This is an archive of past discussions about Nick McKenzie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This article is subject to repeated attacks, additions to page ignoring NPOV and BLP guidelines. May need monitoring by administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qldsydmel (talk • contribs) 02:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of NPOV, there seems to be overuse of non-independent sources like McKenzie's own writings, his union, and his employer/newspaper. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I've added sources from The Australian with references to defamation cases. Does this help? they are single source and from newspaper that often criticses ABC but it adds critical point but with BLP style. sorry, still learning how to use this, thanks for your help.Qldsydmel (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Libel or defamation cases in Australia against journalists are common and involve untested allegations in a statement of claim lodged by the subject of a story. These claims can have merit or no merit and are tested at trial but if a matter is settled confidentially prior to trial, they are not tested. Care should be taken in sourcing materiel in respect of allegations made in libel actions. The additions that have been removed from this page relate to libel cases and statement of claims. Libel actions are common in Australia against journalists- it’s known as the defamation capital of the world. Qldsydmel (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
If it is reported by multiple reliable sources (and that's a big if), then the allegations should be included in the article despite how common it is to you. Right now, his biography is a puff piece if actual cited criticism of his works is omitted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree with that. The issue is that what is being added to page is misleading. For instance, there is addition (since removed) that is a single line referencing a defamation case by an alleged mafia boss, sourced to a single newspaper article reporting how the case was withdrawn. The addition is designed to be adverse and totally misstates the single source it relies on: “The Age published a page two apology to Mr Madafferi that acknowledges that Mr Madafferi is a hard-working family man who has never been charged by the police with any criminal offence’’. When you read the actual newspaper article, it states: “Calabrian-born Antonio Madafferi has abandoned legal action against Fairfax Media over a series of articles describing him as a mafia boss involved in murder, extortion and drug trafficking. The settlement means Mr Madafferi will avoid a potentially bruising courtroom showdown with journalists who have spent years investigating his business and alleged criminal activities... The apology does not retract The Age’s most damaging claim: that he is the head of the Calabrian mafia in Melbourne and involved in serious organised crime. The paper’s previous stories detailing decades of alleged criminal activity by Mr Madafferi remain online. The apology has been added to the stories. It is understood no payment was made from Fairfax Media to Mr Madafferi.”[1]Qldsydmel (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Calabrian-born Antonio Madafferi has abandoned legal action against Fairfax Media over a series of articles describing him as a mafia boss involved in murder, extortion and drug trafficking.The settlement means Mr Madafferi will avoid a potentially bruising courtroom showdown with journalists who have spent years investigating his business and alleged criminal activities.The high-stakes defamation trial, provisionally listed to run for four weeks this year, would have played out against the backdrop of the murder of Joseph Acquaro, a solicitor shot dead by an unknown assailant as he was leaving his Melbourne gelati bar and cafe.
Court documents reveal Mr Madafferi suspected Mr Acquaro, a former friend and family lawyer, of providing information to one of The Age journalists he was suing, Nick McKenzie.According to an affidavit prepared by Paolo Tatti, Mr Madafferi’s lawyer in the defamation case, police told Mr Madafferi in June last year that they had information a $200,000 contract had been placed on Mr Acquaro’s head, and if something happened to him ″they would know where to start looking″.Mr Madafferi denies any knowledge or involvement in Mr Acquaro’s murder, which remains unsolved. The Australian understands settlement was reached after a lengthy mediation on Friday attended by Mr Madafferi, The Age’s new editor-in-chief Mark Forbes and their lawyers. The Age yesterday published a page two apology to Mr Madafferi that ″acknowledges that Mr Madafferi is a hard-working family man who has never been charged by the police with any criminal offence″.The apology does not retract The Age’s most damaging claim: that he is the head of the Calabrian mafia in Melbourne and involved in serious organised crime.
The paper’s previous stories detailing decades of alleged criminal activity by Mr Madafferi remain online. The apology has been added to the stories.
It is understood no payment was made from Fairfax Media to Mr Madafferi. Mr Tatti confirmed the defamation case would not proceed. ″All I can say is it has settled and the apology has been published, as you have seen.″
''Lawyers for Fairfax declined to comment.A ruling last year by Supreme Court Justice John Dixon upholding the right of Fairfax not to disclose the identity of confidential sources who had provided information about Mr Madafferi was welcomed by media groups as an important test of Victoria’s shield laws for journalists'.[3]Qldsydmel (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The proper thing with that specific assertion is to acknowledge the defamation lawsuit and settlement and state that "The Age published an apology to Madafferi that acknowledges that he was never charged by the police with any criminal offence. The apology did not retract that he is the head of the Calabrian mafia and involved in organised crime". Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I will add that in the form you suggest, but not mention Madafferi name to avoid libel issue. Qldsydmel —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I feel this is a relevant contribution to make to the page especially considering it explains his interest in neo-nazi groups (of which he is written probably dozens of articles, a documentary and an expose on 60 minutes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheProfessionalNamer (talk • contribs) 01:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
In September 2023 the Australian Federal Court ruled that an investigative report on EuroPacific Bank by McKenzie on 60 Minutes Australia was defamatory.[1]115.70.36.116 (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
NYTIMES is a less reliable source than the root source for court cases, court documents themselves. Furthermore, NYTimes is a U.S. newspaper and the case was decided in Australia, so a true primary source would be Australian. You should always defer to the most reliable source. Kgelner (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Peter Schiff Defamation Lawsuit Loss (Not Settlement)
This page was updated to show that Nine "settled" a lawsuit. The source cited says Nine lost the lawsuit. Settling and losing (agreeing to pay voluntarily vs. being ordered to pay) are different things and one should not be used in place of the other. The Wikipedia entry is currently inaccurate, and it should be amended to match the source cited.
Recommend the following text in place of the current text on the 2023 lawsuit:
Current text: "In 2023, the Nine Network settled a defamation lawsuit involving Peter Schiff and McKenzie's 60 Minutes story about an international law enforcement operation, Atlantis, targeting his offshore bank."
Recommended text: "In 2023, the Nine Network lost a defamation lawsuit involving Peter Schiff and McKenzie's 60 Minutes story about an international law enforcement operation, Atlantis, targeting his offshore bank." JDWalston (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Agree. McKenzie made the report on behalf of 60 Minutes. The court ruling clearly states the report was defamatory and this should show in McKenzie's bio. It's an important piece of evidence in assessing his journalistic integrity and professionalism. 115.70.36.116 (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page states that the case was “settled” - which implies that defamation may not have actually taken place. In truth, the case was “lost” by Nine Network because the judge definitively ruled that defamation DID take place. Big difference. 136.153.22.36 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The page has no mention of the Peter Schiff case. This page is clearly not objective and tries to hide important information about the journalistic practices of Nick McKenzie. 115.70.36.116 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It was removed to due WP:GUNREL. In any event, you've all done yourselves a disservice by the way you've carried on here. Coming on to the page and storming it with your vandalism is not the way to edit Wikipedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
No it wasn’t settled. That’s the whole point. It was not settled. Nine lost. The judge ordered that they had defamed Peter Schiff. That is not “settled”. “Settled”, in legal terms, implies that the grievance between parties was settled outside of judge mandated orders. That’s not what happened here. What happened here was that the judge ordered Nine to pay Peter Schiff compensation for having defamed him. The only thing that was “settled” was the amount of compensation that they paid. The fact remains, they (meaning, Nick McKenzie et al) defamed Peter Schiff! And that was proved in a court of law! Needs to be publicised on McKenzies wiki page - rather than letting him get away with journalism awards, meanwhile he is a dishonest defamer. 136.153.22.36 (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Lol my bank account wishes I was Peter Schiff. But like Schiff, I’m incredibly invested in the truth. The truth matters. And when you have a defamatory journalist winning awards, that is an outrage. His wiki page should be a place where the truth can be found. 136.153.22.36 (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
If you actually look at the court documents, the court found Nick McKenzie defamed Peter Schiff and a judgement was issued. There was no settlement. 50.77.48.113 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The Australian courts named Nick McKenzie as one of the respondents in the case as other people have mentioned. This was used as a source and I don’t see why it was taken down
Yes but the court document very clearly states that only 2 first two respondents are liable for the costs of which McKenzie isn't one. Thus the amount of $550,000 has nothing to do with him. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The issue is not with costs. The issue is with the judgment made in court that Nick McKenzie defamed Peter Schiff.
Because I saw a bunch of Peter Schiff acolytes hijacking Wikipedia as they go on a vendetta. Editors coming out of the woodwork after not editing for years to make unconstructive edits which is extremly suspicious. When it's boiled down, what happened here is very basic. McKenzie did a report on 60 Minutes, Schiff sued for defamation, the Nine Network settled. This is the end of it. This is all that has to be on the page. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The Nine Network did not settle the defamation case. They settled on the amount of costs paid to Peter Schiff. So it should say “McKenzie did a report on 60 Minutes, Schiff sued for defamation and won. The Nine Network settled the costs paid to Schiff”. 203.219.252.230 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The New York Times article says "The settlement also required Nine to pay legal and court costs to Mr. Schiff and take down the “60 Minutes” report."
So you’re going to accept the wording in a New York Times article rather than the actual source documents from the Australian court of law. The same New York Times that was also involved with this witch-hunt on Peter Schiff.
