Talk:Midnight Rider (film)

Greater prominence of Sarah Jones and the events of Feb. 20, 2014.

I made a few changes to this article to give a little more prominence to the events of February 20, 2014 and their aftermath. The death of Sarah Jones and the injury of other crew members during this production has spawned a substantial and prominent movement to increase awareness of the need for safety improvements in the motion picture industry, and merit greater emphasis in this article.

I have taken as precedent the lede from Twilight Zone: The Movie, which finishes with a mention of the fatalities that occurred during filming, and the names of those who died.

Full disclosure: I am a member of IATSE, which is the same umbrella union that Sarah Jones belonged to, although I have no personal connection to her. --Threephi (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I just have to say that I really like the way the article is laid out now (as of 28Apr2014) -- I am not employed in the film/tv industry in any way (so I am General Public audience member) and I found this Wikipedia article to be useful, sufficiently detailed without being subjective or redundant). 142.229.88.99 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Section about Sarah Jones belongs on new page "Sarah Elizabeth Jones (1986-2014) Filmmaker".

Needs to be fixed --The Oscar petition and recognition, Slates for Sarah, #SafetyforSarah, SOC recognition and LA vigil are all about Sarah Jones and the greater film community celebrating her life and spirit, not about the film Midnight Rider. This page should be limited to controversy surrounding film, attempt to restart film and well publicized countrywide crew protest and boycot, as well as three civil lawsuits brought against producers as of June 2014. Also Gregg Allman lawsuit to stop restart of film and criminal prosecution of producers/director could have own section. For reference/links see- www.slatesforsarah.org fb page about section contains full obituary https://m.facebook.com/slatesforsarah?v=events&_rdr Links to many articles- https://www.facebook.com/MidnightRiderTragedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.45.210 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I have gone back and forth about this. As someone who works in the film industry, I will go on the record that I have very strong feelings about film crew safety, I have been outspoken in other forums on this issue, and I want Sarah's name to live forever so that what happened to her and the others on that bridge never happens again. Depressingly, I do not think the consequence of her death has yet fostered any lasting improvement. It remains to be seen whether this will catch fire, so I do not think as of this writing that she rises above wp:1E, as much as I would personally like her to. It's close, but not quite yet. --Threephi (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As the trial and film safety movement have now greatly overshadowed the actual film, which seems likely not to be continued, it seems appropriate to document both here, and does not seem necessary to create a separate "Midnight Rider Tragedy" page as The Twighlight Zone did given that that film was completed. As so much of the memorium to Sarah Jones relates to set safety, it seems fitting to document it here until such time as it is decided it would be better as a stand alone page, "Sarah Elizabeth Jones -filmmaker-".68.59.1.177 (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Suspended/cancelled production

This is not an article about an upcoming film. Notwithstanding the filmmakers' alleged current efforts, it is at best a currently suspended production, and will most likely never be revived. The article exists to show what happened with this production before, on, and after February 20, 2014, and William Hurt was a part of it. He should not be removed from the lead or infobox. In the unlikely event this production is ever revived, the "upcoming film" label can once again be applied. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the results of the several law suits mentioned in the article, even if Film Allman LLC was able to move forward with a film, it seems highly likely from law suit statements that they have lost the right to use Gregg Allman's book, song library, trademarks and copyrights. Thus it is very doubtful it would be about Gregg Allman or titled Midnight Rider and even the insurance company Film Allman LLC filed a claim with, has claimed it is a new production. Thus for now "currently suspended" would be the most factual description, and all participants should be considered as they were at the time of actual filming, Feb 20, not as if it is still in production and simply changing an actor. More facts would be necessary to viably describe it as "in production" or "officially canceled".68.59.1.177 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced text

I removed this text from the Production section:

Open Road Films would have to remain an arms length partner with Unclaimed Freight Productions due to the 1948 antitrust ruling United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. which restricts the vertical monopolies of theatrical exhibitors, distributors and film production companies. However, despite these legal restrictions, lawsuits have revealed that Open Road Films retained substantial control over the film thru their contract, including requiring Randall Miller as director, editoral review, as well as ownership of distribution rights. It is unknown at this time how much Open Road Films paid for these ownership rights of the Film Allman LLC project Midnight Rider.

What is the source for this? There is no reference for any of it. The Paramount Decree stopped being enforced years ago. Is there any RS reporting it was an issue with this project? The bit about lawsuits have revealed that Open Road Films retained substantial control needs to be cited, and if properly sourced, might go in a later section, though it's obvious they would have ownership of distribution rights, and requiring Randall Miller as director most likely came from the Miller camp. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Memorial

About 75% of this article seems to be a shrine to Sarah Jones. Is this really necessary? I mean, a few paragraphs about the tragedy would be fine. We don't have to replicate every single article that has ever been written. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

They shot only one scene of the film. According to OSHA and the Wayne County DA it was not an accident, it was a preventable tragedy caused by the 4 person production team. In the case of Twighlight Zone The Movie a separate page was created called Twighlight Zone Tragedy [[1]]. As of right now the film is suspended and it is highly likely it will not be finished, so separating the controversy surrounding the film production into a new article does not seem necessary, especially since it directly relates to the production team, attempts to restart the film, and lawsuits include many key producers and crew members.

However it can't be detirmined for sure at this point if the film will continue, and if so will it still be the same film. To make these detirminations it will be useful for editors to br familiar with many details. Gregg Allman's law suit to stop the film ended with an undisclosed out of court settlement and the suit with New York Marine Insurance over film funding is still pending, so we just don't know if it will continue and if it will still be considered a title change or new film. Miller is currently in pre-production of a film in Utah with similarities to Midnight Rider, so there are many questions about the film production. Importantly all of this has to do with the production of the film which the supporters of Sarah Jones, her family, and those injured oppose. It is likely the very public protests contributed to the halt of the production in June. Something like this has never happened before so there is no precident to cite. Allman's attorneys talked about this publicity in court as very significant as it preceded William Hurt dropping out of the film and Allman making any public statement about the film restart and then suing to stop the film when the protests grew larger.

So it is hard to say that all of this does not relate to the film production. While in time clearly the article can be greatly refined, but since there are so many opposing views, undecided judgements and questions about the film, it seems relevant in the shorter term to explain the factual events for those editors who want to read some of the detailed explainations in the many references. If you start taking out a lot of the background then readers will start asking questions like: Why would NY Marine drop their insurance and halt payments they had already agreed to make before the protests? Why are crew members protesting? Will the film continue? Why did Allman switch from highly involved EP to suing to stop the film? Is Slick Rock Trail the same movie or a totally new one? Attempting bevity, without being more familiar with the article, could in fact result in a biased POV, or confusion.

Importantly Midnight Rider will likely be known historically not as a film made by Randall Miller about Gregg Allman, but as a terrible tragedy that reverberated all thru the film community. When you see the photos of Dustin Hoffman and many other notable actors holding up slates on set dedicated to Sarah, you realize that it is much bigger than just Sarah. Sarah has become a symbol for everyone who gets into filmmmaking for the love of the art but then are being put in danger due to lack of professionalism by those in charge.

Do I think much of the tributes to Sarah should be moved to an independent page, yes. Do I think they are a series of events, known nationally and including nationally known people and events that warrant an independent page, yes. Were the tributes separate events, yes, a video was produced for the SOC event, notable film industry veterans and oscar winners have made very public statements about how Sarah has affected what people are thinking or doing, an app was developed for apple and android, etc. But until there is greater concensus on this issue I think it is best to leave this information in this location where it explains the opposition by a huge part of the film industry to this film being produced by Randall Miller.

There have been articles connecting Sarah and Midnight Rider with CNN, The New York Times in print, and all around the world, not just because it is news worthy with William Hurt, Gregg Allman and the tragic nature of the events, but because it has raised fundamental questions about how bad safety on Hollywood film sets has become. Note that there have been quite a few deaths on film sets, including one crew member driving home after working extreme hours, since Sarah died, and none of them got more than an article or two before being ingnored by the media. But because of the communication among crews worldwide on social media, all of this is becoming more widely known and discussed.

