Talk:Paul Hetherington

Donald Friend material

The information dealing with the controversy over vol. 4 of Donald Friend's diaries (edited by Hetherington) was deleted with the claim that it was 'inaccurate'. This is not correct. The material and quotations from Hetherington are fully referenced to high quality public sources (e.g., The Australian, ABC News). A Wikipedia page is not a CV. Paul Hetherington's editorial decisions with regard to the Donald Friend diaries are in fact (in Australia and Bali at least) of far more public interest than his poetry (as evidenced by the media coverage of the former). Therefore, they should be in this entry (whether Prof. Hetherington likes that or not). Dogpipes (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You've just reversed it again. Now you are claiming sources are 'libellous' and 'tendentious'. The material given from the sources are quotations from Hetherington himself. Are you claiming that Hetherington did not say the things he is quoted as saying? If so, can you provide a link to a retraction by these media sources, or other evidence in support of your claim. Hetherington may well wish he did not say those things, but he is on public record as having said them. Repeating them is neither 'tendentious' nor 'libellous'. Please engage with this on the talk page. If you continue to reverse the changes, I will have to open a dispute over this. Sincerely Dogpipes (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Yellowdahliabobbin, you have now reversed them again, and you have failed to engage with my queries on this talk page. This time you claim that the quotations are 'out of context'. But this is how they appear in the news articles listed. Can you please explain how you think they should be contextualised? Better still, why don't you edit the context in the way you think is best, so we can all see (rather than just deleting the material)? Sincerely Dogpipes (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yellowdahliabobbin and Dogpipes: I've reinstated the material with slight reductions and also reduced the list of awards. The article needs to be based on citations from reliable sources. The Donald Friend controversy material is based on such sources. The awards need further corroboration other than ORCID, which is an exhaustive directory. Since I noticed that the ACT Book of the Year award was referenced to Goodreads, which is user-generated, I replaced that ref in the text with a slightly better one and added teh same ref to the list of awards; they all need such individual references, if possible. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, Sorry I haven't done this 'talk' thing before so I hope I'm doing it correctly. I'm happy to find the webpages to support Hetherington's awards and insert them appropriately. Other poets seem to have awards that they were long listed and/or shortlisted for - the premier's prizes and some others are really prestigious and so I feel that they should be listed - many other Australian poets' wikis list the shortlistings of prestigious awards. I have also deleted the Friend material for the same reason as I did the previous time and explained it on another talk page to Dogpipes. In this version, the Friend stuff entirely overtakes a wiki entry on Hetherington - it's Hetherington's wiki site, not Friend's, so it's not really appropriate here. Hetherington stated on October 20, 2017 in The Australian that he was taken out of context and these quotes misrepresent his editing of the diaries (which is a minor part of his career and not what he is known or recognised for, so the emphasis is also out of kilter.) These quotes in the way they are presented on the wiki are trying to make Hetherington look like a supporter of pedophilia, which misrepresents him and attacks his reputation. If someone is taken out of context, or a quotation given to the media is inaccurate then, regardless of where they appear, they are not reliable. Yellowdahliabobbin (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for having the courtesy to engage here. I disagree with your reasons for deleting the Friend material. Let's go through them.

1. You say that it places the emphasis out of kilter. I don't agree. Overall, this is a long article on Hetherington, and we are talking about the addition of one short para.

2. You suggest that this is a non-issue. But it is simply a fact that Hetherington is known for his comments about Friend's sexual abuse of minors, and his decision (as editor of vol. 4 of the diaries) to name those people (without getting their permission). This is evidenced by the fact that there are multiple major news articles about this, in mainstream news publications from Australia (I've cited a couple from the ABC News, and from The Australian, but there are quite a few more). Hetherington and his supporters may regret the fact that he has said these things, and has them on the public record, but he can't just have them disappear down the memory hole (much as I'm sure he'd like to).

3. It's just not true that these quotes make him out to look like a supporter of pedophilia. However, they certainly indicate that he was prepared, to some extent, to excuse or exculpate Friend's behaviour. (Something true also of other figures in the Australian literary/art scene ---as documented in "A Loving Friend", the 2009 documentary by Kerry Negara; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ArLFmOTFlQ).

