Talk:Peter Foster/Archive 1

Untitled
Actually, this article is a load of self serving crap he probably wrote himself. I recommend rewriting this as a criminal biography or deleting entirely as it fails to meet basic truthfulness criteria. Rklawton 04:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time reading the article and researching and I think it seems to be accurate on the media reports I located. It refers to him as "the greatest conman of all time" so it is hard to see how the article could be deemed to be bias. It just shows that there is another side to him - and that to be would be "balance". I can't see anything wrong, in fact I found it interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratugaloot (talk • contribs) 17 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article reads like it was written by a PR firm. See WP:NPOV.

Weasel words
This article is rife with weasel words, such as the following:

a super salesman to some, conman to others, but undoubtedly a person who has lived a champagne lifestyle in the fast lane for over two decades,

See WP:Weasel words

Once again, please do not remove the tags unless sufficient changes are made. PrometheusX303 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is he?
The article consists mostly of opinions of Peter Foster. Who is he? What is his occupation? Does he have any siginificant achievements? PrometheusX303 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. There's nothing substantive here that tells us why there should even be an article about him. Fan-1967

delete this vanity page
The account credited with writing this devoted its entire wikicareer to this article and to:

"I have spent a lot of time reading the article and researching and I think it seems to be accurate on the mdia reports I located. It refers to him as "the greatest conman of all time" so it is hard to see how the article could be deemed to be bias. It just shows that there is another side to him - and that to be would be "balance". I can't see anything wrong, in fact I found it interesting."

This appears to have started as a vanity article, and remains an article with no notability established. As such it hardly deserves discussing, IMO. I say we delete it. User:Pedant 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of dismissing it...help edit it so it meets "standards" nuff said! - --Mikecraig 22:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem in meeting the "standards" is with the subject, not the article. I don't see how he's notable. Editing won't help that. Fan-1967 00:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Then based on that reasoning other "con" men/women should be taken of wikipedia - I guess the main notable things relating to the person in question is the following:


 * Relationship to Samantha Fox
 * Involvement with Cherie Blair
 * Sporting ventures (Boxing related)
 * Kylie Minogue early involvement to kickstart music career
 * Various scams and schemes relating to Foster
 * Television and various Media related articles..etc

There are many other crap wiki's out there with less interesting or "notable" information.

--Mikecraig 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of other "con" men/women's articles so I wouldn't comment on them. Sleeping with a famous person doesn't make you notable. Lots of people do that. The Blair thing looks like there's some actual meat there. As for his boxing ventures and involvement in Minogue's career, whatever they were, why aren't they in the article? That might actually have some substance. Fan-1967 00:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think deletion is the answer. He does seem fairly notable.  Try a web search, and you can find some articles on him.  He may not well known outside Australia and the UK, but that shouldn't be grounds for deletion.


 * In my opinion, the "article"'s creator, Ratugaloot, and what suspect is the same editor using the IP range 210.7.XXX.XXX, should improve the article instead of removing talk page comments and tags.


 * It should contain actual biographical information instead of just opinions on how intelligent and crafty he is and loads of weasel words. PrometheusX303 00:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of Con artists there is about 30 Famous convicted and alleged con artists with most of them having a wiki regarding them respectivly.

Totally agree with ensuring that there is factual and biographical information - it seems back in August there was alot more information relating to the subject in question and it seems that most of that got cut out (bio/history..etc) and now left with the rubbish wiki we have at present. --Mikecraig 00:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO, Foster is certainly notable, at least here in Australia and the UK. The article needs major work, not deletion. I remember his antics, Cheriegate, and the Bai Lin Tea affair, but it was a long time ago. There's reliable sources online to assist in a cleanup. I'll see what I can do. -- Longhair 01:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bai Lin Tea
The article states: ''It could be said that Foster was punished for being "ahead of his time". In the early 80's there were many in the West who doubted that a tea could have slimming properties. Two decades later it is widely accepted that chinese tea has many medicinal benefits, and there are countless brands of slimming tea sold all around the world.''

