Talk:Don Murphy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Revision

I would like to restore the revision I had developed before the unexpected deletion, the deletion review, and the withdrawn AFD. Everything is verifiable through reliable sources and clearly establish Don Murphy's professional career as notable. Since I was reverted, I was wondering if others could review the revision and determine what is appropriate for inclusion to give readers a better perspective of Don Murphy. I attempted to balance Murphy's reputation with both negative and positive quotes, as well as quotes from Murphy himself. I think most of everything is acceptable for inclusion, though I was not sure about Murphy's fiasco with Quentin Tarantino. What do other editors think? RTFA (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no hesitation in preferring the current version which Doc glasgowe reverted to. Tarantino's fiasco with Don is exactly the kind of stuff we do not want in the article, we should also keep the opening simple, not mention the PoB etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My revision contains information about Don Murphy's professional career. The revision you desire has very minimal mention of this. The fiasco with Quentin Tarantino can be excluded if others agree as well, but can you indicate why his publicly shared personal background, his career, his reputation, and his Transformers involvement (all well-cited) cannot be mentioned? RTFA (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have specific information re his professional career that you wish to add please bring it here and we can discuss, ie I don't need to justify what should be removed as much as you need to justify what is to be added, and on talk. I am very happy to discuss this point by point but your restoration included so many different points all at once and that was not appropriate, IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

On November 13, 2002, LA Weekly devoted over 1,800 words to Murphy himself as part of a lengthy article about four major producers. On January 13, 2006, The Hollywood Reporter devoted over 1,300 words talking about the background of Don Murphy. The producer's involvement with Transformers was also extensively covered on July 9, 2007 by The New York Times. Murphy also shares his personal life on December 17, 2002 to IGN. These four sources make up a large part of his background, while other information in my revision is more focused on his specific projects. RTFA (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to read these over the next few hours and hopefully other interested parties will come and join the discussion, we should not hurry on this one though I recognise we do need to try and resolve something. What you could do in the meantime is say here which particular sentences that were reverted that you would like for inclusion. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on the BLP noticeboard asking for other editors experienced with BLP to evaluate if they are interested. Per your suggestion, I've outlined some details about the producer that is not in the existing revision:

• Growing up in Long Island and how he eventually received the education to become a film producer
• His interests in music, film, and literature
• His involvement with At the Mountains of Madness and Speed Tribes (We3, Second Sight, and Gemini Man are already covered)
• His professional reputation as a film producer -- being very driven in getting results, and having been successful
• His involvement with the big-budget Transformers and how his website was used as a vehicle to serve fans, and the backlash of this usage

