Talk:Rosie Batty

Edit of "Experience with domestic violence and the murder of Luke Batty" section.

I added the following details, with reference and page numbers, as largely verbatim quotes from Batty's book 'A Mother's Story' concerning her experience with domestic violence, to the section headed, 'Experience with domestic violence and the murder of Luke Batty':

"In her book, written with Bryce Corbett, Ms Batty states, on page 40, that a friend had visited her one night when Anderson was out and told her, "Greg tried to rape me in my house. I had to fight him off."

On page 41 she states, "In many instances I would wake up in the middle of the night and find him having sex with me, having let himself into my room and bed. I would be too shocked to say or do anything, and he would gratify himself and leave. For reasons I still don't really understand today, I never considered it rape. I think I was just so confused by him and this ill-defined relationship we had. He didn't ostensibly (sic) force me to have sex with him, but it was all so furtive and abnormal. Talking to my friend that night, something in me snapped and I thought, you bastard! I was furious with him - and with myself. It made me realise the emotional and physical abuse to which he had been subjecting me, and I resolved to cut him out of my life. Later that evening, Greg tried to come into my bedroom. I told him to fuck off and make plans to leave my house immediately."

He left while she was away on the following weekend.

Almost 8 years later, she sought him out again on her own initiative, as she relates on pages 45 and 46, and resumed a sexual relationship with him, and then when she became pregnant, decided to have the child, Anderson being the child's father.[12]"

110.148.127.73 (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2016(UTC)

Spelling: 'led' instead of 'lead' in: "which lead to Batty's pregnancy" and removed 'Ms' from "Ms Batty" in keeping with 'Batty' being used in all other instances throughout the article. 121.214.3.122 (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@110.148.127.73: Super interesting, will have to read that book! Just made minor touch up so that it fits with the structure and chronology and flows better. Also did a block quote, which I just had to look up ha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Quote E ribbon toner (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Why all the details about Anderson?

I think that a bio needs to be based on the individual. Maybe someone could write an article about Anderson and put all the detail about him in there instead of the bio about batty.Teemaria (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This would have to be one of the most biased bios on Wikipedia. I am amazed as to how and why other editors have allowed it to get to this state. It is a mess of an article in my opinion. It needs to comply with Wiki rules. I plan to heavily edit sections which hold no relevance to a bio on an individual and Wiki policy.Teemaria (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

RE Edits and possible disruptive editing

So, I just did quite a big edit on this page as a lot of information that was previously included had been deleted. Rosie Batty and her story are of immense public interest. I wanted to find an easy to read, solid summary of what her deal was and couldn't find one, and felt her Wikipedia page would be an appropriate place to consolidate various bits of information in an encyclopaedic fashion. There's been quite a bit of disruptive editing on this page - maybe her stance on domestic violence is contentious, mainstream media appears to give her immense credibility and I haven't found anything supporting opposition to her, would be awesome if someone has stuff to include here. I don't think it violates BLP guidelines to the point where it requires mass text deletion. Her personal story is the crux of why she's a public figure, and the Wiki of Batty needs to tell her story as it has been recorded and reported whilst remaining neutral. An objective account of a personal story can be difficult I guess. Everything there is tightly sourced. Maybe it reads too much like a narrative article? With the quotes, I thought they were a safe way to keep NPOV by providing detail in her words. I'll do some more work on it.

I'd like to find a way to have an encyclopaedic article that includes a good summary of her personal story - she's not some random nobody and there's immense and sustained interest in her story.

