Talk:Jodee Rich/Archives/2014

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.

Article has a positive bias - penultimate paragraph in particular is advertorial, last paragraph is not factual/objective — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.206.63 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 17 June 2010

There appears to be a difference of opinion among editors here concerning the maintenance templates on the article. Could those who support leaving them please indicate the specific problems in the article each template refers to? If none can be identified, the templates can be removed. On the other hand, if problems exist in the article they should be listed here so that we can work on resolving them. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag, because it should only be placed when there is a dispute in progress, which is not the case here. William Avery (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi iuser: castlemate,

Two points from me. Firstly, no corporate collapse is ever "great". The collapse of One Tel in particular saw hundreds of millions of dollars lost and hundreds of jobs disappear. It was a tragedy, not great.

Secondly, the quote you are consistently inserted into this article is five years old. Surely you can agree that the modern quote, one that was written seventeen days ago, is a better reflection of how Jodee Rich is perceived today? Setting aside the question of modernity, the quote I suggest we use on this page is more reliable than the quote you have suggested for three reasons. One, it was written by a respected editor who specialises in technology, Ben Grubb. Two, is from the oldest continuously published newspaper in the country, and three, the The_Sydney_Morning_Herald is a Fairfax publication. The Fairfax papers have always been committed to independence and editorial integrity. At the time of this article, unlike the article you are agitating for, there was no fight between Jodee Rich and the owners of the newspaper.

So user: castlemate given that this article is a modern and reliable source which has not been written by Jodee Rich for "himself for an unknown World Congress", but rather by a respected editor of an independent newspaper, please allow the most recent quote to stand.

Techsearch547 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techsearch547 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

great [greyt] Show IPA adjective, great·er, great·est, adverb, noun, plural greats ( especially collectively ) great, interjection

adjective

1.

unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions: A great fire destroyed nearly half the city.

2.

large in number; numerous: Great hordes of tourists descend on Europe each summer.

3.

unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc.: great pain.

4.

wonderful; first-rate; very good: We had a great time. That's great!

5.

being such in an extreme or notable degree: great friends; a great talker.

It was indeed a great tragedy caused by Jodee Rich. You will I'm sure continue to whitewash him but no comment will ever exonerate him. Castlemate (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on wordchoice but you seem to have no objection to my suggestion that we replace the Australian quote with the more current Sydney Morning Herald quote - that's great. I genuinely believe that it is more reflective of the way Rich is perceived today and a more balanced perspective. Techsearch547 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Jodee Rich would be described by the majority of Australians as a failed businessman. This article does not reflect the general view of him. The Paul Barry book "Rich Kids" is the accepted reference of his story. It has been removed in a suspicious fashion from the copy by an editor who appears to be more interested in a white wash. This article requires balance not spin. Castlemate (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

HI Castlemate. I noticed you put a COI on this page that someone is the 'major' author of the page. I assume you mean me. I am not the major author, and this page has existed for some time. I have been updating based on Jodee Rich's current activities only. If you would like to speak further on this, I'd be delighted to hear from you at shawn at entroporium dot com. Entroporium (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the Barry book is an "accepted reference." Rich Kids was written in 2003, long before the closure of the ASIC v Rich case in 2009. Many of the allegations made in the book were proven to be completely untrue, and this is supported by the court's decision in the matter. NetGain (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made changes today with respect to Castlemate's desire to have this article demonstrate (in his own words) "balance not spin." To that end, I have neutralized the blatantly negative spin in the header while retaining ALL of the information from that paragraph and placing it in better context within the One.Tel section. This includes the results of lawsuits addressing the bonus and the Board's actions, all of which were settled confidentially and out of court; this fact was left out of earlier edits. The facts about the One.Tel bonus are taken *entirely* from the article that was previously offered as a reference link by earlier editors; I have neither added nor removed any reference links. [User:Entroporium|Entroporium]] (talk) 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Castlemate please use neutral language and don't reference Rich Kids. As NetGain writes, "Rich Kids was written in 2003, long before the closure of the ASIC v Rich case in 2009. Many of the allegations made in the book were proven to be completely untrue, and this is supported by the court's decision in the matter." You have been warned by Psychonaut against engaging in an editing war, which we resolved in October when we agreed that using recent and neutral material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techsearch547 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Rich was not at school with Murdoch. Rich was at the the school that Packer attended but they were not at school together. Adler is a convicted criminal so why not describe as one. The reference that is used says that the Rich family is of Jewish German background - why not say this if we have to have such a long paragraph about his father. Why are theses things constantly changed. The Chaser sums up the satire surrounding Rich. Rich Kids is still. on library selves and is still on the internet and says what happened. If it was libellous it would be taken down but it is still on Google books and we are quoting Google Books. Tech search is a sock puppet who edits nothing other than Jodee Rich related articles. No body has agreed on anything but it is time for this bio to be taken down as it does not in any way represent the life of Jodee Rich. It is a joke and is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Somebody should do something about it. Castlemate (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Techsearch547, I warned both of you that you were edit warring. Clearly each of you has a particular and strongly held opinion about the subject of this article. One or both of you might even have a conflict of interest. If you cannot arrive at and stick to an agreement here on the article talk page, or in some other dispute resolution venue, then I would advise both of you to voluntarily refrain from editing this and closely related articles altogether. The back-and-forth reverting you've been doing over the course of nearly a year now is disruptive. If it continues it could lead to the community imposing a topic ban or a block on one or both of you. –Psychonaut (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)