Jump to content

Talk:Gerry Ryan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Gerry Ryan/Comments)
Former good article nomineeGerry Ryan was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 28, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Death

[edit]

At this time, 14:50 on 30/04/2010, despite reports on Twitter and other sources, I have heard nor seen any official confirmation. Can anyone clear this up? I will continue to search and make calls for information. If details cannot be retrieved at this time, should we lock the page?

Davidlive (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed via CDPS on national radio (Newstalk, reputable national talk/new station) - gave official confirmation of Gerry Ryan's death. thejetset1 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure most major news sources will have a lengthy story up soon. For the moment there's a fairly tiny source on breakingnews.ie TheChrisD Rants•Edits 13:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed: http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/gerry-ryan-found-dead-455930.html

Yeah, it's been confirmed since then. That's fine, and good to see the appropriate tags added to the page. Will updates as appropriate. RIP.

Davidlive (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously he's still updating his blog at [1]. How is that for dedication! Stormcloud (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw some vandalism on the page already. I'll keep an eye on it. --NotoriousTF (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the word "potential" from this discussion. You're welcome.
  >Sorry I do not know the proper template for this page, but I would like to make the following point(s):

   The names of his parents be removed from the sidebar, as they are all ready mentioned in the 'Early Life' section/sub-section.

   Also it could be noted that on the day on his death the words "Gerry Ryan" trended fifth on Twitter(meaning they were the fifth             most mentioned words on the site). They also were the most searched words on Google Images. Both statistics are worldwide.

Edit request from Nathaniel555, 30 April 2010

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

The "g" in Googled is not capitalised.

Nathaniel555 (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done google is correct nowadays. Algebraist 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


No, 'google' is only acceptable when in verb form. Otherwise, when talking about the company/site,'Google' is required.

look at the logo, mushheads. it's "Google" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.100.127 (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death

[edit]

I see in this article in the Irish Independent they mention: it is believed the 53-year-old star suffered a heart attack..
It might also be worth mentioning that he was found by his current partner, Melanie Verwoerd, the former South African ambassador to Ireland.
Samcol1492 (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --candle•wicke 05:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Error

[edit]

There's a spelling error at 2.3, second paragraph. It says "rape vistim" instead of "rape victim". Scampfarmer (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed —  Cargoking  talk  12:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with inappropate content

[edit]

This may not a venue for discussion of Gerry Ryan, but surely it is appropriate to put on record here that the history of Ryan's coverage reflects very badly on Wikipedia. For a number of years, all sorts of wildly inaccurate and offensive comments about him and his work appeared regularly as part of his Wikipedia entry. Not only were these very poorly monitored by Wikipedia editors, but one editor in particular consistently displayed an appalling lack of balance in expressing his own vitriolic opinions about Ryan - in fact, he even encouraged readers to send in examples of anything that reflected badly upon Ryan. Over a period of a few years, I tried to challenge and correct some of the worst excesses, and, eventually, I think that a more effective form of monitoring came into effect. But damage had already been done - mainly to Wikipedia's credibility. And yet we still get comments like the one above from sad and bitter characters, such as Suil Tirim - who is trying to use the cover of Wikipedia to abuse Gerry Ryan, even in death. Adesterre (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we ask who are the editors who could have or should have monitored Gerry Ryan article, well the answer is potentially everyone on the planet. Remember wikipedia doesn't have an editorial committee.
In response to Adesterre, the more editors that contribute to wikipedia in good faith the better wikipedia will become.
If you see an article which has become the subject of vandalism or has contibutions which are inappropate for an encyclopedia, then please do edit them.
I've removed the this comment by user 174.16.16.95 for two reasons:
1: the content was completely in approprate for a discussion page
2: it was signed by user 174.16.16.95 using a false user name: Suil Tirm.
Samcol1492 (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take the points that you make, and think that they are quite reasonable and fair. But I must point out that, in my experience, Wikipedia articles that deal with somewhat controversial figures in the USA or the UK seldom seem to fall into the explicit and reckless abuse that characterised Gerry Ryan's entries for several years. Perhaps, that reflects more upon Ireland than Wikipedia. However, I would question the wisdom of allowing an editor - such as the one who signed himself as Rwxrwxrwx - to continue to contribute in any capacity to the greater Wikipedia project. Over a lengthy period of time, he displayed his own naked prejudice - not only in the many crude, hurtful and groundless comments that he made about Ryan, but in his active attempt to encourage others to do the same. That is surely a breach of the fundamental ethics of journalism - as well as a violation of Wikipedia's editorial principles. If no action can be taken against such individuals and such behaviour, then there are worrying long-term implications. Adesterre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adesterre (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All your previous entries on this page have now been deleted, Rwxrwxrwx, but, since you affect to be confused by my recent comments, let me remind you of some of what you wrote. On this page, you repeatedly described Gerry Ryan as "semi-literate" and a "racist". You provided no grounds for these acccusations - for wholly understandable reasons, I might add, since they were groundless. As I pointed out to you several times on this same page, Ryan held a number of University degrees. He was described by one of his University professors as a brilliant student, and was praised, following his death, by the celebrated novelist and Booker-prize winner, John Banville, for his wit and erudition. Ryan also played an active role, over many years, in raising funds for the developing world - a hospital for lepers in India is even named after him. What is more, his partner at the time of his death was a distinguished member of the African National Congress, and a long-term and courageous opponent of the vile apartheid regime. It is hardly likely that she would have become involved with the racist and semi-literate individual that you chose to conjure up in your Wikipedia entries. Finally, in case you have also forgotten, you solicited readers of Wikipedia to post examples of (what you termed) Ryan's "malaprops", and "loudmouthed" excesses. Ryan was not a saint, and, like all of us, I am sure he had his flaws, but he never merited the spiteful, vicious, and untruthful allegations that you regularly made about him. I don't know what motivated your deep-seated prejudice against Ryan - perhaps, you are a broadcaster whose own career has been less successful than his; perhaps, you are just an embittered loner - but your previous contributions to this page were not only shameful. They were an affront to the principles of fairness, balance and objectivity on which Wikipedia was founded. Adesterre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adesterre (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 89.100.43.22, 15 May 2010

