Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith

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 . Sampajanna (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

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."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)." Sampajanna (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

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. There’s no OR here. This piece is clearly part of the media allegations timeline. Build-up to the "Leonidas" piece.

References

1 June 2023 - Not a convicted war criminal

Roberts-Smith lost a defamation case on 1 June 2023. This is not the same as a criminal conviction, and per WP:BLPCRIME we should not be labelling him as a 'convicted war criminal' or any variant there of on the basis of this judgement.Gugrak (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The SMH has taken to calling him a "murderer" and a "war criminal" but that's only because they were found not guilty of defamation, and they are gloating. I agree there has been no criminal finding of such crimes. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that's the case, we just need to be precise about it. Gugrak (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd just like to point out that it's not just SMH - other media outlets are describing BRS as a "war criminal" as well including the ABC which in an analysis piece reported: "In a matter of minutes, Justice Besanko worked his way through the 16 imputations one-by-one, finding Mr Roberts-Smith was a war criminal and murderer". 2001:8003:6C01:3100:117B:86A:60F6:6392 (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Editorial analysis pieces like that aren't considered RS. See WP:RSEDITORIAL. Gugrak (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

ABC News tells us the judge declared that Roberts-Smith "murdered an unarmed and defenceless Afghan civilian, by kicking him off a cliff and procuring the soldiers under his command to shoot him," and "broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement and is therefore a criminal". Breaking the moral and legal rules of military engagement sounds like a war crime to me. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like a war crime to me as well, but neither of us are considered reliable sources Gugrak (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Would you be happy if we said he ""broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement and is therefore a criminal"? That's what the ABC, a reliable source, said. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Gugrak (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Why not? it's the judge's precise words? HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No, they are not the judge's precise words. The imputation of the articles was that he "broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement and is therefore a criminal". The judge found that the newspapers had established the substantial truth of these imputations. Gugrak (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The ABC reported those words in quote marks, implying they ARE his precise words. Do you know better? HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I presume your referring to this article - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-02/ben-roberts-smith-fall-from-grace-explained/102425484 ? Go read the whole of the relevant paragraph rather than just the bit in quotes Gugrak (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Telling ME to "go read" something is not a valid response to what I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be a summary by the judge of the conclusions of the jury, and yes, a direct quote. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

There was no jury. It was a judge-only trial. WWGB (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, witnesses, but still the judge's summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Try the Guardian then. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/01/ben-roberts-smith-the-murders-and-war-crimes-at-the-heart-of-a-seismic-defamation-battle. It's a description of the imputation that could be drawn, not a direct description of Roberts-Smith as a result of the trial. That imputation was what was proved to be substantially true. Establishing this this was the whole point of the defamation trial, but it is not the judge directly calling him a war criminal, quotes or no quotes. Gugrak (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Then include the quotes as imputations followed by the statement by Besanko that the newspapers, on the balance of probabilities, established the substantial truth of these imputations, as the Guardian has done. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That's already in the article in the judgement section Gugrak (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It is SOP here to remove all hedging phrases when the legal process has concluded. Rather than "found in a civil court, on the balance of probabilities, to have committed war crimes" we should say "who committed war crimes". GreatCaesarsGhost 11:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the "on balance of probabilities" should go in the lead. Gugrak (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Rather than agreement that appears to be the opposite of what GreatCaesarsGhost just suggested we should do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The article should be edited to remove "criminally". This was a Civil Case and the burden of proof is lower than with a criminal case 120.17.44.74 (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The judge ruled that it is perfectly fine for Australian newspapers to say that he committed war crimes, so we can too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the term "criminally" should not be used, but at the same time, I do not see why we should be hedging ourself and writing that he was "found in a civil defamation trial to". That he committed war crimes, bullying and murder is a proven fact, irrespective of what standard it is proven to. AlanS^talk 05:03, 5 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? AlanS^talk 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. AlanS^talk 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. AlanS^talk AlanS^talk 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)

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)

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. AlanS^talk 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.

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. AlanS^talk 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)

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. AlanS^talk 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)