Jump to content

Talk:Steve Vizard

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


Untitled

[edit]

Way too much info on insider trading. Dankru 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's trying to be as concise as can get the facts straight. The problem is how little there is of the rest (15 years of TV and 10 years of business in just 3 paras). -- Kevin Ryde 22:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure

[edit]

I think the current structure is bad: everything not related to TV or "insider trading" is jammed into the intro, which doesn't even mention his current legal difficulties.

On the TV section, I don't think we need a list of everyone Vizard sent up.--Jack Upland 21:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal and protection

[edit]

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 11:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also protected the page. Please work out a neutral wording here - then I will unprotect.--Docg 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a fellow OTRS volunteer, I have reviewed the ticket, and found the emergency action (protection and removal of content) to be appropriate, and the correct action in such a situation. Daniel 11:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have performed a significant re-write of the section in dispute, and will be notifying Doc glasgow off-wiki of the location of these changes to ensure that the issues raised in the OTRS ticket have been appropriately dealt with. Thewinchester (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have been advised by an OTRS vol that the re-write satisfies the issues raised in the ticket. Changes have now been brought into the article, and the article remains on semi-protection for a period to ensure such issues don't rear their heads again. Thewinchester (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this article been completely sanitised? It now reads like a PR brochure for Vizard.

The findings of the Victorian County Court judge, for instance, as to Vizard's character and veracity are completely relevant and should be re-inserted.

Why the lengthy and detailed qualification in relation to Vizard's fraudulent activities concerning trades by his associated companies, and references to his accountant? The Federal Court judge made it very clear that Vizard's culpability for his frauds was complete and severe.

For the Anon IP user who made the above comment: The article in a previous form was the subject of an WP:OTRS ticket. I am not privy to the ticket, nor are OTRS volunteers in a position to disclose such information beyond what has already been said above by Doc glasgow. Based on his comments, you could reasonably infer that the content of the article at the time said ticket was received did not comply with Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons. As a consequence, the offending content was removed from the article, and after a notification was placed on the Australian Wikipedian's Notice Board, I took up the challenge to present the information in question in a manner that complied with WP:BLP, which was accepted and the content was OK'd for insertion. This rewrite took a significant amount of time to compose, as I was reading through large quantities of news reports, court transcripts, media releases, etc to put it together in an appropriate manner. The purpose of BLP serves to give a full and accurate account of any information within an article that is both fair and accurate, and is written from a neutral point of view. If you feel that there is some additional relevant information that could be inserted into the article, you are welcome to include such content as long as you do so in a manner which complies with the relevant policies. If you don't feel like including it, please leave the details of the information in question on my talk page (please include links to the case transcripts, section information, basically details which will point me straight to the right location) and I'll happy look into it. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via my talk page. Cheers, Thewinchester (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the verbose explanation? Vizard was found guilty of fraud, in a court of law - the Federal Court of Australia, no less! Why the fixation in the article that they weren't "criminal" proceedings? Fraud is fraud, and he was guilty, by his own admission and the Court imposed a very substantial penalty upon him. Isn't this what should be emphasised?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.49.243 (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage

[edit]

This article certainly needs some reliable sources. Here's a few things I've found via Google:

I'll add any more I find to this list. --Michael Billington (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much sums it up. He's a devious and duplicitous fraudster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.107.47 (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudulent Behaviour

[edit]

This needs a substantial re-write to more accurately reflect the Federal Court's findings as to the fraudulent nature of Vizards business conduct, and the severity of his admitted breaches of the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.74.30 (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

I see that User:Daniel semi-protected the article in June 14 until December 14, 2007. This seems a bit excessive and I was wondering if there's a reason protection cannot now be removed. —Moondyne 14:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because it arose out of an WP:OTRS issued it might be best asking him or another OTRS volunteer. I'm going to hazard a guess that gathering by the hoops I had to jump thru with the re-write arising from the ticket, that there was some issues of reasonable seriousness raised in the ticket which may have warranted such a long protection. Thewinchester (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel is on a break. I've read the OTRS ticket (#2007061210003192) in which the main issue is undue weight given to one section of the article. IMO that section still has far too much detail and should be summarised (more). But as far as the protection goes, I just can't see a need for it to stay, unless I'm missing something. —Moondyne 03:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know you were an OTRS vol, my bad. I wasn't privy to the ticket, only actioned the re-write after Doc Glasgow brought it to the attention of AWNB. As for further summary, IMHO it would need to be done with caution to ensure that a fair, pov-free and accurate picture of events surrounding the issue was still provided. I worked at the edit for something in the order of three hours including all the court transcripts, pr from the various federal agencies, and limited news sources, just to come up with what is there now. Thewinchester (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection now removed. Please let me know if excessive vandalism starts up again. —Moondyne 06:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

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 04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Pled' - a typo?

