Jump to content

Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith/Archive 3

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

excessive citations tag in lead

User:IJBall, the reason for the number of citations in the lead is given the weight of the content. I've tried locating any WP policy on the number of citations a para/sentence should have at mist and noted that any guides specifically state that they are not policy. I would hope you haven't placed the tag as a pre-emption to removal of material and will discuss here. AlanStalk 22:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OVERCITE may not be a "guideline" but it should generally be followed nonetheless, especially in the lede. Bottom line: If you are using more than 3 cites to support any single statement or sentence, you are doing it wrong. I see nothing in that statement the requires the use of more than Sydney Morning Herald, BBC, and perhaps one (or at most two) other source(s). The remaining sources should either be spread throughout the rest of the article, or they should be trimmed. Anything else is pretty much editorial malpractice – choose the best sources that support the statement, and use just those. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@IJBall From the guide: "Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word", that's certainly not the case here. other than that it states that if more than four citations are used to bundle, which has been done. AlanStalk 23:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
@IJBall Notably all citations are relevant and other a diversity of perspectives both publisher wise and geographically. AlanStalk 23:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Seven cites for the same thing is ridiculous. (Note that nowhere else in the article are more than 3 cites used to source any one statement.) You can ignore what I am telling you, but if you do other editors are likely to come along and remove some of those sources at some point.
I have given you options on how handle this. At the least, I personally object to the tag being removed until the WP:OVERCITE problem is dealt with. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't see an overcite problem as all citations are bundled. AlanStalk 00:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
You don't know what "bundled" means, do you? – Reference #5 at Riele Downs is an example of a "bundled reference". (I've seen other examples of "bundled" refs, but I can't think of what articles I've seen them at right now...)
But none of that negates the main point that seven cites are not needed to WP:Verify the information in that sentence. This is a clear example of WP:OVERCITE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Given the previous discussion on this talk page, I don’t think this is an over citation. We need to be able to establish very clearly that BRS is widely regarded and known for his specific status as being a war criminal Jack4576 (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
You don't need seven cites to do this. The second paragraph of WP:OVERCITE is directly relevant in this case – a previous conflict over article content doesn't justify using too many cites to verify a fact. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
User:IJBall, would it be an acceptable compromise for you if the ABC and Sky News citations were removed along with the excessive citations tag? AlanStalk 10:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
See below – The Age source should go, and Sky News looks unnecessary (with BBC and ABC also included). That still leaves five. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a "TV news" source like ABC, but is it better or worse than BBC? (In other words, choose one, cut the other.) That gets you to four. I would drop objections at four, but it really should be three. Is The Advertiser source needed? Can one of the others be trimmed?... That's for editors here to decide. I'm not even here because of the subject matter – I'm just here because you should never have seven sources like this. I agree with Iskandar323 that it's basically sort of a WP:CIR issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
@IJBall How about moving four to the previous sentence (the most appropriate) where citation has been requested? AlanStalk 15:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
You still want three at each spot. Also, I agree with the comment below – you don't need SMH and The Age, as they're pretty much from the same "house". --IJBall (contribs • talk) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
User:Jack4576 Agreed 100%. There is numerous ongoing discussion about this very issue under other headings. AlanStalk 05:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Anyone who doesn't think 7 citations is overcite is frankly too inexperienced to be editing contentious BLPs. It shows a general lack of guideline awareness, and is basically a little bit of a WP:CIR issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The SMH and Age articles come from the same stable (albeit the winning one) and largely use the same journalists. We do not need both. WWGB (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I've changed the SMH article for another article that covers Besanko's ruling in re: finding of murder. AlanStalk 11:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

The term "substantial truth" appears to confuse some people. The term is used in the article without proper definition. There is a WP page on substantial truth. I propose that a wikilink be added to the defamation section of the Roberts-Smith wikibio to provide a link to an article (albeit brief) examining this legal term / concept.

Thanks, 172.195.96.244 (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

What? Who is confused? Where is the term used? That linked article is too short and unclear itself to be of any help. It doesn't address Australian law. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussions here, at NPOVN, at BLPN, all have comments that suggest that either the judge's finding that a substantial truth defence was successfully made about various imputations means they were partly true or were just the judge's opinion. That stub would at least point to the fact that it is a legal term, with a defined meaning, a meaning that is consistent with that given in the wikiarticle I suggest linking. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, you lost me with "Discussions here, at NPOVN, at BLPN..." Where? And you didn't really didn't address my other concerns. HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
HiLo48, I understand what the IP user is referring to. There was a comment by an editor over on the BLP Noticeboard in regards to a discussion of this page who claimed that the term "Substantially True" meant the "the linguistic equivalent of more or less" true. That is not what is meant legally by the term "substantial truth". I recommend we accept the IP's request, although I'd also recommend to the IP that they create an account so that they could have carried this out themselves (presuming they were autoconfirmed giving this page is currently protected). AlanStalk 13:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks for the explanation, but gee that's cryptic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Done to the first time the term "substantially true" is used in the article. AlanStalk 13:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
It's a poor article to link to. Very short, and doesn't even mention Australian law. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@HiLo48 it refers to common law jurisdictions which covers Australia, but agreed it could be improved. AlanStalk 02:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Four murders of Afghan men, not three murders

Just to give y’all a heads-up, I believe the summary judgment for the defamation case only listed 3 murders, missing the Chinartu one, but the full judgment does include the Chinartu murder which I have just put in the body. We’ll need to update that there were 4 murders as written in the full judgment. starship.paint (exalt) 16:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Judgment section edits