When you defend Wikipedia as your top priority, rather than the truth - you end up with a Wikipedia full of falsehood - which ironically is resulting in the downfall of Wikipedia as people rightly no longer trust it as a reliable source.
An example of a contemporary Australian defamation case that actually was settled, see the case of News Corp paying $295,000 to Bruce Lehrmamn to settle the defamation case ie. they gave him money to drop the case. Once again that is completely different than what happened with McKenzie and Schiff. In this case, Schiff did not drop the case. He brought the case to completion. And Nick McKenzie was found to have defamed Peter Schiff. Nine was ordered to pay damages, settling on $550,000 as the costs. How can you not understand that?
If you are defending Wikipedia, then the article should say what the Australian court documents reflect - the case was lost, a judgment was issued. Any wording around a "settlement" was incorrect, the judge found all defendants guilty, so there was no settlement. Since there is a primary document that reflects the facts of this case you may only state what those documents indicate. I am also defending Wikipedia by making sure this article only reflects exactly what the Australian courts state occurred. Kgelner (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree. The primary source (i.e. the Federal Court document) clearly states: "Judgment be entered for the Applicant against the Respondents in the sum of $550,000."
That is not a settlement. That is a judgment by order of the court, which means that all of the Respondents lost the case and were ruled to have defamed Schiff. In fact the Respondents consented to this judgement, which means they agree with the ruling that they defamed Schiff, and have thereby waived any right they otherwise had to appeal.
We have had lots of heat and edit wars, but not enough light. I have some more information, and I hope we can agree on what actually happened and agree on a fair and balanced paragraph.
Here’s what I found:
Nicholas McKenzie was indeed involved in the case. He was named as the third respondent — see p. 2 of orders of 14 Dec 2021.
The list of all orders and judgments in the case is at the Commonwealth Courts Portal. These are the official documents published by the Court, and should take precedence over statements in any newspaper reports.
Justice Jayne Jagot gave this judgment on 23 Sep 2022. She said in point 103 "For these reasons, I am satisfied that imputations 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.11, and 8.12 are conveyed by the broadcast. Those imputations are each defamatory."
The text of those imputations is given in point 141 of the same judgment.
In point 61, just above 4.2 she said: "The broadcast is not a reflection of sombre and careful investigative journalism, even if the work underlying it might be of that character. The broadcast is a carefully choreographed piece of drama and intrigue focused on eliciting condemnation of Mr Schiff."
Justice Jagot thus found that the video program had defamed Schiff. She then moved on to a position in the High Court, and Justice Jackman continued the case. His final orders are not to do with the question of defamation, as that had already been determined, but was to do with the amount of penalty the respondents were to pay to Schiff, and the matter of costs.
The maximum penalty for defamation in force at that time was $A459,000 (p. 15 of this Govt. Gazette issue), so it seems the respondents may have agreed to a higher amount so that the case would not continue any longer.
Justice Jackman's final Order reads: "BY CONSENT, THE COURT ORDERS THAT
1. Judgment be entered for the Applicant against the Respondents in the sum of $550,000.
2. The first and second Respondents pay the Applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed on an ordinary basis until December 2021, and thereafter on an indemnity basis.
3. All versions of the Broadcast, as defined in the Statement of Claim (or any part thereof, including online) be permanently removed by the Respondents. This does not include any version of the article(s) as defined in the Statement of Claim, but does include videos included in such articles."
From Order 1 we see that the court gave a judgment against all five respondents, and that they were required to pay $A550,000. Note the word "judgment", not "settlement". We could guess that Nine Network Australia picked up the tab for the individual respondents.
From Order 2 we see the first two respondents (ie. Nine and The Age) were required to pay Schiff’s court costs on an ordinary basis until December 2021, and “on an indemnity basis” after that. It’s the loser who is ordered to pay the winner’s costs.
I hope we can agree that the current paragraph be replaced with something like this:
In 2021, Peter Schiff initiated a lawsuit against Channel 9, The Age, McKenzie and two other employees (the respondents) for defamation arising from a segment entitled "Operation Atlantis" aired on Channel 9 during the 60 Minutes Australia broadcast of 18th October, 2020. This segment was about an international law enforcement operation, "Atlantis", which targeted Schiff’s bank. Justice Jagot found that the broadcast conveyed seven defamatory imputations against Mr Schiff, and stated in paragraph 61 of her judgment that "The broadcast is not a reflection of sombre and careful investigative journalism, even if the work underlying it might be of that character. The broadcast is a carefully choreographed piece of drama and intrigue focused on eliciting condemnation of Mr Schiff." Her finding, in paragraph 103, is that the imputations of the video are defamatory. The Deep Dive item of September 30th reported the judgment. With the matter of defamation decided, the case proceeded towards an assessment of damages before Justice Jackman. The case ended in November 2023 as Justice Jackman made these orders against the Respondents and in favour of Schiff (the Applicant):
"Judgment be entered for the Applicant against the Respondents in the sum of $550,000.
The first and second Respondents pay the Applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed on an ordinary basis until December 2021 and thereafter on an indemnity basis.
All versions of the Broadcast, as defined in the Statement of Claim (or any part thereof, including online) be permanently removed by the Respondents."
Here are some things that are not yet on his page, but which should be:
Nicholas McKenzie was in fact named in the case, as the third respondent.
The statement currently on the page, "the Nine Network settled a defamation lawsuit", implies that Schiff and the respondents battled it out and eventually gave up, with the respondents paying Schiff to drop the case. As I pointed out above, Justice Jagot ruled that the program had defamed Schiff, and she described the program this way: "The broadcast is not a reflection of sombre and careful investigative journalism, even if the work underlying it might be of that character. The broadcast is a carefully choreographed piece of drama and intrigue focused on eliciting condemnation of Mr Schiff."
The first two respondents (Nine and The Age) were ordered to pay Schiff's costs, which shows that the case went against them.
You asked, "How many pounds of flesh are you after?" I'm not after any pounds of flesh. I'm surprised that you seem to be rejecting my attempt to give an accurate representation of what really happened. From what Justice Jagot decided, that's not the kind of journalism we want to encourage here in Australia, is it?
Total yawn fest. There is no "new evidence". The civil trial is over and it's done. It doesn't matter how you try and spin it after the fact, it's done. You need to realise that those orders which you are pushing as source are consent orders. That's a primary source. What we prefer around here are secondary sources, which are able to adequately explain the significance of primary sources. TarnishedPathtalk12:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi TarnishedPath,
You said, "There is no 'new evidence'". Here is some:
Justice Jagot, in paragraph 61 of her judgment ruled "The broadcast is not a reflection of sombre and careful investigative journalism, even if the work underlying it might be of that character. The broadcast is a carefully choreographed piece of drama and intrigue focused on eliciting condemnation of Mr Schiff."
I gave the index page for the Australian court documents, so that editors could check any other details of the case.
I gave another piece of evidence that had not been mentioned on the Talk page: The maximum penalty for defamation in force at that time was $A459,000 (p. 15 of this Govt. Gazette issue), so it seems the respondents may have agreed to a higher amount so that the case would not continue any longer.
You said, "those orders which you are pushing as source are consent orders." Your statement is just a "Contradiction", which "States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence", as described on a low level in this diagram from the page WP:DR. The first order that I cited, by Justice Jagot ruled, in paragraph 103 of her judgment, that the imputations of the video are defamatory. That was a ruling by the judge, not a settlement. The respondents did consent to paying Schiff about $A100,000 more than the judge could have required them to pay in damages, so that the case would not go on any longer. Justice Jackman ordered the first two respondents to pay Schiff's costs, another mark of a judgment rather than a settlement.
@JimH44. PS, you should read WP:BLUDGEON. Copy and pasting same response (with slight variations) into a thread over and over at multiple people is considered extremely bad manners and is generally not tolerated for too long. TarnishedPathtalk07:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm closing this - it is rather inappropriate to discuss the conduct of an editor who is banned from posting to this page, and from an administrative perspective, the issue is resolved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Ivanvector Since late November when the news broke and this page was inundated with dormant editors coming out of the woodwork and ending their hiatus to edit this page, I've been concerned about sock puppets. I brought this up a couple of times with Bbb23 but there wasn't enough to go on apart from my gut. Now that the blocked editor edited the page using an IP I think there's enough to go on. This was like the others, an editor coming out of the woodwork to have an opinion about this subject. And we also have Markj573 returning to the page - if he isn't a sock puppet, he appears to be a meat one. Given all this, I think there's enough to open a SPI. Unless you think I'm wrong. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@MaskedSinger anyone can open a WP:SPI. I've done it myself in the past when I noticed a bunch of new accounts which were created a few days before they participated in a particular AfD, and were all voting the exact same way and wrote in the same manner. TarnishedPathtalk23:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Looks like it would just be a waste of time, people were coming here because Peter Schiff was talking about it on Twitter. He has a large fan base and I don’t see any concrete evidence of sock puppetry Markj573 (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
He has a big fan base and people are upset because they see it as an attack for his political views. He also has a YouTube channel where he talks about it Markj573 (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
There are some people who responded to the survey with an answer “no” and I don’t think they came because of Schiff Markj573 (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I looked at the recent edits and it looks like he added a comment while not logged in. He then logged in to edit his own comment. He made no real attempt to make it look like two people. I don’t count that as sock puppetry Markj573 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
“He appears to be a meat one”
I’m sure this is a typo but not sure what you mean
Edit: I looked at the post history under (Redacted) and it appears to only make one edit under the McKenzie page which he edited again when he logged in as Mkstokes. If it was an attempt at sock puppeting he sure did a poor job of it
It's obvious that the IP was Mkstokes and they made no effort to hide that fact. I already warned Mkstokes about it, long before I was pinged here; see [1]. They acknowledged the warning. No further action is needed here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page is subject to constant vandalism by sock puppets. Thank you User:TarnishedPath for ensuring BLP policies adhered to. Do you think this page could be restricted to editors only? Thank you for considering. Focfuseagle (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Focfuseagle if you like you can request temporary page protection with the rational that the page has been subject to ongoing vandalism/edit warring from newly created accounts. TarnishedPathtalk02:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Peter Schiff wins defamation lawsuit against 9 Media Australia and Scott McKenzie
This page lacks important information about defamatory investigations done by Scott McKenzie and also the previous discussions about this topic have been removed.