That should sum it up fairly. I suppose the one to look at most closely would be the one about his reputation. I represented positive and negative perspectives of his reputation, as well as providing quotes from Murphy about his own reputation, for the sake of balance. RTFA (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• First thoughts: Reputation section seems highly inappropriate, we don't do that in any other BLP. The Transformers section seems entirely too long (undue weight, anybody?) considering that is just one of the movies he's been involved in. -- Naerii 17:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also we can do without the commentary about what he is "seen as" in the lead and the criticism (again, issues of undue weight). -- Naerii 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• When I originally revised the article, I was not trying to highlight his reputation. The information under "Career" was strongly based on either commentary about his reputation or his involvement with Transformers, so I subsectioned the content. Should everything just be covered in an unbroken "Career" section, if the content can be included? RTFA (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Also, in response to Transformers, if I had access to the book Killer Instinct, I would have tried to include content about his involvement with Natural Born Killers as well. His involvement with Transformers was more significant than his other projects with the exception of NBK, hence the subsection. I tried to make it as Murphy-centric as possible. Perhaps some content could be shifted toward Transformers, and a briefer mention can be made here, linking to the film article for more details? RTFA (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think we only need the briefest of information about nay of his films here and further information can be added to the articles we have on each of his films. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with SB that we dont need much info about the filsm here. That said, the reputation section seems completely reasonable to me. Comments such as Naerii's that we "don't do that in any other BLP" ignores the fact that other BLPs rarely have reliable sources saying this sort of thing. And when they do say that, we do include it. Look for example at the BLP Kent Hovind which is highly negative. There's nothing wrong with that or serious UNDUE issues; it is simply what the sourcing gives. Since Murphy by his own statements acknowledges his reputation and behavioral quirks, I see no reason not to include it. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure comparing Murphy with a convicted criminal who also promotes beliefs best described as fringe is useful, also what I read of Murphy is generally very positive, for instance the Oliver Stone quote of being the lifeblood and fertility of the industry, and if we are to have the reputation section restored in some form i woudl want tio see a much more positive take on him as the "angry young man" of the US film industry, surely this was meant as a compliment and certainly not as a criticism. I think we need to analyse any new additions to the current version here, work out what we want here and then put it in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SqueakBox. The comparison is a little strong. I do think that the reputation is relevant; we just need to pin down the wording. RTFA (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't possibly the best example; frankly the section as is is a mix of positive and negative. Certainly if we give some prominence to the Oliver Stone quote the rest of the material should be ok. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything in this revision smacks of tabloid journalism - Wikipedia is a factual encylopedia - everything in the RTFA rewrite is clearly motivated by a desire to further provoke Murphy. The current version is entirely factual and more than adequate for a producer of Murphy's stature - the RTFA version is gutter press journalism and personal attack by an editor using a sockpuppet account for personal reasons. My believe is that the current version should be locked entirely as this sort of reversion will continue to happen as long as this SPA runs wild. Powwowjoe (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• This reads more like something suitable for a newspaper profile than an encyclopedia to me. Is any of this stuff really necessary? The first paragraph, particularly, seems to be unsuitable for a neutral biography. Battlecharged (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The stuff about Tarantino should STAY. I'd read about the famous altercation in another source, came to Wikipedia to find out the facts, and was very surprised to find these facts, inconvenient to Murphy, excised from this bio. The facts are notable, verifiable, and to my knowledge undisputed. To cut them out stinks of a whitewash.Pisomojado (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Banning RTFA from this article

I have proposed a topic ban, which would prevent RTFA editing this article. Editors with an interest may wish to comment here.--Doc^g 22:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. If you review the past AFDs, editors like H have been harassed for being involved with this article. I understood that my SPA would not be well-welcomed, but I'd like to protect my family. I haven't desired for only my revision to take place. I've asked for involvement by other editors to revise the article, then the article was abruptly deleted, and we went through deletion review. Discussion is underway above, so why can we not move forward and determine what elements would be most appropriate to include in the article? RTFA (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, a brief review of your edit history shows that you have pushed for ONLY your revision on numerous talk pages and elsewhere for two weeks nowTheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And another new user miraculously find this page. Should we just semiprotect this talk page? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that I set up discussion for shaping the content. Like Doc glasgow explained to me, I should have discussed then edited, rather than edit and then discuss. I've only made two attempted restorations, one because of a sockpuppet, and the other because apparently nobody tried implementing my revision after the deletion, deletion review, and AFD. RTFA (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why assume anything? This is a sockpuppet account whose edits on this page have simply stirred up antagonism and seem to be purely designed to poke the hornets nest and bait Don Murphy. The article is acceptable as it stands and any sockpuppet editing serves only to perpetuate what is apparently a peeing contest between Murphy and this editor who will not even use his own name. Agreement seemed to be in the discussions regarding deletion and review that the article as it now stands is the best way to keep it. This constant pushing for revision isn't in Wikipedia's interests - it's simply a desire to perpetuate a bad situation between Murphy and Wikipedia. Powwowjoe (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming from a clear SPA that's laughable. Go away stooge. If you want to help contribute to the encyclopedia that's fine. Stop being disruptive. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a question: Is there a problem with any of the content that I added? Don Murphy was covered from various angles by The New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter, LA Weekly, etc. RTFA (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO yes, and the reputation section was, if not deleted, certainly worthy of POV tagging. I don't think we should add this type of content anyway but if we were too I'd be happier with a put-up praise job than this which was a negative interpretation and included one highly controversial alleged incident which i strongly oppose including in any form|. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