Thanks, E ribbon toner (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you. I am sick of reading bios where fans of public figures feel free to divert from our policies.Brownlife (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Where do I even begin with this biased mess of an article. Will continue work needed.Brownlife (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brownlife: Hi there. I would not consider myself a fan of Rosie Batty, but I am a fan of Wikipedia. I want to believe that you're doing these edits in good faith but after looking at your overall editing history and considering how surprisingly disrespectful and emotional your reply is I'm quite suspicious of your motivations here. As I've stated above, her background with domestic violence and her personal story are of encyclopaedic interest. I notice you are citing "irrelevant" and that large sections don't abide by Wiki policies, and I'd like to know which policies you are referring to. As far I can see it holds up but happy to be wrong if I've missed guidelines. I can see that the style can be polished more, but will assert that the informational content is completely sound and has a NPV. My concern is that you're repeatedly taking out important and accurate information. As such I'm led to believe that you are vandalising and have a bias. From this comment and your recent edits I don't believe we can mediate this ourselves. After thinking about it I have decided to revert your recent edits as I'd rather the information you've taken out be there even if for a short while before you remove them again. I will be in touch, I hope we can find a resolution we're both happy with. Thanks for taking the time to read this message and the edits. E ribbon toner (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey E Ribboin. I think your editing is possibly disruptive and POV not mine! A bio is about the individual. You including so much information about her partner is not acceptable and makes for a messy article. Also the material you have included is one sided and not widely reported. I will therefore remove the sections that are about other people. I hope we can find a solution that we are both happy with. Let us work together toward that goal.Brownlife (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the justification for including this entire section - Batty's story of domestic violence and the murder of Luke? Most of it is alleged and this is a bio about Rosie. Why have you chosen to omit other details like Rosie's background. Her family history and so forth? I believe that this section you have added could be quickly summarised into one or two sentences and added to the next section. Please respond. I am willing to work together to achieve a good outcome.Brownlife (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying in a more productive manner. Look, this woman is seriously not at all my main interest, hence the year between edits. I see your main interest seems to be these types of edits on Australian female public figures, so perhaps you're more engaged than I am. Helping create informative and relevant articles is an interest of mine though, and you've said it's yours, so let's just assume we come from the same place. My motivation is to provide an encyclopaedic source with important and accurate information so as, for instance, other Wiki readers like me who casually look up people who win prestigious awards can quickly ascertain what their deal is. I've provided the reasoning for including her story of domestic violence above but will try to explain in a different way. She's literally famous for being a victim of domestic violence - sharing her story to raise awareness etc is why she won Australian of The Year, got an honorary doctorate, etc etc etc. This is a bio on the AOTY website, it's a bio so we wouldn't include all of that in that way but the emphasis on her domestic violence story that lead to her campaigning and this award is there, and it seems to echo general reporting of her too, such as this article after the award that again leads with and emphasises her domestic violence story. I'd obviously have to give you a hoard of sources to illustrate the widespread notability of it, so check out the references on the page, and if there's really not enough it's so easy to include more. Not including her domestic violence story or information about Anderson would be partial. Seriously, she's the Australian of the Year. She's a respected public figure, for sharing her story of domestic violence. Sorry if that fact pushes your buttons somehow, but it needs to be outlined properly. Speaking to the legal area, I thought I used enough qualifiers to distinguish between alleged claims and things proven in court. And I didn't go out of my way to omit anything... edits need to be accurate and have a balanced tone but an individual does not need to make a complete and comprehensive edit to contribute, this article was a stub for a long time, I included bits that I saw were considered noteworthy and given widespread public and mainstream media attention, if there's other things you'd argue are noteworthy obviously feel free. As I suppose she's a celebrity a lot of people would probably be interested in her general background and life, and not just the event of domestic violence that her public life is shaped upon. I'm sorry my edits made you think I had biased interests, wouldn't want people to read the page and think that. I cut some stuff down and listened to your concerns, perhaps how it was written it was indeed too garish and appeared motivated by passion and bias. Would rather be productive about it. It should not be subject mass deletion or omission - it is noteworthy, relevant and well documented and I'm simply cataloguing what has been widely published.

I've posted to the Australian project general noticeboard calling for others to come on board as, like I said, bloody Rosie Batty is really not a huge interest of mine. There's been a long history of vandalism and the article is generally not as good as it could be. Also posted to dispute resolution noticeboard. I hope we can figure things out here so that I can spend more time on drays.

What are the specific guidelines you keep referring to? BLP stuff?

Thanks for reading again. E ribbon toner (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is sure not high on my list either. Please refer to our main policies. I suggest if you really insist on including all of this information about Greg Anderson that we balance it with other perspectives. For instances sources state that Rosie Batty was verbally abusive and violent toward her defacto partner. Can we include these details, rather than 'alleged' information against a dead man that only comes from Rosie's word?Brownlife (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have referred to our main policies and BLP guidelines but since you are making the arguments please point me to specific ways this article doesn't adhere, if you're actually concerned about guidelines then it should be super easy for you. Obviously just include reliable sources and noteworthy information. Her personal story is its own sub topic, for reasons stated above that I could rephrase again, but if there's really reliable sources saying that she's abusive then do it. You seem really offended by her and quite emotionally invested, and it seems like other female public figures really push your buttons, all a bit suss to me. I'd be super wary of fringe theories, please refer to this. Thanks for taking the time to be a bit more productive, let's see how this goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E ribbon toner (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to be sarcastic and personal please. I have already referred you to the policies. You have decided unilaterally to include this huge section on an abstract topic that seems to be undue weight placed on it at the expense of all other topics. It needs to be significantly culled in my opinion Thank you. Please also stop your assumptions about me personally and assume good faith and please try to be civil. Thank you.Brownlife (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. Am intending to speak generally about your behaviour to be concise. Have not seen the policies you are referring to. And not sure what other topics are to be included - she is famous for being a victim of domestic violence, she is a domestic violence campaigner, it is the reason why she's notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, it is perhaps the topic that deserves the most weight. E ribbon toner (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Batty's background

