Talk:Geoffrey Edelsten

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Flag
Portal
 Geoffrey Edelsten is within the scope of 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject AFL.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Stubbed

I have deleted this horrific article and stubbed it per concerns over a biography of a living person. These articles must be fair and balanced and not a collection of negative news stories. This chap is not very notable, and the article should reflect what he's notable for. Please rewrite with extreme care.--Docg 10:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it was probably the best solution. You would have noted yesterday, someone with a very close connection to Edelsten in a single purpose attack. did some very aggressive editing of the article. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree that Edelsten is not notable. He was very prominent in the 1980s. The numerous news references to him reflect that prominence.--Matilda talk 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Matilda's comment. He was very well known in Australia in the 1980s especially for the fact that he owned a major sporting team. For this reason (ie 1980s), I think it's a bit harder to find web references for him. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it has a lot of negative news stories and plainly either needs to be deleted, locked, or have the negatives removed. Since its deletion it has simply gone back to the way it was with some minor addition.Wikifactsright (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of article

this article has serious POV issues with it largely being based on Edelsten's personal website. this is not a reliable source and may be classed as a self published source. A number of claims made cannot be verified at all elsewhere. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this article [1] which says that Edelsten's website is a regurgitation of erroneous reports. I will therefore remove all dubious references that cannot be verified through the web. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been fake citations introduced into this article such as [2] Warning will be given to editor who introduced these. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self published source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source If anyone looked at www.geoffreyedelsten.com.au it may fail some of the criteria Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if: it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; Michellecrisp (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of medical boards for negative material

I'm not sure that medical boards should be cited for negative statements about a person. part of the page on living people mentions that negative statements should be mentioned only if they're in third-party sources (such as a newspaper) rather than in a primary source (such as the medical boards' web sites). Andjam (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The medical board websites were reporting his earlier criminal convictions for soliciting a standover merchant and perverting the course of justice. In that regard, the medical board was not a primary source. WWGB (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It was also used as citations that he was deregistered, in which is was a primary source. Andjam (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] ANI thread

Just a note to all interested editors that this article is being discussed at WP:ANI#Serious and Continuous Wikipedia Policy Breach of BLP and Other Policy Amounting to Vandalism. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "His clinics were innovative and the forerunners of corporate medical practices"

Even though this is citated, sounds a bit too POV for me. What is innovative? Michellecrisp (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Before this time, there was a tendency for doctors to work in one- or two-doctor practices. from the mid 1980s onwards, more doctors began to work in larger practices of more doctors and extended opening hours. I do recall that Edelsten's practices were some of the earliest to adopt this model. Also worth noting that Medicare (and thus bulk-billing) had been introduced in 1983. A biography (I am sure there has been one or more wirtten) would be very helpful at this point. I do agree that the above wording as presented above sounds a bit 'glowing'. There are other issues with larger clinics that would be better discussed once there is a source too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is POV (acknowledging that I am the editor that added the assertion) - you had to be there (ie be alive at the time and old enough to know what was different). Doctors weren't available 24/7! Edelsten was definitely the first in Sydney. The citation I hve provided seems to be a reputable journal pitched at medical practitioners in Australia. The issue cited is acknowledging the 50 people with the most influence over general practice - Edelsten included. However they also state in relation to Edelsten Their heyday may be over for this group of reformers, but the impact of their influence lingers on. It is the impact that is important. The latest addition about the size of the practices is a useful citation also. --Matilda talk 04:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Matilda. Then this should be spelt out, ie why/how he is innovative, although I've read a bit about Edelsten, a reader from overseas would probably not know that. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point Matilda, I didn't give medical things too much thought in the mid 80s, and good ref. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Matilda. Regardless of motive, Edelsten's clinics helped to make medical advice affordable and accessible to the general community. Many doctors previously worked very limited hours, with their time also allocated to home visits (and golf). His 24-hour clinics were very innovative at the time. Since most of his endeavours occurred in the 1980s, online references are scarce. (And we are going to need them for every statement ...) WWGB (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I've stated before that online references are a bit harder to find as his fame primarily occurred in the 80s. hah LOL WWGB, I love the golf comment! Michellecrisp (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Also should the "in Sydney" be qualified? I don't know enough about the situation to really comment but being in Perth I'm well aware of how things that happen here and in other far flung places often get ignored. Orderinchaos 19:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was innovative for Australia - not sure how one asserts this. He is remembered and the ref I referred to above about the 50 people with the most influence over general practice would seem to imply innovationa on at least an Australia wide scale.--Matilda talk 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As mentioned before it is hard to find on-line citations. There are some mentions in Hansard, including one that is worth noting concerning the litigous Edelsten see [3] and note that the assertions were made under Parliamentary Privilege. Also note that in the 4 Corners reference I provided (interview with Masters) Edelsten brought a a temporary injunction to attempt to stop the program airing. I did find some cartoons [4] [5] and [6] that featured Edelsten and that might help to give an idea of his prominence at the time. I can't think how they can be effectively worked into the article though.--Matilda talk 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Coatrack, Fact Picking