@Jack4576: 1. Balance of probabilities and the Briginshaw principle are two different things. 2. Why did you remove "not the much higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt as used in criminal trials"? 3. What is the source for "The civil standard is usually regarded as a lower standard of proof than the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard used in Australian criminal trials, and the degree to which it is lower depends on the seriousness of the allegation"? Melbguy05 (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No. In Australia, ‘balance of probabilities’ and the Briginshaw standard are synonymous. This is backed up by references.
1. The ‘balance of probabilities’ is imposed by s140 of the Uniform Evidence Law which is defined by three factors. The third factor, subsection 140(c) states that the degree of proof required depends on the gravity of the thing alleged. Every court in Australia interprets this as resulting in the Briginshaw standard as being synonymous with the balance of probabilities. See for yourself, Besanko J’s judgement which there are numerous in-line citations for on this page. Control-f for ‘Briginshaw’ and see for yourself.
Section 140(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) says the civil standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.[1] Section 140(1), and 140(2) that relates to Briginshaw, are two different subsections. What is your source that says the Balance of probabilities and the Briginshaw principle are the same legal concepts? Melbguy05 (talk)
You’re reading the statute on their face. Yes is says ‘balance of probabilities’ but what does that mean? Because of factor (c), the gravity criteria, it means the same thing as Briginshaw. This is stated quite openly in the references that I’ve linked as references 13 and 14 on the Briginshaw v Briginshaw page. Read it for yourself there. Also feel free to read the judgement of the BRS page. It’s all in judgements which I have linked as citations. You need to read them. Jack4576 (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Because it is not necessarily the case that it is ‘much higher standard of proof’. It depends on the gravity of the thing alleged. See the in-line citation to a tweet by Melbourne criminal law professor Jeremy Gans, saying that in some cases the civil standard in Australia isn’t that much different to the criminal standard. He’s a clear domain expert here, and he is a reliable source for that proposition. YOU have the onus here for making the positive assertion of it being “much higher”. It almost certainly is higher (probably), but it does not follow that it is then ‘much’ higher than the civil standard. In this context, with something as serious as war crimes being alleged, it isn’t necessarily going to be aa high a difference as compared to the ordinary civil context.
You have an unrelated to the case tweet from July 2022 saying "It’s hard to see how the Briginshaw standard is much different to beyond reasonable doubt". My reference is from The Daily Telegraph in June 2023 in relation to the case that says "This was not a criminal case and Justice Besanko made his judgment based on the substantial truth of a defamation case, not the much higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal matter".[2] Melbguy05 (talk)
It’s not unrelated to the case. It discusses a matter of law that was applied in this case. Jack4576 (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
3. This is justified by other sources that already exist on the page. If it is the case that the civil standard is lower than the criminal standard ordinarily (which we know to be true), then it is true that usually, it will be lower. If it is the case that the civil standard increases with more serious allegations (which we know to be true due to the in-line citations to Briginshaw); then it logically follows that the degree if it’s difference with the criminal standard varies proportionally with what’s being alleged. Please read the sources. Jack4576 (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:VERIFY requires that "All content must be verifiable". What is your source? You added the content you have the burden to demonstrate verifiability. Melbguy05 (talk)
I’ve provided the sources, and explained them. Jack4576 (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jack4576: See above reply. Melbguy05 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

As i’ve said Melbguy everything i’ve said above is verifiable with sources already linked to the page. You need to do the work of reading them, i’ve put them there. Jack4576 (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The tweet by Jeremy Gans, in July 2022, has nothing to do with Ben Roberts-Smith. Gans is addressing sexual assault survivors seeking civil penalties. Get a source that actually addresses Ben Roberts-Smith. starship.paint (exalt) 06:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That is incorrect. It regards the Briginshaw standard, which was applied by Besanko J in BRS's case.
Read the judgement for yourself, which has been referenced. The Briginshaw standard is relevant to this discussion, as it was applied in BRS's case. What about this is unclear to you? I am happy to provide further clarification if needed. Jack4576 (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
There may be 1,000 things about the Briginshaw standard, but we do not mention them here, because it is not relevant. Get a source that actually discusses about the Briginshaw standard with regards to Ben Roberts-Smith. Example: [1] starship.paint (exalt) 06:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure ! Check out Besanko J's judgement regarding Ben Roberts-Smith. Its mentioned many times! Take a look! Jack4576 (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Plus, per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You introduced the Twitter source less than a week ago. [2] It is disputed, so gain consensus here. starship.paint (exalt) 06:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Someone actually commenting on this case: [3] An expert ... leading media lawyer Justin Quill said ... “In this case, because the nature of the allegations was so serious, there's a middle ground standard of proof. It's called the Briginshaw test, and it's somewhere between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt.” starship.paint (exalt) 06:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Justin Quill is incorrect. The Briginshaw test is not a third test, it is incorporated within the Balance of Probabilities. This is a common misconception; and Quill's position is contradicted by numerous reliable sources. Take a look at the sources linked in the Briginshaw v Briginshaw page Jack4576 (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Now, what we can agree on is that the Briginshaw principle in this case, requires a higher standard of satisfaction than the normal use of the balance of probabilities. The controversial thing is whether in this case, it is so high that it is essentially equivalent to beyond reasonable doubt. You are trying to insert retroactive content that asserts, in a different topic area, that it is essentially equivalent to beyond reasonable doubt. I submit that this is not fair to the subject, Ben Roberts-Smith, who is assuredly covered under WP:BLP. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I will be satisfied if I see a reliable source that says, in this case of Ben Roberts-Smith, the Briginshaw principle renders the balance of probabilities to be essentially equivalent to beyond reasonable doubt. starship.paint (exalt) 07:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that its contentious. The sources show that Briginshaw can rise to a high standard, approaching the BRD standard in instances where crimes are alleged as serious as sexual assault.
It doesn't take a mental leap at all to see that international war crimes are similarly as serious, and so Briginshaw would be similarly applied. Its inclusion is warranted, well-backed by sources, and you should stop removing it.
Yes yes we're well aware of the WP:BLP policy. The sources are enough to overcome that hurdle. Jack4576 (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
We could do an RfC if you like. I'd suggest you take a day, or take a week, to get the best sources for your claim. Or we could do that July 2022 Twitter post only, it's up to you. starship.paint (exalt) 07:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Re: an RfC go ahead. I think the sources are good enough as they stand. Jack4576 (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jack4576: - to ensure there is no mistake - you think that this one source [4] - is sufficient for an RfC on the following content: The Briginshaw principle has said to be, by one lawyer, similar to beyond reasonable doubt: "It’s hard to see how the Briginshaw standard is much different to beyond reasonable doubt ? starship.paint (exalt) 07:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The content should instead read: "Melbourne University's criminal law professor Jeremy Gans has noted that in some instances the requirements of the Australian civil standard can approach the proof requirements of the beyond reasonable doubt standard; in situations where allegations are sufficiently serious." and yes I think that is a good enough source for that proposition.
By the way Jeremy Gans is not a lawyer. He's a leading professor the field of criminal law in Australia, having written textbooks about the evidence act. Jack4576 (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Evidence Act 1995 - Sect 140 (Commonwealth Consolidated Acts)". Austlii. Retrieved 7 July 2023.
  2. ^ Benns, Matthew (1 June 2023). "'Baying for blood': campaign to strip VC from Ben Roberts-Smith". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 10 June 2023.

Ben Roberts-Smith a businessman?

