Jump to content

Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Vision

There's a nice 2 minute news report from Channel 7 that's worth watching. One place you can see it is at http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/8697590/vc-recipient-wears-medal-for-his-unit/ Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(Wow! He's really tall!) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
A good line-out jumper, apparently :) -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Honours and Awards

I've added a section for his honours and awards. I have not included the Meritorious Unit Citation - he is wearing it without Federation Star, therefore he was not in the unit during the time it was awarded and therefore he is only authorised to wear it while he remains in the SASR. This contrasts with the Unit Citation for Gallantry which he will wear in perpetuity as one of the members of the unit who contributed to its award. AusTerrapin (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Other photos

I've been searching for photos. So far I've only found one other site with any, and they are all from the Defence Image Library. As someone else above also asked: Where are all these free-use public domain photos please!

For what it's worth, here's what I found. The advantage of listing them is that, unlike the Defence site, these URLs may still work next week.

While I'm making lists, here are todays URLs at www.defence.gov.au - a much better selection, but no-doubt the URLs will have changed by the end of the week.

Also, here's Channel 10's 2 minute video - probably better than Channel 7's Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Image

There is an official photograph of Roberts-Smith with his VC here. Is it possible to use this uner fair use guidelines as per File:Mark Donaldson VC 19-01-2009 fair use claimed.jpg? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The circumstances would be similar, i.e. it is most unlikely that a free image of the subject wearing the decoration and uniform is available given that he is a current serving member of the SASR, thus it would seem that the non-free image would not be replaceable. I might be wrong, though, so it is probably best to get a couple of opinions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree, the rationale would be the same. –Moondyne 06:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok I've added it now. Would be most greatful if someone would be able to review the fair use rationale and make any necessary changes in case I muffed it. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The only issue with the rationale is the claim "... showing the recipient wearing the medal and was taken shortly after he was awarded it" The DoD photograph is dated 19 January 2011 and Roberts-Smith was awarded the VC on 23 January 2011. Either the photos with the medal were taken earlier (is that allowed?) or the DoD date for the photograph is wrong. -- Mattinbgn (talk)

Thats very observant. I didn't notice but now that you mention it of course I can see that you are right. Not sure what to do here as the DoD website says it was taken on 19 January 2011. My guess is that he was actually awarded it earlier, but wasn't presented it until today (23 January). That doesn't help I know. Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Well the image has all ready been tagged for deletion by the image police as apparently a free version were be easily available (yeah right). See File:Ben Roberts-Smith VC 19-01-2011 fair use claimed.jpg. Pretty miffed right now... Anotherclown (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I totally disagree with this deletion rationale. As far as I know, there is no way a free image could be obtained to replace it, short of breaking the law. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Under the Criteria for speedy deletion, any editor, other than the creator, who disagrees with the speedy deletion proposal can remove the tag. I have done so. Most likely then it will go to WP:IfD. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The image is being considered for deletion here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 23#File:Ben Roberts-Smith VC 19-01-2011 fair use claimed.jpg. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good source for details on the VC engagement

This is a good article (with a picture of him in the field) describing the engagement in Roberts-Smith's own words. Battlefield mateship worthy of VC. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns with text

I see the article has been expanded, which is great but some of the expansion troubles me. Parts of the article read a little close to the text in the citation and the biography, to be verging on plagiarism. Some examples:

  • From our article: "He was again deployed with the SOTG in Afghanistan in 2007, and on his return was posted to Operational Support Squadron as a member of the Selection Wing where he took part in the training of SASR Reinforcements"
  • From the DoD: "He was again deployed with the SOTG in Afghanistan in 2007, and on his return was posted to Operational Support Squadron as a member of the Selection Wing where he took part in the training of SASR Reinforcements"
  • From our article: "As he approached the structure, Roberts-Smith identified an insurgent grenadier in the throes of engaging his patrol. Roberts-Smith engaged the insurgent at point-blank range resulting in the death of the insurgent. With the members of his patrol still pinned down by the three enemy machine gun positions, he exposed his own position in order to draw fire away from his patrol, which enabled them to bring fire to bear against the enemy"
  • From the DoD: "As he approached the structure, Corporal Roberts Smith identified an insurgent grenadier in the throes of engaging his patrol. Corporal Roberts Smith instinctively engaged the insurgent at point-blank range resulting in the death of the insurgent. With the members of his patrol still pinned down by the three enemy machine gun positions, he exposed his own position in order to draw fire away from his patrol, which enabled them to bring fire to bear against the enemy"

