Jump to content

Talk:Wendi Deng Murdoch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wendi defends Rupert Murdoch during attack

[edit]

Wendi Murdoch physically defended Rupert Murdoch from a paper plate covered with shaving foam attack during the special session of the Culture Media & Sport Committee hearing when a Left-Wing comedian by the name of 'Jonnie Marble's' attacked the 80-year old, you couldn't make it up.Twobells (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

I suggest that this article does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines. Being married to someone notable does not make someone ----Hemshaw (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I've removed the tag. What a super woman! Egg Centric 18:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was premature to remove the tag.--Hemshaw (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She is clearly wikipedia notable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How?--Hemshaw (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She leaps over the WP:GNG - Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone who ever appeared in a US reality show is on here so the high-profile wife of one the world's biggest media barons must be notable by comparison. Piegate and a twitter storm make no difference one way or the other Allen Brown (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Were she not married to Murdoch, we might well not have heard of her. But the press discussion of her over the years has been extensive, and largely as a very shrewd and capable individual. Whether or not marriage was part of a career plan, she is reported to be a formidable member of the News Corp organisation. Watching the coverage of the Murdochs' appearance before the H of C Culture Media and Sport select committee today I was left in no doubt that she wields considerable influence - her body language, quite aside from her right hand when going to the defence of her husband, was worth watching. --AJHingston (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia criteria reads: Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.--Hemshaw (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC):::Who owns the sources used in this article. --Hemshaw (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three users disagree with you - this external report from the article appears to be completely about her. if you still feel there is a problem then please nominate the article for deletion. See - WP:AFD - Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left Mr(s). Shaw a message in what I consider a diplomatic style. Now I must be off to the off licence before it shuts at 11. Egg Centric 21:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the article meets Wiki criteria. Wendi Deng Murdoch is very well known in the business world for much more than being married to Rupert Murdoch. The problem here is that the current article doesn't focus on her accomplishments. Some easy research and a simple rewrite should fix the problem. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Born in Xuzhou, Jiangsu (per box) or in Jinan, Shandong (per test body with cite)?

[edit]

Born in Xuzhou, Jiangsu (per box) or in Jinan, Shandong (per test body with cite)? 99.56.121.121 (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volleyball

[edit]

According to the Telegraph, she's a champ v-ball player? [1]

Wendy Murdoch

[edit]

Wendy Murdoch and other variations on her name should probably redirect here... Plenty of places (including reputable newspapers) call her "Wendy"; and "Mrs. Murdoch" is frequently used as well. 70.49.127.194 (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deng Wendi , Wendy Deng and Wendi Murdoch already redirects here.

