Talk:Gerry Ryan/Archive 1

Untitled
expect some incoming vandalism on this and Pat Kenny http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054980460 --Archeus 11:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy
The original claims made by "The Bagwan" about the "Lambo" incident were either untrue - or (at best) wildly exaggerated. It was not true to claim (as "The Bagwan" did) that there was widespread "public dissatisfaction" over this incident. Genuine public dissatisfaction always manifests itself - and in ways that are more substantial than a few newspaper articles. If there had been any real sense of public grievance, it would have been reflected in the audience figures for Ryan's radio shows -at least, in the immediate aftermath. In fact, the reverse was the case. It was not true to claim (as "The Bagwan" did) that this was a "major news event" in Ireland in 1987. It took place in the same year as a General Election, the Loughgall ambush, the passing of the Single European Act and the Enniskillen bombing. Oh yeah - Johnny Logan also won the Eurovision, the National Lottery was set up and Stephen Roche won the Tour De France. Now, THOSE were all, in their own ways, "major news events". That is why "Mrand" is absolutely right to describe the Ryan incident as nothing more than a "publicity stunt". In characterising it as a "major news event", "The Bagwan" merely reveals his own lack of historical proportion and basic common sense - as well as the depth of his prejudice against Ryan. It was also not true to claim (as "The Bagwan" did) that Ryan was being paid out of "public funds" to take part in the exercise. None of those taking part were paid anything. In any case, Ryan was then working for RTE radio - which generates its own income, and is not subvented by the public licence fee. Finally, it was not true to claim (as "The Bagwan" did) that Ryan never talks about this incident. I have heard him do so on several occasions. All of the distortions listed above are certainly petty enough - but add them together and you come up with a recipe for the sort of spurious moral indignation which "The Bagwan" seems to relish. Finally, I find it ironic that "The Bagwan" seems to be upset by the "venom" contained in my own comments. I wonder if he has read any of the abuse directed at Ryan on Wikipedia sites throughout the course of the past year. He has been accused, amongst other things, of being a racist, semi-literate, an egomaniac, a liar, a cheat, a traitor to Ireland - and, perhaps above all, someone who was losing his listeners hand over fist. (Try selling that last point to Penguin - who have just paid Ryan a record advance for his autobiography.) Now, however, it appears that some of those who like to dish out the vitriol to Ryan come over all sensitive when any criticism is directed towards themselves. In this respect, they certainly differ from Ryan - whose thick skin allows him to laugh all the way to the bank. (Adesterre (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)) (Adesterre (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adesterre (talk • contribs) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The original statements were not false or inaccurate. There were citations that where were further supported by another (removed) contribution. I find the Lambo incident interesting because it did cause a stir at the time and it seems to be supressed at every turn. There is no suggestion that the incident had a negative effect on the careers of those involved. Adesterre's is response odd in it's venom and breadth of defense outside the original incident. To answer adesterre's final question: The statement below is a very good example of nit picking. (193.118.251.61 (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)The Bagwan)

"Nit-picking defensive"? Just about every statement in the original piece about the "Lambo" incident was false, exaggerated or inaccurate. Perhaps, some people think that unsubstantiated rumours and inflated gossip should be the basis of Wikipedia discussions. I don't think so - and, unless things have changed, I understand that it is still the official Wikipedia policy that factual errors and prejudicial statements should be challenged and removed. As it happens, I remember the "Lambo" incident very well - and it is nonsense for anyone to claim that this story dominated the Gay Byrne show for weeks on end. Twenty years ago, Byrne's radio show was by far the most popular one in Ireland - and it did not need any incident like this to "keep it going". The show ran for many more years following this incident - and it was still the number one radio programme in Ireland when it ended. The incident also had no discernable impact upon Ryan's listenership: the sheer size of his audience figures across all the subsequent years is incontestable proof of that. As it happens, the producer of Gay Byrne's radio show was also the producer of this year's popular TV series "Operation Transformation", which Ryan presented - further demonstrating just how little negative impact the "Lambo" incident had on the professional careers of anyone associated with it. Of course, this doesn't seem to matter much to those who are deeply prejudiced against Ryan - and who have consistently shown themselves not to care whether what they write about him on Wikipedia is true or not. It also doesn't seem to matter a great deal to some of the Wikipedia editors, who have failed to monitor his entries with sufficient rigour - or with much sense of fairness, for that matter. The last Wikipedia entry on Ryan, for example, stated as fact that his radio audience is in decline - even though it has risen very significantly in the three JNLR surveys conducted in the past year. The same entry also accused Ryan of being a racist - on the basis that he had "deliberately" mispronounced the name of an Indian contestant on "Celebrity Big Brother". How can anyone know whether or nor his mispronunciation was deliberate? In any case, the mispronunciation occured in the context of the consistent support that Ryan had expressed for the woman in question. Further evidence of just how desperate some people are to find fault with Ryan can be found in the fact that the sad individual - who calls himself "The Bagwan" - is trying to breathe new life into a very minor "controversy" that expired shortly after its birth, several decades ago. Just how "nit-picking" is that?(adesterre)

