Talk:Don Murphy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Note	The subject of this article has requested that they not be included in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia does not honor these requests, this article should be monitored for controversial or unsourced material.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination: Nomination withdrawn, 23 March 2008, AfD Keep, 5 September 2007, AfD Keep, 21 June 2007, AfD

Archives

2007 2008

Contents 1 Dubious tag 2 Birth place 3 "Unflattering" 4 Characterizing others work 5 Revision 6 Banning RTFA from this article 7 Request for Deletion 8 Question 9 Splice 10 Shingle 11 A solution? 11.1 Arbitrary section break

[edit] Dubious tag

If you look here, Murphy is one of eight producers for natural born killers. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between a producer (Murphy) and "executive producers" and "associate producers"? (Film_producer#Types of producers is a reasonable overview) WjBscribe 03:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there are three producers for that film. Murphy is one of them. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to claim that he was the sole producer - I'm not sure what you're disputing... WjBscribe 04:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The source says that Murphy "launched his career with a bang by producing Quentin Tarantino and Oliver Stone's controversial 1994 movie "Natural Born Killers,". Firstly, lauching your carreer with a bang and rising to prominence aren't the same thing. Secondly, the source seems to indicate that he was the sole producers hence it is dubious as to how much of a "bang" his career was launched. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I would point out that its only being used to source the statement that he rose to prominence due to Natural Born Killers - which is true. Also, the news source "Reuters/Hollywood Reporter" is rather more reliable than imbd (which, like Wikipedia, is user edited). If they view him as being the main producer, they're a reliable source for that... WjBscribe 04:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that prominence is a hard thing to judge. I wouldn't necessarily describe Murphy as being a prominent producer. He's not a public figure, which is why I question the inclusion of the sentence about how the movie made his name. That suggests a certain level of fame or public recognition that I don't personally believe he has. Battlecharged (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birth place

Found some sources for the inclusion of this piece. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Big movie zone

IMDB

IGN

I don't think the real issue is whether or not he was born in New York but whether we should include it anyway now we can indeed source it. I would argue that we shouldn't include it on privacy grounds, I believe in this case we should try not to include any personal information and focus exclusively on his professional career, which this is not a part of. We already make clear he is American in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree; the way we judge if something should be included is if reliable sources see fit to mention it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is simply a partial and wikilawyering interpretation of how we work, and an extreme inclusionist approach. Notability is also important, BLP is also important, NPOV is also important (though the latter is not pasrticularly relevant here). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Right all are important, but it isn't easy to make a claim about a piece of data that would a) normally be in a biography b) not usually considered a piece of private data c) is in multiple reliable sources that are easily googlable and d) is a data point about unanmbiguously notable individual like Murphy (and yes we have a community consensus for that) e) the individual has made it clear that he is just as unhappy if there is a biography of him at all regarldess of the information level f) he is acting in manifestly bad faith. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced of e and f but I won't be edit warring over this particular issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Squeak, Same, E and F has nothing to do with this encyclopedia IMHO, or at least, my content won't be influenced by negative actions of the subject. As for the rest of the points, I think the birthplace is a normality in a biography. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too keen on E and F either so I won't make an issue about it. One further detail, he actually in this interview mentions that he would have been a "boring lawyer" in New York City if certain events hadn't occurred otherwise. See [1]. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but from my point of view, Don Murphy is not a public figure. Rarely has his name ever been announced on a trailer, and I say rarely here because I'm not sure it never has.

Invariably, the person has professed a strong wish to remain out of the public view, if possible, to have his article deleted. He has taken many steps to have this done. I may not be asking for deletion, but I am asking that out of respect, segments that he considers harmful to his career are eliminated. Thank you at least for your time Cerberatron (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Unflattering"

This description of Hamsher's book was removed [2]. The source appears to be offline, but judging from the title of the source it is an accurate description. Does someone with access with the source know whether the use of the word unflattering can be accurated attributed to the source? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of source, I would argue that we should not be using terms like "unflattering" (and its vs, "flattering") in a descriptive on a biography? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if the book is not flattering thats a possibly NPOV statement. If the book is negative or critical thats an NPOV statement also. There might be issues with sourcing it and there would be POV issues if we wrote "correctly critical". But right now, I'm just concerned about sourcing. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, since my view was the same as NonvocalScream's. It was also a rather meaningless phrase. Who was it unflattering to? Every single person in the book? The subject of this biography? Having read the book in question (I suspect more than some editing this page have done) I would suggest that the book is not unflattering to the subject of this page, so the word's inclusion in this context is both inaccurate and lacks the neutrality Wikipedia should be striving for. Battlecharged (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the only source applicable in this case is the autobiography itself since it is the subject of the adjective. Battlecharged (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Characterizing others work

