Talk:Rupert Murdoch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Keep changing the his nationality phrase

We have had this conversation on whether to put Australian-American or Australian born American and we all agreed on putting Australian-born America. However, some people still wish to change it once in a while.-- And Rew 02:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Acquiring American citizenship

First: it's better to say US citizenship. He didn't acquire citizenship in Guatemala, Brazil, Nicaragua... all of which would make him 'american'.

Second: the section as it stands is anaemic and not NPOV. You mention nothing of how he got this citizenship (without ever having lived in the US) and you do not bring up the nasty business of how he was able to retain his Australian holdings after the citizenship became known in Australia.

As such, yes the article is anything but neutral. Or good. Or worth reading.

Well as to the first part. A citizen of the United States of America is called an American, so if you say you are an American, nobody's going to think you are from a country other than the US.-- And Rew 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch is a citizen of the United States of America and is called an American, even though he was born in Australia (and, one could say, "is from" Australia). Under the nationality laws of Australia at the time, he lost his Australian citizenship when he naturalized as an American. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

It's mentioned in this article that Murdoch lost his other citizenship (Australian) therefore he only is an American Citizen and not an Australian American. If it's about his ethnicity which is Australian then we should indicate everyone's ethnicity but since usually only the term American (Nationality) is written next to Americans' name and not their "Ethnicity-American" (Not for dual citizens) I will remove the Australian part and let American remain there. (In the beginning of the article.)--Arash Eb (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This makes sense to me, and was something I came in here to propose. However, he seems to still be listed as "Australian", though he appears to be American. Since I don't see any discussion here saying it should be Australian, I'll make that change.68.36.51.89 (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well he WAS an Australian but it seems he lost his other citizenship due to getting his US citizenship therefore I see no reason to call him Australian. --Arash Eb (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How would this work if he happened to be Jewish (he's not as far I know)? Most such people seem to be described as "American Jewish entertainer/whatever". Why is their ethnicity important in that case, but not for everyone else? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't ask me. I'm also against American-Jewish things.And If I see I will remove.--Arash Eb (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS:BIO — Nationality: the country of which the person was a citizen when the person became notable. Murdoch, as is noted throughout the article, became notable as an Australian citizen/businessman long before he had to take up US citizenship in order "to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own American businesses". Hes a renowned Aussie businessman. I also lived in the UK for 2 years in the early 1990's whose media only ever reported him as such. I propose the intro (Australian-American) is reworded to meet MoS criteria.--Gold coast surf (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The term Australian-American implies wrong information and means that the person is a citizen of Australia as well as the United States. Plus it depends on what you mean when you call him a notable person. For many in the US, he became notable when he started his News Corporation thus I think that's a wrong judgement plus you actually didn't write the first part of that line: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." Moreover when the term "or" is used it means either this or that and not both together. There is also another part in that same page which says: "Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Finally I think calling him an American is more informative and true because he is right now an American and the reason he gave up his other nationality doesn't matter in this case and for now.-- And Rew 03:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, most people leaving Europe had to give up their nationality to take up another (in this case, American) citizenship, but still are referred to as "X-American". As another example, African Americans not only have never been citizens of an African country but have no link to the region - yet it's always indicated. It marks origin, not presently held nationality. Secondly, Gold coast surf makes the relevant point that the majority of his career as a notable (from a Wiki point of view) person was in Australia as an Australian citizen. Orderinchaos 01:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

African American is not referring to nationality but ethnicity. A term like German American which is used for someone who is only a US Citizen also refers to his/her ethnicity. Therefore a term like Irish American has two meanings: A citizen of Ireland and America, an American with Irish decent. In Wikipedia these terms in the beginning of articles refer to nationalities and not ethnicities. Thus using the term Australian American for Rupert Murdoch is false if referring to his nationality. -- And Rew 03:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• In actuality, most American people on Wikipedia, and in other encyclopedia entries, are listed by their American ethnicity. Particularly if they were born outside the United States. One can look at George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Jennifer Granholm and Arnold Schwarzenegger. It does not conform to other entries to remove the 'Australian' descriptor from the lede. Dave Dial (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Better to say, for foreign born Americans, their place of birth or their default nationality is mentioned in the form of "X-born American" which is a fair argument and I agree with the term Australian-born American. -- And Rew 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please. Murdoch is not an American. He's a Brit. He's not culturally an American. He never will be. Undocumented immigrants from ANONYMOUS - Mexico are more "American" than Murdoch, who has no respect for American culture, democracy, or egalitarianism. Citizenship doesn't make you American. Sharing American values does. He doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.102.108 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is flawy. Nationality back to what it was.-- And Rew 03:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not a Brit; he's Australian, you idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.89.5 (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not communist

Knowing Rupert Murdoch personally for half a century I can say with certainty that he was never a commmunist. I discussed this with him the first time we had dinner together in 1956. In his adolescence he liked to annoy and tease his father. In fact, as I shall lay out in a further section he has no deep political ideology, just whatever suits him and his business ambitions at a moment in time. He did have a statue of Lenin in his room at Oxford. Communism was a popular theme at British universities in the 1950s and Rupert was just playing along. Remember the British spy network of communists from Cambridge? (Look up St John Philby on Wiki)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.16.85 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC) 

Misc.

Re: The Page 3 girls. Rupert Murdoch started using them in the Sydney Daily Mirror in the sixties. In Australia their bosoms had to be covered. They were bikini girls then. Where he got the idea from I don't know but most of his ideas were borrowed from someone else.

The relationship with Maxwell was a very brief interlude. He outsmarted Maxwell at the News of the World stockholders meeting and outbid him for The Sun when it came on the market. But Maxwell was broke and no match for Rupert. It is impossible to refer to every interlude in this man's life, there are just too many events and characters crossing his path. The biographies by Page, Chenoweth, Shawcross and Kiernan are fairly comprehensive up to about 2000. Future biographers will have a massive task.