1. There is no mention of punishment at all. 2. The following links tell a different story of the Bai Lin Tea he promoted. These are just on the first result page of a Google search on "Peter foster" and "Bai Lin". PrometheusX303 14:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
It seems that recently there has been "edits" which have removed big sections of this article especially regarding the Fiji matters - bit of bias or POV ? (has always come from anon IP people) --Mikecraig 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Person is more likely. And the IP range can be traced to Suva, Fiji.  Prome  theus  -X303-  13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone fix those refs?
Can someone fix those references, they are showing up as self referential links. Makes it hard to check them. User:Pedant 22:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's exactly how they were plastered into the article. -- Longhair 00:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've fixed one (per my comment above, I may have incorrectly assumed you were referring to the references I removed from the article and pasted here). A broken ref tag in the article itself was causing a large portion of text beyond the Cheriegate heading to remain invisible. -- Longhair 02:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Those trivia/facts that need references - use the WP policy Citing_sources to put them correctly - not just list the newspaper or book..etc name --Mikecraig 05:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias
This is a very biased article. I would suggest adopting a more neutral narrative tone, and removing certain text (particularly the first item in "trivia and facts") I agree that a section on his criminal convictions would also provide balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tendons (talk • contribs)

It says he has not been convicted of fraud...that appears true. He offences were all advertising related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.17.176 (talk • contribs)

I think the artcile is fair enough. Can't be nice to be called a conman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.17.176 (talk • contribs)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.18.162 (talk • contribs)

My first thought upon reading this was "he wrote it himself". Simple editing isn't going to do the job here: the entire article needs a rewrite. This page needs an overhaul, and quickly. It's exactly the sort of article that diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of information. I hope whoever used the keyboard after Foster wrote the article had the good sense to wipe it down with disinfectant because it must have been pretty damn sticky.Gamsarah 10:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think it's bad now, you should have seen it several months ago. Prome  theus  -X303-  14:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Every so often there is anon IP "users" who blank out alot of the article especially the Fiji information. --Mikecraig 21:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Convictions
It is stated in the article that Foster is a convicted con man. Wouldnt it then be pertinent to detail his crimes and convictions?68.71.35.93 05:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed it would. PrometheusX303 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In the article it emphasises that he was never convicted of fraud. I have edited the trivia/facts section to reflect the fact that he has indeed been charged with both fraud and theft. He avoided the fraud case by fleeing the country & he pleaded 'no contest' to the grand theft charge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2574515.stm http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_n10_v23/ai_8310033

daniel202.151.28.145 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. That's a bit that I suspect Foster (or a very loyal fan) keeps adding in.  Prome  theus  -X303-  14:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Had to do it again, as someone reverted it... daniel 202.151.28.23 00:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-write
This article requires a complete re-write, removing the hyperbole and weasel words and closely following sources. I suggest that this article on Foster in The Age, which provides a complete profile on his history, should be used to write the article. Harr o 5 03:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My edits
I got to edit thisa rticle using this newspaper report which I note contains further info not in the article and might be of interest to other editors. I would have put it in the external links but there isnt one, maybe if it is worthy someone else might want to, SqueakBox 18:33, 13 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 01:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem Bob?
You say you are sceptical of the $1 million Foster was paid for his autobiography. Did you not read reference point No. 10. It says, "Foster sold his memoirs of a roller-coaster life to a British publisher for $1.2 million, the largest book deal secured by an Australian in the UK market.[10] If you go to point 10, it leads to an article in the very highly respected Melbourne newspaper, the Age, written by Australia's premier policital reporter of 40 years standing, Alex Mitchell. Well, Bob, there is one source that can easily be checked, and you didn't.

As for Foster being one of the world's best salespeople, the person who said it, John Fenton, is himself regarded as one of the world's best salespeople. But the comment of Foster being one of the best salesmen in the world has been widely reported.

I even see you removed him being referred to as an "international playboy". Why?. Check the source again, its the Australian Broadcasting Commission that uses the exact phrase, "international playboy".

I ask Bob, why are you so bias against this man? I don't feel particularly trusting of your motives, Bob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcoconut (talk • contribs)


 * (1) "If you go to point 10, it leads to an article in the very highly respected Melbourne newspaper, the Age" - actually, no, it goes to the Sun-Herald. Which, while published by the same company, is a rather different entity.


 * (2) "You say you are sceptical of the $1 million Foster was paid for his autobiography." - actually, no, what I'm questioning there is the two sentences after that claim: "Written by Daily Mail journalist Richard Shears in 2003,it remains unpublished because of the threats of law suits from people in "high places". This is verified by a copy of the contract which is on file at the Gold Coast District Court and the Supreme Court of Queensland that the book "remains unpublished because of the threats of law suits from people in "high places"." There is nothing in the Sun-Herald article to support those claims.


 * (3) "As for Foster being one of the world's best salespeople, the person who said it, John Fenton, is himself regarded as one of the world's best salespeople." - I'm not sure why you're addressing this to me, since I've never expressed an opinion on that particular bit of content. (Though if you'd like me to form one, I'm sure I could manage something.)


 * (4) "I even see you removed him being referred to as an "international playboy"." - actually, no, I didn't. The only edit I have ever made to the article (so far) is this one.