So at this point I think it is more important that editors have access to the full facts surrounding the film and the tragedy that enveloped it, than to try to aggressively trim the article. In time, as more is learned it will clearly be much easier to state things more simply. But as many people are looking at this article around the world as a current event, it seems like it makes more sense at this point to provide more factual information than summaries of the events that could easily be seen as the opinion of a few editors.

Also this article was very rescently the victim of dramtic chopping and editing of facts that were dramatically from the POV of those accused of crimes related to the tragedy. This elevated to the wiki admin page and resulted in the user and the three sock puppets he/she/they used being banned. By not parsing the article aggressively, we avoid the question of whether removing facts is intentially to create bias in the article for an ongoing Involuntary Manslaughter trial.

The vandalism and edit warring by Special:Contributions/138.229.220.3, User:MHBDCS,User:DavidGroveCam this one being a clear impersonation of someone related to opposition to film, and User:GoyaLover began here diff and lasted almost a day. So there are now admins watching the page for indescriminate chopping and have clearly taken a look at the page. So before making major revisions or deletions it would likely make more sense to discuss such here on the talk page so as to avoid the perception of biased editing. As well since there is obviously a lot of detail not on the page, as this has become a highly complicated and publicized controversy, there might be relevance to content that is not apparent to the casual editor. Going to read the related citations will often shed a lot of light as to why content relates to the film and ongoing efforts to restart or oppose the production of Midnight Rider.DFinmitre (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll raise the issue at WT:FILM and see if we can get a stronger consensus on this one way or the other. If not, maybe an RFC will be called for. I sympathize that this page was recently the subject of biased, POV edits, but that doesn't give it a free pass on due weight or policy on memorials. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In your first comment you suggested deleting 75% of the existing article arguing the controversies around the film were mostly insignificant to the article and should only be a couple of paragraphs.

Now you have cited "undo weight" as a problem. Can you please, for discussion purposes, cite a specific example that you feel meets the wiki definition: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Despite many articles from reputable souces citing legal filings, indictments and citations, Randall Millers very few public claims, made by his attorneys, have been included, as have claims from other involved entities, including links to these sources that further explain these opposing views. Despite Miller's claims contradicting most known facts, substantiated by an OSHA investigation, they were included to maintain neutrality. In fact it could be argued neutrality requires these many different viewpoint and counter arguments, well documented and publicized, which has partly contributed to the current depth of the article. Please cite an example of due weight so we can discuss.DFinmitre (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Complete overkill. Some non-notable minor production crew person got killed in an accident. Two or three lines detailing this would be more than enough. If you created a page titled Memorium to Sarah Jones with all the material in this article it would be deleted without a second thought. Sorry if that's blunt, but this isn't the place to post all this cruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm in agreement with NinjaRobotPirate that the coverage of this event is unreasonably long. We aren't a breaking news source and we aren't here to detail every aspect of the case. We don't need the criminal trial schedule, we don't need the list of defendants, we don't need to report every accusation, statement and rebuttal, we don't need to list every additional suit or countersuit, or every petition that was signed or every tribute that Sarah Jones received, or content about walk-a-thons and apps. The exhaustive legal details makes more sense in a unique article specifically about the accident, and even then there would have to be some judicious pruning. The memorial stuff seems best suited to an article on Sarah Jones, assuming she is notable enough for an article, which she might be, but again, we'd still prune against cruft. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought I remembered an AfD, and there was: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jones (filmmaker). It was closed as redirect here. Which sort of explains why the memorial got moved here. I wrote pretty much what CyphoidBomb did, but got an edit conflict. So I'll just point to what he and Lugnuts said. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate Can you please explain how you think references to Sarah would violate the wiki memorial policy. Reading what wiki states is the criteria to not violate in Wikipedia:Notability (people) it seems on multiple counts Sarah Jones would be considered notable, and likely deserve her own article. "Basic criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." "Additional criteria: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor..." Sarah Jones was recognized during the live Oscars telecast, and by the SOC. "Additional criteria: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

Even at this early point it is hard to argue she is not part of the historical record with statements made of Sarah's significance as a person and how her loss has affected safety concerns. Statements reflecting such have bben made by the president of the Association of Cinematographers and an Oscar winner in her field, etc.. She is known worldwide in her professional field of cinematography with respect to a safety movement. The Sarah Jones Film Foundation has been formed to make this a long term effort and has raised well over $40,000 for film scholarships, a safety app and to further this movement. All publicized in national journals and including participation of well known individuals. So please explain how inclusion of references to Sarah, highly relevant to all aspects of the film production, would violate policy on memorialsDFinmitre (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate Thank you for including the reference to the original Sarah Jones (filmmaker) article. It can be seen that this was created and deleted shortly after her death long before many of the newsworthy, and relevant to filmmaking in general, events occured. Despite however the fact that she was honored at the Oscars by both the telecast and 6 Oscar winners who wore ribbons on stage in her honor, which was well publicized. [diff] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFinmitre (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb @Dick Laurent is dead You both used the word cruft to describe references to Sarah Jones. Wiki says: "Many Wikipedians use "cruft" as a shorthand term to describe content that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and the use of this term should not always be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion which policy it fails and why it fails it." Again please cite and explain a how this violates the wiki policies of policy on memorials and due weight that were used by @NinjaRobotPirate. Please give an example of a policy and block of text you want to deleteDFinmitre (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, apparently I disagree with you about her notability, as I voted to redirect that article here. That was several months ago, but I'm not sure that things have changed drastically. However, Sarah Jones' notability is mostly off-topic here, unless you want to have a discussion about splitting this article. As Lugnuts already said, it would probably just get deleted again as a memorial. As far as memorials in this article, this article is only tangentially and occasionally about the film, which is the actual topic of this article; an argument could be made that this is a coatrack that focuses almost entirely on Jones and the trial, rather than the film. Memorial slates on TV shows about Sarah Jones are completely off-topic for this article, as they have nothing to do with Midnight Rider itself. I understand that you're interested in this topic, and it is probably very important to you. However, I think a blog would be a better place to write about the minutiae of this topic. I can not see any way to keep some of this content, such as the aforementioned trial dates, apps, and memorial slates. Much of the rest could be paraphrased, summarized, and condensed. I'm not saying that we should delete 75% of the article, but it does need to be pruned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree some of the Sarah Jones references would be better linked to an article Sarah Jones (filmmaker), but to delete them from wiki entirely removes well publicized and well cited explanations of the safety movement that grew out of what was originally a personal tribute and then had a noted effect on the film production, likely being a substantial cause for it being halted the second time. It is the efforts to restart the film that have generated much of these events, separate from the tragedy, but strongly relating. Many films have tragic accidents and keep filming, the fact that this tragedy stopped the film and led to a large movement to oppose the film is significant and unique historically.DFinmitre (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate You stated you want to delete the trial dates. Are you implying that the Involuntary Murder trial is not relevant to the Midnight Rider article? If not would these dates not be very useful for an editor interested in keeping the article up to date? Sure they can be deleted as they pass if nothing significant occurs. We can not use Twighlight Zone as example as wiki did not exist during the trial, but I think what wiki should reflect today, and what it will in five years are different, it is intended to be a dynamic document which is well suited when events and knowledge are changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFinmitre (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi DFinmitre, many of the things I listed as cruft are generally covered by the policy WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is not a breaking news site, or a community bulletin board, or other things that would intuitively fall into the "what Wikipedia is not" scope. The subject of this article is the film. The accident is important to mention and to describe because it majorly affected production and drew a lot of attention, but the level of detail is excessive and distracts from the subject, the film itself. Information about Sarah Jones memorial walks doesn't improve our understanding of the film. I don't understand the academic value of having the criminal trial schedule. The purpose of this encyclopedia is to summarize the most important aspects of a subject, not to deliver a moment-by-moment account of tangential aspects, or to hijack the subject (the film itself) with an overly-detailed account of lawsuits related to an accident. The production section, (which does mention the accident), comprises 1914 words. The sections beneath that, Tributes, Criminal Indictments, Federal NTSB, etc. comprise 3491 words. That strikes me as a disproportionate focus on the accident and related activities than on the article subject, the film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Examples

I didn't want to get into this kind of minutiae, but since specific passages and policy-based arguments have been requested, I'll see what I can do.

