Talk:Eddie Obeid/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Influence of Fairfax press on Obeid's reputation

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Just more warnings of today

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

"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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Found to have acted in a corrupt manner by ICAC

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Eddie Obeid has been found to have acted corruptly on multiple occasions. This is not to say he has acted criminaly, criminality is determined by a court in Australia which is not the ICAC. Therefore referring to Eddie Obeid as corrupt is in no way slander, and is in no way something that should fall under Wikipedia:BLPCRIME#BLPCRIM, as there is no accusation of criminality. Corruption is a label given to those by ICAC. Corruption is briefly defined on the ICAC website; "What is corruption" as:

a public official improperly uses, or tries to improperly use, the knowledge, power or resources of their position for personal gain or the advantage of others
a public official acts dishonestly or unfairly, or breaches public trust
a member of the public influences, or tries to influence, a public official to use his or her position in a way that is dishonest, biased or breaches public trust.

If his case is passed on to the director of public prosecutions, and he is found guilty, he is then declared criminal, and corrupt, however if the DPP does not pick up a case against him, he is just corrupt. For more information please consider reading sections 7, 8 and 9 of the ICAC act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.233.212 (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You've missed the point entirely. Wikipedia's policies are written from a US perspective where no distinction is made between an accusation of "criminality" and an accusation of "corruption". Our policy relating to biographies of living people requires a conviction which ensures that a court has applied a higher standard of evidence-based prosecution before Wikipedia (in Wikipedia's voice) can suggest that someone has acted criminally or corruptly (again, there is not distinction in policy). ICAC is neither a court (it is a Commission) nor an evidence-based legal process (read the ICAC Act if you wish). He might have been found to have acted corruptly by the ICAC (and that much is reflected in the article, with reliable sources) but that is not the same as a BLP-compliant conviction that would enable Wikipedia to deem him to be corrupt. Ironically, it seems we require a higher standard of evidence than the ICAC. But seriously, this is first-year law stuff - basic jurisdictional application with a view to protecting the foundation that publishes Wikipedia. ICAC's "definition" of corruption is irrelevant - no matter how much we might not like they guy, this is still a WP:BLP. Stalwart111 00:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

From WP:BLPCRIME: "If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.". Again, this isn't even a judgement in the strictest sense but added the unexplained "political corruption" category is the very definition of "pithy" by comparison to the extensive and legally accurate explanation provided in the article. Beyond anything else, what's the point of edit-warring to violate policy when adding said category does nothing of value anyway? Stalwart111 00:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Even more specifically, with regard to categories: "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation. For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." Pretty much covers it. Stalwart111 00:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. My comments are as follows:

Firstly, I have changed the heading of section from found to have acted corruptly to Found to have acted in a corrupt manner by ICAC; as this was the finding that ICAC made (see the ICAC Fact Sheet).
Secondly, ICAC is not a Court. It has no power to record a conviction. It makes a finding, in the same way that other Commissions or Inquiries making findings and refer (or does not refer) matters to other authorities for action, in need (such as ATO, NCA, police, DPP, parliament, registration boards/authorities, PIC, etc.). Findings that ICAC makes can be (and are/have been) challenged in the Courts. The decision of the highest Court is final.
The outline of defining corruption, cited above, is what ICAC defines as corruption. The definition in the Crimes Act, 1900 (NSW) s 249B is different to that laid out in the ICAC Act, 1988 (NSW) s 3.
Consequently, just because an individual is found by ICAC to have acted in a corrupt manner does not mean that, under the (common/criminal) law, they are corrupt. The most notable of these being the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal to overturn an ICAC decision against Nick Greiner that found him "...as conducting himself contrary to known and recognised standards of honesty and integrity." Dismissed by NSWCoA in a 2:1 finding as ICAC overstepping its authority.
Just because a matter is listed on a Wikipedia list of political controversies as a corruption scandal does not make the individual criminally corrupt.

