Jump to content

Talk:Garry Shandling/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Breaking the fourth wall

Arrested Development employs a narrator. Yet, none of the actors ever "break the fourth wall" and talk to the audience. I am taking that out. Swatson1978 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ricky Gervais Meets...

"A discussion of comic influences" is the last thing I'd describe it as. The interview itself is probably best quietly forgotten, it never really gets into anything interesting due to an obvious personality clash, and is simply being someone else's comedy hero a Significant Contribution? 87.113.210.98 19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

it's a 40 minute interview with the rarely-seen and seldom-heard Garry Shandling where he discusses the nature of his comedy and its inspirations. Your opinion on its awkward energy does not reduce its relevance, or its interest to people reading this entry.
Although it was pretty awkward, but that was Ricky's fault I think.
Fieryjack2000 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean that it shouldn't be in the article at all (and I never took it out myself), just that it doesn't seem like a "Significant Contribution" to be interviewed by someone or to be someone's comic influence (otherwise there should surely be a huge list) and I was too lazy to think of the right way to change it. The nature of the interview and my thoughts on it aren't relevant, you're right, it was just striking to me at the time. 87.113.210.98 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This section is an opinion piece -- basically invalid OR. My opinion? The interview was a brilliant piece by two men who admired each other's work. The "discomfort" factor is consistent with their respective sensibilities. I laughed from beginning to end. The unedited aspect was an essential part of its charm. I gained much insight into Shandling's work and found this interview heads above the mealy interviews I typically see him give. All that said, this section should be completely rewritten not to incorporate my opinion but instead to drop all of the POV and OR. And if criticism is to be included, reliably source it. Therefore 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with these sentiments and I've reverted the whole section back down to a skeleton because it's a gratuitously long and blatantly unqualified insertion of non-neutral commentary. 65.188.142.186 07:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

X-Files Appearance

I think it should be mentioned that Garry Shandling appeared on an episode of the X-Files during the 7th season called "Hollywood A.D.", does anyone else agree with me? - RVDDP2501 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

agreed Therefore 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Gervais Meets... Review as inappropriate

88.96.136.89, without discussion, keeps putting back in his personal review of the show "Ricky Gervais Meets...." episode with Garry Shandling. I will avoid reverting for a day or two to allow the author to discuss why his entry should be kept. Certainly, 88.96.136.89 has pride of authorship and, understandably, is upset that the review has been questioned. I invite 88.96.136.89 to address these concerns.

I find it best to really view Wikipeida as an encyclopedia, which is its stated mission. The reason I removed this item is that it violates many WP standards:

  • WP:NPOV This entry is an opinion piece -- it has a clear point of view.
  • WP:Verifiability The information in this piece has not been published by a reliable source.
  • WP:NOR This piece reflects the personal research of 88.96.136.89.
  • WP:AWW Usage of weasel words such as "Many people suggest" and "Some speculate."

This page is a WP:BLP. The standard is this: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Finally, this entry, which deserves only a mention, takes up a much greater proportion of the article than the incident requires.

The appropriate place for this personal review would be at, say, the IMDB page for this episode. Wikipedia is not meant for personal reviews.

I look forward to hearing from you. Therefore 03:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that opinions are inappropriate, but some mention has to me made. It was a "controversy" on the sense that the episode was delayed for so long, and then was the last one Ricky wanted to do, amid the claim it was not an act. Something about that must be mentioned. McDanger 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

88.96.136.94 edits

88.96.136.94 is the author of the Gervais meets Shandling section. He deleted all of the cutural references and trivia, which I agree with -- they are not referenced. He also deleted much bio data which shouldn't be deleted. He stated "There is a distinct lack of references to support claims made by article. In being consistent with observed editing in the past any such facts which are not referenced have been removed." I can't help by getting the feeling he is doing this because of the past difficulties with the Gervais section (which was originally written without references and was, essentially, OR but is now properly referenced). I will presume in good faith that he isn't doing this to make a point, contrary to WP policy, but instead is doing this because he has learned that the disagreements over his edits in the past were due to WP policy, having nothing to do with "observed editing" with this article, per se.  ∴ Therefore  talk   00:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Gervais Meets... revisted

