Jump to content

Talk:David Eastman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changed "attorney" to "legal team"

[edit]

Australia doesn't have such a thing as an "attorney", it has a barrister or a solicitor. Inksmithy (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Colin Winchester

[edit]

Thincat (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No debate has taken place, and no reason has been given, for converting the article on D.E to a redirect. I believe that, at the very least, some reason should be given to link this action to Wikipedia guidelines. I have restored the article. Dolphin (t) 06:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastman is clearly notable in his own right (per WP:BIO), so there's no reason to merge the articles Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gave reasons at Talk:Colin Winchester#Merge from David Eastman where I thought it would be more visible. However, I was naïve in thinking the reasons were obvious. So far as I can see only the first sentence of the article says anything about him other than in relation to the murder. WP:CRIME says we should not normally have a separate article if there is somewhere else the matter can be handled. The later considerations in the guideline only apply when there are "no appropriate existing articles". In this case there was (and is) an appropriate article. Are you rejecting this guideline or do you think it doesn't apply here? Thincat (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eastman's life - including incidents not directly related to Winchester - has been the subject of a huge amount of coverage in the Canberra Times (amongst many other media outlets). So he's notable in his own right per WP:BIO. Eastman obviously meets either criterion 1 in the 'For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime' section or criterion 2 of the 'For perpetrators' section of WP:CRIME. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From looking in the NLA's excellent Trove database, Eastman had been the subject of quite a few news stories before the Winchester murder [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. In the decades since the murder he has been the subject of very detailed biographical articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. It's rather urgent then that we develop a "real" biography. I'm willing to help out. As it stands I think the article is not acceptable for BLP considerations. And if the conviction is quashed, etc., that will put a whole new light on things! I'd never heard of him until someone asked a question at a WP reference desk (I'm on the wrong side of the world). Generally I'm happy that, even if someone would not have been notable except for a particular event, if a balanced article can be sourced then that is OK. Thincat (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eastman is one of Australia's best known criminals (pending the final decision on his case for the suitability of this term), and is currently convicted of the murder of the most senior Australian public figure to have ever been assassinated. The court case against him (which was largely circumstantial) rested heavily on his behaviour in the decade or so before the murder, meaning that his whole life has been the subject of in-depth coverage. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking a question, not making a high handed statement. I now know you think the guideline doesn't apply here. If there is appropriate biographical material then I agree with you. However, as it stood the article was very seriously unbalanced. I am trying to improve the article and I hope other people can help. My state of ignorance is a hindrance although at least it means I have no pre-conceived ideas. Thincat (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do think that the guideline applies (which is why Eastman is notable), and have explained why above. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Australian newspapers seem to be archived on the web excellently well. I also came across this before when I was editing an article about events in Australia back in the 1940s. Thincat (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to include that he had a paranoid personality disorder and thought the police were spying on him and his solicitors. It now turns out that they had indeed installed bugs and were listening in transcribing such conversations. The inquiry considered that some of this was improper and also that the situation should have been disclosed to the defence. (pp 400-430 or so in Inquiry report) Thincat (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked advice at WP:BLPN#David Eastman. Thincat (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the main issue which arose at the recent inquiry is that some of the forensic evidence presented at Eastman's original murder trial was found to be seriously flawed. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Also the "nagging doubt" seems to come from the possibility it might have been a mafia killing.[5][6] The Inquiry seems to suggest the intense police surveillance may have exacerbated his paranoid personality disorder and rage so leading him to keep dismissing his lawyers and leading to his case being badly defended. On this last point, although it seems to be in the Inquiry report, I haven't found it mentioned in the press. Thincat (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Some of it was covered in the press here and probably other places during the time of the inquiry. Maybe it's worth a mention or we can wait for new sources at this point.
