Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith

Good articleBen Roberts-Smith has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2025Peer reviewReviewed
May 7, 2025Good article nomineeListed
July 1, 2025WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 30, 2011, and November 22, 2025.
The text of the entries was:
Current status: Good article


Copy editing comments

I've run through the article for copy editing purposes, and would like to offer the following comments:

  • The Afghanistan section is somewhat difficult to follow. It would benefit from a clearer structure.
  • The appeal section doesn't make it clear on what grounds Roberts-Smith sought to overturn the judgement
  • There's a fair bit of over-linking; for instance, of newspaper titles
  • If sources support it (noting the types of sourcing needed given WP:BLP), it would be desirable to place Robert-Smith's conduct in Afghanistan more clearly in the context of the other allegations of war crimes to have been committed by the SASR as well as the cultural problems with the unit. These were so severe that the ADF seriously considered disbanding the SASR. Andrew Hastie, for instance, has stated that Roberts-Smith was allowed to bully officers going through SASR selection processes. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D thanks for your copy-editing and your guidance. TarnishedPathtalk 06:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D, regarding your last dot point, would expanding on material already in the article about the Brereton Inquiry/Report and adding material concerning Samantha Crompvoets' reports be the sort of thing that would address that? TarnishedPathtalk 08:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, though I'd suggest that it be part of re-jigging the section on Roberts-Smith military career. He appears to have served in a deeply dysfunctional unit, and some sources state that people like him were a big part of the problems (e.g. the regiment was effectively run by the sergeants rather than the officers, which was one of Brereton's findings). Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Material in McKenzie's book certainly paints a picture of him being a big part of the problem, especially in terms of "blooding" rookies. TarnishedPathtalk 08:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've downloaded Brereton's report and I'll see if I can get a copy of Crompvoets' book. When I get time I'll have a read of those and any coverage of them. TarnishedPathtalk 08:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D, I've split the Afghanistan section into 3 subsections. Please see Special:Diff/1309671516. Does this address your comment about it being difficult to follow and would benefit from a clearer structure? I've been reading more and still thinking of how to address dot point 4 above. TarnishedPathtalk 11:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, I recent added some content which stated the grounds on which BRS sought to overturn the judgment in his appeal to the high court. Do you think that is sufficient or should I state it in the appeal the full bench to the federal court prose also? TarnishedPathtalk 11:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reduced the number of links per WP:OVERLINK. TarnishedPathtalk 09:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 talk 00:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick McKenzie's portrait for Melbourne Press Club board
Nick McKenzie's portrait for Melbourne Press Club board
Improved to Good Article status by TarnishedPath (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

