Talk:Peter Foster

Actually, this article is a load of self serving crap he probably wrote himself. [1] I recommend rewriting this as a criminal biography or deleting entirely as it fails to meet basic truthfulness criteria. Rklawton 04:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time reading the article and researching and I think it seems to be accurate on the mdia reports I located. It refers to him as "the greatest conman of all time" so it is hard to see how the article could be deemed to be bias. It just shows that there is another side to him - and that to be would be "balance". I can't see anything wrong, in fact I found it interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratugaloot (talk • contribs)

Bias

This is a very biased article. I would suggest adopting a more neutral narrative tone, and removing certain text (particularly the first item in "trivia and facts") I agree that a section on his criminal convictions would also provide balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendons (talk • contribs)

It says he has not been convicted of fraud...that appears true. He offences were all advertising related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.17.176 (talk • contribs)

I think the artcile is fair enough. Can't be nice to be called a conman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.17.176 (talk • contribs)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.18.162 (talk • contribs)

My first thought upon reading this was "he wrote it himself". Simple editing isn't going to do the job here: the entire article needs a rewrite. This page needs an overhaul, and quickly. It's exactly the sort of article that diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of information. I hope whoever used the keyboard after Foster wrote the article had the good sense to wipe it down with disinfectant because it must have been pretty damn sticky.Gamsarah 10:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's bad now, you should have seen it several months ago. Prometheus^-X303- 14:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Every so often there is anon IP "users" who blank out alot of the article especially the Fiji information. --Mikecraig 21:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter Foster

I too am of the idea that this report reads as though Peter himself has written it. It shows bias and one could be forgiven for thinking it is the introduction to an autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.3.90 (talk • contribs)

Ridiculous

A ridiculously blatant panegyric, this article is highly misleading, giving the impression of Peter Foster as an Antipodean jack-the-lad and do-gooder rather than a convicted fraudster. A BBC news report paints a far different view of Foster and his career (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2574515.stm), one which neatly contradicts claims made in the Wikipedia article, such as the assertion that "Foster has never been charged or convicted of fraud or theft or obtaining money by deception." Rather odd given that the BBC claim he has been jailed on three continents. It is also interesting to note that the minimal coverage given to the infamous Bai Lin Tea debacle in the Wikipedia article.

The person who wrote this article is probably one of the following: a) Peter Foster b) Peter Foster's girlfriend c) Peter Foster's mother — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.93.35 (talk • contribs)

It says he has not been convicted of fraud...that appears true. He offences were all advertising related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.17.176 (talk • contribs)

Nonsense

Clearly written by Peter Foster himself. Try checking out any of the BBC articles on him. They paint a rather different picture. I have never known anyone describe him as an "international man of mischief"; in fact he's always constantly referrred to as a conman or crook. The article also skims over the infamous Bai Lin Tea fraud and mentions nothing of his abscondment from jails and his pleas to the British Prime Minister to release him from prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.215.213 (talk • contribs)

Article needs major cleanup

Sources

Dumping a bunch of sources at the bottom of the page doesn't help. See WP:Citing sources for the corrct procedures.

NPOV

This article reads like it was written by a PR firm. See WP:NPOV.

Weasel words

This article is rife with weasel words, such as the following:

a super salesman to some, conman to others, but undoubtedly a person who has lived a champagne lifestyle in the fast lane for over two decades,

See WP:Weasel words

Once again, please do not remove the tags unless sufficient changes are made. PrometheusX303 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

Moved from article (an anon simply landed them in as references). There's possibly plenty of information within the links below to assist in the article cleanup.

[2]http://www.abc.net.au/austory/series4/9934.htm

[3]"Faith sustains conman" by Matthew Condon . The Melbourne Age newspaper 3 February 2003 link: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/02/1044122259027.html

[4]"Faith sustains conman" by Matthew Condon . The Melbourne Age newspaper 3 February 2003 link: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/02/1044122259027.html

[5]Daily Mail newspaper. December 4 2002

[6]BBC Talkback with Anthony Howard 11 December 2002 link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/talking_point/2565141.stm

[7]Playboy Magazine interview by Frank Robson 1983 "Kid Tycoon"

[8]60 Minutes interview by Mike Munroe. 1987 Channel Nine Network Australia

[9]The Fiji Times. October 17, 2001

Fiji Island News, Election Review edition 2001 -- Longhair 04:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is he?

The article consists mostly of opinions of Peter Foster. Who is he? What is his occupation? Does he have any siginificant achievements? PrometheusX303 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. There's nothing substantive here that tells us why there should even be an article about him. Fan-1967

Can someone fix those refs?

Can someone fix those references, they are showing up as self referential links. Makes it hard to check them. User:Pedant 22:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly how they were plastered into the article. -- Longhair 00:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed one (per my comment above, I may have incorrectly assumed you were referring to the references I removed from the article and pasted here). A broken ref tag in the article itself was causing a large portion of text beyond the Cheriegate heading to remain invisible. -- Longhair 02:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Those trivia/facts that need references - use the WP policy Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources to put them correctly - not just list the newspaper or book..etc name --Mikecraig 05:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

delete this vanity page

The account credited with writing this devoted its entire wikicareer to this article and to:

"I have spent a lot of time reading the article and researching and I think it seems to be accurate on the mdia reports I located. It refers to him as "the greatest conman of all time" so it is hard to see how the article could be deemed to be bias. It just shows that there is another side to him - and that to be would be "balance". I can't see anything wrong, in fact I found it interesting."