The first day of pre-production filming ended abruptly when a freight train collided with the crew as they were filming a scene on a CSX railroad trestle, resulting in the death of Sarah Jones and multiple injuries to other crew members. This is good. However, the exact same thing is described in greater detail in Midnight Rider (film)#Train collision at the Doctortown railroad trestle. Why? Proposed solution: remove the long paragraph that describes the accident in detail.

I have noticed that another detail that distracts the reader from the flow of the page is that detail about the railroad being the location of the "Battle of Altamaha Bridge". I suggest that this be omitted unless it bears some sort of significance to the film or the shoot. If the production coordinators used the bridge for that reason then I believe that the statements about that should be quoted in the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brockferlaak (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Open Road Films has remained publicly in support of the Midnight Rider project. OK. Isn't that the default status? I think there's a fair chance that this statement is designed to make me feel outraged. Proposed solution: Remove it.

Producers had intended to continue filming immediately following the tragedy, evidenced by their request for new film permits from the city of Savannah – original research. Proposed solution: Remove it.

Randall Miller hired high-profile PR Strategist Matthew Hiltzik, of Hiltzik Strategies, on Feb 27, to address the mounting negative press for the production. Not sure what this has to do with anything. Isn't this kind of trivial? Proposed solution: Just remove it.

Only the one day of pre-production filming, that ended abruptly with the tragedy, has been attempted by production. Editorializing. Proposed solution: Remove it.

Allman even pleaded with the producers – this is clearly not neutral wording. Proposed solution: "Allman requested that the producers cease their attempts to restart filming." Remove the long quotation from the open letter. It can easily be paraphrased as I just did.

Open Road Films has yet to withdraw their support for the film. So what? I have yet to make any public statement on the matter, but that's not in the article. Proposed solution: Remove it.

Midnight Rider (film)#Tributes and Film Safety Movement – This whole section needs to be removed per WP:COATRACK and WP:MEMORIAL. I'm not sure what else to say. It has nothing to do with the film itself. A brief statement of how Jones' death has affected the film industry would be quite acceptable, but this is not.

Midnight Rider (film)#Criminal Indictments and Lawsuits – This needs to be pruned down. There's too much trivia, such as court dates and explicit statements of who's suing whom. I'm sure this is all very exciting and relevant to lawyers in the entertainment industry, but Wikipedia is not normally so concerned with trivial facts. This could conceivably be split into its own article, and I think it would survive a notability challenge. Proposed solution: split it off. Alternatively, it could be pruned, paraphrased, and summarized. Trial dates are trivia and must be removed in any case.

Midnight Rider (film)#Federal NTSB, OSHA and FRA Investigations, Citations and Reports – This sections depends heavily on quotations from primary sources. WP:QUOTATIONS is not a policy, but I agree with its interpretation of undue weight via quotations from primary sources. Proposed solution: I don't know. I would probably merge this into the above split-off article and paraphrase the quotations. Alternatively, the primary sources could be linked via Further reading or External links.

This is not comprehensive, and it does not comprise the entirety of the issues with this article. It is what I'm currently willing to write in a long post. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

1. "The first day" I agree there is repetion, these were created by adding details by different editors. Please put some thought into what you delete as to not create bias.

2. "Open Road" No this was a surprise especially since it was reported they were about to pull out of the film right before the tragedy. Gregg Allman and William Hurt came out in opposition to the film, it is surpising after all of the other opposition Open Road repeatedly has maintained their public support. 3.IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH it is in the article cited. 4. Hired PR strategist. Not really trivial, incredibly surpising action after horrible tragedy with criminal investigations. 5. "Only the day" how is this editorializing, it establishes how much of the film was shot, which has a lot to do with why they may not continue. 6. This is how many sources described it, but if you want to reduced the article. 7. Open Road support for film. To those who still want to see the film made, it means the distributor, which is very significant in indie film, is still behind the project. 8. The safety movement was moved to this page when you helped vote the Sarah Jones (filmmaker) page for deletion. 9. NTSB, OSHA, FRA, That clearly would not belong in a Sarah Jones article as it has more to do with the film/investigations/Film Allman LLC than Sarah Jones. As far as the claim of undo weight, again it is highly sourced and they are government docuements. It is a clear account of an investigative resource of the days events. Since there have been multiple claims of what happpened that day this seems better than giving an editors interpretation of what happened. Again because there are multiple accounts and claims. Since Miller's opinions and refences are given there is equal weight.

When you say split off article do you mean a "Midnight Rider tragedy" article similar to "Twighlight Zone tragedy" article and/or a Sarah Jones (filmaker) article?DFinmitre (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond as you did, in a numbered list.

1. How would it create bias to remove duplicate, overly detailed information?

2. If this is counter-instinctual and relevant, then you should be able to find a source that says so.

3. I misread the source. I still don't like the statement, but my argument is significantly weaker than I thought. I won't push this.

4. I guess we disagree.

5. Find a reliable source that makes the point for you and quote them.

6. Unlike reliable sources, we need to be neutral and unbiased. Per WP:WTA, people do not express themselves in loaded language.