Coatrack under this BLP is prevalent. I advise deletion of coatrack comments, additions and citations. Please further discuss. WP:COATWikifactsright (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Reliability of sources

Does a document published at uow.edu.au count as a reliable source? The author has a disclaimer about the reliability of the content, and academic freedom would mean that they'd allow a broad degree of latitude for what their employees publish. Andjam (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of the content is attributed to newspapers at the time and would be easy to verify with a trip to a library in NSW or paid online archive access to the herald I guess. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of comments

What the hell is going on with the removal of comments? What the "personal attacks" being claimed there? --Calton | Talk 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See below talk header. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning to all editors on this page

Behave yourselves. The behaviors of the editors on this talk page are absolutely disgusting. This is a page for collaboration on improvement of the article, not for warning, threatening and attacking each other, or accusing other editors of being proxy editors for the article subject. Per OTRS ticket #2008032810002283 I've removed the purse-swinging and attacks from the talk page. Please do not reinsert them, and do not throw in new ones. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on my outside observation, the behavior is mostly one-sided, but hey, you gotta show "balance". --Calton | Talk 13:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's two-sided. There's obviously some inappropriate editing by Wikifactsright, which if he continues I will block him for who I have blocked for reasons unrelated to his editing . At the same time, there are inappropriate threats, warnings and accusations by Michellecrisp, which degenerated into a talk page argument, which is not what talk pages are supposed to be used for. Everyone just needs to chill out for a bit, and relax, have a nice cup of WP:TEA and we can all get back to editing in a bit. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove, Rewrite, Make the Wrong Right?

Hello All,

I live in Sydney and more appropriately lived in Sydney during the Edelsten era. I have just found this page and am very taken back by it. It looks like facts have been picked and then twisted to push a very negative view. This page makes him sound like an underworld gangster, and as far as I can recall, Edelsten was far from it.

I recently stumbled across the following websites that compelled me to look here. http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com & http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/The-Life-and-Times-of-Prof-Dr-Geoffrey-Edelsten.pdf

I do not side with Edelsten but gee, wow, I think there is something wrong here, I mean it’s painful to read if you can remember the times.

First; I would suggest that this entry is not relevant to the Wikipedia project, I would really suggest its removal. Actually it is kind of scary that this information can be amassed and put in this way, I wonder who’s next? You, I? Hmm, it’s a scary thought..

Second; If not removal then a big rewrite. It’s interesting how the geoffreyedelsten.com website references articles that the Wikipedia version does not touch on, actually on closer inspection geoffreyedelsten.com also references a range of articles included here and a range of Wikipedia contributors. I suggest all those who are interested about this page have a look at the above websites.

Third; Identity fraud, the personal detail provided here is far more detailed than even the people that write for Wikipedia. I would seriously suggest the removal of this magnified detail, I believe he has made a direct complaint about that in his website.

I really don’t mean to seem like I am taking the pedistool here but someone has to at least comment here on the compelling difference between wikipedia.org and geoffreyedelsten.com. I have really enjoyed the content on Wikipedia in the past but this entry really makes you wonder, what’s going on here?

I am going ahead to remove the identity fraud information, I will make sure to come back in maybe a couple of weeks time with a balanced version of this document.

