Talk:Rupert Murdoch/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Recent activities

This appears in a timeline format. -2003 -2004 -July, 2005 -1996 -September, 2005

It would appear that the 1996 entry "Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner have been competitors for quite some time. In 1996 Murdoch launched the Fox News Channel to compete against Turner's CNN." was just added without thought. Should this be somewhere else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.122.129 (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Education

There is a lot of information about marriages, personal life, children and their marriages - but info about Rubert Murdoch's own education is lacking. "After returning from Oxford"... but what did he study there?

Erik 90.28.224.67 (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC) [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.130.93 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. Why doesn't this article conform to normal wikipedia biography standards? Start at the beginning of the man's life. Say something about his birth, family, upbringing and education, before jumping into tiresome details of his career... 24.125.38.175 (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC) R.E.D.

Net worth

His net worth is put at $4 billion, this seems inaccurate for a number of reasons. It has jumped around somewhat, last year (pre-recession) it was listed as $8.3 billion, then $6 billion and now $4 billion. I assume its based on the price of News Corporation's common stock?

Firstly, do we even know how much of the Murdoch family's 29% stake in NC he owns, presumably the net worth listed on his article is for him personally, not the Murdoch family? In his interview with Charlie Rose (from 2006) I think he said they had 29% of the voting shares as "a few per cent of the non-voting ones", but he did not say how many HE had and he has since sold at least 17.5 million Class A shares for a total of US$353.5 million (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN263220071115).

However the Murdoch family trust sold these shares, not Murdoch himself.

I think its unwise for the article to list his net worth at all (I'm not trying to impose on the editors of his article but perhaps a range would be more accurate? e.g. "He's estimated to have a net worth of between x and y, but due to his family wealth being held in a number of trusts it is difficult to ascertain his precise wealth). Then there's the fact we don't know about half of his investments, in The Man Who Owns the News: The Secret World of Rupert Murdoch the author (Michael Wolff) mentions a foreign exchange operation run by Murdoch (presumably independent of News Corp).

Plus, as with anyone for whom much of their wealth is tied up in shares of a public company, would the precise amount they would get for their shares (i.e. their net worth) not depend upon:

a) How much the shares were trading for? b) How many they sold in one go (i.e. supply-demand, presumably if they sold their whole 29% stake the share price would plummet) c) Their exposure to taxes? Dudley25 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A minor addendum to the above- would it be possible to see how much of NC he owns based on the dividend he receives, even if just for common stock this would be good, although it wouldn't take into account any other investments he has it would perhaps give a more accurate picture of his wealth? Dudley25 (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Editorial control - sources

"During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 550 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialised in favour of the war."

This sentence is sourced to an op-ed piece in the Guardian here, but written as an assertion of fact. The number 550 is never used, and the author covers a selection of papers but not all of them. Opinion pieces aren't held to the same standard as factual reporting because they are clearly separated as commentary and conjecture. It fails WP:RS and since this is also WP:BLP I'm removing it without waiting for comment.--Savonneux (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed - "Outfoxed"

I added "citation needed" tages to two sentences attributed to the movie Outfoxed. I have not seen the movie but I don't think it counts as a WP:RS. Thanks, 128.154.36.66 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Australian

It shouldn't be an 'Australian born US-Citizen'. He is STILL AUSTRALIAN. He talks like an Aussie. Reveldor 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation not needed

"In 2004, the movie Outfoxed included many interviews accusing Fox News of pressuring reporters to report only one side of news stories, in order to influence viewers' political opinions[citation needed]. The movie did a quick inventory of Rupert Murdoch's media holdings, indicating that his media reached approximately 3/4 of the world's population[citation needed]."

Citation is in first sentence - it's in the documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.44.152 (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Murdoch/Tony Blair

"His politics are generally conservative, although he has been a strong supporter of British Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair." Why is this "although"? In the U.S., supporting Tony Blair is usually viewed as a conservative move, what with the Iraq situation and all. Deltabeignet 01:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Supporting Blair means not supporting the Conservative Party. American misconceptions about British politics is hardly the point. Adam 03:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not strictly a misconception (though I do understand Blair to be on the liberal side); his party aside, in the U.S., the majority of Tony Blair's supporters are conservatives (by the U.S. definition). Murdoch is an American citizen, after all. Deltabeignet 19:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Blair isn't considered Conservative in the UK, and given that this article isn't just for the benefit of Americans, British politics shouldn't be configured for American understanding. SAM-EL 14:48, 04 August 2005

Blair isn't considered part of the Conservative Party no, but there is a distinction between having Conservative politics and being a member of the Conservative Party, The Labour party is by no means a right wing party and does hold conservative viewpoints Robin Myers 16:04 27 March 2006

I think Tony Blair is much more right wing than left, though Labour is of course supposed to be left wing - New Labour politics have torn it all apart - I can't call him a liberal, it would make me feel sick. WonkyCheese 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere I read that Murdoch went to see Tony Blair three times just before the Iraq war, and it was hinted that this was to convince Blair of providing soldiers to the Iraq War, and that Murdoch had information not available to the public. Hard to say, whether that is truth or fiction but if someone knows more about that, maybe that is an interesting piece of info. 144.136.177.19 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sun / NOTW / News Corp.

