Talk:Don Murphy/Archive 5

Torso

Evidently Don Murphy has an interest in this page, something I did not know about until he decided to message me via myspace about an edit. So for the benefit of "ColScott", the page Torso (2009 film) was redirected to David Fincher's page after an AfD determined that it failed WP:NFF. As the film (now titled Ness) has no release date and is not in production (outside of having a script and an announcement that it will be made at some point) then there is no point having a redirect linked on this page. Once the film is made (which you claim will be 2012) then the link can be added, otherwise there is no point sending a link to a section of the David Fincher page for a film which does not exist. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It could be mentioned in the article text, but shouldn't be linked. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo

I don't believe this new photo is helpful & it appoears that Mr Murphy does not want it in the article. I propose we do not use it. Its been taken from flickr where the description fails to make clear which of the 2 men in the pic is Murphy. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose proposal. Google Images Search makes it clear who Don Murphy is, and the Flickr photo identifies him as Don Murphy, producer of Transformers. For what it's worth, producers Jane Hamsher also has a picture from Flickr as well. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:MUG (under WP:BLP) says nothing about how this image would be inappropriate. If it was a mugshot, then I would agree. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, it's a pretty lousy photo. Just because no policy says we shouldn't use it does not mean we must. Editorial judgement allows us to decide that the photo is not good enough to be included. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What about this? I emailed the person but did not get a response. If it's considered less lousy, a couple more people can contact that person to express interest in having that image released under CC licensing. I don't really agree that the current image is lousy to be point of being inappropriate. Is it the lighting or the expression? A serious demeanor like in the linked image would fit better? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

From a purely technical point of view I'd say that's a worse image. It suffers from the red-eye effect, though that can be fixed, and is out of focus, which is a much tougher problem to resolve. I really would not recommend using it even if you got permission - it's pretty lousy, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not the most flattering image - but not sure I would label it "lousy". It does serve to illustrate the subject, was taken in a public location, and doesn't present the person in an offensive, false or disparaging light. I would prefer a better quality image, but have no immediate objections to this one until a better image is found. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The ideal solution, of course, would be for Don Murphy to provide his own preferred picture. There was a similar issue with the picture for Malcolm Rifkind but that was resolved by Sir Malcolm kindly providing a portrait for our article on him. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ideal, yes. But if you were around for some of Don Murphy's... vehement objections to the article in general, you wouldn't count on his providing a photo. But you never know. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Flyguy. His objections make it difficult to write a quality article. Chris, do you think the current image should be removed or not? We could provide a link to the Commons, but I think we need to create a page where the original work and the derivative work can be viewed. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that several of us in this thread commented on the 1st AFD... Hmm! Carry on. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 19:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• The image kinda blows, IMO. Seriously, we're not talking about a high-profile, easily-recognizable person here. It is a producer, a behind-the-scenes person; seeing their face is really not all that crucial to the article. Regardless of the licensing (and I have questions about stuff snagged from flickr anyways), this image catches him in a dopey, John Candy-ish shit-eating grin moment. This isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Very well, I removed the image. Should we bother linking to Commons at all? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Honestly I'm not all that familiar with how things go at the commons, for licensing. How does an image taken from flickr obtain a CC license? Did that flickr account holder release it as such? Is there verification that that account holder is authorized to do so? Tarc (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• If we are still on this, you can find an image of a person on Flickr and message the person requesting for the image to be released under a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license. When the person does so, the image can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for usage on any Wikipedia. This is not the only image I've provided. I've provided an image for Alex Tse, Charles Roven, and Jane Hamsher (Murphy's old partner) as well. I've tried to message Flickr users for releasing images of Akiva Goldsman and Avi Arad, but the users did not respond. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• You're missing my point; anyone can upload stuff to their flickr account. Do Wikipedia commons users just assume that any images they find there is on the level? i.e. you made a request to "leebo0901" to use Alex Tse's image. What assurances are there that "leebo0901" owns the copyright to this work? Tarc (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is probably a little AGF involved. When someone uploads an image that they claim is freely released, the image is tagged with a "flickrreview" template. An admin at the Commons reviews the image's appropriateness. I don't know what kind of checklist they use to affirm that they have reviewed the image, its origin, and its license. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Website removal

People at the website referenced in the Wikipedia article have seen fit to harass me, so I am removing the website as a reference and an external link per WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source. The website is of ill repute, and there is no reason to provide access to a website that is the source of off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a good reference that adds to the producer's notability. I will be using this as a citation for the background information. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Another to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

As you can see, I've expanded the article considerably. I've side-stepped coverage about Murphy's tough reputation despite the coverage being significant. We can discuss how to approach that, if at all. Please let me know if there are any concerns with my expansion. I noticed in my research that Murphy pursued a lot of interesting projects, like at the end of this, so it would be neat to put together a couple of paragraphs about this. Let me know what you think. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be relying too much on 1 ref, IMO. I removed an unsourced sentence. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The information from that source is repeated in other sources, anyway. I basically drained the first one of useful detail. Would you rather that I mixed it up more? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My issue is not with the existence of the forum but with the claim that Murphy is known for it, that unquestionably needs rock solid sourcing. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem with new image

Halfshadow, the new picture you found is much better than either of the two previous options, but I'm afraid it can't be used without proper attribution and licensing. If you could provide this information that would be great - otherwise the picture will have to be deleted. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

He thinks this situation is funny, so I cannot assume good faith with his edit here. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the image seems to come from this article. I don't see any reason why it should be usable by us. --Conti|✉ 18:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Erik. This is strong evidence of trolling against Murphy; this will not go well for those whose interest is other than making a fair blp compliant article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• ChrisO at least assumed good faith; the rest of you can go to hell. HalfShadow 18:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Altercation w/ Tarantino

On October 22, 1997, Murphy famously got into an altercation with Quentin Tarantino at a Hollywood restaurant because of remarks made in the book Killer Instinct, which were attributed to Murphy . Murphy filed an assault and battery suit on November 14, 1997 for $5,000,000 against Tarantino after Tarantino spoke of "bitch-slapping" Murphy on The Keenen Ivory Wayans Show. Murphy later said of the ordeal, "I didn't say I wished Quentin Tarantino was dead. I didn't say I wanted him dead. I just said I'd celebrate his death." According to Murphy the two have long since reconciled and put the incident behind them .