7. If this is a significant fact, then it should be easy to find a reliable source that makes the point for you.

8. It should not have been moved anywhere. It's inappropriate for the entirety of Wikipedia.

9. My proposed article is on the tragedy itself. I do not think that primary sources are sufficient to source such a large, detailed section, and I think it's emphasized too much in this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note all of the lawsuits, investigations and indictments include the owners of the company producing Midnight Rider, the director and the writer of the script. There are lawsuits directly related to funding of the film and attempts to restart filming. While a separate article may well be justified, there is direct correlation between the film production and these legal aspects. As such the legal aspects are directly related to whether Miller and Savin will be able to continue with the film. These legal details are not from legal journals but mainstream readership journals.DFinmitre (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate I am aware that you were involved in voting Sarah Jones (filmmaker) for deletion one month after her death, but frankly given the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) I find it surprising that you are so passionate that neither Sarah, nor the film safety movement her life has inspired, should be anywhere in wikipedia. I have not been pushing for a separate article at this time but some of the statements in this discussion seem very passionate against a person who in the least seems a very reasonable candidate who meets substantial wiki notability criteria. Further your comments on the WT:Film page were in no way an effort to, "see if we can get a stronger consensus on this one way or the other", but an obvious attempt to strongly voice your opinion and opposition to views on this talk page and specifically attract other editors in your support over to the Midnight Rider talk page. I think there are some very interesting issues we, and others over time on the page and with edit descriptions, have been discussing with respect to what is relevant and how such an unusual article and group of events should be stuctured on the wiki. But frankly what you said here and what you did WT:Film were two different things. Using a wolf pack mentality to get enforced what you individually strongly believe is not what wiki is about. This page is controversal and will likely become more so. As such when the recent edit warring occured I stood out of the way in favor of more experienced editors, and I expect it will change substantially going forward with their efforts. But at the same time I think it is fair for someone who has bothered to read most of the articles to argue in favor of a more detailed approach while the controversy is still active, such that many differing opinons and facts can over time be reduced to summaries without having to make general statements that might not be correct or might create bias unintentially. I did not like quoting so much of the NTSB report at the time but it seemed like a very general and unbiased account of details and that was better than giving several differing opinions of details that have yet to be vetted in court. So while in the long run it seems not in keeping with Quote suggestions, for the short term it seemed best. While I might argue in favor of including a lot of well sourced information at this point you seem strongly passionate about many of your opinions on what should be in the article first and then looking for rules to change things second. Frankly, most of the wiki rules you are citing do not apply the way you are trying to use them. A statement on WT:Film that we need to discuss how Midnight Rider would be similar and different from Twilight Zone and how that should be handled and how the safety movement and the noteriety of Sarah Jones should be addressed would be an interesting discussion. But this was not your approach.DFinmitre (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You're using very emotional language. No, I don't passionately feel anything about this topic, and I forgot that I even commented in that AFD until Cyphoidbomb reminded me of it. My passion is for Wikpedia's policies and guidelines. If I had it in for this article, I'd have ignored the talk page and taken a hatchet to it. Let's see what other WikiProject Film members have to say, and we'll hopefully see a consensus on how to proceed. They are independent and experienced, and they don't blindly follow what I tell them to do, despite my best attempts to turn myself into their cult leader. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search for similar examples, as I knew there would be, and found the story about the stuntman who was killed making The Expendables 2. That gets two lines in the article. That's all this needs too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I would think Twilight Zone tragedy would be a more similar comparison. In your example of Expendables 2 there were no federal investigations or criminal charges I am aware of and the film continued. In TZt it is noted "It was the first time in the history of Hollywood that a director was charged due to a fatality on a set." So this is likely only the second time, to be verified. It is clearly the first time the producers, director, writer and 1st AD have been charged as a group. Neither Twilight or Expendables had a worldwide social media safety movement recognized in major newspapers world wide, but many of these previous tragedies were noted as contributing, that this movement is not just related to one tragedy. I am also not aware of an example where an executive producer, and subject of the film, has sued to stop it. I am not aware of a film with an accidental death where the insurance company canceled insurance for the production, requiring a lawsuit by the production company who stated the funds were required for the film to continue. It is also unique in that the production of a major feature has been accused of leading a large crew illegally onto a highly dangerous location. Many of the safety guidlines discussed in TZt were originated after that tragedy and were clearly violated in this case, with even Miller admitting no one from CSX was present for the shoot as stipulated. DFinmitre (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack gives a day by day reporting of news comments cronicling the investigation. While I am not implying this article has the same stature, or that there is a necessity for a timeline article, there are interesting parallels to how multiple investigations into an event are structured in an article as here: 2012 Benghazi attack. Clearly though these are highly vetted examples. It should be noted that in this context of a highly publicized ongoing event, the resource seems intended as a reference to keep all the factual information and reporting available for research and discussion as the article was crafted. For article creation, media and the general public. As wiki did not exist during Twilight investigations, this would be a different example. DFinmitre (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The timeline of the Benghazi attack has been the subject of exhaustive discussion among news pundits, so the timeline itself is presumably notable and probably should exist. But you'll notice that it doesn't exist in an article on the town of Benghazi, which per our discussion would be analogous to Midnight Rider (film) Contrarily, there is no indication that the timeline of the events related to Sarah Jones' death are independently notable. Wikipedia is not a web host, so an ongoing record "intended as a reference to keep all the factual information and reporting available for research and discussion" seems to belong elsewhere, say on an official Sarah Jones memorial site, or at a prominent blog about the incident, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb I do not think you read the full title of the Bengazi Attack link nor look at the link. It is very relevant to the current Midnight Rider article and what has been stated in this thread should not be allowed. It is NOT a timeline of the attack, it is a timeline of the investigation, much of which is a chronical blow by blow of news articles of the controversy that followed. Further that is a terrible analogy. Are you really saying Bengazi Attack Investigation(is to)The City of Bengazi what the Midnight Rider film Investigations/Indictments(are to)Midnight Rider (film)?DFinmitre (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the trials relate issues of the production moving forward, and the production co owner, director, writer, 1st AD, UPM, subject of film and distributor. This greatly affects the film and is thus not only related to Sara Jones.

You started your discussion on the talk page: @NinjaRobotPirate: "About 75% of this article seems to be a shrine to Sarah Jones." You started your discussion on the WT:Film page: @NinjaRobotPirate: "was astounded to find that it's a 5000-word memorial to a dead crew person" Other comments: @Lugnuts: "Complete overkill. Some non-notable minor production crew person got killed in an accident." @NinjaRobotPirate: "I thought I remembered an AfD, and there was: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jones (filmmaker). It was closed as redirect here. Which sort of explains why the memorial got moved here." @NinjaRobotPirate: "Well, apparently I disagree with you about her notability, as I voted to redirect that article here." @NinjaRobotPirate: "an argument could be made that this is a coatrack that focuses almost entirely on Jones and the trial, rather than the film." @DFinmitre: "8. safety movement was moved to this page when you helped vote the Sarah Jones (filmmaker) page for deletion." @NinjaRobotPirate: "8. It should not have been moved anywhere. It's inappropriate for the entirety of Wikipedia." @NinjaRobotPirate: "No, I don't passionately feel anything about this topic, and I forgot that I even commented in that AFD until Cyphoidbomb reminded me of it." I missed where Cyphoidbomb brought this up in either talk discussion and frankly I think you are showing substantial passion, but that is just my opinion. I would rather focus on the best way to improve the article one step at a time, not with a shotgun approach. I have made some small edits and will make more based on your suggestions when I am seated at a proper terminal. The group of you have suggested a "Midnight Rider tragedy" article and a "Sarah Jones (filmmaker) article as possible solutions. Maybe we should hold off on that for a minute and address some of the more obvious refinement first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFinmitre (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your first missive about Ninja's "passionate" stance was inappropriate, and I would have commented on its inappropriateness when I read it, but I felt it better to ignore. But since you're bringing it up again, I don't pick up any "passion" from NRP about this issue, and there is no constructive reason to bring this up, even if you believe it, because the comments are baiting, and would otherwise serve to distract the focus of this discussion, had NRP fallen for it. Out of curiosity, do you have a conflict of interest on this topic? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

DFinmitre, I suggest that you take this dispute to ANI if you feel that my behavior has been worthy of administrator scrutiny. Otherwise, you should "comment on the content, not the contributor". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Though I've contributed to this page and was its primary defender in the recent edit war, I've stayed out of this discussion until now. I just want to point out that this fatality has gotten more media coverage than any film industry accident in the last 30 years, and much attention on film sets and among crew members. The film itself never went beyond one partial "pre-production" day of shooting, so naturally not a lot of coverage has gone to it compared to the incident that came from it. Earlier I was tempted more than once to raise trimming the article back a bit on this Talk page (and did take one portion out, as can be seen above), but given the ongoing nature of the legal repercussions I think DFinmitre has a good point in that a lack of detail can allow in inaccuracies. He's made some adjustments since this thread started. It can always be reduced later. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Split

(Note: this split was later reverted by the editor who originally split the article) DFinmitre (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I split the detailed accident-related content to Midnight Rider train accident. Splitting had been discussed previously as a solution if concerns related to WP:UNDUE weren't addressed. It's been a number of months now so I just created the new page and added a number of links from this article. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jtalledo While I agree that the split was the right decision, and no one has argued otherwise, I am a bit surprised by your choice of name for the new page. It seems a bit of discussion using a name never previously mentioned might have been a good idea for something as significant as forking most of a substantial article and creating a new page. I would think Twilight Zone tragedy would be the most relevant precident for naming it instead "Midnight Rider Tragedy" especially since this is how it has commonly been refered to in the media. It is also significant that four studio owner/producers/managers were indictied for involuntary manslaughter for what the OSHA report described as a willful intent to put the crew in danger. Thus the use of "accident" in the title to the page is in fact a rather substantial inaccuracy as it tends to imply it was not preventable. "Tragedy" would be appropriate whether it was an accident or the result of negligence. I thus think a title with less bias would be more appropriate. While the media initially refered to it as an accident this largely changed as facts became known and such reference was deemed incorrect by many. As government reports and indictments have clearly established it was a very preventable tragedy, and all previous discussions used "Midnight Rider Tragedy" with no objections or other suggestions, would you consider changing the title of the new page created?DFinmitre (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"Tragedy" is far more biased and not commonly used by the media, unlike the accident term. That the other article uses it does not make it correct. It is indisputably an accident in that the train crash itself was not at all an intentional act. Indeed, the word accident is used several times in the article including the NTSB's and FRA's own statements. From a certain point of view anything is preventable in hindsight and whether or not it was "preventable" still does not make it any less of an accident. Feel free to rename the article, I will not oppose, although I believe such a course of action would and should be rightly contested. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the definition of "tragedy" as used in this context as:

1. An event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe,

I fail to see where you find bias in its use, whereas "accident" could include a train hitting gear and is really not descriptive of the magnitude of an event that was traumatic for not only those harmed, their friends and families, but for those who are accused of causing the event, the train operators, the train company and the film production industry at large. Non-bias does not mean that you use words to describe events that are so generic as to not properly describe the event.