Characterizing the book as critical would be ok, as long as we are restating the books judgment and not our own. I just want to be sure that we do not reinsert this this edit regardless of the sourcing. This is not aimed at any one editor, however, it is a general statement about the edit. The edit did not appear to adhere to Fainess of Tone or Characterizing opinions. We should be careful here and go slow. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it relevant to state the biography is critical, though? It's not critical of the subject of this entry to any degree. Is it relevant to discuss the tone of a book if it was neither written by the subject of the wikipedia entry, nor deals with him critically? It dealt with others in a critical fashion, but wouldn't such a description be better suited to the entry on the book's author than here? It would actually be more relevant to state the book gave a positive view of Don Murphy, if anything. Does it add anything to an entry on Don Murphy to say that Jane Hamsher was critical of Oliver Stone and others? Battlecharged (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, is the book not critical of Murphy? Then agree that such languages is not a good idea. Such language would be at best misleading. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have assumed that before adding the adjective someone would have checked whether it was critical of Mr. Murphy or not. Personally, I would say it's not critical of him in any way there's relevant to this biography, certainly not to a degree that it's notable, so I certainly agree that a bare bones version is better without any judgement. As it is, the opposite is probably true and I believe Murphy is treated fairly in the book and it gives a positive overall impression of him. It's more relevant to state the book dealt with him positively in this context. Battlecharged (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [3] . 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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"20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

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 go00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

[edit] A solution?

This article, and its attendant issues, has just come to my attention. Its strikes me that the solution is to move this to Angry Films. My thinking is as follows:

• Don Martin doesn't want an entry on him and we should be sensitive to a person's wishes (within the constraints of the guidelines (and keeping an eye at producing a balanced and informative encyclopaedic article).
• His notability is very much borderline and Angry Films is at least as notable
• To deal with previous issues it has been cut down to the barebones already - reading the entry, it does come across as already being largely about Angry Films. It wouldn't take a lot of editing to refocus it.
• We would be preserving the film-related information whilst removing the biographical information which reduces the angles of attack for disruptive edits.

It strikes me that it provides a best-of-both-worlds solution, we maintain the important aspects (so the entry still provides enough for people to get a grasp of what they do and what their contributions have been) but remove the biographic information (which Don Martin objects to).

Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

I agree. I suggest you put {{move|Angry Films}} at the top of this page and add the request at WP:RM. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point - I'll leave the floor open for ideas or opinions (should it be "AngryFilms" for example?) and then get the ball rolling. (Emperor (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

What biographical information would you take away from our readers? Murphy's collaborations with notable people like Hamsher and Stone? His educational background? Those are legitimate pieces of information for a reader to see, even if Mr. Murphy, for whatever reason, wants them expunged. JamesMLane t c 01:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason you can't have a potted bio in such a new entry (it'd probably be required), under say "History": "Angry Film was formed by Don Murphy, who had previously produced Natural Born Killers, with Jane Hamsher (both meeting at the USC School of Cinematic Arts), etc."

I'm not talking about expunging every mention of him from Wikipedia. As I said, I'm suggesting the move would allow us to refocus the article and this stripped down version is virtually there as it is. It just takes the focus away from the man and onto the films. (Emperor (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

My understanding is that every Angry Films film involved Murphy, but not every Murphy film involved Angry Films. Is that correct? If so, it seems logical to have an article on Murphy, whether or not we also have an article on his company.

Also, if your proposed compromise is to keep Don Murphy as a redirect and have it go to an article that keeps all the bio information that's now in this one, do you have any reason to believe that will end the matter? Consider the example of Daniel Brandt. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to delete it, those who favored giving Brandt his way finally found an admin who would close a contested deletion (with manifestly no consensus) as a "compromise" of making it a redirect to an article that had some information about Brandt. My understanding is that Brandt wasn't satisfied and continued to harass Wikipedians over the issue, with the result that even the compromise redirect was deleted.

