Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith

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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 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)

He has not been convicted of any war crimes or murders. He hasn't even been arrested or charged for any war crimes or any murders. For most countries, including Australia, civil cases are not criminal and cannot establish that a crime has been committed. For most counties, including australia, any related criminal trials do not consider the results of any related civil cases at all when considering whether to convict someone of a crime they are accused of.

This is because civil cases very specifically have a lower standard of evidence than society is willing to use to convict someone of a crime and label them a criminal. All of you people who think a civil case is enough to call someone a criminal are either not well informed on these matters or pushing a specific poltical agenda.

Any any case it is absolutely a breach of the wikipedia policy referenced here to do so. His civil case can be talked about in the appropriate section, but he can't be called a criminal of any type. 19:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1041:A690:8E9:9F:7F6F:99AE (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who you're talking to but I don't see anyone in this conversation saying he's been convicted of anything. As per your accusation of "pushing a specific political agenda", I don't see that here either and making such comments reflects on you and not anyone else. Perhaps read what people write and not what you think they write. AlanS^talk 14:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

At the time I wrote that the article said he was a war criminal in the lead, but it has been changed since to instead note the civil trial. Which is a good change, as he has not actually been convicted of any war crimes. Or, as I said previously, even arrested or charged with any war crimes. Which is the clear standard in WP:BLPCRIME, a conviction. I suppose it is not appropriate to point out the obvious agendas people have due to the good faith assumption or whatever, even though it is a problem that occurs on every controversial wiki page, so I will retract that accusation. I'm certainly not trying to start a fight about that, and I don't want that to detract from the main point here. Which is that there was no criminal trial, and that civil proceedings cannot establish guilt for a crime.

This was literally a defamation case started by Ben Roberts-Smith against those he claimed were lying about him, it wasn't even a civil case started that accused him of anything and if he hadn't tried to defend his reputation in court there wouldn't even have been any civil judgement at all. Which is one of the reasons civil cases are not criminal and cannot convict anyone of crimes. The only relevance for the Judge determining whether the statements of the parties being sued were more likely than not true (more likely than not being the standard) is because truth is a defense against defamation.

But it is not meant to establish that someone has committed a crime. Because "We think it is 51% likely he did it and 49% likely he didn't" isn't any kind of standard to use for labeling someone a criminal and punishing them for a crime. The more rigorous criminal standards of criminal trials are used for that.

In any case, the edit that was made since I posted my first comment is decent and fixes the main issue with how the article existed before. Which is that it was straight up calling him a war criminal despite that being in violation of WP:BLPCRIME due to no conviction. And again, not even any arrest or criminal trial to determine if he has committed any such crime. So the article seems to be within those guidelines now. Although, who knows what the next edit will bring. I think there is still a bit of a problem with how people want to make this the most notable thing about him, to the point of making it part of the the very first line, despite no criminal conviction or trial. But as far as I know that doesn't violate any Wikipedia policy. Although, I am certainly not that knowledgeable of the rules of the Wikipedia and what policies can be used to defend or suppport what kind of edits. I rarely ever make any edits or even comment on the talk pages. 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you refer to the correct policy. WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant here. WP:BLPPUBLIC is because BRS is a public figure and justice has made findings of fact against him. AlanS^talk 00:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would only one policy be relevant? They both are. WP:BLPPUBLIC is what makes it appropriate to include the allegations against him, and WP:BLPCRIME is what makes it inappropriate to refer to him as a criminal or fail to note that they are still just allegations. WP:BLPCRIME specifically notes the difference to how WP:BLPCRIME should be applied to non-public figures. In that you should strongly consider not even including allegations at all for non-public figures. WP:BLPCRIME never doesn't apply to a living person accused of a crime.

Since he hasn't been convicted of any crimes it is not appropriate to refer to him as a criminal in the article or fail to presume innocence in the article. The main confusion on this from many people seems to be the lack of distinction between a civil and a criminal case. Civil cases can't establish guilt of a crime or convict. Only criminal cases can. They have very different standards of evidence for this reason. You often have cases where someone is acquitted in a criminal trial while still being found responsible or at fault in civil cases.

A good example of this, and also a good example for a well written article where there is noteworthy civil case, is O.J. Simpson's page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson It notes how he lost a civil case regarding the murder case but does not place it above more noteworthy information, such as his athletic career and the actual criminal case, and it doesn't provide any reason to write the article without a presumption of innocence. 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying he has been convicted of any crime. You can drop that misrepresentation. Now on the other hand to say he committed murder is not an allegation. There is a legal judgement which makes that finding. You're correct that civil cases can't establish guilt of a crime but the article as it stands does not convey that BRS has been convicted of anything and no one is proposing to change it so that it does. I'm having a hard time seeing what you're actually debating. AlanS^talk 01:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Two specific changes that need to be made are: 1.) The "War Crimes" section needs to be changed back to "Alleged War Crimes" or "Allegations of Involvement in Warcrimes" or something like that, as they are still alleged due to the presumption of innocence, and 2.) The reference to the civil case needs to be removed from the first line. It is directly challenging the presumption of innocence and is intended to promote the assumption that he is guilty of a crime, and is already noted in the top portion in the third paragraph. And in general the article still needs be clear that they are still just allegations and he still presumed to be innocent. 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is no suggestion that he has been found guilty of any crimes and that is made clear. Additionally, the facts stated are not mere allegations, they are legal findings of fact. I invite you to read the legal judgment at https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca0555 for details. As I've suggested you can do RfC if you feel that strongly about it, but you really are in the minority here.

Here's a quote from the judgement which constitutes a legal finding of fact. For a TL:DR just scroll directly to the bottom.

"Section 4 — Darwan

Introduction

933    The Particulars of Truth with respect to the mission to Darwan on 11 September 2012 are as follows:

Darwan mission – 11 September 2012

(93)    On or about 11 September 2012 intelligence had been received to the effect that Hekmatullah was in, or had been at, a village named Darwan.