  2. With everything that's happened, do not add anything suggesting he has a specific proven personality disorder. It could be considered libellous if the ultimate source we have for the claim is the prosecutor's psychologist witness who didn't examine the BLP subject directly, and it occurred in a trial now ruled to be unfair in prosecution. I'm not saying he couldn't have a disorder, and I think he has admitted to different mental challenges, but caution is needed with anything sourced to the prosecution.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposed: Suggest that Colin Winchester be moved to the Murder of Colin Winchester. Use of {{infobox event}} is proposed. @Thincat: @Elaqueate: @Nick-D: @Dolphin51: OK. Some four years have passed and much water flowed under the Commonwealth Bridge, so to speak. And still there is no clear resolution about whether the merger and redirect was too hasty, or appropriate. The focus above on Eastman, while interesting, is missing the point. I believe that Winchester would not have been notable, had he not been murdered. Eastman would not have been notable had he not been linked to the murder. Hence, what makes them both notable is the Murder of Colin Winchester. An article styled this way will enable editors to cover the biography of both Winchester and Eastman and also address the alleged 'Ndrangheta connection and the series of enquiries, etc. I am against an article solely focused on Eastman as, to date, his conviction has been quashed. And so what if he had some minor footnote in history before Winchester's murder? That history alone is insignificant and does not warrant an article on Eastman. Whilst there are further legal proceedings in train, and if it is determined that Eastman is to face a retrial, and if he is found not guilty, then care needs to be care taken regarding any potential WP:LIBEL. It is for these reasons that I propose a compromise. Your thoughts are valued. A good example to look at is the Murder of Michael McGurk‎. McGurk was not notable until his murder happened. Medich had some minor notoriety, but not enough to merit an article until he was found guilty of orchestrating the murder. I divulge that I played a major role in editing these two articles. As to the Canberra Times over-zealous reporting (my words), Canberra is a small town and this is big news. The story sells papers. Finally, there is a potentially libellous comment above that "Eastman is one of Australia's best known criminals..." With his conviction quashed, this comment probably needs attention. Rangasyd (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I'd forgotten all about this case. Yes, I think your suggestion is a good one although the improved Eastman article is a lot better than it was when I converted it into a redirect. By the way, there was at Colin Winchester a "Removal by Eastman legal team of material prejudicial to retrial" (diff) that was immediately reverted. The retrial is now (maybe!) starting on 4 June 2018[7] so I guess that will produce a burst of editing. Thincat (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Colin Winchester is likely to be notable in isolation - he was the commander of the ACT's police force. An article on the murder would be justified though. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat: I agree. The Eastman article is now much better than it used to be. I thought it may be timely to restructure now, in advance of the retrial where there is likely to be more edits. I don't feel strongly either way and I'm happy to sit out until the outcome of the trial is clear. We either do it now, or wait. Thoughts? Rangasyd (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: True, Winchester was ACT chief plod. Not all other ACT chief plods have aticles, of the 21 appointed only Fagan (took her own life), Palmer (went onto AFP chief), Phelan, and Quaedvlieg (went onto other things!), plus Winchester have articles. Of those, only Phelan was generally not notable other than being ACT chief plod. So, in short, while I acknowlefge your point, the numbers are against you re the creation of articles on Wikipedia based solely on holding the office of ACT chief plod. Thoughts? Rangasyd (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should be viable on all the others. The Canberra Times usually provides an in-depth biography of them at the start of their term and an article on their record when they move on, and it's quite common for the ACT chief police officers to then hold other prominent roles in the AFP or other police forces. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for getting this article into better shape. I have been able to recover a dead link. I have added that Eastman was released from prison in 2014 and I suppose he is still free. When I converted this article to a redirect in 2014 I copied the content into the Colin Winchester article but when my edit here was reverted the material was left in Winchester's article. So, I think there is excessive information at Colin Winchester about the trial and subsequent events. Thincat (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on David Eastman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Eastman. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Eastman. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Relevance of Louise Taylor information?

[edit]

Given the article is about David Eastman, why is this information about Louise Taylor included? She doesn't appear anywhere else in the article.

"Louise Taylor, later the first Indigenous Australian jurist in the ACT and the first Aboriginal woman to be appointed as a Supreme Court judge in Australia, worked on the inquiry." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.80.201.106 (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Eastman&oldid=1205499837"