Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:54, 22 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nick McKenzie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Australia: Television Low‑importance Nick McKenzie is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Smileverse (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

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. 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. TarnishedPath 05:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The 7th Federal Australian Court judgement that found McKenzie's report defamatory.

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca1432 115.70.36.116 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

A few things:

1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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. TarnishedPath 05:51, 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)

@Ravensfire, very good guidance. TarnishedPath 21:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Ps, I archived previous discussions because editors have WP:BLUDGEONed discussion and been disruptive. TarnishedPath 05:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Lawsuit between Peter Schiff and Australian media

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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. "

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? TarnishedPath 00:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• 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. TarnishedPath 00:35, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

  @Anastrophe, if McKenzie is not named, then what is the material doing on a WP:BLP about McKenzie? TarnishedPath 00:57, 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)

  I don't think you're stupid. It's hard to keep track of things on here sometimes. TarnishedPath 01:04, 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)

  I've struck the !vote on your behalf. TarnishedPath 01:12, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. TarnishedPath 17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Given the suggested requirement that sources must say exactly what is provided in the Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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. TarnishedPath 10:06, 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 " the good fight" is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages. In fact, it goes directly against WP:5P1 "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox..." and WP:5P2 "Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)

  I asked a question but did not reveal my opinion at the time yet. Other editors also received notification. Senorangel (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• 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. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 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 - Nick McKenzie is mentioned in reliable sources (don't know if I did this right) Markj573 (talk) 01:40, 13 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 Misplaced Pages'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. TarnishedPath 11:07, 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. TarnishedPath 11:45, 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 (/_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. TarnishedPath 03:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Now that the dust is settling. Can this thread be archived or closed? MaskedSinger (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  @MaskedSinger I've called for a close. TarnishedPath 07:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Great. Thank you for all that you did here. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:40, 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. TarnishedPath 07:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, you're a great editor and don't take things to heart. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:10, 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:BLP TarnishedPath 13:11, 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)

  @Markj573 making assessments like that is original research. We don't base article content on original research. TarnishedPath 13:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Additional Note To Closer Please take note of the current vote. While the process is not majority voting, that does not mean a 4 to 7 vote should be ignored. Also, please take into consideration that this section of the article is about "Court cases and shield laws" and this is unquestionably a court case involving Nick McKenzie. Finally, a determination that this mentions Nick McKenzie "in passing" seems to be original research as the article does not say they are mentioning him "in passing" and thus it would seem to be a judgement call. As far as I know, there are no policies or procedures around reliable sources mentioning a subject "in passing." As one can see, there is already debate on this point, but there is no question as to whether his name is mentioned. Mkstokes (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Pinging @MaskedSinger, @Materialscientist, @Kgelner, @Sentaso, @Yoshi24517, @Philipnelson99, @David Gerard, @Markj573, @DareBoBear, @Fences and windows, @Moebiusdad, @Ravensfire, @Anastrophe, @JimH44, @Mkstokes, @Achmad Rachmani, @JDWalston as editors who as far as I can tell have been involved in editing the content or discussions regarding it. Apologies if I've missed anyone. TarnishedPath 00:58, 9 January 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. TarnishedPath 01:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  The current version of the article cites The Australian as a source which references Nick McKenzie Markj573 (talk) 02:37, 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". TarnishedPath 04:52, 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

  https://theamericantribune.com/conservative-economist-sues-media-outlets-over-defamation-wins-huge-settlement/

  "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)

  You're seriously putting this forward as a authoritative source? Wow. I think this says it all. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  @MaskedSinger your personal comments are once again noted for a third time. I'll once again remind you of WP:ASPERSIONS. To be clear, WP:RSP provides no direction on the reliability of The American Tribune, Lawyerly, or the Herald Sun. It does however acknowledge The Australian as a reliable source. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_309#The_Australian) I said that on a previous comment. I only comment again as your timestamp indicates you responded before that comment and also to call out your personal comments. Mkstokes (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Mkstokes, per their own website, The American Tribune is Self Published. If you conducted the most basic of research you would have found this out and determined that WP:SELFPUB sources are largely not acceptable as sources. @MaskedSinger was not casting aspersions. You have demonstrated again and again that you have competency issues and should not be editing Misplaced Pages. You should not have to rely on WP:RSP to tell you if something is reliable when the source themselves tell you that they are not. TarnishedPath 00:22, 10 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies? Once again you are demonstrating that you are not competent to be editing Misplaced Pages.