(94)    On or about 11 September 2012 the Applicant and the troop of which he was a member conducted a mission in Darwan in search of Hekmatullah (the Darwan mission).

(95)    Shortly after the commencement of the Darwan mission a member of the overwatch patrol, being a patrol stationed at a higher position to keep a watch over the mission, sent a message over the radio to the effect “We’ve got a squirter, he just ran out of the green and crossed the river and we can’t see him anymore, he is on the other side to us.” The message did not indicate that the ‘squirter’ was armed or (explicitly or impliedly by its terms or tone) that he was a threat. A ‘squirter’ is a person who leaves the scene of the mission when soldiers approach.

(96)    The Applicant responded to that message, in substance “Roger that, I’ll look after it”.

(97)    At some time after that radio communication the Applicant crossed the Helmand River in search of the ‘squirter’. The Applicant located an Afghan male (Afghan Male 5) hiding amongst the rocks on the other side of the Helmand River, stood over him and shot him in the head from close range. At the time the Applicant shot Afghan Male 5 he was standing so close to Afghan Male 5 that the Applicant was splattered with his brain matter and some of it entered the Applicant’s mouth.

(98)    [Deleted]

(99)    [Deleted]

(100)    [Deleted]

(101)    [Deleted]

Murder of Ali Jan

(102)    [Set out in the Confidential Annexure to the Defence].

(102A)    Towards the end of the mission the Applicant and a number of soldiers including members of the Applicant’s patrol were clearing compounds at the South-East end of the village. In one compound they located and detained (placed under control) three fighting aged males. The detention of these males rendered each of them hors de combat. One of them was an Afghan male named Ali Jan (Ali Jan). The other two were Person 62 and Person 63. The three Afghan men, including Ali Jan, were handcuffed and questioned. The Applicant questioned Ali Jan and Person 62.

(103)    Once the mission was complete a request for extraction (helicopters) was communicated.

(104)    [Set out in the Confidential Annexure to the Defence].

(105)    [Set out in the Confidential Annexure to the Defence].

(106)    [Set out in the Confidential Annexure to the Defence].

(107)    Towards the end of the interrogation referred to in (102A) above the Applicant moved Ali Jan, who was still handcuffed, to outside the compound. The Applicant caused Ali Jan to be placed at the edge of a small rocky cliff which was greater than 10m high, and forced him into a kneeling position. The Applicant then took a number of steps back before he moved back towards Ali Jan and kicked him hard in the midriff/abdomen causing him to fall back over the cliff and land in the dry creek bed below. The impact of the fall to the dry creek below was so significant that it knocked Ali Jan’s teeth out of his mouth.

(107A) It may be inferred from the Applicant’s conduct in placing Ali Jan at the edge of the cliff and in kicking him off the cliff as particularised at paragraph 107 above, that the Applicant:

(a)    intended to kill Ali Jan; and/or

(b)    acted with reckless indifference to Ali Jan’s life.

(107B)    After Ali Jan had fallen the full height of the cliff down to the dry creek bed he was moved by two soldiers whose identity the Respondents do not know to the other side of the creek bed where there was vegetation. After he had been moved to that location Ali Jan was shot multiple times in the presence of the Applicant and Person 11. The shots were fired by either the Applicant or Person 11 (a soldier under the Applicant’s command), or alternatively by both the Applicant and Person 11.

(107C)    Ali Jan died as a result of injuries sustained from the cliff fall particularised at paragraph 107, or the gunshot wounds particularised at paragraph 107B, or both.

(108)    The shooting of Ali Jan was a result of an understanding or arrangement, amounting to an agreement between the Applicant and Person 11, to ensure that Ali Jan was dead following the cliff kick. The existence of the agreement between the Applicant and Person 11 to kill Ali Jan may be inferred from all of the facts and circumstances, including:

(a)    Person 11, as a member of the Applicant’s patrol, was stationed near the cliff before, during and after the kick particularised at paragraph 107, and was in a position to see any or all of the following:

(i)    Ali Jan being placed in a kneeling position at the top of the cliff;

(ii)    the Applicant kicking Ali Jan off the cliff;

(iii)    Ali Jan falling down the cliff; and/or

(iv)    Ali Jan’s body resting at the base of the cliff;

(b)    after Ali Jan had fallen the full height of the cliff down to the dry creek bed, the Applicant and Person 11 walked down the cliff and conferred. The Respondents do not know the contents of the conversation;

(c)    the Applicant and Person 11 both observed Ali Jan’s body after the cliff kick and were in a position to see the serious injuries Ali Jan had sustained including that his teeth had been knocked out as particularised at paragraph 107;

(d)    the Applicant and Person 11 both knew that Ali Jan was hors de combat at the time of the cliff kick particularised at paragraph 107, by reason of the matters particularised at paragraph 102A;

(e)    the Applicant and Person 11 were both present when Ali Jan was shot as particularised at paragraph 107B; and

(f)    the Applicant and Person 11’s conduct in covering up the killing of Ali Jan as particularised in paragraphs 109 to 110A below.

(108A)    The shooting of Ali Jan particularised in paragraph 107B was carried out pursuant to a joint criminal enterprise, being the understanding or arrangement amounting to an agreement between the Applicant and Person 11 to kill Ali Jan as particularised in paragraph 108 above.

(108B)    The shooting of Ali Jan was carried out in furtherance of the Applicant’s intention that was formed as set out in paragraph 107A above.

(108C)    Further or alternatively to paragraphs 107A and 108B, the Applicant’s intention to kill Ali Jan may be inferred from the Applicant’s presence and/or conduct particularised in paragraph 107B and the agreement, knowledge and conduct referred to in paragraph 108 above.

