Jump to content

Talk:Mark Willacy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sparticusmaximus (talk | contribs) at 04:56, 16 December 2021 (→Reporting of threats against Willacy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fake claim about reporting from more than dozen Middle Eastern countries

The source says "Mark has reported from dozens of countries across the Middle East and Asia, covering stories in Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco, Lebanon, Iran, South Korea and Thailand it does not say more than a doezen middle east countries which an editor has consistently insisted. further skewing of this statement is disruptive and vandalism. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Willacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing puffery, uncited and irrelevant book reviews, and minimising peacocking

There are a number of issues with the article currently, which I have attempted to fix but my edits have been reverted by @Tokyo Oz, who I believe may have a direct interest in this article (due to this being the sole article they edit on Wikipedia). I would like to ensure that this article aligns to address what I perceieve as puffery and peacocking which were originally added by @Tokyo Oz seemingly to inflate the article (speculatively, perhaps for book sales). I hold out an olive branch to try to resolve these issues without administrator sanctions, but the article needs to present a neutral point of view. Selectively including uncited book reviewed and including them on the author's article is not balanced. I ask please identify what issues there are with my edit: [1], and advise why it was reverted without comment nor notification. I ask we use the article talkpage to discuss, rather than my talkpage, following the comments made here: [2]. Aeonx (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism about Willacy's reporting of Afghanistan reporting (November Platoon)

@Sparticusmaximus, I'm attempting to add balance to the article regarding Willacy's allegations about Australian special forces' war crimes; Willacy's commentary on this matter is not limited to his 3rd book but also a series of television and ABC News online segments published by his employer, ABC News. The Veteran Support Force published letter from November Platoon Commander, Heston Russell (also apparently the Managing Director of the Veteran Support Force), directly counters the alleged war crimes picked-up and published by Willacy here: [3]. In the interest of avoiding WP:OR and keeping to the cited sources, I've updated the section you reverted, I think this addresses your concerns. To elaborate on my concerns on the article, and why I think this section is necessary is that Wikipedia may be inavertedly peacocking Willacy and his journalism to provide truth to the allegations or even promote his books (which really is not encyclopaedic). The reality is the evidence for some allegations is questionable as noted in Brereton Report. As far as I can identify from public sources, there was no independent investigative verification or validation done by the book's publisher of Willacy's claims with regards to his reporting on alleged war crimes by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. Aeonx (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeonx, thank for starting this section to discuss the recent changes to the page. Are you able to cite the specific sections of the Brenton report that question Willacy's reporting on war crimes by Australian forces? In relation to Willacy's book, Rouge Forces was published by Simon & Schuster, one of the world's leading publishers. Such publishers have extensive processes in place to verify and fact check author claims. Do you have any evidence that this did not occur? It is entirely expected you would not find their verification in public documents. The lack of such public documentation does not demonstrate this did not occur. Have you contacted the publisher for comment? The book, which details alleged crimes committed by the SAS, is also irrelevant to the sources you have cited on the page which instead relate to reporting of other incidents of alleged war crimes. That aside and acknowledging that the page is about the person Mark Willacy, I think your edits which now cite national media sources are more appropriate. I have made some edits that I think more succinctly and accurately represent the nature of the dispute you cite with Willacy's work. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that simply describing the publisher as "one of the world's leading publishers" does not provides any evidence that they have "extensive processes in place to verify and fact check author claims", my guess is more likely they just have processes to avoid legal actions on potential libel claims. I have found no evidence (including in my copy of the book) that any verification or validation of the claims occurred. Are you aware of any (non-speculative) evidence that it did?
"The lack of such public documentation does not demonstrate this did not occur. Have you contacted the publisher for comment?", Nor does it provide evidence it did occur! I have not undertaken any WP:OR. Aeonx (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is standard in publishing to verify authors' claims. The publisher's reputation is on the line and it is this reputation backed their processes for verifying content, that carries more weight than evidence free critique of the contents of their publications. If there's any actual evidence that counters the claims made in the book then this would be worth noting, but I don't think claims that the book is somehow unverified are fair considering the reputation of the publisher. Keep in mind of course that this is all moot in relation to the edits you have been making the Mark Willacy page, which relate to separate alleged incidents of war crimes by the ADF. Of those, I think your recent edits are helpful and the section in question now represents a more fair and clear description of the critique of Willacy's work on the topic. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not make assumptions about whether a publisher for a book verified or validated any claims within it, standard practice or not. To imply that it did without evidence wouldn't meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. I think the claims are related- what seems to be an outcry from ex-ADF personnel and veterans over claims made with very limited (often single-source) supposed witnesses stated as fact rather than allegations, but there hasn't been suitable criticism citation I can use as a reference for inclusion in Wikipedia, but the specific issue of November Platoon Regarding the disputed claims there has been. That journalistic criticism is focused chiefly on assertion that the ABC has published a story based, it seems, purely on a single anonymous source who wasn't even a direct witness and who's testimony may be unreliable. I'm going to keep the title to that section criticism, because it is not an investigation, there was no investigation (by Willacy or the ABC), it was a story that was published and has since been criticised and disputed. Criticised by the fact the reporting did not seek any verification, and disputed in that it's claimed to be untrue by people there. Aeonx (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mistakenly presume the story in relation to November Platoon is “based, it seems, purely on a single anonymous source…(etc)..” The ABC in a media statement on November 19, 2021 said: “The story was the result of extensive work over two months, including multiple interviews with the key source, who stands by his account.

