Talk:Grace Tame

Question

Question: Is this Wikipedia page in Grace's best interests? Barmherzig (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Barmherzig, all Australians of the Year have Wikipedia pages, so this was bound to get made at some point. The material on the page is largely taken from sources already on the internet which anyone can read. Most of the experienced editors who have added to this page have been very careful to ensure that this page complies with Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy. Some material has already been deleted that wasn't sourced or relevant and some editors will no doubt continue to monitor to ensure nothing goes on that isn't sourced or relevant or is defamatory. If you want to improve it too feel free, but additions will need to be supported by reliable sources. Hope that's helpful. Deus et lex (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Deus et lex Thanks for responding so promptly and in such detail. Before expanding on my concerns, let me say that I can see that you attempted to be respectful of Grace in what you've done with the article, and I take your points that an Australian of the Year normally is entitled to a Wikipedia page, that the information in the article is generally available on the internet anyway, and that the article complies with Wikipedia policies. However I wonder if we have a moral and ethical responsibility which goes beyond the above. This is particularly the case given that Grace, as the Judge in her case pointed out, is a psychologically vulnerable person, even putting to one side the fact that she is a victim of statutory rape. In other words, I'm wondering whether, as wikipedia editors, we have an overarching duty of care towards the subject about which we are writing. Wikipedia has extraordinary reach. It is often the first thing that people will go to when researching a topic. Further, for a victim of sexual trauma, a central challenge is how not be defined by the trauma into the future. My concern for Grace is that this wikipedia bio will stay with her for the rest of her life, and for the rest of her life she will be defined as someone who has experienced sexual trauma. Complex questions, I know, but those are my concerns in more detail. I am not, by the way, leveling any accusation of bad faith against you. Indeed I think you've tried hard to be fair with the article. The long-term impact for Grace herself, is, however, something which I think we need to thinking about. Barmherzig (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

She campaigned to be allowed to talk about her experiences. She then did so openly and candidly in front of a national audience. She advocates education and destigmatisation, and wants to normalise speaking out. To omit her experiences from this article would go against everything she stands for. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Adrian J. Hunter is right. In addition, Wikipedia only publishes material if it's verified by a secondary source, so everything on this page has already been published in some sort of media. Original research and defamatory material is deleted, so this isn't adding anything that couldn't already be searched and found online. Deus et lex (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Colleagues: Thanks for that input. However, just as a point of clarification, I'm not suggesting that Grace's advocacy work be deleted from the article. I'm asking whether having the article is in Grace's best interests. See my previous post for the reasoning behind this question. Barmherzig (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Grooming

I have replaced the reference to grooming with sexual abuse. It is not appropriate to refer to grooming, unless we preface it with "Grace says she was groomed", as the teacher was never convicted of Grooming offences (or even charged). It is a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality and objectivity policies for us to write the article from Grace's POV, this is not a PR puff piece for her, it is meant to be an objective account of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1D19:B301:1930:64BF:96B2:20E6 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Your edits are disputing what the rel sources say. We go with the sources, not your legal sleuthing. CatCafe (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There are 2 sources after the grooming claim. The first, the Guardian, refers to it as sexual abuse. It makes no mention of grooming, because even the Guardian has journalistic standards. The other link is to an article by the person who was pushing her campaign and acted as her spokesperson, and boasts of doing so in that article. They are presenting Grace's POV, but objective news outlets are calling it sexual abuse (not grooming). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1D19:B301:1930:64BF:96B2:20E6 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, you should be seeking consensus here. We go with what the sources say, not your personal opinion of whether who wrote what source is objective or not. Melcous (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully this new compromise text satisfies everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1D19:B301:315A:4FC9:2668:23A6 (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The consensus also needs to be based on Wikipedia policy to though. The credible sources refer to it as sexual abuse. Grace and her personal advocate refer to it as grooming. The guy was not convicted of grooming, nor even charged with it. Ergo to write definitively "she was groomed" is not so much detective work as us taking sides in the narrative; the opposite of Wikipedia neutrality. I don't see why we can't either a) refer to it as sexual abuse, or b) add the disclaimer "Grace said". That's clearly the impartial presentation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1D19:B301:1930:64BF:96B2:20E6 (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC) How is the POV of the accused, and the judge corroborating it to some degree, not relevant? Again I point out this is a Wikipedia article that is supposed to have a neutral POV, not a puff piece for Grace.

