it doesn't say 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)
 * Oh believe me, I've done the research. They don't meet the notability threshold. They are run of the mill public officials. That's all. Local public officials are not notable and just because the family is embroiled in controversy, they don't each deserve their own page. A Murdaugh family page suffices. Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * From WP:POLITICIAN: 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.
 * WP:RECENTISM is thrown around as justification for articles and it's kind of silly in my opinion, it's not a policy or guideline but an essay,
 * Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've provided some searches on newspapers.com to show that these two were no more outstanding than other solicitors in the state. They're local officials, albeit from a family of solicitors, nothing more.
 * https://www.newspapers.com/search/?query=%22Solicitor%22%20%22Murdaugh%20Jr.%22&p_province=us-sc&sort=paper-date-asc (Wade S Kolb was solicitor in another circuit around the same time period as Randolph III)
 * https://www.newspapers.com/search/?query=%22Murdaugh%20III%22%20%22Solicitor%22
 * https://www.newspapers.com/search/?query=%22Wade%20S.%20Kolb%22%20%22Wade%20Kolb%22%20%22Solicitor%22
 * My point is that there is nothing special about them, and that while they are public officials, it's better to only have a family page than individual pages for them. Redirects could even point to relevant sections on this page.
 * Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So I'm going to summarize why I think each of these pages meet WP:GNG.
 * Randolph Murdaugh Sr., has significant press coverage regarding his death both contemporarily with his death here and renewed attention recently in Seventeen and local news.
 * Randolph "Buster" Murdaugh Jr., has significant press coverage for being the equivalent of a district attorney for 46 years (holding this elected office in and of itself might not be notable, but he was the longest serving circuit solicitors in the country at one point) and his involvement in the lawsuit regarding his father's death.
 * Randolph Murdaugh III, has significant coverage for holding office 20 years, receiving the Order of the Palmetto, and of course his direct potential relation to the current controversy involving the family.
 * Plus I think it's important to note there is plenty of available sourcing that hasn't been researched yet. These articles are all improvable with WP:RS from sources like Newspapers.com and new WP:RS on the family being written daily. None of them are going to be featured articles anytime soon, but they're WP:V and the cite WP:RS to cover individuals WP:notable to South Carolina history. I think you were right to AfD Duffie Stone and I don't plan to contest that nomination, but these individuals seemed to me to meet the criteria for major local politicians. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think coverage of the death of someone doesn't necessarily imply notability. I think keeping Randolph Murdaugh Sr. is fine but the others are solely public officials with very little significance beyond their name and role. Order of the Palmetto isn't a claim to notability. I think that the two younger Murdaughs would be fine redirecting to this page, would you contest that? If so, I'd really appreciate other opinions. I just disagree that they are notable enough to warrant pages and would like consensus on that matter. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Valereee and @GreenC do either of you have an opinion on this? I'm happy to be wrong! Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No real opinion. Probably better to discuss at those articles' talks, though, as no one stumbling across those articles would realize there's a discussion about them elsewhere. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Understandable, I think we just differ on opinions here. I mostly like to write articles on state and local politicians so I do have a bias in favor of inclusion here. Maybe one of us should post to a noticeboard for additional opinions? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I think we can wait a little bit for the discussion here to mature. If there's no clear consensus we could take it to a noticeboard. Right now, it's just my opinion against yours. So if others chime in on either side and there's a majority, I'll recognize whatever that is. If there's no comment we could go to a noticeboard. I'm all for getting to a solution that makes the most sense for the encyclopedia. Not trying to single you out, promise. :) Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Organization
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)


 * @GreenC I agree. I think the prior structure made much more logical sense. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you did not like the content reorg. I'd be fine with changing it back. The prior structure seemed odd to me because it had a section on the family page that was written as a summary of Alex Murdaugh's crimes. I was trying to nest the crimes summary of Alex Murdaugh under a section devoted to him here, but if that is more confusing we can change it back. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult topic and I understand your trying to achieve logically. It is more difficult to follow this way it's random. Suggest putting everything under a Alex Murdaugh sub-heading including the Beach case which does involve Alex who played an important role. Sorted chronologically according to the date it occurred. When the Alex article is created, the whole sub-section can be moved there and summarized here. That's how I would do it. -- Green  C  19:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh see you already edited. That works too. It will become more clean, if/once the Alex article is created. -- Green  C  19:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been looking at the whole Category:Murdaugh family and this appears to be the parent article for Trial of Alex Murdaugh. I think part of the issue is we usually don't write separate biography pages for criminals immediately due to WP:CRIMINAL and the existence of this page and the separate trial page has made it difficult to determine where to place information on Alex. Normally, this information would be in a short bio section on the Trial page, but since this page predated the trial it appears to have developed here instead. In fact, the trial page does not contain any real meaningful biography on Alex, Paul, or Maggie and they have instead been put here. I don't think it's necessarily the wrong editorial decision, but I think it's part of why this page developed kinda funny. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)