adesterre, looks like you were not there. It kept the Gay Byrne show going for weeks. 2 weeks at least. Why so nit pickingly defensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.33.155 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Lambo" incident was definitely not considered a major news story at the time it took place. Most people thought it was just a harmless prank. It occured as part of an innocuous survival game - for which there was no winner, no prize, and which (unlike similar games to-day) did not involve the Irish public paying through the nose to register their votes on premium phone lines. Most people laughed at Ryan's claim - with the notable exception of some animal rights' enthusiasts (who rushed to judgement) and, of course, RTE, (who instituted a full-scale internal enquiry). The results of this enquiry were never made public. However, it is generally believed to have concluded that the incident was not simply a question of one person "lying" on air. In fact, it is thought that the enquiry found that a number of senior editorial personnel had been involved in manufacturing the story - not in order to "cheat" the public, but simply to generate an entertaining item for Gay Byrne's radio show. They may well have been naive and misguided - but there was no sinister intent behind their actions. That may explain why no-one (including Gerry Ryan) was ever disciplined for what took place. It is quite untrue to claim that there was widespread "public dissatisfaction" over this incident. There is simply no evidence of any such reaction from the Irish public. If anything, the reverse is the case - and the incident can be seen to have had no adverse effect whatever on the growing popularity of Ryan's radio shows in the years that followed. Contrary to what is implied below, Ryan was not working as a presenter on Gay Byrne's radio show - but was only featured as a contestant. He was also employed by RTE Radio when the incident took place - and, since Radio does not receive a licence fee in Ireland, it is inaccurate to suggest that he was being paid out of "public funds". In any case, none of the contestants received any money to take part in the game - believe it or not, back in those days people didn;t expect to get paid for that sort of thing. Finally, it is untrue to claim that Ryan never talks about this on air. I have heard him refer to it on several occasions - and, each time, he was laughing. To sum up - almost every claim that is made in the comments below represents a subjective opinion, or personal prejudice, which cannot be substantiated by any real empirical evidence. (user: adesterre)

The "Lambo" Incident. In 1987 A 'Gay Byrne Radio Show' experiment sent Gerry Ryan and a team of volunteers into the wild to fend for themselves. On the show Gerry claimed to have killed and cooked and eaten a lamb. This caused some consternation to the show's listeners not least because the lamb's owner should have been compensated. Gerry later admitted to lying about having killed the lamb and also to have cheated on the basic premise of the experiment of fending for themselves. A farmer had given the team the lamb, jointed and ready to eat. Following the incident Gerry was known as "Lambo", a pun on the Rambo movies reflecting public dissatisfaction at the national broadcaster presenting lies as fact and paying the presenters from public funds to do so.

Note this was reverted out of the main article "Shock jocks do this kind of stuff all the time. I'm not convinced it even warrants a mention, much less a whole paragraph". At the time in Ireland this was a major news event. There is still no such thing as a shock jock in Ireland in style of Howard Stern, and compared to the UK the Irish are very mild. This was and still would be extraordinary behaviour for a DJ working for the State Broadcaster. Mrand has been unkind in his reverting comment and has not taken into account the local context of the post. I think it warrants a mention as Gerry Ryan will never bring it up himself. 193.118.251.61 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)The Bagwan
 * My apologies if you felt my comment was directed at you - there is not much room in the editing comments, so they have to be very concise. In fact, you'll notice that I said that I think your paragraph was added in "good faith" - by which I meant that it was in no way considered vandalism, but rather, was sincerely added.  Furthermore, I'd actually like to applaud you: the paragraph was written in a fairly objective manner, which is quite rare compared to other edits to this article.  Here are all the reasons I reverted the edit:
 * I couldn't quickly find any references that would lead me to believe that it was a "major news event" at the time in all of Ireland
 * While the reference you provided hints of a few items in your paragraph, your writing went well beyond the facts of the reference
 * The single semi-objective reference I could find at the time I did the reversion (independent.ie) mentioned nothing about "consternation to the show's listeners"
 * I truly did not believe that this type of publicity stunt is noteworthy
 * Since you've questioned the change, I've done a few more searches and found a reference from dy consideredx iottcm.ie which actually says that "The story caused consternation among animal-lovers." I accept your assertion that Irish DJ's are very mild, and therefore must agree with you that this is a news worthy matter and have added a brief mention back to the article.  If you feel the part about the farmer is important as well, feel free to add that back if you can find a reference for it.  Regards! &mdash; Mrand  T-C 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Very fair, thank you. 193.118.251.61 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)The Bagwan