I look forward to your insights! Thanks Wikipedians. --Laurenraz (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting approach from the Edelsten PR machine?
1. Edelsten is a notable Australian, therefore he IS relevant to the Wikipedia project. Scary? This is the future, better get used to it.
2. Of course geoffreyedelsten.com has a different approach. It's a personal promotional website, designed the portray the subject in the best possible light.
3. Identity fraud? That's a powerful but totally unsupported claim. Every significant statement in the article is referenced against an independent, third-party source. There is nothing here that has not been revealed previously.
If you remove anything from the article that is supported by independent citation, be prepared to defend your actions and have your change reverted.
Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree totally with WWGB, I wonder Laurenraz if you have any connection to Edelsten or companies that do his website. Mr Edelsten's website is essentially a self published source and thus cannot be used as a totally reliable source. These are Wikipedia rules. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with WWGB and Michellecrisp. It's interesting that we would suddenly get a new account basically promoting the website as a source of truth for this particular article, given that the last edits in March of this nature were made by Edelsten's PR company - that much was able to be confirmed independently. Regarding identity fraud, not only is, as WWGB says, everything referenced to third party sources, there is no address, bank details or passport number or anything else that could be used for this purpose, so this claim is unsustainable. Finally, using the person's own website as a primary source doesn't tally with Wikipedia's verifiability, original research or neutral point of view policies, or the reliable sources guideline. Orderinchaos 11:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, also:
Get the Facts Right. - Get the Policy Right. - No Bias. (Wikifactsright, March 2008)
Remove, Rewrite, Make the Wrong Right? (Laurenraz, June 2008). Orderinchaos 11:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Good call, Orderinchaos!!! What a striking similarity! Michellecrisp (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Gotta love the self-imposed title of PROF. DR. GEOFFREY EDELSTEN. The "Dr." part comes from Edelsten's PhD awarded by the defunct unaccredited Pacific Western University. But "Prof."? Evidence please ... WWGB (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ha good find, WWGB! According to this official testimony before a US Senate committee, it costs US$2595 to purchase a PhD from Pacific Western "University" I await Laurenaz/Wikifacts defence. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

For WP:BLP reasons, it would probably be best to refrain from ridiculing the subject on the talk page; keep discussion focussed on improving the article (I completely agree that Laurenraz's contribution is unhelpful, just to be clear). Google indexes talk pages, I believe. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree - for the record, I don't personally believe the subject is involved in this particular stunt - it seems to be coming from a PR company. Orderinchaos 01:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
However, if you look at pages 15 and 18 of this document you will see that Edelsten has attacked a number of Wikipedia editors. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That's fine - he's not bound by WP:BLP (at least, not while off-wiki). We are. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - it's an exercise in polemics, but it's not particularly relevant (people can say pretty much whatever they want on their own websites, and often do - we get worse every day.) There are so many "This person is innocent, he did not kill anybody, the judges were bribed, the police were evil and the media were wilfully negligent and everyone who disagrees is part of the conspiracy" websites around, many of them even have donation links - it's just a hazard of working on the internet. (Note the above is not intended in any way to be a summary of the PDFs on Edelsten's site, just a general description of an Internet phenomenon - I was thinking of the ones for certain crime bosses when I wrote that.) Orderinchaos 04:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This statement in Edelsten's new advertorial is interesting:

Readers are invited to correct the Wikipedia article and to disseminate the increasing prevalent view of Wikipedia’s lack of reliability, honesty, impartiality and unjust views; it results in unjustified invasion of privacy and furthers identity fraud and other misdemeanours against the subject. It is preferable the readers petition Wikipedia for the article’s removal.

The fact that many administrators (hence experienced editors) have had to comment on, intervene means this article has had a much higher level of scrutiny that most other bios I've seen. Of course, it would be nice if Wikipedia solely focussed on positive elements of everything, but things need to be reported from a balanced and neutral POV. Trying to canvas people to remove supposed "identity fraud" (can't see any on the article)?? 03:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It was poorly worded, I think they meant that it gave enough information that identity fraud would be possible if unscrupulous people read the details given in the article. However, no proof was asserted of this, and on a review I can't see any either. Orderinchaos 04:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have raised at WP:AWNB#Geoffrey Edelsten. I am unaware of any unpublished material being included in the article which could give rise to identity fraud --Matilda talk 06:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello All, I am devastated about the response to my small Wikipedia entry. I wanted to come across mild but sadly I must have not. I am sincerely very sorry to all affected.