Finally, your initial proposal was that we would "remove the biographic information". Now you seem to be saying that all the bio information currently available on Wikipedia would continue to be available on Wikipedia. If all that information stays, Murphy will probably remain dissatisfied. If any of that information is removed, the Wikipedians who care more about our readers than about Murphy will be dissatisfied. JamesMLane t c 02:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to retain all the biographical info. Lets not make Murphy in the wrong for wanting to have the article on him deleted. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't "make Murphy in the wrong" for his desires. I consider his desires irrelevant. I focus only on service to our readers, who are not served if accurate, encyclopedic, properly sourced information about a bio subject is deleted. All the information in the article as it now stands is appropriate for inclusion. I return to my original question: What, if anything, would you expunge? JamesMLane t c 02:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually BLP makes clear that Murphy's wishes are not irrelevant, and need to be balanced with the service to our readers. And I think what we would be expunging is the bio itself rather than any current content in the bio. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is we can remove the biographical detail he would object to - there is no way to remove any mention of him from Wikipedia and an entry on Angry Films would need to mention him and touch on the work he did before forming the company. Refocusing on the company and films also changes the emphasis on the personal details and has the added bonus of heading off at the pass attempts to work back to an article that focuses on the more controversial elements. As I said this article has been trimmed down so far it is virtually already an article on Angry Films (you can see the focus shifting in the last paragraph of the main section. What I suggest would mainly involve condensing and refocusing what we have here so the emphasis is on the films and the works. I have no way of knowing if this would satisfy Murphy (I'm sure some could see it as more sleight-of-hand) but it certainly preserves the important information while at the same time making things less... personal. (Emperor (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

I have no idea if this proposal would appease Murphy but that is not so relevant and clearly neither Emperor nor I are acting as Murphy meatpuppets. I think respecting Murphy and his stated wishes rather than appeasing him is what we should see ourselves as doing if we decide to go for the move. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians hold the opinion that, in a close case involving a bio article about a marginally notable person, the bio subject's wishes should be given some weight. That consideration was mentioned and discussed by many of the participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (result: Keep), in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination) (result: Keep), and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (3rd nomination) (result: Keep). In brief, there was a strong feeling that Murphy is not of marginal or borderline notability.

As for Emperor's suggestion that "we can remove the biographical detail he would object to", I ask for the third time: What biographical information, if any, would be removed from Wikipedia under this proposal? I mentioned the example of his collaboration with Hamsher, who (AFAIK) had no involvement with Angry Films. Making Don Murphy a redirect to Angry Films and including his extensive pre-Angry Films work there would be confusing. Omitting that work would lose significant information.

I'm absolutely not suggesting that anyone is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet. Emperor advanced a proposed solution on the ground, inter alia, that it would accommodate Murphy's preferences. I pointed out reason to doubt that argument. My comment would make no sense if I thought Emperor were a Murphy meatpuppet, but I apologize if I inadvertently conveyed that impression. JamesMLane t c 03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note but it isn't just about Murphy - there are clearly other people out to put undue emphasis on the controversial aspects and it ends up with the article being caught in a tug-of-war between the two sides. My thinking is that, reworking it to take the emphasis off Murphy (while keeping the basic information here), would head off both sides, while leaving the vast majority of us with a useful and informative article. So I see it less about appeasement (which has a rather chequered past), and more as... bulletproofing the article, providing less "hooks" for people to meddle with. I'm only here because of the LoEG lawsuit mess and my attempts to get a bit of background on the editing of that and related entries, but it struck me there might be a way to preserve this middle path between the deletionists and controversists (horrible words) by reworking this article to reduce the temptation to meddle. However, once we resolve the other matter I can always take this "slow-mo car crash" off my watchlist, I just thought while I was in the area I could throw in my thoughts on fixing things. (Emperor (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm not familiar with the history you mention. I took a quick look at some of the edits in the last couple months and I saw a lot of silly vandalism (mostly spelling some words backwards), reverted without incident. None of that is a reason for any drastic action with regard to the article. The only editing so far this month was the insertion of a paragraph about Murphy's criticism of Wikipedia, and its removal four minutes later. I agree with the removal. The paragraph was written in a very POV way, and in any event seems much too self-referential for inclusion. Nevertheless, that seems like a fairly routine content issue, which in any event has been completely dormant for ten days now. Whatever the history of the article has been, there seems to be no current tug-of-war. Those of you who watchlisted the article may well have outlasted the vandals. Let's just treat this article normally for a while and see if any huge problems develop. JamesMLane t c 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, and with due respect, I see this article as more like a ticking bomb. Plus it hooks into the deeper issue of how we deal with bio articles about living people who do not want said bio. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the real problem is that there is Angry films but also there is JD Productions. De-bioing, I would personally remove the first 2 sentences buit no other content and would consider an article on AF and other on JD prod. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Mr Murphy's "problem" with Wikipedia simply being named..? Clearly he wouldn't appear to have serious issues with giving interviews (and - presumably - with the resulting articles), so it would appear that the only sticking ground is with said interviews, articles and information being on Wikipedia.

To that end, if there were articles on Angry Films and JD Productions, could the links and references be kept, but instead of "Don Murphy," a non-naming term like "another Producer" could be used instead..?

Somebody needs to douse this 'fighting fire with fire' confrontation, and if the problem is being named on Wikipedia (which it might be), then perhaps this would help. ntnon (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Murphy has issues with vandalism of the article potentially affecting his reputation, to my understanding. People have been detained at airports etc based on wikipedia vandalism. I finfd your comments helpful in resolving this situation. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the problem is not his being named, but the information on his biography being inaccurate and not being allowed to even edit it? Wasn't the detail about his place of birth removed recently because it turned out to be wrong? I guess his problem is that not only is no-one clarifying the information with him to ensure accuracy, but the entry is open to be edited by anyone. Didn't the whole thing start after the entry was vandalized to call him a pedophile and the edit stood for some time and was pointed out to him by someone in the industry. If true, I can see why he might be upset, since it's damaging to his professional reputation. In which case isn't the simplest solution to give Murphy the opportunity to ensure the information currently posted is 100% accurate and then lock the article completely so no-one can edit it further beyond minor updates of new projects? Battlecharged (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You would think that. But it's pretty obvious that Murphy enjoys directing his fanboys to vandalise Wikipedia too much. He claims to have paid money an admin to aid his vandalism. Wikipedia has acted entirely reasonably towards him; if you think kow-towing to him will make any difference, then I guess that's your opinion. John Nevard (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, that is my opinion. Your opinion appears to be that Wikipedia is best served by being a revenge site for those things you stated. My opinion is that someone needs to be the better man and not be determined to aggravate the situation simply to pay back Murphy for his being (understandably) upset with the way Wikipedia kept an article which called him a pedophile and then didn't take steps to protect it from further vandalism. Battlecharged (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a revenge site and those engaged in such activities are likely to have their editing privileges indefinitely revoked. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed. And with that in mind, how about we stop enabling his uh, 'revenge' attacks on Wikipedia editors? John Nevard (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We have already done that by blocking him indefinitely and not allowing him to edit using socks. There is nothing else we can do. What exactly are you suggesting. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And of course, the actual articles which are not meant to be written from the POV of the subject? John Nevard (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The man doesn't want a biography on Wikipedia because it could potentially be, if it hasn't already been, damaging to his professional reputation. He's not in Brittanica, you can't buy a bio on him from Barnes & Noble. This seems to be a reasonable compromise, so I'm in support of the move proposal. Lara❤Love 12:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has something like twenty times as many articles as Britannica. We cover quite a bit that Britannica omits. In any event, this isn't really a "move proposal" -- it's a de facto deletion, leaving behind a redirect to an article about an entity associated with the bio subject, which was the outcome of one of the AfD's on Daniel Brandt. The prior AfD's on Murphy mention that he's considerably more notable than Brandt. JamesMLane t c 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an advocate of fixing our BLP problems, of which we have a great many. I don't think this is one. Don Murphy originally had a legitimate complaint, when he had an article that anybody could put anything they wanted into with no accountability. He had an extremely legitimate complaint when some people availed themselves of that opportunity to put in some false and defamatory information. But now this article is written conservatively, watched very rigorously and, thanks to vandalism, usually semi-protected anyway. I'm much more concerned about the thousands upon thousands of BLPs for which none of this is true than I am for Don Murphy. Accordingly, I oppose this merge/redirect proposal. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I should point out that a lot of the vandalism was deliberately orchestrated by Murphy himself for the purpose of discrediting Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that your belief? Or has it been proven? I have seen others say the same thing but have seen no evidence to support it, and it strikes me as singularly unlikely. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It was repeatedly discussed on Murphy's sewer of an online forum (to which I have no intention of posting a link). He posted numerous requests for vandalism such as the following on March 23, 2008:

Go to the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Murphy

And insert nonsense in it- Don Murphy is secretly the king of the rat people etc.

If you get banned another stooge will take up the charge.