In September 2023 the Australian Federal Court ruled that an investigative report on EuroPacific Bank by McKenzie on 60 Minutes Australia was defamatory.[3]115.70.36.116 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
On the about page of the source you give it describes "The Deep Dive is focused on providing stock analysis for young investors on the Canadian junior markets." and then down the bottom of the page it says "Powered by WordPress". Your source is basically a blog about share trading. That's not a reliable source.
Now once again the material in the article accurately reflects the reliable sources which report on the court proceedings and interpret primary sources. If you think people are misinterpreting the reliable sources start a RfC about it. TarnishedPathtalk05:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The 7th Federal Australian Court judgement that found McKenzie's report defamatory.
Those are consent orders. That's a negotiated position arrived at through mediation that a judge has signed off on. I.e., a settlement. If you don't know that then you shouldn't be attempting to edit highly contentious material into a WP:BLP
Those are also a primary source. Primary sources can be used in articles but they can not be the basis of material, they should only be used in conjunction with reliable secondary sources.
Per my first point, the reliable sources used in the article refer to the case being settled.
Now as per above if you think other editors and my interpretation of the reliable sources is incorrect, I invite you to take this to an RfC. TarnishedPathtalk05:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Just to toss in, WP:BLPPRIMARY says Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. I'm pretty sure there is or will be a secondary source that covers and interprets what's happening here. Please be patient and wait for that source to emerge. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
RfC: Lawsuit between Peter Schiff and Australian media
There is consensus to remove the disputed content. This is going to be a controversial closure, given the numerical majority against removing the content, but I will make my reasons very clear.
First, I must make it clear that key Wikipedia policies, such as WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS were frequently and blatantly broken. Multiple editors, particularly Mkstokes, violated Wikipedia's policies and should be ashamed of their actions. Had I have came across this discussion while it was active I would have immediately reported it to AN/I, and I suspect at least some blocks would have been handed out. Unfortunately, the discussion was also negatively affected by social media comments about this discussion from Peter Schiff. Peter, if you're reading this, which you probably are, it doesn't make an effect. We make decisions through consensus, not a simple vote tally. The right decision, based on our policies, will almost always be made.
This very long conversation boils down to whether or not four secondary sources can be used to back up the claims made on a biography of a living person, or BLP. These four sources came from Lawyerly, The Australian, The American Tribune, and the Herald Sun. There was also the suggestion of using the court case itself as a source, however this is made very clear in WP:BLPPRIMARY that this is strongly discouraged. All four of the secondary sources cannot be used on BLPs, for varying reasons. The Lawyerly source did not clearly mention McKenzie's name, and using it as a source would be blatant WP:OR, even if it wasn't on a BLP. The The Australian source does mention McKenzie's name, but does not explicitly mention McKenzie being found to have defamed Schiff. The American Tribune identifies as self-published, and cannot be used as a source per WP:SELFPUB. Finally. The Herald Sun is tabloid journalism that cannot be used per WP:BLPSOURCES. Without these sources, there is no way to source the disputed content, and the case to retain the information is very weak. JML1148(talk | contribs)10:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article currently has the following material at the bottom of the Nick McKenzie#Court cases and shield laws section:
"In 2023, the Nine Network settled a defamation lawsuit involving Peter Schiff after an Australian judge found that Nick McKenzie's 60 Minutes story about an international law enforcement operation, Atlantis, targeting his offshore bank, had defamed Schiff. As part of the settlement, Schiff was paid $550,000 and all versions of the broadcast were permanently removed by the respondents.[4][5]"
Should this material be removed such that the established consensus becomes that this subject matter is not covered in any way in this article moving forward until such time that alternative consensus is established? TarnishedPathtalk00:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Survey
Yes. Since the conclusion of the lawsuit between Peter Schiff and some Australian media there as been WP:TENDENTIOUS editing from various accounts and IPs who have an agenda of WP:RGW against a McKenzie. They continuously sought to edit war over this section in an attempt to cast poor light over McKenzie when the lawsuit was primarily about his employers and not him. There has not been a single reliable source provided that McKenzie has editorial control over the content he's is the presenter for. If this specific material belongs anywhere (with McKenzie's name removed) it's on the Nine networks and/or 60 minutes articles and not here. This material does not belong in this article at all per WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT or WP:BLP. TarnishedPathtalk00:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Some very important comments for review after this extended discussion.
1. The Australian is a "reliable source" per WP:RSP. There is no debate on this point.
2. The citation from The Australian denotes the 60 Minutes program was, "...compiled by journalist[] Nick McKenzie...".
3. There is no Wikipedia policy requiring "editorial control over the content" in this case. If you think this policy exists, please provide a reference to it so editors can review it just like you've provided references to all other relevant policies.
4. The citation from The Australian denotes that the "...60 Minutes episode carried several defamatory meanings..."
5. Read together, the citation clearly denotes that the 60 Minutes episode compiled by journalist Nick McKenzie carried several defamatory meanings.
6. There is absolutely no contrary debate as to whether the 60 Minutes episode compiled by journalist Nick McKenzie was defamatory.
7. There is absolutely no contrary debate as to whether the associated articles in The Age compiled by journalist Nick McKenzie was not defamatory.
This is not rocket science, nor is it original research. Rather, it is a fair, neutral point of view, logical, and reasonable reading of the details conveyed by the citation in question. It is a unfair, biased, illogical, and unreasonable conclusion to say that the 60 Minutes episode was defamatory, the compiled content was defamatory, but the journalist, Nick McKenzie, that complied the content wasn't defamatory, but even if it was defamatory it's irrelevant because the journalist didn't have "editorial control" over the content. Mkstokes (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
No, conditional. A defamation lawsuit is meaningful in relation to a BLP, whether a win or loss - defamation is a serious issue. I've no dog in the fight (don't care about either party). The content should stay, merely remove the naming of McKenzie. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.00:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I thought it was reasonably clear, but you'd merely adjust it to ""In 2023, the Nine Network settled a defamation lawsuit involving Peter Schiff after an Australian judge found that their 60 Minutes story about an international law enforcement operation, Atlantis, targeting his offshore bank, had defamed Schiff. As part of the settlement, Schiff was paid $550,000 and all versions of the broadcast were permanently removed by the respondents." cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.01:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, ignore ignore ignore! I'm an idiot. I thought I was looking at the talk page for peter schiff. I'll remove my vote and the discussion if you agree that it's stupid (it is!) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.01:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, perhaps the gentler term would be 'careless' - however, since our discussion here isn't at all meaningful to the Rfc, I'll leave it to you whether to delete it. I support removing it :) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is.01:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
No. The bottom line is that Federal Court Justice Jayne Jagot ruled that Nine Networks, Nicholas McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve, and Joel Tozer defamed Peter Schiff. Court documents are very clear on this legal fact. The Federal Court of Australia and Lawyerly Media are both reliable sources. Just because court documents are a primary source and Lawyerly is behind a paywall doesn't suddenly make this untrue or meaningless. Now someone suggests lifting the bar to unreasonable heights by needing a reliable source to say that Mr. McKenzie had editorial control over the defamatory content? The court didn't set that bar when they found his utterances defamatory. Why should Wikipedia do it? I'm under no illusion that my comments will make any difference. If someone wants to publish an inaccurate article and the consensus is to keep it an inaccurate article, then so be it. However, it is a MAJOR event in a newsperson's life when they have been charged with defamation: "communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person." This is what Nine Networks, Nicholas McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve, and Joel Tozer are guilty of doing to Peter Schiff, end of story. Addition: I'll note that The Australian, The American Tribune, and the Herald Sun also mention Nicolas McKenzie and The Australian is a reliable source per WP:RSP. Finally, it was important enough news for 60 Minutes Australia, the New York Times, The Age, and Lawyerly, to cover it. Deleting this information would be damaging to the credibility of Wikipedia. Mkstokes (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mkstokes we go with what the reliable sources say around here. Ps, despite you engaging in WP:IDONTGETIT, The American Tribune not reliable and the Sydney Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun are Tabloid journalism. Move on. TarnishedPathtalk17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Given the suggested requirement that sources must say exactly what is provided in the Wikipedia text. I'm going to go through a process of reviewing all cited sources to determine if we would have to remove more material based on the standard proposed here. For instance, the 2010 case says, Wikipedia reads "three journalists including McKenzie made an application to keep their sources confidential." However, the cited source doesn't explicitly say that. Rather it says, "The Age and three of its journalists have failed in a final bid to keep confidential their sources...." This should be an interesting analysis. Mkstokes (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
If the WP:RSs don't say something we can't say it on their behalf just because we know what the RSs aren't saying. WP:OR spells that out clearly. Of course we need to paraphrase so that we don't engage in copyright violations but we only spell out exactly what the WP:RSs say.