Currently in the lead there is a uncited claim that BRS is a businessman. A google search of "Ben Roberts-Smith" and Businessman finds this wikipedia page, a LinkedIn page for a person with the same name from the UK and whole lot of articles relating to the trial and having nothing to do with any claim that he is a businessman. If this claim can not be substantiated with reliable sources it should be removed. I've placed a citations needed tag on the claim. AlanStalk 12:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There is an entire section devoted to this: Ben Roberts-Smith#Business career. When content is adequately cited in the body of an article, lead cites are not required. WWGB (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
In fairness, there's not much business going on in that section. About half of it is about his post-soldiering education and a bit more about the scandal. The business is only about three sentences, so it is a somewhat debatable title. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
There actually this discussion ongoing about this issue at MOS:LEAD re: definedness. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
He is a man engaged in business = businessman. If that generic label is disliked, change it to (former) television executive. We cannot simply ignore a job that he did for eight years. WWGB (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
That seems more in line with the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Television executive seems better but I question the notability of this given this is now past tense and I can't recall him doing anything of note while in the position. The only notability was him being in the position and he's now not.
Unless he did something significantly of note while in the Job, I'd say it's WP:UNDUE.
Also MOS:LEAD says regarding BLPs, for that material that is challenged in leads (I'm doing so), it should contain inline citations. Are there many RS that refer to BRS as a former television executive that it justifies a claim of notability such that it remains in the lead? AlanStalk 14:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The television is pretty well tied into the story given that he continues working there even after the allegations came to light and was also funded in his defense by the network/its executives. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Notability applies to the subject. Once the subject is deemed notable, any information about them is fair game as long as it is in RS, and for sure he was a TV executive between 2015 and 2023. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
He's resigned as of the judgment. Are you able to provide citations that can be added inline into the lead that state that he's a former television exec without engaging in any WP:SYNTH? MOS:LEAD requires inline citations in leads where anything is challenged or likely to be challenged. AlanStalk 00:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
This is WP:POINTy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. This discussion has barely taken place over 24 hours. Ps, adding the reference at the end of the sentence makes there 5 citations there. Refer to consensus above under the heading "excessive citations tag in lead" where consensus was arrived at that there should be 4 citations maximum being the four that were there prior to your edit. I would suggest the citation you've added go directly after "former television executive". AlanStalk 01:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It's pointy because you're demanding inline lead citation for something extremely uncontroversial, calling it synth if not, presumably in retaliation for demands to properly source the 1,000% more controversial war criminal label. Yes, he has been described as a television executive. Google it. It's also just a WP:COMMONSENSE, straightforward description of information already sourced and presented on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not demanding anything. I'm stating my views. We're not discussing anything to do with the term "war criminal" here and I would remind you to presume good faith and not cast aspersions.
Per MOS:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.", further per MOS:LEADCITE "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."
I am not denying that he is a former television executive, however I am questioning the notability of this in relation to its use in the lead. Per the relevant WP policies which I have quoted word for word, they establish inline citations must be used in leads which establish the notability for the claims of any material which is challenged or likely to be challenged.
Can you please address my points or at the very least move the citation that Mobidthoughts has placed so that it is directly after "former television executive" as per concensus under the heading "excessive citations tag in lead"? AlanStalk 03:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It says cite stuff if it looks like it's likely to be challenged, which it didn't, until you challenged it. You are the challenger. The subject hasn't been a soldier in a decade: they're not some sort of bug preserved in amber, and yes, they've done other stuff since. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that "former television executive" or "television executive" is needed in the first sentence of the lead; RBS is not known as such. The prior version " ...is an Australian former soldier who was found in a civil defamation trial to have committed... " is preferable as that's where his notability stems from. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Without the support of Seven's Kerry Stokes, BRS could not have commenced defamation proceedings, which ultimately led to his downfall. The TV connection is pivotal to the judicial findings of war criminality. WWGB (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes. His connection with Kerry Stokes is a key part of this story. Stokes gave him the Queensland TV jobs. Stokes funded the defamation case. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes. This story wouldn't exist at all without the TV job and personal support from Stokes. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
WWGB's latest update separating that sentence into two sentences and moving the citations which establish that he is a former TV exec is an improvement. That sentence was too long. I do like K.e.coffman think it's WP:UNDUE to have that particular former role in the lead, but I'm happy to leave as is given the obvious improvement. AlanStalk 09:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I think that at this point the civil war crimes suit is probably the largest part of his notability (ie. the primary reason people are likely to have heard about him and come to this page) and therefore belongs in the first sentence of the lead; the television executive stuff is much less important and doesn't belong in the first sentence. You can see this just by looking at the sources - the sources we use to discuss his history as a television executive are actually, primarily, about the war crimes case! --Aquillion (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
But they are connected. As I wrote above, his connection with Kerry Stokes is a key part of this story. Stokes gave him the Queensland TV jobs. Stokes funded the defamation case. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
That's a reason to mention it somewhere in the article. It's not a reason to put it in the first sentence of the lead, since it's still downstream of his main source of notability. The purpose of the first sentence is to summarize the key aspects of the topic, not to list every single potential point of interest about them. And even by your own argument, it would make it nonsensical to list that he is a business man in the first sentence, and not list the defamation case until the second sentence - since your argument is essentially "his business dealings are worth mentioning because they're related to his defamation case." If that's true then you're still implicitly acknowledging that his defamation case is more important and needs to be listed first. If you want to justify the current wording (which places more emphasis on him being a businessman then on the defamation case), you need to make the argument that his business dealings are independently noteworthy, ie. noteworthy in their own right rather than just as a secondary aspect of the background to the defamation case, and are furthermore more noteworthy than his defamation case, ie. they have more and / or higher-quality coverage. It's obviously impossible to make that argument by relying on sources that focus primarily on the defamation case. --Aquillion (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. His association with Seven Network is discussed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lead; it's not important enough to be in the lead sentence as well. I would be inclined to simply remove "and former television executive" from the lead paragraph, leaving us with "BRS is an Australian former soldier. He was found in a civil defamation trial to have committed war crimes..." Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Jack4576 (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

