Talk:Geoffrey Edelsten/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

I know this information (full name, dob etc) 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)

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)

— Janusreverted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To set the record straight for this one-time editor, Mr Edelsten does NOT have a doctorate from The University of Melbourne. He was awarded the degrees of Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery which makes him a "doctor" in the eyes of the community but not an "academic" doctor, that is, the holder of a doctoral degree. His doctorate was awarded by the Pacific Western University which is now defunct, and was also previously unaccredited. As for your claims about about "identity theft", that's just BS. WWGB (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Janus, his medical degree is from Melbourne uni, yes but he is not currently a registered medical practitioner so therefore cannot use Dr. He uses Dr on the basis of the Doctorate from Pacific Western University as featured on his site. to Lauren, you originally said Identity fraud, the personal detail provided here is far more detailed than even the people that write for Wikipedia to me that implies that you have looked at other articles before posting. Unfortunately the style of your writing including the subject title of your posting sounded similar to another editor that appeared on this article a while back. If you look at the responses to your comment they were mainly about how this article fits Wikipedia standards. There is no Wikipedia phone number as Wikipedia is essentially edited by volunteers worldwide. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Orderinchaos, a thorough and excellent follow up which only backs up the very high level of scrutiny this article has gone through. Wikipedia is not a site for resumes or promotion of people, there is ample reported evidence of Edelsten's positive and negative elements, in fact the media coverage in itself justifies the existence of his article as per WP:NOTE ...if everything in Edelsten's own website is true then in fact he is famous enough to have his own article and therefore there is no case for deletion. Secondly, there seems to be a gross misinterpretation of identity fraud. If what is claimed is true, then Wikipedia would ban any reporting of dates of birth, and the Who's Who in Australia with date of birth and names of thousands and is available at every library I've been to would be a gold mine for identity thieves. Clearly this is ridiculous. Identity theft almost always involves knowledge of the person's home mailing address and this is never published in Wikipedia. So let's end that discussion here. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

full name and exact date of birth gives one access to a target's birth certificate, which then gives access to a target's driver's licence, which provides proof of identity for establishing rental accomodation and access to services and the ability to open bank accounts, and ultimately access to a passport. without middle name and d.o.b. the criminal moves on elsewhere for easier pickings. ever been pulled over by the police - full name and d.o.b. and they've narrowed you down precisely.Janusreverted (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well why pick on this article then? There are literally tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia with name and date of birth. Police use these details to cross check you against a secure and police access only database in case someone shares your name as a namesake. Having recently applied for my birth certificate in NSW, I needed the several documents as ID. Actually it was this http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/births/proofOfIdent.htm Name and date of birth is not enough. End of discussion. Your claim is totally refuted as a weak argument to defend Edelsten. There is absolutely no argument about identity theft associated with this or any Wikipedia article. If Edelsten is experiencing identity theft he should report it to the police immediately not here. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages: "All Birth Certificate applications must be accompanied by at least three forms of identification. This ensures your privacy is maintained and that information is only released to those who are entitled to it." This gives some idea as to what ID is required. Target's driver's licence? RTA NSW: "To prove who you are to the RTA, you need to provide either a NSW-issued driver photo licence or NSW Photo Card that is current or expired within the last two years (provided it is not recorded as lost, stolen or destroyed), or two other documents - one from List 1 and one from List 2." List 1 does not include a birth certificate. Opening bank accounts... Commonwealth: "go to your nearest branch for an identification check. They will ask you for the identification required for a 100-point check." In short, the above is bunkum. Orderinchaos 14:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarly the rules are just as tough in Victoria where Edelsten lives. http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Licensing/GettingYourLs/EvidenceOfIdentityDocuments.htm But on the point of drivers licences, all licences in Australia are photo ID, so if you're looking to impersonate someone else you better look like them! given that Edelsten would already have a photo licence, an identity thief would have to look like him + have all the above required ID. There is nothing on this article that would help in this endeavour. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if your assertion was correct (which it isn't), Edelsten's full name and dob are available elsewhere on the Internet like this site. Also, Edelsten reveals his own full name here, so he clearly does not share your anguish. I think I might become George Walker Bush, born 6 July 1946. Cheers, WWGB (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe Dr Robert James Brown, 27 Dec 1944, born in Oberon, New South Wales with an MBBS from Sydney Uni in 1967? [1] Or how about Dr Geoffrey Ian Gallop, 27 Sep 1951 from Geraldton, Western Australia with a BEc from UWA in 1971 and a MA from Oxford in 1974 and PhD in 1983? [2] Or if you prefer slightly more conservative, perhaps John Winston Howard, 26 July 1939 born in Earlwood, New South Wales, to Lyall Falconer Howard and Mona Kell (mother's maiden name there) who married in 1925? All of this and more is available online. Who's Who and various biographical registers will give mother's maiden name for most people. Somehow I don't see myself getting any closer to Johnny's super funds any time soon... Orderinchaos 14:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

