Talk:Geoffrey Edelsten/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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.--Doc^g 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Now at archive: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390#Serious and Continuous Wikipedia Policy Breach of BLP and Other Policy Amounting to Vandalism --Matilda ^talk 23:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)