I was initially sympathetic to the IP's argument, but these two articles by distinct mainstream professional news organisation both say without qualification that Grace was groomed, so I'm not sure there's a problem. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally still think it should be balanced, given a lot of articles do not use the word grooming very specifically... but the people undoing my edits are not operating in good faith here. The removal of the judge saying that Grace didn't express any reluctance to Bester is highly relevant, to remove it is an obvious attempt to slant the piece into a pro-Grace puff piece, not a neutral POV wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1D19:B301:AD52:2A5B:8851:17C5 (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Worrying POV issues and removal of facts that are inconvenient

It has become apparent to me that some people are attempting to fashion this article into a puff piece about Grace Tame, and to pursue that agenda are removing any content that does not make her look like a hero; even when that text is sourced directly, and is important context for the article. This is not "making the article about Bester", this is about ensuring wiki neutrality for the article so the facts are presented and it isn't a one sided puff piece from Grace Tame's POV. At the moment that is exactly what it is. The following issues in particular are troubling:

1) The use of the term grooming, when Bester was not charged with grooming. This has been defended by saying "oh, but some of these sources use the word, so it's ok to use it". Alright then, if that is the case why is the word "relationship" being excised from the article by the same people, for either no reason or very weak reasons. I mean, it's what he was charged with, and it is used by many sources. It seems the real reason is not that it's "irrelevant" (it certainly is not) but because it cuts against the Grace hero narrative, and fails to push the desired agenda.

2) The removal of the judge's direct quote that "I accept she did not express her reluctance to you" is astounding. It provides important context for the length of the sentence, and allows the reader to understand the facts better. It is directly sourced. There are also 3 quotes from Wood that are critical of her abuser right next to it. It is highly relevant information, but people seem to be unwilling to include it for reasons that can only be agenda pushing. There is a context to this also; Grace has said in a number of speeches and articles that she was "forced" into sex, that she had "no choice", etc. This context provides an inconvenient counterpoint to that so her supporters want it removed. That is not in keeping with the ethos of Wikipedia objective POV. This should not be Grace's POV, it should be a neutral POV, and the judge's view fits into that.

3) The removal of any material defending or explaining Arndt's comments is also troubling. Ok, this isn't a page for Arndt, but we have a whole paragraph about Arndt doing bad things, we can't include 1 line for her defending herself next to it? Again, this seems like a refusal to apply usual Wikipedia standards to the article.

NB: Grace's DOB can be found on a google search easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1d19:b301:315a:4fc9:2668:23a6 (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I note that despite being told to take it to the talk page, not one of the people reverting the changes has come on here to comment in response to any of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1D19:B301:517F:A8:A3E7:7F42 (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You are edit warring, plain and simple. The fact that multiple editors have reverted your changes demonstrates that they are acting by consensus and you are not. Despite numerous lengthy edit comments and talk page posts, you do not seem to have convinced anyone that you are acting in good faith or that your proposed changes are supported. You have shown some willingness to compromise on the wording, which is something I guess, but the whole idea seems to me like victim blaming and citing concepts like neutrality and balance, as if achieving "balance" between the Australian of the Year and the convicted criminal who abused her is some kind of noble cause, is all kinds of wrong. --Canley (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Just by saying "victim blaming" and "that is wrong" shows you are pushing a moral narrative onto the page, instead of going off the actual sources and facts. I'm sorry the sources don't show Grace to be as much of a victim as people want her to be, but like the point of Wikipedia is to present the actual facts, not a censored cheer page for the side we like more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1D19:B301:517F:A8:A3E7:7F42 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with discussing this topic?

Brodiebrock, Your original reason of amending this was that you wished to remove reference to Arndt, which has been done. So now what's your rationale for whitewashing the following topic off the page?:

"In 2017, Tame had no right of reply[10] when her abuser publicly conducted an interview.[11][12] He was subsequently jailed again for the production of child exploitation material, after describing his sexual relationship with Tame online.[13][14][15][16]".