If we are going to quote the DoD site, that is one thing but we should be clear that that is what we are doing, through the use of quotation marks etc. and then we should be selective. To quote the source word for word and only acknowledge with an inline ref is not good enough IMO. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree absolutely. I placed the citations into a quotation box but am uncertain if the contents are full extracts or synopses. –Moondyne 00:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The Medal for Gallantry citation is missing quite a bit and has received a tweak or two, but is ruffly copied. The Victoria Cross for Australia citations, however, although missing a couple of paragraphs at the begining and end, appears to be a direct copy of the actual citation. Full citations available here. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section on his military career, pre-Afghanistan. It is either a direct copy from the DoD or an extremely close paraphrase (see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing) of the biography section here. We can't really rely on a fair-use quotation of this size for this type of material so this section will need a complete rewrite. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Military section now rewritten. It is basically from the same source, so I would appreciate some eyes over it please to make sure it avoids the same problems as above. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Including the DoD citations is presently probably the best way to go, for the present. As history dates, and books, journals, etc are written about the relevance of the two awards and Corporal Roberts-Smith, external sources can be sourced to provide more meaningful intrepretation. A good case in point is Tom Derrick VC. I was the one who paraphrased a fair chunk of the official citation and, had I known how, would have presented it in the appropriate format. Most media souces have swallowed the DoD line and it will take some years to provide a more realistic take on this citation; including its political significance. The article, prior to the citations, was lacking in any susbstance including detail on both acts of gallantry, his military background, the awards and honours and family history - as you would expect of an article created only a few days earlier. What is interesting is a similiar situation occured with Mark Donaldson VC a few years ago. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa Jherschel (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments on edits made on 28 May 2014 by Hamlet12

With 3RAR, Roberts-Smith was deployed to Rifle Company Butterworth in Malaysia twice and conducted two operational tours of East Timor.

The supporting reference ("Corporal Benjamin Roberts-Smith, VC, MG". Victoria Cross for Australia. Department of Defence, Commonwealth of Australia. 23 January 2011. Retrieved 23 January 2011.) does not confirm this.

He took part in hostage recovery operations and a number of personal security detachments in Iraq throughout 2005 and 2006.

No supporting reference.

In 2008 he was posted to the SASR selection wing where he took part in the selection and training of SASR reinforcements. He was posted to 2 Squadron in 2009 and reached the position of Patrol Commander before his discharge in 2013. He was deployed to Afghanistan on six occasions between 2006 and 2012.

a) No supporting reference / references.
(b) Pedantic comment: "between 2006 and 2012" means "from 2007 to 2011")

Ben was on his first operational tour of Afghanistan in 2006 when he was awarded the Medal for Gallantry for his actions as a patrol sniper in the Chora Valley.

a) He was awarded the Medal for Gallantry for his actions in 2006. I'm not sure when the medal was actually awarded.
b) Already mentioned elsewhere

It was his fifth tour of Afghanistan, ...

When were tours 2, 3 & 4? (With supporting reference(s) please.)

On his sixth tour of Afghanistan in 2012 Ben received the Commendation for Distinguished Service, this time for his leadership as a team commander and lead planner for the Special Operations Task Group (SOTG).

a) No supporting reference.
b) He received the commendation in 2014.
c) The commendation makes no mention of dates.

The Victoria Cross, together with the Medal for Gallantry and the Commendation for Distinguished Service make Ben the Commonwealth’s most decorated soldier from the war in Afghanistan.

No supporting reference.

Further information on Ben's military career can be found here: http://www.defence.gov.au/special_events/roberts-smith/

Already mentioned elsewhere.