 * (5) "I don't feel particularly trusting of your motives, Bob." - the lovely thing about Wikipedia is that you don't have to trust me. If and when I add material to the article, it will be accompanied by cites that are easily checked, so you can check the source for yourself and confirm that I've represented it accurately. After all, given the subject matter of this article and its history of bogus citations, it would be rather foolish for any of us to take citations on trust here. --GenericBob (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation quality and removal of templates
Today, in one edit there is a reference that links to a mirror of wikipedia. The article linked to doesn't support the claim that it is cited in support of. Fact templates have been removed without citations added. General article templates have been removed without addressing the issues. Autarch (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There are more issues with citations: this edit referred to an entry on the page mentioned that was introduced here. The article mentioned Peter Foster, but not the organisation. This edit was introduced in response to a fact template querying that "Foster is widely heralded as one of the world's best salesmen." Firstly it quotes only one person, but "widely heralded" implies that more than one person holds the view. Secondly, the reference cited as Fentons support for Fosters selling skills mentions a newspaper interview, but does not give a date - isn't this a failure to follow WP:CITE, especially as that guideline specifically mentions biographies of living people and quoting someone as specific instances of when to cite sources? Autarch (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit supposedly provides a reference for the claim that Peter Foster "was one of the first to realise the selling power of celebrity" - the article in question says no such thing. Is there a Wikipedia procedure for having an article checked for reliable sources? Autarch (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also highly sceptical of this bit: "Foster received over $1 million advance for his biography from the Daily Mail newspaper. Written by Daily Mail journalist Richard Shears in 2003,it remains unpublished because of the threats of law suits from people in "high places". This is verified by a copy of the contract which is on file at the Gold Coast District Court and the Supreme Court of Queensland." (last sentence referenced to "Case No. 19/09 Peter Clarence Foster v Richard Shears and others filed at the Southport Registry, Southport Court House, Queensland, Australia".) Given how badly this article misrepresents 'sources' that can easily be checked, I don't feel particularly trusting about what appears to be interpretation of a primary source that's rather harder to chase up. --GenericBob (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed - some of the editing either doesn't give a reference that supports a claim or leaves out some information: this item says that the nickname "the human headline" was give to Peter Foster by himself! Autarch (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Autarch editing is bias and worrying
I am alarmed at the editing of the Peter Foster page. AUTARCH seem to be based in Ireland and seem to harbour a personal bias against the man.I understand he also was in Ireland. Autarch sayd that the role Foster played with the Australian Federal Police is dubious. I have read the affidavit material by going to the website of queensland courts and downloading from the registrar. The edits AUTARCH is making are petty. It doesn't change the thrust of the facts that Foster is a conman and has been to jail. But taking out facts that he worked for the federal police by saying that the source, a former federal agent is dubious, when it has been widely reported around the world is silly. AUTARCH it makes you look like a sad man jealous that this Foster had a full life when you edit out "international playboy" when it is a fact he was reported in many newspapers - or you say he calls himself a "human headline" when there are numerous articles on him that call him that. Why take these points out. You are vandalising this artuicle with your littering of it with citation requests on insignificant or unqestionable points. One has to wonder why? has Foster done somehting to you? Are you personally involved and therefore not able to approach this without malice. I think you should stop your edits now on this page before you look even more foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.78.219 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors should respect Etiquette and also the Wikipedia policy No personal attacks. Autarch (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree Autarch edits are bias
I agree. Autarch must have had some previous dealings with Foster because he is editing out only the fair and balanced bits that put Foster in a better light. He doesn't edit out his criminal convictions, his conman bits. What's wrong with Foster being a playboy or a great salesman. Why edit those out. I think that is beyond dispute. Autarch must be either a Foster hater or jealous because the edits are not helpful but small minded and mean spirited. I think all the requests for citations are a form of vandalism and really annoying. Autarch is not being professional in his approach. Kingcoconut (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors should respect Etiquette and also the Wikipedia policy No personal attacks. Autarch (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention WP:STUFF. --GenericBob (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I was wrong to make personal attacks. But the edits are bordering on malicious. Citations are being called for at every second word, you'll have hundreds of references attached. It is absurd. You are losing sight of the bigger picture. Can anyone tell me when this man has been called, for over 2o years from my goggling, a "international playboy" that was removed. Why is a former Federal agent for the Australian federal Police not being accepted as reliable. Foster being a great salesman, comeon, no one can dispute that - hemight be dishonest and a conman but he is called a great conman in dozens of artciles. And then his realtionship with Samantha Fox and Carole Caplin - two hugely famous women that in a way defined hin in the media are removed. It seems the handful of epople who are vandalising this page by removing the positive points, and highlighting only negative, are acting with malice. That's not personal, that's just prima facie on the evidence.