disgraced his country

The term disgraced his country ought to stay in the lead because it is a finding which Justice Besanko found to be true and which is being reported by a multitude of reliable sources. By conducting a Google search with "Ben Roberts-Smith" and "disgraced his country" I got the following result here and some sample results including international reliable sources at here, here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. I could have tried opening more tabs in Chrome but it might have crashed. Per WP:BLPPUBLIC, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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."AlanStalk 09:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It's just not a fact, of any kind. It's an opinion. The judge has just said that it's not defamation if the newspapers say it. It doesn't mean Wikipedia says it. It's meaningless crap. Countries know no honor or disgrace. They are inanimate. If we quoted every piece of opinionated invective directed at individuals in Wikipedia biographies, readers would never get to the biographies themselves. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that BRS brought disgrace to Australia? Are Australians now unable to hold their heads high in other countries? Are other nationals laughing at Australia? It is no more then a tabloid phrase. "Wait till your father gets home. You have brought disgrace on this family." I cannot believe that some editors think that this is some kind of judicial finding. I don't think the typical Australian feels any more disgraced as a result of either BRS's actions, or Besanko's judgment. WWGB (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
That’s your view. The evidence was before Besanko J and he made that finding
A person can be found by a judge to have brought shame on their family, community, country, etcetera, I don’t think this is all that radical a concept
Enough Australians would be ashamed of his actions (he represented us overseas). I think it’s a fair inclusion. Happy to go with consensus though. Can’t see much discussion of this issue on the page so far other than you and myself and another editor who is opposed. Jack4576 (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Have you actually read any of the sources you cited, because they don't say what you seem to think they do. Just because the phrase "disgraced his country" appears in an article it doesn't mean that's how we can describe him. Besanko did not make the finding that he disgraced his country - he found that the defamatory imputation could be drawn was substantially true. Two of your sources are from before the judgement! which just goes to demonstrate that it's the imputation that's the issue here- it's precisely what was at trial. 37.245.41.86 (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is some divergence of opinions stemming from the nature of the judgement. To help clarify, in lodging his case, Roberts-Smith claimed that a serious of defamatory imputations were conveyed by the news reports. In his Statement of Claim, Roberts-Smith alleged that defamatory imputations published included that:

  • Roberts-Smith "murdered an unarmed and defenceless civilian"
  • Roberts-Smith "broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement and is therefore a criminal"
  • Roberts-Smith "disgraced his country Australia and the Australian army by his conduct as a member of the SASR in Afghanistan."
  • Roberts-Smith "committed murder by machine gunning a man with a prosthetic leg"

These are Roberts-Smith's claims as to what the newspaper reports claimed. They do not originate from the judge. Justice Besanko's judgement includes these as imputations claimed (at 12, 13):

Imputation 1: "The applicant while a member of the SASR, murdered an unarmed and defenceless Afghan civilian, by kicking him off a cliff and procuring the soldiers under his command to shoot him."

Imputation 2: "The applicant broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement and is therefore a criminal."

Imputation 3: "The applicant disgraced his country Australia and the Australian army by his conduct as a member of the SASR in Afghanistan."

Imputation 4: "The applicant while a member of the SASR, committed murder by pressuring a newly deployed and inexperienced SASR soldier to execute an elderly, unarmed Afghan in order to “blood the rookie”."

Imputation 5: "The applicant while a member of the SASR, committed murder by machine gunning a man with a prosthetic leg."

The Respondent news media agreed that imputations 1, 2, and 3 were conveyed by the reporting, though with some disagreements relating to imputations 4 and 5. The judge found that Roberts-Smith had proven to the requisite standard that the reporting supported the claim that these imputations were made against him, including imputations 4 (at 48-49) and 5 (at 51-52), notwithstanding the Respondent's submissions. In other words, all five imputations here were found, as a matter of law and to the civil standard, to have been made. The reporting presented these claims as facts.

At 93, Besanko J notes that the Respondents "pleaded a defence of justification or substantial truth under s 25 of the Defamation Act in relation to each of the imputations. Section 4 of that Act contains a definition of the words “substantially true” and it is “true in substance or not materially different from the truth”. ... [which he explains means that the Respondents] carry the onus of proof with respect to their defences. The respondents must establish that every material part of an imputation is true and the defence of substantial truth is concerned with meeting the sting of the defamation." He quotes a prior case that notes that the issue is being "satisfied that the sting of the libel or, if there were more than one, the stings of the libel should be made out ... there may be mistakes here and there in what has been said which would make no substantial difference to the quality of the alleged libel or in the justification pleaded for it." Later in the judgement, Bresanko J finds that the Respondents have made the case that imputations 1 to 5 are all substantially true to the requisite civil standard (at 2599), and that the contextual truth defence need not be considered in relation to these imputations.

Thus, these five imputations have been found, as a matter of law, to be “true in substance or not materially different from the truth” (in the words of section 4 of the Defamation Act). So, phrases like "disgraced his country" are not simply the judge's opinion, nor a tabloid newspaper phrase. They are what Roberts-Smith claimed was a defamatory imputation raised against him, that the media companies agrees was conveyed by the reporting, and which the judge has found (as a matter of law) are not defamatory as they are substantially true. This is a finding to the civil standard, and not a criminal conviction, so the finding of truth in relation to imputations 1, 2, 3, and 4 does not support a wiki-voice labelling of Roberts-Smith as a murderer or war criminal. However, the findings are far more than just an opinion from Bresanko J, and should not be dismissed or downplayed as not carrying any weight under the law. By the way, Dismissing such phrases as meaningless is also disingenuous... if Roberts-Smith thought the imputation of having disgraced his country was meaningless, he wouldn't have pleaded it as a defamatory imputation. If the defences offered had failed, I doubt a Court would have judged such an imputation as unworthy of damages. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC

There is a strong consensus that the phrase ""disgraced his country"" should not appear in the lead. There is no consensus on whether the phrase should appear in the body, even if properly attributed.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should the article subject be labelled as having "disgraced his country"?