Shilpa Shetty
Why are some people so obsessed with Ryan's mispronunciation of Shilpa Shetty's name? Ryan is semi-literate and is always getting pronunciations wrong, and being an egotistical loudmouth, does not accept corrections from any quarter, not even from the horse's mouth [oh no, that implies Shilpa is a horse, now I'll be called racist nazi scum!]. I was listening to his programmes regularly around that time, and I never once heard him express any hostility to Shilpa, and would not have expected him to; if anything it was Jade and company that attracted his abuse. Why not just replace the Shilpa material with general information about Ryan's persistent malaprops, briefly mentioning that example? Rwxrwxrwx 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You have reverted the change that states that it is his arrogance that prohibits him from accepting corrections to his pronounciation gaffes. It is either arrogance, ignorance, or stupidity which prohibits Ryan from accepting corrections. Are you OK with this being added?
 * Fire ahead, but Wikipedia policy regards that as POV, so it will probably get reverted again, along with a whole load of other stuff. Rwxrwxrwx 17:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that "controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". It does not seem to apply its own guiding principle in relation to this article on Gerry Ryan. The article continues to present a number of utterly subjective opinions and false assertions about Gerry Ryan - almost all of which are unsourced. It has claimed, for example, that Ryan operates a time-delay mechanism on his show so that no viewer is allowed to express criticism of him on air.

First of all, and as a matter of corporate policy, RTE does not operate such a mechanism on any of its live radio shows. Second, the primary purpose of such time-delays - where they operate elsewhere - is to protect broadcasters from transmitting libelous or obscene comments from the general public.

In other words, this claim cannot be substantiated - not only because it is not true, but because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of time-delay in radio and TV broadcasting.

Following a recent high-profile libel case, RTE issued a public statement - promising that there would be no change in its existing policy in relation to its live radio programmes. The failure to take any account of this statement reveals wilful or woeful ignorance.

But, even if RTE did operate a time-delay mechanism, the claim, that Ryan uses it to protect himself from public criticism, would still be unsustainable because it is - quite literally - a piece of fantasy. Its author has attributed motives to Gerry Ryan which are simply impossible for him (or anyone else) to know. Has Gerry Ryan ever stated that he operates time-delay in order to shield himself from criticism? Of course not - and, in the absence of such an admission, the claim that the author of this article makes, is entirely speculative. That is the real reason why there is no source material cited to support his claim: it is all a product of his own imagination.

I believe that all of this reflects very badly not only on the author of this piece, but also on the Wikipedia editors - who have, I would suggest, fundamentally breached the journalistic and ethical standards that they purport to follow. Ultimately, this lack of editorial scrutiny can can only damage Wikipedia.

In other words, the claim about time-delay was not, and could not be, sourced - because it is untrue. However, the lack of any supporting evidence did not prevent your editor(s) from allowing it to be published under the name of Wikipedia. I regard that as pretty shabby journalism - for which everyone at Wikipedia should be properly ashamed. Perhaps, all of this is not so surprising - given that one of the Wikipedia editors casually refers to Ryan (a man with several University degrees) as "semi-literate". By any standards, that is a controversial judgement - is it supported by any empirical source? He also refers to Ryan as an "egotistical loudmouth". This is not the language of editorial objectivity, but of vulgar abuse. How can Wikipedia stand over the work of an editor who is capable of such crude and juvenile insults? Why has he not been disciplined? In fact, such abuse seems quite in keeping with the overall approach of this article - which, for the most part, reads like a highly subjective (and very badly written) piece of student journalism. It wears its prejudice on its sleeve - at times, laughably so. The reference to Gerry Ryan "admitting" to reading "British comics" as a child and watching "British television", for example, would be mildly sinister - if it were not so absurd.

