This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ben Roberts-Smith article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Ben Roberts-Smith is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
A fact from Ben Roberts-Smith appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 January 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The judge said he is a war criminal, so we can too. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The judge did not say he was a war criminal. That's specifically why the opening sentences are currently constructed the way they are after extensive discussion last year. The established version should stand until a new consensus is established - and given the restrictions of BLP:CRIME it must be a very strong one. 94.200.83.10 (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC) — 94.200.83.10 (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Orchomen (talk · contribs). [reply]
Hello old friend. IP hoping around the United Arab Emirates isn't going to stop you getting blocked. TarnishedPathtalk 05:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both IPs above are me. I've started an RfC below, so we can establish if there's a new consensus. For the what it's worth I think he 'is' a war criminal, but I don't think per WP:BLPCRIME we can call him that without an actual conviction 94.200.83.10 (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC) — 94.200.83.10 (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Orchomen (talk · contribs). [reply]
Don't worry mate. We'll have you seen too and then everyone can forget you exist for a while. TarnishedPathtalk 05:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23, the IP hopper from United Arab Emerites is back engaging in their usual disruption. They've reverted the article with three seperate IPs to maintain a version they like. TarnishedPathtalk 05:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've now reverted a fouth time in 24 hours between your varoius IP address. I suggest your self-revert immediatly. I'll be lodging a report for your edit warring. TarnishedPathtalk 06:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should Ben Roberts-Smith be referred to as war criminal in the first sentence of the lede?
05:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC) 94.200.83.10 (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
No The findings of a civil court judge cannot be used to label a living person a "criminal" of any kind. Only a conviction in a criminal court can lead to that conclusion. The cited source does not call him a "war criminal" and neither should Wikipedia. A neutral description of his misconduct, accurately summarizing the sources, is OK. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS did in fact say that he had committed war crimes and call him a war criminal. See[1][2]TarnishedPathtalk 06:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Various sources of varying degrees of reliability can say all sorts of things. But here on Wikipedia, in an article about a living person, only a conviction by a criminal court can determine that a person should be described as a criminal. This is firmly established and the specific policy language is A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Emphasis added. Civil courts cannot issue criminal convictions. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A person would need to be accused of a specified crime under the crimes act for what you're quoting to hold water. In Australia, I don't believe there is a crime in the crimes act of "war criminal". What we do have is a finding of fact as established by WP:RS that the subject is a war criminal. TarnishedPathtalk 12:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No He has not been criminally convicted. The WP:RS are generally careful not to call him a war criminal but report the findings of the civil court as described in the second sentence of this article.
Yes Numerous news articles in WP:RS were published in the aftermath of Justice Besanko's judgment which either directly referred to Roberts-Smith as having comitted war crimes or as being a war criminal. For example[1][2]TarnishedPathtalk 06:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all outside of that article in The Age, which is an outlier, do not specifically call him a war criminal but say some version of the 'claims he committed war crimes were proved'. It's not the same, ands it's not a criminal conviction. 94.200.83.10 (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC) — 94.200.83.10 (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Orchomen (talk · contribs). [reply]
We don't need a criminal conviction. A judge made a finding of fact, WP:RS report it (repeating it in their own voices) and therefore per WP:BLPPUBLIC we're free to use it. TarnishedPathtalk 07:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we say he committed war crimes? HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if he has been convicted of war crimes by a criminal court, HiLo48. Australia has such courts, as we all know. Cullen328 (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the sources I've provided so far state that either he is a war criminal or that he has committed war crimes. Saying someone has committed war crimes is exactly the same as saying that they are war criminals. Ps, there are multiple sources. Two that I've provided so far. TarnishedPathtalk 10:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, and it should not be said anywhere else in the article either as he has not been convicted of any such crime. This is prohibited by the Wikipedia WP:BLP policy which says A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. in the WP:BLPCRIME section. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No: Not in the opening sentence, but definantly in the lede. Also, I think any reference to Roberts-Smith being a war criminal should also stipulate that it was a civil finding. I am not opposed to referencing "alleged war crimes" in the opening sentence. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No as others have correctly pointed out this is prohibited by WP:BLP. A civil judge in a civil court can not convict someone of a crime. And the sources make it abundantly clear that the judge concluded that the newspapers had proven Roberts-Smith was a war criminal, and newspapers are not a court of law. There is no criminal conviction, therefore, we can not call him a criminal in the first sentence of the lead. Furthermore, a local consensus here can not override our core policy of BLP, which has a longstanding community consensus.Isaidnoway(talk) 14:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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". TarnishedPathtalk 14:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the article, but we can't put it in the lead sentence per WP:BLPCRIME, because there is no conviction.Isaidnoway(talk) 19:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per WP:BLPCRIME, which requires a conviction, not a ruling in a civil court – its example is O.J.Simpson. WP:BLPPUBLIC's exception to the presumption of privacy is not an exception to the presumption of innocence. It allows the reporting of allegations of criminality when otherwise we might respect privacy, but not for Wikipedia to say that a living person who has not been convicted is a criminal or has committed any crime. WP:BLPCRIME does not exempt cases where multiple RSs are calling someone a criminal with impunity or where a judge in a civil court has ruled such allegations proven; it still requires a conviction. Changing that policy would require convincing the community in a well-publicised central discussion that the benefits of directly calling people criminals in wikivoice despite the lack of a conviction outweighed the downsides and risks, and would probably require the Foundations's acquiescence too. NebY (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No If he has not been convicted of war crimes, then he should not be called a war criminal. Sources, reliable or otherwise, may say he's a war criminal, but prosecution and conviction are what makes that determination - not hearsay.Coalcity58 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not only has he not been convicted of a war crime: at least as yet, he has not even been charged with any war-related offence. Errantios (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Yes The judge ruled that it's fine for the media to say he is a war criminal, so we obviously can too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the judge say that? All I can find is in judgment para 44 and Annexure “A-1”, referring to “War crime allegations”: Sydney Morning Herald 9-10 June 2018. That is, properly, “allegations”. Errantios (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the reliable sources below which report on what Justice Besanko said/ruled. TarnishedPathtalk 05:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The Source Analysis section covers this well. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The label "war crimes" has been applied by these media. They have been right to do so: the judge found that allegations including murder were substantively true; and one can see that the events, or at least the murder(s), would be likely to amount to "war crimes" in Australian law (Division 268 of the Criminal Code).
But it appears to be wrong to suppose that the judge found an accusation specifically of "war crimes" in the original stories. It would therefore be wrong for WP to consider itself justified in calling B-S a "war criminal" because, it was assumed, the judge had approved that. Errantios (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man argument. I said "The judge ruled that it's fine for the media to say he is a war criminal..." Please don't argue against something else. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48, I am arguing against exactly what you said. I will add now: I think that, after the judgment, media were right to say "war criminal" for their purpose, which was, at the top of each story, to convey a broad message to the reader on that day; but an encylopedia needs to be more precise. Errantios (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But when a judges civil court ruling is in conflict with our WP:BLPCRIME policy, obviously we can't use that label in the first sentence of the lead. We didn't for OJ or Trump, I see no compelling WP policy based reason for Roberts-Smith to be an exception.Isaidnoway(talk) 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and WP:BLPCRIME refers to WP:BLPPUBLIC which states "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". It is clear that BRS is a public figure (this has been discussed in other threads) and was so before the newspapers started their reporting on his war crimes and before he initiated his civil action, which he subsequently lost. Therefore WP:BLPPUBLIC is the is the relevant section of the policy to be reading. Per OJ or Trump, I suggest you take those discussions over there because WP:OTHERCONTENT is never a good argument. TarnishedPathtalk 11:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misreading of WP:BLPCRIME. Its third sentence adds the caution that it can be inappropriate to even mention convictions or allegations if someone's not a public figure. That's not a get-out clause for the overarching prohibition on claiming someone's committed a crime when they haven't actually been convicted of it. NebY (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC doesn't suggest to add that he has been criminally convicted. TarnishedPathtalk 12:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's missing the point. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. He has not been convicted, so we can't call him a criminal. NebY (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OJ and Trump are clear and convincing arguments of confirming that BLP:CRIME takes precedent over WP:BLPPUBLIC, when it comes to using a contentious label in the first sentence of the lead. Roberts-Smith will not be an exception to that precedent.Isaidnoway(talk) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - I understand we need to factor what he is notable for and how WP:RS describe him. I think it's pretty clear from the source analysis below that reliable sources pretty consistently call him a war criminal, unequivocally. Now, WP:BLPCRIME does require a conviction, and so for us to unequivocally say the same, I think we do need that criminal conviction (and not merely a civil conviction). However, I'd say that his prominence in the news for being called a war criminal (and the right to say so affirmed by the civil judge) factors very prominently in his notability, and as a massively prominent defining feature of what makes him notable, this information needs to be pretty high up in the lead. Right now, it's in the 2nd sentence. That may be enough. I can't think of a way to phrase a WP:NPOV descriptor on him that covers his situation... saying "non-convicted war criminal" or "accused war criminal" is disingenuous, as he's not under criminal investigation to my knowledge. If someone can think of a way to phrase his status as having been affirmed war criminal in civil court but not criminal court, I might be persuaded to change my !vote here, but I just can't think of any way to say it that the full 2nd sentence of the lead doesn't do better. Fieari (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - This falls far short of the WP:BLPCRIME standard. Just a side note, TarnishedPath you've been the center of a lot of discussions recently that ended up as RFCs. Is it possible to maybe work some of these out before RFCs are necessary? I don't think this needed wider editor comment to resolve. Nemov (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemov I didn't start this one and I wasn't particularly thinking of doing so either. The IP has history here. TarnishedPathtalkTarnishedPathtalk 20:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history is irrelevant. If there had been more of a focus on policy instead of the editor this RFC could have been avoided. Nemov (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the habit of discussing policy with block evading sockpuppets. TarnishedPathtalk 03:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and for reference I've had that sockpuppet stalk me across projects, so I'm definitely not going to discuss policy with them. TarnishedPathtalk 03:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather you attempt to understand the policy. A discussion wasn't even necessary. Nemov (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, please do continue to lecture me about a) discussions I didn't start and b) by block evading editor who have stalked me across wiki projects in the past. TarnishedPathtalk 13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hoped you'd take this opportunity to reflect, but unfortunately you've chosen to deflect. That's typically a bad sign for someone who is highly engaged in contentious topics. Nemov (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No- (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I would say to answer the question of the RFC, no it doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lede, we can discuss the judgement passed by a particular judge in regard to its weight in the media in this aticle. Even if he was given a court ruling it should be well defined in the lede what the outcome of the ruling was, it's best to not deal in vague terms or monikers when it can breach BLP protections. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Headline states "Former SAS soldier committed war crimes" and in the article "Justice Anthony Besanko found The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times had proven Roberts-Smith was a war criminal"
Headline states Roberts-Smith committed war crimes. Judgment from Besanko are presented as facts.
Headline states "Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial: Murderer, war criminal" and in the article " judge found claims Ben Roberts-Smith was a war criminal and murderer were true"
Headline states Roberts-Smith is a war criminal. Judgment from Besanko presented as facts.
Headline states "Murderer and war criminal, but not convicted" and in article "Ben Roberts-Smith is facing calls to lose Australia's highest military honour after being ruled a war criminal"
Headline states Roberts-Smith is a war criminal. Judgment from Besanko presented as facts.
"Besanko concluded in a judgment a year later that the newspapers had proven Roberts-Smith was a war criminal who was complicit in the murder of four unarmed prisoners"
"Justice Anthony Besanko on Thursday dismissed the veteran's civil action against Nine Newspapers, and found allegations of war crimes, including four unlawful killings, had been established"
"In June, Justice Anthony Besanko dismissed Mr Roberts-Smith’s case and in the process deemed him a war criminal" and "Justice Besanko found that the newspapers had proven Mr Roberts-Smith broke the rules of war, is a war criminal, murderer, bully, and disgraced his country and the army by his conduct in Afghanistan".
"He was not in court for the release of the judgment, which found the media outlets had proven the truth of allegations he was involved in war crimes, murder and bullying. Roberts-Smith had attended every day of the 110-day trial.".
Quote states that he was not in court for judgment about him being involved in war crimes. Being involved in war crimes is the same as being as war criminal.
You don't make a good argument. Reporting from reliable sources is relevant to this discussion and The Age and The SMH won against BRS. Do you have a connection to BRS? TarnishedPathtalk 12:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of issues with the sources. (1) SMH and The Age were parties in the defamation case. Their coverage of the judgement is hardly neutral. (2) Headlines are often written by sub-editors to attract readership. They may not be consistent with the tone of the author's article (WP:HEADLINES). WWGB (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd raise in response to SMH, The Age being parties is that they won. Their position is vindicated more than sufficiently by Justice Besanko's judgment. Also, both sources have been tested during RfCs at WP:RS/N and are listed as WP:GUNREL at WP:RSP. You are correct on the headline front which is why I also provided quotes from the articles. In any case the Nine/Fairfax sources aren't the only ones provided as you no doubt see and I'll endeavour to add more when I have time. TarnishedPathtalk 06:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
