Talk:Media proprietor

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Media High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

Wikipedia is not a blog

• This article needs refs and proper perspective. Doing a search of the term and "new york times" I did find it used a lot, though with slightly different meanings, especially regarding the scope of ownership. Searches with other WP:RS would surely bring up other uses. So whoever wrote this should source it. Also, you shouldn't list names with out WP:RS per WP:BLP so I've removed that whole section. Do not put names in til have a WP:RS on their being called a "media proprietor." CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, is the focus on US personalities? I see Silvio Berlusconi, but where is Leo Kirch? Zuckerberg (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to Damian Skinner, as this is not an article on "Mogulizing." It is not clear from the reference what Mogulizing is, and there is no reference or citation anyways. This is not an ad for a business system, people coming here are looking for information on individuals who control media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Press Baron redirect here? One would expect to find information about the British practice of granting peerages to important newspaper publishers, which this article says nothing about. There's not even any clue as to whether the practice still continues. 121a0012 (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the article is a template stating that there are no source citations. The tag was added four and a half years ago and no one has added a citation. The article itself is two brief paragraphs, then a list of names, but there is no actual reason for the article to exist, beyond the fact that it exists. The term "media mogul" on other articles - e.g. Ted Turner - can simply be replaced by the term "business person." On it's own, this article adds nothing and amounts to nothing. Thus, the article itself should be deleted.Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC) I tried putting up a proposed for deletion stamp using the confusing Wikipedia instruction, to no avail. Under the instructions found on the unsourced template, the entire text should be removed.Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At lest one obscure source from the early 20th century (White, John G. (1909). "Ch. XIV: The Press". A Twentieth Century History of Mercer County, Pennsylvania. Lewis Publishing Company. pp. 217–218.) makes it pretty clear that at least back then someone like William Swan Garvin became a proprietor without being the paper's owner. 72.244.206.190 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Media tycoon" or "media mogul" are far more commonly used worldwide. "Media proprietor" appears to be an Australian English term. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]