(109)    Person 4, a soldier under the Applicant’s command and in Person 11’s patrol, performed SSE (sensitive site examination), that is, took photos of Ali Jan’s body, before he and the Applicant returned to their patrol’s helicopter landing zone for extraction. During the process of SSE Ali Jan’s handcuffs were cut off him and a throw-down ICOM radio was placed next to Ali Jan for the purpose of the photographs, in an attempt to make it appear that Ali Jan was a spotter who was killed legitimately.

(110)    The Applicant sent a signal over the radio, in substance, “11, this is 211, we’ve just engaged a spotter, that is 1 EKIA” (enemy killed in action).

(110A)    The Applicant, Person 4 and Person 11 covered up the unlawful killing of Ali Jan by falsely alleging that Ali Jan was a spotter. The Applicant falsely alleged that Ali Jan was a spotter on at least the following occasions, relying upon the ICOM radio he knew had been placed next to Ali Jan as particularised in paragraph 109 above as the basis for his allegation that Ali Jan was a spotter:

(a)    in the radio communication referred to in paragraph 110 above;

(b)    in post mission de-briefs and reports; and

(c)    in his outline of evidence in reply in these proceedings (filed 12 July 2019).

(110B)    It may be inferred from the Applicant’s conduct in falsely alleging that Ali Jan was a spotter that he was conscious that the killing of Ali Jan was unlawful.

(111)    It may be inferred that Ali Jan was not a spotter in circumstances where:

(a)    he had been located by the Applicant and his patrol in a compound and then detained and handcuffed by the Applicant or a solider in his patrol, and consequently was hors de combat, and had been questioned by the Applicant;

(b)    his hands were hand-cuffed when he was retrieved from the holding compound and kicked off the cliff;

(c)    he was not seen to be using any mobile telephone or radio (which is a common feature identifying a spotter);

(d)    no spotter was seen by the Apache helicopter or overwatch patrol;

(e)    prior to Ali Jan’s death the Applicant did not send any message to the effect that a spotter had been located so that the extraction could be aborted until it was safe;

(f)    in his radio communication sent after Ali Jan was killed the Applicant did not indicate any concern for who Ali Jan may have passed a message to (which is the threat a spotter poses) or give any indication that there was a threat such that the extraction should be aborted until it was safe;

(g)    the mission was complete and it was unlikely a spotter would have approached the village or the compounds, which were under the control of Australian SAS soldiers, at that time;

(h)    it was unlikely a spotter would have come within such a short distance of the village such that he was able to be killed in the manner he was (spotters ordinarily operate from several hundred (500-1000) metres away);

(i)    it was unlikely a spotter would have come within such a short distance of the village such that the Applicant or any member of his patrol could get to his body to perform SSE and return to his patrol’s helicopter landing zone within three minutes.

(112)    Further, whilst it is permissible to kill a spotter under the ROE, it is not permissible to kill any spotter in an inhumane manner such as kicking them off a cliff.

(113)    Further, whilst it is permissible to kill a spotter under the ROE, it is not permissible to kill the spotter if the spotter is detained, hand-cuffed, unarmed and poses no threat or danger.

(114)    In the circumstances, by his conduct with respect to Ali Jan, the Applicant breached Common Article 3 in that his conduct constituted violence, cruel treatment and murder.

(115)    [deleted]

(116)    In the circumstances, the Applicant’s conduct with respect to Ali Jan constituted murder.

(117)    Alternatively, by his conduct with respect to Ali Jan the Applicant was complicit in and responsible for murder." AlanS^talk 03:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

It's a breach of BLP:CRIME. Additionally, it seems possible, even likely, he'll be criminally charged. We shouldn't be in a situation where a man is under trial for a crime but not convicted and is already being listed as guilty by Wikipedia while being innocent until proven guilty in legal terms. Gugrak (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The person writing the previous statement was a sockpuppet and therefore anything they wrote is disregarded. In any case WP:BLPPUBLIC applies, not BLP:CRIME as the suckpuppet claimed. As WP:BLPPUBLIC applies and there is a legal judgment that the subject committed murder on at least three separate occasions it is extremely relevant to the subject matter to include this in the lead given the gravity of the finding. AlanS^talk 15:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. BLP:CRIME absolutely applies to any living person, public or not, with regards to being called criminal or having the article written with a presumption of guilt. It is absolutley clear, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." He has not been convicted by a court of law. Civil cases cannot convict. The article still must be written with a presumption of innocence. The only distinction BLP:CRIME makes regarding non-public figures is that it should strongly be considered to not even mention the allegations at all.

And since he is a public figure, it is certainly appropriate to detail the allegations. It is also appropriate include the results of the civil case including any quotes by the judge that are appropriate. But the article must still note that they are still allegations, as there has not actually been any conviction or even any criminal trial. Civil cases cannot establish guilt or convict in criminal matters. So the top line should be edited to remove the note about the civil case, as that certainly is not neutral by trying to make that the most notable thing about a person, and goes against the presumption of innocence. The allegations and result of the civil trial are already included in the third paragraph of the top section, which is a pretty appropriate place for them. It is still a very notable thing about him. 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of wikipedia he has been convicted by a court of law, wikipedia uses general global terms which might not mesh perfectly with the nuances of your local legal system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any basis for claiming this? because it is completely wrong. This has nothing to do with my local legal system, it has to do with Australia's, and Australia is a common law based country where there is a clear distinction between civil cases and criminal cases. In Australia, civil cases do not convict anyone of a crime due to having a lower standard of proof required. Just like in all countries with a common law basis. Here is a reference showing the clear distinction between criminal cases and legal cases in Australian law: https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/learn-about-court/court-divisions

AFAIK, the civil/criminal distinction is still present in most, if not all, non-common law based legal systems as well. There is a big difference between two people having a dispute about money and accusing someone of a crime, after all. But in this instance we only need to focus on the Australian legal system. 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