[edit]

The article at present says: "The criminal charges brought against Hillard were later pled out in 2005, when Hillard pled guilty to 14 counts of false accounting ..." I haven't changed it because I don't have specific legal knowledge, and 'pled' might be a legal word. If 'pled' is legalese, ignore this. However, I have never heard this word and wonder if the writer means 'pleaded', which is certainly a word used in law. Alpheus (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vizardquits.jpg

[edit]

Image:Vizardquits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Robertson

[edit]

Vizard on at least one occasion impersonated Geoffrey Robertson strutting around with exaggerated posturing, an impersonation gleaned from Robertson's behaviour during his "Hypothetical" series. I will include it in his list of impersonations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.154.214 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long list of interview subjects

[edit]

I believe that the long list/s in this article of people Steve Vizard interviewed on 'Tonight Live with Steve Vizard' is not necessary. A simple sentence or two would suffice, backed up by the references which can be read if desired. It is just overkill in my opinion. Wondering what others think?

I have also started a discussion on this subject on the talk page of the person who added this long list: User talk:Johnnyspottiswood Melbourne3163 (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article generally suffers from too much trivial details and this is the worst. Talks show have famous people on to talk. These details should be in the article on that show (if at all). Ashmoo (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree also and removed. This article has been touched up by numerous WP:SPAs for years and it shows. Moondyne (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steve Vizard. 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) 04:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Steve Vizard. 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) 16:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hayes

[edit]

I have removed this:

Hilliard was represented by controversial barrister Peter Hayes QC who made the allegations against Vizard reported in the media.[1] It was alleged that Hayes was using drugs and Hayes subsequently died of a cocaine and heroin overdose after being visited in his hotel room by a woman convicted of prostitution.[2][3]

This seems purely designed to discredit the case against Vizard. I can't see anything in the first reference to suggest what Hayes did was controversial or abnormal. The media reported the trial, which is normal. There is no suggestion that Hayes' death of a drug overdose in 2007 had any connection to the trial in 2005, and it is nonsense to say the woman was "convicted of prostitution" as no such crime has ever existed in Australia - and no source supplied says that. One of them says she was reported to be a prostitute, and that's it. This is just a smear against Hayes, and since none of the other lawyers are mentioned in the article, I don't see why he should be.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This describes his performance in the case as brilliant.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ His master's voice invoked, as Hilliard pleads guilty, 27 July 2005
  2. ^ "Charges over QC's collapse". The Age. 2007-05-15. Retrieved 2017-04-11.
  3. ^ "'Prostitute' faces charges over QC's collapse in hotel". The Age. 2007-05-15. Retrieved 2017-04-11.
[edit]

I agree with the previous comments about the bias towards Vizard in legal issues. There is an overemphasis on the fact that the proceedings against Vizard were "civil", not "criminal". There are two lengthy quotations from Lucy saying there was no criminal case against Vizard, one of which is set out from the text. This distinction means very little to most readers. To make matters worse, a civil penalty is a hybrid invention which is partly criminal and partly civil. The article seems to assume that all the readers around the world have an understanding of the Australian Corporations Act. It is misleading to say that the action against Vizard was "civil", in that it was a public prosecution (rather than litigation from a private party) and in that it resulted in penalties (rather than damages). Moreover, Justice Finkelstein in his judgment accused Vizard of "dishonesty" (a criminal element), repeatedly used the term "white collar crime", and emphasised the seriousness of the offence. Furthermore, the article says that Finkelstein "disregarded" the deal made between ASIC and Vizard, implying the judgment was unfair. In addition, the article repeatedly says there were three legal proceedings. The third proceeding was the ASIC investigation into insider trading, which didn't result in a trial. Is that a legal proceeding? Then there was the "civil proceeding" which resulted in his penalties. Is that part of the third proceeding, or is it an unrecognised fourth proceeding? I think this is confusing. All the legal proceedings are related. They are confusing, but numbering them doesn't make them less confusing.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Member of the Order of Australia (AM)

[edit]

Considering that Mr Vizard "voluntarily handed back his membership of the Order of Australia", why are the AM post-nominals still appearing after his name in this article? Safenoe (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safenoe You can remove the AM from the first sentence of the Lead, as Vizard's renouncing of his membership is referenced in the article. David notMD (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - edit made. Safenoe (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Vizard&oldid=1205947393"