Talk:Dorothy Hewett

Recent edits

To recent editor who made claims from a University of Sydney multiple use account - please consider getting an account, user name and if you have issues with the article - please read up as to how Wikipedia works - identifying yourself in edit summaries puts you into a no win situation if you are indeed the person you claim to be - as you will need to check WP:COI and also a bit more about how crappy the average australian literary biographies are - Dorothy would have been probably cheesed off to think an online encyclopedia could get her details wrong. (Having had things to do with your family a very long time ago I am pissed off with the neglect of the plays in the art).

Please consider getting an account and reading up on the processes of wikipedia rather than making fly by edits from an open account at Uni Syd - there are holes in the art - expect that - also you need WP:RS rather than your feelings or anecdotes to fix the article up - it is a very good idea not to ID yourself as you have - cheers SatuSuro 09:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We are about to completely rewrite this because of uniformly poor quality. Marillajoe (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Time Line?

As the article stands today (7-Oct-2012), the timeline makes no sense. Married in 1948 to Davies, divorced in 1959 and went to Sydney for a 9 year relationship with Flood that ended in 1958 when she returned to Perth. Somewhere there is a ten year problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.77.19 (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(26-02-2022) Current version is full of many errors as well as problems of focus and emphasis. Marillajoe (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Corroborating evidence

I am just wondering if anyone knows of any corroborative evidence for the allegations of sexual assault raised against Ellis and Sharp by the two daughters? I should say that, by this, I don't merely mean other sources which repeat the allegations made by the two daughters.Research17 (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Difficult as no charges were laid, those mentioned are dead, and the whole episode was the subject of a 'clickbait press' beatup full of lurid misrepresentation. Marillajoe (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Merging from Draft:Dorothy Hewett

The draft has substantial additional information. There is so much that it is important to form consensus for merging it in, either in whole or in part. I am setting this discussion up, but expressing no opinion on the desired outcome. I believe it will not be as simple as a Support vs Oppose discussion since there is a great deal of extra information to be assimilated if that is the choice of the community. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Timtrent. It's going to take a while to find the time to go through it all, but I'd like to take a look and will tag a couple of editors who have been involved and/or have an interest in Australian literature. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Laterthanyouthink: I have some concerns. I set this discussion up in the full expectation that the now blocked Marillajoe would split into the two accounts who used that name, and join this discussion. So far I know that one, Evadeluge has registered. I have no knowledge of the other. Special:Contributions/Evadeluge shows no real interest in Dorothy Hewett so far.

What strikes me is that, assuming the draft version was written to correct swathes of apparent imperfections in the main space article, there is no interest in this discussion. This makes me wonder whether the desired changes were important after all. This RFC is likely to close as no consensus at present 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The lack of action on my part is precisely because of instructions you have given or answers you failed to give, timtrent. On the one hand, you said the images were not to be used until they had been passed by Commons, and I am still waiting for that decision.

On the other hand you were asked how this 'consensus' was supposed to materialise, given (based on past activity) there is little chance there will be any general comment until the changes are made, and then probably not for some time.

Then you were asked how the changes were to be made -- perhaps a section or a sentence at a time, or as a complete block. You did not answer.

You also said that Joe Flood should not participate, as he is related to the target - so he has not.

I have a very great interest in Dorothy Hewett, who is one of Australia's premier postcolonial authors. I wait with great eagerness for instructions on how to proceed. What do you want here?

evadeluge Evadeluge (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, Timtrent and Evadeluge, I just haven't had the time and health to even look at this again, as I've been trying to catch up with backlog and other things I got drawn into. So I haven't even looked at the draft. I don't think that the current article should be entirely replaced by a new one though, based on what I've seen of how wiki works. I will see if I can get anyone else interested as I'm feeling pretty lousy today and just want to finish off other things I've started, or are quick updates (i.e. needing less brainpower), before attempting such a large task. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink It was not a criticism of you. Rather it was of the original protagonists. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink, it was not a criticism of you, you have been really helpful, encouraging and decent. I've taken all your original suggestion into account.

Rather the dreadful @timtrent, who seems determined to make new editors quit in disgust. I suppose it was far too much to expect a "Thankyou for making such a massive improvement in this woeful entry, you've done such an amazing amount of work" but at least a reasonably constructive and encouraging approach might have been indicated.