This appears to have started as a vanity article, and remains an article with no notability established. As such it hardly deserves discussing, IMO. I say we delete it. User:Pedant 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of dismissing it...help edit it so it meets "standards" nuff said! - --Mikecraig 22:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem in meeting the "standards" is with the subject, not the article. I don't see how he's notable. Editing won't help that. Fan-1967 00:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Then based on that reasoning other "con" men/women should be taken of wikipedia - I guess the main notable things relating to the person in question is the following:

• Relationship to Samantha Fox
• Involvement with Cherie Blair
• Sporting ventures (Boxing related)
• Kylie Minogue early involvement to kickstart music career
• Various scams and schemes relating to Foster
• Television and various Media related articles..etc

There are many other crap wiki's out there with less interesting or "notable" information.

--Mikecraig 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of other "con" men/women's articles so I wouldn't comment on them. Sleeping with a famous person doesn't make you notable. Lots of people do that. The Blair thing looks like there's some actual meat there. As for his boxing ventures and involvement in Minogue's career, whatever they were, why aren't they in the article? That might actually have some substance. Fan-1967 00:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think deletion is the answer. He does seem fairly notable. Try a web search, and you can find some articles on him. He may not well known outside Australia and the UK, but that shouldn't be grounds for deletion.

In my opinion, the "article"'s creator, Ratugaloot, and what suspect is the same editor using the IP range 210.7.XXX.XXX, should improve the article instead of removing talk page comments and tags.

It should contain actual biographical information instead of just opinions on how intelligent and crafty he is and loads of weasel words. PrometheusX303 00:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of Con artists there is about 30 Famous convicted and alleged con artists with most of them having a wiki regarding them respectivly.

Totally agree with ensuring that there is factual and biographical information - it seems back in August there was alot more information relating to the subject in question and it seems that most of that got cut out (bio/history..etc) and now left with the rubbish wiki we have at present. --Mikecraig 00:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, Foster is certainly notable, at least here in Australia and the UK. The article needs major work, not deletion. I remember his antics, Cheriegate, and the Bai Lin Tea affair, but it was a long time ago. There's reliable sources online to assist in a cleanup. I'll see what I can do. -- Longhair 01:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bai Lin Tea

The article states: It could be said that Foster was punished for being "ahead of his time". In the early 80's there were many in the West who doubted that a tea could have slimming properties. Two decades later it is widely accepted that chinese tea has many medicinal benefits, and there are countless brands of slimming tea sold all around the world.

1. There is no mention of punishment at all.
2. The following links tell a different story of the Bai Lin Tea he promoted. [2][3][4] [5] These are just on the first result page of a Google search on "Peter foster" and "Bai Lin". PrometheusX303 14:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Convictions

It is stated in the article that Foster is a convicted con man. Wouldnt it then be pertinent to detail his crimes and convictions?68.71.35.93 05:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it would. PrometheusX303 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In the article it emphasises that he was never convicted of fraud. I have edited the trivia/facts section to reflect the fact that he has indeed been charged with both fraud and theft. He avoided the fraud case by fleeing the country & he pleaded 'no contest' to the grand theft charge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2574515.stm http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_n10_v23/ai_8310033

daniel202.151.28.145 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. That's a bit that I suspect Foster (or a very loyal fan) keeps adding in. Prometheus^-X303- 14:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Had to do it again, as someone reverted it... daniel 202.151.28.23 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

It seems that recently there has been "edits" which have removed big sections of this article especially regarding the Fiji matters - bit of bias or POV ? (has always come from anon IP people) --Mikecraig 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Person is more likely. And the IP range can be traced to Suva, Fiji. Prometheus^-X303- 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-write

This article requires a complete re-write, removing the hyperbole and weasel words and closely following sources. I suggest that this article on Foster in The Age, which provides a complete profile on his history, should be used to write the article. Harro5 03:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My edits

I got to edit thisa rticle using this newspaper report which I note contains further info not in the article and might be of interest to other editors. I would have put it in the external links but there isnt one, maybe if it is worthy someone else might want to, SqueakBox 18:33, 13 January 2007 (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 01:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation quality and removal of templates