As to the neo-conservative patch and the Weekly Standard, well that suited him at the time, just like New York magazine, the National Star, Clay Felker and Steve Ross. He plays with these things and then dumps them and moves on. I don't know whether he ever met Scaife. As to Elisabeth Murdoch jun, I can only say that Rupert's kids do not figure greatly in his life. He would love one of them to join him in the business. He was never a great father and his relationship with all his kids is an insignificant part of his life. I do not believe any one of them, not even James, will truly succeed him. No one but Rupert Murdoch is capable of running an organisation like News Corporation. Frankly, no one but Rupert would want to in its present form. When he dies it will certainly be broken up. That's a personal opinion, but a well informed one.

Why is there no section on Critisism of Murdoch on the article page? It seems like Murdoch has infected Wikipedia as well. Tri400 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Communist

I read somewhere that murdoch was comunist at the begining and have a statue of Lenine in his room.

Italic textI doubt incredibly that murdoch is a Communist, he's like the pinacle of capitalism.However, I do say that labeling someone left or right wing is informative at a basic level. A mon avis, the left/right stance should be noted and then more detail be put in.

I feel humbled being in the presence of such intellectual greats as the two posters above. Gaw!

"Right" and "left" are ambiguous terms with considerable difference in meaning depending on the political context of one's nation/region of the world. He is neither a neoconservative nor a communist. Murdoch simply does whatever is best for his empire, period. He finds himself working with and promoting dominant, controlling political powers who in turn feed his empire in reward. It's that simple. Fascism would be probably be the most correct label, in terms of his behavior to act locally fascist in each area of operation. But as for his personal politics, he has none. It's just business to support the demogauges who will return the favor.

Agreed -- perhaps selfish is the best word? Anyway, right and left have very different -- and rather pointless -- meanings in different contexts, so a more detailed analysis is required. --Kigoe 00:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch is listed on the wikipedia entry for the Oxford University Labour Club as a Notable former executive committee member - suggesting that he certainly was a socialist in his student days. --129.67.115.253 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw a TV program, if memory serves me, he described this as just something uni students did, like a fad or phase.

It's funny that everyone claims he's so conservative, yet in this article, he does come off as a liberal socialist. However, as was said above, he likely goes for whoever he thinks will be the leading class, hence his support of Hillary and most recently his kissing ass of Obama. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.115.58 (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

NPOV? Particularly the part about corrupt trades unions practices seems somewhat non-neutral OwenBlacker 12:52, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

If you regard it as non-POV the way to tackle that is:

• Dispute the criticisms as non-factual - ie, ask for evidence of them (be very specific about what you are disputing).
• Bring the pendulum back the other way by inserting positive aspects of Murdoch. I suspect if you do not do this yourself, you will find few takers ;o) --bodnotbod 15:02, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

• "His father,who was secretly a homosexual, was...": Looks like vandalism to me, no such mention in the main article. Should this be edited out? --83.67.99.89 14:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Compile list of stake holdings / shares / acquisitions ?

i dont know where to obtain this information (i would start the document if i had found such a source maybe) but does anyone have information on all the companies Murdoch has a share in? if this isnt available in one source it could require a lot of work to compile, but even a half complete list of all these companies could be very educational and worthy of adding i think, adding a lot of value to this article. anyone agree / can help with this?

I agree, a individual page on Rupert Murdoch's/Newscorp holdings would be very useful. The first place to start would be newscorp.com and it shouldnt be too hard to get more details. I will help out if somebody wants to start a page but dont really want to do it myself as im a wiki-newbie Perrymason 00:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Reveldor 23:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Neil Chenoweth, an investigative reporter for the Australian Financial Review, spent years keeping track of Rupert Murdoch's financial dealings. They are incredibly complicated. Chenoweth's book is your best source: It is called "Rupert Murdoch, the untold story of the world's greatest media wizard." In England it was called "Virtual Murdoch." The publisher was Random House and the ISBN 0-609-61038-4. You should be able to buy it on Amazon. You'd be wasting your time trying to track them down. They are tied up in innumerable family trusts, mostly registered in a multitude of offshore tax havens. And remember, by the time you got your list it would have been changed. He changes things around all the time.

Politics

According to the article, his politics are right-wing, yet he was a supporter of the Labor party. I'm confused.

Because he is of the right, he values the Labour party taking his line. The Labour party probably owes its support from the Murdoch press to having bent to the Murdoch line more effectively than the Conservatives. What really matter is not who the Murdoch press supports, or even who is in power, but that both the government and the opposition must support Murdoch. Tim Ivorson 22:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reveldor 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Rupert Murdoch is not a politician. He is a businessman. He is neither left wing or right wing. He adops his political stances based on what is best for his business, which in the USA usually happens to be the Republican Party. He makes donations to both parties, what one might call having an each-way bet. Elsewhere he seems to choose the politicians likely to be the winners and likely to be best for the particular country at that time. If he gets favors in return, well that's the decision of the politicians.

71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC) mbd _____ Rev, that seems disingenuous. Of COURSE Rup is not a politician; he doesn’t HAVE to be- his personal wealth is more than most countries GNP’s. He is practically a business ‘Nation-State’ unto himself. The ‘supports Both parties’ move in U.S. politics wasn’t invented by him, it prolly started after G. Washington left office. But there are wealthy business figures who prefer to support the ‘Other’ party in the U.S. (Not as many perhaps as support the GOP, but some) His lion’s share always goes to the right. So I would argue that it is fair to claim that his ‘politics’ are right wing. He has identified himself as ‘Libertarian’ which I think is valid. Nothing I’ve read or heard about him indicates any strong social conservatism. Just mainly a consistent Laissez-faire, anti-tax fiscal conservatism. Since the strongest party supporting such policies has been the Republican Party in the states- he supports them. Ergo - A ‘Right Wing’ stance. ( I never saw much pressure from his media outlets to promote Ron Paul in the election. Rup prefers to back winning horses.) And even though he may not have strong personal identification with other ‘social conservative’ issues (i.e. gender issues, racial, & religeous concerns ) those come with the package in American right wing politics. Also I suspect he sees a certain headline grabbing ‘tittilation factor’ in the way the dominant Religeous Right in the neo-con GOP keeps dragging sexually controversial issues out into the public discourse. For him that just turns into a motherload of prurient media-money. But I always like reading your comment notes in here- you seem to have some valuable insights! Thanks ! 71.6.81.62 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC) mbd

Where can I find more?