It's been weeks, and time we moved on with this so I'll start merging it a section at a time tomorrow with explanations, once other new images are past commons. Hopefully that way we can keep reversals to a minimum. I'll bring back the original out-of-copyright images once they are approved by commons.

I will also be seeking an substantial upgrade in the categories below, once a decent entry is in place. Evadeluge (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

%laterthanyouthink, I am beginning the merge process by resubmitting the early sections you have already seen,. As per your instructions I have fixed up a) all the nowikis b) got rid of puffery in introduction. I have borrowed where possible from the existing version.

Hewett deserves a more extended and accurate Wikipedia entry because of her considerable fame, the public awareness of her life, her substantial output and the heavy reporting and analysis of her work, including several full volumes.

I have added an efn section for Footnotes, so that Notes are now references only. New photographs have been added under personal and heir licences.

The changes go as far as Mature Work. All the replacements in the early sections, except a few personal details, are very well known and heavily referenced in multiple sources. It's been weeks of work, but looks good to me.

Here are the changes by section of the original, with reasons.

INTRODUCTION Hewett is listed as an author, not because she was a Communist. That was just one of her phases and not the most important or even the most controversial. ‘Atheist’ is also unimportant, she never wrote on the subject

The unusual things about Hewett were a) she wrote in every medium b) her distinctive style c) her extremely colourful life, always in the public eye and embroiled in controversy d) her literary style which changed completely when her public persona changed. e) She was constant subject of critical work

’20 volumes of published literature is far from accurate and is also misleading. In the case of the plays, it is not necessarily so important whether they were published, more how successfully they were staged and their ongoing popularity.

The very large number of works and critical articles on Hewett is enumerated in efn Note a.

EARLY LIFE. This now continues as far as ending university in 1943-4

Errors in Existing entry: Studied english in 42 (didn’t complete). Did not win a drama prize. Did not write the Workers Star, she wrote the Black Swan. Married ’45. Why does “Bobbin up” suggest autobiography and why cathartic? Did not return to WA to take up a Uni post at all. Never heard of “Jeannie”, source? A lot of Australian works were translated into Russian. ‘Hidden Journey’ was a poem, not a collection. “Socialist realism’ not ‘social realism’. Would not have said “circulated material”. “What about the people?” was formally published in 63.

Extraneous facts: Nuns. Atheist. Exaggerated description of Czech invasion.

Important omissions in existing entry: Route to wealth of her grandmother. Facey cleared land. Father a war hero. She and sister told each other stories. Difficulties adjusting to town life. Father helps her meet authors. Starts drama society. Leaves uni, loss of jobs. Suicide attempt. Rejection of parental wealth. Coverage of Pilbara strike. Redfern. Referendum and Petrov Affair. Founding UAW. Trip to USSR and China. Copywriting. Les Flood paranoid schizophrenia. Flight back to parents. Teachers college. Trip to Queensland. Bush music and famous songs. “Ballad of Women”. Ongoing health problems. Trip to Weimar Writers Conference. Dissident writer protests. “This old man” final realist work.

To divide it up better, I have merged in a new section for “Realist writer period and the Communist Party”, which starts with her failing university in 1943 and ends in 1967.

Thanks for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evadeluge (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Evadeluge You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the process outlined above. You shoudl contribute to the discussion, not seek to drive a coach and horses through it. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by unilateral action. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Evadeluge You said Rather the dreadful @timtrent, who seems determined to make new editors quit in disgust. You are required by the rules here to be civil. That was not. Please read WP:CIVIL. Do not take your frustrations out on other editors. Just try your hardest to work within the rules, which are here for everyone's benefit.

You have a WP:COI over this article. Please declare it properly 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

How many tines do I have to say I have no COI over this article. GO AWAY. Find someone else to harass. Evadeluge (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Great news by the way. The first Dorothy Hewett photo has been approved by Commons. Persistence will overcome adversity. Of course it should never have been blocked in the first place.

Dr Flood is now working to get the 'heirs' photos approved. Evadeluge (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is a statement regarding COI.

- I am not related to Dorothy Hewett

- I am not a friend of Dorothy Hewett

- I have never written or published anything previously about Dorothy Hewett

- I have no financial interest in anything connected with Dorothy Hewett.

- I once took a photograph of Dorothy Hewett and her husband Merv Lilley at a poetry reading.

