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)