Talk:Wendi Deng Murdoch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Delete

Delete - Only notable contribution by Wendi Deng is marriage into Murdoch family. Not to mention this wiki is filled with numerous unqualified claims and counter claims akin to a tabloid article. Discussions are marred with unsubstantiated facts and with little substance. Whom she married, and how she got to USA, and how many kids she has, and how she got to marry Mr. Murdoch is not deserving of wiki article. Any information with regards to her should be address on Mr. Murdoch's wiki page under marriages. This is POV and very irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.92.39 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

KILLED BY Tregoweth

ive been looking at the edit history for this page and the version that was around in may was much better than the current version The original may have not been properly sourced and POV but tags could have been added, sources could have been found and POV could have been removed, instead this stub (not even marked as a stub) replaced it and contains almost none of the facts in the previous! after a few weeks this was made,it is POV but instead of removing the biased, the article was trashed back to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.159.185 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested Sources

Could someone who IS authorized to edit the page please cite "Deng and Murdoch have been accused of suppressing articles about her in the press," which currently has a "citation needed" tag, to http://www.slate.com/id/2165989/pagenum/all/ ?

The "malicious nonsense" denunciation can be sourced to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/11/02/wmurd02.xml, which already is among the links at the bottom of the article. I think all the info alleged in the article can be found in those links at the bottom; someone just failed to do the HTML properly.

Also, please correct "Similar reports about Deng's personal history have been published by The Daily Telegraph, ABC News, New York Magazine, The Monthly, and numerous other respectable sources in the media." The phrase "ABC News" is incorrectly linked to the American ABC News, when the coverage actually is occurring in ABC News (Australia).

Other languages

Simplified Chinese Wikipedia has a page on Wendi Deng, but there's no 'in other languages' panel on this page. I'm not sure how that works. http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%82%93%E6%96%87%E8%BF%AA&variant=zh-cn

Vanity

No, seriously this is NOT a vanity page =) Wendi Deng is Rupert Murdoch's wife, or last I checked anyway. See http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/journal/murdock.htm . Enochlau 14:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikified

I've wikified and fleshed out the article a bit more. There's some interesting information on a prior marriage and her passage to the USA here: [1] but I can't vouch for the information. - Oliver Lineham 02:57, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

I'm no fan of Murdoch and his unappealing wife, but I believe the tone of the article as of this date (30/7/05) is rather unbalanced towards the negative - does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.168 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 30 July 2005

The facts in the article appear to be correct. The facts don't favor her, but I don't think that's the fault of those writing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.186.8 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 July 2005

You have to admire her tenacity nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celendin (talk • contribs) 10:46, 31 July 2005

I am no fan of Adolf Hitler. I feel all the information about him is unbalanced towards the negative - does anyone else agree? The facts in the article appear to be correct. The facts don't favor him, but I don't think that's the fault of those writing the article. You have to admire his tenacity nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.240.248 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 1 August 2005

The following is extremely POV, and there is no source to back it up...can someone please do this or take it off the page?

"Since their marriage, Murdoch has greatly diversified his businesses in China. However, he had been shortsighted in terms of what his marriage to a Chinese woman could do for him. High-ranking Chinese officials have openly disparaged Deng to her face in Mandarin Chinese in Murdoch's presence, unbeknownst to Murdoch who does not understand the language.

It is anticipated that Deng, being a shrewd woman, will not reveal her true intentions until Rupert is dead."

Let's face it, do you think Murdoch would have married her without thoroughly checking out her sexual history? Come on his organisation checks out everyone else's life:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14107410

Image

Would it be more appropriate to use this picture for Wendi Deng? http://www.woopidoo.com/biography/rupert-murdoch/wendi-deng.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.177.63 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 November 2006

Voting rights

whats the legal explanation for her children not having voting rights? would seem to be something you could change in your will no? or is it some strange ausi law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.180.53 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 2 December 2006

Overall tone of article

This article reads like a diary entry during some parts and amateur journalism in others.Erikkukun 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• At least before I stubbed it, it was mostly cribbed from this New York magazine article about Rupert Murdoch. —tregoweth (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what the problem is. The source was adequately cited, and although it took much information from the article, it doesn't look to be copyvio. Why remove most of the most important of the information?--58.105.25.218 15:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It was similar enough that it really needed to be rewritten. —tregoweth (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay. I'm not sure I agree, but I can't really be bothered to press the point. But why remove all traces of the article itself, right down to the link?--58.105.25.218 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
        • For that matter, checking the history, the article is now a fifth of the size it was before the link was even added. A lot of the information removed does not look to have come straight from the NYMag article.--58.105.25.218 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, okay, that can go back. —tregoweth (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Who owns Wikipedia? I hope it is not Murdoch. Instead of deleting the whole entry, maybe you should just add a neutrality warning. WannabeAmatureHistorian

Claims and counterclaims

I altered the article to more accurately reflect the content of the Telegraph article referenced. WSJ has made claims. The Murdochs have made counterclaims. It's not appropriate for WP to take sides

Ordinary Person 09:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but those same claims have surfaced in a number of different and reputable publications, so unless we see something to the contrary I think they belong in the article. Do you have a citation for the "malicious nonsense" statement? Alexwoods 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles I have seen have been _about_, or have referenced, the WSJ article. The "malicious nonsense" statement was in the articles already referenced in this article (the Telegraph), but I have added the specific reference after the statement just so there is no confusion.

