Talk:Marcus Einfeld

Unbalanced

→ See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive20#Marcus Einfeld

User:Athaenara recently tagged this article as {{unbalanced}}, which it clearly was. I've just done a major pruning, and it is now less unbalanced. It might even be balanced now; I'm too close to it to tell.

Folks, we've got a former High Court judge on trial for perjury. The other allegations are trivial by comparison. Here's a sentence I had covering two of them, moved here in case someone wants to reinstate part or all of it:

He has also been accused of claiming degrees from unaccredited U.S. universities,<ref name=PS060821/> and of a conflict of interest concerning a decision by shareholders of Australian gold mining company Diamond Rose to pay $AUD350,000 to himself and another non-executive director.<ref>{{cite news

|title=Conduct questions: gold past returns to haunt Einfeld

|last=Sheehan |first=Paul |publisher=The Sydney Morning Herald

|date=August 26, 2006 |accessdate=2007-06-25

|url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/25/1156012745852.html

}}</ref>

("PS060821" is Paul Sheehan's SMH item of 21-Aug-2006, "The Einfeld Follies: a study in ego".) I see no need to cover either of these in a Wikipedia article. If Einfeld is convicted of perjury (as I personally hope), this stuff will be completely insignificant.

Note well: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for defamation. We have articles on people a lot worse than this guy, but even they deserve fair treatment. Cheers, CWC 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still unbalanced. Someone who'd never heard of Marcus Einfeld before (and we should ALWAYS be writing for the assumed uninformed reader) would conclude from the lede that his main claim to notability it that he was a judge who went to jail, but was otherwise a bit of a non-entity. I carry no brief for Einfeld whatsoever in regard to his perjury etc, but if this incident had never happened, the article would be highly laudatory for all of his good work with indigenous people, speaking out (as a Jew) against Israel's hard-line policies, being a National Living Treasure, often being spoken of as a future Governor-General, and a range of other things. It's very understandable why the focus has now shone on his imprisonment, but that still doesn't mean that the stuff he did before this has suddenly not happened. It's fair enough to go into those details in the body of the article, but they also definitely need some mention in the lede. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually if these incidents had never happened there may not even have been an article on Einfeld. The article only started in August 2006 after the story in the Daily Telegraph that initiated the whole saga in public. The article would otherwise be highly laudatory you say. I question whether it would even have existed at all. Ajayvius (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that it is his main claim to notability. He was a judge who acted to pervert the law. It renders all his previous actions suspect at best, in retrospect there is no expectation that his prior actions were performed with integrity. I've heard Ivan Milat was nice to his dog, none the less the lede there doesn't mention it. Greglocock (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's no argument at all, with respect. One may suspect all one likes, but all we know for sure is that he went off the rails - badly, very badly, I hasten to add - in relation to this one episode. There have been suggestions that there was a pattern of behaviour about speeding, but that's all rumour. Even if that were proven true, it's still confined to this one area of his life as far as anyone knows. If his perjury/imprisonment is, as you say, "his main claim to notability", then what business did we have in having a WP article before this? Of course he was notable before, those reasons still exist, and his good works have not been undone. He was very highly regarded and respected by huge numbers of people, to the point that he was often seen as a future G-G. If, I don't know, say Bob Hawke did what Einfeld did, and also failed to get away with it, do you think that his article would be whitewashed to remove from the lede any mention of the fact that he was head of the ACTU or Australia's 3rd longest serving Prime Minister? I hardly think so. Einfeld is not just some otherwise nondescript judge who went to jail. His imprisonment is a tragic end to a brilliant career. We can't talk about the end without saying what it was the end of. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it no argument at all? because you say so? Either way, shrugs, the only reason I know of him is because he acted as a scumbag. Perhaps he used to be a good bloke, that's interesting background, but not lede material. I haven't looked, perhaps Nixon's article provides a relevant way of balancing notoriety vs previous competence.Greglocock (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your own words reveal why you can't be objective and NPOV about him. You never even heard of him before he got into trouble, so naturally what you know of him is that he's some judge you'd never heard of before who got into trouble. That puts a strong bias on the reasons for his imprisonment, and removes all semblance of balance and objectivity. He had a highly, highly notable career for about 40 years before this latest self-imposed nastiness. You don't get to be a National Living Treasure by being a nobody. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that makes me " Someone who'd never heard of Marcus Einfeld before (and we should ALWAYS be writing for the assumed uninformed reader) " to use your phrase. And don't get me started started on National Living Mutual Brown Nosers. I repeat "Why is it no argument at all?" Greglocock (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. You stress that "it is his main claim to notability", and I obviously strongly disagree with that. I've already gone into why this is far from his main claim to notability. It may be the thing that sticks in people's minds from now on, but that's not the same thing as saying (in effect) it's the only thing he ever did. To say that this "renders all his previous actions suspect at best" is one person's (your's) opinion, and therefore POV. It may happen to be an opinion shared by other people; or it may not. But either way, it's irrelevant to his WP article because we're not here to provide our own personal slants on our subjects, but to give unbiased, balanced, factual and citable information about them and their reasons for notability. His driving/perjury conviction is the most recent reason why he's in the public spotlight, and it will obviously be something that will be associated with him till the day he dies (just as Richard Nixon's lying and resignation are what we generally think of when we hear his name). But it's only the most recent of a number of reasons why he's notable, going back over a very long time, and a balanced selection of those reasons deserve some greater mention in the lede than they're currently getting. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Einfeld was a very prominent figure prior to his recent legal wrangles, and arguably one of the most notable Federal Court judges who wasn't later appointed to the High Court. I don't think that much, at least, is disputable - had the driving and perjury convictions not happened, I have no doubt that he would have a fairly laudatory article right now. The conviction fundamentally changes the tenor of this article, however - it's rare to see a reference to Einfeld now in any context that isn't prefaced with "disgraced".