Also, it was in fact a "CSX train accident" or a "Midnight Rider film set fatal accident with multiple injuries". The train was not owned, operated, or part of the filming, so defining it as a "Midnight Rider train" in the title is actually gramtically incorrect and confusing.

Further since there is only one comparable film accident in the Twilight Zone tragedy, and it is well known as such, and the two are often discussed together now in safety articles, I think that such a well known article remaining with that title is sufficient precident. It should be noted this was not just an accident in the typical use of that word. Modifiers like serious, tragic tend to be used with it as well as the context of what is written already establishing the severity of the incident. Very specific safety guidelines were created in response to the Twilight Zone tragedy, including one specific to railroad filming, and it was clearly and blatantly violated by the four producers/managers indicted. This is what OSHA meant by highly preventable and this is why it created such a dramtic uproar in the film industry. It was not simply the result of a mistake but a premeditated plan to put the crew in serious danger.

To consider this issue further, given the disambiguation of Midnight Rider as a song also°, should it in fact be "Midnight Rider (film) tragedy" Twilight Zone did not have this same issue as it was primarily known as the film/tv show. This is relevant to searching as it will group with the song, not the film. DFinmitre (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is conceivable that someone would see bias in calling it a tragedy as I did. No one's saying what happened there wasn't tragic, but as an article title "accident" is far more neutral. My point stands - you can dispute calling it a tragedy in terms of a neutral article title. But it is certainly an accident. No one intentionally crashed the train. It wasn't a "premeditated plan" to put people in danger. The plan was to film a scene, which went horribly wrong.

To reiterate, whether or not you think it accurate, it has been referred to as an accident, even the FRA statement quoted in the article from just last October called it an accident. Also, one other comparable article doesn't create consensus.

You're overthinking the title. As you pointed out, Twilight Zone was a TV show too and arguably better known as such, but there's no need to call it "Twilight Zone (film) tragedy" or something similar.

But as I said before, name it whatever you want. There is no further discussion necessary - although bear in mind others may dispute you on it. I will remain convinced the initial title is the neutral title. Thank you for your time. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, according to the OSHA report they very specifically describe it as a premeditated plan by the producers to put the crew in danger, to get a shot they wanted and to save money by not having to travel much further to an alternate location. The UPM was specifically asked if he wanted to put the railroad safety bulletin on the call sheet, and he said no. This is all in the full OSHA report that was published with one of the articles. The safety bulletin makes it clear a representative of CSX should have been with the crew and placing anything on the tracks requires special approval. It is an industry standard to attach related safety bulletins to the call sheet and would have made it clear to every crew member they were violating safety standards to an extreme level. The following is from the OSHA press release of Aug 14:

• "A willful citation was issued for the employer's failure to provide safety measures to protect employees from moving trains. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health."

It could also be considered a tragedy because there has not been enough education in film schools, and in unions outside of California, about industry safety standards that were a direct result of the Twilight Zone tragedy. Since the Twilight Zone, safety bulletins have been considered the responsibility of the AD department and many other union and crew members in camera, hair, makeup and wardrobe simply are not trained in these details. The producers chose to exclude certain crew members with more experience in safety issues who would have likely objected to going onto the trestle. The producers took advantage of crew members like Sarah, accustomed to working on larger more professional productions where they trusted producers not to be reckless, and young film school graduates eager to please who they thought were veteran and professional producers from Hollywood California.

It could also be considered a tragedy because, as Sarah's family has argued in their lawsuit, CSX engineers saw the crew on CSX property by the trestle twice, the first time being 57 minutes before the fatal train, and had they followed their own CSX safety standards the tragedy could have been prevented despite the reckless actions of the producers. These are the facts as they have been established in souces referenced in the article, and should be clarified in detail during the upcoming civil and criminal trials. DFinmitre (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Split article authorship issue

@ Jtalledo In spliting the article "Midnight Rider (film)" to create the article "Midnight Rider train accident" there are some problems that need to be resolved.

As wiki states in WP:PROSPLIT "If an article meets the criteria for splitting, editors can be bold and carry out the split. If unsure, or with high profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject(s). Additionally, adding one of the splitting templates will display a notice on the article and list it at Category:Articles to be split. This will help bring it to the attention of editors who may assist in establishing consensus, in deciding if a split is appropriate, or in carrying out the split."

I think in this case, as this article has had substantial controversy, in the least a discussion of the name of the new article and what should be split would have been beneficial, although I think we are all in agreement a split was appropriate.

More importantly though you seem to have skipped some of the following steps as suggested in WP:PROPERSPLIT

"1. Prepare the source article by grouping the material to be split out into a single section. 2. Create the new article by opening the empty page (or redirect page). 3. Open the source article (or relevant section) to edit in another browser window (or tab) and copy the contents to be split out (from the section created in step #1) from the source article. 4. Paste into the new article with edit summary "Contents WP:SPLIT from Source article name" and save the new article. 5. Tidy up the new article etc. ..."

You made edits by deletion to the original Midnight Rider (film) page that could be argued were relevant to the film production:

A couple of examples:

From the "Production" section which remained in the original article you deleted the two paragraphs:

"On April 14, 2014 it became known that Miller and Savin were intending to restart filming in June. ..."

"On August 12, 2014 Film Allman LLC filed a lawsuit against New York Marine Insurance in which the plaintifs contend that if they do not receive the 1.6 million dollar insurance payout for the interruption caused by the fatal train collision during filming, they would be unable to continue with the film production. ..."

Most importantly these two paragraphs above were deleted as part of the split from the original article but were not included in the newly created article. This is not an appropriate way to edit an article.

You then in creating the new page took a section from the Midnight Rider (film) section summary and mixed it with your own original authorship to create the new summary. Since you did this in your editor between copying from Midnight Rider (film) and pasting it to "Midnight Rider train accident" this creates a substantial issue as to authorship of the article per wiki standards. This is why they suggest divide/copy paste/then after article is created, edit in the new article.

Further you copied an existing section of Midnight Rider (film) but changed the title of the section from "Pre-production Filming" in the old article to "Background" in the new article. Fine as an edit, but this should not have taken place between copy and paste as you destroyed this edit trail in the wiki edit history and makes authorship confusing to trace and attribute.

Similarly you changed the title of the copied section "Train collision at the Doctortown railroad trestle" to "Accident", again confusing authorship and avoiding this change being part of the edit history.

While I think your intention to split the article was good, the procedure you used creates questions of authorship in the new article, deletes and edits offline, and I think a substantially truncated the original article. While I think most agree much of the detail should move to the new article, summaries to some of the references remaining in the original would be appropriate. Following the Wiki suggestion of separating the article first within the original article space, then copy pasting to the new article would be better procedure. DFinmitre (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:SPINOFF also should be considered with respect to this split. It speaks rather specifically as to how this kind of split should be handled . DFinmitre (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

−=== Additional Problem with the Split ===

A request was made to add the history of "Midnight Rider (film)" to the history of the newly created "Midnight rider train accident".

The request was correctly denied by an admin because:

• "histmerge notdone Midnight Rider (film) to Midnight Rider train accident ... WP:Parallel histories because this cut-and-paste move was not complete but partial, it was a daughter being split off."

In WP:CUTPASTE wiki states: "When a cut-and-paste move is done, the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons." WP:CWW

Given that such a dramatic portion of the original article was moved via copy/paste, including offline editing, this thus creates serious issues with respect to WP:ATTREQ particularly considering this statement by wiki:

• "Contributors to Wikipedia are not asked to surrender their copyright to the material they contribute. Instead, they are required to co-license their contributions under the copyleft licenses (CC BY-SA) and (GFDL). Both of these licenses allow reuse and modification, but reserve the right to attribution."

Due to these serious copyright issues it is my proposal the deletions/edits to Midnight Rider (film), as part of this split, be reverted and that Speedy Deletion be requested for Midnight Rider train accident We could then discuss the best way to implement such a split. DFinmitre (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You know, if you want to undo the split you might as well just do it instead of writing at length talking about how I did things wrong (apparently on a mobile device no less) and getting admins to spend their time on this. You don't even need to request a speedy, just undo all the stuff I took time out to do and redirect the page I created to this one. At this point, it seems like you're just splitting hairs.

