Talk:Elisabeth Murdoch (philanthropist)

Cranbourne
Good article but Cruden Farm is in Langwarrin which is 5km from Frankston and 13km from Cranbourne. I changed the reference to Cranbourne. --Tatty 03:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dame vs. Lady
I must dispute the claim that the title Lady Murdoch outranks Dame Elisabeth Murdoch. Neither outranks the other. It's one thing to make reference to the Lady title in the text of the article, but to give that as her principal name would make Wikipedia a laughing stock. She is known to the world as Dame Elisabeth, never as Lady Murdoch. An analogy: Dame Norma Major is entitled to be known as Lady Major by virtue of her husband John Major's knighthood, but her damehood is in her own right so she prefers to be known as that. If it's good enough for the wife of a former UK PM, it's good enough for an Australian doyenne. I'm changing it back to Dame Elisabeth Murdoch. JackofOz 12:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add a comment here, I think it is implicit in what has been said above that in someway a more commonly used or favoured title and style somehow alters a person's factual title.

The situation is directly analogous to Dame Norma Major's titular situation.

There I said: "I have re-edited her title back to Norma, Lady Major on the basis that this is an encylopedic entry, and therefore the opening title of the object of the entry should be referred to by their correct legal title rather than his or her preferred title.

For example Tam Dalyell's legal name is Sir Thomas Dalyell of the Binns, 11th Baronet but he pefers not to use his title. However, an encylopedic entry should display the legal title first, as it is an encyclopedia, the contents of which should display the objective factual status of its subject and not the subject's preferences, in this case the use of one style over the other.

Additionally, Lord Coe might prefer to be called "Sebastian" in private rather than Lord Coe but that is STILL his legal title, and should be documented in the entry.

The content of the article makes a sizeable reference to Dame Norma's preferred style and title, which is enough for its purposes."

On this basis, I would like to make the suggestion that the beginning of this article be "Elisabeth, Lady Murdoch, AC, DBE", and that due mention is given to the customary title of "Dame" which is preferred and used more frequently, to settle this issue.

Like I say, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should adhere to the facts, rather than a preference based interpretation of those facts.

Any thoughts?--Jason Hughes 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Any such edit will be reverted. I am not interested in which silly feudal title outranks which other silly feudal title. These titles are no longer awarded in Australia, and those who hold them can call themselves anything they please. The fact here is that Dame Elisabeth calls herself Dame Elisabeth and is called Dame Elisabeth by everyone else, regardless of what the usages in Britain might be. So that is what this article should call her. Adam 00:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam, your addition to this discussion is quite blatantly POV, and contradicts the essential notion of wikipedia as an encylopedia. An encyclopedia should be a collection of articles on numerous topics that strive to represent factual information. The fact is that Elisabeth Murdoch is a DBE as well as the wife of a knight, although deceased, and that Imperial Honours can still be awarded in the Commonwealth of Australia and that accordingly - unless the Parliament of Australia should deem otherwise - the appropriate styles should apply.

Whether or not you are interested in "silly feudal titles" is quite besides the point, you may or may not agree with titles or whatnot, but that does not in anyway alter their factual status. I have noticed your ambivalence, which borders on hostility, towards the numerous styles and titles of Australian notable, including former Prime Ministers, which I think is a direct POV interference with the factual content of an article.

I might be a Baronet entitled to the style "Sir", yet like the British Labour MP Tam Dalyell, style myself different, and become commonly known as plain "Mr" so and so, but that does not later the fact that this or that is the correct style of a person - regardless of the historical basis for that style, which you clearly derive some intense frustration from.

According to your logic if someone calls themself something and becomes known by that name or moniker that that is what an encyclopedia should universally refer to them as? That would be an absurd deviation from the purpose of an encyclopedic entry, which should initially use the correct name and style, and then subsequently refer to the object by the preferred, or more commonly used style and title.

That is my point.--Jason Hughes 10:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Adam 11:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am entitled to be as "POV" as I please in an article's Talk page. These pages exist for the purpose of expressing opinions.
 * My view is indeed that "if someone calls themself something and becomes known by that name or moniker that that is what an encyclopedia should universally refer to them as." That is Wikipedia policy. That's why, for example, we call Mr K. Glucksberg of Kensington "Constantine II of Greece," even though Greece has been a republic for 30 years.

First of all my point regarding POV is that it shouldn't inform the content of the article, which should be objective.

Secondly in regards to Constantine II of Greece, the title is tied to his House, the House of Oldenburg, and for a period he was in fact King of the Hellenes - which is, is it not, a statement of fact?--Jason Hughes 11:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Just leave the start of the article alone. Adam 11:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No.--Jason Hughes 12:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If we are speaking in terms of rank, it should be noted that Elisabeth was a DBE while Keith was a Knight Bachelor - she had the superior honour. For the Majors it was the reverse - Norma's DBE is inferior to John's KG. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry

 * I have deleted the stuff about her distant ancestors, which may be of interest to antiquarians but is no relevance to her biography.
 * I have deleted the sentence rejecting suggestions that her father's family is or was Jewish. Until someone produces a non-crackpot citation for this, it is not a credible assertion and does not need to be denied. (As a matter of fact Green is a fairly common Jewish surname, being a translation of the German Grün, a common Jewish name-element.) Adam 10:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually at least as common in the English/Irish non-Jewish population, e.g. cf. Graham Greene, George Green, Tom Green., etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.179.45 (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I included the information about her ancestry because both the history and discussion pages of herself and her son Rupert Murdoch indicate that many people believe or assume that he is Jewish through his mother, and that she is Jewish either paternally or maternally. In a spirit of consensus, I hoped that by providing genealogical information (including that a maternal ancestress was baptized -- since Jewishness is calculated through maternal ancestry) that this might address some of the concerns expressed, thus reducing the frequency with which these pages are edited to assert that the Murdochs are Jewish. I don't agree with the philosophy that encyclopedia entries must ignore unsubstantiated disinformation if it is possible to include factual information shedding light on the matter. I didn't say that Greene wasn't a common name among Jews, but that it is not exclusively enough identified with Jews to reasonably constitute sufficient grounds for assuming that Elisabeth Murdoch's father was Jewish because his surname was Greene, as seems to be a common assumption. As for the "distant ancestors" of one of the world's most powerful and discussed men being only of interest to antiquarians -- I beg to differ. If you think that ignoring people's curiosity and widely-believed rumors promotes accuracy about the Murdochs more effectively than sharing information, well I hope you're right -- but I doubt it. Lethiere 05:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As a matter of principle I don't accept the view that space should be devoted to refuting crackpot allegations for which no credible source has been produced.
 * If these allegations are to be discussed, they should be discussed at Rupert Murdoch, since the allegations are aimed at him rather than at his mother.
 * In any case, Greene was her father's surname, and all the genealogy you have produced is on the maternal side, so is irrelevant to the issue.
 * Also, modern anti-Semites define Jewishness by race rather than by religion, so the baptism of ancestors is also irrelevant. (see for example Edith Stein) Adam 07:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * May I encourage you to read the Rupert Murdoch talk page and to review the main article's edit history? You seem to assume that everyone who comes to these articles thinking that the Murdochs are Jewish is a "crackpot" and/or anti-Semitic. Had I gotten the same impression, I would be dismissive too. But my impression is that although some are, others are not: the latter have simply been hearing or reading the disinformation put out by the former. I think some of those people come to this encyclopedia partially to see if what they've heard or read (relentlessly, if they've been Googling) is true, or on what it might be based. Wiki's silence is simply not helpful to those folk -- and they're the ones I care about with regard to this issue. I didn't put the information in Rupert's article because 1. there's lots more about his life and activities that compete for the reader's attention there, and since I agree that the genealogical details are marginal, I wanted to place them where they are least obtrusive, and 2. many people know that Jewishness desscends in the female line and since his mother's article is wikilinked I figured they were apt to end up here, where I had layed out the information. I hear you that there is a principle involved that is of greater concern to you than the issues I've explained, and I have no need to go mano-a-mano to get my way. You win. Lethiere 15:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "modern anti-Semites define Jewishness by race rather than by religion" – So do religious Jews (somewhat). WisdomTooth3 (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea that a person is Jewish because of their maternal ancestry is not a scientific or objective one. As far as I know the idea was invented sometime in the middle ages by rabbis for their own purposes and is arbitrary and self-serving. For instance, when some of a person’s ancestors are German, that person is said to be part German. There is no group other than Jews with such an arbitrary criterion for inclusion. Perhaps this criterion was invented because it helped resist assimilation by the out-group (i.e. Non-Jews) due to its odd nature. This rule may have confused the determination of one’s ethnic identity by interfering with the criterion that would have otherwise been applied, i.e. one’s parentage. As such it may have prevented the assimilation of Jews where they were outnumbered by their host peoples. People often describe themselves as ‘Jewish’ for the simple reason that they have some identifiable Jewish ancestry, maternal or otherwise. Perhaps Rupert Murdoch is one of these and perhaps he is not. Wikipedia is not compelled to adhere to arbitrary and invented definitions of ethnicity. It is not compelled to obey the rabbinic Halchic Law of the Middle Ages. The question obtains, is Judaism a Race, a Religion or a Nation? If Judaism is a religion, how could membership result from ancestry? If Jews are a Nation, and someone is born and resides outside of Israel how could they be Jewish? The rule that a person is Jewish because of their parentage, maternal or otherwise, is race based. Why should one entertain multiple definitions of ‘Jewishness’? If a person’s national identity is based upon their parentage, why not apply the same rules for everyone? --John richard leonard 00:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no universal "rule" for determining "national" identity. Each country defines whom it regards as a national according to its own laws or customs, without regard for how other nations define it. Some countries define nationality based upon place of birth, others base it on ancestry, others base it on length or residence. Nor is there any universal definition or law concerning ethnicity, which is a social concept rather than a scientific one, and quite modern compared to the legal concept of "nationality". Indeed, the Jewish rule long pre-dates official definitions of "ethnicity". Nor is that rule "racial", since it ignores the "race" of any and all fathers, and Jews may belong to -- and are readily acknowledged by Jewish authorities as belonging to -- any race . Rather, the rule on Jewish membership is matrilineal -- a very ancient and very common principle for reckoning human kinship and tribal affiliation. Lethiere 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your considerate answer. The link you pointed me to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality, however, suggests a somewhat more complex situation.--John richard leonard 02:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good morning. The author's ill-conceived contention that Elisabeth Murdoch's ancestor, Nathaniel Forth, was Lord Chamberlain to King George III required correction. Lords chamberlain have been peers for centuries; a cursory examination of any list of the holders of the office might have been worthwhile. Mitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coles Bay (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is well known that the Murdochs are hiding their Zionist Ashkenazi Jewish roots. Wikipedia should not partake in this coverup. Put the facts in the light.

POV
I would suggest that the statement ' an upper-class father from England' suggests something like bias.60.229.182.253 (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Living or dead?
Interestingly, this article of a deceased person is semi-protected for the policy of the treatment of LIVING people. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. Also, no further explanation is given on this discussion page. --91.52.14.198 (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. It was protected because of repeated vandalism comments about Rupert Murdoch. Afterwriting (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)