How many other Irish children have ever read such comics? Perhaps, I should ask - how many have not? On a typical evening, around half of the available audience watching TV in Ireland is watching a British TV channel. Since when did this become some sort of public offence that had to be "admitted"?

The author of this article also tries, in an inept and despicable way, to associate Ryan with the racism that was displayed on the last series of "Celebrity Big Brother". This insinuation is based on a single claim that Ryan once mispronounced Ms. Shetty's name. I also listened regularly to Ryan's radio show at that time. It was glaringly obvious that Ryan despised Ms. Shetty's chief abuser within the Big Brother House - Jade Goody - and his attitude towards Ms. Shetty was consistently and explicitly sympathetic. To accuse Ryan now of some sort of covert racism - and to suggest that RTE, as an organisation, somehow colluded in this - is, once again, a complete fantasy, and cannot be supported by any objective evidence.

Tha article also states as fact that Gerry Ryan "endorses" the Daily Star. In fact, certain RTE presenters - such as Gerry Ryan - are not permitted, by the terms of their contract to endorse any commercial products. Once again, the sourcing of this claim is conspicuous by its absence. Once again, that absence seems in fundamental conflict with the guiding principles of Wikipedia. I would recommend that all of the people, who wish to indulge their loathing and resentment of Gerry Ryan, go to one of the many chat rooms that are available on the Net. They can easily be found, and they will offer endless opportunities to those who want to express their strong feelings about the man. Surely, Wikipedia - with all its admirable goals and ambitions - is not the most appropriate place to publish such an awful mish-mash of badly written gossip, libel, innuendo and vitriol. Adesterre.

Listenership
It seems that the JNLR listenership figures represent the number of people who tuned into a particular programme on an average day. See. It makes no difference whether they tuned in for 3 seconds (and then turned off in disgust at yet another racist Ryan rant) or the whole 3 hours; they are all included in the figures. Therefore to get a better idea of the total number of listeners at any point in time, the listenership figure should be divided by the length of the show. If Gerry Ryan has 301,000 over 3 hours and Pat Kenny has 260,000 over 2 hours, then Gerry has ~100,000 people tuning in over one hour compared with 130,000 for Pat. That puts Ryan even further down the popularity rankings. It is certainly not valid to multiply the length of the show by the listenership figure; that would give the exact opposite result and be totally misleading. The most charitable thing we can do is to simply quote the JNLR figure. Rwxrwxrwx 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

SHABBY REPORTING AND BIASED EDITORS.

It is absolutely clear that successive WIKIPEDIA articles about Gerry Ryan have breached the founding principles of WIKIPEDIA. They regularly feature highly subjective and unsourced comments - which are usually of an anecdotal and personal nature. Some of these are grossly offensive.

It is also clear that the editor who signs himself Rwxrwxrwx thoroughly approves of the malicious nature of such comments. Indeed, he has actively encouraged people to submit examples of what he terms Ryan's "malaprops". In his latest contribution, he even goes so far as to brand Ryan as a "racist". What is his evidence for such a serious, disgusting and libelous slur? He provides none. By any reasonable standards, Rwxrwxrwx has revealed himself to be highly prejudiced in his attitude towards Gerry Ryan. But he has been allowed to express his bigoted views for months on end without any of the most basic questioning by any other editors of what he is saying. How can Wikipedia be so careless of its own reputation?

This lack of balanced and objective editing disgraces WIKIPEDIA - and contrasts sharply and unfavourably with practices followed consistently by WIKIPEDIA editors in other countries.

In the latest WIKIPEDIA entry for Ryan, for example, it states that his radio show features discussion of "the most irrelevant topics". Just who is making the judgement here? What are the criteria by which topics are held to be "irrelevant". Irrelevant to what and to whom? Presumably, not to the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who tune into Ryan's radio show every day.

This article also predicts that Ryan's radio show will be "overtaken" in future listening figures by George Hook's show on Newstalk. That is pure speculation - given that the figures to supprt such a claim are not yet available. As it happens, whoever wrote this entry has only to wait a few weeks for the latest listening figures to be published - but he is clearly much too impatient to do so. He wants to exult in what he hopes will be bad news for Ryan. Much better to make the most of the forecast now - after all, it may not be vindicated by the actual figures when they are published.