And how much more discussion do you want? There are virtual reams of discussion above that got exactly nothing accomplished, the article was still a mess, so I finally decided to do something, but alas, to no avail. All the content is still here, but on different pages to rectify the whole undue weight issue. What more do you want? To be clear, I am not miffed at the possibility of my edits here being undone. Rather, I'm flabbergasted by this whole circuitous process. If you wanted things the way they were, just say so and revert everything. There's no need to dress it up and seek validation from policies/guidelines/admins. Just when I thought I forgot, I'm easily reminded why I don't go bold anymore. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your graciousness in completing the revert. I was not aware you could just redirect the new page back to the old one. Frankly the only reason I had not attempted to split the article is I didn't know how to deal with the history issue nor did I know the proper procedure to go about it the right way, which I seem to have learned a whole lot about the last couple days. Thanks to some assistance by admins, I am now aware of the attibute template and how it addresses the history issues. My apologies for not simply reverting, I was concerned the complications of the split and new page might end up a bit confusing and I didn't want to make things worse. Now that I know a whole lot more about completing a split I would like to assist with the process. DFinmitre (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Jtalledo that this article needs to be split, or, at the very least, the undue overcoverage of the accident needs to be heavily reduced. Maybe an RFC is called for. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Blimey, is this crap still going on? Yes, RFC would be good. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As only one day of shooting occured, and many of the lawsuits were directly related to repeated attempts to restart production, much of the article relates to the film. So the recent attempt at a split violated [WP:SPINOFF].

"Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others."

More importantly the way the split was executed cut/delete/edit/paste clearly created attribution and copyright issues.

So the argument was not whether a split should occur, but that it follows the standards of [WP:PROPERSPLIT] and does not violate [WP:SPINOFF]. Reference to controversal, but highly sourced, material should not be completely removed from the article via a split.

Otherwise, I think there is concensus to create a split article:

• Midnight Rider (film) tragedy

However is seems if there is to be a discussion it should be about whether there should also be a split article:

• Sarah Jones (filmmaker)

Given the discussion to delete that article was based more on the way it was written and the recent nature of events, and that it was not deleted, but redirected, maybe it would be best to reopen that discussion first. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Jones_(filmmaker)

@NijaRobotPirate: Also given the fact that you clearly violated WP:CANVAS and Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC in our last discussion on this topic, maybe it would be better to seek WP:THIRDOPINION assistance with respect to the notability of Sarah Jones.

To expand on that issue, the criminal trial begins pre-trial hearings in a few weeks and the trial next month. Many issues that have been debated will be clarified as fact at trial and the discussion in surrounding the trial, likely in highly credible sources, should clear up many of the issues debated.

Sarah Jones was the subject of an in depth investigative segment on 20/20 this fall, she was noted by Variety, IMDB.com and Deadline Hollywood in their year end 2014 notable deaths, and was recently the focus of a Safety PSA, with many notable actors, that was released at Sundance and continues to be a catalyst for change in the industry. So I really don't get the arguments against the article.DFinmitre (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Choosing a name for split article(s)

As there seems to be a concensus that at some point it makes sense to split this article I am suggesting a discussion on the proper name for one or two splits. As there are other discussions on the talk page concerning notability issues and the proper procedure for a split related to WP:PROPERSPLIT and WP:SPINOFF I am suggesting this section only focus on the specific name of the new article(s).

• Midnight Rider (film) tragedy

Following the similar Twilight Zone tragedy I think adds clarity to the purpose of the split, including not just the events of train collision with the film crew, but events that led up to that day, controversies after, and effects on film safety in the industry. Since it seems unlikely at this point that the film itself will every be made under that title, and that the song Midnight Rider is a common current media subject, adding "(film)" prevents the confusing nature of the title relating more to the song than the film.

• Sarah Jones (filmmaker)

It seems to make sense to split this article from Midnight Rider (film) first, as opposed to including it in another split and then splitting it.

An article with the name "Sarah Jones (filmmaker)" was created shortly after Sarah's death and there was a discussion to delete it based on problems with the article. It was decided to redirect the article to "Midnight Rider (film)"

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Jones_(filmmaker)

In November 2014 the article was moved to "Sarah Jones (camera assistant)" diff, while still maintaining the redirect.

While "camera assistant" was Sarah Jones job title while working on Midnight Rider, she was a member of the Cinematographers guild and has IMDB credits of camera operator and cinematographer, which is commmon for guild members. Filmmaker seems to be the description used within wiki that does not require specifying one job title. DFinmitre (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a mess and needs splitting, however I have a slightly different take on how that might best be accomplished.

• Midnight Rider (film) tragedy is appropriate, but IMO should focus on the events, preamble, and aftermath of the incident itself, not the wider movement that it rekindled to improve workplace safety in the motion-picture industry. That topic has a far wider impact and legacy and deserves fuller treatment outside the scope of one event. To that end...
• Safety for Sarah movement should record the history and progress of that cause, with a section discussing the person in whose memory it is named. Sarah Jones (filmmaker) should redirect to that section within the Safety for Sarah article.

I have given quite a bit of thought to this question in the (almost) one year since her tragic death, but I do not believe that Sarah Jones herself rises above WP:1E. I work as an on-set lighting technician and I see her name and think about the lesson of her senseless loss every single day on the job, and will do so for as long as I live. Nonetheless, thinking dispassionately, I cannot avoid the conclusion that there is nothing otherwise wikipedia-notable about Sarah herself. Sarah Jones (filmmaker) would contain very little information that would not be duplicated in the other articles proposed. And what it did contain that was not connected to either the incident of her death, or her legacy as the tragic face for workplace safety, would be trivial and of little interest to the vast majority of people, just as my own professional and personal details would not merit a wikipedia article. And finally:

• Midnight Rider (film) should be folded into Midnight Rider (film) tragedy. As a defunct minor project that will never be revived, it is notable only for its notoriety in connection with the death and injuries it caused, and thus itself fails WP:1E as well. Threephi (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Threephi, I appreciate your comments, but just to clarify, WP:1E does not exclude people who might be known primarily for one event, especially when the event, and specifically the individual, would be considered highly notable based on wiki standards over a prolonged period of time. Sarah Jones clearly and dramatically exceeds precident in this wiki for inclusion on many different counts.

That said, I agree with most of your suggestions as a good solution. I disagree however that Midnight Rider (film) is no longer notable as a stand alone article. While much of the details of the controversy surrounding production and the film safety movement could move to those two pages, the core article should remain with summaries explaining the production and the many correlary events it spawned. It is probably the most notable film ever that has only shot one day of film, but it did go into on set production with the director, cinematographer, lead actors and crew and would have continued with a multi-million dollar production if not for the negligence related to the tragedy. Miller and Savin had every intention to restart the film immediately after and on at least two more occassions in 2014. That, and much of the controversy has been about production efforts of the film, not the criminal trials and specifically the tragedy itself.

While there has been dramatic overlap there are three unique entities. The film production, the story of which started in May of 2014 at Sundance with Open Road Films, Miller, and Allman and can not conclusively be said has ended yet. The tragedy that happened on February 20, 2014, that has become notable as a stand alone incident. And the Safety for Sarah movement that is ongoing as represented by last months safety PSA unveiled at Sundance and recognition of Sarah Jones and safety Sunday Feb 8 by Gale Anne Hurd when she received her award at the Society of Operating Cameramen event.

So it would actually be odd to move things like Allman suing to stop the film and Miller/Savin suing their insurance company, who refused to fund the restart, from a section about the film production to the page about the tragedy that happened on Feb 20, 2014.

More importantly where is your source to claim the film will never be made? The Allman settlement is secret, Miller and Savin have repeatedly said they will continue and have sued their insurance company for the funds to continue. Your assumption assumes the four will be found guilty and unable to continue the film. While I think that is all highly likely, with the wiki we are to create articles based on reliable sources, not what we guess or think will happen in the future. DFinmitre (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am of course speaking speculatively regarding the restart of the movie, but as we are discussing the prospective notability of wikipedia article subjects, sourcing is not required at this stage ;). I don't think it's a stretch however to presume less than a snowball's chance in hell that Midnight Rider (film) will ever get made. Assuming they clear the remaining legal hurdles, Miller et. al. (or others) might theoretically persist in their as-yet furtive attempts to produce some derivative successor project, but it would have to be based on a different script and it would for all intents and purposes be a different film.