Murdoch's wealth shrinks by 3 billion dollars in less than a week because of the scandalous and immoral acts of Murdoch's News of The World. one of the oldest publications in the world shuts its doors in no time at all because of the sheer scandelous and illegal behaviour they indulged in, a company owned by Murdoch. Now the Sun, the other paper owned by Murdoch in the UK, is implicated in hacking into the medical records of of Mr Gordon's son who has cistic fibrosis, the Sun used those illegally obtained details in an article they wrote. The Sun may very well be the next dominoe to fall, but not a word of it in the Wiki Rupert Murdoch article.

And I can barely find anything about these facts in the article about the man who owns these cesspools. Too funny! Are Murdoch's people editing this article? My sympathies to the legitimate editors here who are no doubt frustrated with the Murdoch people.

Best of luck. How about someone explain why the very nasty and illegal things that companies owned by Murdoch are kept out of the Murdoch article? They have global significance, Murdoch's name is on the cover of virtually every major newpaper in the english speaking world. Except here at wikipedia where we continue to pretend nothing is happening. Look at the title of all the articles being written, they all name Rupert Murdoch and talk about his empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Murdoch is already enjoying his well deserved eternal life? "It is not known whether Murdoch will remain as News Corp.'s CEO indefinitely." Indeed, we can't be sure. 84.73.211.25 (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  • There are mentions/updates on the affair in the article pertaining directly to Murdoch. This is an encyclopedic biography and not a place to dump controversy on him. The affair is best discussed in more detail in the separate articles as of now. Right now there are allegations as well and this is a biography on a living person. They will carry more due weight if proven. It is interesting as well that people think liberals scrub the Barack Obama article as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Murdoch" now on lead headline of NY times

Rupert Murdoch (the individual, not News International), now occupies the lead headline of the NY times: "Murdoch Reported to Drop British Satellite Bid", and sub-headline "[UK] Lawmakers to Call Murdoch to Testify in Hacking Case"

I haven't added these to the article because I am not sure where they would go. However, as mentioned above, It seems pretty clear that this is relevant biographical information. These are secondary references that directly address Murdoch as an individual, not as a corporate director. They seem pretty relevant under the BLP direction that "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself." Of course I could be wrong-- but it does seems very curious that the article currently lacks this information, expecially given the current prominence of global news reporting on this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.191.238 (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A new section should be created that is dedicated to the scandal. That could link to the wiki article that covers the News of the World scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Footnote #63

Just a quick note, footnote #63 isn't related to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.19.5 (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Time for a section on the phone hacking scandal

It affects him personally, MI5, calls to give evidence, resignations of his close colleagues. I'm amazed so little info has been added. A whole section is needed pronto. Span (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The scandal is indeed about one Rupert Murdoch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-scandal-live-coverage?mobile-redirect=false

Interesting that journalists all over the world see Murdoch and his empire as being a singular entity, yet many editors here fail to grasp that they are one in the same. There seems to be some debate as to whether what is turning out to be the biggest scandal in media history happens to be a coincidence of it's owner, or the result of. The question goes something like is this scandal about Murdoch, or just a coincidence? Is Murdoch's power and influence at question here, or is he just an innocent victim too? Let's have a look at some of what reliable sources are saying today:

""Gordon insisted - despite a heavy brow-beating from Rebekah - that he was not willing to let his son's medical condition be the stuff of a Sun exclusive," recalls this source. "So he put out a statement on PA to spike their scoop and make clear that despite his condition, Fraser was fit and healthy. The Sun were utterly furious, and Brown's communications team were told that if Gordon wanted to get into No10, he needed to learn that was not how things were done."

Yes, how DARE the then-chancellor refuse to accept that his child's health was not technically a commercial Murdoch property? I'd like to tell you there's a sick bag located in the rear pocket of the seat in front of you. But I'm afraid you're on your own."

News International has said it will "co-operate" with the culture committee, which wants Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebakah Brooks to give evidence

But some believe Mr Murdoch's attempt buy the 60.9 per cent of BSkyB it does not already own can never recover from the tide of revelations about journalistic malpractice at his newspapers, the latest concerning Gordon Brown and the royal family.

This House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB.

News Corp was already planning to repurchase $1.8bn of new shares, but the announcement that this programme is being increased to $5bn over the next year is a surprise. News Corp shares have fallen by around 14% since the phone hacking crisis broke - Murdoch must be under pressure to halt this slide and placate his US investor base.

Ed Miliband has announced that Labour will invite the House of Commons to vote against Rupert Murdoch buying the whole of BSkyB.

"it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB".

There are times when the House of Commons has got to rise to the occasion and speak for the public.

We have said that the purchase of BSkyB should not proceed until after criminal inquiries are complete.

The simplest way to achieve this is for Rupert Murdoch to recognise the feelings of the public and the will of the House of Commons and withdraw this bid.

• The BBC's Michael Crick has said on Twitter that Rupert Murdoch will give appear before the culture committee next week. But that has not been confirmed yet by News International. The culture committee seems to be assuming that Murdoch will turn up on the basis that he said that he would "co-operate". Anyone who has spent time dealing with politicians will know that promising to "co-operate" is not the same thing at all. But the committee may be working on the basis that if it says Murdoch is coming, it will get too embarrassing for him to say no.

Check out what the headlines will be around the world on Wednesday (tomorrow) where Murdoch is specifically named:

The Guardian: "Parliament versus Murdoch"

The Times: "Crisis talks as Cameron as joins the revolt against the Murdochs"

The Financial Times: "Parties unite in Commons vote to oppose Murdoch's BSkyB bid"

The Independent: "Party leaders unite against Murdoch"

You would like to pretend this is not about Rupert Murdoch but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Furthermore, they hacked into the cell phone of a murdered child. Her voicemail was full so they deleted messages to free up space for more incoming messages. This sadly lead the parents to believe she was still alive. These people were on Murdoch's payroll.