This was the incident that encouraged Tame to become an activist, so what's your problem and policy supporting your deletion? CatCafe (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit is not necessary and seems to be POV. I do not understand the need for this edit on Tame's biography! Brodiebrock (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Your "seems" feeling is not a policy and does not support your removal. Anyway this topic is central to why Tame became a activists. See here https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-12/grace-tame-speaks-about-abuse-from-schoolteacher/11393044 . CatCafe (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I get it but it has been already dealt with more than enough. Brodiebrock (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the only text that articulates the incident where she had no right of reply and initiated her activism. Your opinion "it has been already dealt with more than enough" is not accurate and has no support in policy. CatCafe (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No that does not make sense and is not based on policy. Brodiebrock (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

So you cannot understand this simple concept: Her abuser, Nicolaas Bester, has spoken publicly about the case many times, but Grace has been gagged by an archaic law which only exists in Tasmania and the Northern Territory.'[1] -?. And what policy are you referring to? CatCafe (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to continue being so demeaning, abusive and sarcastic by saying "so you cannot understand this simple concept" I will report you for continued harassment and personal attacks. Just stop it and focus on content. Look I just do not agree with your edit and unless we have consensus do not put your entry back in. Brodiebrock (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Brodiebrock IMO your edits, actions and comments on the talkpage seem familiar. And I note you're a newbie. Have you also been editing under another username on WP? - I'm disappointed you deleted this particular discussion from your talkpage - can we go back to discussing it there?. CatCafe (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

What don't you understand about: 'Her abuser, Nicolaas Bester, has spoken publicly about the case many times, but Grace has been gagged by an archaic law which only exists in Tasmania and the Northern Territory.'[2], and what policy supports you excluding this topic? If you have no supporting policy then it's just your opinion POV. CatCafe (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. You seem quite abusive to me CatCafe and should not bully other editors to get your way. Brodiebrock (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems like déjà vu. Brodiebrock, you demanded this be brought to discussion on the talkpage to discuss your removal. I have tried to be accomodating in supporting your wish to remove reference to Bettina Ardnt (who is a friend of Stoker) on Tame's page. You saying "Please leave me alone" seems disingenuous and does not support your argument. Please contribute or allow the text to be returned. CatCafe (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I meant leave me alone personally and your sarcastic, patronising attacks. As far as the edit it is excessive in my opinion and the point has already been made in the main paragraph. Brodiebrock (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed the whole paragraph originally and you have rewritten it. I just don't see how it is justified. We can agree to disagree but you do not have consensus. Brodiebrock (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, with amendments I propose the following adding the ABC source: In 2017, her abuser, had spoken publicly about the case many times, but Tame has been gagged by Tasmanian law.[3][11][12] He was subsequently jailed again for the production of child exploitation material, after describing his sexual relationship with Tame online.[13][14][15][16]. Brodiebrock, you will need to refer to policy to justify why that content can't be added. It's central to Tame's story. CatCafe (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Brodiebrock, you keep failing to substantiate your position. Example 1: This edit is not necessary and seems to be POV — and you determine it to be so, because...? Example 2: No that does not make sense and is not based on policy — and the policy in question is...? If you fail to explain yourself with comments that are essentially too terse to be useful, the editorial process will grind to a halt. If you fail to be responsive to requests to substantiate, frustration from your fellow editors is to be expected. El_C 12:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

One policy that is relevant is WP:BRD. Brodiebrock, you even stated it in your summary, you BOLDly made some changes removing information. Some of that information was REVERTed by CatCafe. Now you are to Discuss why the information you felt shouldn't be there does not belong. Instead you edit warred by reverting again. CatCafe may have been wrong to continue the edit war but you initiated it by not following the policy stated. This is a moment where you can choose to ignore or learn from what has happened here. I will say that El_C has given you sound advice that will play into your proving, based on policy, your case for removal of the information. Collaboration is crucial to the development of this project. Edit warring is disruptive and hinders that collaboration. Please take the advice given and apply it. --ARoseWolf 13:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Is editor Brodiebrock still the only editor (or ex editor) that opposes including the 2 sentences I proposed in green above? I have stated this topic is central to why Tame became an activist. So any opinions from other editors on the short paragraph I proposed above is welcome. CatCafe (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)