The article also claims that the listening figures for Ryan's radio show have been in relentless decline for the past 12 years. That claim is not only untrue - it is palpably absurd. If Ryan's listenership had really been in such a consistent and long-term decline, there would be very few people in Ireland still left listening to him. In these circumstances, RTE could not possibly continue to charge premium rates for advertising slots around Ryan's show. RTE would also be most unlikely to have just negotiated a new multi-million euro, five year contract with Ryan if they did not feel that he still commands a very large audience, and will continue to do so in the future.

The latest article about Ryan also claims, as if it were fact, that his work on TV is damaged by his "facial expressions". Not only does this represent an entirely subjective point of view, it is quite ludicrous and obviously unsustainable. It occurs in the context of an article whose author seems indignant that many of Ryan's listeners may not have been to University. This nauseating expression of petty snobbery is made even more pathetic by the mediocre quality of the writing in this article. Its author may have gone to University - but I would guess that he didn't study much English when he was there.

The author of the article also seeks to denounce Ryan for his "continuous" use of Americanisms. I presume he means "continual". There is, surely, something deeply ironic about this author using English words - whose precise meaning he does not fully understand - in order to censure what he considers to be the improper use of English by others. This is not just a question of commonplace ignorance from some self-regarding pedant who sees himself as an arbiter of taste - it is also one of rank hypocrisy. The various entries about Gerry Ryan have themselves used English language words and expressions that are of American origin. Why do the words "stones" and "glass houses" spring to mind?

There is, of course, a further irony that the chauvinistic complaint, about Ryan's admiration for American culture, should be published on the Internet, whose working language was largely invented by Americans - and as a part of WIKIPEDIA, a noble and ambitious project which was founded, and is still largely funded, from within the USA.

Having read some American WIKIPEDIA entries on popular entertainers, I have been struck by their sense of balance, their scrupulous respect for facts, their insights and their objectivity. Take, for example, the entry for Rosie O'Donnell: she is a controversial figure for many Americans - and tends to produce very different responses from American liberals and conservatives. Yet it is possible to read her WIKIPEDIA biography, and not be able to determine whether the author of the piece is sympathetic or hostile to O'Donnell's views. The entry is a model of well-informed, well-written and non-judgmental journalism.

By comparison, the various entries for Gerry Ryan have been characterised by their fundamental carelessness; by their slovenly writing; by a great deal of inaccurate information; and by their naked prejudice. They read like diatribes composed late one night in a students' union bar: full of bombast - but written in extremely poor English grammar, with slipshod research, and an imperfect understanding of some critical words.

In this context, I note that the author chooses to refer to the Open University as the "British Open University Organisation". Apart from, once again, displaying a remarkable talent for clumsy and inept expression, this appears to imply that there is something vaguely sinister about the University in question. Would he also refer to UCD, in the same snide way, as the "Irish University College Dublin Organisation"? Somehow, I doubt it.

In fact, the OU is properly regarded as an international institution of high integrity, and as "one of the world's mega universities." Its courses are studied "in Europe, in North and South America, in Africa and in Australasia/Asia". (Those quotes, incidentally, come from WIKIPEDIA's own article on the subject.) Given the author's self-proclaimed enthusiasm for third level education, I should have thought he would be one of the OU's biggest fans. This biography also states as a fact that Ryan is "disinterested" in Irish culture. (I presume the author means "uninterested" - once again, he has revealed his cheerful, but abyssmal, ignorance of the language he is claiming to defend). Viewed from a narrow, blinkered and xenophobic perspective, I can understand why some self-styled Cultural Commissar might see Ryan in a critical light. However, for those who take a somewhat broader view, I would suggest that Ryan shows a very great interest in Irish culture - in that he is passionately involved in the debates, concerns and issues that pre-occupy his Irish listeners.

By the way, the issues that Ryan discusses on his show are often very similar to those covered by other Irish radio hosts - such as Ray Darcy. Are all of them also "irrelevant"?

Finally, I would recommend that Rwxrwxrwx takes another look at recent listening figures. I must presume he is being deliberately obtuse when he suggests that a significant proportion of Ryan's radio audience listens for no more than three seconds a day - or, perhaps, this represents his feeble attempt at humour. (A previous awkward attempt - about being perceived as a racist - strongly indicates that humour is not Rwxrwxrwx's strong point.) At any rate, he does not seem to understand the basis of the methodology by which JNLR calculates size and share - and appears to believe that so-called "reach" is the only valid measurement of an audience.

