Talk:Chris Murphy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Chris Murphy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Init

I adapted the initial text from Murphy's campaign site. Frankg 15:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to be cleaned up a little so as not to seem like a campagin pamphlet, and instead look like a more neutral document.

Porvida 18:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Duja► 08:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris Murphy (politician) → Chris Murphy — Also Chris Murphy → Chris Murphy (disambiguation). Since he's a U.S. Representative now, he's far more likely a search target than the three blue links at the current dab page —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Strong Support Congressman Murphy is by far the best known of all the Murphy's listed.--Francisx 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Support for the same reason. Frankg 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. You're going to get an admin to help, yes, rather than cut-and-paste? (Otherwise, the page history gets lost) John Broughton | Talk 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am an admin actually but yes, all successful official move requests result in a proper move. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Maybe at some future time might warrant primary disambiguation, but not now even though temporarily might be the one most people would look for. Just leave the disambiguation page where it is, there is no compelling reason for a change at this time. Gene Nygaard 23:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The prominence of this election isn't why I'm supporting the move, it's because as a Member of Congress, Murphy will be in a continued position of prominence that's quite a bit beyond that achieved by, say, Chris Murphy (Canadian Musician)Francisx 20:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that Chris Murphy warrants primary disambiguation, and even the fact that he is a United States Representative does not warrant moving him to primary disambiguation. Whether Murphy will obtain a continued position of prominence as a Congressman is questionable. As to whether Chris Murphy (Candidan Musician) or Representative Murphy will be more prominent to all Wikipedia users is again questionable. Many people who use Wikipedia may not know or care who Representative Murphy is and consider Chris Murphy the musician to be more prominent or for that matter one of the others listed to be more prominent. Therefore I must oppose such a move until it is more clear whether Representative Murphy will obtain the prominence you think he will as a member of Congress. Edward Lalone 03:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Representative Chris Murphy does not warrant this move. I would oppose it on the basis that he does not currently have enough prominence as a member of Congress to warrant such a move. Personally, I could care less who this guy is as he does not represent me and has made no major contributions to the United States House or for that matter made himself news worthy other then as a candidate. If there is a time when he makes the news enough to be considered prominent at least in the United States instead of only his district than I would support such a move but since he has not made any contributions of note or made himself generally known to at least the general population of the United States this move is unwarranted. Edward Lalone 03:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Utterly off-topic. Nobody is disputing Chris Murphy's overall notability, regardless of whether you live in his district or not (he is CLEARLY notable per WP:BIO, and if you disagree, AFD him). The only question is his notability viz. other Chris Murphies. And on that front, Congressman Murphy is way out in front. A quick survey of google results, for example, shows the Congressman getting about 90% of the hits, while various non-notable Murphies (a cartoonist, for example) get most of the rest. "Chris Murphy" + Connecticut yields about 223,000 hits, whereas "Chris Murphy" + Ska gets only 1,270. Not arguing that the ska bandist isn't notable per WP guidelines, but we're clearly dealing with two very different levels of notability. It seems unlikely that the typical person searching for "Chris Murphy" is looking for anybody other than the Congeressman. However, if they are, there will be links on the disambig page.Francisx 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. It's not enough to say he's the most prominent (and even that seems contentious), he needs to be overwhelmingly more prominent than any other bearer of the name, and he's not. Andrewa 06:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Of the blue links currently in Chris Murphy, three of them should probably either be merged into their band's page or deleted entirely; one is a barely-sourced article about the 3rd place finisher in Australian Idol 2; and another is a sub-stub at "Christopher" instead of Chris meaning it doesn't even need to "compete" with this article. Never mind his prominence compared to other congressmen - he's an elected representative serving in a national office making decisions which could affect the whole world. How can that compare to a ska band bassist whose apparent claim to fame is receiving a severed pig head for his 21st birthday? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unitarian or catholic? Please remove one of them. Barakandu, 23 nov 2006

"I'll pander to any special interest group besides Yankee fans" Link or Transcript please. Pierredude, July 10 2007

This article appears to be in need of clean-up and is quite biased in many places. Matthew 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Committee Membership

Added membership on US House Committe on Energy and Commerce, plus subcommittee assignments, source: http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1462

Rep Murphy no longer appears on the website of the House Financial Services Committee, http://financialservices.house.gov/who.html. However, his congressional website still reflects membership. http://chrismurphy.house.gov/?sectionid=29&sectiontree=6,29&itemid=1

Chief of Staff

Not sure that listing names of campaign staff and their former employers is really notable enough to include on here. I don't see anything similar on other Members or candidate's wiki pages. Thoughts? Arbor832466 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bieber

This was removed as "inconsequential". While it appears this was an impulsive move by Murphy to raise the issue, so was George Allen's "macaca" insult, which ultimately overshadowed the rest of his agenda.

I think the press coverage is the best gauge here and Murphy got more press in CT on this crack that anything he's done of late--including his senate announcement. Even national press See [1] [2] [3] [4][5]

I think this is worth keeping —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.128.8 (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Prostitute for Israel

Senator Murphy has been labeled as a whore for Israel by fellow party member in an open debate. This is quite controversial coming from such a highly positioned politician and brings into question the loyalties of Mr. Murphy and his eligibility to perform as a senator. The source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/06/dem_us_senate_candidate_calls_opponent_a_whore_for_israel.html

Not done. This is sensationalistic, inconsequential, and a violation of WP:BLP. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This original talkpage section Prostitute for Israel was posted, unsigned, on 7 April 2012 by anonymous IP 184.175.32.71. The sentence "This is quite controversial coming from such a highly positioned politician..." has it backwards; the charge was made not by any "highly positioned politician" but rather by also-ran Lee Whitnum, described as an "anti-AIPAC activist" at United_States_Senate_election_in_Connecticut,_2012#Declared. This is made clear in the provided link to RealClearPolitics.

