Talk:Geoffrey Edelsten

Sockpuppet finding

• note a number of editors on this page have been found to be sockpuppets - see evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zeumic‎ --Matilda ^talk 23:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am so very disappointed with Wikipedia and probably more so with my fellow Wikipedia equals. Is this really an encyclopaedia or something far worse? I’ve just logged in after a long while away from the initial torture of incompetent and pedistool commentary. Apparently according to whomever; I am what Wikipedians call a “sockpuppet”?!!?! What in gods name is a sockpuppet? Is this the way the Wikipedia community deals with those who have a differing opinion? How do you remove such terrible untrue messages from your name? If I say I am not a sockpuppet and have no connection with Edelsten would that suffice? Probably not, as I have already said that...--Laurenraz (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Suspected sock tags and "possible" checkuser results concerning tagging of User:Laurenraz --Matilda ^talk 23:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pink helicopter

The pink helicopter is a popular recollection of Edelsten. See google ->

• mentioned page 58 in Australian Popular Culture By Ian Craven, Martin Gray, Geraldine Stoneham, British Australian Studies Association published by Cambridge University Press
• One moment from the history of Australian Football 150 Years will appear each day in the Herald Sun, the Advertiser and the Mercury, for 150 days = Moment #64: Sydney goes for the doctor: FOOTBALL met showbiz in 1985 when the VFL sold the Sydney Swans to flamboyant medical entrepreneur Dr Geoffrey Edelsten and his consortium for $2.9 million. Edelsten immediately set about selling the Swans to a reluctant Sydney market. Warwick Capper, all tight shorts and flowing mullet, was marketed as a high-flying sex symbol, the Swanettes cheerleading troupe was introduced, and Edelsten’s wife, Leanne, was flown about in a pink helicopter. ...
• Hansard 9 May 2007 : page 190 - Mr CADMAN (Mitchell) (10.54 am)—The Health Insurance Amendment (Inappropriate and Prohibited Practices and Other Measures) Bill 2007 ... We went through this at the beginning of Medibank. The case of Dr Geoffrey Edelsten was notorious. As the House may remember, he had a regime of his own. My office, incidentally, was right next-door to his first surgery. There were deep pink carpets, a grand piano was played day and night for those who visited, there was a playground for the children and there were all of these very salubrious— Dr Southcott—A disco. Mr CADMAN—A nightclub, almost. There were dimmed lights. And Geoffrey Edelsten had a pink helicopter and a lovely wife ...

It should in my view be mentioned together with his denial mentioned in this 2006 SMH article --Matilda ^talk 01:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Though it is contradicted by this 2003 SMH article be good to get some articles from the time - I am sure there must be some with pictures and those pics are either of pink or blue and white helicpoters. Can't think everyone was hallucinating. --Matilda ^talk 01:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another book mentions it [1] --Matilda ^talk 01:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the "pink helicopter" is an urban myth. There was certainly a pink sports car, and a helicopter, so a media-driven amalgam of the two is not hard to believe. Edelsten has specifically debunked the idea. The fact that no photographs seem to exist appears to support the fallacy of the claim. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The pink and white helicopter can be seen in this news report VFL 1985 Geoff Edelsten buys Sydney Swans and is specifically referred to --Matilda ^talk 22:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The article has had the helicopter added but with the weasel words "claimed by some to travel in a pink helicopter" - the helicopter can be seen in the clip from 1985 - I think the qualification is accordingly excessive despite Dr Edelsten's debunking. --Matilda ^talk 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image has now been uploaded - lead needs revision, not quite sure what would be most suitable form of words though or whether the section on the Swans should be expanded. --Matilda ^talk 23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

lead revision

I have had an attempt at modifying the lead but I am not happy with it. Wikipedia:Lead section states:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless must not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

I think repetition is justified, including sources is justified and mention of helicopters, football teams, chandeliers etc is justified. Perhaps the sources should appear below and not be repeated, I am not sure.--Matilda ^talk 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the information about the flamboyant lifestyle belongs in the lead as it is central to Edelsten's image in the 1980s. The specific detail about the helicopter, however, is perhaps too much detail (and lacking overall significance) for the lead. I would be inclined to place that information in the Swans section, where it would sit nicely against the visual. WWGB (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

feel free to amend - I need to stop editing for a bit ... --Matilda ^talk 01:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A Different View?