And I would also note, that for the purposes of wikipedia, wikipedia recognizes the distinction between criminal and civil cases in the relevant articles and that Convictions are the result of criminal cases, not civil ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Once again it needs to be reiterated that no one here is saying that he has been convicted of a crime and that is not the current language that the article is using. However a finding of fact has been made by a justice that he committed murder. This is a legal fact that is reported on by multiple reliable sources. AlanS^talk 01:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

He hasn't been convicted of crime, and thus can't be called a murderer or a criminal in the article. A civil case can't convict. WP:BLPCRIME is quite clear: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." No conviction = article must be written with the presumption of innocence. The article can certainly include the details of the civil case, including any quotes from the judge that are appropriate. What the civil case ruled on was whether people had defamed him by calling him a murderer and other related things. All the court ruled was that they didn't defame him when they did that, so he isn't entitled to any damages from them. Because it is a civil case regarding a defamation claim. Anyway, I feel I've properly explained and supported my position on the matter, and I don't think I have much new to say about it that I haven't said so far, So I'll just leave it at that and others can weigh-in and moderators or editors with more privileges can make their decisions about this article. 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

From https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/05/murders-hidden-evidence-and-threats-judge-releases-full-judgment-on-ben-roberts-smith and similar in many other sources "Justice Anthony Besanko found Roberts-Smith, a recipient of the Victoria Cross and Australia’s most decorated living soldier, murdered civilians while on deployment with the SAS in Afghanistan and lied in his evidence, under oath, before court". The justice made a direct finding of fact that BRS committed murder, not merely that he wasn't defamed. It's not an allegation. This is reported from many reliable sources. There is a legal finding of fact that BRS is a murderer and we a therefore free to do likewise. Take it up with the legal system if you disagree with facts so strongly or perhaps put do a RfC, but as far as I can tell you are in the minority here. AlanS^talk 02:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME makes it explicitly clear that it does not apply to individuals who are public figures. "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." AlanS^talk 01:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

That is an incorrect reading of that. The non public figures part only applies to the sentence it appears in.

"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." - As you can see there is no hedging here stating this does not apply to public figures. It always applies.

"For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." - for this second sentence, talking about not even including any allegations at all, it applies to non-public figures.

So you can include allegations in articles about public figures, as long as they meet all the other properly sourced requirements and other policies and what not. But you aren't free to call people criminals and write the articles as if they are criminals without a conviction. To say otherwise would be to say that you understand the Wikipedia policy to be that it is okay to call people criminals and claim they are guilty of crimes even if they have only been accused and there are only allegations? Even without considering the ethical considerations for that and how it would facilitate BLP to be used as attack articles against them, it would make Wikipedia liable to defamation claims (interestingly enough given the civil case that this whole debate is about) against Wikipedia in many countries if that were the standard. 2600:1700:1041:A690:84E:2F99:D169:9B4A (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Once again, no one is saying that BRS has been criminally convicted of anything at the moment, the article as it currently stands doesn't read like that and no one is proposing to change it so that it reads like that. You're arguing about something that isn't happening. AlanS^talk 02:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• I made the change: diff; sourcing supports this while the person who vigorously objected turned out to have been a banned sock. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 7 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If we continue to refer to things as allegations that are now proven true then we are using incorrect language and tense. This is a matter of facts.

The linked sources provide enough context for anyone to understand the proceedings in a historical manner if that I'd your concern. 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.Blocked sockpuppet AlanS^talk 00:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

and in that context, using correct language, they should now be referred to factually and not as allegations as they have now been proven true. Continuing to refer to them as allegations is using incorrect language and tense. 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If people want to understand things historically they have the linked sources. I am not in breach of WP:3RR as I have reverted 3 times. Other reverts were in regards to other subject matter which is under active discussion. 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) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I 100% agree The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

And at the point when we got the most recent round of coverage these were facts not allegations. Today these are facts, not allegations. Note that some of the allegations remain allegations, but you appear to be challenging the ones which are now facts. Why should we depart from what reliable sources are doing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's the BBC still talking about them historically as allegations - because that's what a defamation trial is about.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65813912.amp Here's the financial times doing the same https://www.ft.com/content/76de0ae6-fc9d-4295-92ae-6e1879516d9b an allegation does not cease to be, it just becomes a true or a false one after trial. Removing all references to allegations confusing is confusing, exactly why reliable sources like the ones you asked for continue to write about them where appropriate. Gugrak (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Many more sources which now refer to the facts in the present tense which are linked throughout the article. There's a whole legal judgement about it. AlanS^talk 16:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

But this article is contemporary, yes its true at the time that these were just allegations but today they are substantiated allegations. Are you sure you aren't pushing a POV here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV. It could be "Media reports of war crimes" or similar for that section.--Melbguy05 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Be specific, exactly what part of NPOV supports this position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back agreed AlanS^talk 17:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Melbguy05 I don't know that the change in heading necessarily leads to a flow of the substance underneath? AlanS^talk 17:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Melbguy05 an idea. Might be better to give the whole article a reorganisation given events. AlanS^talk 17:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this is the fundamental issue here. To me, in the way the article is currently structured, it kind of makes sense to refer to these as allegations (or similar wording). Chronologically we go through his military career → recognition of achievements → war crimes being reported by news media → investigations/civil court case → outcome of course case proving some of the allegations and not others. We don't need to use the term allegations (we could use variations of X reported, X claimed etc) but with how the article is structured at the moment I don't see it as a total NPOV issue. Improvements can certainly be made though. If we want to remove the allegations angle completely we would need to intergrate the war crimes information into the military career section and then have a section that talks about when these were revealed/reported on by the media. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was thinking an integration of the material into another section might be best for coherence. AlanS^talk 00:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Unbalanced.