He should also consider the size of audience that a radio show inherits when it comes on air every day; what happens to that audience in the course of the show; and what happens to the audience once the show is over. He should factor in the overall size of the available listening audience, and how it is distributed. If he does all that, he will see that Ryan's radio show consistently builds its audience throughout its duration.

I suspect that Rwxrwxrwx has confused the meaning of "cumulative" (which I used to describe Ryan's listenership) with "aggregated" (which I did not). That is an understandable mistake - though, perhaps, less excusable in someone who likes to denounce others as "semi-literate". Once again, the fundamental ignorance of Rwxrwxrwx does not inhibit the relish with which he seeks to chastise Ryan and his audience.

Rwxrwxrwx also feels free to pontificate about the size of Ryan's audience - despite the fact that he is clearly confused by the conceptual basis of JNLR surveys. Being confused, however, does not diminish his own self-regard: modestly, Rwxrwxrwx praises himself for being "charitable" towards Ryan in his assessment of the listening figures! How smug and satisfied he seems to be with his own lack of understanding - he even refers to himself as "we"! Does he really believe that RTE would still be charging premium advertising rates around Ryan's show if it were only getting 100,000 listeners an hour? The truth is that Rwxrwxrwx's prejudice against Ryan has proven itself to be stronger than whatever common sense he may possess.

This Wikipedia editor prefers to cling to his fantasies about the size of Ryan's audience, while, at the same time, avoiding the much more significant and unpleasant reality: a series of articles on Gerry Ryan posted on WIKIPEDIA have been heavily biased, largely unsourced, unrestrained and wildly disproportionate in the personal animosity which they have directed towards Ryan. Is this the sort of editor that Wikipedia wants to claim as one of its own? He is clearly an ill-informed and bigoted vulgarian, who seems to have no concept of his own crassness.

These articles have been in direct violation of WIKIPEDIA's own founding principles - but that does not seem to bother Rwxrwxrwx in the slightest.

I might have some respect for him, as an editor, if he had displayed any regret for the many errors in these articles that I have already pointed out. Such errors were originally presented by him as matters of indisputable fact - almost as dogma. Rwxrwxrwx has even claimed, pompously, that these bogus "facts" contributed to the "warts and all" authenticity of Ryan's biographical entry. In fact, this claim is just another instance of Rwxrwxrwx's preening and self-serving arrogance. The "facts" in question were nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions - pitched at the level of canteen gossip - but, once again, Rwxrwxrws seems to revel in his ignorance.

If Rwxrwxrwx genuinely believed any of the slurs about Ryan to be true, I would suggest that is simply because he wanted them to be so. He has claimed solemnly that "bona fide Wikipedia editors are neither supporters nor denigrators of Gerry Ryan". This laudable commitment to editorial objectivity comes from the very same person who has described Ryan in print as "semi-literate", an "egotistical loudmouth" and a "racist". If that is not denigration, I wonder what he considers it to be.

It is clear from such comments that Rwxrwxrwx's first priority has been to attack the character of someone whose principal crime, it would appear, is to present a  popular and entertaining radio show. Perhaps, he is simply jealous - in fact, that seems the most obvious explanation. At any rate, this Editor of Wikipedia has shown himself to be narrow-minded, inappropriately judgemental, and shockingly uninformed about the subject which he presumes to advise others. He has been allowed by Wikipedia to indulge his prejudices for many months without any adverse comments or censure. In his unconstrained abuse - much of it directed towards Gerry Ryan - Rwxrwxrwx has served, in his own small-minded and spiteful way, to discredit and demean the greater WIKIPEDIA project. If Wikipedia were genuinely committed to maintaining proper editorial standards, he would be barred from any role in its future. But will anyone consider seriously the points I have made? Frankly, I doubt it. (User: Adesterre.)

