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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree that the term "criminally" should not be used, but at the same time, I do not see why we should be hedging ourself and writing that he was "found in a civil defamation trial to". That he committed war crimes, bullying and murder is a proven fact, irrespective of what standard it is proven to. AlanS^talk 05:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Allegations

It's not useful to remove all references to allegations or alleged war crimes etc from the article . There was a defamation trial specifically because they were allegations. It's adequately covered in the article that these have been proven to be true, but it makes the reasoning and events behind a defamation trial harder to understand if we retcon everything that was at that time still just an allegation. Gugrak (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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

The linked sources provide enough context for anyone to understand the proceedings in a historical manner if that I'd your concern. AlanS^talk 12:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

They were allegations that were subsequently proven to be true. At the time they were allegations and it makes sense to refer to them as that when discussing them in this context.

and in that context, using correct language, they should now be referred to factually and not as allegations as they have now been proven true. Continuing to refer to them as allegations is using incorrect language and tense. AlanS^talk 13:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not. It's important that they were allegations and to remove all references to them as such is not helpful to understanding what happened. You're in breach of WP:3RR. Please self-revert until consensus on how to handle this in the article is reached Gugrak (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If people want to understand things historically they have the linked sources. I am not in breach of WP:3RR as I have reverted 3 times. Other reverts were in regards to other subject matter which is under active discussion. AlanS^talk 13:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The court ruled that the allegations were almost certainly true, that was the basis for ruling against the allegations of defamation. That means that they're no longer allegations, they have become facts of law. You're in the right as far as edit warring goes, but on the core content issue you don't have a leg to stand on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not adding about them becoming facts. I'm assuming that it doesn't make sense to remove all references to the fact that allegations were made. Saying people can go and look in the linked sources and piece together what happened themselves if not good enough. You can't sensibly discuss a defamation trial of you present everything as fact from the get go without acknowledging that, at the point when these allegations were made they were just that Gugrak (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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)