Time to create a new section in this article. I'd title is "UK Scandal" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.68.48 (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And at least one US Senator wants to see Murdoch's business practices investigated in the US, but we wiki editors shan't be portraying anything controversial about Rupert Murdoch, of course not.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100096603/rupert-murdochs-troubles-reach-america-as-congress-serves-notice-on-news-corp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.68.48 (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This would be very straightforward if Murdoch himself hacked phones etc. But in fact Murdoch personally did not do these things. That does not mean some of this material should not be included but rather that the connections need to be spelled out and documented, as opposed to just declaring "Murdoch and his empire... are one in the same" This is an article about the person, not the "empire."--Brian Dell (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Sun King"

The subject is from time to time referred to as "the Sun King." This should probably be quickly mentioned somewhere, but care should be taken hence I suggest that someone first propose some wording here.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Name in the news

The article on News of the World currently has a tag stating that it is in the news at the moment. This man is also in the news at the time of typing (July 2011) - so is there a tag which can reflect when a person is currently in the news? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe so, and see WP:NOT#NEWS. Also see WP:DATED -- I'm getting to really hate seeing the word "currently" and, even worse, the unstated invitation to presume that assertions supported by undated citations are somewhat current as of whatever date the reader happens to see them (often years later). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your points - I remember that somewhere, years ago, I read that Wikipedia encourages people to use exact dates rather than expressions such as "last year" which are obviously ephemeral. I have to admit that I do not think that he in the news, given current events, as much as Andy Coulson! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC) The tag which does exist for people heads the article on Rebecca Brooks. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Other legal challenges

This section is also under recent activities. Is 2006 recent? The section refers to "Murdoch" buying out TGRT. The cited source mentions News Corporation, not Murdoch. Is it encyclopedic to conflate the two? Does this information belong here at all, rather than at News Corporation? In spite of the heading, there is no mention of a legal challenge.--Boson (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed some of the irrelevant information (which was flagged as unsourced).--Boson (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A Met policeman resigns and mudochs lieut is arrested

when will reality catch up with this article. The head of the wallstreet journal resigned, the bancrofts now say they regret selling murdoch anything. Hello? In less than three weeks murdoch has become one of the most controversial figures alive. The fbi is investigating the alleged activities of a company owned by him. Hello, is anyone there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.172 (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Then do something! Contribute. Update the article with relevant material and references to secondary sources.--Guid123 (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Another whitewashed, cherry-picked Wiki biography of a famous person

Reviewing this miserable little biography of Mr. Murdoch reads like a children's fairy tale, e.g. thoroughly sanitized and devoid of any honest critical assessment of what this contemptible man has done. Why is there no 'Criticisms' section? Why is there a mere one or two sentences regarding the entire phone hacking scandal that is in the news every day these days, with his top aides resigning? Fucking pathetic. This is why Wikipedia is such a stinking pile of whitewashed shit: no balance, no honesty, no truth. Kind of like Fox "News" LOL. What a piece of shit this Wiki entry is :-(

Wikipedia SUCKS !!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.30.90 (talkcontribs)

Interesting points. If you are able to express your concerns in a more civil and specific manner, people might actually pay attention. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Then do your bit. You'll need to register to edit this article (it gets vandalised a lot), and any edits you make need to be based on reliable sources, but if you want to help make the article better, you can (in a few days - part of the registration process). Just bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia, not one of Murdoch's tabloids, and we are in it for the long term. While Murdoch and his minions are in the news, there is no pressing need for our article to carry the latest revelations. When the 'News of the World' is a fading memory, our article will hopefully still be here though, as a more permanent record.
(On a purely personal note, I'd like to see more in the article about recent developments myself, but having spent considerable time arguing against articles on other subjects being crammed with the 'latest revelation', no matter how trivial, it might seem inconsistent of me to add the latest titbit from the Guardian, as tempting as it might be.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing this miserable little biography of Mr. Murdoch reads like a children's fairy tale, e.g. thoroughly sanitized and devoid of any honest critical assessment of what this contemptible man has done. Why is there no 'Criticisms' section?
I agree completely. But I have lost my hope to see someday balanced and impartial articles about Anglo-saxan subjects in English wikipedia. It's quite absurd the fact that this article completely ignores the recent events. Not even Murdoch's newspapers have done that... Dornicke (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is important to recognize wikipedia does not suck, the article about rupert murdoch sucks. And yes I can be bold and try to improve it, but why would I want to argue and negotiate with people who are wholly ignorant about the subject matter. When editors say things like the notw will be a distant memory I wonder about just how ignorant the editors are, or rather how ignorant do they think I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.172 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Improve it because editing here works by being bold. The issue is not ignorance but collaboration. Span (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
One can only try. The way to do it is to beat the zealots at their own game. Start with small improvements. Make the new material "blend in" by making sure it follows the WP rules and that it mimics the style of the rest of the article. Bureaucracy is your friend! That way they have no excuse to undo your changes. Keep an eye on it, and the cronies who constantly censor other POVs are less likely to notice. It's a process.--Guid123 (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, your tinfoil hat is showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.176.240 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Successful media mogul

Though it is valuing I would still suggest to add "successful", which is undeniable.