So in the example you site if the source doesn't make reference to McKenzie being part of the application to keep sources confidential anywhere in its text then someone has misused the source and that section of this article needs to either a} have a better source found which supports what is claimed or b} be edited so that original research is no longer occurring. TarnishedPathtalk10:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. @TarnishedPath I couldn't agree with you more. You've done a great job here in staying on top of this. You've fought the good fight and prevented this page from becoming a free for all. McKenzie published a story that Schiff didn't like. In turn, Schiff and sued McKenzie and the Nine Network. The case was settled and Schiff was awarded around half a million dollars. This is the beginning and end of it. Because Schiff has a fan base who now is upset with McKenzie doesn't mean they can come to this page and vent their rage and throw as much @#$ against the wall as they want to. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
CORRECTIONS:
1. McKenzie didn't publish any story. The Age and Nine Networks published it.
2. Schiff sued Nine Networks, The Age, Nicholas McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve, and Joel Tozer.
3. Nine Networks, Nicholas McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve, and Joel Tozer were found to be defamatory.
4. The Age was not found to be defamatory.
5. After been found defamatory, the case was settled for more than the maximum allowed by law (i.e., AUD $398,500).
6. Nine Networks was ordered to retract the story and both Nine Networks and The Age were ordered to pay Schiff's legal fees.
I'll also note that "[fighting] the good fight" is not the purpose of Wikipedia. In fact, it goes directly against WP:5P1 "Wikipedia is not a soapbox..." and WP:5P2 "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." Mkstokes (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Lol. Let's not beat around the bush. You're a SPU editor who came out of the woodwork to wage war on behalf of Peter Schiff. You're not here to build an encyclopedia. You're here to smear anyone who upsets Lord Schiff. As such, you have an undeclared COI regarding the subject matter and should stay far away from these 2 pages as you should possibly can. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@MaskedSinger your personal comments are once again noted. I'll remind you of WP:APERSIONS, "...a situation where an editor or group of editors is accused of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations are collectively considered a personal attack." Please stay on topic. I was requested to provide comment via a ping, and that is what I'm doing. If you have a problem with that, you are welcome to raise an WP:COICOIN report, provide evidence, and have me blocked. Mkstokes (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Final Note: In this regard, it is critical that we adhere to principles outlined in WP:USTHEM. Specifically, "If you regard editing as being something where you and some other editors are the "good guys", whose mission is to combat other editors who are the "bad guys", where everything is us-against-them, you may not be as much of a good guy as you think you are." "[Fighting] the good fight" implies that others providing a contrary opinion are fighting the bad fight. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Mkstokes (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mkstokes, I've not actually seen any quotations from reliable secondary sources which state that a) McKenzie was a respondent (please don't use the word defendant it displays either a lack of knowledge of the legal system or a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters, casting McKenzie as some sort of criminal) and b) that McKenzie was found to have defamed Schiff. Both The Australian and the Herald Sun quotes that you provided below do neither of those things. Neither does the quote provided by Fences&Windows from The Sydney Daily Telegraph. The closest either Herald Sun or the Daily Telegraph got was talking about McKenzie's interview with Schiff about “Operation Atlantis”. Beyond that again like The Australian the quotes talk about him in reference to newspaper articles, which again were not found to be defamatory. Just to make it clear none of those three quotes directly references the fact that McKenzie was a respondent to the civil action or that he was found to have defamed Schiff (AFAIK from the quotes I've seen, I don't intend on paying subscriptions to any of those three newspapers).
With that in mind, I don't see how any three of those sources can support the following text:
"In 2023, the Nine Network settled a defamation lawsuit involving Peter Schiff after an Australian judge found that Nick McKenzie's 60 Minutes story about an international law enforcement operation, Atlantis, targeting his offshore bank, had defamed Schiff. As part of the settlement, Schiff was paid $550,000 and all versions of the broadcast were permanently removed by the respondents."
Therefore we shouldn't have that material in the article. It's a WP:BLP violation. It's WP:UNDUE and there is no WP:WEIGHT on the basis of the WP:RS. All you've provided above are assertions based on primary sources which around here we call original research. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, which I've advised you numerous times before, we don't rely on court transcripts to back up material in WP:BLPs and trying to rely on them in your arguments in an RfC is defacto doing that. TarnishedPathtalk10:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath I've never used the word defendant, but here's a tip for you. The word "criminal" does not apply to civil cases, so of course no one is casting McKenzie as some sort of criminal. Please don't use the word "criminal" as it displays a lack of knowledge of the legal system. But there you have it folks. A man was found guilty of defamation in a court of law and if the proposed edit happens, Wikipedia will imply that it didn't happen despite it being published that it happened! George Orwell couldn't have written it better. The funniest part is that the NY Times has a hyperlink to the Lawyerly article within the source cited for this article! And now you know why Wikipedia is not trustworthy. CLASSIC! Good luck gaining consensus. I will not participate in a process that seeks to gaslight Wikipedia readers. Mkstokes (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Please refer to your own edit Special:Diff/1194673494 in which you reproduce text from an article referring to respondents as defendants. The appropriate thing to do would have been to place [sic] after the word "defendants" within the quotations. So yes, you did use the word defendants. TarnishedPathtalk11:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath I cut and pasted text from an article for you because you didn't have access to the article. So no, I didn't use the word defendants because I didn't author the article. Now it's obvious that you are being obtuse. Mkstokes (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes per TarnishedPath.No The opposing comment citing "court documents" is particularly weak and can be disregarded, but the "no" arguments below made me reconsider my vote. If WP:RS mention both people it's fair to mention it in the article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
No - of course it shouldn't be removed, it is notable when a media outlet, along with the reporter, is named as a defendant in a lawsuit, and a judgement is entered against them. It was his reporting that got him named as a defendant in the lawsuit, just like it was his reporting about Ben Roberts-Smith that got him named as a defendant in that lawsuit. If the Roberts-Smith lawsuit had been lost, would he have paid the settlement out of his own pocket?, of course not, the outlet would have paid, just like here, the outlet is paying the settlement. Do you think Bartiromo, Carlson, Dobbs, Hannity or Pirro would have personally paid anything in Dominion vs Fox, of course not, but they were named, and Fox paid. And Mike Wallace was named in Westmoreland v. CBS, and he was only the narrator, and his article is not whitewashed of the fact he was sued along with CBS. It's unclear why this article is more than happy to include when McKenzie, along with the outlet, win a lawsuit, but want to whitewash the undeniable fact he was named in this lawsuit, and lost, because of his reporting.Isaidnoway(talk)18:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
No: The lawsuit has received significant coverage in RSes that mention the article subject (e.g., The Australian article cited in the refs). Two sentences on a lawsuit where the article subject was a defendant and lost is not UNDUE. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Leaning no: Schiff sued McKenzie and others for defamation and won. The exact wording may need to be worked out but the general information should remain. Senorangel (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Senorangel (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
Yes, remove This is NOTNEWS, insignificant to the central narrative of this page and poorly contextualized. It misleads our readers to a COATRACK impression about Schiff and about the investigative journalism work of McKenzie. Context missing includes the fines paid by Schiff to the regulators who found infractions and their liquidation of his bank and return of millions in deposits to its clientele. The current article text violates BLP and any inclusion would need to be completely rewritten, taking account of these flaws. SPECIFICOtalk15:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO this section of Nick McKenzie's biographies of living persons is about court cases involving Nick McKenzie. The fines, liquidation, and deposit returns are related to an OCIF investigation that has absolutely nothing to do with Nick McKenzie. It's possibly a deficiency on Peter Schiff's biographies of living persons, but it has no place here. McKenzie's investigative journalism was related to the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement (J5) investigation into Schiff's bank. That is the investigation called Operation Atlantis that the 60 Minutes Australia episode talks about. The section this falls into on McKenzie's page is "Court cases and shield laws." So, the question should be is this court case that involves McKenzie important enough to put on his bio? Well, McKenzie himself said Schiff's bank was "...at the center of an enormous world-wide tax evasion investigation." This is what Schiff sued over. One on the most circulated newspapers in the world felt it needed to comment on the lawsuit. That seems very important to me. Mkstokes (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
No, this paragraph should not be removed. In the life of an investigative journalist who seeks to expose crime and criminals to keep the rest of us safe, there will be times when journalists and publishers are sued, with a claim of defamation. Sometimes the person taking court action wins, sometimes the respondents win and sometimes there is a confidential settlement. This page shows that before 2023, McKenzie and associates had won four cases and two had been settled. This paragraph shows that the respondents, including McKenzie, had defamed Schiff in the 60 Minutes broadcast. If this paragraph is removed, that will be a blow to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCEJimH44 (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it should be removed. Just because McKenzie is mentioned in passing in one of the sources doesn't change the fact that it is tangential to this article - there is a single passing mention in the The Australian source, and no mentions of McKenzie at all in the NYT source (which therefore, all else aside, must be removed to avoid WP:SYNTH.) That doesn't support the idea that this is somehow relevant enough to be mentioned here. EDIT: Also, this RFC is worded slightly oddly. To be clear, this material is a new addition and not part of the article's status quo, and it is plainly WP:BLP-sensitive besides; this means that if we fail to reach a consensus it will obviously be omitted, yes? I ask only because this is worded as if it is seeking a consensus to remove the material, which is a bit odd; for something clearly BLP-sensitive, it is the people who wish to include it that must demonstrate an affirmative consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Aquillion, I worded it that way as it was what was in the article at the time of me writing the RfC. To answer your WP:BLP question, given that that section has not been stable since the WP:TENDENTIOUS IPs and WP:SPAs started editing over it, I would think that if consensus is not reached for its inclusion then WP:BLPUNDEL is the applicable policy. TarnishedPathtalk11:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Truthfully, if it falls under WP:BLPUNDEL, it should have been removed immediately and kept out of the article until / unless there's an unambiguous consensus to include it. If someone keeps restoring it without consensus and you're confident that it's a WP:BLPUNDEL violation, the thing to do is to take them to WP:AE. --Aquillion (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
You're probably correct that I should have removed it earlier. At the moment I'm not sure how a closer would fall given that there is 1 canvassed vote and a bunch of editors voting in a way which indicates that they think WP:OR is acceptable in WP:BLPs. TarnishedPathtalk11:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Admin note - I have removed the content in dispute and full-protected the article due to edit warring. This is not intended to bypass discussion on the matter nor should it be taken as an opinion on its inclusion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Note to closer The secondary sources which do mention McKenzie only do so in passing and do not state that he defamed Schiff. Any inclusion of the material is an attempt to get the reader to draw an connection to McKenzie having defamed Schiff which the reliable sources do not state and thus original research. Please also note that canvassing has occurred during this RfC at Special:Diff/1194947781 and Special:Diff/1194948602. TarnishedPathtalk03:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I could have handled things better. I should have nipped things in the bud a lot faster when it started being problematic at Peter Schiff. TarnishedPathtalk07:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The Australian article uses his name twice. The first time there is a picture of Nick Mckinzie with a 60 Minutes water mark with the caption “Nine’s investigative reporter Nick McKenzie was one of the journalists behind a report into Peter Schiff.“ Markj573 (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Markj573 the photo caption just rephrases what is said in the one place he's mentioned in the article. Doesn't change that he's referenced in passing and that at no point does it state that he was found to have defamed Schiff. It's an extremely poor source to attempt to support the material that was in the article considering this is a WP:BLPTarnishedPathtalk13:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
They bothered to put his picture prominently in the article which I would say makes it more than in passing. It emphasizes his significance in the case Markj573 (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
It looks like you’re grasping for straws on that one. He isn’t just mentioned in passing, his picture and the fact he was a reporter in the case is one of the first things a reader sees Markj573 (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
His name is mentioned once during the story. That's exactly what "mentioned in passing" means. I.e., he is not the main focus of the article.