"In 1985 Murdoch became a United States citizen to satisfy current legislation that only United States citizens could own American television stations—and yet also managed to have himself defined as an Australian citizen to retain his ownership of Australian media outlets."

Is there anywhere I could read more about this? Thanks

Reveldor 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)William Shawcross "Murdoch, the making of a Media Empire," and Bruce Page "The Murdoch Archipelago" from Amazon.

Murdoch relinquished Australian citizenship in 1985. The Australian media ownership battle that occurred when Murdoch became a US citizen is complicated. See http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/cmcl/malr/7-4-1%20Foreign%20Ownership%20Formatted%20for%20web.pdf and http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/business/07place.html?th=&pagewanted=all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.131.2 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

More NPOV

The article currently contains, "Murdoch and his competitors soon removed the worst excesses of unions from their workplaces." There must be a better way of describing whatever it was that actually happened, but I don't know what words to use. Tim Ivorson 10:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• How about "Murdoch successfully and controversially challenged the power of the unions". --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 21:34, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll use that. Tim Ivorson 13:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Controversial" is the tiredest cliche in the English language and should be banned from Wikipedia. What actually happened was: "In the face of bitter resistance from the printing unions in defence of their traditional but inefficient work practices, Murdoch successfully modernised the production of his newspapers." Adam 03:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Acquisitions in Britian section says that

During 1986-87, Murdoch moved to modernise the production process of his British newspapers, over which the printing unions had long maintained a highly restrictive grip.

I don't like modernise, but I'm not sure how to improve on this sentence. Would

During 1986-87, Murdoch moved to end the long-running grip of the printing unions over the production process of his British newspapers.

be any better? Was there something he was trying to do other than remove union power (and more specific than modernising)? I'll change it to adjust for the moment. Tim Ivorson 17:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He was trying to make his papers (and particularly the Times) profitable by producing them with the technology and work practices of the 1980s rather than the 1920s, and thus save them from bankruptcy. Of course he was also seeking to maximise his profits and the return to his shareholders, but Murdoch has never been greatly interested in money for its own sake. His main objective was to revolutionise newspaper production in Britain. Adam 09:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this bit deserves to be expanded. Otherwise, I think that, "During 1986-87, Murdoch moved to reduce the cost of the production process of his British newspapers, ..." would be better. Tim Ivorson 20:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This entire article is so full of pov pronouncements, attacks on the man's character, snide comments, weasel words, and general liberal trash, that I would have no idea where to begin. I would suggest that anyone with any intelligence would see this clearly, and after looking at the discussion page would be sickened. That this is allowed in an encycopedia is sad. ( I wrote alot more, but since it dealt with "good faith" and expletives, and general kinds of ranting and raving, I will just leave and hope someone fixes this, cause I can't look at any of it without a gagging reflex, and I am tired of spewing bile on to the screen and then having to delete it.) Jeremy99 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do not like the way material is presented in this article, you are always free to modify it, so long as it conforms with Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Remember-- be bold, but please be nice. --slakr 02:36, 24 June 2007 (

What is written in the article about him is all factual is the truth, backed up with neutral evidence. Personally I am centre, but i find it ridiculous hoow all over wikipedia there seem to be (for want of a better not so offensive word) 'morons' who seem to think telling the truth about someone, or showing unfalttering facts about Republican supporters, to be 'liberal trash', for some reason a lot of right-wingers would rather believe their own 'safe' warped reality than believe actual facts.172.214.15.239 20:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just in case, people want a source for my deletion

I removed the 2003 story about Fox News "sued" Fox network about the Simpsons which is not true. The creator of the Simpsons was just joking around. [1] --Krystyn Dominik 03:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal life

Made changes to the personal life tab to reflect the recent activity involving Lachlan and James. Any suggestions?

Removed link to Elisabeth, which goes to his mother, not his daughter.

Fixed with link to correct article. Adam 11:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

MSNBC pressuring Fox News?

I dispute the assertion that MSNBC is catching up with Fox News. Recent Neilsen ratings have proved anything but — MSNBC is well behind both Fox and CNN. (Hate to say it, because I like Keith Olbermann.) Realkyhick 07:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

yep, this stuck out when i read it as well, if anything, MSNBC would be catching up with CNN not FOX News, seeing as MSNBC is usually 3rd place in the ratings. im guessing it could be removed. Perrymason 00:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

im just commenting on the clarification that the australian liberal party "despite its name" is a center-right party. including "despite its name" narrows the term liberal to the way it is used in american politics. i suggest it would be sufficient to describe it as a centre-right party

Jewish background of mother questioned

There are a number of references on the Internet to Rupert Murdoch's Jewish ancestry: specifically that his mother was Jewish, or in some cases that his grandmother was jewish. It may well be that these references are all nonsense, but there are a fair number of them. Is there a reference somewhere which could provide confirmation of her Protestant background?

Yes. See [2]. You can search the book online, search for "Irish" or something and you should get the right page. JackO'Lantern 22:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with this and the Wiki policy set out above about referring to subjects' family or racial backgrounds, I have removed the assertion that he was 'born to a Jewish family'. --Lopakhin 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Have removed reference to Jewish background, given citation above to Irish Protestant background and lack of citation to former.

Allegation of Jewish descent

It's again in this article: "It has been alleged that Rupert Murdoch's mother was an Orthodox Jew."

The referenced article is listed thus: "Curtiss, Richard. "Rupert Murdoch and William Kristol: Using the Press to Advance Israel's Interests," Washington Report on the Middle East, June 2003,pp. 24-26(available online)"

First if it's "available online" provide a link. Second, the organization is the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. A quick trip to their website shows that -- agree with them or not -- it's not an objective source. It would be like quoting something from PNAC or the Heritage Foundation, or Electronic Intifada.

