Talk:Matthew Parish

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Cordless Larry in topic September 2024 UK High Court ruling

Revision

edit

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)Reply

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

Contested defamation of living person

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply

September 2024 UK High Court ruling

edit

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)Reply

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