this isn't about edelsten, its about wikipedia. this discussion could take place on any page in wikipedia. wikipedia is providing the prime keys for identity theft. go elsewhere on the web and fill in the blanks. go to edelstens web site and find his place of birth and his parents names. the criminal doesn't pretent to be "the" prof dr geoffrey walter edelsten, the criminal claims to be geoffrey walter edelsten born melbourne 2 may 1943. it may be difficult for the criminal to succeed in this instance, but consider William John Smith born Sydney 14 March 1952, or any other citizen of this country. in providing information about individuals it is incumbent upon wikipedia to not aid and abet a criminal activity. what other web sites provide is irrelevant. wikipedia providing geoffrey edelsten born 1943 is relatively safe, wikipedia providing geoffrey walter edelsten born 2 may 1943 is the key information to commencing identity theft. wikipedia has an obligation to its targets to not assist this or any other type of fraud or criminal activity.Janusreverted (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you acknowledge "this isn't about edelsten", I suggest you read this, take your concerns here and stop cluttering this page. WWGB (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Support that suggestion SatuSuro 02:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't about Edelsten, then why is it on this talk page? WP:VP or the link WWGB provided would be more suitable locations to query Wikipedia's practice on these matters. Per WP:CENSOR and many, many featured biographies with such information, though, I doubt you'll get far with it. Orderinchaos 07:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

why is it that not a single one of you has made public their real full name and exact date of birth. according to you'all such information is not an issue. pull the other one. why do references [2][3][4] refer to 1988 and reference [10] refer to 1987. at least one of these references is incorrect. please realise that since edelsten has publicly named many of you he is probably monitoring your responses for bias. if he were to sue wikipedia he would also sue the rest of you jointly, collectively and severally as being complicit. circumspection is a virtue. cover your arses. don't get any on you.Janusreverted (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"why is it that not a single one of you has made public their real full name and exact date of birth". Quite simply because we are not the subject of a Wikipedia biography, since we fail WP:NOTABILITY, unlike the famous Professor Doctor Edelsten.

"cover your arses. don't get any on you". I assume this comment is somehow related to letters 2-5 of your user name? WWGB (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha, agree with both comments above. We fail WP:BIO. Janus, I request that you cease off topic discussions here. The more you write the more I feel you have a connection (paid or otherwise) to Edelsten. This is a breach of WP:COI. Your single purpose editing and uncivil behaviour is a concern. Please consider before posting again. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite my semi-serious crusade for notability, I am also not notable. If I ever get elected to public office or become notable in some other way, Who's Who in Australia or the Parliamentary website will likely put my full name, date and place of birth up for all who care to see. Right now, I'd note I'm talking entirely hypothetically, as parties generally don't preselect people the media later choose to call "maverick", "renegade" or "outspoken". Orderinchaos 09:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that threatening to sue Wikipedia or its editors is instantly bannable per policy. I would strongly suggest retracting the above line. Orderinchaos 09:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of refs 2,3,4 and 10, no case to answer

you have all completely misinterpretted my comments. read them from the point of view of sage advice. i reiterate that references [2][3][4] are not consistent with reference [10] in the edelsten article. janus means look both waysJanusreverted (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

so which is it. was edelsten de-registered in 1988 as per references [2][3][4], or was edelsten de-registered in 1987 as per reference [10] such obvious conflict on the same page casts in doubt the whole edelsten article.Janusreverted (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The text at reference 10 has been varied to 1988 [3]. WWGB (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks WWGB for fixing that up and to Janus for finding the error. there is now absolute no "casting of doubt of whole article" from this. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed some sources said 1987, some said 1988, and one obviously incorrect one claimed 1991 when I was going through the Factiva references. I'd believe the reference from the NSWMB over any other for this date, so good work in finding that. Orderinchaos 19:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

this hardly casts doubt over the "whole" article. You are now totally making things up with regard to the references, [2], [4] and [10] both say 1988 and [3] does not mention year of deregistration. If you continue like this, see WP:POINT There has been absolutely no misinterpretation, you claim that listing Edelsten's full name and date of birth makes him vulnerable for identity fraud, this has been strongly refuted with solid evidence. Your passionate single purpose editing intrigues me, as to a possible connection with Edelsten. In addition, I agree with Orderinchaos, you should retract your legal threat or face appropriate action from Wikipedia administrators. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued use of honorifics

Could we please have some verification from reliable sources that this is the case? Ie do these honorifics appear anywhere else besides his website? and what university sponsors his professorship? Perhaps Janusreverted might know? Michellecrisp (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Edelsten claims use of the honorific "professor" by virtue of being appointed an "adjunct professor" by Pacific Western University, the alma mater for his PhD. See pages 19-20 here. WWGB (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see. but there is some debate about that university...as we know. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

there is a young US doctor being recruited to come work in victoria. where can I send him for up-to-date information on edelsten. todays melbourne herald sun at page 18 talks about 10 new super-clinics for victoria. edelsten claims to own super-clinics. are these 10 new super-clinics edelstens. tell me about edelsten 1991-2008.Janusreverted (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

i originally went to the wikipedia edelsten site looking for current information about edelsten. not there. tried google. same old same old quarter of a century old stuff. horror of horrors - had to go to edelstens site. how believable is that. all those qualifications - must be fake. companies and fast cars - unbelievable. so, wikipedians, tell me about edelsten today, 1991-2008, something relevant, something that assists those real people who need relevant up-to-date decision making information. lol - this talk page reminds me of that well known tea lady dorothy dix during question time in canberra.123.2.47.44 (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

