Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
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.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Ben Roberts-Smith's receipt of the Victoria Cross for Australia for gallantry in Afghanistan, makes him the most highly decorated service person currently in the Australian Defence Force?
Current status: Good article

A-Class review

[edit]

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.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ben Roberts-Smith

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): TarnishedPath (talk)

Ben Roberts-Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has recently been brought to WP:GA status by myself. Roberts-Smith is one of the most decorated Australian soldiers, who has been awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks TarnishedPathtalk 01:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

I didn't expect to see this article here.

  • The fourth paragraph of the lead is overly-detailed; I think it should be cut back to the size of the other three paragraphs. Suggest something like this:

    In October 2017, Roberts-Smith's actions in Afghanistan came under scrutiny when it was reported that he had decided to hunt down and shoot enemies that he presumed had spotted his patrol. In August 2018, he commenced defamation proceedings against the media outlets involved in reporting alleged acts of bullying and war crimes committed by him. In June 2023, Justice Anthony Besanko dismissed his defamation case, ruling that it was proven to the standard required in Australian defamation law that Roberts-Smith murdered four Afghans and had broken the rules of military engagement.

  • In the lead, 'Enemies' looks like MOS:SCAREQUOTES, which is not permitted.
  • "[He] was part of personal security detachments in Iraq throughout 2005 and 2006". Not throughout 2006, only for a (four or five month?) tour of duty. (Note that the article also says that he was in Afghanistan "throughout" 2006) Suggest changing "throughout" to "in" in both cases.
  • "Careful consideration is being given to the additional content and context to be included in collection items on display" The use of present tense hits a wrong note here.
  • Corporate career: split paragraph at "In April 2015"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, for the fourth para of the lead I added a couple of sentences to what you suggested:

In October 2017, Roberts-Smith's actions in Afghanistan came under scrutiny when it was reported that he had decided to hunt down and shoot enemies that he presumed had spotted his patrol. In August 2018, he commenced defamation proceedings against the media outlets involved in reporting alleged acts of bullying and war crimes committed by him. In June 2023, Justice Anthony Besanko dismissed his defamation case, ruling that it was proven to the standard required in Australian defamation law that Roberts-Smith murdered four Afghans and had broken the rules of military engagement. An appeal to a Full Court of the Federal Court, comprising three judges, commenced on 5 February 2024; on 16 May 2025, the appeal was unanimously dismissed.

Please let me know if that satisfies your comment regarding it previously being over detailed.
Regarding linking Seven Network, I couldn't find it used in the article. All instances of Seven are in relation to Seven Queensland or Seven Brisbane. Please let me know if I've missed something.
Please let me know if the rest of the edits I performed are what you had in mind or if there are any other areas for improvement. TarnishedPathtalk 01:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I thought they would link to Seven Network. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, I've also moved the post nominals from the first sentence to the infobox until such time as there is consensus for change to MOS:POSTNOM. I think I've made all the other changes you suggested. Was there anything else you suggest? TarnishedPathtalk 05:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, those two files that you've advised the links are rotten (http://old.gg.gov.au/events/98th-australian-victoria-cross-awarded), I've not been able to find an archive of that page using Wayback Machine. There is a page on the gg.gov.au website which deals with the event (https://www.gg.gov.au/about-governor-general/governor-generals-program/corporal-ben-roberts-smith-vc-investiture-visit-flood-affected-areas-carnarvon-western-australia) but notably there are no images. A reverse image search on the images shows them being used by heaps of news agencies. I would presume they took the images either from the gg.gov.au website or from us and haven't attributed, but I can't be sure of that. Do you recommend removal of the images? TarnishedPathtalk 07:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nick-D

[edit]