Pdfpdf (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The AWM profile on Roberts-Smith [12] states that his Commendation for Distinguished Service was awarded for his sixth tour in Afghanistan in 2012. The citation also mentions 2012, so safe to say the decoration arose from that tour/year. As for the Commonwealth's "most decorated soldier" from Afghanistan claim, that is recorded in Roberts-Smith's 'Celebrity Speakers' profile [13]. The latter also states Roberts-Smith's second tour of Afghanistan was in 2006 (the MG tour), and the VC action occurred in his fifth tour. Google found these sources quite rapidly, though not entirely sure about the other above claims. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ben Roberts-Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Roberts-Smith. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Buried evidence and threats

On 11 April 2021, some very serious stuff against Roberts-Smith was broadcast and published. Perhaps a new section is required. [1][2] Sampajanna (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theage.com.au/national/buried-evidence-and-threats-how-ben-roberts-smith-tried-to-cover-up-his-alleged-crimes-20210408-p57hlr.html
  2. ^ https://www.watoday.com.au/national/ben-roberts-smith-accused-of-intimidating-witnesses-vows-to-destroy-enemies-20210411-p57ibl.html .

Status of Fairfax

@WWGB: On noting that Fairfax Media was a defendant in actions launched by B.R-S in August 2018, I perceived that the article needed updating to show that Fairfax had been acquired by Nine Entertainment Co. and had been deregistered before the matter came to court. The dates of relevant actions are very close together between July 2018 and December 2018, which was why I included mention of Fairfax's deregistration in December 2018, which you have deleted as unnecessary detail. Subject to any clarification arising from the forthcoming court hearings, you may well be right about such details and, for WP purposes, it may be sufficient to describe the defendant newspapers as "one-time Fairfax" papers. I will be observing the court hearings with much interest, some of which will be centred on the background joust between the powerful media organisations which are financing proceedings on both sides. Bjenks (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Questionable bot edit

This edit goes far beyond the anti-vandalism purpose of the bot in reverting a lot of content that seems legitimate and relevant (and restoring text of questionable relevance). Can we have some more eyes on this matter, please? Bjenks (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Post-nominals in the infobox

The template documentation provides "This is for things like |honorific_suffix=OBE – honorifics of serious significance that are attached to the name in formal address, such as national orders and non-honorary doctorates;" So, I think his military awards are allowable. WWGB (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the objection by User:Abraham, B.S. was that using postnominals duplicated the "Awards" section in the infobox. I think the intent of {{Infobox military person}} is to use the parameter |honorific_suffix= for civilian honorifics, and |awards= for military awards. At any rate, having them twice in the infobox seems indeed unnecessary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
That's the crux of it, User:Michael Bednarek, yes. Including postnominals in |honorific_suffix= duplicates what already appears both slightly to the left in the lead and, as you point out, the awards section of the infobox, so is repetitive and unnecessary. For this reason, and that it tends to look cluttered, the majority of articles that use Infobox military person tend not to include postnominals. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

