Talk:Gerald Ratner/Archive 1

Conversational Tone
"After Signet" and "Personal life" sound quite conversational, as if written by Ratner himself or a friend. [Nitpick mode on] this needs to be rewritten. [/nitpick mode] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.42.161 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with a conversational tone, except to people who want to sound encyclopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.114.0 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. It's supposed to sound like an encyclopaedia. The idea is that, if it sounds like an encyclopaedia, people will take it seriously - as if it was a real encyclopaedia, with fact checkers and an editorial board made out of experienced professionals etc. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * These comments are quite old and the current article does not have sections entitled "After Signet" and "Personal life", so some changes have been made that may have addressed the issues. The current article does not seem particularly unencyclopedic in tone, so I'll remove the flag.  If anyone disagrees and wants to add the flag back, please indicates the phrases that you are concerned with 87.112.59.60 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Gap
The article mentions his infamous speech, but leaves out the detail of what happened next; it implies that he was dismissed from Ratners and that it was bought up by another entity, but doesn't says so explicitly. What happened? How long did it take for him to be removed? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, Done (though "dismissed" is probably the wrong word, if it was his company) Swanny18 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish category removed
I have removed this article from Category:English Jews, as none of the references in the article describe him as Jewish. This category was added back in 2006 in this edit, without a source, and no source for it was ever provided. Even if a source can be found, per WP:BLPCAT, the category shouldn't be added unless someone can demonstrate that being Jewish is in some way relevant to his notability or public life. Robofish (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources show Ratner is Jewish. for example: http://www.thejc.com/business/business-features/interview-gerald-ratner - Lots of articles in wikipedia show a person as being Jewish without Jewish being a relevant notability. Adding category back. Vexorg (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understand what all the hype and b***hurt are all about...
It seems to me that Ratner's "sin" was merely not being at a private enough event, or not to add a virtual smiley to the end of his speech :O Even so; most intelligent people can read in between the lines of what's obv a series of jokes. But the most flabbergasting thing is that capitalism is indeed based on exploiting other people for a profit; whether knowingly, or not. And furthermore; the whole jewelry industry (like the fashion one) is a swallow, superfluous, unnecessary, overpriced scam like scheme; fixed on selling artificial made up feelings and class status items to the classless, anyhow. So the truly novel thing here IMHO is that he was the first to be ridiculously punished for his foolishness; as it's also obv that no-one wants to be exposed to that fact in such hard and explicit terms. So people knew they were buying cheap, tacky and LQ jewelry (and still do under a different rebranding); yet they go all self righteous all of a sudden over stating the obv..? WTF?! I think that actually says more about Ratnet's precious, discernible and tasteful "customers" than Ratnet's, or anything else for that matter.- Short of calling like mishaps a Ratnet maneuver; I don't see the relevance of Ratnet, or the article. Except for the fact that the whole thing was taken purposely out of proportions by dubious outlets like the Sun & Daily Mirror; which is conveniently missed info too... Ie, the real reason of said contempt is never mentioned anywhere. I guess that will inconveniently make Ratnet more of a victim than a willing protagonist to most; but it's what actually happened. Eg; http://www.thejc.com/business/business-features/interview-gerald-ratner  I even found more inexplicable troubling that said link was already known in the prev Content's of Jewish category removed; by users like Robofish and Vexorg. Yet no-one bothered to state the already pointed obv... 190.56.118.88 (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)