Talk:Murdaugh family

"..and criminals"

An editor has been re-adding this to the first sentence of the lead section over and over again despite being reverted by many editors. It's excessive repetition, the lead section second paragraph already is too long going into all the criminal activities. Furthermore, not everyone in the Murdaugh family is a criminal, most are not, such strong language runs into BLP. -- GreenC 03:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It really doesn't need to be there. I noticed it last night. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing; the clear BLP vio makes it a no-brainer. Valereee (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Regional dynasty"?

That seems like it's overstating it. They're prominent in a single judicial circuit in South Carolina. Valereee (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree! I think the power of this family is being overstated due to media coverage. They were just solicitors for nearly a century. Doesn't make them a regional dynasty by any means. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I will say as someone who lives in South Carolina, this family has been extremely powerful and influential here. While they were only solicitor's (district attorneys) over 1 District, their law firm is one of the main reasons the 14th circuit is considered a "judicial hellhole". They had and still have a lot of influence in that part of the state, including a great deal of law enforcement and legal connections. Whatnamesareleftnow (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I live in South Carolina too, I'm just saying I've never heard of them prior to the boat crash. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Whatnamesareleftnow, I do realize they were incredibly powerful within that judicial circuit, basically it was referred to as "Murdaugh country". I just think referring to them as "regionally" important -- which is what we do when we use this language in the lead -- maybe is overstating their importance. To me "regional" implies the power wielded was at least statewide, and really even more than that. Do we have reliable sources (preferably from outside the 14th district) calling them "regionally" powerful? When you look at that district, the only city it even includes is Beaufort, population ~15000. The entire area can't have a population of 300K, in a state of like 6M people. I mean...we could call them "a dynasty of the Lowcountry region of South Carolina" maybe? Valereee (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

They definitely had a lot of power within Charleston and Columbia, both legally and in some ways with law enforcement. They are heavily connected to people within the state government (Dick Harpootlian immediately comes to mind, but they have connections to other state senators through their donations) and have had a major impact on legislation across the lowcountry. Whatnamesareleftnow (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

But I don't think any of that is currently in the article? The lead needs to reflect the most important information included in the article sections, and it should not include anything that isn't in the sections and cited to a reliable independent source. Valereee (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I really like the way @GreenC phrased it: The Murdaugh family (/ˈmɜːrdɒk/ MUR-dok) is a family of locally prominent lawyers in the Lowcountry of South Carolina.

That locally prominent bit is accurate and it's concise. It doesn't inflate the power of the family but it also shows that locally they were important. Like I said earlier, prior to the boat crash, I don't think many people outside of the circuit or stuffy rooms in Columbia or Charleston had heard of this family other than maybe their name. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't take credit, someone added it a while ago, then it was replaced by others who believe "prominent" is promotional in tone, like saying they are great, which of course is not accurate. It has a neutral meaning. It will probably be contested again but I think we should stand firm it's the best so far. -- GreenC 14:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC: well thank you for adding it back! I agree with your assessment. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Would there be any pushback to making the lede sentence The Murdaugh family (/ˈmɜːrdɒk/ MUR-dok) is a political family of locally prominent lawyers in the Lowcountry of South Carolina. ? Add political families and link lawyers. I agree with y'all and like the "locally prominent" wordage. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of adding that in there because the only political office they've held is a circuit solicitor. If there were other offices held by the family, then sure, but since that isn't the case, I don't think it's necessary. I think the fact they don't hold the office anymore reinforces that stance. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why only holding the circuit solicitor office is a reason not to call them a political family. It's an elected office the family held for over 80 years. Like in Tulsa there is a family that has had something like 4 or 5 mayors. They've never held other political office in the state, but they're still known as a local political family.

I find not holding the office anymore similarly unpersuasive. There isn't an elected Kennedy anymore but that doesn't make them not a political family anymore.

But if there is no other support for adding political family to the lede sentence, I'll just link lawyers and be happy with that. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the family itself not the three lawyers that were elected to office. I think calling them a political family when only half of the mentioned members in the article ever held elected office is a bit much. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The word "dynasty" doesn't reveal rather obscures in this context. It is used pejoratively and suggests monarchical rule ie. anti-American which readers are supposed to lap up a simplistic narrative created by the press. -- GreenC 22:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You may be right, but tbh three guys in a row named "Randolph Murdaugh" holding the same office is pretty dynastic. I'm fine with removing the word dynasty for WP:NPOV reasons, but I think its understandable why editors would be drawn to that word. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

GreenC – If I recall correctly, prominent was repeated twice in the top of the lead. Plus, editors were opining that they were not really prominent in a broad sense. So, I changed prominent to dynasty to break up the redundant redundancy, and then added the regional qualifier. In my experience regional is a bigger footprint than locally, but certainly not even statewide. I'll look up its def in a sec. After I added regional dynasty I then Google searched it and found this. Take care. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 20:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, all. I remember now. It said family twice in the same sentence, so I changed family to dynasty. Our leads are supposed to be a little racy to hook readers in, but yes, it needed tempering, so I added regional. I just tweaked the lead to trim it and to address all concerns. Please refine it as needed. A region can be small or large. As, 15 high schools may be in a region for a regional championship, and later go to "state", whereas five might be a section, and New England is a region. So, now I married region to Lowcountry. Check it out. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 21:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You are right the word family was being repeated. In that case the solution is not to find a synonym (see WP:The problem with elegant variation) rather the determine where information is being repeated and eliminate the info repetition. That is what you did. The second sentence "of the family" repeats information from the first sentence, I made a couple changes. -- GreenC 02:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of content

I removed three names of people likely born after 2008. No apparent source for them, too. Valereee (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good policy driven decision! Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Death of Gloria Satterfield: settlement amount discrepancies

In the above section the original settlement is quoted as "$4.3-million", whereas below in Embezzlement allegations the sum is quoted as "settlement of about $3.4 million". Which is it? Cheers! Shir-El too 21:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Assisted suicide scheme

I can't find if he was ever convicted. Did prosecutors let it drop? It's a hard thing to prove, compared to all the other fraud. And prosecutors didn't need to prove everything. Of the 100+ charges, they only prosecuted 22. -- GreenC 16:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)