Talk:Jenny Hocking

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|1=

Peacock terms

I removed the peacock terms from this entry in an attempt to make it more neutral. It seems to have been written by the subject. Wperdue (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Written by the subject for the fourth time, without any responses to the messages explaining COI problems on her talk page, and no comments on the first three deletions (two of which were also copyright violations). Verging on the disruptive. Dekimasuよ! 03:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a new user of wikipedia and prepared the page. It did not violate any copyright whatsoever, but I found it quite indimidating that the administrator was so aggressive in his comments so allowed the deletion. I am not the subject of the entry. The references are completely valid and relevant and I am dismayed at the immediate assumption that they might be somehow false. It is a big leap from suspecting copyright violation to the above comment stating it as a fact. The "peacock terms" were written by me I did not realise wikepedia was so proscriptive but I am happy to leave it as "neutral". DD

I will try to explain, so that you hopefully won't feel as if you are being personally attacked. Any page that substantially matches material in a book, magazine, webpage, etc. will be flagged for copyright violation. Wikipedia editors take this one very seriously, as it could be grounds for a lawsuit. It is usually not a good idea to post anything using the same username as the title of the article as it will be flagged for a conflict of interest. Finally, as an encyclopedia, all entries are expected to be written from a neutral point of view. The so-called peacock terms are to be avoided whenever possible. Calling something or someone "ground-breaking", "acclaimed", or "respected" should only be added if an inline source from a reliable third-party source can be provided. I hope this was helpful. Wperdue (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Thankyou for your comments this explains it very well. I obviously went about the entry in the wrong way. Nevertheless there was never a possibility of a copyright violation. I am not the subject of the entry and the footnotes are all correct and relevant. The subject clearly is an important scholar and biographer and the footnotes support this and should therefore support her entry in Wikipedia. DD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.19.33 (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The original version of the article was a nearly exact copy of Hocking's bio at Monash, which is copyrighted. Without a copyright release, we are unable to use such content on Wikipedia. The current article is not nearly identical to that page, although the influence is clear. Dekimasuよ! 00:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a caveat on the page saying that the footnotes may be inappropriate. All footnotes are relevant and correct see below:

  1. ^ http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ncas/about/our-people/hocking.php

Professor Hocking's entry on the Monash university site verifying her identity.

  2. ^ Entry on Jenny Hocking, Who's Who of Australian Women 2009

The current Who's Who entry showing her biographical details and attesting to her contribution and influence.

  3. ^ http://www.ias.uwa.edu.au/masterclass/past/2007/hocking

Summary of masterclass on terrorism delivered University of Western Australia

  4. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2002/733798.htm
  5. ^ ‘Story of a High Court judge is a modern tragedy’ Sydney Morning Herald, Opinion Page, 31 August 2000
  6. ^ 'A Cloud Over Journalistic Standards' The Sydney Morning Herald, Opinion Page, 26 January 1999

Three pieces above penned by Professor Hocking for SMH and ABC.

  7. ^ The real Whitlam It's time we discovered the man behind the political legend, writes Nathan Hollier. The Age 10/01/2009
  8. ^ Sydney Morning Herald Ross Fitzgerald ‘The great, great man’ 13 December 2008
  9. ^ Canberra Times John Warhurst ‘Canberra and the making of a problematic PM’ 22 November 2008
 10. ^ Illawarra Mercury 15 November 2008
 11. ^ Adelaide Advertiser Greg Kelton ‘This week’s selections’ 15 November 2008
 12. ^ Weekend Australian Evan Williams ‘The definitive Gough botherer’ 15 November 2008

7-12 shown Professor Hocking's biography of Gough Whitlam widely reviewed - each is a review of the book.

 13. ^ http://www.filmartdoco.com/neal.html

Description of film Professor Hocking co-wrote detailed on Production company's web-site

 14. ^ http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/hr_awards/1991.html

Australian Government site listing Human Rights awards - recipient of one for co-written film above. DD

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Hocking_(professor)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.19.33 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have re-established the Bibliography section (first attempted in 2016). Entries use cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)