Talk:Noel Desmond Gray

message: 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)
thread_title: Regarding ref to Order Of Australia by 121.222.11.100

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rober Foot Obituary for Trainor used as a refference for Noel Gray's contribution to Telectronics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Noel Gray's reason for leaving Kriesler 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Deletion of names in above section by 121.219.112.213 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founder vs Co-founder

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I propose that the "Neutrality Disputed" tag be removed from the article, because:
* 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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title: Breach of Copywright for photo of Noel Gray

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit of 12 November 2013 

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