Talk:Paul Lockyer

Source?

Yes, it is a blog but not all blogs are equal. This appears to be reputable but I will let others decide if it is useful. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You're referring to this one? It's really a blog in name only. Hack (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Date and place of birth

I removed the DOB as I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, and I would have thought that it would have been mentioned if he died on his birthday. Doing my own WP:OR, the old Trove newspaper archive has an unnamed Lockyer son being born on 8 August 1949, but in Goomalling, which is over 200 km from Corrigin - with much bigger towns of York, Northam or Wickepin much closer, so it's likely either the place or date of birth is incorrect - or they moved as a kid and he grew up in Corrigin, but wasn't born there."Family Notices". The West Australian (Perth, WA : 1879 - 1954). Perth, WA: National Library of Australia. 19 August 1949. p. 1. Retrieved 20 August 2011. There is an Ian Paul Lockyer born in July 1950 in Perth that might be him too."Family Notices". The West Australian (Perth, WA : 1879 - 1954). Perth, WA: National Library of Australia. 15 July 1950. p. 42. Retrieved 20 August 2011.

Thanks Hack for finding the obit from The Aust, shows the danger of doing WP:OR and that the Trove OCR isn't perfect - it was listed as LOCKYEB, not Lockyer. The-Pope (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this also highlights the importance of only adding verified information as at least one usually reliable source picked up 1949 as his DOB, presumably from here... Hack (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Free image from ABC?

Has anyone asked the ABC whether they'll release a pic for this article? Tony (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just done so, via http://www.abc.net.au/news/contact/feedback/ Mitch Ames (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Did they respond? Hack (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Reaction Section

Community, please consider a revert.

I attempted to add a "reaction" section but it was deleted and my entry was called a copyright violation by the User:Bidgee (talk). He or she doesn't seem to recognize that a press release is publicly released material. In fact, the same quote I used actually appeared in an article that was already referenced and still remains as

1. 3 "Three ABC staff mourned." The Australian. August 19, 2011.

Actually, this is a good source because it pulls together some reaction from close friends and family. There should be other official reactions out there as this death is a big event.

So I could call for a both a revert and for User:Bidgee to please review what is actually considered copyrighted material and what is not.

DobryDamour (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is relevant comment at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 13#Material from press releases that references this post from Jimbo Wales. In short, we don't reproduce press releases. Although they're mean to be distributed, they're still copyrighted. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear AussieLegend (talk),

What we have here, in the "relevant comment" to which you point, is a misunderstanding based on the fact that there is a contradiction between the textual discussion of the issue of the press release as copyright and the examples that are used to corroborate the point. The text clearly states that a person can't use the "straight" copy of a media release into the encyclopedic article (meaning you can't copy the whole thing). That is not what I did. I was looking for the clear and relevant passage from the release, namely the reaction of the employer. The same passage I used showed up later in the article that is referenced currently as number 3 in the article and I was only using a quote. If you read Jimbo Wales, he says we can use the media release as a fact. I clearly agree that it would be, in fact, a copyright violation if I had used the greater part of the article verbatim. The mistake I believe you and Bidgee (talk) are making, metaphorically speaking, is to use the sledgehammer to kill the mosquito. I see nothing in the section of policy you mentioned that says you can't use a small quote. Again I appeal to the community to revert.

Moreover, Journalists and Historians use the media release as evidence. When Jimbo Wales is writing about lazy journalists, he is actually saying when they use the whole of the release and don't report for themselves. He's right! That's not how good journalists or the good historians are taught to treat the release. You'll have to explain why you're using a broad brush to cover ANY use of a press release.

This overkill would lead to a lot more deletions because I clearly said my evidence was coming from a press release but other entries on Wikipedia (site wide) are not so explicit and dance over the gray areas. I can already think of examples in my head of where taking this policy of NO media releases NOT EVEN a part can quickly lead to trouble. Is UNESCO's statements about journalists who have been killed a media release? No statements that haven't been vetted by the journalists could then be used. This is broader than UNESCO and so many other articles would be affected. If CPJ.org or RSF.org writes profiles of journalists with reactions to their murder, imprisonment, etc. and issues it as a release, is that to be thrown out? I can point to many articles that need deletion and copyright warnings based on this. Your pill is actually more deadly than the disease you wish to cure!

Let's edit with some commonsense Bidgee and AussieLegend. I didn't use a whole news release verbatim. I used one small quote from the whole. I see nothing in Jimbo Wales's statement that contradicts what I have said, and you'll have to explain how you have read the policy so narrow to make these blanket statements.

Dobry (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The "reaction" section is WP:UNDUE as a separate section and should be included in the "death" section since this is what the "reaction" is about. Secondly, it verges on breaching WP:NOT#MEMORIAL with terms such as "On a more personal note ..." This is an encyclopedia article not an obituary. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Whenever a journalist dies while reporting (in the line of duty), it is an issue on which important people and organizations (UNESCO, organizations to protect the safety of journalists) react and it has possible ramifications for the profession. That is not a memorial. If you review the journalists who have died and written about in Wikipedia many of them have reaction sections. A few examples would be "Mohamed 'Mo' Nabbous," "Ali Hassan al-Jaber," and "Sokratis Giolias," and I could point to many others as precedent. The PM's comments highlight the danger of the profession. This is why people who are interested in an encyclopedic entry of Lockyer as a journalist will read this. I would submit that Mattingn is compromising WP:UNDUE because he or she is not allowing for other audiences' perspectives to be heard. This section should be reverted with the PM's comments included.

Dobry (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Editing

There is absolutely NO REASON given for (talk) Mattinbgn's edit of a subsection called reaction as is the case with many other journalists who have been killed while on duty (as I mentioned above). When I put it under death as he or she requested, he undid it without any reason.

This whole project of editing the Lockyer page is a case of too many cooks spoiling the pot of stew. This page is in NO WAY complete nor trustworthy and making any progress on it is a total waste of anybody's time. It seems to me, if you're not Australian and you might possibly have some other interest in Lockyer that you're really not welcome here. So good luck and undo all you want from my edits, I give up.

Dobry (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you stop making uncivil and bad faith comments directed at fellow editors. Bidgee (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I never meant to be uncivil and I did spend a lot of time in good faith fielding objections from Bidgee and AussieLegend and Mattinbgn, who I assume were also acting in good faith. However -- and this should be taken as more of a review -- I was merely pointing out that many of the editors here are assuming that readers will only read this page because as Mattinbgn writes, "The article is (or should be) about Lockye - not his death" or as assumed he was JUST a high-profile Australian and that's the only reason to be interested in him. Actually, there are other points of view and I attempted to find information from another perspective. However, 95 percent of all my time was used batting challenges, all of which turned out to be wrong by the way, and that left no time for constructive research to fill in the holes. This article has holes as one can see from just the low ratings that it has been given up to this point. Again, I didn't mean to seem uncivil, but I was obviously frustrated and I did want to make clear that at present it can be a waste of a person's time to edit this article unless you adhere to the present group's ideology. Maybe someday the information can be more complete and objective and take into account other perspectives. Caveat emptor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DobryDamour (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Lockyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113075822/http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1344759.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1344759.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)