I'm removing the reference to his alleged Jewish descent. This article would be ten pages long if we list all the scurrilous allegations made by anyone with a website. --Tobor0 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Shareownership

I have removed the incorrect claim that he is a majority shareholder. The whole John Malone/Liberty Media issue of the last couple of years is missing and needs to be added. There is a little more about it in the News Corporation article. Choalbaton 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Politics and scandals

I think that the way murdoch can influence politics through scandals revealed in his papers is significant and have added a paragraph about this (mjb).

somebody watered down my paragraph. I have readded a reference to the iraq war in the mark oaten case since this is the specific policy which would be significant to murdochs interests and also have changed "political landscape" back to "democratic politics" since it is only really democratic politics which is affected by the revelation of scandals. Also "landscape" seems very anodyne for a situation where a politician is essentially taken out of action.

If the waterer-down objects to these edits I would appreciate a justification here.

I wasn't trying to water it down so much as to make it more grammatically correct and less verbose. I'm by no means an expert on grammar, but some of it just doesn't make sense to me as is. More importantly though, you need to add some sources to back up what you've added. - Maximusveritas 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to maximusverisimilitudis. Unfortunately the only way to prove things like the mark oaten incident is a comprehensive statistical analysis of the political party of the victim and how this coincides with murdochs interests. I dont have this data or really the resources to collect it single handedly. Perhaps this makes the assertion unfounded, but the language of the paragraph is pretty ambivalent in any case.

also you say that "it doesnt make sense". I am not sure which bit doesnt make sense.

m3b

The Sun newspaper

The Sun newspaper campaigning for tougher laws and sentences for people who commit sexual acts against children is a hoot. Yes, people who commit acts of terror on innocent children are vile. Most people agree. But to have the Sun Newspaper leading the cause is beyond belief. Rupert Murdoch collects an award at the Wiesenthal Center recently from Nicole Kidman and whilst accepting it refers to her as a good, good friend. Nicole Kidman starred in a movie called "Birth" where she is depicted in one scene sharing a bath with a boy aged 10!!! and discussing with each other their future sex life!!! I haven't seen the movie but researched it enough online to understand whats at play here. Its child porn, pure and simple, it being produced by a big hollywood studio doesn't detract it from that. It was rated "R" which means only one of the main stars "kidman" can actually go see it at the theatres, the kid i guess is "mature" enough to share a bath with an adult and discuss their future sex life, but not mature or old enough to go see the movie he stars in. It would be like a 9 year old starring in a vodka ad. I honestly believe that Corp media uses its global "thinktanks" to centre in on issues like punishment for child sex offenders, because i listen to a local radio host on one side of the planet and he's almost reading from the same script that the SUN newspaper uses to "champion its cause". This radio host actually said on air "he'd chip a kid in a heartbeat"..He referred to Digital Angel, a TechCorp who research and manufacture implantable microchips for humans "we have the technology, digital angel make chips that can track your childs movements, lets use it!". Best intentions? I'm not sure being lowered to the level of a beast of the field is the way to go to protect ourselves and our kids from deviants(read your bible about being branded) The SUN newspaper is utter trash, most people, certainly people i know know this to be true. Go to their website! www.thesun.co.uk - Ibiza exposed - webcam girls - saucy expose' - mystic meg tarot card readings - who is having sex with who in celebland crap- Page 3 girls. And this from a paper that is owned by Newscorp that "champions" christianty in the so called "left wing controlled media" in America today!. This corporation is a hidden reef in the christian faith. As for the rights of children (The God given right for a child not to be terrorised anywhere on this planet). They use a group that is vile (child sex offenders), put their P.R machine into action, and say we'll protect your children from these guys so good that you'll agree with our point of view on everything, spiritually, politically and intellectually. Their reasoning being "we do this in the public eye, makes us look good, JoePublic will digest our world viewpoint more easily" I bet the slueths of the Sun actually believe they're doing Gods work here on planet Earth and their boss Rupert Murdoch is Gods representative on Earth. But to me, its seems like they're slowly pushing the letter through the letterbox of the evil one. Like the slogan says on NewsCorps new movie coming out on 6,6,06 - "His day will come" - As will his Doom.

Dean. {Feb 11th, 2006}

thank you for your looney rant. most entertaining. Nomadtales 04:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Guy above a bit weird, but makes a good point, technically either is 'The Sun' or 'News of the World' or 'The Daily Mail' or 'The Times' a newspaper. I think they are all tabloids and it should be noted they dont deliver 'news' they deliver their perception of the news, a 'newspaper' is actually a broadsheet, and although much more boring without all the flashy colours and sexually attractive women on page 3, they are the 'real' newspapers as such, like the fininacial times for instance. I motion to have Murdoch's 'newspaper's' replaced with the term tabloid, because they dont give 'news' they give an opinion of current affairs, and are technically NOT newspapers. It should be made clear that most of the papers that Murdoch owns do not give un-opinionated 'news', and are often wirrten and laid out in tabloid style (presentation, colour for instance), and are genrally pretty right-leaning. I may be off my rocker, but I thought there was something fundamentally different between a newspaper and a tabloid, and the true title of 'newspaper' can only be given to a certain styyle of paper, eg. broadsheets. Im not just picking on right wing newspapers, I would say the same aboiut some loony socialist/communist trash as well, but I dont know that many.172.214.15.239 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

corrected a spelling error172.214.15.239 21:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity or religion

Wikipedia has a policy to not list a person's religion or ethnicity when it is not relevant. In Rupert Murdoch's case there are some people that choose to insert this into the article for propagandist purposes. It is not relevant nor required, most especially to list a grandparent's religion or ethnicity. It is not required nor is it relevant. Those that seek to do so are being POV. 69.209.196.164 10:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Can you please provide a link to that policy. I support the inclusion of Murdoch's grandfather's profession and the link to the fact that he was a clergyman of a particular denomination. I believe it is relevant to Murdoch's attitudes and thus his career.--A Y Arktos 10:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not consistent with the majority of Wikipedia's articles. To mention someone's ethnicity or religion, when they do not "self-indentify" to it, is against the norm. Do you disagree? 69.209.196.164 10:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• As above, yes I (and at least one other editor) disagree. Please cite the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, if there is none and you are referring to a "norm", that is not a guidleline. Please note there is a policy about reversion - Wikipedia:Three-revert rule--A Y Arktos 10:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And please stop wasting people's time with such juvenile piffle. Adam 10:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Can anyone cite a source where Murdoch says it is irrelevant or states he does not self-identify with his Grandfather's vocation? I don't mean whether he goes to church but whether he denies his background.--A Y Arktos 10:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Murdoch "identifies with" (what does that mean anyway?). This is a biographical article and family background is relevant to anyone's biography. Adam 10:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I disgree, that is not the norm.