The Murphy forum users (who call themselves "stooges") then embarked on a lengthy vandalism campaign, the results of which you can see in the article history. This protection was imposed immediately after Murphy's incitement of his forum users. So if the article has a bad history of vandalism, which it does, Murphy himself bears a large share of the responsibility. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly true of the recent stuff (I've visited his message board - it's, ah, quite a place). When I talked about his legitimate complaint, I meant the stuff that was the genesis of his Wikipedia hatred, in which he was genuinely the victim (it stayed in the article until he reverted it himself, too). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanantion, Chris. I am aware of Murphy's site's forum, and of the vandalism that has been continuing here over a while 9reveretd some of it myself). Thanks, SqueakBox 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In what way is this man "borderline" nobility? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He is borderline in the sense of not being even slightly well known outside the US film genre. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Under what guideline does "being well known outside of your area of expertise" exist? Thanks, Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by marginally notable, then? The US film world is well known to many of us, I am sure I could name hundreds of actors and a fair few directors, but Murphy is a pretty obscure character within that world. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How are you defining obscure, and why does it appear to be different from wikipedia's definition? Thanks, Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not, of course, defining anything differently from how wikipedia defines. Why would you think that. Murphy strikes me as marginally notable though the various afd's have not agreed, but I would still say he is certainly marginally notable enough to have the material merged into a new article called Angry Films, you simply cannot claim policy does not allow us to do that. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this move request to be an end-around regarding a consensus you admittedly dislike. To call him "obscure" and then say that you're not defining anything differently than Wikipedia is contradictory. The consensus has been overwhelming, let it go. Thanks, Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While I am unhappy with the previous consensus it was not me who made this proposal, i am merely supporting it. I would call him marginally notable based on the fact that most English speakers have never heard of him. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a useless criterion, frankly. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia on topics which most English speakers have never heard of. That doesn't mean that, in their particular context, they are not notable. In Murphy's context - the film industry - he clearly is notable, as the previous AfDs have noted. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if he is notable enough to have an article that does not mean we have to have an article on him (there are plenty of more notable people without articles) so really it comes down to what people want, ie this to be a redirect to Angry Films or not, I really don't believe this is a case for policy wonking. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

Film producers aren't typically notable. They have an important job, but it's not so much a notable one, in most cases. I've seen half the movies listed in his article, I had no idea he'd produced any of them. In fact, I have no idea who produced most of the movies I've seen. Joel Silver is an example of a movie producer I would consider notable. A look at his article shows a noticeable distinction. Don Murphy is not what I would consider famous. He doesn't have a list of blockbusters under his belt. He has produced a few films that are notable. For the purposes of Wikipedia, it would not be inappropriate to write the article based on his company rather than him. It is in policy that we should take into consideration the wishes of the subject. This is a real person we're discussing. And while we cover a lot of topics that Brittanica does not, with regards to BLPs, there should be some extra consideration. For BLPs, if they're not independently notable, and they have requested they not have a biography here, then we should respect their wishes. Lara❤Love 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally believe requests by the article subject should ever play into editing or deletion decisions; but I've thought about this for a while and I have a compromise that I think is tenable. I suggest that we create Angry Films and move all the content related to Angry Films to that article. We then renominate this article for AfD on the basis of too little remaining notable content. If there's then independent consensus for deletion, then deletion is warranted. I was hesitant because the connection between Natural Born Killers and Angry Films ought to be expressed somewhere, and this article is the natural place, but that one fact alone does not an article make. Dcoetzee 23:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Film producers aren't typically notable. They have an important job, but it's not so much a notable one, in most cases." no offense, but I'd call that production bias. Film producers certainly are notable, and more often than not have a great deal of sources for their bio. -- Ned Scott 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I simply disagree with that, we are not talking directors let alone actors, we are talking for the most part moderately successful business people who would be ignored in any other field, and making something special out of American film producers is violating NPOV for the encyclopedia as a whole. Trying to make Murphy into something he is not is thee real problem, not his opposition to the article, we have blaoted coverage on this issue and should, for instance trim it and try to balance with a better Bollywood coverage. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF for why that argument won't fly. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned, it's not a bias. It's a fact. Ask someone who starred in Natural Born Killers and you'll probably get "Woody Harrelson." Ask someone who directed it, you'll probably get "Oliver Stone." Ask someone who produced it, you'll probably get "I have no idea." Most people, I would argue, don't keep up with that. It's a simple fact. Film producers aren't inherently notable. He's not notable outside of the films he's produced. That information is included in the articles of those movies. So removing his biography and putting the relevant information into an article on Angry Films wouldn't change what information we offer about him on WP much. Lara❤Love 02:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Film producers aren't typically notable." As of this writing, Category:American film producers includes 1,114 articles. There are some like L. Frank Baum who'd have articles even without their filmmaking work, but certainly the Wikipedia community's judgment is that lots of film producers are indeed notable. As for SqueakBox's argument that we are "making something special out of American film producers", there are 83 articles in Category:British film producers and 89 in Category:Indian film producers. The broader coverage of American producers probably results from a combination of our having more U.S. editors and the objectively greater importance of the U.S. film industry (in terms of, for example, international distribution of its products). Even so, there's enough coverage of other film producers to reinforce the point that they're notable. If you think there's a systemic bias operating, go ahead and add articles about other non-American film producers.