Obviously need information about events meriting award of VC JT100000 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you expand on what wrote? AlanS^talk 00:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The war hero should come first in the lead followed by the allegations then the Court decision. What was he first notable for? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

What you are first notable for isn't necessarily what you end up being notable for. Few outside of Australia would have heard of him before; his global fame comes from the defamation case. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Calling somebody a "hero" is not encyclopaedic language. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It would also be outmoded at this point now that they have became an anti-hero. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger being a hero is a subjective term. Being a murderer, bully and war criminal are not subjective terms. After the positive findings of fact that Justice Besanko made against BRS I doubt many but the most rusted on supporters consider him a hero. AlanS^talk 22:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC).

He was a hero before this case and certainly before the accusations began. That is the period in time relevant in a brief chronology of his adult life, which is relevant here in the lead. You are being anachronistic in placing current descriptions of the guy into a time slot before those opinions were there. There will be sources to confirm his hero status before the allegations began, if that is even needed. My point was that his notability as a war hero was there before this case and that should therefore come first in the lead. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The things he is best known for should come first. Many who will not have known about or who have forgotten about his Victoria Cross will now primarily see him as a murderer, bully and war criminal. That's what must come first in the lead. Chronological aspects come later in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. A lead is not a chronological record. Additionally BRS being a murderer, bully and war criminal are not opinions, they are legal findings of fact. I invite you to read Justice Besanko's judgment on the matter. The only thing that's an opionion is that he's a hero and an oursourced contentious one and that. I think that opinion has no place in this article. AlanS^talk 04:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If we look at this chart showing his wiki page's page views, we see that he went from an average of 300 daily views, which skyrocketed to 80,000 views after his war crime accusations. Clearly the war crimes are what Ben Roberts-Smith is most notable for. Also I agree with @Iskandar323 when he says few people knew who he was outside of Australia before the war crime findings, because I'm British and I first learnt who Ben Roberts-Smith was after seeing articles about his war crimes. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a classic "local hero international disgrace" scenario in which the wider world only became aware of them from the scandal not what caused them to be in the situation to have a global scandal in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, His notability came from being a war hero. That reached beyond Australia but it doesn't matter because there is no rule measuring notability, you are notable or you aren't. Also, he was notable outside Australia anyway. @The History Wizard of Cambridge, of course 'Hero' can be encyclopedic English. Is that meant to be a joke? I suggest we all take a step back and take an overall view of this and avoid jumping on to the current flurry of media attention: what is news today will change tomorrow. He is notable first for being a VC war hero. That notability has been expanded due to his defamation claim. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I literally never heard about Ben Robert-Smith before the war crime investigations. "Heroes" don't kidnap unarmed civilians, kick them off cliffs, and murder them. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Wizard, there are more newspapers in the UK, I think, than The Sun and The Mirror? Should WP articles only be written if you have heard of the topic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This story was covered by all of the major papers in the English speaking world. The vast majority of papers of the English speaking world did not carry any coverage at all of the VC award. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@The History Wizard of Cambridge agreed 100% AlanS^talk 22:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back agreed. His notability going forward is that he's disgraced Australia in the eyes of the world. There was reports the other day about the US questioning joint field operations going forward given these findings. AlanS^talk 08:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Per this - there's not a consensus for this particular language: that is just the language that you clearly prefer, but that is a far cry from it being due based on the balance of sources, and it is probably also a borderline BLP vio. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

There are numerous sources throughout the article that support the position and if you conduct an effective search you would find many more sources to support this for example here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. I could have kept going. AlanS^talk 10:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

None of those sources say "Ben Roberts-Smith is a war criminal", apart from the opinion piece - the rest couch the term, e.g.: the judge found it substantially true that ..., on the balance of probabilities ..., etc. etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

First reference "Billionaire Kerry Stokes is 'disappointed' Ben Roberts-Smith has been declared a murderer and war criminal".

Second reference "The Australian War Memorial is currently displaying the uniform of a soldier found by the Federal Court, on the balance of probabilities, to be a murderer, war criminal, a bully and a liar." Still a finding that he's a war criminal whether on the balance of probabilities or any other standard.

Third reference "And those words remain true, even after a ruling last week in the Ben Roberts-Smith case, which saw the words “murderer” and “war criminal” splashed across newspaper frontpages."

Fourth reference "The newspapers' allegations that Mr Roberts-Smith was actually a war criminal, a liar and a bully were "substantially true", the judge said in his civil case ruling."

Fifth reference it's in the heading "Former SAS soldier Ben Roberts-Smith committed war crimes", but if that's not good enough read to the second paragraph "In a landmark decision on Thursday, Justice Anthony Besanko found The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times had proven Roberts-Smith was a war criminal who unlawfully killed and assaulted unarmed Afghan prisoners. Besanko also found the Victoria Cross recipient had bullied a fellow soldier."

Sixth reference "For many Australians, it's almost too difficult to even imagine. In a landmark defamation trial, the country's most revered and decorated soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, has been found to be a murderer and a war criminal."

Seventh Reference "The defamation case was highly unusual, not only for its 100-day duration, number of witnesses, high-profile proponents and elements of secrecy. Besanko had to rule on the substantive or contextual truth or otherwise of the newspapers’ allegations. In finding them substantially true, he was effectively calling Australia’s most decorated living soldier a murderer and a war criminal, without him having been charged with a crime – and based on a lower burden of proof than would exist at a criminal trial."

Eight reference, it doesn't get any more clearer than the heading "Ben Roberts-Smith is a war criminal" and I'm sure the article would say more of the same but I hit a paywall.

