Wikipedia

Talk:Geoffrey Edelsten/Archive 3

< Talk:Geoffrey Edelsten
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Sockpuppet finding

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)

Pink helicopter

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

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)
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?

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

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)
Michelle, that's just not helpful. I think WWGB's responses above basically hit the nail on the head - there's room to move on some of Edelsten's concerns, and less room on others. Repeatedly refusing to engage in Gepa because he is a self-declared agent of the article subjet accomplishes nothing but breed ill-will. I endorse WWGB's comments, except on the third point - if Evans did attempt to extort Edelstren, I think it's quite reasonable to include that in the article (I don't think the 3 1/2 year prison sentence should be included unless it was somehow connected with Edelsten). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with general thrust of above (i.e. we have to go by reliable sources and some points above can't be addressed really, but some can if they are uncontroversial and can be done by reliable sources). I've already fixed the hiring vs soliciting one, I think somebody else fixed the Flannery one. There'll likely be others. Orderinchaos 15:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Married Again?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hasn't Edelstein actually got re-married? In the last few days?.
Update People, sorry EDITORS!
Or are we afraid of being accused of being defamatory?--203.63.130.37 (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

yes he has. feel free to update the article. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good article

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone think this article is approaching good article status? LibStar (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Formal request for article removal or permanent lock

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Geoffrey Edelsten formally requests Wikipedia’s article about him to be removed.

Failing the articles removal Geoffrey Edelsten formally requests that the lock on this page be re-issued on a permanent basis.

Following the recent behaviour of what appears to be a single individual going by the names and IP addresses listed below making what has been called “vandalism” edits by another Wikipedia Editor.

  • Brynne Edelsten
  • 203.45.20.75
  • 124.171.218.204
  • Monomoy Island
  • 124.171.174.88
  • Billingsgate Island
  • 124.171.207.117

The Victorian Police have been notified about the impersonation, false, untrue, defamatory, and malicious actions and baseless remarks of this user.

iiNet has been requested to provide the users details to facilitate civil action. The Victorian Police are also requesting this information to establish a case for criminal prosecution.

Wikipedia’s article on Geoffrey Edelsten is a collective of information that is only found through internet sources. Most information regarding Geoffrey Edelsten is not found on the internet. The onus should not be on Geoffrey Edelsten to prove Wikipedia wrong/inaccurate/miss-leading but Wikipedia to either not exist in this BLP case or to be very exact when it comes to BLP by working with the subject. In terms of other fallacies and hearsay, -articles by newspapers and websites have their own agenda, this is usually to make a profit, in Geoffrey Edelsten’s case that profit comes at his expense; Geoffrey Edelsten’s name sells papers with sensational and ridiculous claims. Defending his name on Wikipedia comes at huge expense. It is expensive on time, and money, particularly with research and development, it detracts him from providing health care to those in need and working with his charities.

The onus and expense should be on Wikipedia and not on Geoffrey Edelsten.

There should be an opt-out clause for Wikipedia.

Geoffrey Edelsten continues to spend money on www.geoffreyedelsten.com in response to Wikipedia’s poor article about him. Wikipedia does not reference the site www.geoffreyedelsten.com and Wikipedia does not pay. Through donations, Wikipedia attempts to use the article as a source of revenue and indeed causes the subject of the article significant and on going cost. Geoffrey Edelsten requests that the article be discontinued and removed, or at the very least, permanently locked. --Gepa (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

please request locking at WP:RFP. however, your conflict of interest is very clear on this one. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Death edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have looked in the Sydney Morning herald and checked the abc and News ltd. websites. There is nothing there about any death. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

obviously a hoax. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Due to the recent undoing of edits, I have filed a request for those at the neutral point of view noticeboard to have a look at the edits that I did. I can now understand that there are some who feel that I may have a motive to make the edits. My motive is simply to have an article that is written from a neutral point of view. The request can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Neutral_Point_of_View_Review_of_article_Geoffrey_Edelsten --NikoVee (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

New Section Proposal - Illness and recovery

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OK. I will try to do these edits more slowly and allow consensus to work on the talk page. Prior to having a discussion about any of the other sections that are already in the article, I would like to add NEW content. The first section would be for "Illness and recovery" and would be as follows:

Illness and recovery

In 1991, Edelsten was diagnosed with a brain tumor which was considered inoperable. After receiving diagnosis, he enrolled in numerous universities where he earned a Doctorate in Health Care, as well as Master Degrees in Law, Business Administration, Sports Medicine, Occupational Medicin, Science, Family Medicine and Health Care Management.[8] He was referred to He was referred to Professor Vinko Dolenc in Virginia (USA) who visited Sydney in 1995 to lecture doctors on new ways to remove Cavernous Sinus Schwannoma which Geoffrey suffered. Dolenc agreed to come to Melbourne and successfully performed the surgery.[9] --NikoVee (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

While it is factually correct, I don't think the illness and recovery are matters of substance. They are certainly referenced in both sources but not the main topic. The Good Weekend article makes much more say of how he transformed suburban medicine and his flamboyant lifestyle. In the second article, more is made of the recent court case. We don't have that court case in this article and nor do I think we should. Similarly I don't think we should mention the illness. A mention of the illness would in my view be only encyclopaedic if it was exceptional that he recovered rather than fortunate. I think it is great he recovered but I don't think it is a defining characteristic of the subject and thus it is not encyclopaedic. --Matilda talk 06:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

New Section Proposal - Charity / Philanthropy

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Propose adding this new section:

Philanthropy

Edelsten has been involved in charity for the past 30 years, donating considerable funds to numerous charities including the Rostrum Australia, Mt. Scopus Memorial College, the Autistic Children's Association, the Australian Sports Foundation and many junior sporting groups. Additional charities include My Room - RCH Child Cancer Centre, Fight Cancer Foundation, Chabad of Melbourne and American Women's Auxiliary to the RCH.[10]

His philanthropic efforts have amounted to almost $2 million between 2009 and 2012 alone. His wedding to his current wife Brynne Gordon in 2009 was for charity. Both also formed the charity Great Expectations Limited together.[11] --NikoVee (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the struck material is not mentioned in the reference, and is therefore inadmissable:
Edelsten has been involved in charity for the past 30 years, donating considerable funds to numerous charities including the Rostrum Australia, Mt. Scopus Memorial College, the Autistic Children's Association, the Australian Sports Foundation and many junior sporting groups. Additional charities include My Room - RCH Child Cancer Centre, Fight Cancer Foundation, Chabad of Melbourne and American Women's Auxiliary to the RCH.[12]
His philanthropic efforts have amounted to almost $2 million between 2009 and 2012 alone. His wedding to his current wife Brynne Gordon in 2009 was for charity. Both also formed the charity Great Expectations Limited together.[13] WWGB (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I concur with WWGB that material not mentioned in the reference should not be included in the article. Rather than suggesting that the wedding was for charity (I assume it was about getting married), I suggest mention could be made that guests were encouraged to give to charity. Not sure though that this is a really significant fact.
The ABN registration for "Great Expectations" is quite clear that it does not have tax deductible gift status http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=63093544588 ie it is not considered a charity. --Matilda talk 21:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
in addition The Great Expectations Foundation also does not have tax deductible gift status http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=43138774035 but the trustee for the foundation does http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=19664070732 . The Foundation is presumably that mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald article about the wedding and charity donations. The Foundation is a Public ancillary fund. --Matilda talk 21:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In the news again

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/edelsten-loses-control-of-company-20130831-2sxpe.html --121.214.107.35 (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality and copy editing

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It looks like this article is in need of some careful editing. I'm going to spend some time trying to improve neutrality, with a focus on WP:UNDUE and WP:IRS. As is, I'm not sure this article is as reliable as it should be. I'll log my progress here on the talk page. Ballerina battlearena (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that there has been a lot of contentious editing of this article. From your edit history, you appear to be a relatively inexperienced editor. By all means, please add referenced material that you believe adds balance. If you remove any content that is well-referenced, you are likely to encounter hostility. WWGB (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Just read somewhere that he is currently bankrupt but has access to unlimited funds through 'mummy'. Not sure whether to believe that but if that is so, then it should be included and maybe his parents ought to be mentioned, like in most other articles of individuals. Over the years it certainly looked bizarre how he was fighting the authorities in Australia and in the US (presumably costing large amounts of money for attorneys) and still lead a life of luxury and no worries. Just an idea, the picture is so far incomplete. 121.209.56.83 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Geoffrey Edelsten. 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) 11:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Geoffrey Edelsten. 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) 01:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geoffrey_Edelsten/Archive_3&oldid=1028148429"