Her name is also Wendi Deng Murdoch. That's how she styles herself on the board of Yale School of Management. http://mba.yale.edu/why/advisors/index.shtml. Probably best to go with what she calls herself. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It would not cause any possible confusion and allows for any of the possible search terms. If women choose to adopt the name of their husband it is usual to acknowledge that - to use a relevant example, when she came to the defence of her husband in the H of C committee meeting, a question was being asked by Louise Mensch who changed her name only last month from one by which she was much better known. The title of the Wikipedia article was altered accordingly. --AJHingston (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probable search terms should redirect here, considering the usage at large (ie, Wendy, and Mrs. Murdoch) , these should redirect here. I'm not requesting a rename. 70.49.127.194 (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But is there good reason for not renaming as suggested by Malke 2010 if that is the name she uses? One difficulty with the present title is that there is a suggestion of POV bias, eg that her marriage and hence membership of the Murdoch clan is somehow invalid or should not be acknowledged. --AJHingston (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. It seems the wiki convention is to go with how she styles herself. I'll put up a move notice and that might generate some more comments.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her name in pinyin is 'Deng Wendi', and is conventionally and more commonly known as 'Wendi Deng' – as can be seen in most news and other articles. Wendy Deng as a redirect is reasonable, but it isn't recognition of it is an alternative spelling (or her English name). The rd was more likely than not put there because it's more common for ladies to spell "Wendy". Anyway, what is the actual proposed target? perhaps you could follow instructions at WP:RM. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wendi Deng → Wendi Deng Murdoch –The proposal is that the article should be titled Wendi Deng Murdoch on the grounds that is the name she chooses to be known by. She is resident in the USA, and I am not certain of US law but it often matches English law in matters such as this. In the UK an adult is allowed to call themselves whatever they choose, so there is no such thing as a 'correct' name otherwise. Variations in spelling of names such as Wendi are common and use of two surnames not unusual, especially where a woman adds her husband's name (and that of her children) to her own. So the redirects should be from reasonable searches (one of the surnames, both spellings of Wendi) and go to whatever name she uses (which could change). --AJHingston (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you please provide some references stating that Wendi Deng Murdoch is the name she chooses to go by? I had a look through the ones currently in the article and couldn't find anything. Jenks24 (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is provided by Malke2010 in the section above, that this is the name under which she is listed as a member of the Yale School of Management Board of Advisors. My proposal above was actually posted as a response to Ohconfucius and was split into a new section by him for procedural reasons, which is why it may seem oddly worded. Evidence of how she styles herself is difficult to find - the only entry I can find on the News Corp website is in a declaration to the 2010 shareholders meeting where she is referred to as Mrs Wendi Murdoch which further confuses matters. Perhaps I should say, since no doubt this article is monitored on her behalf, that this is an occasion under Wikipedia BLP policy where information from the subject herself is very welcome! We just need to be sure of its authenticity. --AJHingston (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hadn't seen the above section. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what constitutes reliable sources in this instance except those related to the subject. I don't want to debate the Shirley Temple Black issue (I'm surprised, as the custom in the UK was to refer to her during her adult political life under her full name), but perhaps the difference is that she was not normally referred to as Shirley Black. And this isn't a clearcut case such as Bill Clinton or John Wayne. The evidence is pointing to the subject of this article using, and being referred to as, Wendi Murdoch or more fully as Wendi Deng Murdoch. And it's a bit like the spelling of her first name - Wende, Wendi and Wendy would all be possible (and used) but it is the way she spells it that matters. Redirects can achieve a lot, but it is important that users are immediately reassured that they are in the right place. Whether they (quite properly) search for Wendi Deng or Wendi Murdoch, the fuller title would give them that, and there is no flavour of Wikipedia making a judgement on what is 'correct'. --AJHingston (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Article titles is quite clear that we follow the sources on article titles. (See also WP:Naming conventions (people).) If you need to know what constitutes a reliable source, look to WP:Reliable sources. Based on my own brief survey, Wendi Murdoch appears to be most common. Powers T 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may have misunderstood. I was making the point that the reliability of the source on a factual matter such as this is going to be in proportion to the distance from the subject. It isn't even a simple matter like the birth date of her children, where there may be a good source with the 'correct' answer that has no connection with what Wendi Deng Murdoch says it is (even though she is more likely to be right than a journalist in a usually reliable paper). For what it is worth, I have found the subject most often referred to in the UK as Wendi Deng - by the BBC or in the Independent newspaper for example, both of which qualify as reliable sources, and even The Times, a News Corp title, uses that or Wendi Deng Murdoch. I suspect that the decision for journalists comes down to local habits, and it certainly isn't an instance where we can say that there is an overwhelming predominance of either name such that we could ignore what the subject herself does. Essentially, we have three choices here - to keep the article title as it is, to change it to Wendi Murdoch, or to change it to Wendi Deng Murdoch. The last seems likely to make the most sense to users whichever version they are used to finding in local media. --AJHingston (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wendi Deng is the version of her name that gets the most Google News hits, so you can't leave out "Deng." In the New York Times, it is always "Wendi Deng Murdoch". So we can think of that as the formal version of her name, with "Wendi Deng" and "Wendi Murdoch" as short forms. You'd think Fox News would be on top of this one, but they use all three versions. Kauffner (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per evidence from Kauffner (that the NYT always uses Wendi Deng Murdoch is compelling) and the fact that we should always try and title articles of BLPs how the subjects prefer to be called. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - whatever the custom is in the UK, Wikipedia policy unambiguously states that how a person is commonly known in reliable sources is the way the article title is decided for a person. see WP:Naming conventions (people). Note in particular that Courteney Cox is still the name of that article despite her having gone to all that trouble to change her name to "Courteney Cox Arquette". What she wants to be called is not relevant to this discussion. Since this case isn't obvious (like Shirley Temple), we need some evidence that Wendi Deng Murdoch is more common in reliable sources. In this case I find it very difficult to tell, but as I look through Google News results, it appears that "Wendi Deng Murdoch" is often used in reliable sources, notably NYT, CNN, and Newsweek. But "Wendi Deng" is used in plenty of other prominent reliable sources like the Associated Press. Many sources appear uncertain which to use. Can someone make a better case for "Wendi Deng Murdoch" actually being much more common in reliable sources please? Without such evidence we should maintain the status quo. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Used in reliable sources and this is how she is styled as a member of the board of advisors of Yale School of Management. That seems strong evidence that this is how she styles herself which explains why reliable sources such as NYTimes and others use that style as well. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Birthdate of last child?