If he doesn't self-indentify, then it's not relevant, most especially to mention the ethnicity or religion of a grandparent. See the Talk Page re: Daniel Pipes where even the mention of his ethnicity and religion, not his "grandparents", was contested. Why is this different? There is no reason to mention his ethnicity or religion. I am worried about "poisioning the well" with this non-necessary stuff. He does not self-indentify, period. That's Wikipedia's norm. 69.209.196.164 11:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure why I am bothering with this but Talk:Daniel Pipes has nothing about his ethnicity or religion - neither of those words appear on that page?!?A Y Arktos 11:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Kindly review the archives. It's there. But there really is no need to. How many other Wikipedia articles list the ethnicity or religion of grandparents, when the subject doesn't indentify? Please, let's be consistent. There is no reason to list this. There is POV involved, it shouldn't be. That's all. Do you disagree? 69.209.196.164 11:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree, because it's not POV in the slightest and your reasoning is completely nonsensical. 81.178.71.79 00:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is you who is being nonsensical, and avoiding the subject discussion. Please see below.69.209.218.111 22:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to express disagreement with 81.178.71.79 the information in question, namely religion of his pedigree, is always relevant, and there is no such wikipedia policy that makes such information off limits. EvanCarroll 04:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Order of St. Gregory the Great?

Numerous online sources claim that Murdoch and his second wife were inducted into the papal Order of St. Gregory the Great in 1999, the highest honour attainable by a layman in the Catholic Church. The sources claim that this honour was bestowed at the behest of Cardinal Roger Mahony in relation to a $10 Million donation by the Murdochs towards the restoration of Los Angeles cathedral. This would certainly be relevant information to include in the biography. However, all of the online sources for this appear to be less than reputable. Is anyone aware of a reputable source for this information?

According to the current Wikipedia article, someone would be led to believe Murdoch is Presbyterian, and if that's not true, then it's misleading and should be removed. Wikipedia doesn't list the ethnicity or religion of grandparents in articles, most especially when it's irrelevant.69.209.218.111 22:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In January 1998, the Pope on a visit to Los Angeles awarded the KCSG in recognition of services to Catholic causes to 67 people. Of those 67, 3 were non-Catholics - Bob Hope, Roy Disney, and Rupert Murdoch. However, it seems that Rupert Murdoch was not a noted supporter of the LA Cathedral (but Roy Disney was). For a reputable source, please see this excerpt from the January 3 1998 edition of the Los Angeles Times, " Pope Honors Rupert Murdoch, Roy Disney, Bob Hope" Bwithh 01:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversial: common characteristics of newspapers

I think the section titler "Common characteristics of newspapers" is highly subjective. There is little evidence of what is written here, and most is either heresay or spiteful. Please retract

I am not the writer of the comment above, but I have added a warning tag to the section as it seemed appropriate Bwithh 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence and references are indeed lacking, but all these claims are true and generally accepted nonetheless:

The newspapers frequently contain cross promotions and endorsements of other Murdoch products and business interests. Another example: News Corporation's Sun newspaper in the UK carries so much cross-promotion for his Sky satellite channel, that the satirical magazine Private Eye often features an 'I-Sky' spot for cross-promotional material 'masquerading as news'.

Events which may be contrary to Murdoch business interests may not be reported on, or may be given very small exposure in Murdoch newspapers. Example: Fox news biased reporting is generally assumed to be corporate policy. http://mediamatters.org/items/200605230001

Murdoch tabloid papers commonly provide potentially embarrassing details about the personal lives of individuals. Revelations of this nature, if challenged on an ethical level, are generally defended as being warranted as the individuals concerned were or are "public figures". Examples of similar unethical behaviour, apparently corporate policy, are too many to quote. The issue of details of the private business of members of the royal family being obtained by illegal bugging is a current issue in point. Also see http://notwats.blogspot.com/ and http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/407074p-344669c.html Centrepull 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wedding to the China-girl

he was "just" 68.

it mentions that Rupert was married four times, but I only count three? Unless I'm reading it wrong? Sam De Francesco 10:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

i think everyone is still mystified about why murdoch married the china girl. everyone in asia knows there are alot of ambitious and tall asian women, many, many, many of whom are much more beautiful, talented and better bred than the china girl he married. this china girl clearly was instinctive enough to know her better chances to nabbing daddy-moneybags is with western men (who are more naive about asian women). with all the asian tycoons in asia and everywhere else, none has ever pursued the china girl. maybe all those hours in the office and boardroom has robbed murdoch of a chance to understand asian women. murdoch probably still sees the china girl as a loving, naive and innocent mainlander, like one of those characters he must have read about 40 years ago from the 1960 american novel called "world of suzy wong", the tagline of which is "you are the first man i ever loved ... and the world has only just begun ...". Excitedkoala 9:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We need a section

Based on Allegations of Bias and abuse of power on Rupert Murdoch, since many people as hif he literrally owns all outlets of free speech and is a dangerously influential person. Including mention on several of his own Networks, such as on The Simpsons, where they allege that nobody can ever control the media and free speech, then one of the characters says 'Unless you're Rupert Murdoch'.

I just thought that that's some insight on how people percieve him. An article on public perception and etcetera would be welcomed by me, otherwise this is a very biased article tending to the favors of one of the most powerful people in the media.--Mofomojo 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Source: The last quote listed

"My ventures in media are not as important to me as spreading my personal political beliefs" is said to be located here. I don't see it.