chronology in personal life section

It makes much more sense for this section to be organised in the way it was established, especially since the rationale grouping of the changes is not clear in the reasons for certain things being put together.Unbh (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Unbh Normally, matters on talk pages are discussed first before any further changes are made, not the other way round to substantiate an individual editor's personal opinion. Sampajanna (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware I've undone my own edits. It turns out they were essentially WP:BRD reversions of your changes to the chronology of the personal life section. So I've restored the last stable version before either of us started this round of edits so that we can find consensus. It is precisely not just to substantiate a personal opinion but to restore the consensus version while it's sorted out.Unbh (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Unbh What issue do you have with the following being added to the personal life section?
In January 2022, Roberts-Smith was ordered to pay the legal costs of his ex-wife after unsuccessfully trying to sue her in the Federal Court over allegations she accessed confidential emails .[1] Sampajanna (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ben Roberts-Smith loses case against ex-wife, court orders he pay costs". ABC News. 21 January 2022. Retrieved 25 January 2022.
There's no problem with that being added, except that he was unsuccessful, and it should say why he sued her.Unbh (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Unbh : You wrote "except that he was unsuccessful". From an objective and impartial editorial perspective, what problem do you have with the legal outcome not going in favour of the litigant? Sampajanna (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sampajanna No. I mean that your proposed text above is incorrect. Your copy says he successfully sued. He did not - hence he has to pay costs. There's no objective or impartial issue here, just accuracy. Correct that and it's fine to add, but it should go at the end of the section, not dumped in the middle.Unbh (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Unbh : As shown in the article view history, that typo was corrected soon afterwards (@14:23 24 January 2022) to "In January 2022, Roberts-Smith was ordered to pay the legal costs of his ex-wife after unsuccessfully trying to sue her in the Federal Court." Otherwise, your instruction above ("Correct that and it's fine to add, but it should go at the end of the section, not dumped in the middle.") tends to infer that you either have ownership of this article or you are a Wikipedia administrator. Please confirm accordingly. Sampajanna (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sampajanna Clearly I can only fairly comment on the text as proposed in talk- and that's what was suggested by you above. Commenting on different edits in the histroy is not going to help us here. Obviously the rest is meant as comment - i.e. that' I think it's fine to add, but that it should go in at the end as the most recent info. Unbh (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Unbh : I shall take that as confirmation that you do not own this article and you are not a Wikipedia administrator. Indeed, the edit history is relevant to contextualise and justify matters under discussion, rather than rely on personal opinion. Nevertheless, to hopefully eliminate any further confusion, please refer to the simplified diagram (below) of how consensus is reached. The operative word is 'compromise', which does not mean reverting or figuratively blocking others' edits on your terms only. Sampajanna (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Image of a process flowchart. The start symbol is labeled "Previous consensus" with an arrow pointing to "Edit", then to a decision symbol labeled "Was the article edited further?". From this first decision, "no" points to an end symbol labeled "New consensus". "Yes" points to another decision symbol labeled "Do you agree?". From this second decision, "yes" points to the "New Consensus" end symbol. "No" points to "Seek a compromise", then back to the previously mentioned "Edit", thus making a loop.
A simplified diagram of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.
@Sampajanna Yes, I'm aware of how consensus is reached.
I propose the below sentence is added to the end of the personal life section.
"In January 2022, Roberts-Smith was ordered to pay the legal costs of his ex-wife after unsuccessfully trying to sue her in the Federal Court over allegations she accessed confidential emails.[1]"Unbh (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Unbh : I do not recall having any previous concerns about that wording. It was you that deleted it. Sampajanna (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sampajanna Readding.Unbh (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Unbh Moving on, the following is currently in the 'Personal life' section. However, it refers to professional qualifications and associations, which would seem to be more appropriate under 'Civilian career'. This was previously moved up without any alteration to the text but since reverted.
"In addition to the MBA he obtained from the University of Queensland, Roberts-Smith holds an Advanced Diploma in Management, a Diploma in Government, a Diploma in Government (Security), and a Graduate Certificate of Business. He is also a Graduate member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (GAICD) and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management (FAIM).[2][3][4][5]" Sampajanna (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ben Roberts-Smith loses case against ex-wife, court orders he pay costs". ABC News. 21 January 2022. Retrieved 25 January 2022.
  2. ^ "Benjamin Roberts-Smith". Ovations. Retrieved 13 August 2021.
  3. ^ "Seven West Media appoints Ben Roberts-Smith as General Manager of Seven Queensland" (PDF). Seven West Media. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
  4. ^ "BEN ROBERTS SMITH". Australian Network Entertainment. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
  5. ^ "Ben Roberts-Smith VC MG". Halogen Australia. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
You're probably right on location in the article, but none of that is really notable or reliably sourced - speaker bureau bios and a company PR are not WP:RS. it should probably just be cut completely IMO.Unbh (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Unbh Okay. Valid points. Sampajanna (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Death symbols

The sourcing tying this to BRS is not adequate. The refrece in ABS is editiorial, and only in passing, and is not appropriate to for a BLP.Unbh (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The April 2018 ABC opinion piece on the death symbols ban made a link between the ban, the IGADF inquiry and a supposed Spartan culture that BRS was a part of. The piece uses BRS as a very direct example of culture issues that spurred the inquiry.

There’s no original research in the line that was deleted. JacksonFranks1987 (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The bit about it being editorial doesn’t matter because the topic of the section is what the media was saying. can just write “An editorial in the ABC”. Full quote is here: Some grunts are besotted with the muscled hoplites of ancient Sparta, especially since the Hollywood film 300 was released. See, for example, the way Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith's battlefield actions have been described: 'He just tore into the enemy … He is the epitome of the Spartan soldier. It was only a matter of time before he would demonstrate his true ability'. With an internal Defence inquiry into the conduct of special forces in Afghanistan ongoing, Lieutenant General Campbell's reservations about Spartan imagery are not without merit.[1] There’s no OR here. This piece is clearly part of the media allegations timeline. Build-up to the "Leonidas" piece.

