Talk:Brereton Report

McBride's disclosures

See Talk:David_McBride_(whistleblower)#Explicitly_attributing_Brereton_findings_to_McBride for discussion of whether any of McBride's disclosures (leading to the Afghan Files reporting) are specifically those referenced by Brereton in his report. TheFeds 07:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

two 14-year-old boys - wording

The article currently says: "Aside from the 39 people who the report indicates were murdered, the report detailed two 14-year-old boys, ... having their throats slit".

This implies that the two boys were not murdered, but gives no further information. Some rewording is probably required. Mitch Ames (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Upon review of the cited source, and of the relevant portion of the Brereton report (mainly chapter 1.02, paragraphs 7d and 8; pp. 120–121), it seems Brereton is relating an incident that was described to social scientist Dr. Crompvoets and included in her January 2016 initial report (p. 5). It is unclear to me whether this is the first time Dr. Crompvoets' material is being released to the public. I have moved this to a note, as it is not directly addressed by Brereton's analysis, except by reference to Crompvoets. TheFeds 11:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That's better. Thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Allegation vs. conclusion

Since User:PailSimon raised the point in this edit, let's briefly discuss how to refer to the report's findings. Are they of a conclusory nature, confirming the fact of certain war crimes and other activities, or are they allegations that such acts took place, supported by evidence to a high but not yet conclusory level? Firstly, how do Brereton and his staff see the issue? Secondly, how do commentators reading the report and publishing their analyses (e.g. journalists we use as sources) see the issue? Thirdly, how do we, at Wikipedia see the issue (particularly through the lens of site policy)? TheFeds 11:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

My initial feeling is that Brereton's report is a reliable secondary source as to the matters it investigated and reported on. If Brereton describes an event as true, likely or credible, or characterizes the nature of that event as being (for example) a war crime, then we should be comfortable going as far as Brereton does (in the absence of countervailing evidence). But we should be careful not to go further, or synthesize a conclusion that Brereton/other sources don't actually say outright.

To me, the matter of whether, in law, a fact has been proven to the requisite standard of proof is a separate problem. There are all sorts of process-related reasons why it can be clear that a crime was committed, but no person can be convicted. I think there's a fine line we can walk without prematurely personally accusing any person of a crime without legal process (a WP:BLP problem, and a moral problem), while still recounting that a reliable source has determined that a crime was committed in what turns out to have been their environs, and that that source didn't go out of its way to exculpate anyone in particular. TheFeds 13:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The Brereton report characterizes the material contained within as allegations, albeit ones they have worked to substantiate. The conclusions of the report are allegations, no-one is suggesting that they are the end. When the cases have gone through the courts (as some currently are and more will be shortly) we will have something other than allegations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am aware nobody has challenged the conclusions of the report (that murders occurred). So why should wikipedia mince words? PailSimon (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but those are *informal* conclusions... They are allegations, not the ruling of a court of law. We aren’t doing anything new here, this is how wikipedia has always treated crime. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

My recollection is a little different—isn't it more like this?

1. Specifying definitively that a person is a criminal before their conviction or the person's death is a WP:BLPCRIME issue, so ill advised. (Even if court filings or other evidence strongly indicate the person committed it.) In that case, refer only to the allegations that are reliably sourced. After their death, referring directly to their criminality reverts to a standard of reliable sourcing acceptable via Wikipedia consensus.
2. Stating that a crime was committed without personal reference to the alleged perpetrator (an individual) is fine, if reliable sources say a crime was committed.
3. Stating that a crime was committed by a corporate or governmental entity is not subject to WP:BLP, and thus subject to Wikipedia consensus on the basis of reliable sources.

If that's an accurate summary, wouldn't this be a matter of the 2nd or 3rd cases? And therefore, isn't the decision to say "alleged" in this case more a question of style (you don't have to repeat every fact every time a subject is mentioned, but if it is important it might bear repeating) than a question of policy? TheFeds 02:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Two considerations. First, that reliable sources such as SBS and The Age discuss this matter as an allegation. Second, if a Wikipedia article puts the matter out as being a matter of fact, or a conclusion, then there are certainly people are become smeared as criminals, when no court or due process has determined that at all. Worse, it could distort court proceedings from occurring. Caution is warranted here.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Simply stating that a conclusion was made is not the same as saying that conclusion is correct. The phrase "found evidence" obfuscated what the report was actually saying. The lead should clarify that the report believes the murders had happened, not that they merely believe they have found evidence which are two different things. PailSimon (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 和平之师.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Point of resolution regarding content on Zhao Lijian, Australia and the manipulated image

There’s been extensive discussion about the digitally manipulated image depicting an Australian soldier cutting the throat of a child above. I thank @Calton:@Amigao:@Andykatib:@Acalycine:@Tobby72:@Lewix:@Newfraferz87:@PailSimon:@Horse Eye's Back: for their respective contributions across a number of articles which relate to this material. I also thank @Rosguill: as an editor and an admin for providing guidance on where this material should live and the kind of language we might adopt, that guidance may be found here. From that it’s recommended that the main content regarding this incident lives as a subsection of the Zhao_Lijian, so there doesn’t need to much more than a sentence or two on the topic at Scott Morrison, Wolf warrior diplomacy Brereton Report or other related articles.

It may be, some time in the future, that the incident comes to be regarded as a turning point. And, should that happen, and there are enough good sources to establish that, the matter may deserve its own article. But that’s a few years away.

As to language, there has been a lot of too and fro. As at 11 December 2020 we have around 30 reliable sources and the majority of them describe the image as doctored or manipulated or fake. (I acknowledge there has been dissent, suggesting that we use a phrase such as computer graphic, which has been used by Times and other journals.) However, following all the debate, I think it’s good to settle around the direction provided by Rosguill, who suggested something like the following be used: In late 2020, Australia demanded that China apologize for Zhao Lijian's promotion of a digitally-manipulated image of an Australian soldier cutting the throat of a child. China rejected the demands for an apology the next day. The incident had the effect of unifying Australian politicians in condemning China across party lines while also drawing attention to an Australian investigation of war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. The incident was further seen as a sign of deteriorating relations between Australia and China

So, that’s where I propose where the material mostly lives, and the kind of language we use.The Little Platoon (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A plea here, for all subsequent opinions on this issue to move to Talk:Zhao Lijian for ease of discussions. Thank you all. NoNews! 01:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Australian flag covering corpses

Is there a reference to support the Australian flag "covering what appears to be numerous corpses"? In the absence of a reference, I assert that it's WP:OR, so have removed it. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)