Agree. I don't see it either. It should be removed, even though it comes up on a google search, because the sites listed (blogs, mainly - not the BBC nor any other reputable source) could merely be sourcing wikipedia Cheers, Jpe|ob 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it since there didn't appear to be any source: *"My ventures in media are not as important to me as spreading my personal political beliefs" probably vandalism --Bigdavediode 18:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced politics

Pursuant to the requirements for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (see tag above) the statements below were moved from the article to here so that they can be properly sourced for re-insertion:

"Murdoch is often accused of running partisan media coverage for political parties that promote policies and decisions which favour his commercial interests. For example, it is believed that Murdoch tried to suppress publication of the memoirs of Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, in an attempt to curry favour with China. Patten's book was critical of the Chinese government. Whatever the motives, the book was dropped from publication by Murdoch's HarperCollins publishing company. It was only because of Patten's political influence that the story came to light and the book was published by another firm. It is speculated that Murdoch wanted to please the Communist Chinese government because it happened around the time he was attempting to get a foothold in the Chinese market with the launch of STAR TV.

Former party leader of the Scottish Socialist Party Tommy Sheridan has accused Murdoch and elements within Britains MI5 of conspiring against him after Murdochs News Of the World lost a libel case against Sheridan after the paper ran stories alleging that Sheridan visited swinger bars in Manchester. Sheridan claims that Murdoch became personally involved telling his staff he "didn't care how long it takes, he wants that little commie bastard destroyed". [3]

One way in which Murdoch has been accused of using his media to influence the democratic politics is in the revealing of damaging personal information about a particular political candidate. This may be illustrated by the case of Mark Oaten, a representative of the Liberal Democrat party in the United Kingdom. The Murdoch-owned "News of the World" newspaper revealed in January 2006 that Oaten had been having an ongoing homosexual affair. Since the Liberal Democrat party holds political viewpoints contrary to Murdoch's current position (specifically, the war in Iraq), some have speculated that Oaten was targeted in order to destabilize the party to which he belongs." Lethiere 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules and policies about editing and I agree with them. Its an encyclopedia. But wikipedia also asks members to BE BOLD when editing, theres no airs and graces. No rule that you need a phd before you can add something, it isn't a competition to figure out who is the smart arse. So, I made an update on Matthew Freud, I found it to be significant that he rubs shoulders with a head of state and the UK's MAJOR media outlets reported in depth (and i did add sources!) about the party he hosted. Remember, he is in public relations. I edited nothing but truth. He hosted a party. Sol Kerzner attended. Tony Blair attended. If this causes a controversy, its because members of Blairs cabinet are embroiled in a scandal involving the company Kerzner is involved with. THATS SIGNIFICANT!. And most worthy of a mention on Matthew Freuds page. Indeed, it was worthy in the media!

Again, on Rupert Murdoch. Truth is murdered. You delete a section explaining his ties to the COMMUNIST chinese government. Chris patton, former governer of Hong Kong DID have his book deal with Murdochs HarperCollins cancelled because he got a little too close to the truth about a corrupt and murderous regime (its not my fault murdoch is pally with these guys). You know what, thats not my or the person who worked on that sections fault! Its a fact, also another fact I added sources with, is Murdochs spat with Tommy Sheridan, again reported in a major UK media outlet. It doesn't belong there!? I guess you can't edit truthful events involving these media types unless its spun positive. Well, people are just as free to add positive sections about these media types as are people free to add negative, and by the way, i didn't think i was too negative on Freuds page (you should see the Bono talk page under (RED) to gauge my true feelings on the matter!)...i thought Freuds page was ....Fair and Balanced(!)

Like I say, I'm perfectly aware that Wikipedia has rules and its not a blog. And that wikipedia encourages people to edit and be bold about it because things like spelling and grammar can be improved by administrators and fellow wikipedians. But it also isn't something that can be just meddled around with because you don't like the content. Dean1970 October 6th, 2006.

Excuse me, but...

Why is there no mention of the Super 14 or Tri Nations?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 08:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Threat to Democracy (UK)

Also, there's a lot of debate in Britain in recent weeks, started by Richard Branson and the ITV thing that Murdoch is far too powerful to the UK, what with his owning a large chunk of the press and media and that politicians in the UK are too scared of him and kowtow to him and such. Surely this is worth a mention?

if you can attribute, it is worth a mention... EvanCarroll 04:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

More on NPOV

I feel that the facts of Murdoch's right-wing, conservative agenda, as promoted by his media, could be explored in greater depth in this article, while still maintaining neutral POV.

I refer for example to his unswerving support for capital punishment, anti-union stance, invention of scare stories (e.g. immigrants spreading HIV in UK), faking moral outrage and promoting 'public pressure' moral campaigns (where there is little sign of original public presssure outside of NewsCorp media editorialising), xenophobia, racism, unscrupulousness (e.g the recent ReganBooks/NewsCorp OJ Simpson book deal) anti-pornography stance while reporting sex-crime stories in a prurient manner, and long displaying topless Page 3 girls (pictures of the topless 16-year old Samantha Fox as appeared in the Sun in 1983, legal when taken, would now be illegal in the UK).

There is little question that politicians (in the UK at least), fear the headlines of his papers, and it has been acknowledged by several politicians that elected politicians have come to informal agreements with him. See http://www.freelanceuk.com/news/1787.shtml

Additionally, the Sun itself has often boasted of its ability to swing the results of elections - and that ability has been acknowledged by grateful statements by benefiting politicians:
http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/historicpage?MODEL_IN_THE_SESSION=2296
Note particularly:
The Sun Backs Blair - 1997 election
It's the Sun Wot Won It - 1992 election
If Kinnock Wins Today...

And also: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/newsevents/17582.html

These points are significant on this page (rather than just The Sun entry), as Murdoch keeps a tight reign on his editors and they rarely stray from his personal line of thinking. Centrepull 13:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is noteworthy, as I'm sure there are very few people who would deny his "right-wing, conservative agenda". You have infinite evidence to support this, really, and I'm surprised that in your argument you didn't refer to Fox News more. Regardless, if you want to make a section for this, please make it as encyclopedic as possible. This article is NPOV as is, which is surprising considering the amount of people that consider Rupert Murdoch to be Satan. Just use your best judgment on wording and things of that sort. --Ubiq 23:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

and why doesn't it say anywhere that he's hellbent on eliminating gays off the planet? Add homophobic to the list please. I think it's important, he comes off way to much like a saint in this article. Dollvalley 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

With response to the comments in this section, although this might be the case, you need to verify such information with acceptable sources in order to add it to Wikipedia if you're going to attribute these stances to Murdoch. After all, he might not, himself, be homophobic, but has realized that having a conservative news station that is would be more profitable (see also: scapegoat). Thus, allegations to him being homophobic would need to be explicitly proven through valid direct quotes (or, alternatively, record of personal donations to anti-gay groups). --slakr 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

References and page-rot

There are odd things going on with this page, numbers after paragraphs in the Early buisness section. The references were/are truely screwed, the numbers were out of sync and not properly coded. Can anyone help using the history to recover which source goes where... I made a start but help is appreciated. Cheers Dmanning 02:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Acquisitions in Britain NPOV?