  1. Yes, both in the lead and the Judgement section, attributed to Justice Besanko in both places.
  2. Yes in Judgement section only, attributed to Justice Besanko
  3. No

AlanStalk 13:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Survey

Collapsing unrelated discussion as this doesn't contribute to the RFC AlanStalk 13:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Note This unsigned comment was added by 2.48.144.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It is the only contribution that have ever made by this IP editor. Given that a recent ANI thread discussed WP:SOCK editing on this page, it may be that this contribution should be struck. I suggest that this contribution should certainly be weighted appropriately in any close of this RfC. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I've informed a relevant admin [5]. The comment may be struck if confirmed to be a sock-puppet. Carter00000 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe an admin has already been alerted to this IP and I was going to wait until something had occurred before saying anything regarding this entry. AlanStalk 11:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23, Can we get your input on whether the comment above should be struck from this RfC, as the IP editor has only ever edited once, being the comment above and they geolocate to the UAE? AlanStalk 06:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I've struck the IP's vote as a sock (of Orchomen). My apologies for not getting to this when first alerted to it. I haven't blocked the IP because the edit is now too old.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23 thankyou for your help and yes the edit is too old to block the IP. Orchomen would have moved onto other IPs by now. Hopefully though they've found other hobbies. AlanStalk 13:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Not in the lead, maybe in the body. In general the lead should be a summary/overview of the subject, and especially in a biographical article should be light on quotes of specific people's opinions. The essay Wikipedia:Let the facts speak for themselves is relevant. Seems fine in the body, though. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Not in the lead, where quotes normally only go when exceptionally significant. Here, as noted above, it is just a fragment of a phrase from one of five imputations. It can be mentioned in the body in the proper context and where appropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  • No — Absolutely not. It is always best practice to avoid a value-laden label that expresses the contentious opinion of one person. Wikipedia policy WP:NOTNEWS comes to mind as well, routine news coverage is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  • No, it's making a moral statement that isn't necessarily true.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • 2 or 3 - That is, definitely not in the lead. An attributed statement should be fine if it is notable enough, but I would not strenuously object to simply not having the mention at all. That is, my preference is in favor of option 2 over 3, but certainly not strongly so. Closer may consider my !vote to be appliable to whichever of those two options is otherwise the majority. I do specifically oppose option 1. And as for the flat question asked by the title of the RfC? No... we must not say "he is/was a disgrace" in wikivoice at any point. (That would be against pretty much every policy wikipedia has) Fieari (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
  • 2, definitely not in the lead. Mention of war crime finding is enough. I agree with Mx. Granger above that a lead should be an overview, factual, and avoid quotes and opinion. Meticulo (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • No Attributing it to the judge as if it's his opinion (which is what I take the RfC to be asking) is WP:OR, per the IP's comment directly above the RfC. The judgment section should mostly cite to secondary RSes' analyses of the judgment. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, attributed as obiter commentary from Besanko J if he said those exact words, or attributed to the particular news reporter if its from them. The attribution should be qualified make clear that its an opinion. In context, I think this is appropriate and not meaningfully a BLP violation due to the findings made against him at trial Jack4576 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • No in regards to the wording of the RFC, in that it sounds like you are asking for this person to be objectively labeled as having disgraced his country. As I read Besanko's full summary, there is a measurement of truth on some kind of spectrum of substantiality and contexuality, which is quite a subjective metric if you ask me. It is hard to read this and conclude that Besanko is saying that this man definitively disgraced his country. It's more like the judge is saying "I can see why someone would say that". And so no, such a labeling is way too subjective to say it in wiki-voice, as they say. But I agree with Jack4576 that it would not be inappropriate to note how some of the publications that he challenged in court described him as such. Ender and Peter 02:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Not in the lead this would fall under loaded language, it evokes an emotion that makes it no longer neutral. In the correct context it could be used in the body. Dobblesteintalk 16:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • No “disgracing [one’s] country” isn’t a crime so it’s not an objective statement. Neutrality applies even to odious subjects. Dronebogus (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  • No - We're an Encyclopedia, Not Facebook. –Davey2010Talk 17:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Information icon Note that this issue has previously been discussed on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticebord.

  • I think that this RFC is poorly-worded; the question should say whether we should quote that part of the civil suit. The current question makes it sound like you're asking if we can say he disgraced his country in wikivoice, and even if you clarify further down, that's going to color people's reactions. That said, I don't think it's a WP:BLPCRIME violation to note that someone lost a civil suit or to describe the suit's conclusions, at least. O. J. Simpson, probably the most famous example of someone who was found liable in a civil suit for something that they were not convicted of in a criminal one, clearly notes that civil suit in the lead (and I don't see how it could do otherwise.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with "poorly-worded". The phrase was not Besanko J's opinion, it is what Roberts-Smith pleaded as a defamatory imputation made by the reporting, which both parties agreed was raised and which Besanko J found was “true in substance or not materially different from the truth” (quoting the meaning of substantial truth from the Defamation Act) as a matter of law and to the civil standard. An unattributed wiki-voice declaration that Roberts-Smith disgraced his country is not justified under policy, but neither is misrepresenting a finding of fact based on analysis of evidence presented in properly-constituted civil Court proceeding as a mere opinion. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @WWGB: it is far from simply the judge's opinion. The words "disgraced his country" originate from Roberts-Smith's pleadings in the case. The news organisations agreed that the reporting did carry that specific defamatory imputation. The question Besanko J had to consider (with the imputation itself undisputed) was whether the Respondents had met their onus to prove the imputation met the legal definition of "substantial truth", as provided in Section 4 of the Defamation Act and as interpreted by the body of case law. As a matter of law, Besanko J ruled that they had met this burden and so he found imputation to be "“true in substance or not materially different from the truth" to the civil standard. This was not just a random opinion tossed into a judgement with no support and having no significance. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I've made it clear with both option A and option B that the proposal is for the phrase "disgraced his country" to be "attributed to Justice Besanko", not in wikivoice. I think it's noteworthy that three of the sources already cited in the opening paragraph attribute the phrase "disgraced his country" to Justice Besanko. AlanStalk 04:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't think there has been enough WP:RFCBEFORE. That being said I don't see a problem with mentioning the "disgraced his country" information with all the appropriate context in the body of the article. I think best practice for any contentious labels in a lead is to give the context rather than apply a label that can be read in different ways even if it isn't as snappy to read - I actually think the opening two sentences of the article as is does a good job of this.
Many sources of all political persuasions are now describing BRS himself as "disgraced" (eg disgraced soldier) which may be something we consider in the lead sentence. See: FT AFR Sky News The Saturday Paper Guardian 1 News The Age news.com SMH Crikey The Post NITV The Daily Telegraph The Times The Canberra Times Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Vladimir.copic (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Carter00000 (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about not making more of an attempt to WP:RFCBEFORE, however I've had aspersions caste that I have WP:BLUDGEONed this talkpage and I felt that were I to WP:RFCBEFORE regardless of how I approached it I'd have more aspersion caste. AlanStalk 07:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the number of replies you've made on this talk page and the related discussions, I think its quite evident to everyone that you've WP:BLUDGEONed. The correct thing to do would have been to step back and let other editors discuss the issues.
Some advice from Wikipedia:BLUDGEON: If you find it is difficult to participate in heated debates without dominating the conversation or by adding a dozen comments, then perhaps you should avoid them altogether and find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Carter00000 (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Again, I'd remind you that is not the position that the neutral admin took in a recent discussion on AN/I when they wrote "thank you for engaging in discussions on the article's talk page". You should cease casting aspersions. AlanStalk 10:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Collapsing unrelated discussion as this doesn't contribute to the RFC Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that the user starting this RFC has engaged in WP:CANVASS [6], [7] [8], posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions, and in a non-neutral tone. Carter00000 (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd remind User:Carter00000 that leaving polite notices informing other users of topics that they may be interested in, in a NPOV manner is allowable. I'd further remind them that they ought to presume good faith and not caste aspersions. It is clear from both of those diffs that I informed the users of discussions and did not canvass them to debate one way or another, merely that what the discussion was and that they may be interested (I made a typo in one case and wrote involved when I meant interested). AlanStalk 07:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Notifying only users who have supported your position in previous discussions is plainly canvassing.
Furthermore, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. You should be well aware from the feedback given by other editors that your conduct on this page has been disruptive this far [9]. Carter00000 (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I further note you've attempted to canvass [10] yet another editor who you know to support your position, after the previous warnings. Carter00000 (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@Carter00000 The notices I've left have clearly been NPOV. I will not give you any more warnings to presume good faith and not caste aspersions. AlanStalk 08:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your aspersion that I've been disruptive on this talkpage, I'd remind you that is not a position that the neutral admin took who wrote "thank you for engaging in discussions on the article's talk page". The admin's concern was that I discuss issues in a non-aggressive manner. I gave the admin an undertaking that I would discuss things in an non-aggressive manner. AlanStalk 09:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I've withdrawn/struck my previous notice, per this comment [11], and having confirmed that a wider range of users involved in previous discussions has been notified by user starting this RFC. Carter00000 (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Jeremy Gans, July 2022 opinion on the Briginshaw principle

