Talk:Rupert Murdoch

Proposed Deletion - Bias Paragraph (Policy Violations)

I propose deleting the following paragraph:

"Many of Murdoch's papers and television channels have been accused of right-wing bias and misleading coverage to support his business interests and political allies, and political alliances. Murdoch has been linked his influence with major political developments in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia."

POLICY VIOLATIONS:

1. WP:WEASEL - "Have been accused" is textbook weasel wording. Who accused? When? Wikipedia policy requires specific attribution, not vague accusations.

2. WP:NPOV - Presents only criticism without balancing perspectives, violating neutral point of view policy.

3. WP:V / WP:CLAIM - Makes contentious claims ("misleading coverage") without adequate specificity or sourcing. Cannot be verified due to vagueness.

4. WP:SYNTH - "Has been linked his influence" appears to synthesize sources to imply causation not explicitly stated.

5. WP:TONE - Uses loaded, non-encyclopedic language ("accused," "misleading") inappropriate for neutral encyclopedia.

DOUBLE STANDARD:

The MS NOW article describes political orientation as "liberal-leaning" without similar accusatory language. This inconsistent treatment suggests systemic bias in violation of WP:NPOV.

PROPOSED ACTION:

Delete paragraph entirely. Other sections of article cover Murdoch's political activities with proper sourcing and neutral language. This paragraph adds no encyclopedic value and violates multiple core policies.

If retention is desired, complete rewrite is required with:

• Specific attribution (no weasel words)
• Neutral language (no loaded terms)
• Balancing perspectives (WP:WEIGHT)
• Encyclopedic tone

I recommend deletion as the simplest policy-compliant solution. Car234 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Follow up edit:

I apologize for making the deletion without building consensus first. I should have proposed the change here and discussed with the community.

However, I believe the paragraph beginning "Many of Murdoch's papers..." has policy issues:

1. WP:WEASEL - "Have been accused" doesn't specify who or when

2. WP:NPOV - Only presents criticism without balancing views

Rather than deletion, I propose rewriting it more neutrally:

CURRENT: "Many of Murdoch's papers and television channels have been accused of right-wing bias and misleading coverage to support his business interests and political allies."

PROPOSED: "Media scholars including [specific names with citations] have characterized Murdoch's publications as exhibiting conservative editorial positions. Supporters argue his outlets provide balance to what they view as predominantly liberal mainstream media."

This removes weasel words, adds specific attribution, and includes balancing perspective per WP:NPOV.

Thoughts? I'm open to other suggestions and will respect community consensus. Car234 (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

My first thought is that you appear not to understand Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. At no point does it suggest that 'neutrality' be determined by e.g. looking at what an article on another subject has to say, and using the apparent lack of 'accusatory language' there to suggest that it isn't appropriate here. As for the paragraph itself, personally I'd have to suggest that if there is a problem, it is that the article doesn't follow it up with sufficient coverage of a topic which has been extensively discussed for decades - Murdoch media's willingness to take sides in political disputes worldwide (which it is entitled to), and the questionable manner it has sometimes done this, which needs in-depth discussion, rather than passing commentary, even if properly sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

For the record: I proposed neutral language with specific citations and balancing perspectives. The rejection of this compromise, combined with the asymmetric treatment compared to similar articles, demonstrates the systemic bias I've been documenting. I've made my case. Other editors can judge for themselves. Car234 (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I'd have to suggest that your comment regarding 'similar articles' suggests that you haven't actually read the policies you are claiming have been violated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2026

~2026-33429-8 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC) The word tycoon would best describe Murdoch rather than mogul

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. GearsDatapack (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I dont have a source, just personal opinion. ~2026-16431-5 (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Then it's probably best that you read WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Nationality wording in lead

@Thedarkknightli: I note your revert regarding Murdoch's nationality on the basis that He first gained notability *before* obtaining US citizenship.

My concern is that this logic does not seem to have a clear limit. If Australian nationality is retained in the opening sentence because Murdoch was born in Australia and his early career began there, then that same rationale would also extend to a large number of other article leads that presently distinguish birthplace and former national context from current nationality.

By way of example:

• Daria Kasatkina is described as a "Russian-born Australian professional tennis player". As her infobox records Russia as her country in sports from 2011–2025 and Australia from 2025 onwards, if prior national connection and career context belongs in the lead nationality label, then one might expect this instead to say "Russian and Australian professional tennis player".
• Arina Rodionova is also described as a "Russian-born Australian professional tennis player". Similarly, her infobox records Russia from 2004–2014 and Australia from 2014 onwards. Applying this same rationale, one might expect her article to say "Russian and Australian professional tennis player".
• And there's Novak Djokovic, who is simply described as a "Serbian professional tennis player", notwithstanding that his infobox records representation of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Serbia. As he gained notability *before* the Republic of Serbia existed, the same logic would appear to point toward describing him:

Novak Djokovic (born 22 May 1987) is a Yugoslav, Serbian and Montenegrin, and Serbian professional tennis player.