Nice work with this article - I suspect that Roberts-Smith is the most difficult Australian VC recipient to write about. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • Citations aren't needed in the lead
 Done
  • "In October 2017, Roberts-Smith's actions in Afghanistan came under scrutiny when it was reported that he had decided to hunt down and shoot enemies that he presumed had spotted his patrol" - this seems to under-state the allegations (after all, there's nothing wrong with a soldier killing enemies)
I've changed it to "In October 2017, Roberts-Smith's conduct in Afghanistan came under scrutiny after reports that he'd tracked down and killed a teenager he suspected had spotted his patrol." Please let me know if this is better as far as not understating the allegation.
  • It's generally best to not describe combatants as "enemies" as is repeatedly done in the 'Afghanistan' section. The medal citation refers to the people he was fighting in the second para as being "Militia" for instance.
 Done
  • "a patrol second-in-command" - say what a SASR patrol comprises
I've added this is a footnote. Please let me know if this works.
I've also just moved the note to the first usage of "patrol" outside of the lead. Again please let me know if this works.
  • The decision to award the VC to Roberts-Smith was raised during defamation proceedings where it was revealed that several former and serving members of the SASR had questioned the decision - what concerns did they raise over this?
 Done
  • The 'Post career' section title is awkward, and this section doesn't really work as it's mainly about events that occurred later
I've moved some of the material to the Afghanistan section (the two sentences covering the commissioning of a painting and the uniform) and I've moved the rest to the end of the judgment section. Please see Special:Diff/1294367558. Please let me know if this works better.
  • "The uniform he wore in Afghanistan is also displayed in the War Memorial" - surely it's only one of the uniforms he wore? The AWM collection database should explain the significance of this particular uniform.
I wasn't able to find details in the AWM collection, however I did find from https://www.watoday.com.au/national/act/super-sized-mannequin-required-for-victoria-cross-recipient-ben-roberts-smiths-uniform-20131105-2wyfl.html that it was his combat uniform.
He would have worn lots of uniforms; I'd suggest tweaking the text to say that its "a uniform" he wore in Afghanisan. It's irritating that the AWM collection database doesn't list this item, but it does not that a helmet in its collection was worn by Robert-Smith in his VC action. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D, updated to "A combat uniform ..." TarnishedPathtalk 07:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I did see the helmet and a couple of images of paintings on AWM's website and thought about using the painting images, but unfortunately they have a CC BY-NC license. TarnishedPathtalk 08:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2023, Kim Beazley, Chair of the Australian War Memorial Council, acknowledged "the gravity of the decision in the Ben Roberts-Smith VC MG defamation case and its broader impact on all involved in the Australian community".[38] Beazley added that careful consideration was being given to the additional content and context to be included in collection items on display" - this seems out of place as it's well before the defamation case is discussed. The way in which this material is presented somewhat obscures the impact which the allegations against Roberts-Smith and the rulings in the defamation cases he initiated have had on his reputation - he went from being a national hero to someone who is generally regarded as a disgrace.
I think me moving material around, as commented on above may have address this. Please let me know if you like something more.
  • "In October 2013, when Roberts-Smith announced that he was leaving the Army" - the article earlier says this was when he left the full-time Army, but he remained a reservist
 Done
  • I'd suggest noting at the outset how Roberts-Smith got the job at Seven Queensland
Please see Special:Diff/1294374563 and Special:Diff/1294374722. Please let me know if that's what you had in mind.
  • "as well as a female companion's allegations that she was subjected to an act of domestic violence in Australia" - this is too vague: the story stated that it has been alleged that Roberts-Smith committed domestic violence against a woman he was having an affair with.
     Done
  • I'm tempted to add that describing his handling of a drunken woman at an event as domestic violence was a media beat up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7, the allegation of domestic violence wasn't in relation to anything that occured at the event. She tripped on some stairs at the event. The allegation concerning domestic violence is in regards to events latter in a hotel room, where it is alleged that BRS punched the women leading to a black eye. I'd originally removed any reference to it during a peer review, however added some mention of it later on when I had conducted more reading on it, discovering that it is well covered and that there was a police report. In the article, not much detail is gone into as I didn't think it deserved too much weight given Besanko's finding that the woman was not a credible witness.
  • "But the other woman, referred to as Person 17, alleges she and Mr Roberts-Smith had an affair between October 2017 and April 2018 and that he punched her hard to the left side of her face when the pair left a function at Parliament House in March 2018." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was reported that Kerry Stokes (Roberts-Smith's former employer and financial backer) would pay most of these costs to his commercial rival, Nine" - my understanding is that Stokes was required to do this by a court ruling - the current wording makes it sound voluntary Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
@Nick-D, thanks for your feedback. I'll try and address as much as I can tomorrow night and I'll tag you when done to see if you have any further suggestions/feedback. TarnishedPathtalk 14:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dot points 1 - 5 done. I'll do some more work on the article tomorrow. TarnishedPathtalk 11:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D, I'm now gone through all of the dot points you provided and made changes. Please let me know if what I've done is what you had in mind and if you have any further guidance. TarnishedPathtalk 10:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support but please see my comment above. Great work with this article. If you're interested in developing it to FA standard, I'd also suggest adding a section on how the public perception of Roberts-Smith has changed over time - he's probably the only VC recipient who has gone from being widely seen as a hero to being widely seen as a villain, though he retains a degree of public support and support from some very rich backers (which is interesting in its own right). Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D thanks for your time reviewing the article and your guidance. If/when I do decide to try and develop it to FA, I will see about implementing your suggestion. TarnishedPathtalk 08:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Finnusertop