Notably the only place his name appears in the whole article is the following quote "Mr Schiff alleged the episode and its accompanying news articles, compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer, implied he “facilitated the theft of millions of dollars from the Australian people“ by helping customers commit offshore tax fraud". Mr Schiff alleged something, so what? This isn't a article about Mr Schiff. Not once in the article does it state that McKenzie defamed Schiff. Any attempt to read it in a way that it does is pure WP:OR and is unacceptable for a WP:BLP. TarnishedPathtalk11:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Mr. McKenzie was a named defendant in the lawsuit. The judge ruled that the defendants defamed Mr. Schiff. That is not OR, those are the facts.
Peter Schiff sat down for an interview with journalist Nick McKenzie over video link from the United States in late 2020, and was questioned about an international tax evasion probe, called Operation Atlantis into Euro Pacific Bank,of which he was the CEO and founder. Mr Schiff took Federal Court defamation action claiming “allegations of criminality” were made about him by Mr McKenzie, and his colleagues Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer. The Advertiser (Adelaide) via ProQuest2892116511
Nine Entertainment is set to pay US finance expert and former banker Peter Schiff more than $1m over a story by Walkley-winning journalists Nick McKenzie and Charlotte Grieve. Schiff launched defamation action against Nine, McKenzie and Grieve claiming “allegations of criminality” had been made in the TV report and articles. The Australian via ProQuest2893644515Isaidnoway(talk)07:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The Australian article does not state once that McKenzie was found to have defamed Schiff, only that "The legal saga ended with Nine agreeing to settle with Schiff".
Likewise The Advertiser does not state once that McKenzie was found to have defamed Schiff only "Nine has agreed to pay Mr Schiff $550,000 in damages plus court costs".
The previous material in this article invited readers to interpret that McKenzie has been found to have defamed Schiff, a reading which is not available from reliable secondary sources. That is original research at its core. TarnishedPathtalk08:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The idea that reliable secondary sources say that a judge ruled that _ALL_ of the defendants defamed Schiff is left wanting. Please remember we're not relying on court transcripts here per WP:BLPPRIMARY. TarnishedPathtalk08:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
See → Nine Entertainment is set to pay US finance expert and former banker Peter Schiff more than $1m over a story by Walkley-winning journalists Nick McKenzie and Charlotte Grieve. That is a quote, and there's no need to even include the word "defamed". We introduce the paragraph by stating that Mr Schiff took Federal Court defamation action claiming “allegations of criminality” were made about him by Mr McKenzie, and then follow up with Nine Entertainment is set to pay US finance expert and former banker Peter Schiff more than $1m over a story by Walkley-winning journalists Nick McKenzie and Charlotte Grieve. That is not OR, that is two statements of fact.Isaidnoway(talk)09:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Again, not once do they state that McKenzie settled or was found to have defamed. From the stories we also know that Schiff also sued The Age newspaper for defamation, and that those articles were written by McKenzie and others, but that The Age was found to have not defamed Schiff. The articles simply make no statements about whether McKenzie as an individual was found to have done anything in a court of law. Per WP:NOR we can't fill in the blanks for readers and write material in such a manner that invites them to draw conclusions that are not explicitly stated in the reliable secondary sources. TarnishedPathtalk09:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Again, Mr Schiff took Federal Court defamation action claiming “allegations of criminality” were made about him by Mr McKenzie. Again, Nine Entertainment is set to pay Peter Schiff more than $1m over a story by Nick McKenzie and Charlotte Grieve.
This is not original research. These are statements of fact. We don't exclude significant career/life events in a journalists article. This is notable, this is relevant, this is significant for a journalist/BLP.Isaidnoway(talk)10:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Lots of people might take Federal Court defamation action claiming all sorts of things. So? What do the reliable secondary sources say? Not one that I've seen says that McKenzie defamed or settled with Schiff. Now a section of this article that invites readers to draw that conclusion is original research. You might think it's ok to draw some inferences, and write material in a manner that invites readers to do likewise, but I don't think WP:NOR allows that luxury. You can keep going on if you like but I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this. TarnishedPathtalk10:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The fact that he was sued in the first place is notable enough for inclusion, just like when Ben Roberts-Smith sued McKenzie for defamation, it was added to the article, as seen in this diff. We have two identical stories here:
In one instance, Mckenzie reported something about Roberts-Smith, he sued, there was a trial and we know the outcome. Editors had no problem including that, and for some odd reason, deemed it notable enough to include in the lead.
Same thing with Schiff, McKenzie reported something about him, Schiff sued, a trial happened, and we know the outcome of that trial. You keep banging on about original research, but what exactly is the original research? These are all uncontested facts.
McKenzie reported about Schiff in a 60 Minutes segment.
Comparing the Roberts-Smith trial to the Schiff trial is a red hearing. The Roberts-Smith outcome is many magnitudes more notable than the Schiff outcome.
Moving beyond that, the only outcome "we know" from the Schiff trial that should influence the outcome of this RfC is what is covered in reliable secondary sources. Then we have to ask ourselves is it WP:DUE and does it have WP:WEIGHT without engaging in WP:OR. TarnishedPathtalk12:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Ps, I think the current "Court cases and shield laws" section has a bit of an identity issue with grouping together all court cases to do with "shield laws" and all other court cases. I think the two should be separated. I think that would make discussion like this easier, because journalists like McKenzie are bound to be involved in a lot of court cases given Australia's current defamation laws. Is it however WP:DUE or is there WP:WEIGHT to coat tail this article on each and every one of them? I lean towards not. TarnishedPathtalk12:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
If none of the sources mention McKenzie beyond a quote from Schiff (which appears to be the case) then I'm fine with the content being removed. It should not be in a WP:BLP and if I inadvertently restored such content, then I am deeply sorry. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The reverts that you, others and myself have done so far have been restoring from worse edits to less worse edits. I don't see that there's anything entirely wrong with that when we've been dealing with edit warring from large amounts of IPs and WP:SPAs, but now I want to put the question to an RfC so that we can deal with it properly. TarnishedPathtalk01:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you provide a quote please? All I can see is "Nine’s investigative reporter Nick McKenzie was one of the journalists behind a report into Peter Schiff". TarnishedPathtalk04:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
“ Mr Schiff alleged the episode and its accompanying news articles, compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer, implied he “facilitated the theft of millions of dollars from the Australian people“ by helping customers commit offshore tax fraud.
Last year during an interlocutory hearing for the case, Justice Jayne Jagot said the 60 Minutes episode carried several defamatory meanings, while the related news articles did not, as the episode included ominous music and created "an impression of high drama and internal intrigue". Markj573 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Here's a third source, The American Tribune, but it is not currently attached to the article.