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} hi im elliott

89.100.43.22 (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Hi Elliott. Please read our talk page guidelines. Celestra (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change forages to forays

[edit]

"Recent forages into the world of television include ..."

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gerry Ryan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Luminum (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 28, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail - See notes below
2. Factually accurate?: Fail - Many statements attributed to Ryan himself and need to be verified. Need better application of reliable third party sourced; see notes below.
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail - Article appears to cover all of Ryan's career, exploits, and some personal life, but also delves into seemingly unimportant anecdotes and media instances without being tied back to larger relevancy to the subject.
4. Neutral point of view?: Fail - Peacock terms are frequent as are Ryan's own statements, without verification by another source.
5. Article stability? Pass - Article does not look to be changing too much in the near future.
6. Images?: Pass - All images are appropriate and appropriately licensed.


When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

Notes and suggestions

[edit]

Below are notes and suggestions I made as I went through the article. They outline why the article was failed. They may be helpful to someone looking to improve it.

My general observations are that the statements in this article are spotty in their verifiability and if legit sources exist, they should be entered, otherwise the statements must be removed.

The writing also needs work, as well as determining what is notable and what is not. It's filled with anecdotes that do not seem meaningful or that are meant to impress a specific point about Ryan. Other writing issues include minor errors with grammar and syntax, copy editing, and sentence structure.

A lot of this should be copy edited to the Wiki style guide, such a times and "recent events".

Much of the content is based (apparently) off of Ryan's own statements, such as critical response, which lends some issues of neutral POV and objectiveness. There are frequent peacock terms that need to be corrected or properly sourced (or both).

Lead

[edit]
  • The opening paragraph/lead section shouldn't have references in it. These statements should already be sourced in the main article. These can be removed, provided that the statement exists in the main body, where it should be properly sourced.
  • The third sentence lacks a period.
  • Is the quote about God being bollox notable? If it's just making a point about how he got in trouble often, then I would remove it and place where appropriate in the main body.
  • I'm not sure if the PR quote is appropriate, since it talks about what he could have done. Is there something more behind this, or can you find a more concrete statement of notability? If not, I would remove this.
  • Unless a cause of death is known by now, just that he died should be enough.

Early life

[edit]
  • The section seems a bit scattered. The brothers are mentioned after childhood friends. Perhaps grouping family together first will make it more cohesive.
  • Statements in quotes like "slightly eccentric" or "flamboyant" really need to be directly sourced, since they point out that the description is from someone else.

Early career/Lambo

[edit]
  • The writing here is a little choppy and the material is a bit odd, mostly because the larger part of this seems to be based all around "Ryan said". While his own material is valid, it would feel like a stronger account of his history if the statements and sources are written from a third party source perspective. Can you find sources that corroborate his accounts and descriptions, and if you have them, rewrite some of this to fit a more objective tone. Currently, it talks about how he viewed his friends, but that's less important than depicting that he joined this lineup, became successful, bonded with his fellow lineup members, and toured around with them, becoming quite popular.
  • The Lambo incident, if just a hoax and lacking a significant impact, can probably be removed. It's two sentences for its own section. If the hoax was a big thing in Ryan's career, then finding more sources about it, describing why the idea came up when it was announced, what impact it had, and then breaking the news of the hoax and any reactions/fallout would make for a stronger section.