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus was oppose on WP:RS and WP:SYNTH grounds. There was also consensus to close the discussion per WP:SNOW. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)



Should the Judgment subsection include the following proposed content? Melbourne University's criminal law professor Jeremy Gans has noted that in some instances the requirements of the Australian civil standard can approach the proof requirements of the beyond reasonable doubt standard; in situations where allegations are sufficiently serious. The content is sourced to this, the Twitter account of Jeremy Gans, where in July 2022 he responded: "Indeed. It’s hard to see how the Briginshaw standard is much different to beyond reasonable doubt", to a news report that roughly stated: “Kate Eastman, SC, said the barriers making criminal prosecutions of sexual assault difficult also applied to bringing civil cases.” The news report was regarding sexual assault survivors seeking civil penalties from alleged perpetrators. starship.paint (exalt) 08:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose I would not support adding this content because Gans' tweet had nothing to do with Ben Roberts-Smith, instead the topic was sexual assault survivors. The tweet was made in July 2022, nearly a year before the judgment against Ben Roberts-Smith was made in June 2023. We do not know whether Gans would change his opinion given the difference in time and difference in topic. WP:BLP speaks against including contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced, and I would submit that this source, on social media, before the verdict, and crucially on a different subject, is a poor source for Ben Roberts-Smith. If we are to include the content, it is only fair that the source should discuss Ben-Roberts-Smith. starship.paint (exalt) 08:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    Gans’ tweet was about Briginshaw generally, and I don’t know why you would ask ‘whether or not his opinion would change based on the particulars of BRS’ case’. General statements apply unless we have some special reason to believe that they shouldn’t.
    There is nothing remarkable about BRS’ case insofar as the legal doctrine of ‘standard of proof’ is concerned. Read Besanko J’s judgement; Briginshaw was considered carefully and applied throughout
    Any general statement of law by a reliable, authoritative source (which Gans clearly is on this subject) is therefore relevant to his case. We know that from the judgement that Briginshaw was the legal test that was applied
    Who cares if the source (Jeremy Gans) happened to be on social media when he said it ? Why does that come into it ? What matters is his authority on the subject, what he said, and the context of this case. War crimes are analogously as serious as sexual assault; if anything, Gans’ comments would apply more strongly in the BRS case which regarded allegations that to my mind are much more serious than what he was tweeting about Jack4576 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    It matters because we must consider whether Gans' opinion is WP:DUE. We do not have another reliable source citing him. We do not know whether other Australian criminal law professors would agree. We do not know if other reliable sources would agree. Therefore, we should not feature his opinion when there is no other, given that he was not even discussing Ben Roberts-Smith. starship.paint (exalt) 09:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    DUE ? He is a domain expert ! My goodness …
    Again, you are fixated on this idea that his comment wasn’t in the context of the BRS case
    His comment was in relation to Briginshaw generally, of which the BRS case is an ordinary example. You have presented no reason why we should treat the BRS case as special so as to have this source not be applicable
    We have plenty of sources showing that Briginshaw is applicable. We have plenty of sources discussing briginshaw. Ergo, to the limited extent they assist the reader in understanding how Briginshaw affected BRS; the sources discussing Briginshaw in isolation are relevant to this subject, namely, BRS Jack4576 (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Support: the statement that Gans’ tweet has ‘nothing to do with BRS is incorrect. Gans’ tweet is relevant to the Briginshaw standard, the Briginshaw standard is relevant to BRS’s case;
ergo, Gans’ tweet is relevant to BRS.
(insofar as to qualify any discussion regarding the standard of proof that was applied) Jack4576 (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
By that logic, we could include any information about the Briginshaw standard in Ben-Roberts-Smith article. But we do not, and should not. A simple first test is to check if the source discusses Ben Roberts-Smith. starship.paint (exalt) 09:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
We would only include it to the extent that it’s relevant to the BRS case. Here, that limited extent is the degree to which it assists the reader in understanding the standard of proof that was used. It only requires a slight amount of prose, and is essential to understanding the seriousness of Besanko J’s findings.
As all of the above is the case, it’s an appropriate inclusion. Jack4576 (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Advertised at WT:LAW, WT:AUS and WT:WPBIO. starship.paint (exalt) 10:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Please also add the Wikiproject for Australian law Jack4576 (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Notified WT:AUSLAW. I didn’t know that existed. starship.paint (exalt) 23:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Setting aside the actual content of this article (per Starship.paint), although Gans is qualified to opine on issues of Australian law, a tweet fired off in response to a news story, without any further analysis, is not a RS. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    Why ? Jack4576 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    Would you cite a tweet in court to substantiate your legal analysis? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    Wikipedia isn’t a courtroom and doesn’t follow court procedure is the answer to that question Jack4576 (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    The point you're trying to make is that a particular legal standard applies in the case against the article subject (i.e., "approach[ing]" beyond a reasonable doubt). That claim requires a reliable source. WP:RSCONTEXT requires that we evaluate the context of the source, and WP:QUESTIONABLE notes that sources that have no editorial oversight or fact checking should be afforded little weight. A claim that a particular legal standard applies in a particular type of case generally requires either citation to case law, or some other kind of analysis, such as a law review article. The fact that Gans is a law professor doesn't make every tweet of his a correct statement of the law. I see from your user page that you have a law degree; it shouldn't be too hard for you to dig up a source that isn't a tweet that supports the claim your defending. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    My claim is simply that Briginshaw applies, followed up by providing additional information regarding how Briginshaw operates. Your questioning of Gans’ authority on this subject is pretty besides the point. He’s a RS. Jack4576 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not questioning his authority on the subject; I'm questioning whether we should treat a tweet of his, which hasn't gone through the law review publication process, as an RS. The answer to that question, per Wikipedia policy (cited above) should be no.
    Additionally, I just took a look at the judgment in the case regarding the article subject, and the Court reiterates numerous times that the civil standard of proof, not beyond a reasonable doubt applies. For example:
    • In ¶ 105, the Court, citing Justice Dixon's judgment in Briginshaw, wrote "Finally, Dixon J said that where there is an issue in a civil proceeding as to whether a crime has been committed, the standard of proof is the same as upon other civil issues, but weight is to be given to the presumption of innocence and exactness of proof is required."
