Jump to content

Talk:Garry Shandling

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12.47.15.38 (talk) at 14:01, 14 June 2010 (→Facial Paralysis?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


I think he just got a fat head

Pop culture

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garry_Shandling&oldid=367970598"