The Gerry Ryan Show

[edit]
  • Copy edit time slots to Wikipedia style. Ex. "09:00 - 12:00" should be changed to "9am to 12pm on weekday mornings".
  • If you're discussing the format of his 3-hour program, it should be rewritten to convey this idea. Currently it reads as though his initial approach to the show was to read the day's news stories. It doesn't convey the sense that it was a format and writes about it as if it's a one-time event.
  • Statements need to be clearly sourced.
  • This section should be rewritten to emphasize the points that it's trying to make. When the rape victim called, what is meant by "the defining moment?" Is that when the show shifted its focus or format? What is meant by "the question being less important than the story"? Did he often make light of stories by shock-jocking a lot of random questions?
  • Peacock terms like "something of a national institution" need to be rewritten more objectively (was it the beginning of its fame and respectability or not?) and needs to be sourced and verified.
  • Again, some of the wording here is clumsy like "Despite repeated reshuffles which have seen all other presenters shifted around, RTÉ have never moved The Ryan Show from its traditional slot." which could be rewritten as "Although RTE would reshuffle its lineup of presenters, The Ryan Show was never moved from its traditional time slot."
  • These anecdotes such as his wife calling are poorly written and also lack a greater meaning. The section should discuss why the show was notable such as the 2004 uproar and probably would benefit from some examples of critical response to the show.
  • Things about the show after his death should be put in the section discussing his legacy or impact.

Television

[edit]
  • Where does this fit chronologically in his career? 1994 or much earlier? The entire section lacks the description to tell readers when these shows began, which shows the section is talking about, and critical response. When did he begin "Ryantown"? Was he the presenter? What was "Ryantown" anyway? Terms like "recent" need to be replaced with actual dates. 60 years from now, they won't be "recent" work.
  • Rejected his proposal for what? For Ryan to co-host? Statements like these need to be contextualized so they are clear to the reader.
  • Other statements need to be weeded out, such as the discussion about investing in Riverdance. It doesn't have to do with his television career, just his investment decisions.
  • More peacock terms sans source (ex. "immortal words")
  • If there were only rumors of him doing something and they never manifested as legitimate, then they should be removed, unless those rumors were the subject of substantial media coverage.
  • Again, I'm seeing problems with the overuse of Ryan's own commentary. For this article to be encyclopedic, it needs to discuss Ryan from a viewpoint other than his own.

Autobiography

[edit]
  • This section has been started well. It needs more fleshing out with critical reception.

Earnings

[edit]
  • This should be dissolved back into his career. His significant earnings are career milestones and can be written as such as they happened in his career. If he was one of the highest paid of his field, this would also be a good thing to mention in the lead.
  • Likewise, controlling the anecdotes used is appearing to be more and more relevant. Quotes should also be used sparingly if the subject can be explained in a comparable manner.

Personal life

[edit]
  • When did he marry his wife? The section talks about his divorce and their children without first mentioning their marriage and each child's birth. You don't need that level of detail per se, but describe events in his personal life in chronological order.
  • The statement is repeated after a series of details about his personal life. Rewriting those as a more comprehensive narrative is necessary. When did they meet? What happened in the interim, when did they marry. And also, again, statements such as the constant foreclosure notices need to be sourced.
  • When did he begin the new relationship?

Health

[edit]
  • If none of these health issues relate in a more substantial way, such as to his death, then they can probably just be placed under his personal life. A separate section isn't necessary.

Death

[edit]
  • Unless the thread was reported upon by reliable media, mention of it should be removed. Sources should only be those coming from reliable third party sources.
  • Not every tweet from a colleague needs to be mentioned, only those (if any) that help describe the matters relating to his death.
  • Like a lot of this article, this section should also be rewritten. To get a sense of the form, you may want to look at other GA'd articles on recently deceased celebrities.
  • This section should also be divided into a "Death" and "Legacy" section, if you're going to fill it with later tributes to him, commentaries, etc.

"He was also a criminal fool, and an enemy of all that's decent and honourable and true in society"

[edit]

Is that really an appropriate end to a biographical article on a deceased person? Hilarious 78.150.205.105 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gerry Ryan. 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) 04:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Gerry Ryan. 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) 18:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gerry_Ryan&oldid=1235013711"