Talk:Greg Sheridan

University degree

Greg Sheridan and I are are the same age, and we were acquainted during our university years. Regarding Greg's university qualifications, I am pretty certain that (a) he went to Macquarie University, and (b) he did not complete his undergraduate degree. I remember this because Macquarie was still a fairly new college at the time and out of the way in terms of public transport. I don't think I even knew where the campus was located and used to wonder how he made the daily commute. Anyway, this is written from a distance of 40 years, so I could well be wrong on the details, but it could explain why Sydney Uni has no record of his enrolment. Try searching at Macquarie. I remember he became a trade union official while I was still studying - the Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers Union, or something to that effect. It was the shop assistants' union and it was fairly right wing. This would have been around 1976 or 1977. Maybe he went back to Uni in later life, or maybe he completed his degree part time - I don't know. Any fact checkers out there? --Siglo2 (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this from the article: "though his previous biography submitted to ABC's Q&A as a panelist claimed he earned a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Sydney in 1977". This suggests that Sheridan was being dishonest, but it could be a simple misunderstanding. His memoir, When We Were Young and Foolish, clearly states he dropped out of both Macquarie and Sydney Universities without completing a degree (p 199).--Jack Upland (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

References

POV

While I also dislike Greg Sheridan's politics and writings (particularly over Indonesia and East Timor) intensely, I don't believe that this paragraph is at all appropriate for Wikipedia. Quiensabe 23:31 UTC 18 June 2005

No, it's not. I've removed it from this page too. (It was added to the article by an anonymous editor.) Cheers, CWC 13:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

from a rather distant outlook you guys do not pose reason to your opinion. Regards Louise Seymour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.240.66 (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The entire article shows very heavy POV and does not speak well for Wikipedia. Obviously, Greg Sheridan is very irritating to "editors" of passionate left allegiance, and they are trying as hard as possible to get back here. We do not customarily read as an introductory sentence to journalist bios on Wikipedia reference to the political slant of the journalist, unless it is extremist, but here the very first sentence demeans Sheridan as merely a "conservative," as if that is the primary thing to know about him replacing and dismissing any other adjective descriptive of his reporting. The entire rest of the article reads as an indictment of this guilty "conservatism," only presenting views of opponents making a case for it and for his apparently indefensible advocacy for presumed bad guys, even including -- horror of horrors -- President George W. Bush, without any contextual or other qualifications nor rebuttals from his supporters (of whom there are many from all sides of the political spectrum, Sheridan being widely regarded as one of the leading foreign editors of Western newspapers, and a particular asset for the international reputation of The Australian). No praises of him are given in this article, as if there are none worthy of notice or comment, which is very far from the case. He did not attain his leading position in Australian journalism by accident, after all. Instead, this article draws from and credulously endorses the criticisms of John Pilger, no less, whose own far-left views and dubious reporting on international affairs are notorious. This being the case, the entire article needs to be scrapped, and a better and more responsible one, one that does not just represent the far left, should be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.216.14 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree totally: there were several seemingly-approving, emotionally-charged and substantiated (for referring to broken sources, and since removed for that reason) quotes attributed to Pilger, and the comment to the effect that Sydney University didn't have a record of him (the implication being for some, no-doubt "sinister", reason) was unnecessary and non-noteable, not to mention un-encyclopaedic

Rpot2 (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

... and I've also, since that comment, had to remove an opening sentence attesting to his "right-wing" and "Islamophobic" nature, and re-remove the reference his (similarly-irrelevant) "suspect" Sydney University graduation

Rpot2 (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's relevant whether he did graduate or not, and he confirmed in his memoir that he did not. See comment above.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Endorsing Abbott as Defence Minister in 2005

This is what I like to include but I can't since it keeps getting removed due to no citation: "In 2005 Sheridan in an article in The Australian endorsed his old friend Abbott to become the new Defence Minister which became vacant due to the retirement of the previous minister Robert Hill but the portfolio ultimately went to Brendan Nelson.

− Nelson, like Abbott would eventually become Liberal leader."

Why is this being removed instead of placing "Citation needed" and how on Earth can I find an article that was published in 2005? If I had known that I needed that article when I read it I would have placed it in a safe place. There is no way I could have had foresight into this and the approach that is being displayed here is very unreasonable. 122.108.156.100 (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Search engines like Factiva could find this for you, if you have access to an academic library or equivalent. Alternatively, Google - a specific endorsement should be findable through this means. Regrettably, you will need a citation and it is not enough to simply add the claim to the article in the good-faith hope that someone else can locate the article you're basing it on. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Site policy requires direct citations for content per WP:V and this is particularly important for articles on living persons per WP:BLP due to concerns about potential harm unsubstantiated claims can have on people's lives and reputation. Indeed, unsourced or poorly sourced BLP information can be removed without discussion, per policy. Regardless, many public libraries provide free access to ProQuest or similar electronic databases that can allow you to search for newspaper articles using a variety of search terms. Such a database may enable you to retrieve the article in question, which would thereby allow you to cite the information you are wishing to add if there is consensus to do so. Beyond that, though, if other editors disagree with the addition, you will need to establish consensus that the information should be included before adding it in. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is notable, anyway.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greg Sheridan. 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/20070603140622/http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/gregsheridan/ to http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/gregsheridan/

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) 03:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Notability?

The article lists some positions Sheridan has taken over the course of his career. How notable are they?

• The deportation of Scott Parkin: Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, supported this too.
• The Arab Spring: many people have said similar things.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)