It's redundant and unencyclopedic. -- 98.108.204.175 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Murdoch is from a Jewish family, according to this newspaper: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/staffanheimerson/article13349081.ab Shouldn't that be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.145.237 (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Why?Span (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Complicity in September 11 attacks

There has been a report in a well established and reputable journal that Rupert Murdoch had an involvement in the September 11 attacks: [2]. How do other editors feel about adding a reference to this to the article, in view of the fact that it does not yet appear to have been covered anywhere else? Rangoon11 (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's get a more credible source, then we could discuss that...--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that it is not well known but it does appear to be a reputable and well known journal in the U.S. veteran community. I don't have strong feelings either way but would be interested to know your thinking. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
What a bunch of bunk. The author, Gordon Duff appears to be quite anti-Jewish as do most of the comments on this website. I particualarly like his lead into the Stewart/Wallace interview.

Fox has generally been little more than a propaganda outlet, a professional “disinformation” service crafted to serve a globalist agenda. Their purpose has been to run interference for financial criminals and political extremists, totalitarian oligarchs in the US and to provide cover for Israeli war crimes.

There is nothing controversial about Israel having committed war crimes. There is also nothing controversial about the fact that Fox portrays Israel in a positive light in the US, compared to more balanced commentary in other sections of the media. If that's his only claim to anti-semitism then I think you're just waving that term around because you yourself are the victim of this censorship / propaganda.--27.32.168.222 (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you should look at the examples given further below here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Go take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Arzel (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Murdoch Jewish? Not according to this article. And the fact that you don't agree with all of Duff's work isn't a reason to exclude the source.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Duff is a decidely biased person and his opinion deserves no weight. WP is not the place to promote conspiracy theories. WP:FRINGE Arzel (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
WTF? Fringe lunacy like this has no place in the article. End of story... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no need of attaching clear fringe opinions to any BLP. We have a repository for them already in the WTC conspiracy articles, and that may be too much. I would use a different repository. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: a publication which prints Even the racist, Islamophobic Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a July 12 press release ... [3] might generally be unlikely to be a "reliable source" for much. [4] is another neat example of the quality of the source: ZIONISTS Financed Hitler’s Regime and Condemned Jews to the Holocaust Anyone left here who would remotely accept this as a "reliable source" for much of anything - including when the next leap year occurs? Add in [5] for anyone still thinking that VT is useful for much other than as a possible Charmin substitute. Israel’s Fingerprints Are All Over 9/11 (And I’m Not Afraid to Say It!). I humbly suggest this ends the remote possibility of this source ever being seriously considered for any article on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting links. They (VT) seem like a fairly well established online publication with comment sections, articles that are kept online for a long time, even advertising to prove that they didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere. The article you quoted even seems to provide lots of evidential links. What more could you want from a so-called "reliable source"? Something that agrees with your personal prejudices and preconceptions, perhaps? (AKA: POV?) Irrespective of how much you might dislike the content (and I agree, some of it sounds quite challenging), I think you need to do better than shoot the messenger by tarring him with the "fringe opinion" brush. The above posters haven't even added anything yet, yet you jump out with unrelated red herrings to try and prevent it. I humbly suggest that you don't censor WP in the same way that News Corp is censored.--Guid123 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
See WP:RS. How 'well established' something is isn't really a criterion. A comment section and advertising definitely aren't. Nor is a long archive cycle. Things like a reputation for accuracy and fact checking are. Those headlines are sufficient to establish said source has neither without having to read the content. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"reputable journal" -- Um, obviously not. You need to find a source that does not have such a blatant appearance of being anti-semitic crankhood. -- 98.108.204.175 (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

C7 lawsuit

The C7 lawsuit is listed under recent activities. However, the events took place in 2002, the lawsuit was brought in 2005 and the case was dismissed in 2007. Does this still count as recent? Three paragraphs detailling the allegations, followed by one sentence stating that the case was dismissed. Isn't that undue weight (assuming that the lawsuit deserves mention here at all)? --Boson (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dunno about the undue weight thing but there's no recent activities section anymore, guess it was removed or renamed. A good thing since such a section sounds like a maitenence nightmare and not particularly encyclopaedic risking WP:Recentism Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Overkill and innuendo

I dont get the point of saying murdoch talked to tony blair the same month the uk attacked iraq. And the other related tidits seem insignificant or are written in a way that wrongly implies more. There is enough material to make a really good article so we need not make stuff up nor boast about meetings with important people. I say strike the whole private meetings section. It reads like fluff or an attempt to make murky connections — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.239 (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The whole section on private meetings should go - except that some of the stuff under the David Cameron sub-heading should be moved to the section "Political activities in the United Kingdom", because it is not just about meetings. I would suggest first moving the David Cameron sub-section and removing the rest. We can tidy up later.--Boson (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The innuendo in things like the timing of a meeting with Blair, yes, that should be deleted but I don't agree that all that material should be deleted. His meeting with Harper attracted headlines in Canada when it was revealed, and unlike much of the phone hacking stuff, this concerns Murdoch's personal actions and as opposed to those who work for him. Murdoch has extraordinary connections with politicians and this is not just a UK story or concern. Murdoch has met with every President since, and including, Harry Truman, another remarkable fact that readers should be advised of.--15:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I am on holiday and using my cell phone which makes editing the article too painful. I can help edit next week. I hope folks are following the live coverage at the guardian. They just reported the notw whistleblower was just found dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.239 (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly needs rationalising. I'm not at all sure about having the business affairs and political affairs separated out and country by country. There is large overlap. These seems a very old structure that has stuck over the years. Time for a change, I think. Span (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Pie

