Talk:Noel Desmond Gray

Things about Noel Gray that x does not want you to know
Historically x has tried to influence the readers of Telectronics' entry to Wikipedia by saying the information about Noel Gray contained in the published book 'Telectronics the Early Years' is not true.

This is not substantiated by any references and is part of an attempt byx to alter the view of readers of the Telectronics history. This is based on an attack on Noel Gray's background to establish that Telectronics entry to medical electronics was dependent upon meeting with Keith Jeffcoat and Dr Rowan Nicks. Their reputations in regards Telectronics' entry to pacemakers and medical electronics as reported in the media is also dependent on assertions about Noel Gray's background. They have a vested interest in supporting view about Noel Gray. This means that the Noel Gray entry on Wikipedia is the subject of vested interests editing it to support assertions made elsewhere. This must stop. It would be pleasing if someone at the Wikipedia management level could bring this denigration of a great Australian to an end. p.s. it is interesting to note that have all received Orders of Australia and Noel Gray has not. (Concerned)    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.11.100 (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The trouble with your request is you haven't provided any reliable sources to support it. You claim the media reporting of the various people you mention is wrong, or slanted towards some against others. This may or may not be true, but Wikipedia isn't the place to "prove the truth" one way or the other - its an online encyclopedia in which all content should be verifiable from independent secondary sources.


 * This leads directly to the problem with "Telectronics - The Early Years." It doesn't matter whether its contents are true or not, because it is a self-published source, produced by the Gray family itself. As the Verifiability policy states: "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable" We can use this source to reference minor or inconsequential detail (Gray's favourite colour or similar), but we cannot use it to reference significant claims. Regrettably, you have been trying to use this self-published source for major referencing for more than a year now, despite beign repeatedly reverted by other editors.


 * Could I once again strongly urge you to find other more reliable sources to support the edits you want to make to the article. Without them the material will continue to be reverted. Also, as some of the people you mention are alive, please be careful about the policy on biographies of living persons, and avoid unsourced attacks about them or their motives. You might be right, you might be wrong but you can't use this talk page or your edit summaries to make unsupported allegations. Euryalus (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Euryalus Are the public records of Telectronics published at ASIC (Formerly Corporate Affairs) that Australian companies are required by Law to provide regarding details of the appointment of Directors, Managing Directors, Company Secretaries and details of shareholders"reliable sources" for Wickapedia? Interested party —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.101.215 (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Belatedly, the answer is not really. They are primary sources for articles on Gray or Telectronics, because they are prepared by Telectronics/Gray rather than ASIC. If ASIC had audited Telectronics and published its findings, then the contents of that audit would be a reliable secondary source, because it is prepared by ASIC rather than Telectronics. But I'm not aware that any such audit was performed. Euryalus (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Euryalus - ASIC records are taken as true records in courts of law in Australia. The ASIC records of dates and names of directors appointments, and dates and names of shareholders etc. If it is good enough for the courts of law in Australia why is it not good enough for you's blokes? (Australian citizen) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.254.117 (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding ref to Order Of Australia by 121.222.11.100
The writer said "all received Orders of Australia but Noel Gray has not". No one receives an "Order of Australia", but the Institution "The Order Of Australia" can award worthy citizens with the "Order Of Australia Medal" or the higher recognition of Appointments as "Members", "Officers" or "Companions" of the Order. The writer, if an Australian citizen, can download a nomination form from http://www.theorderofaustralia.gov.au. 121.220.38.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

Rober Foot Obituary for Trainor used as a refference for Noel Gray's contribution to Telectronics
It is totally inapropriate to use a refference that is disputed writen by someone who did not know Noel Gray and was not an employee of Telectronics until 1976 many years after the company was formed. Robert Foot has admitted that he has no regard for truth in what he wrote in the Trainor obituary and should be regarded as an unreliable source with regard to information about Noel Gray and his Telectronics before 1976. He is part of a conspirqacy to protect Trainoe lead by the Trainor familt trust and as such the refference should be removed from Noel Gray's page. (XYZ)

Foot's story is misleading in that it does not acknowledge that Noel Gray's Telectronics had already established itself as a World leader in innovations in the pacemaker field and that it had an established pacemaker production facility. This facility was paid for by Noel Gray and his suporters Harold Duffell adn his father in law Robert Simes. (all this is refferenced in 'Telectronics the early years' a refference used for this entry)

Foot does not know anything about the facts which are available in the Medical Journal of Australia article 'Treatment of Complete Heart Block Using an Implantable Transvenous Pacemaker of Australian Manufacture: Technique and Results. T B Cartmill FRACS, FB Clark FRARACS, Rowan Nicks FRSC, FRACS and L Bernstein MRACP Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney August 10, 1968; 260-263.

