Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gugrak (talk | contribs) at 02:54, 2 June 2023 (→‎1 June 2023 - Not a convicted war criminal: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Image

There is an official photograph of Roberts-Smith with his VC here. Is it possible to use this uner fair use guidelines as per File:Mark Donaldson VC 19-01-2009 fair use claimed.jpg? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. The circumstances would be similar, i.e. it is most unlikely that a free image of the subject wearing the decoration and uniform is available given that he is a current serving member of the SASR, thus it would seem that the non-free image would not be replaceable. I might be wrong, though, so it is probably best to get a couple of opinions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the rationale would be the same. –Moondyne 06:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've added it now. Would be most greatful if someone would be able to review the fair use rationale and make any necessary changes in case I muffed it. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue with the rationale is the claim "... showing the recipient wearing the medal and was taken shortly after he was awarded it" The DoD photograph is dated 19 January 2011 and Roberts-Smith was awarded the VC on 23 January 2011. Either the photos with the medal were taken earlier (is that allowed?) or the DoD date for the photograph is wrong. -- Mattinbgn (talk)

Thats very observant. I didn't notice but now that you mention it of course I can see that you are right. Not sure what to do here as the DoD website says it was taken on 19 January 2011. My guess is that he was actually awarded it earlier, but wasn't presented it until today (23 January). That doesn't help I know. Anotherclown (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the image has all ready been tagged for deletion by the image police as apparently a free version were be easily available (yeah right). See File:Ben Roberts-Smith VC 19-01-2011 fair use claimed.jpg. Pretty miffed right now... Anotherclown (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree with this deletion rationale. As far as I know, there is no way a free image could be obtained to replace it, short of breaking the law. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Criteria for speedy deletion, any editor, other than the creator, who disagrees with the speedy deletion proposal can remove the tag. I have done so. Most likely then it will go to WP:IfD. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is being considered for deletion here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 23#File:Ben Roberts-Smith VC 19-01-2011 fair use claimed.jpg. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vision

There's a nice 2 minute news report from Channel 7 that's worth watching. One place you can see it is at http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/8697590/vc-recipient-wears-medal-for-his-unit/ Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Wow! He's really tall!) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A good line-out jumper, apparently :) -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honours and Awards

I've added a section for his honours and awards. I have not included the Meritorious Unit Citation - he is wearing it without Federation Star, therefore he was not in the unit during the time it was awarded and therefore he is only authorised to wear it while he remains in the SASR. This contrasts with the Unit Citation for Gallantry which he will wear in perpetuity as one of the members of the unit who contributed to its award. AusTerrapin (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other photos

I've been searching for photos. So far I've only found one other site with any, and they are all from the Defence Image Library. As someone else above also asked: Where are all these free-use public domain photos please!

For what it's worth, here's what I found. The advantage of listing them is that, unlike the Defence site, these URLs may still work next week.

While I'm making lists, here are todays URLs at www.defence.gov.au - a much better selection, but no-doubt the URLs will have changed by the end of the week.

Also, here's Channel 10's 2 minute video - probably better than Channel 7's Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns with text

I see the article has been expanded, which is great but some of the expansion troubles me. Parts of the article read a little close to the text in the citation and the biography, to be verging on plagiarism. Some examples:

  • From our article: "He was again deployed with the SOTG in Afghanistan in 2007, and on his return was posted to Operational Support Squadron as a member of the Selection Wing where he took part in the training of SASR Reinforcements"
  • From the DoD: "He was again deployed with the SOTG in Afghanistan in 2007, and on his return was posted to Operational Support Squadron as a member of the Selection Wing where he took part in the training of SASR Reinforcements"
  • From our article: "As he approached the structure, Roberts-Smith identified an insurgent grenadier in the throes of engaging his patrol. Roberts-Smith engaged the insurgent at point-blank range resulting in the death of the insurgent. With the members of his patrol still pinned down by the three enemy machine gun positions, he exposed his own position in order to draw fire away from his patrol, which enabled them to bring fire to bear against the enemy"
  • From the DoD: "As he approached the structure, Corporal Roberts Smith identified an insurgent grenadier in the throes of engaging his patrol. Corporal Roberts Smith instinctively engaged the insurgent at point-blank range resulting in the death of the insurgent. With the members of his patrol still pinned down by the three enemy machine gun positions, he exposed his own position in order to draw fire away from his patrol, which enabled them to bring fire to bear against the enemy"