I would like to add more material to this section. I would also like to balance out other newly created sections talking about Greg Anderson to provide other perspectives from all of the reliable sources. For instance how involved Anderson was in his child's life and his mental illness and his history. My opinion is we shouldn't be focusing so much on Anderson but if we are we need to balance everything up and provide a NPOV through inclusion of other things that the sources tell us about Anderson.Brownlife (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

As long as the Anderson edits are relevant to her biography, noteworthy, accurate, come from reliable sources, and aren't fringe ideas. He has to be included as her personal story with domestic violence and the murder of her son is critical to her public life. It is not intended to be a page about him, but like many BLP pages, there are significant figures in their life that need inclusion. Look up other BLP pages where domestic violence is a critical part of their story. Perhaps we could make it clearer that the section is the reports of her story and the reports of legal trials/arrests/coronial inquests, I've attempted to do this clearly done with sources and phrasing. If the information is relevant and noteworthy and all that, perhaps you could do a new section called "Controversy" like other public figures have. Maybe make a new page for Anderson as you've hinted at above but I don't think he is notable enough. This is why I'd like more editors involved. I have concerns around WP:FALSEBALANCE:

Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

E ribbon toner (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So, I'm going to assert that the topic of her story with domestic violence is the most notable thing about her. She is a domestic violence campaigner. It's why she's a public figure and why she is in the media. As I'd expect Phelps' page to be dominated by his swimming, Batty's page should be weighted according to what is notable about her. I don't think it is balanced to say that her general background is as relevant as her story with domestic violence, and I don't expect it to have had anywhere near as equal weight in public discourse or her public life. Have a look at WP:coatrack:

A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject... Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and what Wikipedia is not makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned... Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, or they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one or more aspects of the subject. In either case the article should be corrected... Coatrack articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed.

An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability. A reader is not misled by the focus on the moon trip.

Thanks again E ribbon toner (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You have gone ahead in bad faith while the administrator had said we need a mediator. I also stopped halfway throiugh reading your wall of text. Your inclusions are not balanced. Batty first stated Anderson was mentally ill and there are many quality reliable sources which talk of his mental illness. If you are going to include such a huge part of the article about Anderson we need to balance it with what the sources also say in regard to his mental health prior to his son's death. There is also much repetition which needs to be culled.Brownlife (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly thought that we were still going to try and work on it. I don't think your recommendations are in line with the policies, which you still don't refer to when making edits and recommendations, and after last edits am concerned that you are intentionally vandalising the page. It's a good laugh though tbh, I did enjoy your changes to the first two sentences. I'm removing them because I seriously think they are violations of the BLP guidelines. I really hope you read what I have written earlier. I'll work on the mediation stuff but might need to look at other resolutions. Have a good one E ribbon toner (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

RE my edit Source doesn't describe that exactly, kept in the partner visa bit but moved it down as it doesn't belong in intro, see edit. See MOS:INTRO for guidelines on what should be in an introduction. More info on talk page. Hi Brownlife You put in the first paragraph of the lead:

Batty moved to Australia in 1988 on a Partner visa after meeting her de facto partner Greg Anderson through work in 1986.

The source doesn't say that Greg Anderson was on her Partner visa. I kept the Partner visa bit in since it seems important to you but moved it down to her background. As per MOS:INTRO:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using subjective "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning" or "hit"). It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them. ... According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article.

E ribbon toner (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good move. It isn't important enough to be in the lead. It could just say she moved to Australia, as I can't remember any other bio article mentioning visa types when people have migrated, but there's no problem with mentioning it if it is reliably sourced. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

References

WP:BLP

To state the obvious, this article is firmly within the scope of Wikipedia's policy concerning articles on living people, WP:BLP. Editors who contravene this policy will be blocked from editing. If you're editing this article without having read the policy, stop now and read it. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)