Talk:Jack Ryan (politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Ok I am not definitely in support of this guy, he seems like a major douche bag in my opinion. But as liberal democrat and an honest person, I must say that this article on this guy seems very left winged. The tone seems very one sided. But in the end thought this guy sucks so I dont really ALL that much.

Any specific criticisms? I'd appreciate if you'd let me know how to improve the article (or you can edit yourself, if you'd like). Thanks, Meelar (talk) 03:43, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
It seems pretty factual to me; there's a part where it discusses what his reactions to the allegations were, then it goes on to discuss what the Republican Party did in response. Quentin mcalmott 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know who the California judge is. Obama might still be a State Senator if not for his or her intervention. Another one of the great 'what if's' of history? Plasterblast 0:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Off Topic?[edit]

This article is stupid. 90% of the content is about one thing: unsealing of divorce records during the senate race and the related sex scandal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.108.43.241 (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The details about the results of the Illinois race seem to go off topic after the point where Ryan dropped out (I feel that they do not seem to pertain to him at all). They also seem to change th subject of the article from him to the race, which is definitely not the focus of this wikipedia article. The details would have more relevance in an article about Obama or Alan Keyes. - Dragnilar 10:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

He would not have won whether this comes out or not. Illinois is a democratic state, Joh Kerry destroyed Bush that year, not all of those people would have split their ticket. Plus the Republican primary which he won did not even have half the votes Obama received in the Democratic primary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.2.67 (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dumbest Sex Scandal in American Political History[edit]

The first sex scandal in American Political History where no one had sex.

He is accused of propositioning his wife (albeit in a kinky manner).

She refused.

He said OK.

This was so idiotic. He should have come clean sooner and no one would have cared (people in divorces make outragous statements. 198.232.63.43 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Goes to demonic character. Also in later TV interviews Jerri Ryan specifically said he forced her to watch groups more than once on more than one trial visit. Watching is considered a sex act at least for some people in some states. She also implied that he did essentially overpower her and force sexual contact on one occasion.

Besides I think you may just be saying it is stupid to have to pay (in this case socially) for what you personally would not find fully sexual satisfying. You are in a minority if you think a whore's bargain need be fulfilled for a sex scandal.

But I agree wives have suffered worse. Just not that anyone should pass up an opportunity to crucify a politician. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's NOT the CRIME, it's the COVER-UP! 75.2.251.46 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
WTF are you people talking about. The article says "sex scandal" once and no further mention of sex. If it happened, list the details, if not, take it down. So stupid. You guys above talking about "whore's bargains" and what not look like morons. 67.41.202.126 (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Platform[edit]

I have a problem with part of the Platform section. "stresses accountability in education and freedom." Freedom? As opposed to other politicians, who are obviously anti-freedom. Jack Ryan may describe is platform as 'pro-freedom' but so would John Kerry, Pat Buchanan and, yes, his former opponent Barack Obama. Saying a candidate id 'pro-freedom' doesn't say anything. It's also NPOV as it suggests that his opponents are anti-freedom, which is neither fair, nor comfirmable. 140.160.66.49 00:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution needed for somewhat silly statement[edit]

Others pointed out that the allegations were never proven, and in fact, Ryan was awarded additional custody rights at the end of the hearing, suggesting the allegations were not deemed reliable by the judge

I added the attribution need tag and really be removing this line unless someone adds something as the line sounds a but dumb to me. I see no reason to presume the judge didn't believe her simply that he or she probably didn't see it as relevant. There is no suggestion by her he tried to coerce her or anything like that so it's arguable if it should or would in any way affect his fitness to be a parent (anymore then it should or would affect her fitness to be a parent if she was doing a similar thing) Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Jerri Ryan has said in TV interviews that he stopped just short of raping her. That is supposedly in the records. But the news has only paraphrased what they consider appropriate...with some legal issues still remaining as well as TV ratings for all audiences.
Without published quotes, that's irrelevant. Without quoted explanation from the parties, she went to the clubs of her own free will and he stopped before raping her. If there was threat or the time preceding the "stopping short of rape" merely felt threatening, then that is a different issue: it can be threatening, harassment, unwanted sexual contact or a variety of other things dependent on details but "stopping short of rape" still means no rape. Whether you are disgusted with that sort of behaviour or not, there are many different lines (legal and moral) to cross - he may have crossed some, he didn't cross others and those details matter... but they're not worth discussing without details and reliable references.
Besides, Nil Einne's argument regarding references and interpretation of data still stands. In addition, unless you have a reliable source to the contrary, Nil Einne's statement that "there is no suggestion by her that he tried to coerce her..." may have been true at least in the custody hearings, which is the portion being discussed. Personally, I would find it weird that she said that, like that, and would still refer to him as "a good man and a good father." The latter, maybe, but is it likely that someone would refer to the man who regularly coerced her as a "good man?" I would love to see references.--Blondtraillite (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as custody goes...barring criminal conviction civil suit judges tend to go with big wealth differences as being the most important deciding factor in who gets what custody rights. Theoretically the wealthier parent provides kids better standard of living, better health care, and better educational opportunities. At the time of the original divorce, Jerri Ryan was an intermittently employed actress without much of a reputation and a former Miss America/model versus her ex-husband's millions.

69.23.124.142 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an attribution is needed for a variety of reasons: that is not the only possible interpretation of the judge awarding additional custody rights. You cannot read minds, so unless the judge has revealed the logic process OR there is an legal profession analyst who you can quote to say that the analyst believes that is the interpretation, it shouldn't be used. For example, another alternative explanation is the judge believing that sexual proclivities of any type (with the except of pedophilia and and anything involving the child's presence) do not in and of themselves reflect a parenting style, good or bad (in other words, I agree with Nil Einne in this respect). Or maybe the judge was concerned at the time about a parent who would claim such events were coerced or non-consensual later but did not have the strength to stand up for herself sooner, putting into question her ability to stand up for her son (which I don't believe to be true in general of parents, but it's possible he thought that). Or maybe it wasn't Jeri Ryan's employment/wealth but her unpredictable schedule at the time. Or something else entirely! There are an infinite number of possibilities and any references to some thought process or "judgement" (value attribution) to the decision should be cited and reliable.--Blondtraillite (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Born circa 1960???[edit]

OK this guy was born in a First World country in a time when accurate birth records were being kept. So what is his actual birth date? User:Juvarra 15:30, 16 March 2008 (GMT)

You might be able to look it up in records but generally I see editors take that down for being original research (see Melanie Chishokm's talk page, for example). Unless it is in a newspaper or similar reliable source, I don't see that information staying.

Non Sequitur[edit]

"The following week, on April 2, 2004, Barack Obama formally established his position about the Ryans' soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats to not inject them into the campaign."

Really, what does this mean? The dirty work was done by his allies so he could hold up clean hands? Exactly the same thing happened with fellow Democrat Blair Hull. The politics of personal destruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.35.223 (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? 75.2.251.46 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

any relation to George Ryan?[edit]

Is Jack Ryan any relation to George Ryan, the former Illinois governor? 216.164.40.152 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No. 75.2.251.46 (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Worth hundreds of millions from Goldman float??? - not possible[edit]

This article claims that Ryan was worth hundreds of millions from the Goldman float. My understanding is that only the few partners that were on the Executive Committee got stock worth that much. The average partner got about $60 million. This quote of "hundreds of millions" is bogus. I am going to change it unless anybody has any objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.15.227 (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Potential vandalism / defamation, not a true edit.[edit]

I hope someone will look at my recent edit (now reverted) and tell me what elements of it provoked the above description. —Tamfang (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Ryan (politician). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)