Talk:Paul Sheehan (journalist)

Sheehan is a conservative???

I notice that the references given to support the statement that Sheehan is a conservative are a little odd. The first reference is to a link that has Sheehan being asked (presumably as a liberal) to get "get rid of these right-wing ranters", the other two are not from sources that I would not have considered WP:RS for a BLP. Can we get a better source? Thepm (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Posted to BLP noticeboard here. Thepm (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Tom Switzer, opinion page editor of The Australian, said that "the ranks of the Right have swelled to include .... best-selling author Paul Sheehan" [1]

• Dr Patricia Ranald, Co-convenor, Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network, wrote "Conservative commentator Paul Sheehan wrote ..." [2]

• Terry Cook of the World Socialist wrote "Writing in Monday’s Sydney Morning Herald right-wing correspondent Paul Sheehan claimed..." [3]

If you have something —anything— that indicates he is not conservative, then these sources would carry less weight. ► RATEL ◄ 07:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I had misread that first ref as being written by Sheehan. I've struck out my comment. May bad. I apologise.

Having said that, I am concerned that we label him conservative, rather than noting that "some call him" conservative, or "regarded by many" as conservative. I notice for example that neither Andrew Bolt nor Miranda Devine are prefixed with the epithet "conservative", although either of them would be more worthy. Bill O'Reilly to use another example, is "widely considered a conservative" in his article.

Would you be agreeable to adopting a structure along these lines? If so, I'd like to invite you to make the change. cheers Thepm (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, time to remove the BLP section or mark it with the tag {{resolved}} which gives

Resolved

► RATEL ◄ 09:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've added the tag to the BLP section as requested. One final point is that the second and third references seem to detract from the article in my opinion. They're both fairly fringe publications and you already have an RS as your reference. I'd take them out and just leave the Aus as the reference, but I'll leave it to you to decide. Thanks again for the edit. Thepm (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

'His writing has appeared in...'

A quick search reveals that the para from which this sentence is taken, is lifted entirely from his book publishers' bio of him. Whether it is true or not, and whether it is attributed or not, it's surely not up to encyclopedia standards to just recycle word-for-word commercial bios. And sorry, no, I haven't been bold (read 'interested') enough to just re-write it myself.

(My quick search reveals that Paul Sheehan's work has indeed appeared in the New Yorker: a grand total of once, in February 1996. A 3-page piece on his collection of crack vials. The following link may require subscription: http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=1996-02-12#folio=058). Have my football-playing skills featured on the MCG, if I kicked my ball out there once at the end of a match? 121.44.113.178 (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)