If we are going to quote the DoD site, that is one thing but we should be clear that that is what we are doing, through the use of quotation marks etc. and then we should be selective. To quote the source word for word and only acknowledge with an inline ref is not good enough IMO. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree absolutely. I placed the citations into a quotation box but am uncertain if the contents are full extracts or synopses. –Moondyne 00:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Medal for Gallantry citation is missing quite a bit and has received a tweak or two, but is ruffly copied. The Victoria Cross for Australia citations, however, although missing a couple of paragraphs at the begining and end, appears to be a direct copy of the actual citation. Full citations available here. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the entire section on his military career, pre-Afghanistan. It is either a direct copy from the DoD or an extremely close paraphrase (see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing) of the biography section here. We can't really rely on a fair-use quotation of this size for this type of material so this section will need a complete rewrite. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military section now rewritten. It is basically from the same source, so I would appreciate some eyes over it please to make sure it avoids the same problems as above. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Including the DoD citations is presently probably the best way to go, for the present. As history dates, and books, journals, etc are written about the relevance of the two awards and Corporal Roberts-Smith, external sources can be sourced to provide more meaningful intrepretation. A good case in point is Tom Derrick VC. I was the one who paraphrased a fair chunk of the official citation and, had I known how, would have presented it in the appropriate format. Most media souces have swallowed the DoD line and it will take some years to provide a more realistic take on this citation; including its political significance. The article, prior to the citations, was lacking in any susbstance including detail on both acts of gallantry, his military background, the awards and honours and family history - as you would expect of an article created only a few days earlier. What is interesting is a similiar situation occured with Mark Donaldson VC a few years ago. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa Jherschel (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good source for details on the VC engagement

This is a good article (with a picture of him in the field) describing the engagement in Roberts-Smith's own words. Battlefield mateship worthy of VC. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on edits made on 28 May 2014 by Hamlet12

With 3RAR, Roberts-Smith was deployed to Rifle Company Butterworth in Malaysia twice and conducted two operational tours of East Timor.

The supporting reference ("Corporal Benjamin Roberts-Smith, VC, MG". Victoria Cross for Australia. Department of Defence, Commonwealth of Australia. 23 January 2011. Retrieved 23 January 2011.) does not confirm this.

He took part in hostage recovery operations and a number of personal security detachments in Iraq throughout 2005 and 2006.

No supporting reference.

In 2008 he was posted to the SASR selection wing where he took part in the selection and training of SASR reinforcements. He was posted to 2 Squadron in 2009 and reached the position of Patrol Commander before his discharge in 2013. He was deployed to Afghanistan on six occasions between 2006 and 2012.

a) No supporting reference / references.
(b) Pedantic comment: "between 2006 and 2012" means "from 2007 to 2011")

Ben was on his first operational tour of Afghanistan in 2006 when he was awarded the Medal for Gallantry for his actions as a patrol sniper in the Chora Valley.

a) He was awarded the Medal for Gallantry for his actions in 2006. I'm not sure when the medal was actually awarded.
b) Already mentioned elsewhere

It was his fifth tour of Afghanistan, ...

When were tours 2, 3 & 4? (With supporting reference(s) please.)

On his sixth tour of Afghanistan in 2012 Ben received the Commendation for Distinguished Service, this time for his leadership as a team commander and lead planner for the Special Operations Task Group (SOTG).

a) No supporting reference.
b) He received the commendation in 2014.
c) The commendation makes no mention of dates.

The Victoria Cross, together with the Medal for Gallantry and the Commendation for Distinguished Service make Ben the Commonwealth’s most decorated soldier from the war in Afghanistan.

No supporting reference.

Further information on Ben's military career can be found here: http://www.defence.gov.au/special_events/roberts-smith/

Already mentioned elsewhere.

Pdfpdf (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AWM profile on Roberts-Smith [12] states that his Commendation for Distinguished Service was awarded for his sixth tour in Afghanistan in 2012. The citation also mentions 2012, so safe to say the decoration arose from that tour/year. As for the Commonwealth's "most decorated soldier" from Afghanistan claim, that is recorded in Roberts-Smith's 'Celebrity Speakers' profile [13]. The latter also states Roberts-Smith's second tour of Afghanistan was in 2006 (the MG tour), and the VC action occurred in his fifth tour. Google found these sources quite rapidly, though not entirely sure about the other above claims. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ben Roberts-Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Roberts-Smith. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buried evidence and threats

On 11 April 2021, some very serious stuff against Roberts-Smith was broadcast and published. Perhaps a new section is required. [1][2] Sampajanna (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theage.com.au/national/buried-evidence-and-threats-how-ben-roberts-smith-tried-to-cover-up-his-alleged-crimes-20210408-p57hlr.html
  2. ^ https://www.watoday.com.au/national/ben-roberts-smith-accused-of-intimidating-witnesses-vows-to-destroy-enemies-20210411-p57ibl.html .

