Talk:Nick McKenzie

when was Nick born?

Nick's birthday/birthyear does not currently appear Gorwarr (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you come across any sources with that detail? TarnishedPath^talk 09:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Nick McKenzie
• Ben Roberts-Smith

)

Nick McKenzie's portrait for Melbourne Press Club board

• ... that in 2023 Nick McKenzie (pictured) won what was dubbed "the trial of the century" against decorated soldier Ben Roberts-Smith? Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65773942
  • ALT1: ... that Nick McKenzie's (pictured) grandparents are Polish Jews who migrated to Australia when his mother was 15? Source: https://www.australianjewishnews.com/embarking-on-a-journey-of-discovery/
  • ALT2: ... that Nick McKenzie's (pictured) grandparents are Polish Jews who survived the holocaust? Source: https://www.australianjewishnews.com/embarking-on-a-journey-of-discovery/
  • ALT3: ... that Nick McKenzie (pictured) has won Australia's top journalism award, the Walkley Award, twenty times? Source: https://www.smh.com.au/by/nick-mckenzie-hve6q https://www.walkleys.com/awards/walkleys/photography/winners/
  • ALT0a: ... that in 2023 Nick McKenzie (pictured) won what was dubbed "the defamation trial of the century" against Ben Roberts-Smith? Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65773942
  • ALT0b: ... that in 2023 Nick McKenzie won what was dubbed "the defamation trial of the century" against Ben Roberts-Smith? (Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 208#Template:Did you know nominations/Nick McKenzie to check for consensus) Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65773942
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ann Davis (convict)
  • Comment: Strong preference for ALT0b, especially since I nominated Ben Roberts-Smith for DYK a few months ago and it was rejected. Refer to Template:Did you know nominations/Ben Roberts-Smith. Roberts-Smith's avenues for appeal have now expired with the High Court refusing leave to hear his appeal. I would really appreciate if Ben Roberts-Smith article is bolded in the first hook given I already provided QPQ for it. I'm able to provide additional QPQ if required for a double bolded hook. If consensus to permit ALT0b is not present in the DT:DYK discussion I started then please run hook ALT0a as my preference.

Improved to Good Article status by TarnishedPath (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC).

• The WT:DYK discussion was archived without a consensus to allow an IAR exemption for Roberts-Smith, so I have struck ALT0b. The nomination may continue as a solo one for McKenzie. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

No, both me and @Gatoclass: were fine with it, and only you objected to it.--Launchballer 11:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

@User:Narutolovehinata5, I'm open to that. However, I would really appreciate if we were able to run the double bolded links. TarnishedPath^talk 21:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@User:Narutolovehinata5, have you forgotten about me? TarnishedPath^talk 13:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 07:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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? TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

Ben Roberts-Smith speaking at a 2015 Australian Citizenship Ceremony

Here's another potential hook using a double hook.

• ALT4 ... that an Australian judge ruled that four of the six murder allegations against Ben Roberts-Smith (pictured)—which had been reported on by Nick McKenzie—were substantially true? Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65773942

TarnishedPath^talk 13:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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.

• ALT5 ... that when Ben Roberts-Smith (pictured) sued Nick McKenzie for defamation, an Australian judge ruled that four of the six murder allegations against him were substantially true? Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65773942

and

• ALT6 ... that when Ben Roberts-Smith (pictured) sued Nick McKenzie for defamation, an Australian judge ruled that allegations against him were substantially true? Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65773942

TarnishedPath^talk 03:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Burglary at McKenzie's home

See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-24/construction-alleged-extortion-arrests-melbourne/105928724 TarnishedPath^talk 04:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)