TarnishedPathtalk 11:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

No, both me and @Gatoclass: were fine with it, and only you objected to it.--Launchballer 11:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I must have missed that comment. I'm willing to give McKenzie a full review, but I would first like to ask TarnishedPath: are you open to Roberts-Smith not being a bolded link, or is his article not being bolded non-negotiable? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Narutolovehinata5, I'm open to that. However, I would really appreciate if we were able to run the double bolded links. TarnishedPathtalk 21:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Narutolovehinata5, have you forgotten about me? TarnishedPathtalk 13:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't that. I've just been busy over the last few days that I haven't had the time to take a good look at this. I also got scared by the fact that the article is semi'd indefinitely, which spooked me a bit. Anyway, the article was indeed a new GA and I did not find any close paraphrasing, and a QPQ has been done. Among the hooks proposed, the "trial of the century" hook is the best option. However, after thinking about this for a bit, I'm leaning more in favor towards not mentioning Roberts-Smith at all in the hook. The focus is supposed to be on McKenzie, and just saying he won the "trial of the century" is enough. Basically, the fact that it was against Roberts-Smith is a less important/essential detail that could easily be deleted. So something like "... that in 2023, Australian lawyer Nick McKenzie (pictured) won what was dubbed 'the trial of the century'?" is something I would approve. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The focus is supposed to be on eligible articles, of which Roberts-Smith is, and if you won't approve ALT0b, I will.--Launchballer 00:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stated above that I was open to the possibility of Roberts-Smith, not being bolded, but I think that any possible other hook would need to be a cracker to be more interesting than the current ALT0b. That McKenzie beat Roberts-Smith is part of what makes it as interesting, not just that it was dubbed the trial of the century. TarnishedPathtalk 07:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that not all readers know who Roberts-Smith is, so to an uninterested reader who only sees the hook and does not have background knowledge, saying that he beat Roberts-Smith specifically is the interesting point may not really be the case. Sure, we could include some brief context about Roberts-Smith to make that point clearer, but not only would it make the hook longer, it would re-open a can of worms that was already discussed in the last nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5. Anyone who doesn't know who Roberts-Smith is, is less likely to know who McKenzie is. That's why we run hooks on DYK, to introduce readers to topics and hopefully get views. I went to WT:DYK prior to presenting the double hook in this nomination and even edited it to remove—what some thought were—extraneous words and obtained consensus to run the a double hook. I think it is only fair that this nomination be assessed on that consensus. Do I need to request a new reviewer? TarnishedPathtalk 11:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking about this, it might for the best to have an uninvolved editor (i.e. someone who wasn't involved in the WT:DYK discussion, meaning neither I nor Launchabller) make the final decision. Personally, I still do not think that Roberts-Smith's name is essential to the hook fact as I think that the "trial of the century" fact is the main hook fact, but if an uninvolved editor approves the hook I will no longer object.
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Roberts-Smith speaking at a 2015 Australian Citizenship Ceremony
Ben Roberts-Smith speaking at a 2015 Australian Citizenship Ceremony
Here's another potential hook using a double hook.
TarnishedPathtalk 13:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of compromise, given that there was consensus for a one-time IAR exemption, and how ALT4 mostly solves my original "non-essential" issue, I'd be okay with some variant of ALT4. The issue is that ALT4's wording is a bit awkward at the moment and doesn't flow as well as it should given that it is like McKenzie's name was tacked onto the hook. Maybe it could be reworded further to make McKenzie's mention feel more natural? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, here's a couple of variations. The first is just a reordering/rewording of ALT4 and the second removes any mention of murder in the case of WP:DYKHOOKBLP/WP:BLP concerns. There really shouldn't be any concerns given that this has now been to the high court of Australia and it is a heavy focus of the article, but I'll present the hook in the interest of moving this forward.
and
TarnishedPathtalk 03:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with either. I'm not really sure if we need to link to Besanko or to substantial truth (I'm more of a link minimalist when it comes to hooks), but that will be up for the promoter and reviewer to decide. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs an independent reviewer; my preference remains ALT0b.--Launchballer 23:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what a discussion I am walking in on. The prose of both articles is good and both are well-sourced, with the copy-vio in Roberts-Smith being it quoting the same thing. I performed spotchecks on both articles and they all checked out. I see no issue with them both running as bold-hooks (the more the merrier! and an exception was made, it seems). I also see no issue with the QPQ for Roberts-Smith being used here. I find ALT0b and ALT5 the most interesting, with a slight edge to ALT5, but I approve them both. I am certain that the link to Besanko is not needed, so that can be removed if so-desired, but I am not so confident in de-linking substantially true. 1brianm7 (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


War Memorial statement on display

https://www.awm.gov.au/media/on-the-record/statement-on-update-to-ben-roberts-smith-interpretive-panel-wording TarnishedPathtalk 11:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-24/war-memorial-updates-ben-roberts-smith-exhibit-again/105813004
Just pasting this here in case anyone wants to add updated material before I get to it. TarnishedPathtalk 13:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Hi all,

I've slowly been working on what I hope will eventually become a new section, I'm thinking at the end of the military career section. It's not complete yet as I have more reading to do. What I do have at the moment is based off Samantha Crompvoets' 2021 book Blood Lust, Trust & Blame and Chris Masters' 2023 book Flawed Hero: Truth, lies and war crimes.
I'd appreciate any feedback on what I've done so far.
Please see my current draft at User:TarnishedPath/Sandbox. TarnishedPathtalk 11:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ben_Roberts-Smith