Talk:Mark Stephens (solicitor)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can Stephens' role in one of the biggest sociopolitical world events of 2010/2011 be WP:UNDUE ?[edit]

In the edit [1], an editor wrote, "Reverted to revision 405553291 by Mandarax; keep that for the relevant articles, it is WP:UNDUE to include it here in a biography," deleting the subsection on Stephens' legal involvement with WikiLeaks/Assange.

i'm afraid i don't follow the UNDUE claim. WikiLeaks and Assange's role in it are one of the biggest sociopolitical world events of 2010/2011. More objectively than my own intuition:

  • Google: mark stephens wikileaks About 397,000 results - at least the first 20 appear by eye to all be about this particular Mark Stephens
  • Google: mark stephens -wikileaks About 817,000 results - but only 4 out of the first 20 appear to be about this Mark Stephens, suggesting about 160,000 related to this Mark Stephens

This suggests that Stephens' WikiLeaks/Assange legal involvement is a bit more than twice as important (400,000 hits) - in terms of google hits - as anything else he has done in his career (about 160,000 hits). This doesn't mean that 2/3 of the article should be about Stephens WikiLeaks/Assange legal involvement - after all, Google hits are only a rough guide. But surely this aspect of Stephens' career that overwhelmingly (more than 2/3) dominates his google hits deserves a subsection. Boud (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boud, I'm not sure about using google hits to determine weight. I guess I was perhaps a little over-zealous in removing all that information so have replaced the first sentence. The point I was trying to make in the edit summary, was that this article should primarily be about Stephens. Your addition where you added that he claimed that something was happening regarding WikiLeaks doesn't really belong here, but in the Wikileaks, Assange, subpoena or cables articles. If there are sources which discuss Stephen's role in the defence, for example how it he is a media lawyer, rather than a extradition lawyer, then these could be included, but I don't think we should turn this into a coatrack where anything he has said about the Assange case is included. SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i agree that the Assange/WikiLeaks component of this article should focus on Stephens' role.
i don't agree on the irrelevance of his claim on an alleged US legal case against Assange. He seems to be de facto defending Assange against possible legal actions by the US, so we need to say at least something about this. The description of US authorities being desperate and the quote seem to be a media/legal-analysis defence of Assange, to illustrate his activity in this area. For the moment i've restored a condensed version of the two sentences on the alleged US attempt to make a legal case. Boud (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But what has that got to do with Stephens though? You can add to Assange's bio that Stephens says such and such, but to have him saying something about Assange here is stupid. I'm not saying that the information is irrelevant, I just don't think that it belongs here. Why do you think that what he has said about Assange and a possible legal case is relevant to a biography of Stephens? SmartSE (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's reasonable to suppose that Stephens is making these comments as a private citizen and/or for frivolous reasons. He is getting involved in what seems to be a legal attack by the world's superpower against Assange. This is relevant to Stephens' career because it is he who is getting involved, in his professional role as a lawyer, and assuming that the main content of the article is valid (i haven't checked it), in his role as a "media lawyer". Grammatically, Stephens is the subject and Assange is the object - this seems to be your POV. i think i do understand this. But since Stephens is a media lawyer, any mediatic-legal actions taken by him are likely to be part of his professional actions. If we try to summarise this by saying something like "Stephens was involved in preparing legal strategies prior to a suspected legal attack by the US against Assange", then it risks being OR. That's why my idea was to follow the source more carefully and give a quote rather than risking a synthesis. Boud (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the question of the importance of Assange defence (Sweden and US) in Stephens' overall career. Let's see how Finer, Stephens and Innocent = FSI, of whom Stephens is (guessing by the number of names) presumably just one of three partners, sees Assange involvment as important in their careers:
  • http://www.fsilaw.com/ = archived 2011-01-17:
  • middle column: Julian Assange / For the lastest developments on this case and how you can make donations to The Julian Assange Defence Fund, please click here
  • right-hand column: FSI IN THE MEDIA 1 story about the Twitter subpoena for Jonsdottir's account, 3 stories related to Assange
The FSI home page is dominated by a picture of Stephens (live version, not archived version) and Ssange. So at least FSI seem to see Stephens' involvement with Assange/WikiLeaks as being highly notable, at least during December 2010/January 2011 (FSI IN THE MEDIA dates back to mid-December). It's true that this is a primary source for Stephens' career, so we could say that it's only FSI's POV of what's notable about Stephens at the moment. But it's consistent with what google says: Stephens' Assange involvement is quite likely his biggest claim to fame, i.e. notability. Boud (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response. The more I look at this, the more I think that the information about the twitter business doesn't belong here. As is clear from the article he's been involved in many high-profile cases and to judge that the Assange case is the most significant based on ghits is not a good way to judge weight and is recentism. He regularly appears in the media discussing other things e.g. and we can clearly not include every statement like this in the article. As I said before, it could be added to Assange's bio that Stephens has suggested the US may be doing such and such, but I don't think it should be here. As we're going round and round in circles slightly, if you still disagree with my POV, shall we seek a third opinion? SmartSE (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was amused to read to day in the Guardian that Stephens' role in "one of the biggest sociopolitical world events of 2010/2011" ended prematurely and in tears. Quote: "Assange's relationship with his former solicitors, led by Mark Stephens, ended in acrimony; he accused them of withholding the £412,000 advance for his autobiography to cover legal fees which he said arose from "extreme overcharging". The solicitors, Finers Stephens Innocent, deny the accusation."KathaLu (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning that, I had forgotten to update the article regarding that, but have done now. SmartSE (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Time request .: 2012-11-03 22:19:33 Whois-Server .: whois.ripe.net Request ......: 80.169.91.30

% This is the RIPE Database query service. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf

% Note: this output has been filtered. % To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag.

% Information related to '80.169.91.16 - 80.169.91.31'

inetnum: 80.169.91.16 - 80.169.91.31 netname: NET-GB-FINERS-STEPHENS-INNOCENT-SERVICES descr: FINERS STEPHENS INNOCENT SERVICES country: GB admin-c: NB703-RIPE tech-c: NB703-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA remarks: notify eu-ripemaster@colt.net mnt-by: COLT-UK source: RIPE # Filtered

person: NICK BOARLAND address: FINERS STEPHENS INNOCENT SERVICES address: 179 GREAT PORTLAND STREET address: LONDON , W1W 5LS, UNITED KINGDOM phone: +44 0207344588 nic-hdl: NB703-RIPE mnt-by: COLT-UK source: RIPE # Filtered

% Information related to '80.169.0.0/16AS8220'

route: 80.169.0.0/16 descr: COLT origin: AS8220 mnt-by: COLT-UK remarks: Abuse queries to abuse@colt.net source: RIPE # Filtered

% This query was served by the RIPE Database Query Service version 1.38 (WHOIS2)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.236.203 (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why ...[edit]

... is there a Wikipedia entry for a celebrity solicitor? The world has gone mad. H Remster (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because he meets our notability guidelines. That is, because he is a 'celebrity'. Wikipedia doesn't decide who becomes famous, we just reflect it; anyone famous enough to be widely discussed in the media deserves a Wikipedia biography. Robofish (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So much the worse for Wikipedia. H Remster (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fsi?[edit]

HowardKennedyFsi changed to Howard Kennedy LLP. Not clear to me what the distinction is, but his LI page gives that latter. Snori (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mark Stephens (solicitor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Stephens (solicitor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Stephens_(solicitor)&oldid=1210554453"