 * Editors should not engage in personal attacks: see No personal attacks. Speculating on the motives of an editor can be seen as breaches. Autarch (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not meant to be personal - but nor should the edits
OK, perhaps I was wrong to make personal attacks. But the edits are bordering on malicious. Citations are being called for at every second word, you'll have hundreds of references attached. It is absurd. You are losing sight of the bigger picture. Can anyone tell me when this man has been called, for over 2o years from my goggling, a "international playboy" that was removed. Why is a former Federal agent for the Australian federal Police not being accepted as reliable. Foster being a great salesman, comeon, no one can dispute that - hemight be dishonest and a conman but he is called a great conman in dozens of artciles. And then his realtionship with Samantha Fox and Carole Caplin - two hugely famous women that in a way defined hin in the media are removed. It seems the handful of epople who are vandalising this page by removing the positive points, and highlighting only negative, are acting with malice. That's not personal, that's just prima facie on the evidence.(Kingcoconut (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Your allegations of vandalism are laughable when you do something like this . WWGB (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you were acting in good faith - or just getting the benefit of the doubt - maybe I'd have been willing to discuss this. But when you pretend (rather clumsily) to be two different people to create an illusion of support for your attack on another editor, that's not a matter of "perhaps I was wrong". At that point, it becomes clear that you're editing in bad faith, and you cannot expect other editors to go to the trouble of addressing your concerns. --GenericBob (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Trying to promote someone as an "international playboy", a fabulous salesman (while minimising the fact that he is a conman) and promoting details of his private life sound more like the job of someone involved in PR than anything else. You claim to be doing a thesis on criminality and discrimination faced by prisoners, however. Autarch (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting facts. I am not promoting him. Foster has been called an "international playboy". It is through his charm that he gets alligned with these women that either made his tea famous, or got him involved with the Blair's. Can't you see the relevance? Why does it affect you that he is a playboy? Because you're not? Your position is unreasonable. It would be the same as ommitting that OJ Simpson was a champion footballer and just talk about his murder allegations. Or omit that OJ Simpson was in movies, or a successful commentator on TV sports. These are relevant factors that make his fall more extraordinary. It is his life and you can't edit out the bits you don't like. That is what you are doing with Foster. I am doing a thesis on how criminals are treated by society, and I am stunned the hours you are spending on criticising Foster and removing pertinent points which goes to his character, yet you think is promotion. That isbaid and discrimination and Austarch you are guilty of it. I intend to take this up with management at Wikipedia and get their thoughts. You are a vandal,no matter what you think of yourself, your actions are nothing les than vandalsim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.78.219 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read Neutral point of view, WP:UNDUE and WP:MORALIZE carefully. Also keep in mind No personal attacks, as it has been brought to your attention several times.Autarch (talk)

Spy
The article mentions Operation ERUDITE without giving a citation for it - [this] is the only link apart from the article here that mentions it along with Peter Foster or North Queensland or cocaine.

The first paragraph makes claims about Peter Fosters motivations that aren't supported in the only reference given in the paragraph - it also makes a serious claim - also not supported by the only link in the paragraph - about another person who, although they aren't the subject of the article, would be covered by WP:BLP as that policy states: The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment as well as ''This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons''.


 * I've renamed the section to the term used in the reference for the first paragraph, removed claims as to motive and claims about a third party that had me concerned about WP:BLP. The second paragraph quotes an alleged former Federal agent, but the link in the reference is to an earlier copy of the article in Wikipedia mirror at www.absoluteastronomy.com - this copy doesn't even have the Spy section! The third paragraph links to [an article] in the Telegraph that, as far as I can tell, doesn't support either the quote or the remainder of the paragraph. This just underlines how much work is needed on this article - it seems like every link in the article will have to be checked to make sure that they support the assertions they are supposed to support. Autarch (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A reference suppording quotes from former federal agent Erikkson was in the Fiji section but it wasn't named nor was it used in the undercover operative section. I've used a quote that matched what the article said and edited the first paragraph as it specifically said cocaine and the article supporting the quote only mentions drugs without being specific. The baffling thing is that so many references seem to be sprinkled at random around the article with so little care taken to make sure they match what was said. Autarch (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Foster out of prison on 1 May, Wikipedia article gets makeover
How coincidental is this? Peter Foster gets let out of prison on 1 May. The next day Kingcoconut joins Wikipedia, and he and his anon aliases rip into Wikpedia and try to put a spin on the Peter Foster article. WWGB (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See also Special:Contributions/Ratugaloot, which would appear to be another account used by the same editor. First edit was to create this article, and the original version is... revealing. Third and final edit was in May 2006. --GenericBob (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also also, I came across this rather interesting snippet while Googling that username. According to that page, published in the Courier-Mail's weekend mag for October 1 2005 (emphasis mine):