In this paper the dates of implant of Telectronics pacemakers at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital are listed. They start "Pacemaker number 30 6.12.66. This is well before Trainor became a shareholder through his 50% shareholding in Telectronics Pty Limited acquired by Nucleus Holdings Pty Limited in January 1968, and before he became a part-time non-executive director in January 1968. Indeed by July 1967 The RPA had implanted the 100th Telectronics pacemaker made at its pacemaker production facility at Gibbes Street Chatswood.

So you see the Trainor obituary is misleading in the extreeme in that it only mentions that Telectronics had performed research following Nicks in pacemakers when Trainor's Nucleus became a sheareholder. This I sugest is to demean Noel Gray and his acheivements before Trainor's Nucleus became a sharehoilder. Furhter Nucleus did not gain controll over Telectronics with a 50% shareholding as is recorded with Corporate Affairs. Perhaps Foot can explaine to us how 50% constitutes control? Nor did Trainor take over the day to day running of Telectronics as Noel Gray remained managing director on the records and was the majority lender to the company. He paid for the pacemaker production facility and he remained in charge. Trainor pretended to gain control in 1969 when he had the articles changed but Nucleus' shareholdign was reduced to 30% following conversion of the debts owed to Noel and Beth gray and HArold Duffell to equity. Perhaps Geoffrey Kirby can explain his recent assertion that there were only 3 members of the company in regard to the fact that there were 5 members in this regard? (XYZ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.10.140 (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above facts the Telectronics pacemakers implanted in 1966 used the latest discoveries from overseas and not anything from Dr Nicks or the great pretender Jeffacot. This was the introduction of transveneous pacing based on publications of studies by Lagagren in Sweden and Sowton in England in 1965. The Telectronics P4 pacemaker and production facility was ready to go in December 1965 and releas was stoped by Managing Director Noel Gray for the development of transveneous electrodes at Telectronics. This took some time and finaly the P4 was released in 1966. It used the first 1/2 millisecond pulse width and was a first that becam the industry standard. Nothing to do with Jefacot or Nicks and Trainor and all payed for by Noel Gray not the NHF! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.10.31 (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Noel Gray's reason for leaving Kriesler
The entry is missing this important fact. He left his position after employment from 1953-59 at Kriesler having risen to senior management level because he wanted to start his own business in medical electronics. If ther are peoiple out there who dispute this their motives must be questioned. Dr Nicks did not introduce pacemaker to Noel Gray, nor did Keith Jeffcoat, or Paul Trainor. That is fact and I sugest that if xxx, xxx or xxx were honest with the viewers of this page they would have to accept that there are things that they just do not know anything about. I would ask them to stop changing the facts on this page in the interests of the truth. It is not the truth to repeat heresay or misguided information. The photograph of the alleged P1 is a recent photograph and does not prove that it is in fact the P1. The P1 was made and designed by Noel Gray at Kriesler, that is the truth. I am sure the position that the peoplle involved in this dispute that they think they have will be challanged by the facts here, but they should listen or suffer the humiliation that will follow when this all becomes public. (QRSTUVWXYZ)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.10.40 (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Names in above edit replaced by xxx as allegation of dishonesty constitutes WP:Attack QRS (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Founder vs Co-founder
I have restored the word "co-founder" to the lead sentence. There are arguably reliable sources to indicate that Paul Trainor was a founder (for example this), and there are arguably reliable sources that Noel Gray was a founder (for example this). I note there is some concern that the second example was written by Mr Gray's son, but the Powerhouse Museum is nonetheless a credible institution. If there is disagreement with this change, please discuss here and we will seek a consensus with other editors about the way forward.