There has to be somewhere here where the pie-ing should be placed. can (or, should) anyone edit that in? --Kizzycocoa, 78.145.109.161 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/adda7e72-b229-11e0-9d80-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1SZrrJXQH --Solde9 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
NOT encyclopedic. Kittybrewster 18:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He was giving testimony to the uk parliment and was whacked with a pie. Both events are terribly relevant and encyclopedic. The bbc or guardian will give the best coverage and they were both there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.184 (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The testimony is encyclopaedic, the pie is trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the most powerful men in the world is called to testify about the scandelous behaviour within his empire to the uk parliment, and is whacked with a pie. Every english newsource in the world mentions those details yet you suggest we ignore this as trivia. Meanwhile the article about jimbo wales mentions a silly and brief affair. Hilarious priorities! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.184 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Getting pied is trivia. The scandal is what matters. Keep your eyes on the ball. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Carry on :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.184 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevance

"In 2004, the movie Outfoxed included many interviews accusing Fox News of pressuring reporters to report only one side of news stories, in order to influence viewers' political opinions.[81]"

IRRELEVANT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.159.191 (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Improvements

This page got half a million hits yesterday, has nearly 300 watchers and is still in a bad state. News International phone hacking scandal got around 10% of that. It suggests people are looking here primarily for updates. All help welcome. Span (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dame Murdoch

Amazing quotes from Murdochs mother in todays live coverage in the guardian. She foresaw the scandal that would ensue on both sides of the atlantic when he bought the paper. His response to her was equally telling. Sorry I cannot post links, im on a damn cell phone but youll find the link to live coverage on the guardians main website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.216 (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"current event" template

I am again removing template:current since its inclusion here does not seem to be in accordance with the usage guidelines for that template:

  • Note that every article on Wikipedia has a General disclaimer indicating that the article contents may not be accurate.
  • As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news.
  • It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.
  • Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or so, occasionally several days.
  • If you desire that an article be noticed as a topic about or related to a significant current event, see Wikipedia:How the Current events page works, and also Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Thincat (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Added reference to Roysten Merchant and Drop the Dead Donkey -AnthonyEMiller (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This bit got accidentally deleted I think - so I have reinserted it in a more diplomatic way.

AnthonyEMiller (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Speech

In 2007 I heard a speech of his in Jerusalem. He said that the economy is getting worse, people are becoming poorer and are losing their jobs all over the world. People like that buy more TV programs and that way his business is expected to grow...

I was surprised that no-one thought to say that it was unacceptable. I was not supposed to be there, so I kept quiet. I had the video at some point, but lost it. Anybody has it? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

News of the World

Why is there no reference to the fact that Murdoch's first acquisition in the UK was the News of the World which he bought in early 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.117.223 (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Now mentioned. Span (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Media mogul - encyclopaedic term?

Alliteration is nice, and it's a term that gets plenty of use in the industry, but is it appropriate for an encyclopaedia? Since the wikilink redirects to Media proprietor it would seem not. -Oosh (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "media entrepreneur" would be better? JonChappleTalk 13:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It was changed to 'media baron'. Not sure that's much improvement. Span (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Called to testify to parliamentary committee

I'm not sure why this is not in the article, as it is clearly biographical when one is called to testify in front of a UK parliamentary committee.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-12/news-corp-s-murdoch-faces-six-u-k-inquiries-as-parliament-seeks-hearing.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.116.191.180 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

He's been asked to testify, but last I heard (granted, that was the 6 O'Clock News) was that he hasn't accepted or declined (as he's perfectly entitled to do) the invitation yet. If he does attend, I'm sure that will be included and if he refuses, that might be worthy of inclusion in itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Details are given. Full write up on News International phone hacking scandal. Span (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch is a profoundly controversial man

So why is there no controversy section? And note the UK Parliament sees this as a victory over Rupert Murdoch:

"(Reuters) - Britain's parliament celebrated victory over Rupert Murdoch Wednesday, breaking the spell which the Australian-born media mogul has held over the country's politics for three decades." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/us-newscorp-parliament-idUSTRE76C5XR20110713

Please stop pretending this scandal does not include Rupert Murdoch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Protesters are doing their thing outside of Murdoch's NY home. Not, his office, but his personal residence. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/civil-rights-group-protest-rupert-210801 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Time magazine cover features Rupert Murdoch http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jeffbercovici/files/2011/07/murdoch-time-2011-cover1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear 99. This is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit - within the policies. If you think articles could be improved, read the policies and start contributing. There's no point just haranguin everyone else.Fainites barleyscribs 09:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia attempts not have controversy sections but to integrate the information into the whole article. See Wikipedia:Criticism sections. It also attempts to hold a neutral point of view WP:NPOV Span (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

News of the World scandal

This scandal appears to be expanding. Murdoch himself is now going to appear before Parliament[6]. This page doesn't even link to the scandal. There needs to be expansion on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has a navigation template at the bottom that links to the main article on the phone hacking scandal, as well as other related articles. It has had a link to the scandal (formerly the "phone tapping affair") in the body of the text (United Kingdom section) for months. --Boson (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right, it did have a link to the scandal in there. It's buried, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Detail is given in Rupert Murdoch#News International phone hacking scandal. Full write up at News International phone hacking scandal. Span (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Chloe's birthdate

The top info bar says she was born in 2005. The text says 2003. If anybody know which is correct they should fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.144.100.41 (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed and ref'dSpan (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

'Children' section

Please add this about his eldest daughter, from his first marriage:

On 28 January 2011, Prudence MacLeod was appointed to the board of Times Newspapers Ltd, part of News International, which publishes The Times and The Sunday Times.[1]

Done. Span (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, please remove the last paragraph in that section which is uncited, pure conjecture, out of date, has nothing to do with 'Children', and was resolved with the sale of DirecTV which isn't mentioned under 'United States' but should be. 75.60.7.172 (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

I'm not sure which 'last paragraph' you mean. The paragraph under 'family' that details Murdoch companies' distribution of stock to his children. It's referenced. This seems to be internationally related not US. More detail and clarification would be useful, no doubt. Span (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is Lachlan born "in London' while James is born "in Wimbledon"? Last time I looked, Wimbledon is in London... They should either be both born in London, or someone should find out in which part of London Lachlan was born. Stelmaris (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It just stems from which source the editor was using. Corrected both to 'London'. Span (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Structure and section headings

It's somewhat difficult to find things in this article. Does anyone agree that changing the structure and/or the section headings might help? --Boson (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Span (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of tlc, it would be hard to make it worse and probably easy to improve it. Just go for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.239 (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Span (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As a first step, I would suggest making the country the primary division, followed by the division into business and political (without changing any text initially). Suggestion:

  • Early life
  • Australia and New Zealand
    • Early business activities in Australia and New Zealand (1953–1972)
    • Later business activities in Australia (1999–)
    • Political activities in Australia
  • Britain
    • Business activities in Britain (1968–)
    • Political activities in the Britain
    • (David Cameron)*
  • United States
    • Business activities in the United States (1973–)
    • Political activities in the United States
  • Asia (1993–)
  • News International phone hacking scandal
  • Personal life
    • Marriages
    • Children
  • Portrayal on television, in film, books and music
  • Remuneration and wealth
Afterwards, we could merge the business and political activities for each country/region. Some topics span regions, but if we order it purely chronologically parallel activities in different regions might make it disjointed.
I would keep the section "News International phone hacking scandal" separate at a high level and try to update that section more frequently (summarizing the main article, which seems to be getting about 20-30 edits a day).
--Boson (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Have now implemented stage 1 of refactoring.--Boson (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Looks better to me. Span (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Corporate law error

"In, 2007 Murdoch issued his older children with equal voting stock." Apart from bad punctuation, the sentence cannot be factual in content. I am a US corporate attorney. The sentence uses the predicate "issue" when it ought use "transfer". Only the corporation itself can "issue" stock. A person acquiring from an existing shareholder receives that stock by a "transfer", rather than by an issuance. The word "with" must be deleted; it is not ever used with the predicates "issue" or "transfer". I would correct the sentence but it is also badly written in that "equal" is ambiguous: equal amoung the transferees? or equal to the share amount he had given his other son? 75.83.32.158 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it as requested. Can you check that the meaning accurate to your sense of it? There is no citation as yet, which may help clarify. Thanks Span (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Suicides

Subjects of stories in Murdoch owned titles who subsequently committed suicide:

Digby Bamford, age 13, Australia, 1964

Samantha MacAlpine, age 15, UK, 1971

Jennifer Elliott, age 38, UK, 2003

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/oldsite/print.asp?ID=5082

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb9cnlbzhgk

Could be added to the Controversy section? Oh - there is no Controversy section. Probably because Murdoch is not a controversial person. Not at all. Stanley Oliver (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia attempts not have controversy sections but to integrate the information into the whole article. See Wikipedia:Criticism sections. It also attempts to hold a neutral point of view WP:NPOV Span (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Rare insight into the Murdochs and Israel

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/397076/the-murdochs-and-the-middle-east.thtml

This is from the Spectator and at least shows that Rupert always was a staunch Zionist and a very close friend of Ariel Sharon. Scottish Presbyterians also gave us Lord Balfour, and Gordon Brown, two other significant political Zionists. Is this what has led to all the conspiracy nonsense about Rupert being Jewish, because it is hard for the layman to understand that staunch Zionists are nearly always Protestants, not Jewish. --Wool Bridge (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Added ref. Span (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Update: Discovered the WikiPolicemen who I suspected might be biased (which would explain why there wasn't a phone hacking section) aren't really so much, and were just working on the section on the side. So the following rant can be ignored, and a section is now up for review and expansion. Cheers, Sloggerbum (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! There have been plenty of complaints in the forum that this page is "white-washing" the topic at hand. Also noted is that this entry is receiving a massive amount of traffic since the recent phone hacking allegations, much more so than the actual page for the issue: News International phone hacking scandal. Also it should be noted that the surge in traffic on Murdoch's page directly coincides with the phone hacking incident.

The complaints are valid. We need to be aware that such as a page as this WILL invariably be prone to subtle whitewashing.

This is not in any way an accusation, but an observation; there is an extremely high probability that Murdoch has people with a conflict of interest that are editing his page. I am not calling for a witch hunt, but we can't be naive. The rationale; thousands of intelligent, media savvy individuals benefit financially from Murdoch's businesses or are fans of his outlets. It's silly to think that a portion of those individuals don't have a vested interest in editing the Murdoch page to paint him in the best possible light.

On the other hand, there are untold people who openly despise the man, and who seek to make the page paint him in a negative light as possible.

So where do we find the balance? We have to pay attention to Wikipedia:BLP, which reads the following:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

Also note this:

Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion.