"Looking at him, you can’t rule out future surprises in the colourful life of Peter Foster. Unpredictability has, in the past, been his stock in trade. Around the Sheraton, the staff jokingly refer to him as Ratu, or King. Many years ago, his mother dubbed him Ratu Galoot. King Fool." --GenericBob (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Very interesting!
 * There's also an interesting page of user contributions [here], a single contribution, three here, two contributions from a registered name here, some more anonymous edits here, another few contributions from a registered account here, a one-off anonymous edit , several anonymous edits here, a few anonymous here, two anonymous here, some registered here, more anonymous here, yet more anonymous here, a single anonymous here, a single anonymous here, a few anonymous here, a couple of anonymous here, another couple of anonymous here, a one-off anonymous here, a one-off anonymous here, two anonymous here, another one-off anonymous here, three more anonymous here, three anonymous here, another one off anonymous here, quite a few anonymous here, more anonymous here, two more anonymous here, possibly there two here.
 * Note: only the edits in the block above are meant to be of special interest. The one below mentioning Fiji is purely to give a rough idea of the timeline - it does not imply that the editor who made it is involved in the sockpuppetry. Autarch (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An early mention of his Fiji connection in the main article is here. Autarch (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Brown
Is the author of this article the same as this Malcolm Brown? Autarch (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Brown is a senior writer with the Fairfax group, which includes The SMH and The Age. WWGB (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - that can be linked to from the appropriate reference. Autarch (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bogus Hansard citation
Article cited "The British House of Lords, Hansard, Question to Lord Irvine by Lord Spens 2000 April 16" as a source for Foster's supposed undercover activities in the UK.

Checking the Hansard records (funny how the 'citation' didn't link to the online records), it turns out that there were actually no questions asked at all in the House of Lords that day. Probably because it happened to be a Sunday. I checked adjacent dates, and April 16th on adjacent years, and found nothing there either. At this stage, I can't really say I'm surprised... --GenericBob (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The closest thing I found to that citation was this, which has a question asked by Lord Spens, but in March of 1999. It mentions the Derbyshire Police Force, but the answer denies that the police force in question had an operation called "Operation Outreach", but that the question may refer to a drugs awareness programme involving prisoners from Sudbury (HM Prison) to deliver its' message. It also says It is not the policy of the police either to confirm or deny whether anyone is a registered informant. Like you, I'm not surprised either. Autarch (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This link has a few more details. Autarch (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I did try to search on Foster's name, but the search engine wasn't loading properly for me. Certainly a long way from confirmation of those claims! --GenericBob (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Here is a list of all pages from that site that contain "Peter Clarence Foster". The other questions that were answered were about seems to be about charges and cost and public interest and costs. There may be one I've missed, but as before none of those seem to support the claims made for the original reference - the one I gave above seems closest and it doesn't support it at all. Autarch (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Trivia section
As the trivia section is now just a single sentence, removed the header and trivia template and moved it to the end of the Cheriegate section as at least one of the quotes is relevant to that section. Autarch (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An interesting mirror page
This page bears an interesting resemblance to earlier versions of the article. Autarch (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Another link from the same site with some unflattering comments about Wikipedia. Autarch (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) This is a cached copy of the profile and this is a cached copy of his version of the wikipedia page, in case anyone is wary of letting the site know who they are. Interestingly enough, Peter Fosters' version of the page seems to date from the day after it was first tagged this year.Autarch (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Activities in Fiji
This section needs a serious overhaul - the comment about being "brutally bashed" is clearly in breach of NPOV and as the previous disputed edits have made claims that have tenuous links to what references actually say that will require a lot of editing. Autarch (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Fiji section mentions nothing between the 2001 election and October 25 2006, despite citing A few inconvenient untruths which provides details about his involvement with the SDL government and some dubious business practices. In fact, it doesn't even mention that he was out of Fiji for some of this time. Autarch (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fiji section update
The section on Fiji has been split in two and a third section about his claims to be a peacemaker has been given its own Fiji section. The sections now follow a more chronological flow. The paragraphs about his arrest in which he claimed to have been "brutally bashed" has been rewritten so it's more NPOV. More work needs to be done, but this is a start. Autarch (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

'Playboy'
I see our regular anon editor (gosh I wonder who that could be?) is back trying to emphasise the 'international playboy' angle again.

