Talk:Matthew Parish

Revision

This page reads like a self-advertising CV and is definitely not in line with guidelines on biographies of living persons. I have cut a couple of paragraphs with the most un-encyclopedic information (list of speeches, presentations and media appearances) and will continue revising it in the coming weeks. --Dans (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The whole page is in fact a copy-viol from Parish's own website. --Dans (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Contested defamation of living person

Whole section ==legal issues== is contested defamation, plus second sentence of intro. Edit wars underway; opposing sources saying different things; very complex legal details included; draft article 'Kuwaiti videos affair' contains more comprehensive notable sources explaining complex details 89.216.17.7 (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how neutral reporting on factual events (such as indictments and convictions) can be construed as defamation. It would help if you were to particularize your complaint, and also if you were to draft what you thought was an adequate re-write. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

September 2024 UK High Court ruling

The attempt by Matthew Parish bring a libel claim against the Wikimedia Foundation in England and Wales was dismissed by Judge Karen Steyn.[1] ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There's some potentially useful information in the judgment, such as "On 18 December 2023, the Criminal Appeal and Review Chamber dismissed his appeal against conviction, but partially allowed his appeal against sentence, reducing the custodial element of the sentence to two years' imprisonment (the whole of which was suspended)", but I'm not sure if it would exceed what we can report based on a primary source to use this. Does anyone have thoughts? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The current wording in the article is correct but may not give the full picture. Assuming that the UK High Court ruling is correct (and there is no reason not to) eighteen months of the three year prison sentence in 2021 were suspended. Also, while the appeal against the conviction was unsuccessful, it did reduce the sentence to two years, all of which was suspended. Additionally, he was banned from practising law in Switzerland for five years (ie not permanently as might be the impression given by the current article wording). The Wikipedia article is based on reliable news sources about the 2021 Swiss court case, while the 2024 UK court ruling gives considerably more detail about the background to the 2021 Swiss case. The High Court document is a primary source, but it could be quoted or paraphrased making clear that this is what the court decision said. If the only issue at stake was how the prison sentence was worded, this could all have been done and dusted a long time ago. In the ruling, Judge Karen Steyn accepted that the basic wording in the Wikipedia article (namely that Parish was convicted of fraudulent arbitration in Switzerland in 2021) was correct and not defamatory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've used the judgment to make an update to the account of the Swiss case. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

There's also a secondary source here, if anyone has access. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

COI Changes Proposed by article subject - VRT Ticket #2024121910008005

The article subject, Matthew Parish, requested at VRT (ticket number above) that the following changes be made to the article. The request is passed on verbatim as received for the editing community's review and action, as needed and if any.

Number 1

Opening paragraph, sentence 2: delete this sentence in its entirety, because it is not an accurate summary of information contained later on in the article that is accurate; it is out of date and no longer a comprehensive account of the legal proceedings it refers to. Nor could its amendment render the opening paragraph more helpful because that would require the introduction of an excess of detail for an opening paragraph.

Number 2

Under the heading “Legal Issues”, delete the second paragraph. This is repetitive of the first paragraph and suggests that there were two sets of criminal defamation proceedings rather than just one. The first paragraph is an adequate summary of those proceedings.

Number 3

At the end of what is currently the third paragraph, add the sentence “However Parish vigorously contested the fairness of these proceedings, as he complained that he was tried in absentia, having successfully resisted extradition on the basis of those charges because the crimes charged were not crimes outside Switzerland. He also complained that he was unable to instruct counsel successfully and was not allowed to present any witnesses or evidence in his defence. In those circumstances he maintained that the conviction was highly controversial and breached the principles of natural justice.”

Source:

https://www.the-paladins.com/post/the-fight-for-the-kuwaiti-emiracy-chapter-20

You will observe that this link in turn contains links to now public legal documents that sustain my complaints.

Number 4

Please delete what is now paragraph 4 of the “Legal issues” section, as it is incomplete

Posted on behalf of VRT by Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 00:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ianmacm and Cordless Larry: following on from your comments in the thread directly above, what are your thoughts on the request here? Axad12 (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Number 1: Some justification here, as having this in the WP:LEAD gives the impression that it is his primary source of notability.
• Number 2: These two paragraphs could be combined.
• Number 3: This relies on a primary source in which Parish criticises the fairness of the legal proceedings.
• Number 4: Not sure why this is incomplete, needs a clearer explanation.

Other comments welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts:

Number 1: I agree with Ian but I also wonder as follows... the lede is never intended to be a comprehensive account, so if it is currently not comprehensive that wouldn't seem to necessarily be a valid reason for action to be taken (least of all for deletion). If, as claimed, it is not an accurate summary then that is a different matter - but in that case making it accurate would be preferable to deletion. The request states that making it accurate would require the introduction of an excess of detail for an opening paragraph which, if true, would have some validity. However, is it true?

If the request is really stating that making the relevant section both accurate and comprehensive would require an excess of detail for a lede then that is a flawed argument because, as stated above, the lede is not intended to be comprehensive - quite the opposite in fact.

It is usually possible for a statement to be accurate without it being comprehensive. Whether that could reasonable be the case on the present article I will defer to the opinion of those more familiar with the subject matter.

Numbers 2 & 3: I agree with Ian.

Number 4: If the paragraph referred to is incomplete then the standard course of action would be to make it complete rather than to delete it.

The points above are just my understanding of basic Wikipedia policy. Axad12 (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)