Jump to content

Talk:Pat Kenny

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

Removal of Personal attack section

[edit]

Garda40, Could you please explain this revert? I don't understand where the POV issues are? All incidents were well referenced statements of fact. If you believed there were POV issues then would it not have been better to rework the section rather than just deleting it? GainLine ♠ ♥ 18:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non Removal of Personal attack section

[edit]

The fact that you even called the section above as "Removal of Personal attack section" and said I deleted it as well despite the fact I restored it to it's previous name which is the name I've always encountered in any other article with such a section is not helpful to the fact you think it is NPOV .

All the references are still there , apart from the Jack O Connor ones obviously but that is a remark he apologised for and are we now to crucify him for making a remark which he withdrew and how is that NPOV .

Kenny has sustained a number of on-air personal attacks during his career.

That is true for just about any presenter especially in current affairs and it nothing unique in Pat Kenny's case so to highlight as if it is is not NPOV .Garda40 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section was removed as a revert. This involved a substantial deletion of text. The section could have been renamed if you had a problem with its title. It was noted in that O'Connor apologised very quickly. Theses attacks have been very notable having attracted a great deal of coverage, particularly stokes and O'Briens. I see you have now reverted another editor who replaced this section. If you have a problem with the section then why not address the issues rather than reverting? GainLine ♠ ♥ 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in this section that violates policy on neutrality, which was the reason given for reversion. It passes the basic test that by reading it I can't work out whether the writer is the best friend of Pat Kenny or his worst enemy, because it presents sourced facts without any commentary about whether these attacks are justified or not. Reporting that personal attacks have been made is completely different from making personal attacks ourselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the above, I have restored the above section, with a name change to On-Air attacks. If anyone believes there is a problem with the section then please address it here on the talk page and through editing rather than reversion. I don't want to be drawn into an edit war. thanksGainLine ♠ ♥ 20:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict ) ::substantial deletion of text I noticed you using this phrase even though I pointed out that I reverted to a previous version , If you want to go that route you "deleted" a previous version to get to the version you used so please stop using it .I noticed the section is now renamed which addresses one of my concerns Garda40 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether reverted to a previous version or not, the end result was the same, a removal/deletion of that section. I renamed it as a compromise, I'm not here for a row, what are your other concerns so that we can address them now? GainLine ♠ ♥ 20:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it is noted and moving forward when you continue to use the terms removal/deletion of a section that was already in the article albeit in a different form .
Can you explain how you can "remove/delete" something that was already in the article ( apart from one section ) because I can't .Garda40 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here for confrontation, I thought we could move on with your other concerns. At the most very basic, look at the page size, after the revert it was smaller than before it. After the revert, the separate section on attacks didn't exist nor did the expanded description of the Stokes & O'Brien incidents and Jack O'Connors comments with Kennys response. So trying to move on here, what are your other concerns so that we can address them? GainLine ♠ ♥ 20:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page size does not equate to removal of material especially when most of the material was already in the article ( I've seen page size go down massively when people tidied pages up without removing a single word) .
And if you can't get that I'm failing to see how other concerns can be met .Garda40 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Okay, I've tried to move this forward twice so last and you're moving back to argue on a matter of semantics. Whether or not you deleted or reverted to a previous is neither here nor there as there is consensus to have the text in its current format here. Do you still have a concern with the contents of the section? If yes then what is it so it can be addressed? If no can we draw a line under this and move on? GainLine ♠ ♥ 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you deleted or reverted to a previous is neither here nor there
It is not .One phrase is AGF , the other does not .Garda40 (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cause offense but you saying it was a POV edit certainly didn't AGF.. I've now asked 3 times if there were any issues that you felt needed addressing. As you haven't brought anything up I'm moving on. GainLine ♠ ♥ 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Phil Bridger. If there are problems or disagreements they ought to be with the title or use of bullet points or other issues but not with the inclusion of these incidents. It seems to be easier to mention his own views on his:

(1) Style—"Do you want bland television where everything you hear reinforces your own view, or do you want to be challenged? I favour the latter. I like to challenge people. You might get angry and pick up the phone to Joe Duffy, or you might complain to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission; that's great. It means you're involved in the argument in some way".

(2) Salary—"I am satisfied that the significant reduction in the fees paid to my company takes account of current economic circumstances while also reflecting my experience over 37 years in broadcasting at RTE".

and the views of one other anonymous person on his off-screen personality—"works very hard to make both his radio show and the Late Late as good as possible" and "very good at doling out praise and encouragement, particularly to younger members of staff".

—than what others think of him. Parts of the article currently resemble a cleverly disguised fansite. --candle•wicke 20:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Press interview with Pat Kenny in 1993

[edit]

(subscription required) --candle•wicke 09:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can just look at the cached.  Cargoking  talk  09:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio

[edit]

A lot of his radio work needs to be factored into the article. At the moment, it his many role. —  Cargoking  talk  12:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter Outside Marriage

[edit]

In the year 2000, the News of the World newspaper reported the existence of a daughter Pat Kenny had with a woman outside his marriage. It siad that he had contributed to the child's upkeep and played an active part in her life, but kept her existence secret from the public. Should this not at least be mentioned in the article?

It was picked up by other newspapers, notably the Daily Mirror, but I fdon't have a subscription to add a citation.

84.203.32.24 (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not without a rock solid reliable reference. GainLine ♠ ♥ 11:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about him here which mentions the "extra" daughter http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Doctors+thought+she%27d+had+a+stroke+and+close+friends+feared+the+worst...-a085800475 It says: "It was revealed three years ago that the chat show host has a secret love child from a relationship he had prior to meeting Kathy.Pat was 39 and one of RTE's fastest-rising stars when the little girl was born. His eldest daughter is now 15 and lives with her mother in Blackrock, less than a half-hour drive from Pat's home in Dalkey. Pat helps the girl's mother out financially and makes sure to visit her every week. Although Kathy knows about Pat's love child, she prefers to concentrate on their own family. "Kathy knows about the whole thing," said a friend of the family. "But she buries her head in the sand about it. She just ignores it. And she has not let her daughters meet the other child."

So I put a brief note in under personal life. I hope this is okay with everyone. 89.126.56.62 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of info from lead

[edit]

Revision as of 04:32, 6 August 2013 by User:Snappy is in breach of NPOV who describes facts correctly cited as "rubbish"

Snappy's claimed 'rubbish' is

RTÉ stars have admitted the defection of Pat Kenny to rivals Newstalk is a "major loss" for the national broadcaster. [11] Gay Byrne described his decision as a great loss for RTE.[12] "I think Pat going is a major loss for RTE, but also a major coup for Newstalk", "He's never been better; he's never been as much on the ball as he has lately. "They're getting a terrific broadcaster on Newstalk." Miriam O'Callaghan said she has learnt greatly from Kenny. "Pat is an incredibly talented broadcaster and has shown all of us current affairs presenters how it is done," "His depth of knowledge on virtually every subject on earth, combined with a logical inquiring mind, makes him a superb broadcast journalist. "On a professional level, I respect him enormously and I loved my time working with him on Prime Time."

Where is the inaccuracy or irrelevance in the stated facts above?

User:Snappy is editing to his point of view and ignoring relevant commentary and is in breach of good faith neutral point of view editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.232.144 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "rubbish" was a bit harsh, I have moved these luvvie gushings from the lead to their own section and trimmed them a little bit. They do not belong in the lead. Btw, another editor (NeilN) also removed this material but only I get singled out for 4 mentions, I wonder why? Snappy (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Snappy on proper editing to facts available, not just lazy reversion! Suppression of referenced fact is always a symptom of breach of NPOV. Continue in same vein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.232.144 (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me your rubbish, Octanis! Have you ever made a post where you didn't sign it with "breach of NPOV"? Snappy (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pat Kenny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pat Kenny. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pat Kenny. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pat Kenny. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Kenny&oldid=1235013650"