Status of Fairfax

@WWGB: On noting that Fairfax Media was a defendant in actions launched by B.R-S in August 2018, I perceived that the article needed updating to show that Fairfax had been acquired by Nine Entertainment Co. and had been deregistered before the matter came to court. The dates of relevant actions are very close together between July 2018 and December 2018, which was why I included mention of Fairfax's deregistration in December 2018, which you have deleted as unnecessary detail. Subject to any clarification arising from the forthcoming court hearings, you may well be right about such details and, for WP purposes, it may be sufficient to describe the defendant newspapers as "one-time Fairfax" papers. I will be observing the court hearings with much interest, some of which will be centred on the background joust between the powerful media organisations which are financing proceedings on both sides. Bjenks (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable bot edit

This edit goes far beyond the anti-vandalism purpose of the bot in reverting a lot of content that seems legitimate and relevant (and restoring text of questionable relevance). Can we have some more eyes on this matter, please? Bjenks (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nominals in the infobox

The template documentation provides "This is for things like |honorific_suffix=OBE – honorifics of serious significance that are attached to the name in formal address, such as national orders and non-honorary doctorates;" So, I think his military awards are allowable. WWGB (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the objection by User:Abraham, B.S. was that using postnominals duplicated the "Awards" section in the infobox. I think the intent of {{Infobox military person}} is to use the parameter |honorific_suffix= for civilian honorifics, and |awards= for military awards. At any rate, having them twice in the infobox seems indeed unnecessary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the crux of it, User:Michael Bednarek, yes. Including postnominals in |honorific_suffix= duplicates what already appears both slightly to the left in the lead and, as you point out, the awards section of the infobox, so is repetitive and unnecessary. For this reason, and that it tends to look cluttered, the majority of articles that use Infobox military person tend not to include postnominals. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