Conservative Economist Sues Media Outlets Over Defamation, Wins Huge Settlement By Ellis Robinson November 29, 2023
"Therefore, Schiff named The Age, 60 Minutes, and two reporters in a lawsuit for coverage of the incident. Supposedly, the reports implied that Schiff was guilty of crimes related to money laundering and tax evasion, where a judge ruled an exaggerated segment was defamatory. Furthermore, the findings of the lawsuit suggested media outlets were attempting to create a narrative around Euro Pacific. ... Reportedly, the journalists, Charlotte Grieve and Nick McKenzie, obtained an interview with Schiff by lying about their intentions, before attempting to guilt Schiff with the existence of the investigation into his bank." Mkstokes (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Please point out to me where the source themselves announce that they are unreliable. Your 'opinion' that they are not a reliable source is directly contradicted by Wikipedia consensus. At this point, it almost pointless to debate this with you. I doubt there is a single person on this RfC that does not know Peter Schiff was defamed by the 4 respondents in his defamation case. As I see it, there are two camps. Those that want to exclude that metaphysical fact and those that don't. Your personal attacks regarding my competence mean absolutely nothing to me, but you're welcome to keep making them. I assure you, they do not deter me and I do not care what you think. Regardless, I'm willing to move towards a consensus opinion as quickly as possible. Let's drop the swords and work towards that. Mkstokes (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Their own about page details that they are self-published. Do you have a problem reading english and then working out how that applies to the relevant Wikipedia policies? Once again you are demonstrating that you are not competent to be editing Wikipedia.
Ps, what concensus are you talking about that I'm contradicting in regards to The American Tribune? You just stated above that WP:RSP provides no direction. I've already warned you on your talk page about WP:GASLIGHTING. TarnishedPathtalk04:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't believe that I have to post this twice. One person doesn't get to decide if a source is reliable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly made a consensus opinion that The Australian is a reliable source. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_309#The_Australian) It says, "Clear consensus that the Australian is reliable." Of the 21 responses to the most recent discussion, only 1 says The Australian is not reliable. Therefore, your personal opinion does not matter and your reference to WP:SELFPUB does not matter. The Wikipedia community has spoken! You are one person and YOU don't get to refute the consensus of the Wikipedia community, period. I never said that WP:RSP doesn't provide direction on The Australian. It's possible that you misread my comments, so I'll allow for that. I have no problem reading English. Nor do the 18 out of 21 other Wikipedia authors that agree with me regarding The Australian being a reliable source. If you want to create another discussion to determine if they aren't reliable, please do so and good luck. I'm close to submitting a WP:DR. Mkstokes (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
You should do that. Better question is how is an editor who only made 13 edits over 8 years before going on a 9 year hiatus such an expert in Wikipedia procedures and protocols, putting aside the fact that you ignore all protocols when wanting to push through your Pro-Schiff propaganda.
Is is that you're a sock puppet? A meat puppet? You honed your skills over the years becoming well versed in the ins and outs of Wikipedia but now when you needed to tow the line for Schiff and get this on the page for his highness, you had to dust off this account and bring it out of hibernation?
And so it was on December 21 when you made your first edit after 9 years - to reflect the fact that the Nine Network lost the court case.
The problem with a SPU with an undeclared COI is that that think they're smarter than everyone else, but in reality they're too clever by half. They will always be undone by their arrogance and hubris. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:ASPERSIONS isn't a policy or a guideline. Putting that aside, it says An editor must not accuse another of misconduct without evidence. Have you been paying any attention to what I wrote? There is plenty of evidence! And this evidence is the edits you've made. You don't have the right to do as you please here in order to push through your Schiff agenda. I will do what I can to defend Wikipedia and if that means calling you out, so be it. If the cap fits, wear it. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mkstokes can you not read english or are you WP:GASLIGHTING? Either way it demonstrates that you shouldn't be editing here. I was clearly referring to The American Tribune. You clearly stated that WP:RSP had no entry on it and then tried to assert that it was reliable. The most basic of research indicates that it is not per its about page which I linked above. TarnishedPathtalk06:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath here's where we currently stand. We have 3 survey responses to accept your consensus edit and 3 to reject it. So far, not a single person on this RfC has said that Nick McKenzie did not defame Peter Schiff during his 60 Minutes interview. You have not obtained consensus for your text to date. Finally, The Australian clearly provides the references to defamation. I've provided the full text of their article below for your viewing pleasure. At this point it is obvious that engaging you in debate about his topic is utterly pointless. Thank you for making that clear. I'll no longer waste my time. Mkstokes (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
And another one from the Herald Sun:
Nine set to pay $1M to GFC-predicting finance expert Peter Schiff after defamation settlement by Josh Hanrahan, November 21, 2023 - 7:20PM
"Mr Schiff took Federal Court defamation action claiming “allegations of criminality” were made about him by Mr McKenzie, and his colleagues Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer....The articles in both newspapers were found not to be defamatory, but Nine was forced to abandon its truth and contextual truth defences over the TV broadcast earlier this year. Nine accepted the show “conveyed meanings not intended by the program” and agreed to a settlement with Mr Schiff’s legal team, led by Sue Chrysanthou SC....“We stand by our journalists - two of Australia’s most accomplished journalists in Nick McKenzie and Charlotte Grieve - and the articles, which were found not to be defamatory, will remain online,” a Nine spokesperson said. “60 Minutes accepts that the Federal Court found the program conveyed meanings that were not intended by the program, noting the barriers posed by the current state of defamation law in Australia to important public interest journalism.” Mkstokes (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
A couple of things. I don't think the Herald Sun is suitable as a source for WP:BLPs. Probably less so than Sydney's Daily Telegraph because it's Tabloid journalism and WP:BLPSOURCES rule these out if they are being used by themselves. Secondly all your quote says is that Nine stand by McKenzie, how does that support the current material that is currently in the article? I'll give you the answer, it doesn't. TarnishedPathtalk00:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath you seem to be missing a key element of the following quote: "...the Federal Court found the program conveyed meanings that were not intended by the program, noting the barriers posed by the current state of defamation law in Australia to important public interest journalism." The law in Australian says the intention of the author or publisher is not relevant to whether the statement is defamatory. Thus Nine Networks is directly admitting it accepts the Federal Court findings that they defamed Peter Schiff despite their lack of intent to do so, according to the article. In fact, they say "60 Minutes accepts that the Federal Court found the program conveyed meanings..." If you conducted the most basic of research you would have found this out. Mkstokes (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mkstokes "Nine was forced to abandon ...", "Nine accepts ..." and "60 minutes accepts ...". The only part of that quote above in relation to Nick McKenzie is in relation to the newspapers, which were found to be not defamatory. Remind me, are we discussing whether material about a defamation case should be on Nine' or 60 minute's articles or Nick McKenzie's? I'm not seeing direct quotes tying him to the defamation. TarnishedPathtalk07:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath are you purposely being obtuse? Nine is a legal entity. Thus Nine Networks doesn't do a damn thing! A 'person" at the organization creates the content. A person accepts on behalf of the legal entity. If you think there is a person named Nine Networks that's truly sad. There is a video of the person that created the 60 Minutes broadcast. In this instance, that person is Nick McKenzie, not the legal entity Nine Networks or its program 60 Minutes. How that simple logic escapes you is astounding! I'll give you a hint. The person conducting the interview is neither Nine Networks nor 60 Minutes. Neither of those entities are sitting in a room with Mr. Schiff. Nick McKenzie is sitting there. It's shocking that I have to explain this to you. Your argument rests on some notion that some ethereal entity named 60 minutes is running an interview. Do you also think The Age wrote the Schiff articles, because there's this thing called a byline used to denote the authors. This is where your argument completely falls apart. You honestly seem to think that when an article names a legal entity it excludes the person responsible for doing the work of that legal entity, while the Bio of Nick McKenzie is very clear that he does the work for that entity. At some point, you might as well suggest there's no reliable source that says Nick McKenzie conducted the interview with Peter Schiff! Hahaha Mkstokes (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There are now 4 secondary sources that have referenced Nick McKenzie's defamation against Peter Schiff. Lawyerly, The Australian, The American Tribune, and the Herald Sun. I'll also note that The Australian is listed as reliable on WP:RSP, while the others have no consensus. Thus comments that none of the sources mention McKenzie is no longer accurate if one of these sources is added. It will be interesting to see of this sways the Survey responses. Mkstokes (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The Daily Telegraph explicitly reports this in connection to McKenzie: "Peter Schiff sat down for an interview with journalist Nick McKenzie over video link from the United States in late-2020 only to be hit with questions about an international tax evasion probe called “Operation Atlantis” into Euro Pacific Bank, of which he was the CEO and founder. ... The articles in both newspapers were found not to be defamatory, but Nine was forced to abandon its truth and contextual truth defences over the TV broadcast earlier this year. Nine accepted the show “conveyed meanings not intended by the program” and agreed to a settlement with Mr Schiff’s legal team, led by Sue Chrysanthou SC." [2]Fences&Windows08:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
A few things. I don't see Sydney's Daily Telegraph as a suitable source for BLPs. If the Telegraph isn't Tabloid journalism, they're pretty close to it and therefore WP:BLPSOURCES applies. The quote you provide talks about Nine settling and this was 60 Minutes segment so if the content belongs anywhere it's more appropriate there, however I dare say there would be massive WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE issues with trying to introduce something for which there is not a lot of reporting into big organisations. Notably someone has editing a single line into 60 minutes stating "60 minutes reporter Nick McKenzie lost a 2023 lawsuit in which he was found to have defamed Peter Schiff" without citations which someone should remove because it is a WP:BLP violation. Lastly this material is WP:UNDUE and does not have sufficient WP:WEIGHT to belong in this article. Its very raison d'être in this article at present is that a bunch of WP:TENDENTIOUS IPs and WP:SPAs are trying to WP:RGW against McKenzie because they have a pre-existing axe to grind with him from before the conclusion of the Schiff case (Just to be clear I'm not including you in that statement as it's obvious from your edits on this article that you have acted to reduce their disruptive edits). TarnishedPathtalk10:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Here's what Federal Court Justice Jayne Jagot ruled:
Question 1: the broadcast conveys the following imputations:
Imputation 8.1 (by permitting his bank, Euro Pacific, to be used as a vehicle for around one hundred Australian customers to commit tax evasion, Schiff facilitated the theft of millions of dollars from the Australian people).