References

  1. ^ ABC article. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-28/death-symbol-ban-not-political-correctness/9696674?section=analysis. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Allegations

It's not useful to remove all references to allegations or alleged war crimes etc from the article . There was a defamation trial specifically because they were allegations. It's adequately covered in the article that these have been proven to be true, but it makes the reasoning and events behind a defamation trial harder to understand if we retcon everything that was at that time still just an allegation. Gugrak (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If we continue to refer to things as allegations that are now proven true then we are using incorrect language and tense. This is a matter of facts.
The linked sources provide enough context for anyone to understand the proceedings in a historical manner if that I'd your concern. AlanStalk 12:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
They were allegations that were subsequently proven to be true. At the time they were allegations and it makes sense to refer to them as that when discussing them in this context.Blocked sockpuppet AlanStalk 00:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
and in that context, using correct language, they should now be referred to factually and not as allegations as they have now been proven true. Continuing to refer to them as allegations is using incorrect language and tense. AlanStalk 13:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
No, it is not. It's important that they were allegations and to remove all references to them as such is not helpful to understanding what happened. You're in breach of WP:3RR. Please self-revert until consensus on how to handle this in the article is reached Gugrak (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
If people want to understand things historically they have the linked sources. I am not in breach of WP:3RR as I have reverted 3 times. Other reverts were in regards to other subject matter which is under active discussion. AlanStalk 13:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The court ruled that the allegations were almost certainly true, that was the basis for ruling against the allegations of defamation. That means that they're no longer allegations, they have become facts of law. You're in the right as far as edit warring goes, but on the core content issue you don't have a leg to stand on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not adding about them becoming facts. I'm assuming that it doesn't make sense to remove all references to the fact that allegations were made. Saying people can go and look in the linked sources and piece together what happened themselves if not good enough. You can't sensibly discuss a defamation trial of you present everything as fact from the get go without acknowledging that, at the point when these allegations were made they were just that Gugrak (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I 100% agree The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
And at the point when we got the most recent round of coverage these were facts not allegations. Today these are facts, not allegations. Note that some of the allegations remain allegations, but you appear to be challenging the ones which are now facts. Why should we depart from what reliable sources are doing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's the BBC still talking about them historically as allegations - because that's what a defamation trial is about.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65813912.amp Here's the financial times doing the same https://www.ft.com/content/76de0ae6-fc9d-4295-92ae-6e1879516d9b an allegation does not cease to be, it just becomes a true or a false one after trial. Removing all references to allegations confusing is confusing, exactly why reliable sources like the ones you asked for continue to write about them where appropriate. Gugrak (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Many more sources which now refer to the facts in the present tense which are linked throughout the article. There's a whole legal judgement about it. AlanStalk 16:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Please note that user:gugrak has been indefinitely blocked as they are a sockpuppet, therefore all previous arguements form them are disregarded. AlanStalk 14:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the section now titled "War crimes" that had been titled "Allegations of war crimes" could be titled "War crimes allegations" or similar as it deals with the media reporting. At the time the media reports were allegations. The separate section titled "Defamation suit" could be retitled "War crimes defamation suit". The subsection now titled "Investigation" that had been "Investigations into allegations" could be retitled "Criminal investigation", made a separate section and placed after the Defamation suit section.--Melbguy05 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

But this article is contemporary, yes its true at the time that these were just allegations but today they are substantiated allegations. Are you sure you aren't pushing a POV here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
NPOV. It could be "Media reports of war crimes" or similar for that section.--Melbguy05 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Be specific, exactly what part of NPOV supports this position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back agreed AlanStalk 17:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@Melbguy05 I don't know that the change in heading necessarily leads to a flow of the substance underneath? AlanStalk 17:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@Melbguy05 an idea. Might be better to give the whole article a reorganisation given events. AlanStalk 17:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I think this is the fundamental issue here. To me, in the way the article is currently structured, it kind of makes sense to refer to these as allegations (or similar wording). Chronologically we go through his military career → recognition of achievements → war crimes being reported by news media → investigations/civil court case → outcome of course case proving some of the allegations and not others. We don't need to use the term allegations (we could use variations of X reported, X claimed etc) but with how the article is structured at the moment I don't see it as a total NPOV issue. Improvements can certainly be made though. If we want to remove the allegations angle completely we would need to intergrate the war crimes information into the military career section and then have a section that talks about when these were revealed/reported on by the media. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I was thinking an integration of the material into another section might be best for coherence. AlanStalk 00:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

