Talk:Rick Ardon

Business Interests

Over the past couple months there have been repeated attempts to remove the section on business interests. User:Yokibol has said in the edit summaries that the published report was unfactual. What is unfactual?

• Rick Ardon's wife owns a bed a breakfast.
• The bed and breakfast was featured on The Great Outdoors.
• MediaWatch did a report about on the TGO segment.
• Seven replied saying the TGO segment wasn't a plug

All of the above facts have been cited. So what exactly is the problem? Are any of the above facts disputed? --Tntnnbltn 13:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe what Yokibol is saying is that Rick Ardon's wife owns a business, but Wikipedia says Rick Ardon owns it (not substantiated anywhere). Additionally, if you check the full Mediawatch webpage, you will find the Channel 7 response says: "It is not a family business. It is owned and operated by Rick Ardon's wife, leased under commercial business arrangement."

This is backed up on the business website www.bedandbreakfastperth.com.au/Location.html identifying the hosts as "Erin and Jan". Can you advise other Wikipedia editors of this?

Best of British,

Zorrox 14:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded so it doesn't imply Rick Ardon owns it. Even if the Mediawatch report was infactual, this article isn't saying the report was true. It is just saying that there was a report about it. Hopefully this will resolve any issues. --Tntnnbltn 14:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope this is OK Tntnnbltn. Just a minor change that doesn't disclose home address of a TV presenter. Northriver 06:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. If it mentioned the specific street they lived at, then I would agree. But as it stands, it's just saying the suburb they live in. Considering that they publish their address themselves on their website, and the suburb is mentioned in newspaper articles, I don't really think it presents a problem... --Tntnnbltn 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Tntnnbltn that the Wikipedia article doesn't mention a street address, but unfortunately the "References" right below it does, which is virtually the same thing. Again, I believe there is factual error in saying "operating from their home." It is acknowledged it is "owned and operated by Ardon's wife...under commercial business arrangement." It is also without dispute (ref. City of Stirling, www.bedandbreakfastperth.com/Location.html) that it is not operated from "their home", but from an adjoining building by "your hosts Erin and Jan." Further, Wikipedia guidelines state: "material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." By definition, "operating from the couple's home" is unsourced (or poorly sourced), particularly when the official website says your hosts are "Erin and Jan". Even if you don't agree, editing the above doesn't detract from the article. Best wishes Zorrox 13:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from the associated references. (They aren't available online, and it would violate copyright to paste the whole thing so these are only related bits)

Last month, the City of Stirling approved an application from Rick's wife Erin for short-term home-stay accommodation at the Scarborough Beach property.

— Robert Taylor, "News in Brief", The West Australian

"And the rooms we're talking about are another section (of the house) at the back and totally separate from the house, so people won't be traipsing through the place or anything like that," the Logie-award winning newsreader said.

— Gary Adshead, "Fancy a boudoir at Rick's place?", The West Australian

I've changed the text to "operated from the couple's Scarborough property in Perth, Western Australia." Is that better? --Tntnnbltn 17:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Won't touch your article edit; hope you don't mind small adjustment of your reasoning above for brevity because it's all getting a bit boring to read through.Zorrox 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've only just caught everything that's been going on with this article, and it seems there one specific user who's been making a right mess of things. Cheers to those of you who came into talk and discussed the matter, and Jeers to that user who ignored talk and went off on their own little agenda. I've placed this article on watch and also a 3RR violation has been reported. thewinchester 04:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean me? Apologies if so, I didn't know the format previously for edits. Just concerned about accuracy, that's all.Yokibol 05:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wherever do you get this idea of accuracy from? The factual accuracy of the issue has already been discussed at length in the article's talk page thus causing the issue to be dead and requiring no further response. If you have concerns about accuracy, instead of running off and doing your own thing as a new user - take the time to explore and understand and you're more than likely to be a better contributor for it. thewinchester 12:31, 31 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 03:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)