In any event, respectfully, I think you have it backwards regarding Wikipedia guidelines on films in production. I based this part of my argument on WP:NFF and WP:FFCLARIFY, which discusses the non-notability of future films, and exceptions (I was however incorrect to cite WP:1E as that only applies to people). To briefly summarize, all else being equal, a movie project does not merit its own article until it is released, so the burden is to show why it may qualify on other grounds. The mere fact of being in production is insufficient. Those guidelines say films should firmly not have an article before principal photography commences (note, ironically, that the producers themselves claimed that Feb 20 2014 was a "pre-shoot" day prior to the start of principal photography), and discourage articles about films that have not been released. The exceptions come when the production qualifies under the general notability standard; however, when the details of the uncompleted film's production can be contained in another article, that is preferable. In my view, the production details for Midnight Rider which are not directly related to the tragedy are trivial and do not merit their own article. All of the significant coverage from reliable sources has been about the tragedy, not the film prior to or outside those events. Had there been no incident on Feb 20 2014, Midnight Rider the un-released movie would clearly fail under WP:NFF. The dangerous production practices and lawsuits etc. are more properly discussed in the context of the tragedy and would merely be duplicated in a separate article about the film. Anyone researching this subject in years to come will be focussed on the death of Sarah Jones and the injuries to other crew members, the mismanagement and negligence of the producers, the legal fallout, the workplace safety implications, and what caused all that to happen, and not on any unrelated and insignificant production minutiae of a film that never got made.

Regarding an article about Sarah, hers is a heart-wrenching loss which I personally will never forget, but her individual notability begins and ends with her death. The legacy of the Midnight Rider tragedy may evolve and grow which I think is the gist of your comment about wiki standards over time, but Sarah's role in it was finite and passive. Compare for example the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. That is one of the seminal events of 20th century American history, yet the four little girls who lost their lives in that event, Addie Mae Collins, Cynthia Wesley, Carol Denise McNair and Carole Robertson, are not otherwise notable and thus do not have their own pages. Or more apropros, the Twilight Zone tragedy. Vic Morrow gets his own article because he had a long acting career apart from his losing his life on a film set; Myca Dinh Le and Renee Shin-Yi Chen do not.

Anyway, this is all hot air until and unless someone tackles the actual work of pruning and splitting the current article, and I confess that I do not have anything approaching the necessary time to devote to it. If that's you, DFinmitre, more power to you, and naturally you would be able to exercise primary discretion on how to organize and present the articles. Regardless, I hope these thoughts will be of use to whoever may take up the challenge. Threephi (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Threephi Thank you for thoughful comments.

I think your suggestion of an article Safety for Sarah movement with a redirect from Sarah Jones (filmmaker) would be the best solution, setting aside the discussion of the notability of Sarah Jones. It is hard to argue that the Safety for Sarah movement is not notable at this point.

Just to add to your comments about the film as a stand alone article.

WP:NFF "Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines."

WP:FFCLARIFY "Does the discussion of a planned film's progress or lack of progress have the in-depth and persistent coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time so as to be seem in a historical context and be presumable as "worthy of note?"

If efforts to complete the production simply halted after the tragedy, I would agree with your argument. But there are actually two parallel story lines, both well sourced. One is about efforts to restart the film where its multiple failures became very notable, and this really does not belong on a page about the tragedy. The other is the lawsuits and aftermath of the tragedy which is quite notable for a director and producer to be indicted for involuntary manslaughter.

For the professional film community to make such a dramatic statement in protest of a film restarting, which led to the main actors withdrawl and Gregg Allman's public statements to halt the film and his lawsuit, is without precident in the history of filmmaking. While a direct result of the tragedy, this was separately about ongoing efforts to produce the film itself. In Gregg Allman's statement after the crew protests he said, "While there may have been a possibility that the production might have resumed shortly after that (the tragedy)...". So in his mind Allman intended to continue the film with Miller/Savin after the tragedy, and did not make this his statement until overwhelming social media pressure, published articles, and Hurts withdraw.

Since they actually shot film, including principal actors, while the legal debate of whether it is principal photography is very relevant to the Gregg Allman lawsuit to stop the film, I think we can all agree the intent of the producers was to shoot a day of what would have become principal photography, if not for the disaster. It was within the prep days for the full production, not weeks in advance, and they were operating out of the main studio to be used for the film, with the core crew members brought in from around the country for principal photography. But that is beside the point if the exception to WP:NFF is that the failure of the production was distinctly notable over an extended period of time.

So it seems to put the film production information into the "tragedy" page would be a bit out of context, long and jumbled. (Same but reversed argument about the article right now)

My thought is I think this is a complicated move/division separation and I would like for other editors who are familiar with this article to have a chance to weigh in with their opinions. I would rather try to tackle such a complicated split after the upcoming trials have completed, so it does not become confusing with reorganization and addtions at the same time.

I might tackle the Safety for Sarah movement split as I think that is a clear and strait forward project. As Threephi and I have concensus on that, is there any other input? DFinmitre (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't followed this article all that closely but I've written other articles on railway accidents. Now that the NTSB has published a report I think a separate article can be written on the accident itself, perhaps at Midnight Rider tragedy or 2014 Jessup train accident. I'm not aware of other articles dealing with trespassing accidents since they normally aren't notable. As suggested above that article should focus on the accident, the events which led up to it, and a summary of the legal and social developments afterwards. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The NTSB report is just a "brief" and doesn't really say much in that great detail. The workplace safety and criminal side of this case has priority over the NTSB since there is no serious "safety issue" from the NTSB's perspective. The NTSB does issue a recommendation about making sure film productions are more aware of the hazards of railroads, but that's a minor point - it's not like a major railway accident that has greater implications for *transportation* safety - the NTSB's jurisdiction. Unfortunately, hundreds of people are killed annually due to trespassing or not heeding grade crossing signals - such deaths while tragic in each case, are not individually notable. The overall aspect of responsibility for safety on film sets is the bigger issue here, not the actual accident details. Jpp42 (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jpp42 I agree fully with your statement, the NTSB report is basically insignificant compared to the OSHA hearing scheduled to start March 31, 2015 and the Federal Railroad Adminsitration still has not released their findings which should follow the OSHA hearing. If there are federal charges to be filed they will follow the FRA recommendations. Thus still kind of a busy time to attempt a full article split.

Further I agree with @Jpp42 that a title like "Jesup Train accident" would not be notable or appropriate. It is not known publicly as that, has not been refered in the media as that, and was not an accident. The producers were convicted of felony involuntary manslaughter and clear statements by OSHA have made it clear this (Redacted), leading to a death and multiple injuries. Calling it an accident would be comparable to calling a plane hitting a mountain a bad landing. Seriously. Being non-biased or non-pov does not mean ignorant of well established facts and reality. It was appropriate to maintain a more balanced view pending the criminal trials, but the criminals have admitted their guilt, there are no appeals, there is no question, and one is in jail. Attempts at this point, based on clear and well referenced facts in the article, to portray this as an accident or give undue weight to claims by the producers of innocence that are clearly disputed by facts of the criminal case, statements by the DA, and the admitted guilt of the criminals is insulting to the victims of this horrendous crime.DFinmitre (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Proper Procedure for Splitting Article

Given that there has been significant vandalism to this article in the past, and that there is a related criminal trial beginning February/March 2015, as well as multiple open lawsuits that could affect the production of the film, and that there were concerns about a previous split, I am suggesting that the process to split the article be discussed here.

While there seems to be concensus that a split should occur, I think some might agree that it is not necessary to take place at the same time so many events are unfolding. As only one day of the film was shot, and it seems highly unlikely the film will be released, the controversy surrounding the film's production, producers, director and crew, is significantly more notable than the actual film itself. Reference in sources related to these issues commonly includes "Midnight Rider".