We can't duck this issue about Murphy just through the expedient of an article about his current company. His best-known film was Natural Born Killers, produced at a time when Angry Films didn't even exist. If the hypothetical article about Angry Films were written sensibly, it wouldn't include other companies' films, so much information about Murphy would effectively be lost. (Yes, someone who searched for Murphy's name would eventually find separate articles about some of his films, but not many people would think to do that.) The only alternative would be to contort the Angry Films article by including non-Angry Films movies, based on the common thread of their having involved the same person, but not having an article on the person. That would be patently absurd.

The real argument here isn't about organizing the information via a Don Murphy article or an Angry Films article. The former is clearly the right way, given that (AFAIK) all Angry Films movies are Murphy movies but the reverse isn't true. The real argument is the one identified by LaraLove -- that some Wikipedians put a lot more emphasis on a bio subject's wishes than others do. Unless and until Wikipedia:Biographical optout becomes policy, however, Murphy's wishes are not a valid basis for deleting his article or making it a redirect. JamesMLane t c 03:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The question for me is essentially whether this is a coatrack article - is Don Murphy's notability merely the sum of Natural Born Killers and Angry Films? If so, mentioning him in those two articles, and perhaps crosslinking them, seems like it would be sufficient. If Natural Born Killers were his only notable work, he certainly wouldn't deserve an article, only a mention in that article. As things are, the question is essentially one of organization. Dcoetzee 05:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A coatrack article would mention that Murphy is associated with Angry Films, and would then give a lot of information about Angry Films that had nothing to do with Murphy. By contrast, the actual article gives information about Murphy that has nothing to do with Angry Films. As an aside, I'm not even sure there is any information about Angry Films that has nothing to do with Murphy. According to our article, he formed the company. The proposal to have an article at Angry Films instead of one at Don Murphy raises far more coatracking concerns than does the status quo. JamesMLane t c 22:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To LaraLove: Notability has nothing to do with how many Joe-blows have heard about you. Most people have little to no clue about what actually goes on in movie production, so I wouldn't expect them to care. Same can be said for some of our greatest scientists, who are most definitely notable. How many famous modern day scientists can you name vs how many celebrities have had a scandal in the last few months? It doesn't sound like you're aware of what a film producer actually does.

To SqueakBox: you think the director is more notable than the producer? Might I ask how familiar you are with this subject? -- Ned Scott 05:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit to being no expert on the subject though I like hollywood films as mucha s the next person. I certainly had heard of Oliver Stone as I had heard of Quentin Tarantino, Spielberg, George Lucas etc. I had certainly never heard of Don Murphy till I came across Col Scott (murphy's username here) during my work on wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of what today's film producers do. I am, however, unsure if JamesMLane is. The example is from the early 20th century, a time when when producers also directed. And I very much agree with Squeakbox that directors are more notable than producers. I did a mini-poll where I asked some family, friends and fellow-wikipedians who produced Star Wars, the epic film trilogy. Everyone said George Lucas, which was half right. No one, even those who I know to be big Star Wars fans, knew that Gary Kurtz was an executive producer. The third one had a different line-up, but no one named any of those guys either. I'm not saying the job isn't an extremely important one, I'm just saying it does not make one notable.