finding that BRS has been found to have committed murder in lead

In the recently dismissed defamation proceedings that BRS brought, Justice Anthony Besanko made the finding that he committed murder on at least three separate occasions. This is legal fact that is well sourced by multiple news agencies. Should the specific finding about him being a murderer be placed in the lead along with the broader finding that he is a war criminal? AlanStalk 07:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is very clear that we "must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". There has been no such conviction in a criminal court. WWGB (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • A justice has made a finding that on the balance of probabilities he committed murder on at least three separate occasions. It's a matter of fact which is well sourced. The learned justice in making a finding of fact did not need to rely of a conviction being secured to reach that conclusion on the balance of probabilities. AlanStalk 07:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Whereas murderers are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, not on the balance of probabilities. WWGB (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The judge ruled that it is perfectly fine for Australian newspapers to say that he committed murders, so we can too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
It can be said that someone is a murderer without saying that they have been convicted, just as Justice Anthony Besanko has done when he made the factual finding that BRS committed murder on at least three separate occasions. The justice has made that finding of fact and it is well sourced and so we are open to doing the same. There is nothing contentious about this. It is fact. To dispute this fact is to scream at sky. AlanStalk AlanStalk 07:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree. All that cannot be said is that he is a "convicted murderer", i.e. the criminal bar. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The specific section of WP:BLPCRIME you have quoted pertains to "individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures". Are you suggesting BRS is not a public figure?
For public figures, we should follow WP:BLPPUBLIC which states " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." This has been reported by multiple high quality reliable sources AND was found not to be libellous in court. Why does Wikipedia need to hold itself to a higher standard than this? Providing we give the context as sources do, saying he has been found by a civil court to have committed war crimes and murder is fine.
See sources below:
  • "Ben Roberts-Smith is facing calls to lose Australia's highest military honour after being ruled a war criminal and murderer in a civil proceeding." SBS
  • "Justice Anthony Besanko found Roberts-Smith, a recipient of the Victoria Cross and Australia’s most decorated living soldier, murdered civilians…" The Guardian
  • "Justice Anthony Besanko's finding that four of six murder allegations - all denied by Mr Roberts-Smith - were in fact true shredded the Victoria Cross recipient's reputation." BBC
  • "The newspapers proved four of the six murder accusations they levelled at former SAS corporal Ben Roberts-Smith…" Reuters
And on and on. Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
BLP crime does no apply to people who were famous before the criminal allegations as is the case here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • This has been widely reported: June 5 (Reuters) - Australia's most decorated soldier was "complicit in and responsible for the murder" of three Afghan men on deployment, a judge said, elaborating on his finding against the former SAS special forces corporal in a blockbuster defamation trial. Source. More specifically:
  • "I have found that the applicant (Roberts-Smith) was complicit in and responsible for the murder of EKIA56 ... in 2009 and the murder of Ali Jan at Darwan on 11 September 2012 and the murder of the Afghan male at Chinartu on 12 October 2012," Besanko said in his 736-page civil court judgment.
The mention of "murder" is appropriate since that's what the defamation case largely revolved around. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I am in favour of describing Ben Roberts-Smith as a war criminal in the article. Since the Australian courts found that he took part in the murder of unarmed people, I think this change on the wiki is justified. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a breach of BLP:CRIME. Additionally, it seems possible, even likely, he'll be criminally charged. We shouldn't be in a situation where a man is under trial for a crime but not convicted and is already being listed as guilty by Wikipedia while being innocent until proven guilty in legal terms. Gugrak (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The person writing the previous statement was a sockpuppet and therefore anything they wrote is disregarded. In any case WP:BLPPUBLIC applies, not BLP:CRIME as the suckpuppet claimed. As WP:BLPPUBLIC applies and there is a legal judgment that the subject committed murder on at least three separate occasions it is extremely relevant to the subject matter to include this in the lead given the gravity of the finding. AlanStalk 15:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. BLP:CRIME absolutely applies to any living person, public or not, with regards to being called criminal or having the article written with a presumption of guilt. It is absolutley clear, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." He has not been convicted by a court of law. Civil cases cannot convict. The article still must be written with a presumption of innocence. The only distinction BLP:CRIME makes regarding non-public figures is that it should strongly be considered to not even mention the allegations at all.