We do not comment in detail on our war crimes stories outside our careful reporting, as that has the potential to jeopardise confidential sources – people who themselves are or were members of the military – and adversely impact a sensitive and important investigation by the Office of the Special Investigator… “ Willacy’s reporting has been based on concerns raised from within the ranks of the elite unit by serving and former members, SAS operators, support staff and intelligence officers.

Stories he has produced have been followed up by the Brereton Inquiry and sparked a war crimes investigation by the AFP. At all times Defence has been provided with an opportunity to respond to the issues raised in the reporting.” A key point in regard to your apparent determination to frame the reporting chiefly as an object of criticism above one of revelation is that the Defence Department has not disputed or criticised the report (where reports are demonstrably false the department has not hesitated to do so previously). The details given by the Department in its reasons for the decision in response to the ABC’s Freedom of Information application make clear that it is the conduct of November Platoon that is the subject of a current criminal investigation. Given the scope and timing of the material sought in the application, it could not be otherwise. Peter Dutton’s response becomes more problematic in the wake of the Department of Defence’s FOI decision reasons, rather than to bolster Russell’s complaint. TruthAndContext (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC itself has confirmed, as you quoted, that the story is primarily based on single anecdotal source "the key source", no other sources or references have been supplied to verify the claim by the ABC. The conjecture that because the Department of Defence has not denied the report that it must be true is a logical fallacy. It's presumptive, and again, is not encyclopedic. I don't see it as relevant in this article to discuss the factual accuracy (or lack thereof) of Willacy's stories, other than to identify what criticism has been notably reported. The article identifies, for the purposes of balance and to reflect on public reporting, that Willacy's stories have been subject to criticism, both about their factual accuracy and the lack of ABC verification and validation, particularly, his story about November Platoon. The article about Mark Willacy on Wikipedia is not here to debate or evidence the legitimacy of his reporting, it is to identify relevant facts and commentary evidenced by reliable sources that relate to Willacy as it relates to the WP:GNG. Aeonx (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your recent edits, primarily because using the ABC as a reference to claim things that the Department of Defence has "confirmed" is not reliable (nor factually correct). Cited evidence in the article, which you removed without reason, exists to the contrary. Please discuss first on talkpage. Aeonx (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@aeonx You’ve included claims by the former platoon commander, including an interpretation of the defence document and the ABC article, that are inaccurate and not supported by evidence. Inclusion of unsupported commentary is more in line with journalistic neutrality over encyclopaedic neutrality, hence not appropriate here. Have amended to reflect this. TruthAndContext (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TruthAndContext, the claims by the Heston Russell stated in the article correspond directly to the cited reference. Statements you've added such as "claimed, without citing evidence," is WP:OR and it's not neutral language, that's why I've reverted them (as I already stated in the edit summary). I understand (as you stated already) that you believe the ABC is the more reliable reference with regards this matter than Heston Russell, and you have a clear editing bias towards the ABC and Willacy's POV. I am treat BOTH sources equally, and I don't believe there is any reason to assert that the ABC is more reliable. The article should present WP:balance of both viewpoints. Further refinements to dates the alleged events in the cited referenced is not consistent with the evidence, nor the FOI request dates (1 June - 31 July); which is what the criticism is about. The criticism does not refer to "mid-2012". The allegation specifically, was an execution of a hostage in a "night raid in mid-2012. The operation [supposedly] took place north of the HMLA-469 base at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan's Helmand Province." and was supposedly "part of a wider joint Australian special forces-US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) campaign". That's what the ABC article states. Russell has stated November Platoon didn't conduct operations with Helmand until September. Aeonx (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that, I think it's odd that a supposedly comprehensive investigation by the ABC did not even identify the November Platoon was, according to Russell, not even conducting operation in Helmand until September, and yet uses the dates June-July for the FOI request (which is a period when the Platoon has only just deployed, and had not even started conducting operations!). As per the cited Herald Sun article, the published criticism is that the ABC's timelines do not make sense. Aeonx (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the date range in the FOI, the report states mid-2012 and September is in the range. I believe you have consistently shown bias towards Russell’s POV and exhibiting false equivalence, which is inappropriate here given the need for encyclopaedic neutrality. TruthAndContext (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I've just popped back to here to find the criticism section to have entirely blown out of proportion on a page that is supposed to be dedicated to an author. The page should primarily be about the author, his career, works, etc. While I think it may be appropriate to briefly note that some people may dispute the author's reporting, I believe it is neither encyclopedic nor appropriate to include an extended debate on the nuances of a critique of a single topic a journalist reports on, on a page that is intended to describe the journalist themselves. This single critique is now the largest component on the page and is entirely out of balance with the purpose of the page as a biography. The critique is also based almost entirely on the testimony of a person who is alleged to have some connection to the crimes in question. I therefore propose the following steps.

  • That the reporting around Australian war crimes in Afghanistan be described on the War crimes in Afghanistan page.
  • That any debate about the accuracy of this reporting primarily occur on that page (and its talk page).
  • That the Mark Willacy page be edited to return it to an appropriately balanced biography page.

I will attempt to fairly implement those edits now. The removed material from the Willacy page has been copied to:Talk:War crimes in Afghanistan. If a reversion to the situation I describe above is sought for the Mark Willacy page, then I think it is approaching time to bring in a neutral third party to consider just how much of this material is appropriate on a biography page. It may also be worth considering the establishment of a Heston Russel page considering his new status as a leader of an Australian political party, and his increasing public profile. Sparticusmaximus (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sparticus, I think there was definitely WP:UNDUE in the criticism section. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting of threats against Willacy

Are these reports worth including?

LibStar (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These events certainly appear connected to Willacy's reporting on war crimes, so could potentially be included in the controversy section? Sparticusmaximus (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Willacy&oldid=1060544429"