(Which I don't think anyone would say is correct.)

By contrast, "Australian-born American" does not erase Murdoch’s Australian origin or early career (and those are covered in the body and summarised later in the lead). It does, however, avoid implying current dual nationality or citizenship, and is consistent with how other articles distinguish birthplace and former national context from current nationality.

In any case, I've removed the contested wording pending discussion. MOS:CONTEXTBIO cites the case of Elon Musk's nationalities being omitted from the lead, and that may also end up being the simpler approach for this article. JasonGen (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, besides Musk's article, CONTEXTBIO also introduces the one of Peter Lorre, who did not hold dual citizenship, as "an example of a person who established a career in Europe as a Hungarian, then emigrated to the United States and was naturalized and continued his career, and is thus known as both a Hungarian actor and as an American actor". Similar examples include Vladimir Horowitz, Marlene Dietrich, Max von Sydow, etc. Thedarkknightli (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD needs to state clearly that he was born in Australia, which it currently doesn't. The problem cannot be solved by removing it altogether.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:27, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@JasonGen and @Ianmacm, any objections if I restore the descriptor "Australian and American"? Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Not sure about this, as the main point here is that he was born in Australia. This is something that the lead needs to make clear more than his citizenship. The lead at Elon Musk makes clear that he was born in South Africa.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, what about adding "Murdoch was born and raised in Melbourne." to the second paragraph of lead? This is commonly mentioned by reliable sources. Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Peter Lorre says he was a Hungarian and American actor, encompassing his entire lifetime. That's materially different than saying Murdoch is an Australian and American former business magnate, which to me incorrectly implies that he still retains Australian citizenship. Also, Lorre was born in Austro-Hungaria, in a place which became Czechoslovakia (yet retained Hungarian citizenship) and is now Slovakia. So in Lorre's case, "Austro-Hungarian-born American actor", while technically correct, wouldn't provide the necessary specificity to inform the reader about his origins.

Max Von Sydow's article is the same and during his lifetime seems (without checking the history exhaustively) to have alternated between omitting his nationality, "Swedish actor", and "Swedish-born actor" before becoming the current wording in 2025.

Are there any examples of living persons that gave up their citizenship like Murdoch (or Kasatkina and Rodionova)? The closest example I could find to Murdoch is Derryn Hinch, who was a New Zealand citizen and notable in his own right as a journalist before becoming an Australian citizen in 1982. He renounced his NZ citizenship in 2016 due to Australia's federal parliamentary laws. His article follows Kasatkina's and Rodionova's style and says he is a New Zealand–born media personality while omitting his current nationality (Australian).

Further, reading WP:CONTEXTBIO more closely, it states:

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable.

To me, that supports "Australian-born American" or simply just calling him American. I don't think it's controversial to say that Murdoch is still sufficiently notable, nor that most of this notability on a global scale occurred after he gave up Australian citizenship in 1985. He also seems to seldom visit Australia. JasonGen (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I still think we should avoid Australian and American on the basis that it implies he's still Australian. My preference remains Australian-born American for both the opening line and the short description.

Alternatively, moving his birthplace to the start of the second lead paragraph as suggested, then for the opening line Keith Rupert Murdoch (/ˈmɜːrdɒk/ MUR-dok; born 11 March 1931) is an American former business magnate, investor, and media mogul is acceptable to me (as is omitting his nationality entirely). Although then I'm not sure how we'd phrase the short description. American business magnate (born 1931) is the obvious wording to reflect the opening line in that case, although that lacks the context of his birthplace. JasonGen (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I've just informed WP:BLPN, see WP:BLPN#Rupert Murdoch's nationality. Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Australian-born American is preferable to either: Australian and American, by virtue of truth, accuracy & verifiability; or American (only), by virtue of completeness and dueness. Inclusion of Australian in the present sense fails verification. That he first gained notability *before* obtaining US citizenship does not allow original research. See also: WP:NNC. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've restored "Australian-born American" (see ) per consensus here. Regards, Thedarkknightli (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2026

Change “University of Oxford (BA)” to “Worcester College, Oxford (BA)” for his Alma mater. ~2026-26646-43 (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Done. JasonGen (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done @~2026-26646-43 I've self-reverted this. After seeing an earier edit, I believe @Rift was entirely correct in changing it to University of Oxford. Apologies.

I did check David Cameron and Rishi Sunak before I answered this and, in both cases, the constituent colleges are listed. So the issue appears to be not an uncommon one. JasonGen (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)