To Tenebrae -- I don't agree with the decision to revert this material and so I put it back. Here is my thinking: I constantly reverted the original text of this section because it was not sourced and not written in a neutral tone of voice -- pure original research. The editor, in good faith, eventually wrote this section using a proper set of sources and is now written referencing those sources. I don't agree with this assessment and I spent a long time going through every possible British newspaper (on-line, that is) to try to find balancing opinions of this show and the reality is this is the consensus of British television critics. Therefore, I don't believe it is fair to revert something that has been properly referenced and is, in fact, relevant to the subject -- even if I think the reliable, verified sources are wrong. "Truth" isn't relevant to Wikipedia, only verification. Thoughts?  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic value or notability? Ricky Gervais liked Garry Shandling and then he became disillusioned? This is just celebrity gossip. And certainly, the subhead was completely non-encyclopedic. If this is possibly worth including at all, it's worth one sentence. I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but many people — and I'm not saying you, just making a general observation — treat Wikipedia articles like fan sites. --Tenebrae 20:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, value and notability is undoubtedly questionable but this is an event in his life. I agree with it sounding like gossip. I researched the primary source he used -- something called a "diarist" in England, which I couldn't ascertain whether that meant gossip columnist or not. He no longer works for the publication.
I'm trying to give the editor the benefit of making the effort to at least use sources. You had previously removed another source he used to make this point. However, I think this section can be written more succinctly without such a large place in the article. Give me a whack at rewriting (give me a day, please?) and then you can reevaluate it.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you're bending over backwards to be fair, which is an admirable trait, and it is good to be working with someone like that. Rewrite away. (I was going to say, "Whack away," but that just sounded wrong!   :-)    )
I dunno. I won't go in and change it, but I honestly don't see anything of any notability there. He's a comedian interviewed for a documentary about comedy ... so what? Some critics gave it a positive review, some didn't ... so what? That's true of almost anything that runs on TV. But hey, we all have to compromise sometime, and at least now it's not some big section all to itself. I do appreciate your civility, time and effort. --Tenebrae 23:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying but I believe it is appropriate to include critical reaction to a program as the article does for the It's Garry Shandling's Show and The Larry Sanders Show described as "a popular critical hit" and "another critical ... success", respectively. I doubt we would want to exclude those descriptions under the idea of "so what?" – it's interesting (if unsourced). In the case of the mention of this interview, the consensus of the reviewers, as sourced, was mixed and, therefore, I believe deserves similar treatment. Dontcha think?  ∴ Therefore  talk   23:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture

The "Shandling in popular culture" section has no value whatsoever.Lestrade (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Facial paralysis?

I saw Garry Shandling on Bill Maher's show recently and it looked like he couldn't move his facial muscles very well. Does anyone know if he has some sort of cosmetic surgery that went wrong or perhaps over did the botox? JettaMann (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Strikes

I've removed the following section due to BLP concerns. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In 1979, Shandling was one of about eighteen comedians who crossed the picket line during the (CFC) Comedians for Compensation strike.[citation needed] Other notable comics to have done so included Yakoff Smirnoff and Mike Binder.[citation needed] According to William Knodelseder's I'm Dying Up Here, before the strike, Mitzi Shore had not booked Shandling in the Comedy Store's regular lineup. Shandling is the descendant of a notable family with holdings in manufacturing, which may have led to anti-union views and he may have been using the stand-up comics striking as an opportunity to get out of sitcom writing by getting noticed as a stand-up comedian.[citation needed]

Category: Herpetologists

The article is in the Category: Herpetologists. I assume that's some kind of in-joke? - Kzirkel (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody replied on the "Herpetologists" category, so I removed it. If it should be there, feel free to restore it. - Kzirkel (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal life

Regarding his attendance to Farrah Fawcett's funeral, it seems a little ambiguous. Perhaps if it said something to the tune of "he was one of the few people to attend the private funeral..." I'm probably being really anal about this, so I'll leave this to the discretion of the Wikipedia community. 99.235.158.4 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In an interview with Emmy legends, he stated that he is born in Tuscon. Is he wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8C00:994:3127:2A71:FBB2:7EBA (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

24.251.29.163 added the following maintenance tags:


{{notability|date=April 2016}}
{{refimprove|date=April 2016}}
{{cleanup|date=April 2016|reason=Not a lot of information.}}
{{fanpov|date=April 2016}}
{{BLP sources|date=April 2016}}

Note that the tags are dated April 2016 rather than May 2016. The same tags were added in April by 70.162.223.119 – possibly the same person as 24.251.29.163. They were reverted by Afterwriting.

I've removed the {{notability}} tag because Garry Shandling was clearly notable, given the number of citations in the article. I've removed the {{cleanup}} because "Not a lot of information" isn't a reason for adding that tag, which is "intended to identify pages that need wikification or the correction of spelling, grammar, typographical errors, tone, and other similar, non-content-focused changes." I've removed the {{BLP sources}} tag because Garry Shandling is not a living person. I've kept {{refimprove}} because not all the information in the article is footnoted.

Comments? Can we reach a consensus about this? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

They're baloney. I saw a ref improve tag that isn't needed, as the article has one citation needed tag and 47 references. The death section has two paragraphs and that's sufficient; it doesn't need to be expanded so I removed that tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I don't have a strong opinion about the {{refimprove}} tag. No sources are cited for the Filmography and Television sections, other than a footnote for The Jungle Book, but that's common for this kind of article on Wikipedia. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

When I removed most of the maintenance tags added by 24.251.29.163 I didn't notice that the same edit added several other changes previously made by 24.251.29.163 and reverted. See [1]. In my opinion, these edits by 24.251.29.163 make the article worse instead of better. They shouldn't be made again without a consensus on the talk page. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garry Shandling. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 07:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garry Shandling. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The oh-so-painful interview between Ricky Gervais and Garry Shandling

  • Ricky Gervais Meets... Garry Shandling (2006) - IMDb
  • Garry Shandling Ricky Gervais - Google Search

69.181.23.220 (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garry_Shandling/Archive_1&oldid=1026579701"