Reference to Murdoch as "Ruthless and Cunning" in contrast to Harold Evans as "distinguished journalist", use of the term "fascinating guerrilla war", and reference to The Times as "just another Murdoch tabloid, if more subdued than the others" does not display a NPOV. Although source is cited, it is clearly not written from a Neutral perspective.

Just tagged section as in need of discussion. It alleges that Murdoch's support of the Thatcher Regime led to his acquisition of The Times, and a bizarre allegation that BSkyB was also rewarded to him on this basis. It refers to the News of the World being taken "even further downmarket". It is also badly sourced and referenced, only referencing 2 books in order to support its highly subjective point of view. The section is probably in need of a rewrite. --Chopz 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section that said "It gave its readers a steady diet of errant parsons, pedophilic scoutmasters, celebrity divorces and adulterous politicians. To take such a paper even further down market was an achievement, even for Murdoch. The paper gained a reputation for intrusiveness and for underhand methods of gathering information. Its circulation in 2006 was around half what it was when he took it over." Clearly POV methinks; unless the author can find reliable sources this should not be in the article. Actually, this whole section contains POV statements. Even those with sources seem to be written from a POV. Since exceptional claims require exceptional sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) I have added citation needed links. The whole section is broken and needs rewriting--ilduderino 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam

Under the "Murcoch & Politics - Australia" heading, this article takes a bizarre right turn to discuss (over a number of paragraphs) Gough Whitlam and the 1973 Chilean coup d'état. I understand that Murdoch is referenced here as an instigator, but can this be rewritten with a bit more focus on the subject? I have no idea what's trying to be presented here. I'd give it a go, but I'm not a expert in the Australian political theatre. --24.199.105.177 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this whole Scottish/Norse paragraph

It doesn't seem useful or even necessary in the article..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandnew70x7 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Nationality

User:144.137.64.253, insists Murdoch is American. I've changed it back to Australian. Please talk here before changing it back to American, he was born in Australia, started his now global career in Australia. He is Australian, he only became a US Resident so he could be so powerful with his career over there. --Borgarde^talk 11:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Shill writing

Reading something like he "...may still carry the bloodlines of Norsemen..." indicates that paid shills have been writing the content. Needs a severe rewrite. -Stevertigo 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Photos

The worlds most famous billionare tyrant, and the only photo we have of him is when he was a toddler?!? Is this bizzaro wiki? Is everything backwards? Is Murdoch actually really poor and unheard of in bizzaro wiki, or maybe he has lots of money but in bizzaro wiki money actually counts as personal debt? JayKeaton 20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the photo struck me as a pretty strange choice when I saw the page. What's the story there? -Dirk Gently 05:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's 1 on the FCC website. [4] The handywork of the US government no doubt. So can someone please upload the one of Rupert Murderoch (with or without modification)? Tri400 02:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert reason

newslimited.org is a parking site and frankly Outfoxed has enough references in the article to make it redundant. murdochpress.com is HIGHLY suspicious as it was registered today and currently a copy of newscorps.com. WHOIS returns no useful information to confirm it isnt an attack site or fraud etc...Dmanning 04:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Purchase of Twentieth Century Fox

This article makes no mention of when Murdock purchased 20th Century Fox or started the Fox television network. Those are some pretty significant events to be completely omitted. --JHP 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This article also makes no mention of his personal wealth. --JHP 01:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia or damning portrayal in the media?

Murdoch's trivia section is unusually large. Probably because some of the points that i shifted to the section called "portrail in the media" has been reverted by Recurring dreams. It Seems like the page is run by Murdoch's army of supporters. Can we get concensus on this issue please? Tri400 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed those points back into the trivia section. In my opinion references in The Simpsons and the such do not qualify under the title of "portrayal in the media." Recurring dreams 12:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somebody has been adding the words 'porn' and 'porno' all through the page. (As in 'porno newspapers') I've removed a few, but there's just too many. I'd revert to a previous version if I'd know how. Can somebody fix this? Thanks. Rien Post 14:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to an older version that does not have this. I might have removed some good edits with this, but it had to be done. If someone wants to go through the edits and see what good edits I might have removed along with the vandalism to put it back in, be my guest. ssepp^(talk) 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to this version: 23:08, May 23, 2007 Max rspct. ssepp^(talk) 20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed [5] the revert to just before the vandalism. PrimeHunter 20:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• • A fast way to remove vandalism, or your own mistakes, is to scroll the entite article, copy it with "CTRL+C" and open a microsoft word page on your computer. Press "CTRL+V" and open the "replace" program.
    

Type "porno" on the first space and leave the second space open. Then push "replace all". It replaces or deletes all the faulty words in less than a second. This method removes or changes a lot of mistakes in a short time. The rawback is that it also replaces the word "pornography" when it is seriously used...

Faithfully yours, Robert Prummel (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you vandalism hounds should check out the early life section? :D I'm not changing it, because I'm essentially not in disagreement. 81.178.135.27 (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a dire lack of volume to the criticism section?

I'm pretty sure he has come under fire over the years for substantially more than the paltry accounts listed there. What’s the history of that section? 195.92.168.163 03:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me to find is there might be an usher employed to tweak this page constantly in his favour.

If you are ever in doubt of the changes made to a page, please be sure to check out the page history. From there, you can monitor all changes to a page down to the exact words that were changed, who changed them, when, and what reason they gave for doing so. --slakr 02:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well considering the section doesn't even exist any more, I'm going to have to agree with you!!!!! 81.178.135.27 (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Charges dropped?

