Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith

War criminal in first sentence

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 perWP: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). [reply]

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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 05:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's not the version I like - it's the policy and consensus compliant version. 94.200.83.10 (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)~~ — 94.200.83.10 (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Orchomen (talk · contribs). [reply]

and you are a blocked editor that's evading their block. You shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. TarnishedPath^talk 06:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you think I'm a blocked editor go ahead and start an SPI. In the meantime you cannot ignore policy and consensus.~~

~~Even in the body of the article he is not called a war criminal. We can't use it in the lead sentence. 94.200.83.10 (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)~~ — 94.200.83.10 (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Orchomen (talk · contribs). [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. TarnishedPath^talk 06:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, your editing habits don't lie. You're @Orchomen, aka @Gugrak, aka @Baseboom. TarnishedPath^talk 11:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede

There is clear consensus here that Ben Roberts-Smith should not be referred to as a "war criminal" in the first sentence of the lede. Participants here also discussed the question of whether Roberts-Smith should be directly called a "war criminal" at all in Wikipedia's voice, and that's a bit more complicated. As several people pointed out, our BLP policy says that a person is to be "presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law" and from what I gather, Roberts-Smith has not been convicted himself, but lost a law suit he filed against newspapers that had called him such. So while our BLP policy trumps WP:RS and our right to directly call him a war criminal, it is certainly fair game for us to report with attribution what the newspapers said and what the judge found. (See the comment by User:Fieari.)

I see that the person who started the RfC was a sockpuppet, so thank you to whoever struck their contributions; I avoided reading anything from the sock except for the initial RfC question. ~Awilley (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Survey (RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede)

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] TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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.~~

~~94.200.83.10 (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)~~ — 94.200.83.10 (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Orchomen (talk · contribs). [reply]

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] TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 07:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've presented one RS that explicitly calls him a war criminal. This is WP:EXTRAORDINARY and needs multiple RS explicitly calling him a war criminal - not the constructions the vast majority of RS use about war crimes being proven - before we can ignore WP:BLPCRIME. 94.200.83.10 (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC) — 94.200.83.10 (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Orchomen (talk · contribs). [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]
If a judge ruled it and reliable sources say it, yes we can per WP:BLPPUBLIC. TarnishedPath^talk 12:05, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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". TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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'll add more to it when I have time.TarnishedPath^talk 05:51, 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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]
No Over and above the civil/criminal distinction, which necessitates great caution, it is simply a fact that he is known as a soldier, who almost certainly committed extra-judicial killings, rather than as a war-criminal as such. The details of what he is alleged to have done are more informative than the label. The civil findings should be recorded obviously. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Slacker13 (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- He was found by a civil court that he was a war criminal. A criminal conviction is not needed though I agree that the finding was from a civil court to avoid confusion. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The court did not find that he was a war criminal. That has been a media interpretation of the judgment. Errantios (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources say that the court did. See below in the source analysis. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the judgment. Errantios (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 07:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "reliable source" about a readily available text (see link, which I provided on 9 May) is more reliable than the text itself and even if the source had been a party to the case? Errantios (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we can't use that in the article. We should follow the reliable secondary sources. TarnishedPath^talk 01:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, refer to the source analysis below which indicates that a range of publications (not just The Age/SMH) state that Justice Besanko found that BRS had committed war crimes. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. WP:BLPPRIMARY is about protection of living persons and plainly should not be used to the opposite effect. Errantios (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote me the bit from WP:BLPPRIMARY which states what you have written? TarnishedPath^talk 12:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading WP:BLPPRIMARY both as a whole and as subsidiary to WP:BLP and WP:PSTS, which aim to protect living persons. Errantios (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not once in WP:BLPPRIMARY does it lay out an exception about the usage of court transcripts and public documents, it in fact unambiguously rules it out by emphasising the 'not' in the following statement: 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)[reply]

I am reading "trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents" as covering publicly obtainable documents, when to refer to something that one has got hold of (albeit legitimately) could be unfair, and not as extending to material actually published to the world, such as a judgment that the court has published online.

A consequence of your interpretation would seem to be that a media report of a judgment must be referred to instead of the judgment itself even when attention to the judgment itself shows that the report is wrong. It seems plain that WP:BLPPRIMARY should be not be interpreted in that risky way. Errantios (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Austlii source is an exact duplicate of the judgement which is clearly a court document. I'll keep reading the black bits. TarnishedPath^talk 21:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cited AustLII for convenience, as is usual in WP. The Federal Court's own publication of the judgment is here.

If it is always wrong to cite judgments directly, many WP articles about judicial decisions may need to be rewritten. I am following normal WP practice. Errantios (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Notification: I have proposed amendment of WP:BLPPRIMARY so that it would become plain that published judgments may be referred to. I anticipate that this RFC will be closed before that amendment, if it or something like it is agreed, would become effective. Contributions to general discussion of that proposal will be welcome. Errantios (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

No because doing so would be a BLP and UNDUE breach. I think mentioning that a civil court judge made certain conclusions would be more appropriate. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Reliable sources describe the Roberts-Smith as a war criminal, and he derives much of his notability from being one, especially abroad. Cortador (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - Just because the Americans have thrown MOS:TERRORIST in the bin, doesn't mean we need to as well. We don't need Wikipedia to say "Ben Robert-Smith is a BAD MAN WHO DID BAD THINGS". State what reliable sources have said and trust the reader. BoldGnome (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Source analysis (RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede)

the committed war crimes reporting is not relevant. That's already covered in the article. Plus The Age and the SMH are really not a good source sfor this is it given that they were among the newspapers being sued — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8f8:1d63:6485:17cd:3b73:bc40:4ad0 (talk • contribs) — 2001:8f8:1d63:6485:17cd:3b73:bc40:4ad0 (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of Orchomen (talk · contribs).

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? TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 06:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question 'Do you have a connection to BRS?' is inappropriate! Several months ago, I was attacked for saying said it was not a criminal case but BRS lost the case and his reputation in a civil case. I hope the judge’s comments will end up being considered obiter. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not inappropriate given the IP's tendentious editing, geolocation and editing history. TarnishedPath^talk 14:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, headlines aren't a reliable source. Also the quoted sections of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age articles attribute the findings to Besanko. BoldGnome (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ a b Alexander, Michaela Whitbourn, Harriet (1 June 2023). "Former SAS soldier committed war crimes". The Age. Retrieved 13 June 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ a b Benns, Matthew; Tonkin, Shannon (1 July 2023). "Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial: Murderer, war criminal: Judge throws out BRS defamation case". The Advertiser. Retrieved 14 June 2023.

The discussion above 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.