Talk:Noel Desmond Gray

.

Bold text==Breach of Copywrite for photo of Noel Gray==

The photograph of Noel Gray is from a book Telectronics The Early Years and use of it by Wickapedia is in breach of copywrite.

Founder vs Co-founder

I have restored the word "co-founder" to the lead sentence. There are arguably reliable sources to indicate that Paul Trainor was a founder (for example this), and there are arguably reliable sources that Noel Gray was a founder (for example this). I note there is some concern that the second example was written by Mr Gray's son, but the Powerhouse Museum is nonetheless a credible institution. If there is disagreement with this change, please discuss here and we will seek a consensus with other editors about the way forward.

See also the relevant parts of the discussion under "Edit of 19 September 2007" above. Euryalus 09:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let us start with the definition of the word to "found" which is a prerequisite to the discussion. According to the Oxford Dictionary "to found" is to "to begin the building of" "To originate, create, initiate". Let us look what has been claimed about Telectronics that it was formed to design and develop "industrial electronics" by (del. name WP:Attack) only went into medical electronics and pacemakers after or following on from Nicks and Jeffcoat. This is in total disagreement with what is writen in Telectronics the Early years in that Noel gray started telectronics to design and develop medical electronics, which is disputed (del. name WP:Attack). So who originated the design and development of medical electronics at telectronics (del. names WP:Attack) or Noel Gray? If the latter then he founded the company because he begand the building of medical electronics at telectronics and by his own admission not (del. name WP:Attack). therefore Gray founded it not (del. name WP:Attack). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.10.166 (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that "The Early years of Telectronics" is a primary source, as it was written by Noel Gray and his son. The sources I quoted above are secondary sources (that is, published by organisations independent of the subject). Per Wikipedia sourcing policy, the secondary sources are considered more reliable than the primary ones. So - unless there is a more substantial body of evidence that Gray ws the sole founder, and/or there is a consensus for it developed here, on balance I think "co-founder" should remain. Euryalus (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The secondary sourse material is part of a conspiracy to degrade the contribution of Noel gray and is a manipulation of the media by (del. names WP:Attack)that can easily be proven by looking at their material and the unsustainable claims made in them. I f yo like I will list them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.111.182 (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The requirement for secondary sources to support statements in Wikipedia articles is nothing to do with persons named or any other individual. It is Wikipedia sourcing policy and is a requirement for every article, not just this one. I take it from your reply that you have some secodnary sources which support the "founder" claim, in which case by all means post them here or in the article itself. Euryalus (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of names in above section by 121.219.112.213 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have revised the article per the discussion at the AfD, to remove some of the original research and weasel words and incorporate a short section on Telectronics itself to explain the notability of its co-founder.

The article still lacks reliable sources for most of its content. The single self-published source is heavily referenced but is not sufficiently independent to be reliable. Can anyone provide some secondary sources for Gray's life, especially up to 1959? Euryalus (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I propose that the "Neutrality Disputed" tag be removed from the article, because:

• The tag was correctly placed following the AfD in 2007, when the article had largely been written by an editor with a conflict of interest;
• Since that time the article has been extensively rewritten by other uninvolved editors (including myself);
• While additional sources are essential to improve the article, the overall tone is no longer heavily slanted towards or away from the subject. Notably, the personal attacks on other Telectronics people like Trainor and Jeffcoat are no longer part of the page.
• The current version appears stable, and has not been edited for more than a month.

Obviously all this could change overnight, but at present it appears the neutrality of the article is not disputed and the tag can be at least temporarily removed. As always, other comments and opinions welcome. Euryalus (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit of 14 Feb 2007. Changed "pacemaker" to "circuit" as making an implantable "pacemaker" using "torch batteries" is nonsensical. Corrected spelling "Phillips" to "Philips". With these changes made I support Euryalis' suggestion for removal of the "Neutrality Disputed" tag.QRS|QRS (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction - a pacemaker with torch batteries would be a novel concept. In the absence of any opposition, I've removed the tag. The article still needs better referencing from secondary sources, but hopefully the long neutrality dispute is at an end. Euryalus (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong objection

To WP:attack in this article, it's history and discussion. A person who appears to be the son of the article's subject and is identified as 203.164.xxx.xxx continues to post offensive comments relating to a number of people who were involved with the subject and the company Telectronics some 40 years ago. Eg.the edit summary of 09.08 25 March refers to persons xxx, xxx & xxx as "ratbags". A review of changes made to the article by 203.164.xxx.xx show a consistancy of claims and statements supported only by reference to the private publication "Telectronics - The Early Years" by Gray ND & Gray CJ. As it is unlikely that further substantiated changes may be made to the Article, it is suggested the article should be permanently closed. I would appreciate comments by administrators.QRS (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia articles are never "closed". We can protect them against editing, for example in the case of vandalism, by either new or unregistered users, or even by anybody who is not an administrator. Protection is not usually indefinite. Several administrators do watch this page (including me) and we can deal with attacks promptly. The edits of 25 March were reverted within 1 minute. The edit summaries are visible but we could delete the edits permanently (a bit of a pain but can be done if the edit summary is regarded as sufficiently offensive). The vandalism is not so significant that we would consider permanent protection. Similarly we do not permanently block IPs or IP ranges except in exceptional circumstances. The IP range is @Home Network Australia and obviously there could be other editors legitimately trying to edit Wikipedia. --Matilda ^talk 05:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, just a regular editor of this article. I agree with Matilda that page protection is not necessary. The edits by the anon IP are not generally helpful but they are a content dispute rather than andalism. The anon IP has problems with conflict of interest, neutral points of view and civility but their edits aren't pure vandalism. They are also swiftly reverted, so a generic reader of this article is more likely to see the current 'stable' version than the alternative.

Lastly, there is a great deal more that needs to be done to bring this article up to scratch. The references are poor and mostly drawn from a primary source. There are numerous unsourced claims, and too little detail about the actual work Gray performed in Telectronics. Progress in addressing these points will be slow and useful edits rare, but locking the page will prevent any further improvements and leave us with something that is permanently "start" class.

If there was repeated and deliberate vandalism rather than a content argument, I'd agree with you on page protection. If the IP address was static I'd also support some kind of action on civility grounds, given the personal attacks that get made. As it is, I think we've all made major improvements to the page since the AfD and there's plenty of room for more. Euryalus (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)