chronology in personal life section

It makes much more sense for this section to be organised in the way it was established, especially since the rationale grouping of the changes is not clear in the reasons for certain things being put together.Unbh (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Unbh Normally, matters on talk pages are discussed first before any further changes are made, not the other way round to substantiate an individual editor's personal opinion. Sampajanna (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware I've undone my own edits. It turns out they were essentially WP:BRD reversions of your changes to the chronology of the personal life section. So I've restored the last stable version before either of us started this round of edits so that we can find consensus. It is precisely not just to substantiate a personal opinion but to restore the consensus version while it's sorted out.Unbh (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Unbh What issue do you have with the following being added to the personal life section?
In January 2022, Roberts-Smith was ordered to pay the legal costs of his ex-wife after unsuccessfully trying to sue her in the Federal Court over allegations she accessed confidential emails .[1] Sampajanna (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ben Roberts-Smith loses case against ex-wife, court orders he pay costs". ABC News. 21 January 2022. Retrieved 25 January 2022.
There's no problem with that being added, except that he was unsuccessful, and it should say why he sued her.Unbh (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Unbh : You wrote "except that he was unsuccessful". From an objective and impartial editorial perspective, what problem do you have with the legal outcome not going in favour of the litigant? Sampajanna (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna No. I mean that your proposed text above is incorrect. Your copy says he successfully sued. He did not - hence he has to pay costs. There's no objective or impartial issue here, just accuracy. Correct that and it's fine to add, but it should go at the end of the section, not dumped in the middle.Unbh (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Unbh : As shown in the article view history, that typo was corrected soon afterwards (@14:23 24 January 2022) to "In January 2022, Roberts-Smith was ordered to pay the legal costs of his ex-wife after unsuccessfully trying to sue her in the Federal Court." Otherwise, your instruction above ("Correct that and it's fine to add, but it should go at the end of the section, not dumped in the middle.") tends to infer that you either have ownership of this article or you are a Wikipedia administrator. Please confirm accordingly. Sampajanna (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna Clearly I can only fairly comment on the text as proposed in talk- and that's what was suggested by you above. Commenting on different edits in the histroy is not going to help us here. Obviously the rest is meant as comment - i.e. that' I think it's fine to add, but that it should go in at the end as the most recent info. Unbh (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Unbh : I shall take that as confirmation that you do not own this article and you are not a Wikipedia administrator. Indeed, the edit history is relevant to contextualise and justify matters under discussion, rather than rely on personal opinion. Nevertheless, to hopefully eliminate any further confusion, please refer to the simplified diagram (below) of how consensus is reached. The operative word is 'compromise', which does not mean reverting or figuratively blocking others' edits on your terms only. Sampajanna (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image of a process flowchart. The start symbol is labeled "Previous consensus" with an arrow pointing to "Edit", then to a decision symbol labeled "Was the article edited further?". From this first decision, "no" points to an end symbol labeled "New consensus". "Yes" points to another decision symbol labeled "Do you agree?". From this second decision, "yes" points to the "New Consensus" end symbol. "No" points to "Seek a compromise", then back to the previously mentioned "Edit", thus making a loop.
A simplified diagram of how consensus is reached. When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion.
@Sampajanna Yes, I'm aware of how consensus is reached.
I propose the below sentence is added to the end of the personal life section.
"In January 2022, Roberts-Smith was ordered to pay the legal costs of his ex-wife after unsuccessfully trying to sue her in the Federal Court over allegations she accessed confidential emails.[1]"Unbh (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Unbh : I do not recall having any previous concerns about that wording. It was you that deleted it. Sampajanna (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna Readding.Unbh (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Unbh Moving on, the following is currently in the 'Personal life' section. However, it refers to professional qualifications and associations, which would seem to be more appropriate under 'Civilian career'. This was previously moved up without any alteration to the text but since reverted.
"In addition to the MBA he obtained from the University of Queensland, Roberts-Smith holds an Advanced Diploma in Management, a Diploma in Government, a Diploma in Government (Security), and a Graduate Certificate of Business. He is also a Graduate member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (GAICD) and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management (FAIM).[2][3][4][5]" Sampajanna (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ben Roberts-Smith loses case against ex-wife, court orders he pay costs". ABC News. 21 January 2022. Retrieved 25 January 2022.
  2. ^ "Benjamin Roberts-Smith". Ovations. Retrieved 13 August 2021.
  3. ^ "Seven West Media appoints Ben Roberts-Smith as General Manager of Seven Queensland" (PDF). Seven West Media. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
  4. ^ "BEN ROBERTS SMITH". Australian Network Entertainment. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
  5. ^ "Ben Roberts-Smith VC MG". Halogen Australia. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
You're probably right on location in the article, but none of that is really notable or reliably sourced - speaker bureau bios and a company PR are not WP:RS. it should probably just be cut completely IMO.Unbh (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Unbh Okay. Valid points. Sampajanna (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death symbols

The sourcing tying this to BRS is not adequate. The refrece in ABS is editiorial, and only in passing, and is not appropriate to for a BLP.Unbh (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2018 ABC opinion piece on the death symbols ban made a link between the ban, the IGADF inquiry and a supposed Spartan culture that BRS was a part of. The piece uses BRS as a very direct example of culture issues that spurred the inquiry.

There’s no original research in the line that was deleted. JacksonFranks1987 (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about it being editorial doesn’t matter because the topic of the section is what the media was saying. can just write “An editorial in the ABC”. Full quote is here: Some grunts are besotted with the muscled hoplites of ancient Sparta, especially since the Hollywood film 300 was released. See, for example, the way Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith's battlefield actions have been described: 'He just tore into the enemy … He is the epitome of the Spartan soldier. It was only a matter of time before he would demonstrate his true ability'. With an internal Defence inquiry into the conduct of special forces in Afghanistan ongoing, Lieutenant General Campbell's reservations about Spartan imagery are not without merit.[1] There’s no OR here. This piece is clearly part of the media allegations timeline. Build-up to the "Leonidas" piece.

References

  1. ^ ABC article. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-28/death-symbol-ban-not-political-correctness/9696674?section=analysis. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Editorial analysis pieces like that aren't considered RS. See WP:RSEDITORIAL. Gugrak (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No. Gugrak (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? it's the judge's precise words? HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree that the "on balance of probabilities" should go in the lead. Gugrak (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Roberts-Smith&oldid=1158120742"