I hope that all those who foresaw doom and gloom for Gerry Ryan when the latest JNLR figures were released have had the smug smiles of anticipation wiped off their faces. Surprise, surprise - his audience went up by a whopping 24,000! That's a rise of almost 8% - what's more, it's by far the biggest increase of listenership of any programme on RTE Radio 1 or 2. So it would seem that RTE were pretty shrewd in offering Ryan a new contract after all. Who would have thought it? Certainly not the sad case who predicted that George Hook was going to eclipse Ryan this time out. So far as I can remember, Ryan outrated Hook by a margin that was pretty close to 4 to 1. Sorry to spoil your celebrations, pal, but let's face it - they were a wee bit premature! (Adesterre 16:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Adesterre, talk pages are not a forum for this type of discussion, or accurately, advocacy.&mdash; Mrand T-C 03:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a fair comment. But may I ask why similarly critical comments have not been made by you in response to Rwxrwxrwx - who described Ryan on this very same talk page as a "semi-literate", as an "egotistical loudmouth" and as a "racist"? Why were similar comments not made by you when Rwxrwxrwx invited Wikipedia readers to send in their examples of the alleged "malaprops" that Ryan has uttered on air? Why have so many other scurrilous, unfounded and unsourced allegations about Ryan appeared on this talk page, and in Wikipedia articles about him, for so many months without any apparent attempt on your part to criticise those responsible? On the basis of what has appeared here and elsewhere on Wikipedia, I think there is no chance whatever of this talk page turning into what you term a forum for advocates of Ryan. Why then do you choose to lecture me about that danger - and yet seem to ignore those who have used this page for so long as a forum for their hate and loathing of the man? (Adesterre 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC))
 * Howdy Adesterre. While I agree that Rwxrwxrwx's comments betray a strong negative bias, the truth of the matter is that everyone is entitled to their opinion (what really matters it that bias does not impact an article).  Despite that, his overall comments were directed at changing the article.  I made the comment to you because your addition seemed to be pure gloating about something that isn't worth gloating over: you made it sounds like the article was wrong previously, when the previous data that I could find was clear: listener-ship was dropping.  August data changes that.  Why does changing data require any forum-like gloating behavior?  Lastly, you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I've been involved with the Gerry Ryan article for a long time, when in fact, I only started started editing it after you did it.  In that time, I have attempted to address the very things that you discuss.  I did not know who Gerry Ryan was until I reverted text massive deletion in late July 2007.  In short, I am simply encouraging you to do what was right (regardless of what others do - don't lower yourself to anyone else's level) and am trying to let you know the guidelines of the community in case you didn't already know.  Have fun!  &mdash; Mrand  T-C 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mrand. As I have said before, you appear to be a fair and open-minded individual. And you are right - I was gloating. On balance, I think that I would prefer to gloat over someone's successes, than gloat over their setbacks and apparent failures, and, in the past year, there has been a great deal of such gloating on Wikipedia in relation to Gerry Ryan. There have also been many entries to his Wikipedia biography that have claimed to be based on objective facts, but which have turned out to be unsupported by any evidence whatever. Instead, many of them appear to have been driven solely by intense personal prejudice. In the above, I was responding specifically to a recent entry in Ryan's Wikipedia biography which had claimed that the August JNLR figures would prove that George Hook's radio show had now got more listeners than Ryan's. That claim could not be supported by any sources - since it referred to figures that were unknown, and had not yet been published. As it turned out, the actual figures, when they were published, showed that the claim made on Ryan's Wikipedia biography was totally untrue and without foundation. I recognise that you have not subscribed to the negative agenda behind the entry to which I am referring - and many other similar ones - and that you have tried genuinely to address the various issues that have been raised by me over the past few months. As far as I am concerned, you deserve full credit for that. (Adesterre 18:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 06:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, I have re-inserted Mrand's Lambo text from 30 November 2007, it seems to have a better style than my first attempt and included some further citations. The citatations back up the text. Mrand thought my first attempt was "fairly objective". I have had a quick look at the rest of the discussion, I did not realise how passionate adesterre was about this article, hopefully the text is now more acceptable. 193.118.251.61 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)The Bagwan

The first citation doesn't back up the text since you read it wrong .He was never a researcher on the GB show .Since this is a BLP concerm I have removed it Garda40 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

One other point, RTE have certainly partly funded Radio 1 from the license fee as per the original posting. http://www.rte.ie/about/ar2005/english/note1.html 193.118.251.61 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)The Bagwan.

Which has nothing to do with Gerry Ryan .Garda40 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated
I've brought this article up to date but of course any problems with that can be identified and removed. -- Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Gerry Ryan Late Late Show.jpg
The image File:Gerry Ryan Late Late Show.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)