Just a thought, please treat me nicely, I am a person the same as you. What about referencing www.geoffreyedelsten.com? It is an excellent read and offers balance. Again, I’m not a sockpuppet nor am I “close” to Edelsten. The fact of the matter remains that it’s an advertised website and therefore probably has most reach. Well that’s how I found it anyway.. Thankyou for being gentle with fellow Wikipedians in advance.--Laurenraz (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's policy on the use of self-published sources, material from geoffreyedelsten.com may be used for non-contentious things, but shouldn't be used as a reference for any of the controversial stuff. Also, just as a note, as far as Wikipedia is concerned you're not a sockpuppet, since the checkuser on the question came back as "possible" but not definite (although it came back as definite on a whole bunch of other accounts). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, how were you so quick to respond? Amazing! I was about to logoff! How did you do it? Anyway, that sounds funny to me as the “Official” website is listed in the article. Wouldn’t you also add the more appropriate one being www.geoffreyedelsten.com?

So if I say I’m not a “possible” sockpuppet will that suffice? Can unfounded accusations be removed? The only thing I can think of is that I was one of a few people who had a differing opinion. Can we move on and just be nice?--Laurenraz (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question about how I responded so fast, this is one of several thousand articles on my watchlist, so I see whenever an edit is made to it. With regards to the website, I've reviewed it, and it appears to deal entirely with contentious issues (by design, in fact). Accordingly, I don't think there's anything that can be used from that website as a reliable reference of anything but what Edelsten claims (i.e. we can't say "this is true" and source it to that site, but we can say "Edelstan claims that this is true" and source it to that site). As for the sock issues, I'll take them to your user talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that I know what a sockpuppet is. I must ask does such a thing really matter? There’s no accountability on Wikipedia anyway. Everyone is hidden by a username that allows them to literally say anything.. I have had heated discussion about this topic with a number of my friends, if they were to join and contribute to Wikipedia on this page as I have been urging them to - would we all then be sockpuppets? What if someone else were to share an opinion – does that make them a sockpuppet by default? Are all those named on the www.geoffreyedelsten.com website sockpuppets by logic? I do not wish to talk any further on this because it really is a witchhunt, but why, why are you all ganging up and trying to delete anyone that may want to bring balance? Please let’s move on and talk about “the article”. Isn’t that what we’re here to do? Again, must I always say this, be nice (WWGB), I almost thought we were getting somewhere (Sarcasticidealist).--Laurenraz (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely that we shouldn't discuss sockpuppet issues any further on this page, which is why I responded to your sockpuppet-related questions on your talk page instead of here. This space should be used for discussions about improving the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

www.geoffreyedelsten.com offers balance? It is certainly "balanced" against statements that Edelsten has made elsewhere. For example, the website states:

1. I did not solicit (or anything else) Flannery (or anyone else) to assault (or anything else) Evans (or anyone else).

2. I did not conspire to pervert the course of justice. (given the same medical circumstances I would again provide an appropriate medical certificate for an ill patient – including a wikipeedonya editor. [2]

Conversely, at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal it is reported:

"He [Edelsten] 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." [3]

Obviously, a balance of two different positions from the same person. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi WWGB, I agree, you’ve done an excellent job there! There are two different views portrayed. One by Edelsten and the other by someone else about Edelsten. Perhaps we should include detail of that. As far as I can recall the only reason why he was never allowed to become a doctor again was because at the tribunals he always protested his innocence. I believe it was a requirement of the medical tribunals to admit to accusations, like repenting before God asking to have mercy and that’s why they never allowed him to practice again. I know you are mean towards me WWGB, with your sockpuppet comment on my talkpage a moment ago. Please find it in your heart to just be nice.--Laurenraz (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• No - we don't include views from self-published sites unless there is a good reason. The word you are looking for is meatpuppet -read WP:Sock for more info--Matilda ^talk 09:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Laurenraz wrote: "There are two different views portrayed. One by Edelsten and the other by someone else about Edelsten." Umm, no. They are both views portrayed by Edelsten alone, at different places and presumably for different reasons. Edelsten made BOTH of those comments entirely by himself. Please do not obfuscate the facts. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an excellent read and offers balance. no it is a self promoting self published source aimed at trying to get work for him. For starters it doesn't explain who is sponsoring his professorship. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten Representative

I'm Dean Walters and I will be working as Geoffrey Edelsten’s Wikipedia public affairs. I'm here to contribute information and media that will improve the quality and balance of the Wikipedia Geoffrey Edelsten article.

I will endeavor to work with Wikipedia to enhance this article.