So, where do we stand right now? My suggestion is to err on the side of caution; as no criminal conviction has been recorded. Indeed, no charges have even been laid by police. The matter is currently in hands of the DPP to determine if there is enough evidence to proceed with an indictment of criminal charges; and the Court will then determine if there is enough evidence for a trial. Assuming that the accused enters a plea of not guilty, the Court will then hear the trial; and, if found guilty of the indictable offences, pass a sentence. It is at that final point where a conviction is officially recorded. Rangasyd (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We would be within our rights to report him as being corrupt as that is what the ICAC has declared he is. He is within his rights to challenge this in the supreme court and he is going to. The innocent until found guilty thing vis a vis findings of corrupt behaviour is irrelevant; he is no longer alleged to be corrupt, he is found to be corrupt. He can and will take this to the supreme court but until the ICAC has found to have acted incorrectly, the label of corrupt will remain. Please let me reiterate, according to the ICAC act, we are within our rights to call someone found by the ICAC to be corrupt, corrupt - unless the findings have been overturned by either the ICAC or another court of law in Australia. Regarding the DPP; they will not charge him for his corrupt dealings, it's already been announced, but unless he holds a successful case against ICAC in the supreme court he will still be corrupt. Also R.E. the US laws that is just laughable, we are in Australia, we are commenting on Australian persons in an Australian context, US law has nothing at all to do with this article. We are not in any way suggesting he has acted criminally so subcategories and wikipedia rules relating to criminality are irrelevant, and considering the major mark on history this guy will leave is the fact he is one of the most corrupt politicians in the history of Australia, I think it is pretty central to the article about him to make a point of corruption. Essentially I argue that; corruption in Australia is separate from criminality, which is why we have the ICAC. We are not accusing him of being criminal, just of being corrupt and that is A OK. First year law or not.129.78.233.211 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And the article should say exactly that and it does, with references and in a neutral way that complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. Again, you're missing the point with regard to categories and their purpose and the manner in which Wikipedia's guidelines and policies demand we use them. Stalwart111 01:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's sbsolutely ridiculous that Eddie Obeid is known as Australia's most corrupt politician, yet he is not formally linked to corruption on his wikipedia site! 129.78.233.212 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Criminal Biography}} added following his conviction and sentencing. Rangasyd (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Eddie Obeid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Info box

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This profiles info box was recently changed by me to a criminal one. Reasons for this include:

Current incarcerated state
Notoriety of Obeid's sentencing
Limited political involvement in 5+ years
Current web searches and name recognition for criminal activities
Quick links to charges and imprisonment at top of page
Both info boxes can be kept, the older less-relevant politician info box in 'Political career' section

Романов (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi JackofOz, Publicforum, Canley, Stalwart111, WWGB, and others. I'm not comfortable with {{Infobox criminal}} at lead in this article. It was placed there by Романов in January 2017 and there was a subsequent edit war to remove with no discussion on these pages. The fact that the infobox lists his wife and the number of children violates the purpose of the infobox in that only those people listed should relate to the crime, which in this case is misuse of public office. There is no mention in Obeid's judgement that directly implicates his wife or his family in this offence and, as a result, they should be removed from the criminal infobox. The template clearly states that Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal. Obeid's notoriety is brought about not because he was convicted of a criminal offence; it's because he is a politician who became a criminal. Following Ian Macdonald's conviction and sentencing, I've added the criminal infobox below the {{Infobox politician}}, as I believe that this creates context to his criminal conviction. I think a similar approach should be adopted with Obeid. Further, there is no set consistency re use or not and I cite the following examples: None = Burke, Thomson, Ford, Theophanous, Paluzzano, Kang Kek Iew, Issa Sesay, Radovan Karadžić; At lead: Orkopoulos; Below Jackson See this list for more Australian cases. Your thoughts, please? Rangasyd (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I have placed the politician infobox in the lead where it rightfully belongs. I have not, however, removed his wife and children from the criminal infobox as they benefited from his criminal activity. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks WWGB; I have moved his wife and children to politician infobox. Placement in the criminal inbox implies that they, too, were charged/convicted with the offence of misuse of public office. Spouse: Do not include unless notable or relevant to the crime involved. Bonnie and Clyde, yes; in this case, no. Rangasyd (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)