[edit]

It says 2005 for Chloe, but in Ruperts wiki page it says 17 July 2003  ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.213.191 (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ruperts wiki page is correct (i.e., it should be 2003, not 2005); see a quote from a 2005 article: "... Married his third wife, Wendi Deng, in 1999, with whom he has two children, Grace, four, and Chloe, two... " from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/so-where-does-rupert-murdoch-go-from-here-500802.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.184.71 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I've removed all the <ref> ... </ref> tags from your post so that the URL is visible) Yes, I've added a source for the birth dates to the Rupert Murdoch article, and both http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/so-where-does-rupert-murdoch-go-from-here-500802.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/business/media/02murdoch.html are consistent with those dates. So I have made the change here. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four hit

[edit]

Apparently four were hit by the pie, Wendi, Rupert, a policeman and Marbles himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.91.52 (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The details are not really for Wikipeida, but the BBC did show the assailant after his arrest with shaving foam caked on the upper part of his face. I believe that could only have occurred if somebody had decided to give him a taste (perhaps literally as it was soap) of his own medicine, and that is consistent with a remark attributed to Mrs Murdoch at the time. Others may have been splattered in the fracas. All that concerns this article is that Mrs Murdoch's positive intervention gained widespread attention. --AJHingston (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure that the pieing incident is at all encyclopaedic. I'd be inclined to remove it as tabloid trivia. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marbles should have been released from prison by now. He probably got half off for good behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.134.88 (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still see a move notice is that normal?

[edit]

When I visited this article and saw the move notice I read it and thought, wait a minute, this article has already been moved. Then I went to remove it and it turns out the move notice has already been removed. I think there might be some paranormal activity in the MediaWiki softwares, or maybe Wendy Deng (Murdoch) is trying to tell us something with her mind. Seriously, am I the only one that sees this? Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again an that appears to have fixed it. spooky. Oddly the problem with the previous version is also gone. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch

[edit]