    • ¶ 108: "Briginshaw has been followed in subsequent High Court cases. The civil standard of proof applies, but the degree of satisfaction required may vary according to the gravity of the facts to be proved (Rejfek v McElroy [1965] HCA 46; (1965) 112 CLR 517 at 521–522)."
    So, not only is the source not reliable, it's not even relevant in the context of this case. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    1) disagree that it’s not reliable. I think the identity of the source makes it a RS although it may require some qualification. I don’t think we need law journals to draw upon legal expertise and disagree that wikipedia policy does or should mandate that in the field of law. Perhaps in the hard sciences it has more merit
    2) your point about what standard of proof applies is a moot one. No one is disputing that. What Gans is saying, is that the amount the civil standard ‘varies’ in serious cases makes it hard to see how it’s substantively all that different to the beyond reasonable doubt standard; in spite of its name as the civil standard. You’ve just quoted two sources that say that the civil standard applied (yes we all knew that), but what matters is how application of that civil proof requirement shifts in the context of extremely serious allegations (like war crimes) Jack4576 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (summoned by bot) No pertinent detail to bio at his point- I have no law background, no money in this game, but I do do biographies. Recommend to let the dust settle, let WP:RS appear over time, instead of adding every possible minute detail to this affair.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    We arent going to get WP:RS solely in relation to the law of this person’s case over time, as there is nothing legally special about his case. The only RS we have available us to understand the law of his case, are RS that discuss the law as it applies generally, including in respect of this person’s case. And we know those general statements apply, because of the judgement applying the Briginshaw principle which is a reliable source. Hence any RS discussion of the Briginshaw principle applies to a discussion of the BRS judgement Jack4576 (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
    Please don't bludgeon every oppose vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    I won’t Jack4576 (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, wouldn't be due even if the context actually was Ben Roberts-Smith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose — we have no idea if Gans has the same opinion about BRM's case, in regards to the Briginshaw standard. And we can't pretend like we do know what his thoughts are about this specific case. Are there any independent RS covering this specific tweet, and making a connection between it and BRS's case? If the answer is no, then it must be left out. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    I fail to understand this point. There is nothing to indicate that BRS's case is special, or that Gans' statement about Briginshaw wouldn't apply to it Jack4576 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    See WP:SYNTH - we require a reliable source specifically commenting about Gans tweet and makes the same point about BRS's case. Are there any independent RS covering this specific tweet, and making a connection between it and BRS's case?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    The connection is that Briginshaw was applied in BRS’s case, and Gans is talking about Briginshaw
    We have RS to show that Briginshaw was applied in BRS’s case. Briginshaw is applied in all Australian civil lawsuits. There is nothing special about BRS’s case
    The connection isn’t already there. I disagree that this is WP:SYNTH Jack4576 (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As much as I can see how the connection is validly drawn, it's still original research which WP has an explicit policy on at WP:SYNTH. For it to be acceptable it would need to be material that specifically referenced the BRS civil case. Perhaps you might consider editing Briginshaw v Briginshaw and/or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Standard_of_proof_in_Australia if the material is not included there?AlanStalk 05:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    It’s already in the second link you mention. The utility in mentioning it here is that it briefly explains to a reader interested only in the BRS case the standard of proof that was actually required before the court. Without it, the reader may be under the mistaken impression that the Briginshaw standard which BRS faced was a much lower standard tan beyond reasonable doubt. As it stands, they’d need to click through to find that out.
    Disagree that this rises to the level of WP:SYNTH, although so far I appear to be alone in that view. Even if it did, whatever SYNTH here is so minor that IMO IAR ought to apply. Regardless, looks like the consensus is snowballing against inclusion; I’ll comply with consensus of course. Jack4576 (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    I'm sympathetic to your argument especially when the connection is so obvious but the crux of WP:SYNTH is that we can't engage in drawing connections even when blind Freddy could see them. Is that a problem with WP:SYNTH? I think so, but this isn't really the place for that discussion. AlanStalk 08:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    This is synth, that is an objective fact which can not be denied by a competent editor. Please adjust your understanding to match the community's. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think this is synth User:Horse Eye's Back and I don't appreciate your implication that I am reading the synth policy incompetently. Your appeal to 'objectivity' obscures that fact that what I'm asserting is at least arguable and contestable
    I'm only seeking to have Gans' statements be used as a RS for a statement of fact about Briginshaw. It happens to be the case that a statement about Briginshaw is relevant to BRS, as we have other sources demonstrating that relevance
    If it is indeed 'synth', (which I do not concede, but will follow the community's determination) then it is such a minor instance of synth that; #1 we should be more flexible in how we interpret that rule, or; #2 we should invoke IAR for the purpose of upholding the 5 pillars Jack4576 (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    "I'm only seeking to have Gans' statements be used as a RS for a statement of fact about Briginshaw. It happens to be the case that a statement about Briginshaw is relevant to BRS" you are describing SYNTH, if you don't think that is SYNTH then yes you are reading the synth policy incompetently. How do you interpret "If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research." in such a way as to excuse this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    If so we can address this by re-wording the content instead of excluding the source entirely.
    "Ben Roberts Smith case applied the Briginshaw rule, because his alleged conduct was so serious. (source 1: Bensanko's judgement)
    Australian legal experts have noted that in particularly serious cases where the Briginshaw rule applies, the 'Briginshaw proof standard' is similar to the beyond reasonable doubt' standard. (source 2: Gans' tweet)"
    As you can see, the inclusion of Gans' tweet for context, doesn't necessitate synth. Hence I do not think that including the tweet here is synth. I am not demanding that we join A plus B to make a sentence C. Jack4576 (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    There's the confusion right there, we're talking about conclusion C not sentence C... In this case conclusion C would be that Gans' statement applies to BRS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that stating conclusion C explicitly would be synth. I'm not insisting upon that.
