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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article 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. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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 sourced must 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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Last year there was consensus established that he should not be called a war criminal in the first sentence as there has not been a criminal conviction per
WP:BLPCRIME among other reasons. As a result the second sentence specifying what a civil court found was added to. We should not be adding war criminal in wikivoice now unless there's been a criminal conviction.
2001:8F8:1D63:6485:17CD:3B73:BC40:4AD0 (
talk)
04:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)—
2001:8F8:1D63:6485:17CD:3B73:BC40:4AD0 (
talk ·
contribs) is a
sock puppet of
Orchomen (
talk ·
contribs).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
![]() | 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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
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)
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)
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. TarnishedPath talk 11:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. The Austlii link is a copy of a court record. It is explicitly out. TarnishedPath talk 11:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @
WWGB, @
Anthony Staunton, @
Horse Eye's Back, @
Iskandar323, @
GreatCaesarsGhost, @
Vladimir.copic, @
K.e.coffman, @
The History Wizard of Cambridge and @
Melbguy05 who are as far as I can tell are editors who have participated in previous discussion around "war criminal". Apologies if I've missed anyone.
TarnishedPath
talk
10:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Question for participants? How do we deal with the fact that the RfC opener has now been blocked as a sockpuppet?
TarnishedPath
talk
12:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Source | Date | WP:RSP? | Description | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
The Age | 1 June 2023 | Green | 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. |
The Advertiser | 1 June 2023 | ? | 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. |
SBS News | 3 June 2023 | ? | 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. |
Sydney Moring Herald | 5 February 2024 | Green | "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" |
No attribution made. Presented as fact. |
ABC News | 2 June 2023 | ? | "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" |
No attribution made. Presented as fact. |
Australian Financial Review | 11 December 2023 | ? | "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". |
Judgment from Besanko presented as facts. |
The Age | 15 June 2023 | Green | "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. |
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article 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. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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 sourced must 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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Last year there was consensus established that he should not be called a war criminal in the first sentence as there has not been a criminal conviction per
WP:BLPCRIME among other reasons. As a result the second sentence specifying what a civil court found was added to. We should not be adding war criminal in wikivoice now unless there's been a criminal conviction.
2001:8F8:1D63:6485:17CD:3B73:BC40:4AD0 (
talk)
04:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)—
2001:8F8:1D63:6485:17CD:3B73:BC40:4AD0 (
talk ·
contribs) is a
sock puppet of
Orchomen (
talk ·
contribs).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
![]() | 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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
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)
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)
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. TarnishedPath talk 11:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. The Austlii link is a copy of a court record. It is explicitly out. TarnishedPath talk 11:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @
WWGB, @
Anthony Staunton, @
Horse Eye's Back, @
Iskandar323, @
GreatCaesarsGhost, @
Vladimir.copic, @
K.e.coffman, @
The History Wizard of Cambridge and @
Melbguy05 who are as far as I can tell are editors who have participated in previous discussion around "war criminal". Apologies if I've missed anyone.
TarnishedPath
talk
10:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Question for participants? How do we deal with the fact that the RfC opener has now been blocked as a sockpuppet?
TarnishedPath
talk
12:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Source | Date | WP:RSP? | Description | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
The Age | 1 June 2023 | Green | 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. |
The Advertiser | 1 June 2023 | ? | 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. |
SBS News | 3 June 2023 | ? | 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. |
Sydney Moring Herald | 5 February 2024 | Green | "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" |
No attribution made. Presented as fact. |
ABC News | 2 June 2023 | ? | "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" |
No attribution made. Presented as fact. |
Australian Financial Review | 11 December 2023 | ? | "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". |
Judgment from Besanko presented as facts. |
The Age | 15 June 2023 | Green | "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. |
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)