This all amounts to BRS being a war-criminal. AlanS^talk 12:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

@Jack4576: Hi, you removed balance of probabilities from the introduction. Your edit comment was "balance of probabilities was not the standard used". Justice Besanko said that section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) applied to the proceeding which is the balance of probabilities under s 140(1). You also changed the wikilink from the preponderance of the evidence section in the Burden of proof (law) article that referred to balance of probabilities to the clear and convincing evidence section. Correct me if I am wrong but in Australia there are only two standard of proofs: balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt. Similar to the UK which has a section in the Burden of proof (law) article: Standard of proof in the United Kingdom. In the US, a third standard of proof ‘clear and convincing evidence’ is recognised. I suggest the wording be changed to "based on the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities applying the Briginshaw principle". Regards, Melbguy05 (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Melbguy05, you're correct about s140 of the Evidence act. However, the way 'balance of probabilities' is defined within that act, is not the way that the phrase 'balance of probabilities' is understood colloquially.

I think it would be preferable to use the words 'civil standard of proof' as its colloquial meaning will be more informative to the lay reader. Your suggested wording is good, and I would be happy with that. I think to avoid verbosity however, leaving it at just 'civil standard' would be my preference, although I'm happy to defer to consensus on this issue.

There are only two 'standard of proofs' in Australia; formally anyway, and one of them is often referred to as the 'balance of probabilities'. However, because the civil standard changes depending on the facts, the legal terminology doesn't map well to the meaning that would be conveyed to a lay reader. Does that make sense ?

The reason I changed the wiki-link was because 'balance of probabilities' in a context of a war crimes finding; is going to require much more than a 50 /50 probability. Hence the 'balance of probabilities' section within the Burden of proof (law) article; as that article is written, would be misleading.

Keen to hear your thoughts as to how we should resolve this. The main thing I want to avoid is for readers to mistakenly think Besanko merely found BRS 'more likely than not' killed people and committed war crimes; as actually, his finding was stronger than that.

Jack4576 (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jack4576: The wikilink to "clear and convincing evidence" is not relevant as it is a US standard and not an Australian standard used in the trial.

The "balance of probabilities" should be included it is used by reliable sources, including the cited Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) article: "outlets needed to prove on the balance of probabilities" and "The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities". Where the "civil standard of proof" or civil standard is used by sources, the balance of probabilities is included: "civil standard – the balance of probabilities" (SMH), "civil standard of proof – on the balance of probabilities" (The Guardian), "the civil standard of the “balance of probabilities”" (Guardian), and "on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof" (ABC News). Melbguy05 (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

In that case I don't think we should be wikilinking at all so long as the destination would be misleading Jack4576 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Balance of probabilities in Australia is a variable standard, and so does not mean the same thing as it does in the USA. Jack4576 (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Due care needed

Apologies if this has been raised before, but this article has to be spotlessly accurate, which I don't think it is. The Court found the accusations made by the reporters to be substantially true, meaning the appellant had no case. He was not found guilty of murder, meaning he is innocent. This article has to make that fact utterly clear, which the lead sentence does not do. In a more general sense, see a quote from guidelines at mos:BLP.

"The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. These concerns are especially pressing at biographies of living persons.

Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each.

When a subject dies, the lead need not be radically reworked; Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date."

Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Roger 8 Roger, in addressing the accusations made by the reporters; Besanko made a positive finding that BRS had committed the conduct alleged.

He was not convicted of murder, but he was found by a judge on the civil standard to have committed murder. That standard was relatively high too, as it was the Briginshaw standard.

You are correct that the article needs to be spotless. It already is so.

To remove the positive factual finding by Besanko that BRS being a murderer / war criminal is true; would be to suppress relevant material. Jack4576 (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

However you spin it, murdering innocent and unarmed civilians makes you a war criminal, so that is how he should be described. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. He is a 'war criminal' in the colloquial sense, and Wikipedia content is colloquial.

He has not been convicted. That doesn't mean he is not a war criminal in the colloquial sense.

It is not defamatory to say so, given the findings made by Besanko J. Jack4576 (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• The judge in the case wrote: “The applicant [Ben Roberts-Smith] has no reputation capable of being further harmed.” Source. WP:BLP is satisfied. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger I invite you to read the learned justices actual words some of which I have quoted elsewhere in this talk (with link included). The justice made positive findings of fact that BRS was a murderer, war criminal and a bully not merely that the newspapers and the reporters had told the truth. That is material of sufficient gravity that it should not be suppressed and be in the lead. AlanS^talk 22:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A quick news search will reveal how few news sources use the term "war criminal" in plain terms, and in going against the much more guarded language in most sources, this terminology is not only undue, but POV and a borderline BLP violation. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that a few news sources do not use the term "war criminal" does not mean that the term is inappropriate. Plainly, some news sources do use that term, and plainly, the findings of Besanko J are a secondary source for BRS being a war criminal in the colloquial sense. His positive finding of that fact brings this squarely within BLP policies. Consensus is against your position here. If you would like to open this up to further discussion via an RfC, please feel free to do so. However my read of the discussion above on this talk page so far is that we have a consensus for the opening to contain that term as written. Jack4576 (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of search you conducted but it appears to have not been not a very effective one because I was able to find many sources in which he is labelled a "war criminal" in plain terms with no qualifications. Refer to here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. I could of kept scrolling through my search result but I think this demonstrates that there are numerous reliable sources which demonstrates the notoriety of this in regard to the subject matter. There is nothing POV about this. This is purveying what the subject is notable for, because irrespective of whether you disagree or not there is a legal judgment which has made a finding of fact in regards to this matter. It is not a matter which one ought to have a POV about. It is legal fact. AlanS^talk 10:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, only the opinion piece makes a declarative statement using the term. The other mentions all couch the term in phrasing that contextualizes it within the framework of the allegations, court case or legal standard. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything you don't like is an opinion piece and not reporting of a Justice Besanko's judgment? Was it you that was talking about POV before? AlanS^talk 12:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that's an incoherent and dissociated comment, but if the implication is that I'm banging some sort of POV drum here, you're projecting. I'm not the one cherrypicking sources to ascribe contentious, poorly supported WP:LABELs in a BLP. I updated this article long before you mosied along to unbalance it. My only POV is NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you were directly replying to my comment or not AlanS but I agree with it. As I said, 'Plainly, some news sources do use that term'. Jack4576 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Mean to reply to Iskandar323, but ended up under your comment somehow lol. AlanS^talk 12:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