    I think it would be worthwhile to merely include a sentence about what standard of proof applied; and an independent stand-alone sentence with a relevant fact about that standard of proof. There is no need to explicitly state sentence C or conclusion C. Jack4576 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    The language in SYNTH is "imply" not "explicitly state." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    There is no implication. There is simply a statement about the standard of proof that applied during BRS's legal case, and a follow-up statement describing that standard of proof.
    What is the implication that you're talking about? That the Briginshaw standard was applied during BRS's case? That's already established by reliable sources. Jack4576 (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    The implication is that what Gans says about the Briginshaw standard applies to BRS's case. In order to be of use to us Gans can't just comment on the Briginshaw standard, he has to explicitly be talking about the Briginshaw standard in the context of this case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    Disagree this is a problem, and think this is pedantic to the point of requiring WP:IAR Jack4576 (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
    In order for IAR to apply SYNTH would have to apply, crying IAR while continuing to deny the validity of the rule you want to ignore is having your cake and eating it too. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    Yes. That was the implied concession, that SYNTH applies; hence, IAR…… Jack4576 (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    might apply* under the most pedantic of interpretations Jack4576 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Jack4576, in the example you give you're still implying a conclusion. You don't need to be explicit about it. The English language is brilliant like that in that it is contextual where as there are many languages that aren't. In the example you give you are still engaging in WP:SYNTH. You're not getting anywhere with this and I suspect if you look at the piles of material already on BRS you might find something similar to what you are saying in any case. Google can be quite handy if you know how to use it properly. AlanStalk 00:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    The fact that features about Briginshaw apply to an unremarkable example of a Briginshaw case is so obvious as to make me doubt that there would be any discussion about the nuances of Briginshaw’s application specific to this case.
    It’d be like expecting the nuances of Australia’s civil procedure to be articulated specifically in relation to BRS. The fact it does, is so obvious and perfunctory that you’d expect such sources not to exist.
    Given everyone seems to agree this is Synth I suppose i’m going to have to concede the point. Personally I find the idea of synth by minor implication to be so pedantic so as to be a problem. Readers now lack information about the precise level of proof that applied to BRS, and may be under a misapprehension as to the level of evidence that was required for the judge to make the findings that they did.
    I respect consensus but this just makes the article worse. My position at this point is WP:IAR in respect of this minor ‘implied’ synth issue. Jack4576 (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Jack4576 conducting a search with the terms "Ben Roberts-Smith" and Briginshaw I got the following result. There's plenty of articles which discusses the heightened requirements for more serious allegations per Briginshaw in reference to BRS, while not exactly the same as what your quote they are still of use if you choose to use them. AlanStalk 01:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, i’m well aware of that. The problem is they don’t articulate some the nuances of Briginshaw that would be of value to the reader in ascertaining that some legal experts are of the view that it operates pretty similarly to beyond reasonable doubt in the context of extremely serious allegations. The sources that do that talk about Briginshaw as it applies to all cases. Jack4576 (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    This isn't an article about Briginshaw; it's an article with a section on a specific case that applies Briginshaw. The section should focus on what happened in the defamation case, not how judges interpret the legal principle more broadly. If someone wants to know more about legal debates over the meaning of Briginshaw, they can click through the wikilink to the Briginshaw article that is already in the lede and the body here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Voorts well said. @Jack4576, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Edit Briginshaw v Briginshaw if you think it will add value there. AlanStalk 03:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    I disagree. I think this information is very important to understanding the severity of the specific findings against BRS; and so is useful information specifically relevant to readers wanting to learn more about BRS.
    Clearly we’re at an impasse. The information is already included in the more general-in-scope wikipedia articles.
    Saying “this article isn’t a discussion of law” obscures the fact that a big part of BRS’s life is now the findings made by a court against him. It’s useful for readers to know in detail just how severe those findings were. Jack4576 (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    How is information which is not about BRS at all relevant to learning more about BRS? Nothing can be learned about BRS from that source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    OK i’ll spell it out for you.
    1) BRS was in court
    2) laws are applied in court
    3) info on how laws were applied to affect BRS is info about BRS
    Jack4576 (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    This is not info on how laws were applied to affect BRS, he isn't mentioned at all and the comment predates his court case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    Discussing how Briginshaw applies generally; additionally explains to the reader what happened in the defamation case. I don’t think the distinction you’ve drawn here adds all that much.
    We’re at an impasse now. You’re not going to convince me, I think this is all quite silly and pedantic. Let’s just drop it and follow consensus. Jack4576 (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    "You’re not going to convince me" come on, at least pretend like you know that WP:IDNHT exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    Excuse me. Having a disagreement about how a policy should be interpreted by the community, is a very different thing from refusing to follow community consensus on how something should be interpreted. I’ve conceded I’ll be following consensus -even if- I disagree with it.
    Back off with your aspersions User:Horse Eye's Back. I’d encourage you to have another read of WP:IDNHT if you find the above confusing. After all it’s pretty fundamental.
    Jack4576 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    Happy to support my aspersions with some diffs and/or take it to a noticeboard if you'd like. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that there is only one editor who supports inclusion, this appears to be a SNOW situation, and the same points are being rehashed over and over, can we reach a consensus to close this RfC now and move on? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    Agree, SNOW it. Jack4576 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed. This is leading no where and is probably just leading to frustration for some. Time to can it. Hot plug, I've got a RfC going in the section "disgraced his country" above that I'd invite all and sundry to participate in. AlanStalk 00:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Starship.paint: Since you opened this, okay to close it as SNOW? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back: Okay with you if we close this as SNOW? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    Yes starship.paint (exalt) 02:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
    No complaints here, not really sure what Jack4576 is arguing anymore. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Roberts-Smith/Archive_3&oldid=1180889014"