|Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 3, 2012 and February 3, 2014.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Archived the whole Talk page, since all recent threads were dominated by behaviour of a long-term abusive editor. From here on in I will simply revert this editor on sight without further comment on the Talk page. --GenericBob (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
What about "Savation" Army? It is named "Salvation Army" and I put a link to it. No need for you to change my savings or undo my changes, Afterwriting. (User 220.127.116.11) 16:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk)
- Your first edit changed the article text from "the Savation Army" to "the the Salvation Army", so you fixed one error but introduced another. Possibly Afterwriting noticed the new error but not the removal of the old one; it might've been a good idea to put something like "fixing spelling error" in the edit summary instead of leaving it blank, to make the purpose of the edit clearer. Thanks for fixing the error, anyway :-) --GenericBob (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Appearance and personality
In both form and content this section seems a little odd. It sounds like it might be a little slangy, and if that's taken from quotes it could be explained what the slang means. And the punctuation might be off. PurpleChez (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I googled and it looks to be copyvio from the Australian Dictionary of Biography, so that passage should probably be removed - thanks for that. --GenericBob (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Too many sections
Sorry but whatever the controversies surrounding this article, at least it could be written in a neat and concise manner. For instance my many gripe is their are too many sections. Where do they end?? 19 years laters, 25 years later, last week, yesterday? They are pointless and do little for the structure of the page. Things should be kept neat and simple, more is less. Pre crime, crime, trial, death, legacy. There is no need for sections that are all part of the same period/time frame. If a section is needed then make it a sub-par. All in all, this article is a classic and unfortunate example of when there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians!22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed entirely. If you've got the time to rework it, I for one would welcome structural improvements.
- FWIW, the problem is not so much "too many chiefs" as "one too many obsessives" - a single editor has been attacking this page fairly persistently for the last four or five years, and she tends to create a new section every time she finds another interview with somebody whose uncle's cousin's godfather's mate at the pub believes Ryan was innocent. --GenericBob (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Source for cites
FWIW, if anybody feels like spending the time to find page numbers, Mike Richards' book "The Hanged Man" can provide cites for most if not all of the bits that have been marked as needing them - it's a pretty thorough account of Ryan's life and death. It might also be useful in balancing out the excessively-long "case for innocence" section with an explanation of why Ryan was convicted, and a couple of previous violent offenses that have been attributed to him.
There is enough independent sources to say that on the eve of Ryan's execution, a gang of criminals were planning to blast their way into Pentridge in an eleventh hour rescue bid. Ryan's one time criminal apprentice Edward "Jockey" Smith was to be part of this gang. The mission was first mention in "The Herald" the day after the execution, Grindlay wrote of it in his memoir, and Father Brosnan spoke openly about it in the film The Hanged man. I've never included it on Ryan's page because I believe Escapeeyes would have removed it. It was Ryan who called the rescue attempt off, sending Brosnan out with a message , it was also when Ryan confessed to Grindlay his guilt. Purrum (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, would definitely be worth adding (Richards also covers it, drawing on the same sources). If anything, it shows a better side of Ryan; he seems to have had a serious shot at escape, but this time around he wasn't prepared to risk other people's lives. --GenericBob (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed some uncited material that appears to imply that Lange committed suicide out of qualms about Ryan's execution. This could certainly be re-added if a suitable cite can be found to support it, but not otherwise. (Under the version of events accepted by the jury, Lange's rifle was used to kill his colleague, which would suggest another possible motivation for his suicide - I think Richards' book leans to this interpretation, but I don't have it handy.)
Likewise, Lange's suicide should not be included under "Evidence for innocence" without solid cites for that interpretation, so I've moved it to its own section. --GenericBob (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Using pounds instead of dollars
Why is everything quoted in pounds, instead of dollars when the pound was replaced by the dollar on 14th Febuary 1966, almost 11 months before Ryan's crime? Can these be replaced with the actual denomination he stole (dollars, not pounds). 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)