Talk:Stuart Murphy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Child "abandonment"

I have, for the second time, removed content stating that he "abandoned" his children. Nothing in the reference suggests that he abandoned his child. Please see Abandonment, which is defined as " the relinquishment or renunciation of an interest, claim, privilege, possession, or right, especially with the intent of never again resuming or reasserting it." I see nothing to support that this is the case. Please do not re-add this BLP violation. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 02:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal Life Section

This is clearly *not* an issue of BLP vandalism or PR puffery - someone has an axe to grind, and the best bet should be to remove the Personal Life section entirely, since (a) it mostly seems to be about someone doing heavy lifting to find a citation for a sensitive topic, and (b) children are involved. Besides - it's a section for a TV controller, and if the issue is that you think it feels PR-written, then no-one should have an issue with the section being removed. Thanks, Damndog (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Reinsterting the personal life section

Cutting the personal life section is unwikipedian. If it is "getting contentious" it's because Murphy's professional editors (or friends) are making it contentious. Millions of Wiki BLPs have personal life sections "on the record" quotes from reliable sources. This entry is about a controversial man who has editorial control over numerous tv channels and whose views could influence millions. His (relatively) unconventional private life simply cannot be ignored or "airbrushed" from the page. Cutting this section suggests the editor is either confused about BLP rules, or has an overly-sensitive and defensive attitude about aspects of Mr Murphy's private life - which have been aired by the subject himself. Please stop this nonsense.

As a compromise I have removed the reference to him "abandoning” his children (although he undeniably abandoned his marriage and that very much involved his children). Orbiston (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny Games

I am new to Wikipedia and am just looking into how edit history works. I notice that several editors of Stuart Murphy reveal in their "contributions" list, ONLY edits for Stuart Murphy and nothing else. Furthermore, almost in every case their edits remove (and at great speed) any new material that provides balance to what has in some editions read like a sickly and glowing cv. rather than a warts-and-all page. This suggests to me a professional campaign organised by someone. I wonder who? I am going to keep a close eye on this page and its editors. Newbie or not. Something don't smell right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.46.241.10 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation Still "Subscriber only content"

Your fixation with this page betrays a troubling agenda, but either way - I'm not the one confused about BLP rules. The thing you're keen to share still falls under "Subscriber Only Content," with 'You must be a paid subscriber to Broadcast magazine to read this article and receive complete, unrestricted access to broadcastnow.co.uk' appearing when you try to click the link. So it shouldn't be here. I have replaced this quote with another quote from a linkable article; this quote contains the same content you've referenced and expands on it.Damndog (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

More Hogwash

More Hogwash and Biased Editing

This revision reads like another apologia for Murphy’s sexuality when the man has done nothing wrong. Why make the change?

You are wrong about the source. Walk into any decent newspaper shop and you will see hard copy editions of "Broadcast" magazine. The article was published hard copy and available in the public domain and published on 25th June 2012 . Whether it is available online now or not is irrelevant. So I am reverting to the Broadcast article because its quotation is concise and factual and there was no need to change it.

So what were your true motives for changing it? Just so you are aware, the technology is now available to discover identities of Wiki editors. At a cost. This sort of massaged-biography-for-hire is getting out of control on Wikipedia. It’s always the very rich with fragile egos who pay for this stuff. The only fixation here comes from you (or more likely the subject of this biography). Anyone acquainted with basic psychology will know that. Orbiston (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Airwave accuses me of "Libell"

Airwave accuses me of "libell" in his/her edit. Maybe learn to spell the word correctly before making such accusations? Where is the libel? Murphy announces he is gay. Are we to assume that he left his wife to indulge in celibacy? There is enough online evidence to suggest otherwise. However, as a compromise, I have gone back and quoted the text directly. It is brief, factual and were it libellous, Murphy would have sued Broadcast. He didn't because, doubtless he told the editor the marriage was acrimonious and now regrets it. Airwave is, incidentally, yet another editor who exists only to prettify Stuart Murphy's image on Wikipedia. Somebody senior needs to step in and sort this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbiston (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

All Citations Must Include Live Links

Regardless of all of the above, you need to include a link to something that's live online for verification - Subscriber-only content is not acceptable on this page or any other Wikipedia page. Nor is 'hard copy' content available from a newsstand. I'm reverting back to the previous citation, which, again, is actually live for any web user to view, and which also covers all the points that you want covered, with the exception of the 'acrimonious' reference, because it's not referenced in the live article. This should satisfy all parties.Damndog (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"Subscriber-only content is not acceptable on this page or any other Wikipedia page. Nor is 'hard copy' content available from a newsstand" -- you are wrong on both these points. See WP:PAYWALL and WP:RS. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa - I've had the opposite explained to me previously. But surely a live link with exactly the same information - but minus the use of the term 'acrimonious' - is preferable for this page? Of course Wikipedia is not the place for press-department-scripted press pieces, but - more importantly - it shouldn't be a place for aggrieved people to air their personal grievances through passive-aggressive edits. Damndog (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Acrimonious Divorce

