Talk:HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan

Concerns

I suspect that this article is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and a coatrack for negative details about living people. I have raised the issue at WP:BLPN.--Slp1 (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put back the daily blog of the trial, this has been discussed in the court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.201.110 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence for that assertion? We don't link to blogs without very good reason.--Scott Mac 16:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been mentioned in court by Barbara Scott, it is also generally seen as an accurate account of events (and if I may say so is clearly the source of much of the material on here) so at least a note to it seems worthwhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.36.41 (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The daily "Sheridan Trial" blog of the trial was nominated for a Scottish Press Award 2011 "New Media Journalist Of The Year", so I think it has enough respectability to be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JockH (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The aftermath section now contains old and outdated information, especially in relation to his ground of appeal. I think this should be deleted. Anyone else got any thoughts about this? SpectroscopicJ (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

List of witnesses

I don't think the list of witnesses is trivial, I think it's quite significant. I'm also not quite sure I see the problem about google associating names, it's a new one on me that that is a valid argument in deciding what to include in an article. PatGallacher (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This whole article needs a thorough pruning. The subject is notable, this level of details is not, and the witness list looks like too detailed and a synthesis.--Scott Mac 18:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

too detailed

This article needs hefty pruning. While the subject is notable, the blow-by-blow is breaching WP:NOTNEWS. I've removed the extended list of witness names, which seems unjustifiable detail.--Scott Mac 18:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can guess from my post above, I agree completely. I see you've been reverted, unfortunately. I had been meaning to make some similar edits when I had time; and I will try. --Slp1 (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've pruned the article. Much of it was gratuitous detail, about living people.--Scott Mac 19:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues

The copyright status of anything at Wikisource should be raised there. However I would point out that this also appears on the Herald's website, and the article still has a link to that version. PatGallacher (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The herald, unfortunately, does not indicate the liecening status. Where did you get the information that this was Public Domain?--Scott Mac 20:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Majority verdict?

It doesn't say anywhere what the majority actually was. Today's BBC report quotes Sheridan as saying he had been convicted by the "narrowest majority", but what were the actual numbers? Loganberry (Talk) 12:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been rumours but I cannot say for sure that they are accurate, and there may be legal problems about reporting them. PatGallacher (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It was reported in the Sunday Herald that a juror had stated the majority split, but this story was never put online and the Facebook page on which she disclosed it has since been removed, presumably on legal advice, as such discussion can lead to contempt of court charges under Scottish Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JockH (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Doleman's blog

I know we don't usually allow Blogs as sources, but I suggest we should make an exception for Jim Doleman's blog on the trial, as it has been widely praised as a resource. PatGallacher (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hmmt6ANJp5MAdxWk3GPJ1MMAiIjQ?docId=N0205201327883474937A

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Stub?

I'm not going to make a huge fuss, but this article looks like more of a stub. Comments? PatGallacher (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The closely related article HM Advocate v Coulson is at Start class, although it is shorter and has fewer references. PatGallacher (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)