4. I will add in the quote you refer to from The Australian, in which he claims to have been taken out of context. Dogpipes (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I think we might have to agree to disagree on this one - I do think it's non-issue and skewing the entry on Hetherington. I have read all the articles and find nothing to show that the quotes provided to the press have been substantiated or are being used in context. Best, Yellowdahliabobbin (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You seem not to understand how arguments work. (a) What is your evidence that it is a 'non-issue'? I have provided evidence for my claim that it is an issue --- namely, that there has been a number of major news and opinion articles about this in the mainstream Australian press. That makes it an issue of public record and interest, by definition. (b) And I don't follow your claim about the quotes in the press: what indicates that they are substantiated is that they appear in mainstream, credible sources. Do you really think all these mainstream journalists are just making up quotations from Hetherington? What's your evidence for that conspiracy theory? The ABC and The Australian etc. are all engaged in some plot to tell lies about a minor Australian poet? Get real. Sincerely, Dogpipes (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm just saying that quotes supplied by people (third parties) to journalists in the media are subjective, as is the editing of films. The journalists aren't making anything up, they are using quotes provided to them by another party who is using Hetherington's quotes out of context to further their campaign concerning Friend. The introduction to volume 4 as well as the Canberra Times use quotations by Hetherington in context. Best Yellowdahliabobbin (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Golly gosh, the plot thickens. "Another party" sounds very sinister. Perhaps you'd like to provide the link to the Canberra Times article so we can all have a look to see if it indeed provides evidence for your claim about this supposed recontextualising. And if you have an appropriate short quote from the intro to vol. 4 that supports what you are saying, perhaps you'd also like to provide that. Sincerely, Dogpipes (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Yngvadottir and Dogpipes, I've added some lines about Donald Friend and substantiated the comments with Hetherington's own words on Radio National, ABC, and the introduction to Vol 4 of the diaries, as these are reliable sources that provide the most accurate information. They don't rely on someone else offering quotes to the media out of context but instead quote Hetherington in context. Best,Yellowdahliabobbin (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yellowdahliabobbin: Thanks for supplying something referenced that we can add as Hetherington's response, but Wikipedia bases its articles on what reliable sources have said, not on what the subject or their publicists want, and those are unimpeachable press sources. I've accordingly reinstated much of the material; I did some further shortening so the paragraph would not overpower the section, and will put the sentence about the lawsuit in the article on Friend rather than here. Can you find and add the page number for the Volume 4 intro, please? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir, I've fixed the misspelling of Hetherington's name and taken out one quote that was taken out of context, (you'll note in the same article Hetherington states how he was taken out of context and the comment is about the diaries.) The quote was unreliable as it was applied by a film maker to Friend's lifestyle, not to the diaries that it was relating to. I do think this discussion is overrunning the section on editing. This was one moment in the press and not enduring. Hetherington is a well known editor of poetry and poetry journals which is now being overrun by his Friend diaries which got hardly any attention when they were published and has been caught up in largely one person's 'campaign' concerning Friend. I hope now that this is a mix of both our responses that it will acceptable. Best,Yellowdahliabobbin (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yellowdahliabobbin: I've reinstated the quote since it plays a role in the reporting of the matter. Updating the article on Friend and going through the sources more closely to do so (for example I looked for the original Australian article but it is thoroughly paywalled) did not change my impression that Dogpipes is correct: there has been a re-examination of how Friend and his proclivities were presented, and the editing of volume 4 and Hetherington's statements come into it. I think with the careful use of quotes we have a good balance within the section on his editing, but we need not only the statement(s) he has made since, but those that raised eyebrows, as reflected by reliable sources; and the press/radio are reliable sources. I see that so far your career on Wikipedia has focussed on Hetherington; whether or not you have a conflict of interest, you're probably mainly concerned with his reputation and his importance, but we have to write the article based on what reliable sources have said about him. Several things in the article could do with referencing, or better (independent) referencing. The best way to minimise this episode is to increase the number of reliable sources cited on his other work and achievements. There are probably news articles to be found on Trove or in papers' archives; you may well have the necessary subscription access to The Australian and others, or be able to look at dead tree/microfilm archives? I'd start with the awards and with reviews of his other publications. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir, I have left in your quote but added in the fact that the article states it was taken out of context - as the transcripts from the interview for the film are not available, only Negara's final edit - and this quote is from a film edited by a third party, it's important to flag that the quote may be out of context. I'm not trying to minimise the episode at all - just have it fairly represented. Of course, I am not anonymous in this process as my pseudonym is connected to my real name but that doesn't stop me from being objective. If you look at people's histories, you could also say that Dogpipes only signed up to write that paragraph in Hetherington's wiki site and nothing else. I will definitely take on board what you say and find examples in the press of his achievements. Best, Yellowdahliabobbin (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yellowdahliabobbin, the difference between us lies in our editing practices. I'm taking citations straight from high quality public sources (as Yngvadottir says). I'm not doing what you were doing, namely, claiming special, private knowledge about mysterious 'third parties' etc. that, according to you, prevent quotes from mainstream media sources being used on Wikipedia. If we took your approach, no quotes from any media source could be used on any Wikipedia page -- all it would take would be someone showing up (as you did) and claim to know that the quote is 'out of context'. I think the final result is a fair representation (fairer than my first draft, I am happy to admit), and is a nice testimony to the virtues of collective work. Dogpipes (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdahliabobbin (talk • contribs) 22:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Great! Then I think we are all happy with how it's now represented. Best ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdahliabobbin (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yellowdahliabobbin: I believe you were referring above to Kerry Negara? I just researched her to see whether she should be red linked as notable enough for an article of her own, and decided there wasn't enough coverage of her. However, I turned up scads and scads of articles about this controversy over Volume 4, all quoting Hetherington the way the sources we are using do. And the effect of your lengthening quotes (and going back to a quote from that review that takes Hetherington to task for not calling Friend a pedophile) is actually to overweight the section. (Plus your link work was misguided.) I've accordingly reverted your last series of changes and I repeat: find more coverage of Hetherington. That's the way to minimize the effect of this within the biography. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dogpipes: You may want to look at the history of the article; Yellowdahliabobbin was making further changes as you wrote and there has now been a set of further reverts. What do you think? Maybe you can see a good way to split the difference between my version and theirs? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi both, Yes,when Yngvadottir stated that he wanted to reduce the length of quotations from Hetherington, I went back and reduced them trying to find a compromise. I think the pedophile quote is important as it shows the state of mind of the reviewer. I'm not sure how I can add in more coverage of Hetherington on this issue of the editing of Friend's letters as anything extra I add is taken out. I hope this is now acceptable as it records both sides of the debate. ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdahliabobbin (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yellowdahliabobbin, You have taken out the key Hetherington quote, in which he talks about 'the complexity' of Friend's 'relationships' with his 'houseboys' (because, you know, when an artist abuses children this isn't black or white, it's complex and nuanced). This is what has raised eyebrows in the media coverage, and thus needs to be in there. (BTW, Yngvadottir is, I believe, a she rather than a he.) Regards, Dogpipes (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dogpipes, I actually don't have a problem leaving that quote in, provided it's followed by the quote in the same article from Hetherington, to show both sides represented in the article. I'll go and do that now - I think one quote followed by another is fair as it is in the article. Best Yellowdahliabobbin (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Added in full quotes, removed emotive linking language and applied consistent formatting. Primordial_Librarian (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims

This section will list some of the unsubstantiated claims that have been modified or deleted.

Claim: Hetherington founded Axon journal. Claim modified because the link provided states that Hetherington is an editor.

Claim: Hetherington is co-founder of an International Prose Poetry Project. Referenced with a link to an article in Axon journal. Claim deleted because the reference does not mention expect in passing. The article is authored by Cassandra Atherton, Owen Bullock, Jen Crawford, Paul Munden, Shane Strange, Jen Webb. The article states that "The Prose Poetry Project was created by the International Poetry Studies Institute (IPSI).

Claim: Hetherington accepted the job of Publications and Events Coordinator at Fremantle Arts Centre in 1989 Reference to claim removed as it contains a link to the National Library Catalogue without specifying a page number of the cited newspaper.

Claim: Hetherington was editor of National Library of Australia News (1990–2009). Reference to claim removed as it contains a link to an archive of all the National Library News. Individual editions do not cite Hetherington as the editor.

Claim: Hetherington is founder, where in a previous section he was co-founder, of an International Prose Poetry Project. The full sentence from the reference provided is: "And there’s the Prose Poetry Group, which has 21 members at the moment and which is an initiative of the International Poetry Studies Institute at the University of Canberra. I started that, really by accident, by sending a prose poem to a couple of colleagues of mine at the University of Canberra." This indicates Hetheringon is not the founder but a participant. Moreover the quote states that the initiative run by the International Poetry Studies Institute.

Claim: Hetherington is founder of the International Poetry Studies Institute. In an article on small press by Kent MacCarter, in Overland it is stated that "...the International Poetry Studies Institute (IPSI), keeper of Axon: Creative Explorations ... is the brainchild of Jen Webb and Paul Hetherington, with UK poet Paul Munden, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at University of Canberra, in a directorial role. It is clear that this triumvirate has been up to a great deal of welcome barnstorming through Australian poetics, and, outwardly, they appear to enjoy a comparatively generous budget to do so." 22017, 227, p19 https://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-227/feature-kent-maccarter/ Primordial_Librarian (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, Sorry, I've been writing on the wrong talk page. Thanks for drawing these to my attention and glad to see you reinstated Head of IPSI after I linked to the University of Canberra website. It also states that he was co-founder of the Prose Poetry Project in a Text journal article which I have referenced - it is a refereed journal and all claims are checked by third parties. I'll happily find the page from the National Library news and work through the rest to find more reliable sources. Thanks for taking such an interest in Paul Hetherington ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdahliabobbin (talk • contribs) 06:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Gee, you never thanked me for my interest in Hetherington, yellowdahliabobbin. Now, while we are on the topic of sources for claims, i have some queries.

(1) The article claims that Moonlight on Oleander was shortlisted for the Kenneth Slessor prize, but the website cited (http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/kenneth-slessor-prize-poetry) does not mention Hetherington. There is the shortlist for the 2018 prize given at https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2018/03/20/103908/nsw-premiers-literary-awards-2018-shortlists-announced/, and this doesn't mention Hetherington either. So where does this info come from?

(2) The same page (http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/kenneth-slessor-prize-poetry) is given for the source for the Cassandra Atherton quote about Moonlight on Oleander. Again, it's not on that page. I've changed it to a web page that does give it.

cheers, Dogpipes (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dogpipes, Thanks so much, I appreciate it - and I think it was Burnt Umber that was shortlisted for the Slessor - I'll go in and try to fix that up! ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdahliabobbin (talk • contribs) 08:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

My concern is accuracy not interest yellowdahliabobbin. To that end this section contains three claims that are unsubstantiated as the reference links to a personal CV page which is a poor source. Removing these in the hope of a high-quality source for substantiation. "He has played a significant role in the ACT cultural community, serving on numerous boards and helping to found the ACT Writers Centre in the mid-1990s and chairing its inaugural committee of management.[2] He also chaired the ACT Cultural Council (2005[13]–13) and the ACT Public Art Panel (2006–11). He is a former Deputy Chair of the ACT's Word Festival.[2] He was a board member for the arts magazine Muse.[13] Nationally he was a member of the Board of Australian Book Review (2004–12).[2]" Thanks Primordial_Librarian (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Primordial Librarian, in awe of your work. Something seems to have happened to notes 38 and 40 though. Have some URLs inadvertently been deleted from the references? Best wishes, Dogpipes (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I will look into it dogpipes. Primordial_Librarian (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the reference to Rabbit journal. The Rabbit blog says Hetherington was a poetry editor, not an editor for the whole issue. The link to the journal itself is 404 and thus deleted in the hope that a working link may be found. Primordial_Librarian (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Those references are tidied now dogpipes and explained more fully in comments above. Primordial_Librarian (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Primordial Librarian and Dogpipes, Thanks so much - very happy with the indented quote and restoring the full quotations that had been excerpted. I'll find a link to the Rabbit journal. Best ≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdahliabobbin (talk • contribs) 10:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Quote removed as it is not of remarkable significance within the context of this career. This is an encyclopaedia entry, not a review. Quote about removed as it is not from a critical work but from a blog detailing the launch event of the book. Overly self serving. Primordial_Librarian (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)