See also the relevant parts of the discussion under "Edit of 19 September 2007" above. Euryalus 09:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Let us start with the definition of the word to "found" which is a prerequisite to the discussion. According to the Oxford Dictionary "to found" is to "to begin the building of" "To originate, create, initiate". Let us look what has been claimed about Telectronics that it was formed to design and develop "industrial electronics" by (del. name WP:Attack) only went into medical electronics and pacemakers after or following on from Nicks and Jeffcoat. This is in total disagreement with what is writen in Telectronics the Early years in that Noel gray started telectronics to design and develop medical electronics, which is disputed (del. name WP:Attack). So who originated the design and development of medical electronics at telectronics (del. names WP:Attack) or Noel Gray? If the latter then he founded the company because he begand the building of medical electronics at telectronics and by his own admission not (del. name WP:Attack). therefore Gray founded it not (del. name WP:Attack). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.10.166 (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that "The Early years of Telectronics" is a primary source, as it was written by Noel Gray and his son. The sources I quoted above are secondary sources (that is, published by organisations independent of the subject). Per Wikipedia sourcing policy, the secondary sources are considered more reliable than the primary ones. So - unless there is a more substantial body of evidence that Gray ws the sole founder, and/or there is a consensus for it developed here, on balance I think "co-founder" should remain. Euryalus (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The secondary sourse material is part of a conspiracy to degrade the contribution of Noel gray and is a manipulation of the media by (del. names WP:Attack)that can easily be proven by looking at their material and the unsustainable claims made in them. I f yo like I will list them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.111.182 (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. The requirement for secondary sources to support statements in Wikipedia articles is nothing to do with persons named or any other individual. It is Wikipedia sourcing policy and is a requirement for every article, not just this one. I take it from your reply that you have some secodnary sources which support the "founder" claim, in which case by all means post them here or in the article itself. Euryalus (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Deletion of names in above section by 121.219.112.213 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
I have revised the article per the discussion at the AfD, to remove some of the original research and weasel words and incorporate a short section on Telectronics itself to explain the notability of its co-founder.

The article still lacks reliable sources for most of its content. The single self-published source is heavily referenced but is not sufficiently independent to be reliable. Can anyone provide some secondary sources for Gray's life, especially up to 1959? Euryalus (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
I propose that the "Neutrality Disputed" tag be removed from the article, because: Obviously all this could change overnight, but at present it appears the neutrality of the article is not disputed and the tag can be at least temporarily removed. As always, other comments and opinions welcome. Euryalus (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The tag was correctly placed following the AfD in 2007, when the article had largely been written by an editor with a conflict of interest;
 * Since that time the article has been extensively rewritten by other uninvolved editors (including myself);
 * While additional sources are essential to improve the article, the overall tone is no longer heavily slanted towards or away from the subject. Notably, the personal attacks on other Telectronics people like Trainor and Jeffcoat are no longer part of the page.
 * The current version appears stable, and has not been edited for more than a month.

Edit of 14 Feb 2007. Changed "pacemaker" to "circuit" as making an implantable "pacemaker" using "torch batteries" is nonsensical. Corrected spelling "Phillips" to "Philips". With these changes made I support Euryalis' suggestion for removal of the "Neutrality Disputed" tag.QRS&#124;QRS (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction - a pacemaker with torch batteries would be a novel concept. In the absence of any opposition, I've removed the tag. The article still needs better referencing from secondary sources, but hopefully the long neutrality dispute is at an end. Euryalus (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong objection
To WP:attack in this article, it's history and discussion. A person who appears to be the son of the article's subject and is identified as 203.164.xxx.xxx continues to post offensive comments relating to a number of people who were involved with the subject and the company Telectronics some 40 years ago. Eg.the edit summary of 09.08 25 March refers to persons xxx, xxx & xxx as "ratbags". A review of changes made to the article by 203.164.xxx.xx show a consistancy of claims and statements supported only by reference to the private publication "Telectronics - The Early Years" by Gray ND & Gray CJ. As it is unlikely that further substantiated changes may be made to the Article, it is suggested the article should be permanently closed. I would appreciate comments by administrators.QRS (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are never "closed". We can protect them against editing, for example in the case of vandalism, by either new or unregistered users, or even by anybody who is not an administrator.  Protection is not usually indefinite.  Several administrators do watch this page (including me) and we can deal with attacks promptly.  The edits of 25 March were reverted within 1 minute.  The edit summaries are visible but we could delete the edits permanently (a bit of a pain but can be done if the edit summary is regarded as sufficiently offensive).  The vandalism is not so significant that we would consider permanent protection.  Similarly we do not permanently block IPs or IP ranges except in exceptional circumstances.  The IP range is @Home Network Australia and obviously there could be other editors legitimately trying to edit Wikipedia. --Matilda talk 05:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an administrator, just a regular editor of this article. I agree with Matilda that page protection is not necessary. The edits by the anon IP are not generally helpful but they are a content dispute rather than andalism. The anon IP has problems with conflict of interest, neutral points of view and civility but their edits aren't pure vandalism. They are also swiftly reverted, so a generic reader of this article is more likely to see the current 'stable' version than the alternative.


