Talk:Phil Murphy

Fulop and Sweeney

In the Run for Governor section, mentioning Steve Fulop and Steve Sweeney as potential candidates for Governor seems moot now, doesn't it? Perhaps these mentions should be removed entirely, since neither is running for Governor.Princetoniac (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No, we can't remove them. The election is happening now, and Murphy is pulling off quite the feat in knocking out his two biggest rivals before they even announced their candidacies. That's the story this section has to tell. The tenses get a little complicated in doing so. 2600:1001:B10E:936E:E18F:1B91:26A5:85AC (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Name Change?

I figure the name of the article should be changed to "Phil Murphy" per WP:COMMONNAME. The name "Phil" over "Philip D." is used on his website, signs, flyers, campaign ads, Twitter account, the televised debates, and news articles about him. Similar to how Joe Kennedy III recently was changed from "Joseph P. Kennedy III" or how Hillary Clinton used to be "Hillary Rodham Clinton" before her 2015-2016 campaign ditched her maiden name, so her article changed to suit that. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

But there is Joseph P. Kennedy II and Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. and Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. That decision is clearly wrong. 2600:1001:B10A:BA51:C9A6:FDBB:9FFC:6496 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of your feelings of all the Joe Kennedys, is it not safe to assume that Philip D. is the most notable Phil Murphy on Wikipedia? The only others are a dead American clergyman, a Canadian rugby player, an English rugby player, and an English footballer. I think the best course of action would be to change "Philip D. Murphy" to the common name of "Phil Murphy" and have the article link to the disambiguation page at the top, similar to other politicians with generic names like Tim Scott, Paul Ryan, Keith Ellison, and Jerry Brown. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If he wins and becomes governor, yes. If not he will end up just as obscure as the rest of them. 2600:1001:B10A:BA51:C9A6:FDBB:9FFC:6496 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, polling aside (he's likely to win the primary on Tuesday and go on to win the general as well), he'd still certainly be the most notable Phil Murphy. He was a U.S. Ambassador and the length of his page is significantly larger than any of the other articles. Just the fact that this page has multiple photos on it and the other four have none is telling enough that this guy is the most famous Phil, not to mention that all three athletes' pages are stubs. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Timing - if you go back to the 19th century and find some guy who was a banker, then was ambassador for 4 years, then staged a failed run for governor and that was it, his article is probably just as short as the clergy guy's is. But you're probably right that Murphy will win, although if last November showed anything... 2600:1001:B10A:BA51:C9A6:FDBB:9FFC:6496 (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If last November showed anything, it's that the Democratic candidate will likely win by a margin of 14.1%, with a projected anti-Trump blowback average of an additional 14.4% (that's 28.5% total), not to mention the incumbent Republican governor being incredibly unpopular and the likely GOP nominee is his lieutenant governor...

Using that math we get:

Murphy (D) - 64.25%

Guadagno (R) - 35.75%

Polling reflects this more or less, with both likely nominees having lower numbers since about a fifth of voters are still undecided. But I digress, this Phil Murphy is clearly the most notable even if he somehow loses. He's even listed as "Phil Murphy" on the gubernatorial race's page. When you Google "Phil Murphy," he's the only one that shows up for two and a half pages of results (only interrupted by a Mr. Philip M. Murphy that doesn't even have a Wikipedia article). The only article on a Phil Murphy that isn't a stub is Philip Francis Murphy, which is only six paragraphs, has no pictures, and is already differentiated from the rest of the Phil Murphys by including his middle name. Since we can't seem to make a decision between the two of us, I've requested a third opinion. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

Please see below. I am just fixing an incorrect substitution. Yopienso, be sure to use subst:3O in the future. ProgrammingGeek talktome 00:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

YoPienso (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time I've done this, so may make some learner's mistakes.

Typically, we would use the common name, which I recommend doing.

The objection about the change to "Joe Kennedy III" is null because the III clearly identifies which Joe Kennedy is the subject of the article. YoPienso (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In a professional publication all the Kennedy names would be handled in a consistent way - either all formal or all informal. Having both Joseph P. Kennedy II and Joe Kennedy III looks amateurish. 2600:1002:B110:12FD:D879:CA3B:5F1D:BC40 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is actually off-topic, since that article title was given merely as an example, but in response to your comment, I'll say you're welcome to your opinion, but the consistent way we name articles is by following WP:COMMONNAME, which explains that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. (I'm not sure what you mean by "professional publication," but you may wish to check the Encyclopædia Britannica entry, "Ted Kennedy," which gives an alternative title in small print, "Edward Moore Kennedy." I can't find that it has a separate article on Joe III.) YoPienso (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm truly grateful, ProgrammingGeek, for your fix. Unfortunately, I don't know how "to use subst:3O in the future." YoPienso (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC), aka ProgrammingDunce

OK, I figured it out. YoPienso (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is a clear case of WP:COMMONNAME, absolutely change the name. Cjhard (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Even if we have to use Phil Murphy (politician) or Phil Murphy (banker), it his common name would at least be more easily recognizable. Knope7 (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Forthwith! My first attempt at a redirect--hope I did it right. A page told me to do clean-ups but then it disappeared when I clicked on the first link. YoPienso (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting opinions on Merkel's reaction to appointment of Murphy?

Going through the paragraph where it says that Murphy's nomination was well-received in the US but controversial among German officials, notably Merkel. The paragraph cites a Harper's article and two Der Spiegel article but they don't give the same accounts of why his nomination was held up...