More generally, I am not of the opinion that WP is intended to carry gossip, even when the gossip has been published by a writer working for the Wall Street Journal. If we must, we have to flag that we are reporting that gossip has taken place: obviously we need to avoid the impression that we are _endorsing_ the gossip in some way. Ordinary Person 10:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, now the article is polished turd, and in trying to decieve the public that Wendi did not sleep with a married man to get her Visa, and than cheated on him again with another one when he did brought her over to USA. In addition, whoever removed information on how she met Murdoch's friend on the plane, who introduced her to him after at the party, is trying to do a nice PR spin as well. Last but not least, information that she did not graduate from California university is omitted as well as the type of work she did while she was in California (hair stylist -source needed)

Here is a quote that some PR hack removed " After receiving her degree in 1996, Wendi Deng moved to Hong Kong. On the flight over she met Bruce Churchill from Star TV and obtained a position as an intern through him. In 1998 Deng met Rupert Murdoch the managing director of Star TV's parent company News Corporation which led to Deng and Murdoch having an affair despite Deng being almost 40 years younger." -Source InvestingValue.com. So stop editing out information, and dont let his sensorship win over Wiki. Not from Communist Party

"No, now the article is polished turd, and in trying to decieve the public that Wendi did not sleep with a married man to get her Visa,"

Sir, Wikipedia is not The Tattler. The fact that Marie Curie won two Nobel Prizes is notable. The fact that a newspaper may have made accusations against her of an extramarital affair is not. I'm sure fans of trivial sexual gossip will find places on the internet for that sort of thing, but obviously it is not encyclopedic material. Ordinary Person 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I dated the Wall Street Journal entry so people can check the original article if so inclined. I removed references to the other publications which need to be cited to be included. I don't think this kind of gossip is appropriate for an article here, but given the debate above I don't want to get into a revert war. If an editor wants to give more weight to the Wall Street Journal article by adding a list of other publications which repeated the views of the Wall Street Journal, please cite the entries. Vritti 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

News Corp editing of this article

See ABC Media Watch on attempts to manipulate this article at: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2016916.htm Grahamec 06:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed the News Corp IP before. But really, the headline should read "NewsCorp employees too freakin' dumb to realize that IPs can be traced". Pascal.Tesson 06:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The cheek of it! There's an interesting little piece in the current Private Eye (No. 1192 - p3) about it. IP 206.15.98.236 belongs to one Jason Ripley of the New York HQ of News Corp (according to the Eye). Best bit is... wait for it... he's their IT coordinator! Brilliant!--Kylemew 09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The guy's name is given as Jason Ripkey. Philip Cross 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Afterwards Deng joined her father in Guangzhou, and began medical studies." Where the source for this. According the the article, she was less then 18 years old and studying medicine? What school then? And for that matter, I noticed that all the positive things are "not claimed" but when she had an affair, with two different man, that is "claimed" (and written twice) to emphasize that. Also information that she worked in a Salon has been removed as well while she was in L.A. area. In addition, if those claims are malicious rumors, Murdoch would have sued them by now. It should be changed then from "claimed" to "stated" to reflect the fact that it has not been challenged or rebuked after so many numerous years.

Please note that someone has been deliberately changing information. For more in deapth look into her life, please check earlier wiki posts in the history of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.105.76 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Marriage to Cherry?

The article mentions "Deng and Cherry divorced," but never mentions them being married. It only says she met Jake Cherry, who was already married. So when you get to "Deng and Cherry" divorced, it doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.128.113 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_wp_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not:

3. Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.

Just a reminder to contributors to this thread. Ordinary Person (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia?

Why is WikiProject Australia here? It's an honest question. As far as I know, she's not Australian, she doesn't live in Asutralia (or does she?)...Maybe WikiProject USA & WikiProject China should be here instead?! Inputs are welcome. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Replace WPAsutralia with WPChina. I think Australia was there by mistake. If I made a mistake, please re-add it. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation

I just edited the article to remove an unflattering unsourced implication as a violation of wp:blp. Ann arbor street (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You edited the article to remove an "unflattering unsourced" information? What relevance unflattering has on FACTUAL? Also what information is "unsourced" that you removed? What school she went to? What schools she graduated from? Nope, you did not remove any of that "UNSOURCED" information, instead you removed that FACT she had AN AFFAIR WITH a married man. That is FACTUAL. So lets stop censoring information. Your point of authority with wp:blp does not cover factual though UNFLATTERING information that YOU ARE TRYING TO HIDE. 1: She HAD AN AFFAIR WITH A MARRIED MAN.(Sourced) 2: She worked in a SALON (sourced) 3:The information for many years has been constantly changed by Murdoch corporation. (sourced). If this gets deleted again - I will personally bring you up for suspension of your account for spinning information with an apparent bias in removing all "unflattering" (BUT TRUE) information from Wikipedia. The day of CENSORING ENDS NOW.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by StopTheCensors (talk • contribs) 01:38, 9 December 2009

Edit request from 216.93.191.241, 30 March 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Google

Please change Wendi Murdoch to work with MySpace in External Links to Wendi Murdoch to work with MySpace. The former link is broken.

216.93.191.241 (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done and thanks! ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

I think this page needs to be protected from anonymous editing. This ABC News article discusses the edit warring that has been going on. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Biography of a living person

This article must adhere to the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Properly cited statements should not be removed simply for being "unflattering". Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)