Thus, in creating a split article it is suggested that editors follow the standards described in WP:PROPERSPLIT and WP:SPINOFF. DFinmitre (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY applies here

I have significantly tightened this article, as Wikipedia articles are summaries of their topic, not impossibly-detailed, blow-by-blow, filing-by-filing accounts of lawsuits or investigations. I agree that the apparently-lasting push for greater safety in film productions should be spun off to a separate article, perhaps at Safety for Sarah or a similar title, if sufficient sourcing for it can be developed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Except you did not summarize much of the massive chunk of this article you just deleted. You just deleted massive chunks with no effort to include much of the very relevant details that explain events. I guess wiki will just continue to become more inaccurate with this type of editing. 76.97.45.210 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: What you have done is actually a violation of Wp:Summary. Articles ARE NOT a summary of a subject. Please go read the links to "summary" that you referenced. What that section details is that when you spin off an article to create a new one you should leave a summary in its place with a re-direct to the new article. What you have done is totally not in line with the current concensus for this article. All of the editors who have discussed it have agreed that a new article "The Midnight Rider Tragedy" should be created leaving in this article a summary and link.

What you did is just massively delete sourced information with no attempt to create the new article or summarize what you deleted. I think most of us agreed it was better not to attempt a massive reordering of the article during the middle of federal hearing and right before the Federal Railroad Administration is due to release the findings after a year. We all seem to agree it would be good to simplify the article as well, but again, not during the middle of a trial when adding confusion to public facts is not such a good idea.

Everything you deleted was well sourced so such a massive deletion could seem like vandalism since there is an in depth discussion of this issue on the talk page. It seems that now there are conflicting edits so the massive deletions will not revert at this point. Hopefully this situation can be rectified somehow without having to take this to the Administrators page, as several previous massive deletions to this page have required. DFinmitre (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki artiles ARE NOT SUMMMARIES. You have completely missread WP:SUMMARY. Most of what you delted would have been spun off to "The Midnight Rider Tragedy" or similar, preferably after the current legal cases are not as active. WP:SUMMARY is not intended to be used just to massively delete well sourced information that concensus seems to agree should be spun off into an new article and is very relevant to the new article.DFinmitre (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are summaries, actually. We don't care about the breathless details of "federal hearings." WP:NOTNEWS, for one. If and when something notable from the hearing is discussed in reliable sources, we can consider adding it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Good luck. You'll never get a single word removed from this article. It looks like your changes were pretty constructive, but of course they got reverted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: The series of edits were reverted by an admin, are you criticizing the admin who made this decision?. Due to edit conflicts it could only be reverted by an admin. I think all the editors who have been contributing to this article, per talk page discussions, agree the article can and should be split into three separate articles that are each notable individually. I think all agree that after the federal hearings, investigations and civil cases are complete many sections can be reduced to summaries of what is currently in the article. At this point having more detail has been more fair to all sides, pending legal resolution of hearings, trials, and cases. Some of this detail clarifies those dropped from lawsuits, and why. For a series of events that have been so historic to the film industry and significant to film safety it seems the current article is more fair to all parties by having a more complete set of facts. Many articles in the wiki have this level of detail for complicated issues. To imply that wiki articles need to be brief and very easy to read, even at the sacrifice of accuracy and details that are important to understand different views, aspects and to avoid confussion by omission of key facts, does not seem to fit with the greater breath of wiki policy. It is simply not appropriate to site a wiki policy and clearly not follow the directives of that policy.DFinmitre (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't reverted by an admin. I wrote a 9000 word article on a complicated topic, but this is ridiculous. For one thing, it's not a complicated topic; it's an article about a film that has become a coatrack for a memorial. Some day, maybe I'll care enough to push this through dispute resolution or start an RFC, but I'm tired of debating this issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As the "reverting" user has made no effort to engage in talk page discussions, I have reverted them. The removals are clearly within policy, constructive and have the agreement of several other users here. You are the only user insisting that the previous version is acceptable. To specify one example, we have no need for hopelessly-detailed breathless recounting of every twist and turn in every lawsuit filed over this case. That's not what Wikipedia does. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have created a separate article, Safety for Sarah movement, to detail the campaign for better safety in filming that has arisen in the wake of Sarah Jones' death. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur that the article was far too long, and in general I support NorthBySouthBaranof's edits. Of course specific content and edits may be subject to further discussion, but overall the shorter version is an improvement, and I hope it will not be reverted wholesale again. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that we got the article pruned down to 2700 words, do we still need the cleanup tags? I don't think there's much need for them, personally. There's still some original research and POV writing that needs to be cleaned up, but it's not so bad that we need a badge of shame. One thing that strikes me is the line "This use of Allman material brings into question what kind of settlement was reached in the lawsuit between Allman and Miller over the film rights to his story and book." This is not found anywhere in the cited source, and it seems to be editorializing by an editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Please stop editing what I write. If you require a source for my statement, please ask first, much of the DA's statement was in a video provided by Deadline and substantiates my comments. What has been done to this article is clearly vandalism. @NinjaRobotPirate and @NorthBySouthBaranof have clearly been trying to use wiki policy incorrectly and much of what has been done to this article repeatedly is in violation of wiki policy. But I guess this is what the wiki has become.DFinmitre (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@DFinmitre: I will continue to edit what you write so long as you are attempting to use the encyclopedia as a soapbox to express your personal opinion of people rather than write a neutral, dispassionate article about the issue, and in so doing violate the biographies of living persons policy which prohibits unsupported negative allegations, accusations or claims about anyone, no matter how "evil" you think that person is. Calling a living person a "cold-blooded murderer" on a talk page is not acceptable, given that the person in question has never been charged with or convicted of such a crime. Nor is it correct to state or accuse that person or persons of "conspiracy" when no such criminal charge has been laid. It is clear that you have a deep-seeded personal antipathy against certain persons relating to this incident and passionate personal feelings about what happened. Wikipedia is not the place for you to express those feelings or your antipathies. It is a project to write an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Good progress so far, and some thoughts

The current version is much more readable, but obviously there's still work to be done. The citations are a bit of a mess, I tweaked a few but there are undoubtedly many more that need verification and pruning.

I'm also not sure that a film infobox is appropriate for a cancelled project that barely got off the ground. The "starring" field lists a number of actors who ended up not even working a single day on the film, I think I may remove the names listed there entirely since it's hard to say anyone "starred" in something that was never made.

And on a macro scale, as more and more time goes by, it seems to me that Midnight Rider the never-to-be-produced movie continues to wane in notability, while that of the train collision continues to grow. This article is admittedly unfinished, but the vast bulk of it continues to be about the tragedy, and the title should reflect that. The guidelines for movie articles (which I referenced above in an earlier comment) hold that unfinished or unreleased movies do not warrant their own article unless the production-in-progress passes the general notability guideline, and the information would not more appropriately be contained in another article--in this case, Midnight Rider tragedy or Midnight Rider train collision. --Threephi (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

suspended > uncompleted

I've always found it a bit jarring to call this movie "currently suspended" as that implies there are active plans to ramp up production again. I can't find specific sourcing to shave this distinction, but I think "uncompleted" is more accurate while still remaining within the information available in the public record.

On a minor grammatical note, are unproduced works properly referred to in the present tense, since they don't actually exist? I went back and forth on that one but I'm still not sure. --Threephi (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I know this is an old thread, but an IP recently changed this to "incomplete". I put "uncompleted" back. I think it's the better word, referring to the work as not having been completed (akin to Schubert's "Unfinished Symphony" rather than "incomplete," which sounds like something was just left out. TJRC (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No mention of Randall Miller's precedent-setting jail sentence, nor the train being unscheduled

Someone with the time should incorporate some updated info from the Randall Miller article, including that the train in question (apparently unlike others that went by) was unscheduled, and that Miller became "the first film director in history to be convicted in the U.S. for the death of a cast or crew member". --Dan Harkless (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, FYI, I just rescued the dead cite in that article for the train being unscheduled, and found that it didn't establish the claims of the sentence. (I've marked it with {{failed verification}}.) --Dan Harkless (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Updates?

Are there any updates as of 2023? Cwater1 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)