For the record, a Google search on "peter clarence foster" playboy gave me 6 hits:

- This article - Russian site that appears to be a mirror of an earlier version of this article - A Spanish directory of people (don't read enough Spanish to be sure of the context in which it appears) - Peter Foster's website - Site I can't access, but it appears to be somebody complaining about the removal of the description of PF as a 'playboy'. - Anagram site that notes that 'Peter Clarence Foster' can be rearranged to 'Self-pretence creator', with an apparently-unrelated mention of Playboy Magazine.

Leaving out his middle name, "peter foster" playboy gives 915 hits, some of which are references to the magazine and some which genuinely refer to him as a 'playboy'. By comparison, "peter foster" criminal gets around 11,400 hits.

If it weren't for his criminal record, the man would be a media nonentity. Emphasising the 'playboy' angle is a matter of undue weight. --GenericBob (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only Playboy associated with Foster is the magazine that he holds in his LEFT hand ... WWGB (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Shifting discussion back from my Talk page:

"You cannot describe Foster as a conman and then decide to edit out the label countless media organisations have labelled him as a 'playboy'. If the editors at the BBC, the ABC, The Times and other respected media organisations label him a 'playboy' how can you call this puffery?. If he was a paedophile you would include that, so just because he is a playboy you can't edit it out without showing bias. To call if puffery or irrelevant is just not fair. You may not like him being labelled a playoby, but there you go, that's what media organisations decide to call him....so be fair and do not show your malice by vandalising the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.130.92 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)"


 * Hi Peter, let's look at the ABC article that you offered as a evidence on this issue. The title of this article is "Conman Peter Foster appears in court". The first sentence describes you as "conman Peter Foster". Paragraph two refers to "the conman as someone who'd had a sad and lengthy history of dishonesty, deception and evasion" (words repeated later in the article). Most of the rest of the article is about the judge's opinion of your character. There is precisely one sentence on the "international playboy" angle.


 * Neutrality does not require that everything ever published about you should be given equal weight. In this case, while it's perfectly documentable that some articles have made throwaway references to you as a 'playboy', the appropriate weight is very VERY small - without the criminal record, those articles would never have been written. --GenericBob (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

in reply...

Firstly I am not Peter but Richard Shears. I am an author and journalist with the Daily Mail. I also wrote Peter's biography. ... Remainder of comment by 121.208.130.92 deleted by GenericBob - see response below.


 * Hi Peter, I am reluctant to trust your edits, so I looked up the aforementioned Richard Shears (he's easy to find via Google). His writing style didn't look much like the comment above, so I emailed him, pointing him at this page and asking him whether this was indeed his edit. His response:

"Many thanks for checking with me. This is 100 per cent absolutely definitely NOT me! Obviously someone is taking my name in vain, so to speak, having picked it up from articles that I've written for the Daily Mail in the past. I don't talk like that and I'm not aggressive like that. So I'd be grateful if you could delete that particular passage."


 * While WP policy usually discourages editors from deleting other editors' comments, I think I'm justified in acceding to Mr. Shears' request on this front. You'll excuse me if I decline your generous invitation to provide my own contact details. --GenericBob (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did think it rather strange that a British reporter would be contributing to Wikipedia anonymously from Southport, Queensland . WWGB (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Shears is based in Australia, but according to his blog he's back in the UK at the moment. He also seems to have a better level of spelling and grammar than the anon pretending to be him. --GenericBob (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A decent informative article
A decent informative article that is well written, encyclopedic in nature and well cited, especially for any controversial content, this is what is needed here, right now the article is almost impossible to read and is a series of snippets and one liners, littered with templates and tags, of little value to anybody. Off2riorob (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're volunteering to improve it? WWGB (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I am available to help, join in with anyone else. Off2riorob (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasons for the templates and tags is that there was a lot of POV pushing from several editors (mostly anonymous) which were suspiciously similar, so some other editors, myself included, suspect that there was one person making those edits.Autarch (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a wonderful article as it stands. A lot of that is due to the efforts of our anonymous 'contributor' above - it takes much less effort for a pathological liar to make up a citation than it does for somebody else to check it. By the time I'm done removing bogus citations (while trying to be fair to what little favourable content actually is supported), I have very little enthusiasm left for working on it further; I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other bona fide editors here feel the same way.