Again, note that the information can only be removed it is not compliant. That means that any individuals formally or informally acting on behalf of Mr. Murdoch or his PR people have no right to remove information unless it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion, even if it paints the person in a negative light. To serve its encyclopedic purpose, Wikipedia can't remove properly sourced and worded information every time a subject of interest doesn't like what is written about them.

Problems with the article: people are already doing a great job of keeping the vandals at bay. Good job WikiGoons! But now we need to make sure that there isn't any whitewashing by omission going on. It's much harder to detect than straight out vandalism, but just as problematic.

There are individuals who have been carefully editing his page, and who are extremely familiar with the material. I'm calling for those people to take a second look at reformatting the page to include a well-worded, evenhanded controversy section, with a lead in the intro. Also note that as of this moment, Mr. Murdoch has not been personally accused of anything, and so it would be in bad form to "make him look guilty by association." However, he HAS been actively involved in police scrutiny, which is notable in itself, especially considering he's being called to testify about companies that he owns and controls. If worded correctly, including this information can be tactfully accomplished. In short,

If people are coming to his page to find information about the hacking scandal, they should be able to find information about the hacking scandal.

Obviously the sections don't need to massive, as there is an external page for that, but there at least need to be the proper links so people can find the information with ease. The page should also better summarize the ways Murdoch has specifically been involved, as it appropriate for a biography. And this information should be condensed into a section that it is easily accessible and easy to find via the section map at the top of the page. Sloggerbum (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

I'll begin to try and make some changes myself, but to do this properly, feedback, assistance, and thoughts from the Wikipedians that are most familiar with the topic would be useful. Sloggerbum (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed; there have also been a few arguments in the forum that this recent information should not be included, because it ostensibly won't be relevant in the future, when the issues have blown over. However, this argument falls short, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We have absolutely no way of knowing what will be relevant in the future; all we can do is attempt to dissect what is relevant from the past and what is relevant in the present. Right now it is relevant. If five years from now the issue is "blown over" and seemingly irrelevant, then so be it, but that hasn't happened yet. Sloggerbum (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The page is morphing for sure. In watching over the past few weeks there has been v little, if any, edit contention, no mass deletions of text, no warring. If fact there have been fairly few edits. I wouldn't put it past PR agents and Murdoch people to hang out here but I have seen no evidence of it. There is always a temptation, when a big event is kicking off, to rewrite an article in light of that event, with it at its centre. That is the problem with recentism. It's important that recent events are reflected, keeping a perspective of Murdoch's 60 year career, resisting editorialising though strong feeling is running high in the media. It is perhaps remembering that Wikipedia does not take a role as a newspaper, a soapbox or a publisher of original thought. As ever, let's assume good faith. Not sure conspiracy theories help much. I'm not commenting in response to any particular article edit. Just sayin'. Best wishes Span (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Oi, mock not my tinfoil hat! Anyways, excellent thoughts, and I may need some help. I posted what I thought was a succinct section on the hacking scandal, careful to only include the information directly relevant to Murdoch. Almost instantly, someone took that as an excuse to double the size of the section with info that's already covered in the actual page for the scandal. Again, I think a section is necesary, but how do we enforce how large it gets, in order to avoid the recentism phenomena you talked about (which I largely agreed with). I think I'm going to revert the edit, but I know I can't police it for long. Perhaps I'll write a note within the text warning people to keep it succinct. More of your reasoned thoughts? Sloggerbum (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
As I say, It's been a stable article. No reason why it shouldn't stay so. Span (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You are probably referring to me. I actually added the section on the scandal about a week ago. While I was trying to refactor the page a few hours ago, I believe I unfortunately removed it briefly and just restored it. Unfortunately I found that you got in just before me and re-created a similar version; so I merged what you had added into my version. No question about " excuse to double the size of the section"; I was merely re-adding what I had briefly removed in error. I agree that the section should merely summarize the actual article. In fact you can see that what I wrote was largely a paraphrase of the lede of that article. It's a bit difficult re-organizing a page while other people are also editing; so please forgive any confusion. --Boson (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, sorry for the panic attack :) I'm not used to jumping on pages quite so busy, I appreciate the explanation. I thought perhaps I had opened some sort of neverending floodgates; I'd actually really appreciate any feedback or fixes to the info I did add. I'm only so familiar with the scandal situation, and am not sure if there are any big problems with what I put up, so a more experienced eye would be great! Happy editing! Sloggerbum (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
(also, I removed the maintenance tag. I hate leaving them up for long). Sloggerbum (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Significant Murdoch-related items that are missing

The first three of these items all involve Rupert Murdoch the individual. His role as an individual in the phone hacking scandal has been cited repeatedly in the news of late.

- Murdoch published a full-page apology for the phone-hacking scandal in seven UK newspapers on July 16 2011. Regarding the BLP, this apology was signed as "Rupert Murdoch" without a corporate title, so it is reasonable to argue that a mention belongs here, in the Rupert Murdoch Article. See for example http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/16/murdoch-apologizes-to-britain-in-full-page-ad-in-every-newspaper/

- No mention of very public meeting held with Milly Dowler family in London on July 15th 2011. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/rupert-murdoch-apology-milly-dowler

- No mention of refusal and then acceptance of forceful request to testify to the UK culture, media and sport parliamentary committee, as far as I can see. See http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/14/idUS210059864520110714

