Talk:Tammy Murphy

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

New Jersey

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women in Business Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: Women in the world (2017)

This article was created or improved during the Women in the world contest hosted by the Women in Red project in November 2017. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Source for future use[edit]

For future use: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/01/womens_march_on_nj_2018_what_you_need_to_know_to_g.html Knope7 (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Tmurphy.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Murphys marry in August 1993 or August 1994?[edit]

the bulk of sources say 1993 but some seem to possibly suggest 1994? When did Phil's brother pass away. I believe they began dating after Tammy reached out following his passing and married a few months later. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gather from the governor's social media post that it had to be 1994 Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Campaign read better before breaking into subsections?[edit]

I find the new formatting for the 2024 Campaign section to be a bit disjointed and some of the new language to be awkward. I don't want to be domineering and change it back on my own, but I'm curious what others think? LateNightWanderer (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - i think it could use subsections so it is not just a barrage of unrelated criticisms, but the text inside each definitely needs to be better wordsmithed. I put the subheadings in and didnt yet finish refining the text inside so any help there would make it read much better! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You're definitely right. I originally had it (mostly) chronologically, but broken up it is more digestible. I just finished up some slight compressing and editing of what we had there, mostly just style/flow changes. Hope you like how this reads. Looking forward to continuing to work on this page with you! LateNightWanderer (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great - thank you! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Language Policy[edit]

Hi - I noticed that this page does not seem to adhere to Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy, particularly Neutral Point of View. The language is very skewed (i.e. sexist) and the page reads as a list of criticisms and attacks rather than providing pure factual information from balanced sources. Previous writers have seemed to add their own color to the page that is not found in the cited sources. I recently made some edits to bring the page more in line with the policy. However, they were then immediately reverted by another user so I am opening this section to discuss how we can remedy this. Tagging @Thriley since they asked me to propose edits on the talk page. Thanks. IMwiki97 (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to do this, since you are a brand new editor, is to point out specific issues you have with the article and show the reliably sourced changes you want to make and then gain consensus to make them. Thriley (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I made fairly minor changes, I don't really see a good way to individually propose them and gain consensus. I did not change many sources but rather read the sources already cited and checked how they differed from the wiki page content. There are many cases where an article is cited but the text does not match the source.

One such example is how under the "Career" section, it says "She left Goldman at the age of 24 to work mainly at Investcorp in London for three years, from 1990 to 1993, but permanently quit salaried labor at the age of 27 'to marry Mr. Murphy in 1994 and move to Frankfurt, Germany, where he was working at the time.'[8][9]" However, the original article from The New York Times says, "She left to work at investment firms in London, but quit to marry Mr. Murphy in 1994 and move to Frankfurt, Germany, where he was working at the time." The editor clearly went out of their way to say "permanently quit salaried labor" (a very odd phrase I might add) which seem unnecessarily critical with an intent to skew readers.

Most of my edits are relatively minor and there is no easy way to list them all out on this talk page. I broke the changes out into smaller edits so if there's an issue/violation with any specific change I made, please do let me know but I'm not sure that they merit a reversion. IMwiki97 (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you have 10 edits under your name, and a significant number of them are clearly heavily biased toward the Murphy campaign. Not to mention disruptive and false in certain places. Cease the disruptive editing immediately or someone is going to get fed up and open a complaint on the admin notice board. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also absolute nonsense to call your edits "minor." Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality concerns[edit]

I fell that the coverage given to criticisms is overly-detailed. And I suspect that the rest of her bio might be under-covered. SecretName101 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of this has been an over-reliance of directly quoting criticisms at length, rather than presenting them in short. SecretName101 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like your edits and i think it looks more neutral the way you have reworked it. I will say that we should be alert to random brand-new single-purpose editors popping up and twisting the text to omit facts unfavorable to Murphy, which is probably the source of all those direct quotations in part. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]