Imputation 8.2 (Schiff orchestrated an illegal tax evasion scheme).
Imputation 8.3 (Schiff committed tax fraud). Schiff v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 1120 47
Imputation 8.4 (Schiff knowingly facilitates tax fraud, in that he established his bank, Euro Pacific, in Puerto Rico for the purpose of enabling his customers to illegally hide their money from tax authorities).
Imputation 8.5 (Schiff knowingly assisted around one hundred Australians to illegally evade their tax obligations.
Imputation 8.11 (Through his bank Euro Pacific, Schiff poses a grave organised crime threat to Australia).
Imputation 8.12 (Schiff is such an unscrupulous individual that he has no qualms about doing business with criminals and money launderers). 142
@MaskedSinger your personal opinion of me is noted WP:NPA. Thank you for your input. Do you have something of note to say regarding the accuracy or neutrality of my suggestions? Remember, the purpose of an WP:WRFC is to "...help editors neutrally and concisely communicate the desired question, and to increase the chances of achieving a useful result with the least amount of disruption." I don't see how your comment strives to achieve that aim. Mkstokes (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@MaskedSinger you are welcome to question WP:COI. As the principle states, Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I am neither Nick McKenzie nor Peter Schiff and they are not "...family, friends, clients, employers, or [my] financial and other relationships." But if you have information to the contrary, please provide it. This is of course way off topic, but I can respond to that digression. Mkstokes (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath you keep citing this without providing the full context. Let me provide it for you: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." In plain English, it can be used to augment but not for WP:BLP. I fully understand that, but I don't understand which part of that you don't understand. But to further provide context though, WP:5P5 clearly says "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: they can be corrected easily because (almost) every past version of each article is saved." You many have strong concerns about my fitness to edit Wikipedia, but I have strong concerns that you don't fully understand the Wikipedia principles that you keep partially citing to support your point. I'll be blunt. There are now two secondary sources that discuss this information: The Australian and Lawyerly Media. Both say defamation occurred. If you still think they should be ignored, that's an unusual position, but I understand why you want to do that. I'm providing the court information to let all parties know that Federal Court Justice Jayne Jagot ruled that Nine Networks, Nicholas McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve, and Joel Tozer defamed Peter Schiff. If you're fine with publishing a McKenzie article that doesn't mention his defamation of Schiff, despite knowing that indeed he did defame Schiff and two reliable sources say it, that's on you and your conscience. I already said what my solution is going to be. Articles about the court case, OCIF investigation, and J5 investigation. Mkstokes (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". Note the bolding of the the word not, which is not my emphasis, that is deliberately placed in the policy and indicates an absolute prohibition.
The further sentence "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source" clearly means other types of primary-source material which hasn't already had a prohibition placed on it. You didn't think that court documents were the only type primary-source material?
Now your statement "In plain English, it can be used to augment but not for WP:BLP" is a pure read hearing because above you were literally arguing imputations from court transcripts to justify your argument. There is no augmentation going on there. If you don't intend on citing this material directly in the WP:BLP to support your argument that it's WP:DUE and has WP:WEIGHT then it has no place in your arguments here. What part of that do you not understand?
Per your suggestion that it is discussed in The Australian and Lawerly. Can you provide exact quotes which are in reference to McKenzie please. The only quote I can find in reference to McKenzie in The Australian is "Nine’s investigative reporter Nick McKenzie was one of the journalists behind a report into Peter Schiff" and I can't read any further, because the rest is behind a paywall. Also I can't read behind Lawerly's payway and I have no intention of paying for either.
Here is cited The Australian article in its entirety:
"Bank boss Peter Schiff has all but won his lengthy defamation battle against the Nine Network after the media company abandoned its defence of truth and contextual truth, a court has heard.
All that is left to discuss is costs, Mr Schiff’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC told the Federal Court on Friday, after lambasting Nine for consistently making untrue “serious allegations of criminality” against her client.
The case, filed last October, alleged a 60 Minutes episode titled ‘Operation Atlantis’ and its accompanying news articles in The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and on Nine’s websites made false claims that Mr Schiff, the CEO and founder of Euro Pacific Bank had “orchestrated an illegal global tax evasion scheme”.
The episode, which was played in full before the court, referred to Mr Schiff as “the man at the centre of it all” in a ”five-nation investigation targeting the hiding places wealthy Australians use to stash vast sums of money”.
Mr Schiff alleged the episode and its accompanying news articles, compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer, implied he “facilitated the theft of millions of dollars from the Australian people“ by helping customers commit offshore tax fraud.
Last year during an interlocutory hearing for the case, Justice Jayne Jagot said the 60 Minutes episode carried several defamatory meanings, while the related news articles did not, as the episode included ominous music and created "an impression of high drama and internal intrigue".
Initially, Nine relied on a substantial truth defence, pointing to Mr Schiff’s “statements to the world at large“ which questioned the legitimacy of tax obligations and claimed that tax payments should be avoided.
According to Nine’s defence, Mr Schiff also allegedly defended his father, who wrote a book on tax evasion and was jailed, as “noble and just” in combating the unfair tax laws imposed by the US government.
However at Friday’s case management hearing Ms Chrysanthou announced Nine had dropped all its defences which “has the effect that the defendants lose the case”.
“The respondents have attempted on a number of occasions to maintain a truth defence,” she said.
“(They have now) abandoned all truth and contextual truth defences.”
Ms Chrysanthou also noted Nine had not removed the offending 60 Minutes episode from its website.
“Channel 9, which has no defence and has accused my client of being a criminal, has not taken it down,” she said.
Justice Ian Jackman responded: “That’s at Channel 9’s risk isn’t it? That will no doubt form part of your argument of costs.”
Nine’s barrister Dauid Sibtain indicated he had included in the defence relevant background particulars which will be raised in the mitigation of damages and to be discussed when deciding costs.
A Nine spokesperson told The Australian: "A court has already found that Mr Schiff had no basis to sue Nine in respect of the articles published about him, finding that they did not convey any of the meanings he claimed they did."
Shortly after the case management hearing concluded, Mr Schiff took to Twitter to boast his winnings.
“After lying about having defamed me for over a year, then lying that they had evidence to prove that I was guilty of the crimes they accused me of committing, @60Mins just dropped all their defenses (sic), finally admitting they have no evidence that is even capable of proving truth!” he wrote.