I created this Private Life section without a shred of malice. My original entry about the divorce is brief, factual, balanced and verifiable. Damndog, removed it almost instantly, then when I tried to revert, claimed incorrectly that my link to a reliable publication “Broadcast” was unwikipedian. Now, above, Damndog admits “mea culpa”. Meanwhile Damndog's entry remains a sort of a soft apologia for what is a major personal event that must have caused a great deal of pain for all parties. Damndog’s version of it is on as par with the lyrics of “ebony and ivory”. Stop this. Murphy is very powerful and influential. He is editorial head of several Sky tv channels. That his marriage ended acrimoniously is a matter of public record and should not be airbrushed out. This entry is looking more and more like it is being written by Murphy or by those he commissions. And that really IS unwikipedian. Orbiston (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference you used doesn't even lead anywhere. Either fix it, or remove the section please. Tiptoety ^talk 15:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

this is the link - http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/in-depth/the-broadcast-interview/murphy-how-ive-tackled-personal-and-professional-challenges/5043662.article - it was hard copy published word for word.

Fix or remove it? That tone is somewhat threatening Orbiston (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

First off, please quote me correctly - I did not say "fix it or remove it". Second, I am not threatening you. I am asking that you fix the problem I am addressing (I did not have the link to the reference, and when I tried to click on it the link lead me nowhere), or that you remove the section. Something can not be a threat unless there is communicated intent to take some kind of negative action. I have not even remotely done that. Please assume good faith. I, just like you, am attempting to improve this article to ensure it is in line with Wikipedia's policies. Tiptoety ^talk 05:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Second off, if we are going to split hairs (and you must be working with an electron microscope) I did not quote or misquote you. A slip led to a single set of errant quote marks at the beginning (and not the end) of the sentence which I have now removed (I am sure you will check this). But in essence, you said fix it or remove it. And I don’t like that sort of terse tone because it’s increasing amongst Wiki editors. I notice it, because I am writing a book about Wikipedia contributors/editors and aspects of the psychology. Seems to me that the aggressive tone stems from failed writers with low self esteem suddenly believing they have a sort of empowerment. They do not. Many also believe that they enjoy total anonymity. They do not due to new technology. Period.

To get on point. I have removed the online link to Broadcast (it’s not necessary anyway, because as I have said at length, the interview was published in the magazine proper). Sorry about that error, but when I Googled it let me into the article but now it seems to hit a paywall. How odd. As for "assume good faith", I am more and more thinking this rule needs to be revisited at a higher level. If you were really au fait with Wikipedia, you would know that far too many articles are written with malice aforethought. Or they are deviously positive. This one, for example, has been riddled with censorship and PR massaging and is occasionally being written by Murphy's hired hands. I know this for a fact. Murphy is a much more controversial figure than most in television, and this should be reflected in his biography. I will add a "Controversy" section next. But I will be fair. Orbiston (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to know where to even start with this. It sounds like your planned book is based on speculation fuelled by your own prejudices. It's hard to imagine that a significant number of Wikipedia editors are "failed writers"; a majority of them are students. I'm a published author, but writing is not my profession. I work in the technology field, and I know enough to take your comments about anonymity with a large pinch of salt. (Tiptoety's role on Wikipedia would also give them a pretty good insight into how much anonymity editors do or do not have, incidentally.)

It's also not useful for you to attempt to lecture people who have far more experience than yourself in the extent to which Wikipedia edits are made with "malice aforethought".

Wikipedia policy says that "biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic" and "should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". You may indeed feel personally that it's important and significant that some events in Murphy's life may have caused "a great deal of pain for all parties". But your personal feelings about that are not relevant to how we implement Wikipedia policy. Likewise, you may feel it's important that you believe Murphy to be "very powerful and influential". But that doesn't affect how we will write about him - the only aspect that affects how we write about him is that he is indeed a public figure.

Wikipedia policy also says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out". That would appear to rule out the addition that you've been arguing about up to now.

You are welcome to attempt to write a Controversy section, but unless you are capable of doing so in a balanced, sensitive, and well-sourced manner, you will be wasting your time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly is difficult for you to know where to start with this, because my criticism of Wikipedia editors has obvious touched a nerve with you personally, and any dispassionate reader of your diatribe will know that you are writing in a state of obvious incandescent anger. Clearly writing is NOT your profession.

If you believe so strongly that Wikipedia's editors have anonymity, how do you know that the majority of Wikipedia editors are students? Statistics? References?

You confuse my criticism of dodgy editing with the section itself and you have not thought it through, since you have no justification to remove it and doing so is tantamount to vandalism. Here's why. Murphy has gone on the record in Broadcast Magazine and The Guardian about his sexuality. I have no personal feelings about that. I don't even think his announcement is brave because millions of others have done the same and have been quoted in Wikipedia. My quoting Murphy's announcement of his homosexuality is not "an allegation" and to use such an emotive word displays your homophobia.

And finally your threat - because that is what it is - about my adding a controversy section: "You will be wasting your time" is pathetic and ties in with all the comments I make above about bullying. And it is here and on the record for all to see. I am reverting. Orbiston (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You can waffle incoherently about anonymity and accuse people of being homophobes all you like; it's not going to change Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You are now behaving like a vandal. Please stop this. Orbiston (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)