I am honestly very depressed about this response, my chest has felt tight and my body has felt numb all day, I really don’t want to get involved in whatever is happening here. Is there a Wikipedia phone number I can call? Please, this is really hurtful, I had no idea the internet/Wikipedia could be like this..

I think you should know how I came to make my first and regretful Wikipedia entry, yesterday. I was browsing over the internet last night when the tele let me down on content, I was on myspace, or whatever similar website, and noticed an ad about edelsten, I clicked on it out of interest. I read through the website first which led me to read this one. I just honestly felt sad for edelsten considering the differences between these websites. I don’t know what else to say, I’ve been crying about the Wikipedians responses, I saw them this morning and it has taken me all day to muster the courage to respond.. I don’t know what’s going on, it’s just so depressing… I have no relations with the man, no connections, no affiliations, nothing but the reports I read years ago.. I remember it well but that’s all, that’s where my interest ends.

Seriously, is there a Wikipedia hotline? I feel terrible about this..

I am very sorry if I have stepped on any toes, I don’t mean to, please forgive me. --Laurenraz (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bit of advice, but maybe you should look at other areas of Wikipedia in which you are less emotionally invested? I'm currently writing some articles about abstract political concepts and 1930s elections, and it's great - no conflict whatsoever, anyone who is remotely bothered enough to help me is constructive, and I'll likely feel intrinsically rewarded for my efforts in the form of knowing I've contributed to an important field. A few fellow collaborators of mine work extensively on plant articles and have gotten several of them to Featured Article status. Not all of Wikipedia is contested, and a lot of it is actually quite fun and interesting to contribute to. Orderinchaos 08:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

the doctorate comes from melbourne university. the other is a second doctorate. for identity theft it is sufficient to know a target's full name [Geoffrey Walter Edelsten] and exact date of birth [2 May 1943]Janusreverted (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this information for every current State Premier and Federal politician courtesy of the Parliamentary websites, every current footballer in both of Australia's major leagues thanks to their sites, and most voters in my electorate courtesy of the electoral roll at the local library. How does this enable identity fraud? Bank/credit card details, home address and drivers licence or passport number are usually needed for such purposes. (I couldn't even get an Optus account until I got a valid passport and provided them with a copy of the key page when I was a significantly younger person, and that was before most of the anti-fraud measures were brought in...) Orderinchaos 09:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A look at the claims

I've gone to the trouble of investigating the concerns Edelsten documents about the Wikipedia coverage of him. Unfortunately, I've concluded that not only is everything in the article at present defensible under our verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline (I got 116 matches for the allegations on Factiva, a commercial news monitoring service available to universities) but the Wikipedia article is actually significantly more positive towards Edelsten than the weight of the printed and other material about him, which focuses almost exclusively on his conviction and repeated re-applications to the Medical Board. Even the trade magazine for the medical profession has a less than flattering writeup - I won't link the others as I have no wish to upset you with some of the allegations they raise. Surely they can't *all* be wrong.

Before I post this, I'll state here that I have no formal connection with Wikipedia - I'm just an editor, and until this whole matter of the article arose I'd never even heard of the guy. I am also a student, and have gotten pretty good with researching literature to find stuff - past exercises like this have helped to demolish bad assertions (I've even rewritten articles from scratch to get rid of any room to insert them and to portray the subject fairly and without slurs), and I actually went into this exercise hoping to be able to do that here in order to resolve the dispute. The only section that could be realistically described as contentious (which he identifies as such in bullet point 1 on page 16 of his PDF) is documented by the ABC and even Australian Doctor, and the claims according to Factiva were repeated as recently as four days ago in a local Melbourne newspaper, the Frankston Standard/Hastings Leader. ("In 1988, he was deregistered for overservicing and two years later jailed for hiring a hitman to assault a former patient.") The Sunday Age (5 March 2006), "The Age Diary" (28 Sep 2005, wouldn't use as a source), Daily Telegraph (29 July 2005), and 112 others including the Cairns Post, the Australian, SMH, Herald-Sun, AAP, etc. That was just with the search "Edelsten and hitman and patient". Several of the articles go much, much further than we do here, into allegations that Wikipedia could repeat but really should not, as it would be undue weight. Some things such as what degrees he has and where he got them from are happily absent and uncommented upon in this article. But one thing is clear - with minor factual errors in all of the three most recent media articles compared to earlier ones, and with Wikipedia agreeing consistently with those earlier ones (and post-dating nearly all of them), it is clear that we are not a source for the allegations being made in those publications, and that that claim (p.1) is incorrect or mistaken. The "identity fraud" case additionally simply can't be made - the article gives no information which could be used for that purpose.

