Talk:Marcus Einfeld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Marcus Einfeld is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Fair Comment 2 Defamation may result in legal action 3 POV 4 Speeding Fine: A question

[edit] Fair Comment

Until recent times Einfeld was a "respected" former Judge in Australia.

He was never a "great" Australian - that title is reserved for the likes of Bradman or Whitlam. Most Australians had never heard of him until recently, and even then most Australians would not know who he was.

Despite his undoubted achivements and talents, it has emerged that Einfeld has made various claims which are now being brought into serious doubt, and for which he has either failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, or has provided no explanation at all. This includes the fact that he has claimed not just one, but 2 doctorates from the US for which he paid a modest fee, but submitted no thesis!!!

It would not be balanced to merely mention his achivements, the current National media attention he is receiving in Australia is a result of his own actions and his responses to media inquiries.

If Mr Einfeld believes he is being defamed, he should start by issuing writs against all of the newspapers in Australia who have published these details about him, and if he won he would be very rich indeed. I suspect, however, he will not issue any writs, because then the newspapers will claim truth as a defence, and this might prove an embarassment for him. Remember that when Oscar Wilde sued for defamation he ended up doing hard labour in Reading Gaol.

This wiki article should be left as it is and not "cleansed" - let the truth emerge in the fullness of time.

Oz Lawyer

12 Sept 2006

[edit] Defamation may result in legal action

Please note that defaming Justice Marcus Einfeld may result in legal action being taken against those responsible. Your IP addresses are being logged and will be given by the Wikipedia Foundation to Justice Einfeld's solicitors if they have a subpoena issued.

You are being very foolish in writing malicious and defamatory material about a great Australian. 10:01, 6 September 2006 Catstail

And that "you" would be addressed to whom exactly? What in this article is either malicious or defamatory? If Justice Einfeld wishes to sue he has but to ask and he can have my snail mail address too. I am more concerned about being accurate and fair. If you feel anything in this article is either please let us all know. That is what Talk Pages are for. Lao Wai 10:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article is an absolute disgrace. Its one of the most negatively slanted on all of wikipedia. 80% of this thing is just unproven allegations, and the fact he has recieved a companion of the order of australia does not even rate a mention. This is one of the country's highest honors FFS. It should be balanced.I elliot 15:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? Eighty percent is a little harsh. Maybe sixty percent. Even less than that if you look at the claims that have been proven - his degrees for instance. He has not, to the best of my knowledge, received a Companion of the OA, but he is down as an Officer thereof. In what way is this not balanced? It does not make any claims that are untrue or unfair. The allegations are unproven, but the article does not claim otherwise. It looks pretty balanced to me. Of course if Justice Einfeld could explain to us all who exactly was driving his car the whole matter could be cleared up. He has promised and promised, but no luck so far. Lao Wai 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, clearly he has recieved a Companion considering that is one of the categories to which this article belongs. As for bias, just look at the subheadings. So many of them are alleged this or alleged that or 'criticism'. I wouldn't be using such strong language if he wasn't made a Companion. Since they don't give out Knights and Dames anymore. Companion is the highest honor in the Order of Australia.I elliot 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can fix that in a second. As far as I can tell, as of 2002 Einfeld was only an Officer not a Companion. Saying something is alleged is not bias. It is objectivity. OK, I'll remove the Companion claim and then you'll be happy - right? Lao Wai 09:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And what is this? "His long-standing record of invoking the Holocaust to attack Right wing Australians and to engage in what has been called "portentous moralising" has left him especially vunerable to attacks on his moral integrity" with a reference to an Opinion page? Is the "criticism" section even required? It just seems to be a "why we hate einfeld" summary. To be honest, I had not previously come across this person before I clicked on the link from the "Companions of the Order of Australia" category page. Which is why I was rather bemused to find no mention of this tremendous honor, but large chunks criticising him in general, with much of that criticism based on as yet unproven allegations.I elliot 05:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I like to think so. No doubt it will go over the long run, but for people coming to this for the first time, they might not understand why the Murdoch papers in particular have a thing for Einfeld. It is a "why they hate Einfeld" section but not relevant for all that. Much of that criticism is not, I should point out, unproven. Some of the conclusions are but his degrees did come from a Mill, he wasn't a director of M&S according to the company and so on. Lao Wai 09:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that I've just wandered in to ask how much this $77 fine has cost Australia as a whole, on having read the article for the first time, I must say it's quite a spin issue POV wise. I don't particularly buy into half the article, I just figured some kiddies went defacing with POV tripe and it hadn't been corrected? 211.30.71.59 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the POV? Point it out and I am sure someone will remove it. Lao Wai 15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speeding Fine: A question

How much has the pursuit of this $77 fine cost the Australian tax payer? Not including the corporate funds poured into coverage of this matter, can anyone get an official guestimate as to how much money has been wasted pursuing a minor infringement? 211.30.71.59 15:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? Personally I think the personal and professional integrity of a leading Jurist is worth investigating no matter how much it costs. But that is me. Where is the relevance to the article? Lao Wai 15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)