There are several IPs/users who continuously edit the page. Wendi's surname is Murdoch since she married Rupert. Please do not change this. It is custom in the Wikipedia articles to refer to subjects by their last names. ★Dasani★ 04:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not quite accurate. The custom is to refer to subjects by the name by which they are generally known, though this can vary and is influenced, for example, by whether the media takes account of the subject's own preference (this seems to vary between countries). See the move discussion above. Added to that, it has never been the custom in the UK, for example, except in very limited circumstances, to refer to women by their surname alone - so Mrs Murdoch, Wendi Murdoch, Wendi Deng, Wendi Deng Murdoch are all forms that would be found in UK media but not 'Murdoch' which might be used if she were male. An added complication in her case is that she is Chinese by birth, and there are important differences in the use of names there. So there are reasons for preferring different forms in referring to her, but it is correct that this should be discussed on the talk page and not the subject of an edit war. --AJHingston (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed accurate. She married and changed her last name to his. I don't know about English customs, but in America it is indeed common to refer to both genders by their surnames (married/changed or not). Previously, there were people who kept reverting all the "Murdoch" sentences to "Deng". If a subject of a biographical article changed her last name, she would therefore be referred to by her new surname and not the maiden one regardless of race. Take a look at the articles of married women on Wikipedia. Additionally, the same rule applies to those using stage names. Spelling Style (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But see the long discussion about the requested move above. These issues are never straightforward in Wikipedia. How she chooses to style herself is important but not conclusive, and she would be entitled to change her mind. But Wikipedians are more influenced by the name most familiar to users, and it seemed from earlier discussions that it was a fairly even split between Murdoch and Deng. Being American matters because practise there is often at variance with elsewhere. Even in the past and in the most formal of circumstances a woman would not have been referred to in Britain solely by her husband's patronymic as though she had no separate identity, at the least she would have been Mrs Smith or Mrs John Smith, and Smith on its own would be her husband. Even that is largely obsolete. But the situation can arise where an American is better known outside the US and there I would expect Wikipedians to argue for the article to reflect usage where she is known.
The point I was making, though, is that it is very dangerous for editors to jump in and insist that they know what is 'correct' whether it is spelling, forms of name, or whatever when they know that others differ. The courteous thing is to acknowledge those differences and use the talk page constructively to air them. What may seem commonplace to one person may seem discourteous to the subject to another, and I think that is what may be happening here. Both 'sides' need to understand that. --AJHingston (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add that. Wendi relocated to America, not England. Now, Murdoch was an Australian native and perhaps it is more similar with British customs over there. But since she is American (just as how British people have biographies written about them using British terms), the more casual surname usage would be accurate. I'm glad we talked about this first, though. Spelling Style (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert's been an American citizen since Reagan's times because R.R. fast-tracked his citizenship so he could buy TV stations. Rupert is an ex-Australian, that is forgotten often, including himself. E.g. he came here as a tourist for a billionaires with political influence (sorry think tank) dinner and gave good advice about immigration. What really fascinated me was, how does one student with a green card get an invitation to a mogul's party in HongKong? She must have had really targeted connections. 144.136.192.45 (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have we tested this name theory against Google hits? I was surprised to see the constant references to "murdoch murdoch murdoch" in this piece; I too thought she'd be known by 'Deng.' Perhaps we should do some media counting about this? In particular, now that they are divorced, such a change may be more fitting. But I would at first defer to the views of longtimers. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And since we already have one Murdoch... Rothorpe (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That was part of my thinking, too. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in this article we should use Wendi or Deng. New worl (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Britain Wendi Deng seemed to be the universal and accepted name even before the split. It appeared to be mainly US editors who preferred Murdoch, instancing common practice in their own media. Wendi Deng Murdoch was the compromise which seemed most helpful to users. If US usage changes then I think the decision will be straightforward, but her own choice will be influencial if not decisive. Google hits are not in themselves a decider in WP, though, not least because this is an international encyclopedia and we have to be careful about cultural bias. Google metrics are notoriously unreliable as an indication of what most people around the world would recognise. --AJHingston (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We needn’t wait. AJHingston is absolutely right. "Wendi Deng" is the most correct title for the article. -- An authority on the Asian issues (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand that to be AJHingston's meaning. Hingston, would you like to clarify what you meant? For the record, I think it should be Wendi Deng. But I do not have the data to back me up. It just seems obvious and that is how I and everyone I know refers to her, and how I thought the media referred to her. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there may have been a misunderstanding here. Wendi Deng is how I see and hear her referred to in the UK media, and that was true before her separation. But some editors felt very strongly in previous discussions that she should be referred to as Wendi Murdoch based upon evidence then of her own usage and the practice in US media. See the discussion above in this section, and the move discussion higher up the page. Since there has been so much debate over it and a consensus was reached, then any change should be formally proposed and discussed again on this page before it is done. Otherwise a change may provoke a pointless edit war and there is no great reason to hurry. --AJHingston (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. In that case, I have no great interest in reinvigorating the debate. I imagine that in six months it will be case closed on Wendi Deng, with no Murdoch in sight. I can wait. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is Horrible

[edit]

This article is horrible right now. It is cluttered with stuff in a way that does not follow guidelines. Why is there a section called "Tidbits"? The infobox does not follow guidelines. It has incorrect capitalization of letters.There are random parenthetical insertions and improper citations in the body of the article. 71.255.82.142 (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revisions which claimed that Wendi Deng is a Chinese spy

[edit]

They were pretty funny, but Wikipedia isn't the place for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.152.86 (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were actually based on a claim by Australian politician Clive Palmer, who is known for his conspiracy theories. I visited this page to see if any evidence had actually arisen of this, so it's actually legitimately misleading and not simply a joke. It was edited back in, so I've removed it. DpEpsilon (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation was added back in, and I've removed it. It strikes me as a clear WP:BLP violation--it's presenting the charge that she's a spy, with no evidence except Clive Palmer's say-so, and the insinuation that since she hasn't sued him for libel, there might be something to the charge. I think we need more than that. — Narsil (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating the two sections on possible spying:

Potential spy and ties to Chinese communist party[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.49.193 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-warned-jared-kushner-about-wendi-deng-murdoch-1516052072

Michael Wolff's new book also says US intelligence briefed White House members about her potentially being a spy. Mhults7791 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three

[edit]

Three further male companions have been mentioned, in addition to the three already mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See https://www.whosdatedwho.com/dating/wendi-murdoch . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:113A:73B4:5C43:6379 (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wendi Deng Murdoch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger wife

[edit]

Tiger wife is the better name for the event. It is not a pejorative term because: The mainstream media used it to describe Murdoch's role in the incident. (Here and here.) I do not think mainstream media outlets would use an obvious pejorative. 2. Wikipedia has an article called Tiger parenting, which no where states the term is insulting or derogatory. 3. I asked some of my female Asian friends about the term, and they said it is a normal, non-insulting term. Its actually a compliment: the woman is strong and fearless in doing what's right for her children and husband. Thanks. 128.177.181.26 (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request from Wendi Murdoch to correct her birthday and the name of the article

[edit]

Hi, I work for Wendi Murdoch. She asked me to please appeal to Wikipedia to publish her correct birthday, which is December 10, 1968. If you need proof that this is really her birthday, I can send you a photo of Wendi holding her driver's license.

Her second request is that the name of the article about her be changed to the name she consistently goes by: Wendi Murdoch (without "Deng"). I hope her social media sites are proof that this is how she always refers to herself, despite how the media sometimes refers to her:

https://www.thewendimurdoch.com/ https://www.facebook.com/theWendiMurdoch/

https://twitter.com/theWendiMurdoch

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDvK3DD0TBBLR4rzJYl2kEA

https://www.linkedin.com/in/wendi-murdoch/

https://www.instagram.com/wendimurdoch/


Thank you so much for your help. WendiMurdochAssistant (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social media is not generally a reliable source however I don't see where her birthday is definitively stated on those. If BI made a mistake, I'd suggest contacting them as they are generally reliable. The birth date can be removed but it won't be replaced with one based on her driver's license or any other similar type of document as that is not verifiable for readers. Praxidicae (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I take that back. The source used is nothing more than a little gossip blurb, so in this case that particular article I would not consider reliable and will remove it. Praxidicae (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to this on her user page; this person should NOT send identity documents or post images of identity documents for Murdoch's security. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To the original poster, if there is no independent source for her birth date, it doesn't need to be mentioned at all, if Murdoch does not want it to be. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abbyjjjj96 This discussion above is relevant to the reason I reverted you. Business Insider while generally considered a reliable source, does not mean that everything ever published by them is reliable as it pertains to BLPs, as is the case here where the source in question is nothing more than a gossip column with a request for reader tips. It is not their usual standard of in-depth reporting and I'd definitely question this pieces integrity and editorial oversight. Praxidicae (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think to check the talk page before I reverted your edit, sorry! Thanks for explaining. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the incorrect birthday. I will NOT send any documents, I see now that was a bad idea. It was suggested on my User-Talk page that Wendi should put her correct birthday on her personal website and/or social media accounts, and then request her birthday be put on her Wikipedia, so I will check with Wendi and if she wants her birthday on the article, that is the way we will do it. I also requested a user name change, and I declared paid editing formally on my user page. I hope I am now in compliance with all of Wikipedia's rules so I can request edits.WendiMurdochAssistant (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you saw my comment above, but her birth date does not need to be in the article at all, especially if it is not published in any independent sources or otherwise widely known. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw your response. I checked with Wendi, and she would like her correct birthday on the Wikipedia. I will start a new subject below and make a formal request to have the birthday added and will supply a source from social media. Thanks. VictoriahelpsWendi (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
none of my business but I really think this should be allowed. If she wants to be associated with that Demon from Hell, wikipedia should let her, she seems to have complied with all the rules and procedures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidy McGurk (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request correct birthday be included in Wikipedia article

[edit]