Hopefully semi-protection will provide enough breathing space for a bit of cleanup. --GenericBob (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it semi protected? I can't see it? Oh its there now 5 or 6 days. Off2riorob (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Our anon
...now over at Paul Walsh, 'improving' that article by adding a new section on as-yet-unpublished claims (by Foster) to have slept with Walsh's family members. Seems like somebody is desperate to establish fame by association. --GenericBob (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And now Carole Caplin. Seriously, if the only thing he's famous for any more is the women he's slept with (or claims to have), that's a pretty pitiful state of affairs. --GenericBob (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
This link is dead and even the Internet Archive can't find it.Autarch (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible lede issues
The article currently reads He has been labelled as a "con man"[1][2][3] and called himself the "human headline" [4][5].

The part quoting Peter Foster himself seems to breach WP:UNDUE and perhaps could be deleted.

The description labelled as a "con man" is complicated - this reference quotes Peter Fosters' memoir as saying being a conman is one of the most prestigious and respectable professions you can pursue. This seems to be practically admitting to being a conman on Peter Fosters' part. Indeed, the article calls him a conman, as does this one, this one, this one and this one.

On the other hand, it might be better to start the lede with something like Peter Clarence Foster (born 26 September 1962) is an Australian who has been convicted of fraud in several countries. which states the facts without getting into issues of terms like "conman".Autarch (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. We don't need labels, whether "playboy" or "con man". Stating the facts would be better. --GenericBob (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - have also trimmed some of the material in the lede regarding Cheriegate and added an item about his early career found in a source that was already used for different details.Autarch (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done, looks much better, what we need to do is tweak this article up and remove the fat template at the top.. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - there are some claims I'm a bit unsure of - particularly the claim that he was earning more than his teachers at one stage in his teen years. Not having access to the source in question, I'll leave that. One thing is that in keeping the article chronological, there are a lot of sections. Perhaps making them subsections, with higher-level sections covering broader themes - for example, several consecutive sections cover time spent in Australia.Autarch (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the new headings may be a bit uninspired namewise, but they generally cover the subsections and group them. Maybe they can be improved.Autarch (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uninspired is good, they could use a bit of work, NPOV and uninvolved. Is the way to go, there are still far to many allegations and such that are worthless and only obscure the actual worthwhile and noteworthy details. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a new section on the talk page listing as many items that we think need to be discussed might be one way. Or a more strategic overview of the article - both could be done in separate sections.Autarch (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This may just be a coincidence, but...
I recently got this message on my talk page. I thought it was a random trolling, but when I looked up the IP address, it turns out to belong to an Australian ISP. Given there have been some issues with an editor POV-pushing in this article and said editor getting rather angry with other editors, it crossed my mind that it may not have been random after all. Anyhoo, the page has been rolled back and the vandal warned not to indulge in personal attacks.Autarch (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, that's the same ISP as User:121.208.130.92 above who was pretending to be Peter Shears - although Bigpond is one of the big Australian ISPs, so that could easily just be a coincidence. --GenericBob (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Undercover claims
This source was presented as a cite for claims of Foster's undercover work. What it actually says is:

"The lawyers asked for Mr Blair's assistance in avoiding another British jail term by claiming that Foster had previously worked undercover for the British police helping to expose a scam involving a children's charity. It was, like so many of Foster's outlandish claims, at best an embellishment, at worst, fiction."

The other two cites given are both dead links. (Edit: My partner, after searching news.com articles from 1990 onwards, was unable to find them - nor any mention of the police officer named in the claim, aside from WP mirrors and Foster's claims.) Given that this page has a history of bogus cites being added to support pro-Foster content, I'm going to delete the section; if anybody can find a solid cite for his undercover activity, feel free to restore it. --GenericBob (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Are uncorroborated claims notable?
I'm looking at this section:

"Foster claimed in August 2009 that he wanted to broker a peace deal between Australia and Fiji.[66] He said that the 2006 coup was the coup 'Fiji had to have' and that "It is my belief that Commodore Frank Bainimarama is Fiji's last hope, but to succeed, he needs Australia and other countries to stop hindering, and start helping him bring changes that will benefit the people of Fiji."[66] Foster claimed that the 2006 elections were rigged by Laisenia Qarase, something denied by Qarase, who pointed to Foster's history as a conman.[67] Foster's claims puts him at odds with the Australian government.[66]"