- I do not have a COI of any kind regarding Dorothy Hewett Evadeluge (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Evadeluge. I haven't actually got to looking at the draft yet, but you may have noticed that I've done a bit of editing on the article. It's mostly small stuff. I have left some editors' notes on a couple of "citation needed" templates where it is not clear to me which are true footnotes and which are citations to those footnotes, or citations to content in the article. I have only been looking at style and flow, not attempting to dig deep into the value of the content, as I am not familiar with her life and work myself so would be a poor judge anyway. I will get back to it when I can. (If you need to send a notification to another editor, btw, @ does not work; you need to use either the {{ping}} or {{user link}} templates.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Tyvm laterthanyouthink. I've proceeded with the second stage of the merge, reorganising the 'draft' material more in line with what you have done. I'd appreciate your ongoing advice.

Whether it really needs a 'later years' section, given that DH worked until her death, is unclear. I do think the "Literary style and contribution" section in the Draft is important, and I would like to leave it till the third and final merge, once this merge is accepted.

DH is unusual in that her residences, her illnesses and the need to earn a family income heavily affected her work. These are probably more important than the occasional controversy, but they do not attract as much media attention. I have put most of it under 'Private life' for now.

The recent revelations of her daughters remain very controversial, and material contradicting the daughters'; account is about to emerge. What I have said is the facts of the current situation. I am reluctant to back it all up with references as it just gives exposure to the Orange Press.

I am very pleased to notify that the 'Heirs' tickets on the old images have finally gone through.

I am also preparing new entries on five of the plays. Best regards. Evadeluge (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Selected_Poems_of_Dorothy_Hewett.html?id=G_Yy7i2k3l8C&redir_esc=y http://www.nuts.org.au/this-old-man-comes-rolling-home.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh hear we go again %timtrent. get over your obsession. Go somewhere else and do something useful. Evadeluge (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at the two short online pieces you claim are copied %timtrent. These sources were NOT viewed in the drafting of this revision. I can't see any similarity between these pieces and the redraft - except to the extent that similar basic information on the author is present in hundreds of other sources. What are you talking about? Evadeluge (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Evadeluge Please stop your veiled abuse Oh hear we go again %timtrent. get over your obsession. Go somewhere else and do something useful is inappropriate.

The areas I redacted the copyright violations were picked up by Wikipedia's copyright violation detector, and confirmed. If you look at the notice above you will see those sources. It matters not at all whether those sources were looked at in the new draft you are merging in. What matters is that their text was copied into the current version by someone, presently or in the past, and that they survived until the redaction.

It does't matter how widespread in use those phrases or clauses have been. Widespread unlicensed usage is also a copyright violation. The overall article will be far better without that material, and with material that is written on 100% of your own words.

Ironic that you are grateful that I redacted the "Mature work" section as a copyright violation.

I have no idea why you are using a percent symbol ahead of my username; it has no effect. If you want to attract my attention please see Help:Notifications.

Please try to understand that Wikipedia has rules. Wikipedians care about those rules. Without them it can be accused of being a very poor repository of information. Wikimedia Commons has rules as well. The rationale there is similar, but is to do with seeking to ensure that the laws of copyright are not broken.

You need to reach the conclusion that I am not here to hinder your work, but that I care about article quality and about copyright. The only reason we have interacted so much, both here and on Wikimedia Commons is that you and your colleague have tried, consistently, to drive your own coach and horses through those rules.

I would rather that you stopped being rude over this, but I recognise you may not choose to do so. Please just work collegially and within the rules. If it is absolutely necessary and for the good of Wikipedia I will continue to tolerate your rudeness. I'm old enough and ugly enough to have heard it all before.

You may find this a paradox, but I wish you a successful redrafting. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I am very pleased to see that someone has redacted the entire section on Mature Work, %timtrent. As stated, I have not yet merged this section and all this redacted work was done by earlier editors.

At any rate, I see a number of editors have now passed the first few merged sections. Looking good! I presume we now have 'consensus' and can get on with the more difficult bit. Evadeluge (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

OK agreed that the catchy descriptive phrase on This Old Man was lifted, during an early draft. Not a problem to remove/redact. I am in the process of doing a separate entry on this play and several others. Evadeluge (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Short edit of 'Mature work' section to remove three errors

- Moved to Sydney. Not because of stated reason but because she loved it. (many times in interviews)

- Libel case was not exactly 'successful' but was settled out of court. References are not adequate. This matter will go to 'Controversy'

- Statement on 'writing about sex' and 'competing with daughters' just plain wrong. At best, unsubstantiated opinion. Evadeluge (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)