Talk:Pat O'Shane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Controversial" magistrate[edit]

Since magistrates and senior bureaucrats are not necessarily notable, we need to make clear that O'Shane is a controversial magistrate. According to the Australian, "... controversy and confrontation have remained continuing themes in her life." (Features, 31/01/2007) I don't think the word "controversial" prejudges her, and what other word could describe a magistrate who must surely be the subject of more coverage than all her colleagues put together? Joestella 05:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What Happened to the Article?[edit]

Could someone explain to me why the whole article on this, dare I say it, controversial magistrate, has been subject to the whiteout ink? Edward Carson (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

All content in Wikipedia should be supported by a reliable source that confirms the content, and should be given appropriate weight, though many articles fall short of this ideal. In recent years there has been a big shift towards strict adherance to these policies in biographies of living people. All biographies of living persons must conform to these policies (and many others) so as to avoid doing harm. The umbrella policy is WP:BLP. The editor who culled the article put this in their edit summary:

...contained numerous uncited negative assertions, a massive WP:BLP problem in the making

I just looked at the version before the cull and see there was, indeed, a large amount of uncited content, and content (it may be argued) given undue weight.
Please feel free to add policy-compliant content. But be aware that biographies of living persons (along with medical articles) must conform strictly to Wikipedia policy, and you may have more success editing those if you become very familiar with Wiki policy first. The people at this notice board are happy to answer questions regarding biographies of living persons, though they get pretty impatient with editors who don't take the trouble to read the policy first. Good luck. Anthony (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Critical opinion piece/analysis[edit]

It contains hard facts pertaining to Pat O'Shane's record of appeal e.g. "The Supreme Court has found O'Shane got the law wrong in 14 out of those 16 criminal cases". Authors: "Michael Eburn and Ruth Townsend are lawyers and academics at the Australian National University. Both have joint appointments to the ANU College of Law and the College Medicine, Biology and Environment and both have served as paramedics with the Ambulance Service of NSW.