- No mention of News Corp subsidiary settling advertising lawsuits for $500 million plus. Since the article mentions corporate acquisitions, why not significant corporate activites (such as paying out half a billion to settle a case?)/. "...the News Corporation has paid out about $655 million to make embarrassing charges of corporate espionage and anticompetitive behavior go away." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/business/media/for-news-corporation-troubles-that-money-cant-dispel.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.4.4 (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Something should be mentioned about the way the enemies of Rupert Murdoch tend to have... unfortunate incidents. Robert Maxwell, Conrad Black, and now Sean Hoare all seem to have suffered some entirely coincidental negative effects while being a thorn in the side of Mr. Murdoch. Perhaps we could mention how unlucky Mr. Murdoch's foes seem to be? -- SmashTheState (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Not unless WP:RS reports the same thing - which seems unlikely, given that it is just about the most ludicrous bit of WP:SYN I've seen on Wikipedia all week. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Concur on all points Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There is still no mention of his personal meeting with the Milly Dowler family and of a full page apology. Thoughts? Span (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Now added. Span (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

Murdoch is a naturalised US citizen, but he was born and raised in Australia and his parents were Australian. Doesn't that make his nationality / national identity Australian? If so, shouldn't the Nationality field in the infobox say Australian? Jim Michael (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because Murdoch is a naturalised US citizen. That is what naturalisation entails: taking on the new nationality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest the wording in the introduction be changed to "an Australian-born American"? The words "Australian-American" are misleading, as they imply dual citizenship, which is not the case. Ozymandias123 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Ozymandias123 August 3, 2011

I'm not sure that is true - where are 'African-Americans' born? Actually though you make a valid point, that saying someone is a 'X-Y' doesn't actually clarify things much. I seem to remember someone being described as a 'Norwegian-Pakistani'. Now this could be a person of Norwegian ethnicity who took up Pakistani citizenship, a person of Pakistani ethnicity who took up Norwegian citizenship, someone of mixed Pakistani-Norwegian ethnicity living anywhere, or possibly a combination of some or all of these - each of which is of course as legitimate a means of identifying oneself as any other. The problem is that U.S. 'X-Y' classifications are a hopeless confusion of ethnicity, citizenship, and who knows what. Not that this is a problem confined to the U.S. Arguably, Australia has only had a 'national identity' for maybe 90+ years (see Gallipoli), and the earlier arrivals tend to have a different opinion on what makes you an Australian than the later ones... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

The words "an Australian-American" are factually incorrect. Mr Murdoch was required to renounce his Australian citizenship as a condition of his acquiring media assets in the United States.

I (humbly) suggest the phrase be re-rendered: "an Australian-born American". Ozymandias123 (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Ozymandias, August 3, 2011

Common usage in the US provides such hyphenated terms. There are, among others, "German American" organizations, "Irish American" ones and so on. Renunciation of citizenship does not affect those who are members of such organizations or groups, hence the cavil is insufficient. Cheers. [7], [8], [9] shows The New York Times has no problem with the usage. Collect (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
True, but the suggestion would be a good improvement because a reader who is unfamiliar with what Australian American means would find "an Australian-born American" much clearer (and less waffly than the linked page which says the term indicates an American "who identifies with an Australian national background"). Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with John. Span (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The article is written using American grammar, punctuation, spelling etc. It would be far more misleading to make one piece conform to non-American usage than to retain normal American usage. I know of nothing in any source which says "Murdoch says he has no Australian background" and many sources which indicate he still considers himself as having an Australian background. Meanwhile I note that the claim that it must mean "dual citizenship" is now off the table. See also [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] ad infinitum. [15] repeatedly refers to Australia. [16]. [17]. [18]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Which is why "Australian-born American" works well. Span (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
You wish to use a rare term to replace a common term? Seems a bit wrong-way forward, that. Short common terms are better than long uncommon terms, as far as I can tell. The shorter term is used internationally in news articles, used by the NYT as consistent wth their manual of style, is used in books on the person, is used by the person's own company, and so on. In books, the "born" is found less than 1/10 the number of uses of the simpler term. Google scholar finds "born" in only 5 cases - with the simpler usage in 238 cases. In short the "born" awkward construct is found rarely. Really rarely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
While the 'X'-American construct is sometimes ambiguous, it is in widespread use, as Collect says, and the article itself clarifies exactly what is meant. It seems to me that people are arguing with the general usage of the term, not with Wikipedia's - and that isn't an appropriate debate to have here. We can only follow the sources in such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll go with the consensus. Span (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Australian American says it means a US citizen who identifies with an Australian national background. That applies to Murdoch, so that description, linked to that article, is the best way to describe him in the first sentence of this article. 'Australian-born American' wrongly implies that his only connection to Australia is his birthplace, as though he had been born in Australia to American parents and raised in the US. 188.28.100.6 (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
If anyone has seen the Daily Show or Colbert Report they might have noticed that a lot of the jokes centred around Murdoch being an Aussie, even though as has been pointed out here he is no longer a citizen? Why would that be, I wonder? Have the writers of the shows not consulted wikipedia? I believe there is confusion when distinguishing between nationality and citizenship. Citizenship implies a legal status between a government and an individual. Nationality, implies a little more than that (IMO). This is somewhat subjective, which is why there seems to me so much debate over this in wikipedia. But IMO Murdoch is an Aussie by nationality, having been born in Aus and lived there for a substantial period. This fact would not alter merely as a result of a citizenship change. I would suggest a description of him as Australian born would be sufficient in the lead. It avoids the issue that he might no longer be a citizen, while the fact that he he might have acquired American citizenship is not important enough to include in the opening sentence (although I'd concede that you could argue that his American citizenship was important to his notability). I would suggest that an entry for citizenship could be added to the info box, with dates indicating when they were held.Theodore D (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)