Talk:Grace Tame

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)

I must say that I share concerns about the neutrality of the article, as expressed above. Barmherzig (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2024 (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.' -?. 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.', 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.[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)

While I agree with and support the edits CatCafe made, the attitude displayed by CatCafe towards Brodiebrock is very condescending. Perhaps EI_C should lso be providing sound advice to CatCafe. 210.133.204.12 (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Palestine

Regarding the "Pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel advocacy" section, it's incredibly misleading/biased to include Chris Minns' quote on the Bondi beach murders. He's linking the murders to Tame's protest yet they're two unrelated matters. ~2026-93654-0 (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It is more than significant for a Premier of New South Wales to respond to Tame's call for "intifada" in this way. However, we don't need the full quote. HistorAUS (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

How should we indicate that Tame's comment that she is "quoting" Herzog in saying "there are no innocent civilians in Gaza" is not accurate? Ot at least, I can't find this alleged "quote" anywhere? Can anyone assist? I think if we cannot find said quote in a reliable source, then we must indicate that it is not substantiated, otherwise it's just a libel/defamation with potential to inflame hate in the community. HistorAUS (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Tame's misquote of Israeli President

In Tame's speech to anti-Israel protesters in Feb 2026, she claimed to be "quoting" the Israeli President as having said "there are no innocent civilians in Gaza". This is not a quote, in fact he said in the relevant press conference that there were "many, many innocent Palestinians who don't agree with Hamas" and there was "no excuse for murdering innocent civilians", as this ABC source confirms. It is important that the libel is corrected here, otherwise the quote could inflame hatred in the community HistorAUS (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

To include this in the article, you would need to find a source that says Tame misquoted Herzog, otherwise saying that in wikipedia's voice is original research, i.e. any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Melcous (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)