[edit]
  • I've made some copyedits, see history for details.
  • Roberts-Smith's actions while under "fire and in a precarious position, threatened by a numerically superior force, are testament to his courage, tenacity and sense of duty to his patrol". This quote comes off as unattributed inline and is in Wikivoice. The medal that the citation is for is mentioned in the next sentence but I'd like it to be put more explicitly.
  • There are some wikilinks that seem WP:EGG, like [[Operation Quickstep|operations off Fiji]] and others.

Otherwise, good work! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop, thank you for your feedback. If I get time tonight I'll edit the article, per your suggestions. TarnishedPathtalk 00:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnusertop please refer to Special:Diff/1297763510 and Special:Diff/1297763782 and let me know if those edits adequately address your points.
I've left a link [[Australia in the War in Afghanistan|deployed to Afghanistan]] as I don't think that is WP:EGG. Please let me know if you think it is and I'll reword. TarnishedPathtalk 09:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, TarnishedPath. I now support the nomination. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by Steelkamp

[edit]

The Appeal section has four paragraphs which all begin with a date. This should be reworded, to avoid proseline issues. Steelkamp (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp, please see Special:Diff/1298079685 and let me know if you think this is better. TarnishedPathtalk 10:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer if it were reworded so that two paragraphs do not begin with "On <date>, ..." Steelkamp (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm presuming you meant two paragraphs in a row? If so, does Special:Diff/1298084625 look better for you? TarnishedPathtalk 11:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem now is that a year is not accompanied with the months, so the reader does not know what year its referring to. What I was looking for in rewording this section is for the beginning sentences to be reworked. You have changed the wording slightly, but its still essentially starting out four paragraphs in a row with a date, which does not make for good prose. Something I am expecting is this: "On 16 May 2025, Roberts-Smith lost his appeal against Besanko's ruling" can be changed to "Roberts-Smith lost his appeal against Besanko's ruling on 16 May 2025". Steelkamp (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp, please have a look at Special:Diff/1298087827/1298090886. Is this what you were looking for? TarnishedPathtalk 12:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
  • fn 38: Page number?
I've replaced fn 38 with fn 37 as I don't have access to Masters' book. McKenzie's book, which I do have access to covers that, but I can't remember where. fn 37 also covers it. Note if you're looking at the other references they will have changed downwards by 1.
  • These are all about consistency rather than correctness, so are optional (but it will be required at FAC):
    • fn 13, 46, 66, 68, 87, 88, 90, 98, 119: Link "ABC News"
    • fn 28, 48, 65, 103, 105 have ISSN, but other newspaper do not. Suggest dropping it for consistency.
    • fn 59: "Courier Mail" should be "Courier-Mail"
    • fn 64: "ABC" should be "ABC News"
    • fn 80: "Australian Broadcasting Corporation" should be "ABC News"
    • fn 65, 94: Link The Guardian for consistency
    • fn 79, 93, 96, 99, 101: "Sydney Morning Herald" should be "The Sydney Morning Herald"
    • fn 96, 99, 101: Link "The Sydney Morning Herald"
    • fn 97: Link "Australian Financial Review"
 Done
  • Spot checks:
    • fn 5, 24, 39, 50, 75 - okay
    • fn 62: Not seeing any reference to Dawson
The story referred to another barrister for the respondents. I've removed Dawson.
@Hawkeye7, I think I've covered each point above that required my attention. Please let me know if I've missed anything or if there is anything else you pick up. TarnishedPathtalk 10:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Copy editing comments

[edit]

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]

Something to add

[edit]

Ben Roberts-Smith was the Fremantle Football Club's number-one ticket holder from 2012 to 2015. Sources: [1] [2] [3] Steelkamp (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp, public perceptions section? TarnishedPathtalk 10:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That, or in personal life, whatever you think is best. Steelkamp (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp see Special:Diff/1307573143. Feel free to reword. TarnishedPathtalk 12:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]