— 123.2.47.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like we have another sock. Orderinchaos 02:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A note to User:Janusreverted and User:123.2.47.44. You clearly know how to edit in Wikipedia so, rather than directing other people to bring Edelsten's article up to date, how about you contribute to the article yourself. Wikipedia is a co-operatve venture. The rest of us are not employees or servants, here to address the whims of disgruntled readers. WWGB (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another notable alumnus of the same institution, Marcus Einfeld, is given no honorifics in his wikipedia article despite having a PhD from the same institution [4] --Matilda ^talk 04:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note also Edelsten admitted in the transcipt linked to above that the use of the honorifics was false - in particular styling himself Dr --Matilda ^talk 05:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference to Einfeld's honorifics in the final paragraph of his article. My argument for the inclusion of the information in the Edelsten article is that he told the Medical Tribunal that if the commission told him he should stop using the doctor honorific, he would. Yet his website continues to report his honorifics "professor" and "doctor". WWGB (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

lol. today's dorothy dix hummingbird award (aka humbug award) goes to....... ....... for her admission re spotting the 1987-88 typo (read stuff-up) first. so tell me ........ why didn't you just correct it when you spotted it, why did you wait for me to raise it, and why is the same information given twice anyway. do you have any other typos or issues you would like to raise now rather than have me raise my further concerns first. after all, this is arguably the worst and least helpful wikipedia entry i have so far come across or talked about. and now i again await the woof pack baying for my blud (rumpole), threats to the fore, warnings to the rear, and claws upraised. kneeling, i bare my peasant throat to fate (whilst sighing a-la joan de arc).Janusreverted (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Very simple answer - I spotted it, but actually assumed what we had was correct and that one set of the sources were in error. As the coverage differed and I had not found a primary source clearly stating the information, and additionally as I saw my role solely as reviewing the situation, it was not for me to change anyway. The only thing I did was to add a line which acknowledged his denial of the allegations and that a witness supported him, which I felt improved fairness and hurt nobody. Orderinchaos 11:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"this is arguably the worst and + least helpful wikipedia entry i have so far come across or talked about " according to your edit history you have only cared to comment on one article. Dare I say you are connected to Edelsten? Michellecrisp (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

lol. oh, yous guys (hawkeye), i'm all acquiver (mr humphreys). i just love the ballet, the well rehearsed cooperation, the lovely blended choreography, the sheer organisation that's been put to seeing off one who is not one of yous. marvellous to watch. a joy to behold. today's gratuitous advice - weigh and measure each and every word. the wikipedia claytons swear words are amazing, i'm still all acquiver. won't bother to look them up - don't want to be disappointed. now possums (edna) i am concerned about the stuff attributed to flannery's widow. if she's telling the truth and if she's accurate then some doubt could be placed on the correctness of the edelsten conviction. indeed, edelsten could claim that he was set up (and i distinctly recall a strong conspiracy theory doing the rounds at the time). turn 180. the medical board upheld the ban. the conviction stands. flannery's widow went away. all died away. so, why include patently false or misleading information that may seem to contradict game theory. why introduce red herrings at this late stage. not all printed matter can be relied upon. some cans of worms should never be re-opened. recommendation - delete reference to the widow flannery. ttfn.Janusreverted (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? Her husband's full name is in there already, so removing her name would not make any difference. The fact she said the alleged offence did not take place is at the core of Edelsten's own assertion that he was not guilty. We cannot say he was not guilty - he was found guilty and imprisoned. But we can say that he said he wasn't guilty and was supported in that by a third party with no likely motive. It's not for us to judge what happened, we just report what was said by reliable sources. I don't think the reading that she lied is in there - more than likely she was testifying truthfully (keeping in mind she wasn't subpoenaed or anything) but maybe not herself in possession of all the facts, assuming the court's findings are correct.

As for choreography, it's pretty obvious that you, the IP address and Lauren all in the course of a few days are related to Edelsten or, more likely, his PR company Zeumic in some way. That there is no coordination defies credulity. Orderinchaos 11:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said Orderinchaos, I don't think we even need to use WP:CHECKUSER as it's pretty obvious where this choreographed pantomine is coming from...and who's paying them. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See Edelsten v MPBV (2001) VCAT 906 (31 May 2001): "He admitted that he solicited Flannery to assault Evans. He admitted that he performed laser treatment on Flannery for the purpose of securing an adjournment of Flannery's murder trial." WWGB (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

message from Janusreverted

GOOOOOD MOOORRRNING (robin williams) wikipudlians. i have returned (macarthur '44). tone it down. this is to be my last missive for this site and for janusreverted. thank you, thank you (elvis).

(rest removed - see history)

Janusreverted (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"this is to be my last missive for this site and for janusreverted" great to hear. You can now concentrate on your day job working for someone... Michellecrisp (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)