Today, in one edit there is a reference that links to a mirror of wikipedia. The article linked to doesn't support the claim that it is cited in support of. Fact templates have been removed without citations added. General article templates have been removed without addressing the issues. Autarch (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There are more issues with citations: this edit referred to an entry on the page mentioned that was introduced here. The article mentioned Peter Foster, but not the organisation. This edit was introduced in response to a fact template querying that "Foster is widely heralded as one of the world's best salesmen." Firstly it quotes only one person, but "widely heralded" implies that more than one person holds the view. Secondly, the reference cited as Fentons support for Fosters selling skills mentions a newspaper interview, but does not give a date - isn't this a failure to follow WP:CITE, especially as that guideline specifically mentions biographies of living people and quoting someone as specific instances of when to cite sources? Autarch (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit supposedly provides a reference for the claim that Peter Foster "was one of the first to realise the selling power of celebrity" - the article in question says no such thing. Is there a Wikipedia procedure for having an article checked for reliable sources? Autarch (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also highly sceptical of this bit: "Foster received over $1 million advance for his biography from the Daily Mail newspaper. Written by Daily Mail journalist Richard Shears in 2003,it remains unpublished because of the threats of law suits from people in "high places". This is verified by a copy of the contract which is on file at the Gold Coast District Court and the Supreme Court of Queensland." (last sentence referenced to "Case No. 19/09 Peter Clarence Foster v Richard Shears and others filed at the Southport Registry, Southport Court House, Queensland, Australia".) Given how badly this article misrepresents 'sources' that can easily be checked, I don't feel particularly trusting about what appears to be interpretation of a primary source that's rather harder to chase up. --GenericBob (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - some of the editing either doesn't give a reference that supports a claim or leaves out some information: this item says that the nickname "the human headline" was give to Peter Foster by himself! Autarch (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What is your problem Bob?

You say you are sceptical of the $1 million Foster was paid for his autobiography. Did you not read reference point No. 10. It says, "Foster sold his memoirs of a roller-coaster life to a British publisher for $1.2 million, the largest book deal secured by an Australian in the UK market.[10] If you go to point 10, it leads to an article in the very highly respected Melbourne newspaper, the Age, written by Australia's premier policital reporter of 40 years standing, Alex Mitchell. Well, Bob, there is one source that can easily be checked, and you didn't.

As for Foster being one of the world's best salespeople, the person who said it, John Fenton, is himself regarded as one of the world's best salespeople. But the comment of Foster being one of the best salesmen in the world has been widely reported.

I even see you removed him being referred to as an "international playboy". Why?. Check the source again, its the Australian Broadcasting Commission that uses the exact phrase, "international playboy".

I ask Bob, why are you so bias against this man? I don't feel particularly trusting of your motives, Bob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcoconut (talk • contribs)

(1) "If you go to point 10, it leads to an article in the very highly respected Melbourne newspaper, the Age" - actually, no, it goes to the Sun-Herald.[6] Which, while published by the same company, is a rather different entity.

(2) "You say you are sceptical of the $1 million Foster was paid for his autobiography." - actually, no, what I'm questioning there is the two sentences after that claim: "Written by Daily Mail journalist Richard Shears in 2003,it remains unpublished because of the threats of law suits from people in "high places". This is verified by a copy of the contract which is on file at the Gold Coast District Court and the Supreme Court of Queensland that the book "remains unpublished because of the threats of law suits from people in "high places"." There is nothing in the Sun-Herald article to support those claims.

(3) "As for Foster being one of the world's best salespeople, the person who said it, John Fenton, is himself regarded as one of the world's best salespeople." - I'm not sure why you're addressing this to me, since I've never expressed an opinion on that particular bit of content. (Though if you'd like me to form one, I'm sure I could manage something.)

(4) "I even see you removed him being referred to as an "international playboy"." - actually, no, I didn't. The only edit I have ever made to the article (so far) is this one.

(5) "I don't feel particularly trusting of your motives, Bob." - the lovely thing about Wikipedia is that you don't have to trust me. If and when I add material to the article, it will be accompanied by cites that are easily checked, so you can check the source for yourself and confirm that I've represented it accurately. After all, given the subject matter of this article and its history of bogus citations, it would be rather foolish for any of us to take citations on trust here. --GenericBob (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AUTARCH EDITING IS BIAS AND WORRYING

I am alarmed at the editing of the Peter Foster page. AUTARCH seem to be based in Ireland and seem to harbour a personal bias against the man.I understand he also was in Ireland. Autarch sayd that the role Foster played with the Australian Federal Police is dubious. I have read the affidavit material by going to the website of queensland courts and downloading from the registrar. The edits AUTARCH is making are petty. It doesn't change the thrust of the facts that Foster is a conman and has been to jail. But taking out facts that he worked for the federal police by saying that the source, a former federal agent is dubious, when it has been widely reported around the world is silly. AUTARCH it makes you look like a sad man jealous that this Foster had a full life when you edit out "international playboy" when it is a fact he was reported in many newspapers - or you say he calls himself a "human headline" when there are numerous articles on him that call him that. Why take these points out. You are vandalising this artuicle with your littering of it with citation requests on insignificant or unqestionable points. One has to wonder why? has Foster done somehting to you? Are you personally involved and therefore not able to approach this without malice. I think you should stop your edits now on this page before you look even more foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.78.219 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I AGEE AUTARCH IS OUT OF CONTROL

Absolutely, the edits are not important. I note he doesn't try and take out any of the "bad" Foster points - his criminal record, his time in jail. He only wants to take out the better Foster points, like him being a great salesman or a playboy or working undercover for the police. Autarch, get a life. I agree, your edits are mean spirited and makes you look very ignorant.