  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. TarnishedPath 04:41, 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 Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages editors overwhelmingly made a consensus opinion that The Australian is a reliable source. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages community has spoken! You are one person and YOU don't get to refute the consensus of the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

  @MaskedSinger your 4th personal attack is duly noted. I'll remind you yet again of WP:ASPERSIONS. I can only assume you're asking to be banned from posting. Mkstokes (talk) 07:47, 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 Misplaced Pages and if that means calling you out, so be it. If the cap fits, wear it. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's enough evidence of them being a WP:SPA in their contributions. There's also evidence of them putting words in editors mouths (although they seem to have backed off on that), WP:GASLIGHTING and having serious WP:CIR issues in this thread, Talk:Peter Schiff/Archive 2#Investigation section has a biased tone. Talk:Peter Schiff#RfC: Peter Schiff - Operation Atlantis investigation and subsequent lawsuit against Australian media and User talk:Mkstokes#January 2024. Beyond that it's not worth speculating on other things you're raised. TarnishedPath 09:47, 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. TarnishedPath 06:54, 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

  https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/nsw/nine-set-to-pay-1m-to-gfcpredicting-finance-expert-peter-schiff-after-defamation-settlement/news-story/899f60abf9a5f32084d271da452e0b40

  "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. TarnishedPath 00:29, 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. TarnishedPath 07:11, 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." Fences&Windows 08:54, 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). TarnishedPath 10:27, 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) 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

  Question 2: the imputations conveyed as set out in answer to question 1 are defamatory. Mkstokes (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Notwithstanding what @TarnishedPath wrote on your talk page, you continue to think that Misplaced Pages is your personal playground and you can do as you please. You should immediately cease all editing to do with Peter Schiff and Nick McKenzie. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  @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)

  I do have something to say. That you shouldn't comment here given your undeclared Conflict of Interest. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  @MaskedSinger you are welcome to question WP:COI. As the principle states, Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages 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 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)

  @Mkstokes per WP:BLPPRIMARY court transcripts are NOT to be used on WP:BLPs. This has been explained to you multiple times. If you can't understand the simple English that is conveyed in that policy and I'm having to once again explain it to you then I have strong concerns about your fitness to edit Misplaced Pages. TarnishedPath 14:17, 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, but I have strong concerns that you don't fully understand the Misplaced Pages 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)

  You're statements are not helping to allay my concerns regarding your fitness to edit Misplaced Pages.

  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.

  Can you please clarify your WP:ASPERSION casing about me pushing an article and that needing to be on my conscience? TarnishedPath 23:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  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 court will reconvene next month to discuss costs and damages." Mkstokes (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  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. TarnishedPath 09:28, 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. TarnishedPath 03:05, 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. TarnishedPath 02:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Mkstokes, the material has been removed. I suggest you read WP:BLPUNDEL which is Misplaced Pages policy. It applies here. The material can't be restored without obtaining consensus. TarnishedPath 02:48, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. TarnishedPath 04:08, 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)

  It does not say McKenzie defamed Schiff in any possible sentence structure. Trying to say that it does is original research. Please cease engaging in a WP:BLP violation. TarnishedPath 05:39, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies. TarnishedPath 10:53, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages personally attacked me, but Mkstokes, the person who wrote the Misplaced Pages attacking content didn't unless Misplaced Pages says "Mkstokes personally attacked TarrnishedPath." If that is a good-faith objection, then please retract all references to me attacking you because Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages for the sole purpose of WP:RGW. Up until the 20/12/2023 you had 13 edits in total on Misplaced Pages 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. TarnishedPath 01:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ps, if you think I'm erroneous there are existing threads discussing both this article and Peter Schiff at both WP:NPOV/N and WP:BLP/N. TarnishedPath 04:11, 11 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? TarnishedPath 03:56, 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)

• Did McKenzie contribute to the 60 Minutes episode or just the accompanying articles? Senorangel (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's covered in some sources. TarnishedPath 04:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Senorangel, McKenzie conducted the 60 minutes episode (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RaqBlxsEEA) and coauthored the accompanying articles for The Age with Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer. (see https://www.theage.com.au/national/the-day-the-international-tax-authorities-came-knocking-20201015-p565lz.html) Mkstokes (talk) 05:12, 10 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. TarnishedPath 09:35, 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 ." 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)

  Hello @Senorangel. Could you please provide a response to the Survey? It will help us determine if a consensus has been reached regarding the content of the Nick McKenzie article. Thank you in advance. Mkstokes (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Fences and windows and @Philipnelson99 Could you please provide a response to the Survey? It will help us determine if a consensus has been reached regarding the content of the Nick McKenzie article. Thank you in advance. Mkstokes (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Mkstokes can you please stop WP:BLUDGEONING the comments for which you disagree? You've written quite enough about this topic and it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 04:43, 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)

References

1. https://thedeepdive.ca/peter-schiff-defamed-by-60-minutes-australian-federal-court/
2. Goldstein, Matthew (1 December 2023). "Australian Media Company to Pay Peter Schiff to End Defamation Suit". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 8 December 2023. Retrieved 8 December 2023.
3. Dudley, Ellie (May 19, 2023). "Bank boss Peter Schiff has 'all but won' Nine defamation case, court hears". The Australian.

Australian English

@Mkstokes, per template notices on this page Australian English is used on this page as the subject is Australian. Can you please edit to remove recent spelling errors that you have introduced in Special:Diff/1195405926. Kind Regards, TarnishedPath 01:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'll fix the spelling changes. Thank you for calling that out. Mkstokes (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARC

There is a discussion concerning this article at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Removal of content from "Court cases and shield laws" section of Nick McKenzie WP:BLP. TarnishedPath 14:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:AE

There is discussion concerning this article at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mkstokes TarnishedPath 14:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Australian English
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia articles
• Start-Class Australian television articles
• Low-importance Australian television articles
• WikiProject Australian television articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment