Talk:Eddie Obeid

Influence of Fairfax press on Obeid's reputation

This profile has just been re-written by me, sourced from information in the public domain, as widely as possible. However, in completing the profile it has become clear that a large majority of the references have been sourced from Fairfax Media. Obeid and the Herald have been in an ongoing battle since as early as late 1990s - culminating in Obeid wining defamation action against Fairfax over their 2002 Oasis allegations. As much as possible, where Fairfax sources have been quoted, I have attempted to back up with other reputable sources (mainly The Australian and the ABC). However, care should be exercised in reading (Fairfax) media sources where Obeid is concerned. Unfortunately, I have had to use one WP:SELFPUB source from Alex McTaggart, to get some background information on Obeid's involvement in the Matrite elections. Nevertheless, like all profiles in Wikipedia, I have strived for verifiable accuracy. Jherschel (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on getting the article to this point - it's a fair achievement considering the subject matter and prior state of the article. Reading through it now, it strikes me that the main issue is the list of controversies - there's dot points there that are largely tangential, and other things which should be fleshed out. Rebecca (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Family

Is there any particular reason why the business interests of his family members have been included in this article? It would seem like a fairly obvious WP:BLP violation to include an entire paragraph on allegations about his son's business (though they are sourced) without substantiating a link to the subject himself. I get that there might not be enough WP:N to justify an article about Moses Obeid but we don't default (as far as I know) to just putting those details into a different BLP. I'm going to hide that section (rather than delete) but I'm happy to discuss it. Stalwart111 03:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

From Stalwart to Rangasyd: Hi mate, just a query about the Obeid article. I hid a section on his son because I didn't think it was appropriate in a BLP to include unrelated allegations about his son's business. But I see there is now a mention of the Roozendaal case in the Obeid article on the basis that his son was involved. But I'm still concerned that the only link between Eddie Obeid and that story is someone's claim that the deal was done for Roozendaal because he was Obeid's mate. More of a connection than the other story, sure, but do you think it is okay in a BLP? Thought I'd discuss it with you before looking to change anything. I can see what you were doing making it clear they were allegations and keeping things as NPOV as possible, so nice work there. Perhaps it's time for a Moses Obeid article? Stalwart111 23:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the positive feedback. Dealing with the latter first, his son, Moses, is not yet notable in term of a separate article. Should the allegations be proven and if he faces criminal charges / convicted / sentenced, then I feel it may be notable and worthy of a separate article. I noticed the hidden section on Moses. Well done and the right decision. Personally, I feel it's appropriate as it is, right now. Should things escalate and there be a strong link between Streetscape and EO, or there be other implications involving MO, then it may be appropriate to unhide. Rangasyd (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that at all. Just concerned that we're including things about his son because the SMH contends EO should be blamed for / linked to his son's businesses. While they may wish to do so, that sort of thing really falls foul of BLP standards here. I really can't see a substantiated WP:V link between the Roozendaal stuff and EO. MO maybe, but... It seems a bit like including criticisms of Charlie Sheen at Martin Sheen. Sins of the father (or son) and all that. Anyway, MO's notability would be marginal, agreed entirely. Just thought it might give us some options for cleaning up the EO article. I too am happy to leave it until there's more coverage. Cheers, Stalwart111 10:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC).

Further edits

This is obviously all a matter of current media conjecture but I've removed/hidden a couple of sections on the basis of ongoing coverage.

• I removed the allegations about Roozendaal's car after this article reported that the ICAC has submitted that Obeid himself (family members are another matter) "should be cleared". Leaving allegations in a BLP after the investigating authority has "cleared" someone is obviously against policy.

• I have removed the allegations about his involvement in a company called Offset Alpine after this article (from the same newspaper that made the original allegations) suggested there was no evidence his family had ever been investors (which is what our article alleged). Journalists at that paper can fight the facts out among themselves but we shouldn't include them while they contradict themselves.

The article will obviously receive a high level of attention (the view count has gone through the roof of late) so its more important than ever that we stick to BLP policy, in my opinion. Stalwart111 11:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent stuff

Rangasyd, as usual, good edits! But we've managed to creep details about his son into the subject's article again. In what way is Moses' car stuff related to Eddie except that the ICAC decided to save time and investigate them concurrently? There's plenty to cover without trying to artificially tie him to other stuff, surely? Stalwart111 13:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, Stalwart111. Thanks. I hear ya. Edits revised. Let me know if you have any further suggestions. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that'll do it, looks good. Great work! Stalwart111 14:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thnx. zzzzzzzz Rangasyd (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just More Warnings of Today

"Leda Holdings, held a $450,000 mortgage over McGurk's city office on York Street, Sydney - which is owned by McGurk's wife" I see that all the time in the USA. And it's gone on too long!

I think that's why in the 1700's the world was trying to kick the Kings out of government (all countries at the time were doing something similar).

I'm saying: this situation with Eddie is not specific to Eddie (if it is true, i'm not saying it is). It is something that is the fault of continually unionizing government workers abusing the public with power, and citizens not knowing what can be done of it. It's also a way for gov. workers to get 3x the pay of impoverished private workers who get "pushed around".

Polititians should be on the poorer side of town and act to improve the town as a whole in their best interest. They have too many advantages with guaranteed pay and influence on outcomes: they don't needs abusive high pay in addition, and no one, not anyone, deserves such huge advantage to abuse others.

I separately beleive polititians should not live beyond their means and it's a MAJOR mistake allowing it. If they are in the big house, which not clearly earned by sweat of moonlighting and low gov pay: an investigation of them should normally lead to conviction, if the moneys cannot be explained by sweat after hours.

A wise person shoudn't be posting (unproven?) allegations about Eddie but thinking of Eddie as "kicking the can down the road". A wise person should be concerned wholely with how to turn things around in the big picture.

Eddie is an eddy in wave of a great swell of Ocean swallowing beach property as time goes one: that is picking up pace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

More Warning

It's getting to the point in the USA (the $150k/yr HS teacher, the $1,000,000 yr principle, the high pay of Congress after leaving office).

It's getting to where (or beyond) the union is so strong they aren't even stealing they are too lazy there is no need! They can steal so much "legitimately" and "unquestioned" they don't even bother the risk of illegitimacy.

They can dawdle in office and hang up the phone if service calls arrive and dodge court too. But still win big.

Meanwhile a finger lift of their time at "work" gets them hours of sweat and planning from an abused threatened citizen in town.

It should be a great warning when politics and their friends are sleezing into wealthy urban sprawls while the standard of living is decreasing.

Their power to threaten others with police and lawsuits has raised immesureablly: the lengthy legislations are more than proof of that pudding.

How? "The Rich Need Poor Courts" -- jdh

That is how. You can't prosecute them for conflict of interest. They "quash" you if you could get a case open.

If you try: you are called crazy and abducted by the courts. A political prisoner. Likely forcibly injected with drugs.

I"VE DONE IT. DO NOT TELL ME IT"S NOT TRUE.

Corrupt courts. With a lower c.