All good AlanS I suspected as much, just wanted to clarify Jack4576 (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

BRS was not charged with, or tried for, war crimes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

But a judge has stated that he is guilty of them, and that it's perfectly fine for the media to say just that. So can we. HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps wording similar to "no criminal charges have been laid against him" as used in the Lowy Institute article could be added to balance the introduction for WP:NPOV.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be unnecessary. If he was actually convicted of war crimes, the word 'convicted war criminal' could be added as a qualifier. In the meantime, it is sufficient to state that he is a war criminal in the colloquial sense; as that is what Besanko found to the Briginshaw standard. Jack4576 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That Lowy Institute source is one I came across when I did a Goggle search before and I was thinking about using it in the lead to remove some sources that didn't supported the material in the lead but I wasn't sure about using the publications of a think tank in Wikipedia. It claims to be independent but I've heard that sort of thing many times before from highly partisan think tanks and I don't know what Wikipedia's position if any is on think tanks. AlanS^talk 12:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources for not criminally charged: "No charges have been laid." Australian Financial Review, "Roberts-Smith has not been charged with any criminal offence." The Daily Telegraph, "Roberts-Smith has not been charged with any criminal offences." ABC News, "The AFP ... has not laid charges against him or closed his case." The Sydney Morning Herald . Melbguy05 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We rarely cover a negative, isn't it clear from context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Even someone does not have a formal criminal conviction or charges; they can still be a criminal in a colloquial sense

It can still be true that someone has a committed a crime, and therefore can be a ‘criminal’ even if they have not been charged for it

Besanko J found on the Briginshaw standard, that BRS did commit crimes

It is positively not defamatory to state that fact, because of Besanko’s finding, and therefore it is not a BLP issue that the article reflects that fact

The alternative would be to state ‘alleged war criminal’ at the top of the article; but that would be understanding the issue, as we have a positive judicial finding on a robust probability standard that BRS did commit crimes, including the war crime of murder, as alleged

Jack4576 (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"criminal in a colloquial sense" isn't really a thing. Criminal means breaking laws, breaking laws means being convicted of doing so in a court of law to the criminal bar, hence WP:BLPCRIME. But yes, 'alleged war criminal' would be a significant improvement upon the current rendering. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Criminal absolutely has a colloquial sense and if you believe otherwise, our disagreement is unfortunately intractable

I don’t understand how anybody could be of the contrary view; that it “isn’t really a thing” Jack4576 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, the colloquial sense of ‘criminal’ is a person who has committed crimes, as in, a person who has taken an action that is a crime

A person can still be colloquial, a ‘criminal’, and have done criminal acts, in the absence of a formal legal conviction

Many of WWII’s most notorious ‘war criminals’ never faced justice

We have a positive judicial finding here which is enough for it not to be defamatory. This suffices for BLP purposes, he is colloquially a criminal. He is an uncharged criminal, he is an i convicted criminal

He is -more- than an ‘alleged’ criminal, as we have a positive judicial finding that those allegations are proven substantially true

Jack4576 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jack4576 I wouldn't go so far as to say convicted. That's not correct, however we may still say he is a criminal because Justice Besanko made a positive finding that he had committed crimes. AlanS^talk 12:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. He is a person who has committed criminal actions, who has not yet been convicted for committing those actions

Colloquially, he is a criminal

Legally, he is unconvicted

One can still be a 'criminal' and lack a conviction. Wikipedia is not a courtroom

Besanko's positive finding is sufficient for BLP purposes. We have a verifiable and reliable secondary source that BRS committed criminal actions, and therefore is an unconvicted war criminal Jack4576 (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Iskander323, re: your most recent edit; it was not merely the ‘personal opinion of the judge’. It formed a part of his judicial finding. It was within the judgement

He was qualified to make this assessment, and it was widely reported Jack4576 (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it was just a part of the judge's statement, and these always include the personal feelings of the judges on the cases, as well as, typically, their personal admonishments for the defendant. "disgracing his country" wasn't a specific part of the media allegations, and it isn't any kind of allegation; it is naturally subjective. Most people would probably say he just disgraced the uniform. Since most of the world hasn't even heard of Ben Roberts-Smith, his ability to disgrace his country is limited. The more obvious things that disgrace Australia as a country are raping the earth for coal, electing cunts, destroying the great barrier reef etc., not this guy. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The judge’s statement was a statement as to his reputation, and was descriptive. I totally disagree that, in context, this amounted to the mere expression of a judge’s feelings

Wikipedia does not only contain universally objective facts

Nevertheless, I think it may be appropriate to add a qualifier “was found by a judge to have disgraced his country” to make the statement less universal in scope

Jack4576 (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:BLP noticeboard Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts discussion concerning the page should be occurring primarily here. AlanS^talk 07:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It requires the input of a broader audience of experienced editors available at a noticeboard. See WP:CONLEVEL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts there's no reason why experienced editors might not engage in discussions here since this is where consensus is required to be formed. AlanS^talk 08:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is a policy. Local-level consensus does not override this, and consensus can be determined at a broader level. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The consensus is that it has been complied with; due to the strength of Besanko J’s judicial finding. If you have reasons for your opposing view I’d invite you to discuss it here Jack4576 (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, if it's not obvious, I believe BLPCRIME prevents him from being called a criminal in wikivoice without a conviction, affirming that he "criminally" violated anything, or referring to "war crimes" without attribution or the caveat of allegations. I also don't see a consensus in this article talk page either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with that for the reason stated above, which I would invite you to directly engage with