If you wish to contact me, please email me at dean@geoffedelsten.com.au, or leave a message on my talk page.--Gepa (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Read in conjunction with this heading on my talk page, and the user's own talk page. Orderinchaos 06:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the policy on Conflict of interest has been brought to your attention. It does not state such editing is prohibited but does state it is strongly discouraged. It is important to note the advice under the sub-section dealing with defending interests - we will support removal of material that contravenes our policy on Biographies of living persons - ie unsupported defamatory material or any material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. On the other hand the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage.
  Consulting other editors on this talk page about material that you believe lacks quality or balance will definitely help to progress improvements to the article.
  Note that any material added to the article needs to comply with our policy of verifiability (and of course other policies) and must be supported with the citation of reliable sources.
  Thank you for letting us know of your role in relation to Dr Edelsten's affairs. --Matilda ^talk 07:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning recent edits by User:Gepa - adding a link to a scanned in pdf of the 1991 Age article was useful and I have reinstated. The external links already includes a link to Edelsten's website so the edit was redundant. --Matilda ^talk 07:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's helpful that this user has stated his conflict-of-interest in advance; thank you for that, Gepa. While I agree that edits by individuals with conflicts-of-interest are generally undesirable, they can also be helpful and, for the time being, we should welcome this contributor. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note re the last edit - it seemed like it was a block of text trying to present/argue a case rather than state the facts. It would seem that getting the page of the ACR 51 that the actual charge appeared in, and putting the details of the charge in in place of "hiring" (without too much verbosity), and referencing to the reports (if you need help with citation formats I'd be happy to help, I'm fairly sure it's {{Cite Case AU}}) would be a more productive course of action. Orderinchaos 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The recent additions seemed to consist largely of lifts from media articles, in breach of WP:COPYVIO. WWGB (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention riding very close to the edge of WP:COI. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it is a declared conflict of interest, at least. I don't have anything against the person editing the article, but like if you're writing for a magazine they wouldn't accept stuff that doesn't fit their submission guidelines, likewise we don't accept stuff that fits our policies. If what he postulated in his edit is true (that the word "hiring" is mediaspeak and the actual conviction was for a semantically different offence), there is a way to do it in one to three words with a reflink which would have exactly the same effect. If I knew precisely which case it was (there are several under his name on AustLII) I'd do it myself, as it seems reasonable. Orderinchaos 08:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Declared or otherwise, it is still a conflict of interest from someone that is trying to spin some positivity on Edelsten. whilst some previous edits were ok, Gepa recently requested that an anon IP be blocked (for an edit that was OK in my opinion) and simply because the IP was based in Sydney. This to me indicates lacking neutrality on the subject of Edelsten. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are referring to a comment on another Wikipedia user’s discussion page. See below--Gepa (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist, thank you for your recent comments. I have looked into your references and thoroughly researched the WP topics of discussion. Your insights have been helpful, your impartiality and conduct is commended and is recommended to all other Wikipedia users.

I understand that an IP (210.56.73.107) has removed properly referenced, on topic information that is required to un-bias (bring neutrality to) defamatory statements/references/information. Such editing has left the article defamatory biased, defamation should not tolerated. IP 210.56.73.107 has also introduced unreferenced information. I propose to revert this latest editing. And suggest that the Sydney based IP be blocked from editing as there is no audit trail for contentious editing. Your thoughts? --Gepa (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Defamation

Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory and damaging.

There are a number of defamatory and damaging statements. One in particular as followings; He subsequently spent a year in jail for hiring an underworld figure, Christopher Dale Flannery, to assault a former patient, and for perverting the course of justice.[5][6][7]

- This media statement is greatly different than actual charges seen at http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf

- The charge was in fact “soliciting” not “hiring” – the use of “hiring” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows; http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf

I have no problem with the alternative term "soliciting", especially as it is used in several sources [4] [5] [6] WWGB (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

- The charge does not refer “a former patient” instead referred to as “another” – the use of “a former patient” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows; http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf

Numerous independent sources report that "another" was in fact Edelsten's former patient (Stephen Evans). Are you really seeking to suppress that fact? Edelsten admits it here: [7] WWGB (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

- The alleged “another” as seen in the charges stood trial for the attempted extortion of Edelsten. "another" was the man who in 1984 harassed and intimidated Edelsten and his family to extort money with menaces. This other side is not covered, and by its absence presents a highly biased view. “another” was later sentenced to 3 and a 1/2 years prison for fraud of an Australian Government Agency of more than $330,000.

This article is about Edelsten, not Evans. His subsequent life is irrelevant. WWGB (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

- Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984 – the date as set out in the charges. Flannery was only considered an underworld figure in media reports (seen above) that date from 1987 onward. There is an absence of such information between 1984 and 1987. Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984.

I have no problem with the addition of the term "subsequent", as in "subsequent underworld figure". WWGB (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent attempts to correct/unbias the article have been wholly removed.

Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory and damaging. --Gepa (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

and Gepa is your mission to solve this? despite multiple sources establishing the events that happened? Given that you are a paid employee of Edelsten, I am concerned. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)