you know fine well that your tabloid article was designed to attack the subject.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Playing the rules, passiveaggressiveness and the motives of this SPA are wholly transparent. Powwowjoe (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how one can laugh and mock a SPA account and yet support another. You my friend have no idea what irony is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.196.199 (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Deletion

Since, Mr. Murphy has stated quite clearly his desire for this article to be deleted, and since his status as a "person of interest" borders on the line of whether or not he should be listed in Wiki, why not then just delete the article and give the man his peace. It seems as though the inclusion of the article is meant is meant to instigate more infighting between his group and the Wiki group. This type of drama should be left in high school where it belongs. Delete the article and I'm pretty sure the need to police wiki will cease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynical Apathy (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This solution has been proposed and rejected numerous times. See, here, here, and here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read all those. My question is why is Mr. Murphy included in wiki if he does not want to be, and under wiki's guidelines for bios, he barely meets criteria. Just delete it and end this "standoff" It is the most simple solution and good for everyone. Cynical Apathy (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cynical, you have to understand that wikipedia is a bureaucracy (all those bureaucrat volunteers) and that there most certainly are steps underfoot to resolve the issues Murphy has brought to our attention, and not just for him but all people in his situation. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That was not the community consensus in the last AfD, and as that was quite recent I think you are tilting at windmills a bit by pushing for deletion at this time.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cynical Apathy, what policies or guidelines can you cite which give article subjects the sole right to arbitrate their notability? I'm not aware of any. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is in practice giving Murphy the sole right to arbitrate anything. If they did the article would not be here. I consider I have a strong influence on what happens on thisa rticle, as a regular editor here, and my loyalty is towards wikipedia not Murphy, with whom I have had no direct contact and I am here for BLP not an interest in the US film industry, though its nice to learn about it too of course. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it's Wikipedia policy for the subjects of biographies not to be allowed to opt out, control the information that's posted on the site or insist on corrections of false information, but have you ever considered that these policies may be wrong? Battlecharged (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We do permit people to insist on the correction of false information, subject to the same rules of verifiability as everything else here. As to the others: 1) allowing the subject to control what's posted here turns us into a vanity/PR service; 2) if you really feel we should allow people to request the deletion of articles about themselves under a "right to obscurity" or something, you could certainly propose such a thing; perhaps at the Village Pump? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought such a policy was already in place? However, this subject was considered notable and therefore the request was refused. I don't personally agree that notability is good enough reason to keep something against the wishes of the subject of the biography. Put yourself in the shoes of the people on here. If someone started an online encyclopedia and started writing articles about you that may or may not be factual, that anyone at all could edit and often vandalize and were refused when you asked for some element of control over it, would that make you happy? I can see Mr. Murphy's point if he's not allowed to have any control about what's stated as fact about him on the top Google search. I think I'd rather see sanitized but factual articles with policies in place to stop them from being pure vanity pieces for BLPs than the current system where the subjects of the biographies are treated as of lesser importance than those of us editing them. In this case, it's obvious we should all try and get it as accurate as possible, check that it is so with Mr Murphy and then lock it off. That seemed to be the common view when it was debated on during the recent deletion too. Battlecharged (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The community has on occasion allowed the deletion of people of borderline notabilty. In any event, the community consensus was that Murphy was sufficiently notable such that such a deletion was not reasonable. As to locking things off, see Veropedia, locking things is generally considered anithetical to the Wikipedia process and procedure. And frankly we've had far more problems with vandalism on this article from people who are vandalizing because Murphy asked them to rather than vandalism against him. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And I have to ask again - have you not considered that sometimes Wikipedia process and procedure is wrong? Repeatedly stating that it's procedure or in Wikipedia's rules isn't an answer. It's just one step away from having a Godwin invoked against you. Battlecharged (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change Wikipedia policy and procedure, the talk page of a single article isn't the place to do it. Perhaps you could discuss the problems you see with policy on the relevant policy pages or at the Village Pump. By the way, Mike Godwin works for us now, so we get a free pass on that. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