Harper's: "Another is Phil Murphy, a Goldman Sachs executive who served as the Democratic Party’s national finance chairman, tapped to represent the United States in Berlin. The Murphy appointment so troubled German leaders that they held up agrément–the diplomatic process under which the receiving nation agrees to accept the ambassadorial designee–so that Chancellor Angela Merkel could press the case for a career diplomat or serious political figure. Merkel made her appeal at the G-8 meeting at L’Aquila, but Obama was unswayed. The Germans finally relented and grudgingly accepted the appointment." (last sentence hyperlinks to the same Der Spiegel article).

https://harpers.org/blog/2009/07/ambassadorships-for-sale/

Der Spiegel (relevant parts): Germany has given its nod of approval to the appointment of Phil Murphy as the next US ambassador to Germany. SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that the Federal Office of the German President has issued a so-called "agrément" for Murphy this week... Apparently there were no objections to Murphy, 52, a former banker at Goldman Sachs.... Sources close to the White House have attributed the delays to a comprehensive new review for top posts in the Obama administration. As a result of a tax scandal earlier this year, this procedure has become even stricter. In Murphy's case, there was a lot to review."

(http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/he-s-willkommen-in-germany-berlin-gives-green-light-to-obama-s-ambassador-pick-a-633889.html)

Neither DS article mentions anything about Merkel's objections to Murphy, and it seems like they'd be more tuned in than Scott Horton of Harper's. I'm recommending it be removed unless someone can find more credible sources to back up the Harper's claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.176.24 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I just looked for sources and I think you're right. The only other thing I found is from thelocal.de and it said German officials were privately hopeful that Murphy's previous ties to Germany would be helpful, which supports the idea that the delay was not because of Merkel's objection. Knope7 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Wonder what actual news story was behind the Harper's piece? Maybe Germans gave initial agrement around July 2, but then Merkel realized she was still annoyed with getting a party fat cat instead of a real diplomat and asked Obama to switch it at July 8-10 G8? 2600:1002:B11B:3636:B4D8:EDA3:A7:372D (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the content sourced to the harpers blog from the body of the article as well. Harpers does not appear to be a reliable source so I think it is appropriate to remove it. Knope7 (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Inline citations

Please use inline citations for references. I have noticed a lot of bare urls in the Reference section in this article. Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:PTOPIC

Leaving this here for future notice; this article will probably be the primary topic for "Phil Murphy" should Murphy be elected, as is likely, and a move discussion should be initiated in November if that happens, as is expected. Mélencron (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2017

This change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Murphy_(politician)&diff=801970927&oldid=801970867 took out a quote by Murphy that the state's pension problems were bipartisan in cause. Even if you don't put back the quote you should at least modify the text to briefly say that Murphy considered the problem to have bipartisan origins. Thank you.

2600:1001:B126:1799:314E:779D:164:349D (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think this information is important? In my opinion, that section should be integrated into the article. I don't think Murphy's involvement in a task force warrants that much space. It should probably be a short paragraph about how he was appointed to the task force and the task force's recommendation. I'm not sure that his diagnosis of the cause of the problem is particularly important. Knope7 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

People outside of New Jersey would not necessarily know this, but the pension funds crisis has been the issue in the state for much of the last two decades. It's the kind of policy-wonky issue that isn't too spicy, thus Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it, but it is very important nonetheless. Thus this aspect of Murphy's career is important. 2600:1001:B126:1799:314E:779D:164:349D (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I get why mentioning Murphy was part of the task force is important. I do not get why this particular request and why it is important to an article on Phil Murphy. I agree pension funding has been a longstanding issue in New Jersey governance. As anyone can create an article, you might want to consider creating it yourself. Knope7 (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: per discussion. It is recommended to create an article about the issue provided enough resources exist. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2017

There is a problem with footnote 13 - it is a not working URL but you can see it archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20100208181010/http://germany.usembassy.gov/about/ambassador/ . Then someone a couple of days ago someone changed emerging nations of Central Europe to emerging nations of post-USSR. But this archive source shows the change is wrong. Probably would be best to say emerging post-Warsaw Pact economies of Central Europe. Thank you. 2600:1001:B126:1799:314E:779D:164:349D (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC) 2600:1001:B126:1799:314E:779D:164:349D (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 03:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017

The state of the gubernatorial race going into the final month of the campaign needs to be reflected. Consider using this nationally visible Politico piece http://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2017/10/03/monmouth-poll-murphy-leads-guadagno-by-14-points-114848 as a source. 70.192.84.57 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2017

Phil Murphy (politician) → Phil Murphy – This Phil Murphy was just elected Governor of New Jersey which ostensibly makes him WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on both counts. The other Phil Murphys are marginally notable sportspeople with stubs for articles. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PTOPIC, as I noted above in August. Mélencron (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support The Governor's office has lasting significance. Knope7 (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural comment. I've simplified this request. Phil Murphy is a redirect to Philip Murphy, the disambiguation. Since the Phil Murphy page has no significant history, we can move over the top of it; it is not necessary to move the disambiguation page. If you want to make the governor-elect the primary topic for Philip Murphy as well, please submit a separate request to move that to Philip Murphy (disambiguation). – wbm1058 (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, yeah, you're right about that. I think the DAB page should probably be moved to Phil though, given that it's made up 4/5 of Phil Murphys, but that might be for another discussion. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support OBVIOUS CHOICE IS OBVIOUS 2601:244:180:7FA3:D599:E144:A6AE:7A01 (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)