![]() | A fact from Midnight Rider (film) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 April 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Midnight Rider (film) was split to Midnight Rider train accident on 12:43, January 22, 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
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)
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)
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)
I removed this text from the Production section:
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)
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)
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 memorials DFinmitre ( talk) 19:55, 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 delete DFinmitre ( talk) 20:30, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
(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)
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 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)
@ 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)
−=== 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:
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:
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)
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)
"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:
However is seems if there is to be a discussion it should be about whether there should also be a split article:
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)
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).
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.
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)
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)
@Threephi Thank you for thoughful comments.
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Are there any updates as of 2023? Cwater1 ( talk) 18:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Midnight Rider (film) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 April 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Midnight Rider (film) was split to Midnight Rider train accident on 12:43, January 22, 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
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)
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)
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)
I removed this text from the Production section:
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)
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)
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 memorials DFinmitre ( talk) 19:55, 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 delete DFinmitre ( talk) 20:30, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
(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)
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 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)
@ 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)
−=== 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:
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:
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)
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)
"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:
However is seems if there is to be a discussion it should be about whether there should also be a split article:
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)
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).
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.
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)
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)
@Threephi Thank you for thoughful comments.
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Are there any updates as of 2023? Cwater1 ( talk) 18:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)