Nowhere in the article as drafted did it state he was a convicted criminal, which is untrue

Instead it stated that he has committed criminal acts, i.e. is a war criminal; which a a judge has found at the Briginshaw standard, is substantially true

I count four editors that believe policy is being complied with, and two editors that don’t believe so. The consensus opinion appears to me that policy is being complied with in including ‘war criminal’ in the lede

Im not going to revert your edits, I think this needs to be resolved by RfC Jack4576 (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not a counting of WP:VOTEs. I also see more editors on this talk page beyond this section discussing and disputing the terms being thrown around. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPUBLIC is unambiguous on this matter "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." If you edit you will be doing so against consensus, thus edit-waring and you will be reverted. Please do not violate WP:BRD AlanS^talk 09:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, as many times as you trot that out, I will repeat: none of that says that you can suddenly just rid roughshod over WP:BLPCRIME. It also just says allegations should be mentioned; not that allegations can be editorially converted into fully fledged criminal convictions. Even when someone is actually convicted, that doesn't mean you suddenly re-assign their occupational identity to that of a career criminal. Most crimes are episodic. Unless someone is a career burglar or a serial killer, it's not really a profession that sits among professions. The lead of Rolf Harris notes his sexual assault of young girls, but it doesn't in the first sentence refer to him as a convicted pedophile. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article as it currently stands does it state that BRS has been convicted of anything. I think you need to reread it. It states that he is a war criminal, not that he has been convicted. AlanS^talk 10:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I have seen this comment, or some variation of it several times, but you are misunderstanding the policy. WP:BLPCRIME does not state that a living person can't be called a "convicted criminal" if they aren't convicted, but it is still okay to call them a criminal. It says "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." The way the article is written must presume he is innocent. Calling someone a war criminal is presuming their guilt. A civil case cannot convict someone of murder or war crimes in Australia, or most other countries. Anything a civil case says about that does not meet that threshhold. The law works that way because the standards of evidence are very different and civil courts are not intended to determine criminal guilt or innocence. It also doesn't matter what newspapers or other sources do or do not call him a criminal. Because it isn't an issue about sources. Unless you have sources that state it was actually a criminal trial and he was convicted. Which none do, because it was a civil trial about defamation. One where Ben was the plaintiff.

The civil trial and the results of it should definitely be included, in the appropriate section and summarized in the top section, but they should be very clear that he has not been convicted or charged with a crime and note the different standards of evidence. Great care needs to be made to make it so none of what is written in any way that violates the presumption of innocence. That presumption of innocence being required by WP:BLPCRIME. 2600:1700:1041:A690:644E:7A27:C050:99A0 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ps, I have started a section for discussion on "disgraced his country". Do we need a conviction for that too? AlanS^talk 10:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

My view is that war criminal should be retained in the lede, for the reasons previously outlined on this page. Jack4576 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would just like to remind everyone that WP:BLPRESTORE exists, and is part of the BLP policy. There have been good faith BLP objections, so until there is a consensus to include, it should remain out. There's no rush to apply this label, and I'm sure the world can wait ~30 days until Wikipedia's gears can grind around and develop a consensus on this. Please stop the edit warring, and remember that WP:BLP is a contentious topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources in the lead

You can't just change the sources in the lead to suit the content. Things like the guardian and the BBC are good RS, certainly better than Crikey Baseboom (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Infact the crikey source is an editorial so I've removed completely Baseboom (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

BBC was one of the sources I added that you removed for the sake edit warring. Did you actually read the sources I removed to see if they bore any relevance to the lead and the ones that were added? AlanS^talk 13:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I removed the shockingly poor crikey editorial source you added Baseboom (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Baseboom you are so committed to edit warring that you removed a BBC source that you have admitted is good because you don't like Crikey? Good excuse. AlanS^talk 14:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The content is based off ongoing discussion and the sources should follow the content. WP is not just a collection of random sources with no relevance to the content around it. You're in violation of WP:3RR. You've reverted me 5 times now. . You should self revert back to my last edit to avoid sanctions. AlanS^talk 13:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've reverted to your last, but I'm going to take it the crikey editorial Baseboom (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 13 June 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."AlanS^talk 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)

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

AlanS^talk 13:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• No. ""Disgraced his country" is nothing more than the judge's opinion. If is neither a crime nor a proven fact. Nobody surveyed Australians to see if they felt "disgraced". It is just a leap in logic from "I find him to be a murderer" to "his actions brought disgrace to his country". Just because the judge thought his actions disgraceful does not make that a fact. WWGB (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• 1. Justice Besanko "found Australia’s most decorated living soldier had broken the moral and legal rules of military engagement and was therefore a criminal, and that he had disgraced his country and the army by his conduct in Afghanistan". A Goggle search using the following "Ben Roberts-Smith" and "disgraced his country" turns up result after result which reflect this.AlanS^talk 04:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• No. Google results are not RS. Most of the hits are about about the imputation that was at trial anyway. Even when it is attributed to the judge it's still an opinion and has no place in the lead.

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)

Discussion

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. AlanS^talk 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. AlanS^talk 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. AlanS^talk 10:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that the user starting this RFC has engaged in WP:CANVASS [1], [2] [3], 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). AlanS^talk 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 [4]. Carter00000 (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I further note you've attempted to canvass [5] 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. AlanS^talk 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. AlanS^talk 09:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I've withdrawn/struck my previous notice, per this comment [6], 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)

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. AlanS^talk 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. AlanS^talk 23:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@IJBall Notably all citations are relevant and other a diversity of perspectives both publisher wise and geographically. AlanS^talk 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. AlanS^talk 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? AlanS^talk 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? AlanS^talk 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. AlanS^talk 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. AlanS^talk 11:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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. AlanS^talk 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? AlanS^talk 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. AlanS^talk 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". AlanS^talk 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"? AlanS^talk 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. AlanS^talk 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)

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)