And since he is a public figure, it is certainly appropriate to detail the allegations. It is also appropriate include the results of the civil case including any quotes by the judge that are appropriate. But the article must still note that they are still allegations, as there has not actually been any conviction or even any criminal trial. Civil cases cannot establish guilt or convict in criminal matters. So the top line should be edited to remove the note about the civil case, as that certainly is not neutral by trying to make that the most notable thing about a person, and goes against the presumption of innocence. The allegations and result of the civil trial are already included in the third paragraph of the top section, which is a pretty appropriate place for them. It is still a very notable thing about him. 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
For the purposes of wikipedia he has been convicted by a court of law, wikipedia uses general global terms which might not mesh perfectly with the nuances of your local legal system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any basis for claiming this? because it is completely wrong. This has nothing to do with my local legal system, it has to do with Australia's, and Australia is a common law based country where there is a clear distinction between civil cases and criminal cases. In Australia, civil cases do not convict anyone of a crime due to having a lower standard of proof required. Just like in all countries with a common law basis. Here is a reference showing the clear distinction between criminal cases and legal cases in Australian law: https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/learn-about-court/court-divisions
AFAIK, the civil/criminal distinction is still present in most, if not all, non-common law based legal systems as well. There is a big difference between two people having a dispute about money and accusing someone of a crime, after all. But in this instance we only need to focus on the Australian legal system. 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
And I would also note, that for the purposes of wikipedia, wikipedia recognizes the distinction between criminal and civil cases in the relevant articles and that Convictions are the result of criminal cases, not civil ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Once again it needs to be reiterated that no one here is saying that he has been convicted of a crime and that is not the current language that the article is using. However a finding of fact has been made by a justice that he committed murder. This is a legal fact that is reported on by multiple reliable sources. AlanStalk 01:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
He hasn't been convicted of crime, and thus can't be called a murderer or a criminal in the article. A civil case can't convict. WP:BLPCRIME is quite clear: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." No conviction = article must be written with the presumption of innocence. The article can certainly include the details of the civil case, including any quotes from the judge that are appropriate. What the civil case ruled on was whether people had defamed him by calling him a murderer and other related things. All the court ruled was that they didn't defame him when they did that, so he isn't entitled to any damages from them. Because it is a civil case regarding a defamation claim. Anyway, I feel I've properly explained and supported my position on the matter, and I don't think I have much new to say about it that I haven't said so far, So I'll just leave it at that and others can weigh-in and moderators or editors with more privileges can make their decisions about this article. 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
From https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/05/murders-hidden-evidence-and-threats-judge-releases-full-judgment-on-ben-roberts-smith and similar in many other sources "Justice Anthony Besanko found Roberts-Smith, a recipient of the Victoria Cross and Australia’s most decorated living soldier, murdered civilians while on deployment with the SAS in Afghanistan and lied in his evidence, under oath, before court". The justice made a direct finding of fact that BRS committed murder, not merely that he wasn't defamed. It's not an allegation. This is reported from many reliable sources. There is a legal finding of fact that BRS is a murderer and we a therefore free to do likewise. Take it up with the legal system if you disagree with facts so strongly or perhaps put do a RfC, but as far as I can tell you are in the minority here. AlanStalk 02:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME makes it explicitly clear that it does not apply to individuals who are public figures. "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." AlanStalk 01:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
That is an incorrect reading of that. The non public figures part only applies to the sentence it appears in.
"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." - As you can see there is no hedging here stating this does not apply to public figures. It always applies.
"For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." - for this second sentence, talking about not even including any allegations at all, it applies to non-public figures.
So you can include allegations in articles about public figures, as long as they meet all the other properly sourced requirements and other policies and what not. But you aren't free to call people criminals and write the articles as if they are criminals without a conviction. To say otherwise would be to say that you understand the Wikipedia policy to be that it is okay to call people criminals and claim they are guilty of crimes even if they have only been accused and there are only allegations? Even without considering the ethical considerations for that and how it would facilitate BLP to be used as attack articles against them, it would make Wikipedia liable to defamation claims (interestingly enough given the civil case that this whole debate is about) against Wikipedia in many countries if that were the standard. 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Once again, no one is saying that BRS has been criminally convicted of anything at the moment, the article as it currently stands doesn't read like that and no one is proposing to change it so that it reads like that. You're arguing about something that isn't happening. AlanStalk 02:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Roberts-Smith/Archive_1&oldid=1164172798"