Further, on 4 February 2014 Sen. Murphy sent out an email petition via MoveOn.org, against a bill introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and in direct contravention to lobbying for the Menendez bill by AIPAC, as follows:

"I'm U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, and I started a petition to the United States Senate, which says:

The interim agreement with Iran gives the United States and our allies a chance to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran without resorting to military action. The Senate should give negotiations the opportunity to succeed before voting on any additional sanctions or other efforts that would undermine diplomacy.

Last November, the United States and our partners in the international community reached a breakthrough agreement with Iran that allows negotiations to begin that can remove from Iran the ability to covertly obtain a nuclear weapon without resorting to military action.

The six-month deal provides unprecedented daily access to nuclear facilities in Iran, while halting or reversing important components of their current nuclear program. In exchange, the United States will provide limited and immediately revocable relief from some sanctions that leaves in place existing severe restrictions on their oil and banking industries.

Click here to sign my petition to give diplomacy with Iran a chance, and then pass it along to your friends.

Some will argue that we cannot trust Iran—but we do not need to trust Iran to choose to give these negotiations a real chance. Any final agreement will provide the U.S. and our partners with unprecedented access to their nuclear program to prove, on a daily basis, that their intentions are purely benign.

If Iran walks away from the negotiating table in bad faith, then the Senate should debate new sanctions. But now, let's give the Obama Administration and their partners the room to work out a peaceful resolution to this long-festering crisis before voting on any additional sanctions or other efforts that would undermine diplomacy.

Click here to sign my petition, and then pass it along to your friends.

Thanks!

–Senator Chris Murphy"

Milkunderwood (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.murphy.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=342940
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140311025437/http://www.realestate.com:80/state/CT/ to http://www.realestate.com/state/CT/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician) to Chris Murphy as the current primary topic of "Chris Murphy," and move the disambiguation page to Chris Murphy (disambiguation) at this time, per the discussion below. It appears some further discussion may be warranted as to the proper target for the redirect at Christopher Murphy and whether to retain a single disambiguation page. Dekimasuよ! 05:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician) → Chris Murphy – This move was last requested in 2006, when Murphy had just been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. At the time, the result of the debate was no consensus. Now, twelve years later, he is a prominent member of the U.S. Senate who is often mentioned as a potential candidate for President of the United States in 2020. He far and away is the most notable of Wikipedia's Chris or Christopher Murphys. This commonsense move will ensure that more people find what they're looking for faster. Kiernanmc (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Support per objective evidence that this Chris Murphy is the WP:PRIMARY topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Malformed Chris Murphy is a dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- The current Chris Murphy should be moved to Chris Murphy (disambiguation) – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- My mistake. I agree with Muboshgu that Chris Murphy should be moved to Chris Murphy (disambiguation) as well.Kiernanmc (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but even then can't see the benefit per recentism. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Did you see the below page view evidence that this is not recentism? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the leap is recent. Based on those previous readings it wasn't that significant. Common name. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any recent leap. [6] It averaged in the 200-300 range for 2015-2016, seems to have increased towards ~400 in the last year or two. That's stable growth towards PRIMARY. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per recentism. Murphy is getting worldwide headlines right now but there's no evidence that will last and a potential presidential bid is speculation. Wait until this dies down. Also per the request being malformed. Timrollpickering 10:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Timrollpickering: The page view evidence I linked in my support is for the past few weeks, but here are two random months from 2016. And in 2015, when it was located at "Chris Murphy (politician)". This isn't recentism. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Strong support. Clear primary topic of the term both in page views, and in importance, being a prominent member of one of the senior deliberative bodies in the world. I note that the other two politicians are stubs in comparison. bd2412 T 19:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Support, the page view stats as well as my own research is convincing to me that there is a primary topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Support, I agree with bd2412. As a United States Senator he is clearly the primary topic at this time. We cannot know what the future will hold but there is no sign that will change anytime soon. Knope7 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Support He is clearly the most prominent person with his name based on page views.Kingmanatee (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. No obvious primary topic, especially as Chris Murphy is also the dabpage for Christopher Murphy, which includes a British MP. Not sure why an American Senator should have pre-eminence over a British MP except in the recentism stakes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: This is why. The U.S. politician averages ~500 views per day, going back as far as this tool does (July 1, 2015). The UK politician's peak is 25. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  - The American is a politician today. The Briton was a politician thirty years ago. Can you say WP:RECENTISM?! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    - @Necrothesp: The American politician is already more important than the British politician, and given his role in gun politics re: Sandy Hook, it's likely to continue that way. Meanwhile, the UK article is a stub of a stub (in terms of readable prose, this article is 40-times longer than the UK politician's), and says he's been out of politics for more than 30 years, so he's not likely to increase his profile in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need to make both Christopher Murphy and Chris Murphy the same dabpage. Anyone searching for the MP Christopher Murphy can still be directed to the dabpage. I think we want to be aware of recentism so that we are not renaming pages every month or even every year. I don't think we need guess who will be the most searched for Chris Murphy in 100 years. Now, and in the near future, the Senator is the primary topic. Knope7 (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New lead image

Following suit with Dick Durbin and Bernie Sanders, these outdated official portraits from nearly a decade ago should be replaced with recent images. Here's some potential replacements and let's vote as to whether we should change the image. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Option A (current; 2013)
Option B (2017)
Option C (2019)