Hi. I am requesting that Wendi's correct birthday be added to her Wikipedia article, based on the following source on her Facebook account. Go here: As you can see if you look towards the bottom of the page where it says "Personal information" the date is December 10, 1968. I really appreciate your help, thanks so much. VictoriahelpsWendi (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done VictoriahelpsWendi, Facebook is not mentioned once in the article nor its source code. The Facebook profile does not appear to have been officially verified in any way. It even contains a "suggest changes" button with a pencil icon. Anyone could have created that page, and Facebook's requirements for verifiability may be less strict than ours. The "official website" in the infobox does not seem to mention a birth date.
Please also take into account that publishing one's birthdate online on Wikipedia may have unintended privacy and security implications, e.g. when the birth date is used as a knowledge requirement for password resets for some internet services.
The relevant section of our biographies of living persons policy is called WP:BLPPRIVACY. As I am unable to verify that the Facebook page actually belongs to the article subject, I am declining this request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. We will look into other ways to verify birthday, but in the meantime, we are dropping the request. Thanks so much for your time and help. VictoriahelpsWendi (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name Change Request

[edit]

Hi, You have been very helpful. I hope you can help with an additional issue. I know this was discussed before on the Talk page, but about six years have passed since the discussion, and Wendi and I believe the time has come to change the name of the article to Wendi Murdoch, since she now no longer uses her maiden name Deng at all. Please check in all the following places that she never uses Deng anymore. The only time you will ever see Deng is in articles about her, but even then it is unusual to see her maiden name. Here are all her on-line sources where she exclusively uses Wendi Murdoch as her official, appropriate name, including her own web-site:

https://www.thewendimurdoch.com/

http://www.facebook.com/theWendiMurdoch

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDvK3DD0TBBLR4rzJYl2kEA

https://twitter.com/theWendiMurdoch

https://www.instagram.com/wendimurdoch/

https://www.crunchbase.com/person/wendi-murdoch#section-overview

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3684595/

https://thriveglobal.com/authors/wendi-murdoch/

https://angel.co/wendi-murdoch

thank you so much for your help, consideration, and time. VictoriahelpsWendi (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 16-JUN-2019

[edit]

  Please use WP:RMCM  

  • Requests to change an article's title should be submitted using the {{requested move}} template specifically as a controversial move request process requiring discussion amongst the wider community.
  • A controversial requested move typically takes about 7 days to complete.
  • Before taking this step, please ensure that you are well-acquainted with the requested move process by thoroughly reviewing its procedures.
  • More information can be found at requested moves.
    Regards,  Spintendo  14:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 June 2019

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, after extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 16:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendi Deng Murdoch → Wendi Murdoch – Wendi Murdoch no longer uses her maiden name Deng and has not used it in a long time. She is only rarely called Deng in the media--even outside sources almost always call her Wendi Murdoch. She feels quite strongly that the Wikipedia article about her should bare the name she always uses. Here are all her on-line sources where she exclusively uses Wendi Murdoch as her official, appropriate name, including her own web-site:

https://www.thewendimurdoch.com/

http://www.facebook.com/theWendiMurdoch

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDvK3DD0TBBLR4rzJYl2kEA

https://twitter.com/theWendiMurdoch

https://www.instagram.com/wendimurdoch/

https://www.crunchbase.com/person/wendi-murdoch#section-overview

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3684595/

https://thriveglobal.com/authors/wendi-murdoch/

https://angel.co/wendi-murdoch

—VictoriahelpsWendi (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 04:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Reminding comment: The requesting editor for this move, VictoriahelpsWendi, has a disclosed conflict of interest shown at the top of this talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  13:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

[edit]

Since this process started, I have been reading about how Wikipedia articles can have their names changed and I am a bit confused about the process of having this article "moved" to the name Wendi requests it be called. According to this page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions there was supposed to be seven days of discussion. During that time, only one person participated, and that person was in favor of the move to "Wendi Murdoch." I do not understand why the discussion was re-listed. The page I cited above, under "Relisting" says that "Relisting is an option when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed." But at the end of seven days it seems to me the discussion could have been closed. In the section "Determining consensus" it says that "no minimum participation is required for requested moves because for most moves there is no need to make a request at all." It goes on to say, "Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy." I think it is clear that since this is a "Biography of a living person," and that person feels strongly about how she is called in public, and there seems to be no controversy here, that the page should be moved. Thank you for all your help and understanding. VictoriahelpsWendi (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wendi_Deng_Murdoch&oldid=1204743393"