 * Lastly, there is a great deal more that needs to be done to bring this article up to scratch. The references are poor and mostly drawn from a primary source. There are numerous unsourced claims, and too little detail about the actual work Gray performed in Telectronics. Progress in addressing these points will be slow and useful edits rare, but locking the page will prevent any further improvements and leave us with something that is permanently "start" class.


 * If there was repeated and deliberate vandalism rather than a content argument, I'd agree with you on page protection. If the IP address was static I'd also support some kind of action on civility grounds, given the personal attacks that get made. As it is, I think we've all made major improvements to the page since the AfD and there's plenty of room for more. Euryalus (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Breach of Copywright for photo of Noel Gray
The photograph of Noel Gray is from a book Telectronics The Early Years and use of it by Wickapedia is in breach of copywrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.10.39 (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will follow up with the uploader to clarify copyright. The image will be removed if a copyright breach is substantiated. --Matilda talk 09:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The image has been removed and will be deleted--Matilda talk 23:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Article sourcing
There's a discussion in the archives about the overuse of primary sources in this article. Regrettably, there seems to be little else on the public record so we have to make do with what we have.

I've just readded a point by an anon IP that Gray's ambition to start a medical technology business in 1959 dated back to his medical studies in 1948. I had previously removed it as unsourced, but given its uncontroversial nature and in the interests of assuming good faith I've restored it witha fact tag.

Can anyone help in finding third-party sources for this and similar uncontroversial claims in the article? Telectronics:the Early Years is not independent enough to be the reference for nearly everything here - there must be other sources somewhere. Euryalus (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (postscript) I see that Mr Gray's son has replaced the fact tag with the same primary reference (his self-published book) that I was talking about above. I'll leave it there despite it being an overused and potentially unreliable primary source but reiterate the request in more general terms - we need alternative secondary sources for every statement sourced from Gray's self-published work. Anyone know of any? Euryalus (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There were based on refs cited in an earlier version of this article two articles published in the Bulletin about the company and one in Australian Geographic
 * Hoad, B, 'Keeping Pace', The Bulletin, March 31 1973
 * Haselhurst, David, 'Sydney makes the heart pace', The Bulletin, June 26 1976
 * Whelan, Howard, 'Heart of the Industry', Australian Geographic Vol1 No4 Oct Dec 1986;89
 * The Powerhouse museum has some information, for example at http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/collection/database/?irn=353074, and they have some references listed that could be followed up. However the museum too has relied on the obituary written by Gray's son and the book by Noel Gray and his son. --Matilda talk 23:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it that Noel Gray's son is not regarded as a reputable refference source. To sugest that he is lying is slander and I would suggest that xxx reveal his contact with xxx to show his bias. he has not met Noel Gray or his son and has heard only one side of the story and should be banned from editing Noel Gray's page. I am amased to see the absence of editorial responsibility at Wickapedia. There is no consistancy with editors and so the truth or otherwise of editors is not understood. xyz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.10.3 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Names of persons subject to personal attack in above replaced by xxx QRS (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Noel Gray's son is a primary source for information about is late father. The policy on original research states in part:


 * "Primary sources are sources very close to an event ... Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."


 * The policy doesn't say primary sources are "false" (or in this context, that Mr Gray is "lying"). What it does say is primary sources for any substantive point need secondary sources to support them before that point can be included in the article. Sources such as "Telectronics: The Early Years" can be used for simple descriptive points but not to reference anything substantial, and certainly not anything controversial. Unsourced claims (or claims only sourced to a primary source) should be tagged as such, and if secondary sources are not forthcoming after a reasonable period, can be removed by any editor. Euryalus (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit of 12 November 2013
The subsection "Telectronics" was reverted to the version of 1 October 2013 so as to be consistent with the article Telectronics. It was also noted that the changes made by 60.229.20.96 are supported only by a primary source and constitute claims similar to those which resulted in this article being earlier nominated for deletion. The correctness of the article Telectronics is substantiated by the article "The Australian History of Cardiac Pacing", Mond et al, Heart Lung and Circulation 2012;21:311-319 59.101.74.179 (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC) 59.101.74.179 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

this entry should be removed because it is being used by others to reinvent the history of Telectronics and could be the subject of legal proceedings in the future is damage occurs as a result of the misleading information that has historically been posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.109.242 (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)