This article indicates that the nine charges of sedition (actually, I believe the charges were "seditious libel") against Murdoch, Rivett and The News were ultimately dropped. This contradicts the Wikipedia article on Max Stuart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Max_Stuart) which indicates that the case did go to trial and that the defendants were acquitted: "Because of the campaign through the News, Rivett, as editor, and the News were charged in 1960 with seditious and malicious libel, but were acquitted."

The entry for Rohan Rivett in the online edition of the Australian Dictionary of Biography (http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A160119b.htm) asserts that there was indeed a trial and that the defendants were acquitted on all but *one* charge, which was later dropped: "Beginning on 7 March 1960, the trial lasted for ten days... The jury found the accused not guilty on all but one charge, on which it could not agree... [T]he remaining charge hung in the air for almost three months before being withdrawn on 6 June."

As a separate issue, this article discusses the substance of a private meeting between Murdoch and Premier Playford without citing any references. ("Murdoch pleaded his case on the basis of his youth and inexperience and a claim that Rohan Rivett had exerted influence over him. Playford agreed to have the charges dropped on two conditions: (1) That Rivett be fired from the paper and (2) that The News pay the costs of the royal commission.") Other sources have indicated that whatever transpired during the meeting can only be speculated upon, largely based on ensuing events (eg, Murdoch's firing of Rivett). Indeed, the aforementioned entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography goes on to say, "Many people *believed* that Playford dropped the last charge in return for an undertaking from Murdoch that the News would go easy on his government." (emphasis mine) Convit 04:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Undergarments

I could not confirm the following quote from the referenced source, so I removed it:

• "It's inefficiant and expesive to shower daily and change undergarments!"." - News Corp : Making of a global media business

-- Beland 21:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection and an edit

I would like to request that this article be unprotected. It was protected on July 11 by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me (log) and has since not been unprotected - I suspect it has been forgotten.

In any case, I wanted to make an edit to the following paragraph, under the section United Kingdom:

In a speech in New York, Rupert Murdoch said that the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said the BBC coverage of the Hurricane Katrina disaster was full of hatred of America. Murdoch is a strong critic of the BBC, which he believes has a liberal bias.

I want to remove the link to liberal bias, because it's unhelpful to international readers/editors, because "Liberal Bias" is a term with a largely different meaning in the US (indeed, the page redirects to ...in the US), and if possible find a source to explain what exactly this phrase means in this instance, because it's unclear and uncited. --84.69.107.18 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal takeover

Why isn't Murdoch's takeover of The Wall Street Journal listed in this article? It is certainly listed in the Wall Street Journal wiki article. (Psychoneko 10:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

It is. Unfortunately, the radio program "Marketplace" is incorrectly identified as an NPR program. Marketplace is distributed by American Public Media, which is not affiliated with NPR.

Jew

he has jew origines. can we put that in the article ?

---> see Talk:Rupert_Murdoch#Jewish_background_of_mother_questioned. --Lopakhin (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is Fox News described as "heavily-funded"?

What, was/is the competing cnn/ted turner a pauper and poorly funded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.245.87.194 (talk) 20:11, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Organizational membership

Someone should update what organizations he belongs to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.231.70 (talk) 14:19, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Think one was freemasons, other was illuminati, 'the skulls' group, possibly the third or fourth international, maybe the NAZI party, oh and yes of course 'Zionists 4 llife', so hes pretty much your average neocon.

Adding photo of wendi murdoch

please add to personal life section if appropriate. Christopherpeterson 14:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wendi Deng Murdoch

Decline of Fox News?

The source for that is a dead link, and the studies that I have seen say that it has more viewers than CNN and NBC COMBINED. Contralya 18:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keith Rupert Murdoch

I know his name is Keith, not William. Where did you get William from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahum26 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

KCSG ?

The article starts with the name with two sets of postnominal letters. Those for the Order of Australia are correct but "KCSG" isn't. They are misleading. The letters suggest that this man is a "Knight Commander", but the order of Saint-Gregory's second class does not conferr a knighthood. To the best of my knowledge "KCSG" is not a recognised set of post-nominal letters in Australia or elsewhere in the Commonwealth. If my own government were foolish enough to give Murdoch a Dutch decoration, say, Grootofficier in de Orde van Oranje-Nassau, would this Murdoch then be "Rupert Murdoch AC,KCON,KCSG" ?

We should delete the "KCSG".

Faithfully yours, Robert Prummel (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't count on it. The article is locked. That means one or more editors have taken ownership of the article and no changes will be allowed. To allow a change would be to admit that there was something less than perfect in the first instance. The power tripping editors who lock up every other article would never admit to this. Better to wish that Hades freezes over.

Citation needed...

"Many Christian conservatives were dismayed when Robertson sold his television network to Murdoch. Murdoch's papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.[citation needed]"

Citation is needed. Unless there is any source, this claim ought to be removed according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability ...Andy120... (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Black and White (2002)

The main page says Murdoch financed the film himself. Is this true?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.236.196 (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal life - first wife's reputed sensitivities

This is a very tiny point: the second sentence under the heading "Personal Life" indicates that Murdoch was married to Patricia Booker and that she was from Melbourne. However, the third sentence alleges that Patricia Booker "did not like Adelaide with its extremes of weather..." and the source for this info merely states, "According to Rod Lever, a long-serving News Limited executive and friend of Pat Booker", with no further reference. However, Adelaide's climate doesn't seem to be much different than that of Melbourne. Wikipedia describes Adelaide as having a "Mediterranean climate" - certainly not extreme.

As such, this comment doesn't jive with me, especially given the weakness of the reference (hearsay).

Cheers Akiracee (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's rather subjective, but Adelaide would probably get more 40+s than Melbourne. And perhaps more clumped together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.211.196 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence, on the basis that the reference is clearly inadequate. The "extremes of weather" in Adelaide is arrant nonsense - it's warmer and drier on average than Melbourne, but that's about it. I'm inclined to think this was entered in good faith, but had its origin in a joke or a leg-pull. Pingku (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)