The references in this article include one dead link, a quote about NBK, and three about his production company. Where is his notability being shown? That's the simple argument I'm making. The job is not in itself a notable one. Meaning one does not become notable simply for being a film producer. In Murphy's case, he's produced some notable films, but a mention of him in those articles is sufficient. What else has he done that is notable? The article covers Angry Films, and that's it. So I'm looking at it like that. The article is a short bio, a bit about the films he's produced, and Angry Films. He doesn't want a bio here, which not everyone agrees should be a consideration, but I believe it should. And we can move the Angry Films information into Angry Films and we'll not lose much, if any, information. Lara❤Love 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why the article should be removed- because we can't be trusted to police it correctly. ABOVE you acknowledge a dead link. Under strict BLP all dead links and related information needs to be removed immediately. You didn't do that, but I did. DO NO HARM PersecutionComplex (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The story that was in the dead link can be found here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001843484 And another link that doesn't seem to be in here yet, from the International Herald Tribune, specifically about Murphy and his blog: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/08/sports/fans09.php Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, PersecutionComplex. Him having produced Natural Born Killers isn't something that is a BLP vio without a source. And, as evidenced by Tony, it's an easily replaceable one. The point is that the article contains little content not already present elsewhere on Wikipedia, and it is lacking sources for anything notable. Most likely because he's not notable. Lara❤Love 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lara, I don't understand the shot you took above at my level of knowledge: "I'm aware of what today's film producers do. I am, however, unsure if JamesMLane is. The example is from the early 20th century, a time when when producers also directed." If the example you mean is my reference to L. Frank Baum, then you completely misunderstood me. I'm not saying that Murphy is notable because Baum is notable. I'm saying, in response to your general deprecation of the notability of film producers, that we have articles on more than a thousand of them. Baum, a celebrated author, is the exception, not the rule. His notability is completely independent of his production work. (Until I noticed his name on the list in preparing my earlier comment, I had no idea he had anything to do with films.) By contrast, for most of those producers, their production work is an important part of their notability. (Yes, some of them also direct, but certainly not all.) Most of them, I'm sure, are not from the early 20th century. And, please, before anyone jumps in to deride apparent Wikipedia:Other stuff exists reasoning, consider that one or two articles on nonnotable subjects don't establish policy, but at some point the number of examples must reflect the community's judgment. We have articles about more than a thousand American producers, as well as who knows how many in the 72 other nationality subcategories. JamesMLane t c 22:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

James, I didn't mean it to be as a "shot". Your example isn't a fair comparison. Of those 1,000+ bios for American film producers, how many are of questionable notability? This isn't a matter of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's a simple fact that the guy just isn't that notable. I haven't looked through the list, but it would be my guess that the majority of them are somehow notable. For any that really aren't, I'd support deleting or otherwise dealing with the content, as I am attempting to do here, if the subject opposed having an bio here.

Don Murphy has a legitimate concern. Because he's not that notable, there aren't going to be a lot of searches for him, so not having a bio isn't a big issue. However, for anyone that should search for him, as Angry Films is the meat of the current bio, a redirect to Angry Films from Don Murphy seems completely appropriate. Lara❤Love 04:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Angry Films is part of the current bio, not vice versa. A separate article on Angry Films would make sense if there were non-Murphy information about Angry Films, but AFAIK there isn't. He's done some work through Angry Films and some work before he formed Angry Films. His non-Angry Films work includes his best-known film, Natural Born Killers; his role in that project was written about at length by his former partner, Jane Hamsher, in her book Killer Instinct.

As for your assertion that "the guy just isn't that notable", you're entitled to your opinion, but the community consensus on three separate AfD's has been to the contrary. Trying to evade that consensus by the subterfuge of a "move" would be a very bad idea. If people want to pursue that, they should create the Angry Films article, include in it whatever information about Angry Films they consider appropriate, and then put Don Murphy up for its fourth AfD on the ground that the new article is the better way to cover the territory. The nominator should be sure to explain why information about Natural Born Killers should be included in an article about a company that had nothing to do with that film. JamesMLane t c 04:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PC has a point that this is a badly policed bio of someone who doesn't want his vbbio badly policed on wikipedia. Which, along with his general lack of notability, is why I support the move proposal. What do you think, PC. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

there's no article there- there's nothing to keep. It's just a useless checklist about a useless person who is not notable. Merge. PersecutionComplex (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PersecutionComplex, I wouldn't go so far as to label Don Murphy "useless". He strikes me as an upstanding and productive citizen who provides jobs for others. but these are not factors that make one notable accrding to opur WP:Notability policy or they would have an article on me too. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To respond to Lara's last response to me: asking your friends and family about who produced a certain movie is a horrible method of establishing notability. Notability has nothing to do with how many Joe-blows have heard about you. Like I said before, we have thousands of bios, and hundreds of thousands more that could be written, that would have clear notability even by some of the strictest standards, but be of people that most of us have never heard of, and never will.

And by the way, an executive producer is normally a throwaway title of sorts. Very often the exec. producer is just someone who fronted money, or is given away as an honorary title for some other reason. Normal film producers, on the other hand, are far more involved and are instrumental to the shaping of the film. Unless you know for sure what level of involvement the exec producer had, don't consider them the same thing.