This said, the article as it stands is crap. The lead is disorganised and outright wrong in places (a judge who retired in 2001 does not have his legal career end in 2009), there's a meandering "controversies" section in the middle of nowhere, and it needs quite a bit more about the vast majority of his career. Anyone up for doing a bit of work here? Rebecca (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So if his legal career ended in 2001 how come he is still on the NSW list of lawyers? Just askin. BTW The Australian's legal section has a good few examples of prior conduct on his part that looks dubious at best - claiming twice for the overcoat (hence resignation), massive subsidy for his organisation, etc. You really want to open that can o worms? Greglocock (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of cans of worms. If there's information about him, positive or negative, that can be cited, it's fair game to add it in, as long as it's not just some journo's personal witchhunt where he's making claims that can't be substantiated. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Australians, nobly coming to the aid of their countrymen. 137.73.127.41 (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I'd be making the same points if he were Vietnamese, Iceland or Peruvian. It's all about eliminating NPOV and having a balanced article. Anyway, I've already restored some of the balance to the lede. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleansing or balancing?

Einfeld is not a former High Court Judge, he was a justice of the Federal Court. The controversies which have arisen following his traffic offences are very relevant to his place in Australian judicial history. They also explain why he has received so much media attention. To "cleanse" these controversies is really not excusable, as they reveal a very interesting case. The fact of the controversies is really beyond doubt, the merit of the allegations is what is open to question, but so long as the controversies are stated as such, then what is wrong? Its not defamatory to record the truth, but it does not serve the interets of truth to "cleanse" the truth from articles. Who is to be the judge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrymemate (talk • contribs) 05:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

The perjury incident is more than just a controversy. In fact, there's nothing really controversial about it (everyone agrees he his guilty). Maybe the Perjury incident should be moved out of the Controversy section, and made a top-level heading.--Lester 23:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks WWGB for elevating the heading.--Lester 01:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No longer a National Living Treasure?

It seems that Einfeld's name has been removed from the list of National Living Treasures [1]. I don't recall seeing any media concerning this. Does anyone else? If his "status" was revoked, it may warrant mention in the article. WWGB (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He has been removed. I received a private communication from the National Trust confirming same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.16.4 (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems he's no longer an Officer of the Order of Australia, either. see http://www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf/B3CB7C0B1D916596CA2575A20025E85D/$file/S%2069.pdf 203.113.232.178 (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Demerit points

I've put brackets around the following sentence:

• A conviction or simply paying the original fine would have left Einfeld with only one demerit point on his driver's licence.

It seems almost to be condoning or excusing his actions. It is factual information, but I question its relevance. I think I'd rather see it gone completely. We don't want to be seen as sympathetic to his situation by seeking to understand what drove him to break the law. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that goes to motive. We take the right to drive for granted, yet when we are threatened with the loss of that privilege, who knows what thought processes are involved? It certainly appears that there was a calculated endeavour to use the "nominated driver" provision to avoid any consequence. WWGB (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. There's no doubt that he lied about Theresa Brennan, because he was known to have sent condolences to her family when she was killed. But whatever his motive may have been, that's really irrelevant to the fact that he lied under oath. That fact is all that's important for our readers to know. There is no extenuating circumstance, particularly for a judge. Leaving the sentence in might lead some to think "Gee, I might have concocted a similar story if I were in the same situation", and thus lend some nuance of condonement. We should remain absolutely neutral and stick to the facts, but only those that are known to be relevant to what led to his fall from grace. We can't say for sure he acted as he did because he would otherwise have come within a whisker of losing his licence, or even imply that. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. According to the court transcript [2], "Einfeld denied having any exact knowledge of being at 11 demerit points on his driver’s licence, if convicted of the speeding offence". Yet the Crown presented this as significant evidence (see paragraphs 70, 81, 82 and 113 of the transcript). I lean towards leaving it in the article for now, as a "possible" motive. WWGB (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, but if we leave it in, I think we should say more about it than just the bald statement. Maybe something along the lines of "The prosecution suggested the reason he lied under oath was that, had he lost the demerit points for the speeding offence, he would have been close to losing his licence. However, Einfeld denied he was aware his points were so low.". -- JackofOz (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly OK to me! WWGB (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've inserted that sentence, in a more appropriate place in the text. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

gaol

does anyone know in which gaol Marcus is held. pls adivise kemnitz@hermes.net.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.49.84 (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Einfeld is held in the protected area at Long Bay. [3] Planning a visit? WWGB (talk)

Israel

The WP:LEDE (which is intended so summarise the article) says he's notable as a spokesperson both for and against Israel and Jewish causes. While there's some explaination in the rest of the article about his support for Israel and Jewish causes there's nothing on his opposition. I see JackOfOz who added the section [4] mentions his opposition to Israel's hardline policies, it would be helpful if more on this is added to the article Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing and I am very surprised that after so long no one has added more information on the subject. I have added a {{citation needed span}}. --William Case Morris (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Findings of the Court of Appeal

I've added a new section called "Removal from the Roll" dealing with the findings of the Court of Appeal in Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Einfeld [2009] NSWCA 255, being the proceedings in which the NSW Bar Association sought to have him struck off.

Originally I added this as text to the Criminal Conviction section but on reflection even though the proceeding does discuss his convictions (among other things) they aren't criminal proceedings but disciplinary ones. I believe this case is important as the Court examined not only the 2006 matters on which he had been convicted but the allegations that they had merely been the most recent in a series of false statutory declarations he had produced since 1999 to avoid traffic infringements. The Court also made findings as to his state of mind. Armourhistorian (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)