Looking more specifically at his critique:

  • The 1991 Age article which he cites and quotes on p.2 and in Appendix A reports only Edelsten's claims and the alleged comments of the wife of the alleged hitman. This may need to be placed in as a counterpoint, but the fact the Medical Board did not accept this or any subsequent occasion and no leave was granted to appeal, and the fact that in the 17 years since, dozens of publications have repeated the claim without qualification, it would be original research to assert the claims are false, we can only say he believes them to be so. (P.10 cannot be used, as it is not from a reliable source.) As the reportage otherwise is unanimous on the topic and is substantial in quantum (i.e. 116 articles consistently spread over a reasonable period) I can't see how we could ignore it. I would note that probably every doctor who has ever been struck off feels it was unfair and did not take account of the full facts - the fact was it happened, and the Medical Board as a professional institution we have to assume had the facts in front of them not only that time but on other occasions when the renewal was refused, and would have had Edelsten's submissions and considered them. It's not for Wikipedia to adjudicate a war of words - we have to stick to what published sources say.
  • Some of the stuff on pages 14 and 15 is just an exercise in polemics. His list on page 16 contains only one item (no.1) which I can find in any published source. I added "pink" to my search and turned up nothing.
  • P.17 is out of the blue - it is the first time Wikipedia is criticised in his PDF, and doesn't seem to stem from any bit before it, as no allegations are specifically made regarding the Wikipedia content. He then names certain editors on p.18. At no point does he say what they said or did to earn his wrath - in fact, most of his invective prior to page 17 is directed at the mass media only. So I have no idea what exactly he has an issue with, other than that he disagrees with every other published source, including every newspaper of record in the country, the trade magazine for his profession (on at least three occasions), the ABC, a published book (which would have had to go through legal given not just this topic but many others that it covers relating to alleged criminals) and others.
  • His request that the article be deleted doesn't seem to work with any of the criteria for deletion - he is clearly notable by any standard, and even large sections of his PDF go to establish this (most of the Synopsis on p.2 and the sections from p.4 to p.8). If he was just an ordinary GP and was notable only for this I would be quite happy to delete per CSD A7 (a bio that does not assert its notability, which can arguably stretch to dealing with Biography of Living Persons cases in contentious situations where there is no question the person is not ordinarily notable), but we're talking about someone who has been in the public eye for a very long time. The sheer number of sources I was able to identify offline also contribute to this. The article is not an attack, is not spam or an advertorial and actually gives a surprisingly fair overview of his career and life, with some minor exceptions which I believe can be achieved with a few minutes' work. If more reliable sources can be found to accentuate the positive, particularly regarding the clinics and the Sydney Swans, I think that could be accommodated, but just as we report on the good and bad of Brian Burke, Steve Vizard or any other public figure with a mixed background, to not do so here would be unfair to the reading public and really just censorship of a kind. That being said, we should be careful not to load in stuff which risks undue weight issues. That so far has not been a problem.

I note the above are my views alone and I'm happy for others to debate them - there's a fair amount of room to take other opinions on board and I respect the Australian WikiProject's capacity to come up with helpful ones that are beyond my reach or scope (I have lost count of how many "wish I'd thought of that!" moments I've had on this project...) Orderinchaos 09:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

An afternote - I've added a reference to the cited 1991 Age article. His view as quoted in a reliable source is worthy of reportage in reply to the allegations made, and the length of the rebuttal does not violate WP:UNDUE as against the other sources which disagree (most of which post-date it). Orderinchaos 09:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Without wanting to make any comment on the substance of the article, I just want to record my appreciation for the thoroughness of your research and the quality of your commentary. WWGB (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)