How many of your same family and friends have heard of Abdolkarim Soroush, Fatema Mernissi, Amos E. Joel, Jr., or Raymond Vahan Damadian? -- Ned Scott 07:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy cannot claim to be well-known, or noted internationally. Your second example has no sources, your third is lacking and your fourth has 22, so it's not really a fair comparison. Don Murphy is neither well-known or well-covered in reliable sources. And he, unlike the four you've compared him to, has requested he not have a biography here. Lara❤Love 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Our notability standards have nothing to do with being well known or not so bringing up how not-well-known Murphy is among the general populace is quite irrelevant. No one here is mentioning the fact that Murphy was one of, if not the, driving forces behind Transformers - a film which grossed over $700 million worldwide (28th highest grossing film of all time). It is simply incorrect to say that Murphy is not "well-covered in reliable sources." A Google News archives search for "Don Murphy" and "Transformers" reveals over 100 hits. Among the stories that come up are a full story on Murphy and his blog in the IHT and a AP wire story before the film was made. There's a ton of other stories where Murphy talks about the film, the production process, etc. His former production partner, Jane Hamsher, wrote a book, Killer Instinct, in which he was apparently discussed heavily. There is no serious argument to be made that this person does not pass our notability guidelines.

The argument has always been about our BLP policies and whether or not we are willing to delete this article because of the subject's wishes. That's a legitimate debate, but multiple AfD's have clearly come down on the side of keeping this article. Until such time as our BLP policies are changed (something I think should happen, though I'm not sure how exactly) or a future AfD ends with a different outcome, there's not much point in rehashing this debate over and over again. It's entirely possible that moving this to Angry Films will not make the problems go away, and that proposal (if it's only discussed here) strikes me as a way to do an end around on the AfD consensus. But maybe if someone starts that article and is able to include most or all of the relevant content there could be a proposal to delete this article or merge any remaining content into that one. The way to discuss that would be through another AfD where a merge and/or redirect was an option along with deletion. Maybe with those different options a different AfD outcome would be possible.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to some of the points raised by User:LaraLove, the comparison with JOEL SILVER is an interesting one - not least because I would strongly suggest that by the same criteria you are labelling Mr Murphy UNnotable, so too is Mr Silver. How many people do you suppose would be more likely to have heard of Mr Silver than Mr Murphy...? Arguably Silver's biggest projects have been the Matrix films - and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone able to name him in that context; the Wachowskis would be the known names there. Otherwise, many of Silver's most notable projects (and probably the only ones through which he might be known and name-checked) are... comics-related. Tales from the Crypt, Two-Fisted Tales, V for Vendetta, Speed Racer and the "up-coming" Wonder Woman and Justice League (for which he has appeared at various comics conventions).

Interestingly, of course, Mr Murphy's most high-profile (recent) films have also been comics-related/adaptations. Both these gentlemen's names are quite widespread and widely known amongst comics fans. Indeed, I suspect (after the actors' and original authors' - but before the director's) the name most closely associated with From Hell and LXG would be Mr Murphy's - to people that know and care about the comics/films, at least. And that's perfectly reasonable and accurate - Mr Murphy has not been shy about being a comics fan, and probably/definitely was the main mover behind getting those films made. (Incidentally, the page about JOEL SILVER contains very little more about him than this page contains about Mr Murphy, despite the supposed difference in notability!)

Do a straw poll among family and friends about who produced Star Wars, and they're unlikely to know. Ask Star Wars fans, and you will likely have better luck. Indeed, ask a family or friend who directed ANY of the James Bond films, and I'll be surprised if they can name even one, despite the director being higher up the "known" scale: clearly the actors are better known than the directors, and just as clearly the directors are more well-known than the producers. But in certain contexts and with certain people, they are still "known" and certainly "notable" individuals.

Also "Notability is not temporary," implying that the arguments made under three separate AfDs should stand permanently. Irregardless of that, Mr Murphy has (as has been noted) received significant coverage (very little of which is mentioned here, possibly partly so as to not antagonise him) in a number of publications for a number of reasons. He's been answered 10 Questions for IGN.com; he's talked to Variety on a number of occasions about a variety of topics; he's featured prominently in "Killer Instinct" by Ms Hamsher (which spawned a lawsuit) and was profiled by the LA Weekly. And that's in addition to his many and various interviews for Shoot 'em Up, LXG and - particularly - Transformers (commonly referred to as a "Don Murphy/Tom DeSanto Production") which has brought him to even greater prominence in a wide range of sources - from the upscale newspapers and magazines to fansites such as TFormers.com. ntnon (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To Lara: The point of my examples was not about the quality their articles were currently in, as I have no doubt that some of them require clean up, but rather that the people are notable, living persons that most would not know about. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)