Talk:Nick McKenzie

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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 21:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

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

RfC: Lawsuit between Peter Schiff and Australian media

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^talk 00:14, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 00:35, 9 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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 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.

• 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)

• Yes per TarnishedPath. The opposing comment citing "court documents" is particularly weak and can be disregarded. Nemov (talk) 15:04, 9 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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)

• 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." [1] 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^talk 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) [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

  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 Wikipedia 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)

  @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 Wikipedia. TarnishedPath^talk 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 "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)

References