The only context McKenzie's name is mentioned in that article is in relation to newspaper articles which were found to be not defamatory. I'll be removing The Australian citation from the article on that basis. Thank you for providing a basis to do so. TarnishedPathtalk09:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
WRONG! Please read the article again. It says Mr Schiff alleged the episode and its accompanying news articles, compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer, implied he “facilitated the theft of millions of dollars from the Australian people“ by helping customers commit offshore tax fraud. The episode clearly refers to the 60 Minutes episode. This is also noted at the beginning of the article where is says "The case, filed last October, alleged a 60 Minutes episode titled ‘Operation Atlantis’ and its accompanying news articles in The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and on Nine’s websites made false claims that Mr Schiff, the CEO and founder of Euro Pacific Bank had “orchestrated an illegal global tax evasion scheme”. Your inability to read or discern context is not a basis for removing the citation to The Australian, so if you erroneously remove it, I will be adding it back immediately. Thank you for displaying your obvious bias for all to see. I expect you to retract your statement as there is prima facie evidence that it's is FALSE. Mkstokes (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Schiff alleged something? So what? Where in the article does it say that McKenzie was found to have defamed? That is what is required to support the material currently in the article, otherwise it doesn't belong in an article about McKenzie and it belongs on other article if at all. TarnishedPathtalk03:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath your patently false revision of the Nick McKenzie article has been undone. If you keep making patently false revisions to this article, I will be forced to request you be blocked from making any edits to this article. Mkstokes (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you don't cast aspersions. The Australian article clearly doesn't say that McKenzie was found to have defamed Schiff. It doesn't support the material and should be removed. For the material to be supported it needs to be supported by citations that state that McKenzie defamed Schiff. TarnishedPathtalk02:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
At this point, I have no choice but to escalate this issue higher. You erroneously modified the context without any consent, based on a misreading of The Australian article, and provided a false reason for that edit. You said "I'll be removing The Australian citation from the article on that basis" with zero reference to any consent. Now you have completely changed your reasoning for editing the article and are now hiding behind the veil of obtaining consensus in order to block restoring the article to it's status before the erroneous edit. All while deleting a clearly reliable source. Mkstokes (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Just because I used different words, that doesn't mean my reasoning was different. The article does not specifically state that McKenzie defamed Schiff. The section that we are discussing in this Wikipedia article about a civil defamation case that Schiff brought. For any citation to support the section of text it must specifically support an assertion that McKenzie defamed Schiff. If it doesn't it doesn't belong. WP:BLPUNDEL is not a "veil". Please read it. TarnishedPathtalk04:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Your different words are still wrong. You say "The citation does not convey that McKenzie defamed Schiff" But the citation clearly says, "Last year during an interlocutory hearing for the case, Justice Jayne Jagot said the 60 Minutes episode carried several defamatory meanings, while the related news articles did not, as the episode included ominous music and created "an impression of high drama and internal intrigue". There are only two people in that episode, Peter Schiff and Nick McKenzie. Mkstokes (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath, the article clearly says, "...Justice Jayne Jagot said the 60 Minutes episode carried several defamatory meanings..." It further says, "...the episode and its accompanying news articles, compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer..." It doesn't take original research to see it clearly says McKenzie defamed Schiff. IT ONLY TAKES READING COMPREHENSION. There was no consensus provided anywhere in any Wikipedia discussion to remove this WP:RSP, but you did it anyway. You can't now claim it requires consensus to change it! Mkstokes (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Please go read WP:OR, WP:BLP and WP:BLPUNDEL. Consensus is required for its restoration, not its removal per policy. You're not giving me a lot on confidence in your ability to read and follow the appropriate Wikipedia policies. TarnishedPathtalk10:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath the WP:BLPUNDEL policy states, in part, "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections...". Your deletion of the reference was in no form or fashion a "good-faith BLP objection." It was based on an erroneous misreading of the text within the article. You are continually misreading Wikipedia policies to suit your narrative and then admonishing editors for not conforming to your misinterpretation of those policies. In short, you are WP:GASLIGHTING editors, (i.e., "history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of your own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling"). To wit, you essentially admit the 60 Minutes episode defamed Schiff but have the untenable opinion that the person who "compiled" the content of the episode didn't defame him. That position cannot be taken seriously. That would be like saying Wikipedia personally attacked me, but Mkstokes, the person who wrote the Wikipedia attacking content didn't unless Wikipedia says "Mkstokes personally attacked TarrnishedPath." If that is a good-faith objection, then please retract all references to me attacking you because Wikipedia has not made that statement. Mkstokes (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
You're not in any sort of position to make that assessment. Your contribution history clearly indicates that you are a WP:SPA editing Wikipedia for the sole purpose of WP:RGW. Up until the 20/12/2023 you had 13 edits in total on Wikipedia and since that date every edit you have made has revolved around the civil case between Schiff and McKenzie in which you have sought at every turn to sling as much mud at possible in McKenzie using sources which you have been told over and over again either aren't acceptable per WP:BLPSOURCES/WP:BLPPRIMARY or don't say what you claim they say. What you are engaged in is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Multiple people have stated to you that you are incorrect, but you haven't listened. You are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. TarnishedPathtalk01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The Lawyerly articles on this subject, which I intend to cite at a future date, say the following:
1. "Schiff's lawsuit, which was filed against Nine, The Age Company and McKenzie and other reporters including Charlotte Grieve, claimed the October 2020 broadcast, titled 'Operation Atlantis’ defamed him by implying that he "facilitated the theft of millions of dollars from the Australian people” by assisting customers to commit offshore tax fraud."
2. "A judge has found that a 60 Minutes broadcast by Nine, but not a related article, carried defamatory meanings about Euro Pacific Bank boss Peter Schiff, saying the broadcast's use of ominous music and shadowy figures invited judgment from viewers..
3. "In a judgment handed down on Friday, Federal Court Justice Jayne Jagot ruled that Nine's 60 Minutes episode entitled ‘Operation Atlantis’, which allegedly accused Schiff of endorsing tax evasion and helping figures in organised crime, carried several defamatory meanings while a related article did not."
4. "In his decision last month, Justice Jackman also tossed an application by The Age for dismissal of the proceedings against it, following Justice Jayne Jagot’s finding in September that the publisher's article did not convey the pleaded imputations."
This source makes it clear that Nick McKenzie was indeed part of the lawsuit. It also makes it clear that only The Age was found not to have defamed Schiff. I'll note that The Lawyerly proports to be "...the leading source of legal news for commercial lawyers in Australia." Mkstokes (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
None of those quotes you've provided above state that McKenzie was found to have defamed Schiff. "A judge has found that a 60 Minutes broadcast by Nine ...". "Federal Court Justice Jayne Jagot ruled that Nine's 60 Minutes ...". You really are grasping at straws here. All that is stated in what you have provided above is that McKenzie was part of the civil lawsuit. Per WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE and WP:BLP how does that justify the inclusion of a section of text that leads people to the conclusion that McKenzie has been found to defamed someone when none of the quotes you have provided directly state that? TarnishedPathtalk03:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
In addition to information provided by Lawyerly and other sources, this RfC asks, "Should this material be removed such that the established consensus becomes that this subject matter is not covered in any way in this article..." The Nick McKenzie article is a biography of a living person. This lawsuit is a significant life event of that person that lasted from October 2021 until November 2023 and was covered by The New York Times, a news source with a worldwide reported readership of over 9 million! This venerated newspaper links to Lawyerly in the cited article (see text "News of the deal was first reported by publications in Australia.") If the Times doesn't have a problem citing Lawyerly, I certainly don't have a problem with it. At a minimum, it should be included merely because Lawyerly confirms that Schiff sued McKenzie, and just like all the other lawsuits it should be listed because the section says "Court cases and shield laws." Even The Australian article is about the court case and mentions McKenzie. It is still a court case even if someone believes it doesn't say "McKenzie defamed Schiff," right? Isn't this a court case that involved Nick McKenzie? I think we can get consensus on that, right? Mkstokes (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:RSPYT, most self-published YouTube videos are not a reliable sources and should not be used in the articles. The YouTube video falls into that category of not being reliable as it is not uploaded by a verified account of an official news organisation. TarnishedPathtalk09:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Not taking @TarnishedPath at his word, I verified this statement and found it to be somewhat false. The comments about self-publishing are true. However, the WP:RSPYT does not say a YouTube video must be from "a verified account of an official news organisation [sic]." It actually says this for YouTube: "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. "Such as" means "for example," not that it must come from an official news source. So, is this content uploaded from a verified official account? It most definitely is a verified account! It's possible that someone will deem this video unreliable, but not for the reason provided above. Regardless, it directly answers @Senorangel question about Nick McKenzie's contribution to the 60 Minutes episode. Mkstokes (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath thank you for the warning regarding WP:CANVASSING. Messages were targeted to "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic" and had not provided a Survey response. Thus there is no violation. Your warning is appreciated though. Thank you!
The policy reads, in part:
==Appropriate notification==
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
The talk page of one or more directly relatedarticles.
On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).
On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
Appropriate notification is pinging ALL editors who have been involved in previous discussions/edits to the section. As I did above. Your targetted pinging of select editors in WP:CANVASSING and is in inappropriate. TarnishedPathtalk22:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you once again for explaining your opinion of the WP:CANVASSING policy. I've read it in it's entirely and can only find a single reference to "ALL editors who have been involved in previous discussions." I need your help @TarnishedPath. Can you please direct me to the section of the WP:CANVASSING policy that supports your assertion?
===Votestacking===
Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.
In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate.
Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) MAY be appropriate under certain circumstances. (emphasis added) Mkstokes (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
You didn't ping all "sides. You selectively pinged three editors. I had already pinged all "sides" at the start of this RfC. What you did is clearly canvassing. Don't try and WP:GASLIGHT your way out of this. TarnishedPathtalk23:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello All! Just to clarify Wikipedia's position on WP:CANVASSING, it defines it as notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way....The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions. For instance, @Senorangel posted information seeming to lean towards a No vote while "Philipnelson99" posted information seeming to lean towards a Yes vote. Both were pinged by me to provide a Survey response, as well as "Fences and windows" because despite making comments, they didn't vote. There was no intent to influence the outcome and the messaging was identical. Mkstokes (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
You were clearly canvassing. Philipnelson99's response, which indicates that they felt harassed is indicative of this. Please don't do it again. Me pinging all involved editors once at the start of the RfC was sufficient. What they choose to do after that is up to them. TarnishedPathtalk09:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello all! Just wanted to add a note that "[h]arassment refers to words or behavior that threatens, intimidates, or demeans a person." None of these parameters apply here. (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/harassment#:~:text=Harassment%20refers%20to%20words%20or,distress%20without%20any%20legitimate%20purpose.) While I acknowledge that "Philipnelson99" might have "felt harassed," as a matter of jurisprudence he was not. Thus I cannot do something "again" that I did not do in the first place. Furthermore, in general, all editors should be very careful in the words they choose to use when responding to messages and especially employing personal attacks, as they may be libelous in nature. Mkstokes (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely, thank you for asking nicely, @Nemov. I'm pretty sure my opinion doesn't matter one iota and the changes are going to get made regardless of consensus, or what Noam Chomsky called Manufacturing Consent. So yes, it is time to drop the stick. I'm done. Mkstokes (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