there are hundreds of articles written about this person and their work [1] . Anyone can write an article about someone anywhere, especially someone who's done something the writer might feel is worth mentioning. It's called writing/journalism whatever. special, random,Merkinsmum 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have heard about this edit war on several sites, and have been watching it for quite some time just to see how far both sides are willing to go. I make frequent edits to wikipedia and can say without a doubt, the "concensus" that every admin shouts from the rooftop, is nothing more than their own personal opinion / agenda. I discovered through user talk pages that Cynical Apathy and Battlecharged were banned from editing this discussion page as well as the whole wiki site for posting thier views because they support the stance of the individual this article is about. Whether you are for or against an article regardless of the subject; it has become clear that you go against the "concensus" or discuss something taboo... you get banned. That my friends is not a beaurocracy, that is a dictatorship! P.S. to the admin who gets the bright idea to ban my IP, won't work, I have a shifting IP, never the same from day to day... signed .... The Lurker! (Moved this to the section it should have gone into...)

I think you must have heard incorrectly, I haven't been banned from editing any pages that I know of. Battlecharged (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about changes you would like to see to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt was deleted. The world will not fall apart if we let people who are not notable enough to be included in a paper encyclopedia opt-out of Wikipedia. It's ignorant dramamongering to refuse to let such people opt-out by having their article deleted. Lara❤Love 13:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we consider the faith with which this request was made? The evidence we have on hand indicates that this request was made in bad faith. Blueboy96 19:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The world will not fall apart whatever we do here, but you should bear in mind that quite a few Wikipedians are disgusted at the outcome of the Brandt AfD's. Please don't assume that that fiasco is to be taken as a model for the resolution of future disputes. JamesMLane t c 01:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

What is a few film, some new genre I have missed out on or just plain gibberish23:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

It's a typo, few -> new, no need to revert. -- Naerii 23:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What, we cannot knowingly have typos in our articles, please. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Splice

The last sentence in the history section refers to an upcoming film called "Splice." First of all there were factual errors (per the story cited AngryFilms has nothing to do with it, it's another company called Angry Bulls) but I fixed those and added a link to the story via the Internet Archive (which takes forever to load, at least for me). However I think we should probably just remove this. The Hollywood Reporter story lists Guillermo del Toro, Murphy, and Susan Montford as partners in Angry Bulls which is supposedly co-executive producing the film. IMDB, not a reliable source obviously, only lists del Toro and Montford as executive producers of the film. It's possible that a company Murphy is involved with is producing but he himself has no direct involvement. We don't know when the film is being released or who will ultimately be credited, so I suggest we remove this sentence pending further information.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Shingle

What is a Shingle? in the context of the article, can't find it in the dab page, and canot make sense of "a production shingle run by" Thanks, SqueakBox 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

It was new on me too, and is apparently not on Wikipedia, but basically it seems to be a rough synonym for "company" in this context, as in "production shingle (company)." I Googled a bit looking for an exact definition/etymology but didn't find one.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we change it then, please, or just put Shingle (company). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an Americanism that comes from an old practice where doctors and lawyers would use painted shingles as signboards for their businesses. - Ehheh (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the proper term, and anyway I think we should delete the whole sentence as I explained above, though no one else has weighed in on that question as yet.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see that about deleting the sentence. Totally agree about deleting it. I didn't do it because I tread cautiously here but if we get a consensus it should go. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)