There seem to be reasonable sources to indicate that he made these claims, and as long as the article represents them as claims rather than fact, that satisfies WP:Verifiability. But it seems to me that he makes a lot of exotic claims (in particular, some variant of 'undercover agent' seems to have come up at least three times). Are claims like this really notable enough to be worth including in the article? My inclination is to delete them, but I'd like to hear from others on this - I'm aware that I've been removing a fair bit of material from this article, and I'd like to be sure I'm not going too far here. --GenericBob (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Criminal status
The infobox lists his status as on parole, but he was sentenced to three years in absentia in 2013 after not turning up for sentencing. He is also facing contempt charges, so what is the most appropriate entry for the status in the infobox? Autarch (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Renovations
Flagging that I'm doing some WP:BOLD WP:CAREFUL work on this article as it's still weighed by some of its original unsourced autobiographical hubris, and a general lack of clarity. It could read better and needs work on timeline, updating convictions and extraditions, and perhaps paring back some sections (Fiji). Judging by this guy's record editors will be adding to this article for some time yet. Pallas Blade (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter Foster
I too am of the idea that this report reads as though Peter himself has written it. It shows bias and one could be forgiven for thinking it is the introduction to an autobiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.3.90 (talk • contribs)

Ridiculous
A ridiculously blatant panegyric, this article is highly misleading, giving the impression of Peter Foster as an Antipodean jack-the-lad and do-gooder rather than a convicted fraudster. A BBC news report paints a far different view of Foster and his career (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2574515.stm), one which neatly contradicts claims made in the Wikipedia article, such as the assertion that "Foster has never been charged or convicted of fraud or theft or obtaining money by deception." Rather odd given that the BBC claim he has been jailed on three continents. It is also interesting to note that the minimal coverage given to the infamous Bai Lin Tea debacle in the Wikipedia article.

The person who wrote this article is probably one of the following: a) Peter Foster b) Peter Foster's girlfriend c) Peter Foster's mother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.93.35 (talk • contribs)


 * It says he has not been convicted of fraud...that appears true. He offences were all advertising related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.17.176 (talk • contribs)

Nonsense
Clearly written by Peter Foster himself. Try checking out any of the BBC articles on him. They paint a rather different picture. I have never known anyone describe him as an "international man of mischief"; in fact he's always constantly referrred to as a conman or crook. The article also skims over the infamous Bai Lin Tea fraud and mentions nothing of his abscondment from jails and his pleas to the British Prime Minister to release him from prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.215.213 (talk • contribs)

Sources 2015
Some details about 'Luigina Pelotti' Foster's mother dating from 2002, which is not curently on the page. In fact there aren't any family details, Actually there is, unsourced, and calling her 'Louise Poletti' And some legal stuff from 2003 220  of  Borg 18:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Foster mum: Peter's the butt of a set-up
 * Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chaste Corporation
 * I'm not sure I understand your point. Well done for finding her Italian name - probably her birth name, however, Foster's mother, Louise, is known as Louise Foster or Louise Poletti, and there are numerous sources using those names. On ABC Australian story, 1999, she goes by the name of Louise Foster - Fall of the house of Foster, and talks briefly about being charged with trade offences with Peter in the UK in the nineties. She is referred to as Louise Poletti in numerous articles from different news orgs, including, Faith sustains conman Foster from 2002, and News Ltd last year Gold Coast cops red faced over Foster arrest, among others. The Guardian has her as Louise Pelotti in 2003 Sun wrong on Foster. I propose we include all those aliases, and you appear to be very adept with the correct formatting...
 * I don't see mention of his mother by name in the ACCC vs Chaste document, however his older sister, Jillian Louise Foster, is listed as a respondent. She was also featured in the Australian Story episode. Foster has a niece, Arabella Foster: Peter Foster's niece may face probe over con man's ponzi scheme betting scam. So there are sources confirming the three women are involved in, or have been involved in, his businesses.
 * As for expanding on Foster's family details, I haven't seen any proper journalistic expose on Foster's family or early life, and given the clan's habitual lying, it may be difficult to know what is the truth. For instance, Fairfax journalist, Malcolm Brown, reported information that was later proven false, by Foster's own admission. (Eg. he'd spent his fortieth birthday and Christmas with the Blairs). I've also found no evidence that a documentary about Muhammed Ali was ever made. It doesn't appear to exist, so we can safely remove the weird IMDB external link. In the Australian Story, Louise refers to Peter's estranged father 'Clarry', who I imagine might have been named Clarence Foster. She says that Jillian is seven years older than Peter. In Enough Rope, he talked about Jillian's longstanding drug addiction. Any thoughts on including any of that info? Pallas Blade (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Scratch that about deleting the IMDB link. He made a documentary in 2003 about tabloid press, but there's nothing about a Muhammed Ali film. Pallas Blade (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Short clip that might be in public domain
May we view the deeply unconvincing clip of Foster repenting his bad habits after the Cheriegate incident, and vowing never to re-offend? Valetude (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)