Talk:Dylan Ratigan/Archive 1

Need reference
38.115.196.14 - i think we would need a reference for this diagnostic claim of dysprosody - i am undoing until we have one (if that is even a relevant issue to include) - particularly as this is the biography of living person  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.216.51 (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To User:207.237.88.88
I have posted this several days ago at this editor's talk page after several troublesome edits. The first several times, I did not revert, but incorporated the relevant and reasonable parts of the edits and removed (or re-added) the rest, as can be viewed in the article's edit history. While not inherently vandalism, much of the material is inappropriate, and given the repeated re-additions and -deletions with no reference, explanation or discussion, I am reverting it unless and until this editor or someone else with the relevant references engages in persuading discussion on this page. Below, my post:

Your edits to Dylan Ratigan
I'm unclear why you are persisting in certain edits to Dylan Ratigan. Specifically, the claim that he was the co-creator of the show Fast Money, and the characterization of his position there as "anchor".

CNBC's own bio of the man explicitly states both of these things in its opening sentence. It's hard to imagine there could be any more credible source regarding the genesis of the show and his position in it than that which the network itself endorsed during his tenure.

You have also removed a reference to the show NASCAR Gold when there is a Wikipedia article about the show. It is Wiki policy to link articles to other relevant articles of interest. Can you explain why you don't wish for this show to be acknowledged in Ratigan's bio?

While I don't have a source for the Irish-American claim, I wouldn't think it was necessary for someone named Dylan Ratigan. Again, you have reason to believe he may be of Asian heritage? If Ratigan is indeed Jewish, there is no reason for that fact to negate his ancestry. While there is nothing controversial about being Jewish, it would seem that if he's never made an issue of it himself (as one does by keeping an ethnic name in "show business"), it's reasonable to omit from his Wiki bio. No one at the article has made the assumption he was Catholic...or Shinto. ;)

Wikipedia is open to all to edit, but there are standards which are required, especially for the Biographies of living persons. By re-adding material which does not meet these standards, and doing so with no reference and no explanation on the talk page, you are leaving your edits open to be reverted.

It is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, so I would ask you that before you edit the page again you discuss the issue on the article's Talk page and be prepared to back up any additions or removals with legitimate citations.

I welcome you to return and add constructive, sourced and respectful additions to flesh out the article. Some of your edits have been valid, but be advised that repetetive insertion/deletion of unsourced edits without valid discussion, especially by an anonymous editor, will eventually be considered vandalism.

I will watch this page for your response if you wish to keep it low key, or you may respond on the article's talk page.

Respectfully, Abrazame (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the interests of good faith, I will leave this recent edit for an hour or so on the off chance this editor understands the process and finds this page or their own, and/or someone else weighs in. Abrazame (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WHAT! Are you kidding! The source material is right there!! THOSE ARE DIRECT QUOTES FROM A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!


 * If you have a problem with the way I referenced it, then fix it. But don't tear down vital informaion because you're related to the suject of the article!


 * DIRECT QUOTES FROM A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE.


 * READ IT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.89.198 (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor whose idea of comments on a talk page is to write nearly every word in caps and demand that I read the New York Times reference that I, myself, added to the article, I will take your points one by one.

"Ratigan...abruptly left the cable channel" is the Times quote. My sentence was "Ratigan left the network on (date)". Your change to the characterization that "CNBC declined to renew" his contract is POV that is simply not suggested by the article. Completely untrue.

You insert a bit about "months of tension" is also that is also not in the article. The word "tension" or any synonym is simply not used, and there is no indication of a time frame. Completely untrue.

The piece indulges in hearsay from unnamed "colleagues" as "suggest(ing)" that "Ratigan, while talented, was easy to anger and difficult to work with." Your edit omits the "talent" portion of this popularity contest, yet you're the one accusing me of having an agenda?

Not only does it seem a level of personal subjectivity that doesn't belong in the article, but it is unclear who is speaking. It is also unclear as to whether this is a minority opinion or a majority opinion. Furthermore, the article doesn't characterize this as a "complaint", as you do, merely that it was "suggested". By your purposely choosing to omit the qualifier (he's talented but...) you are not achieving the same off-balance but mitigated hearsay presented in the article, you are giving it a harsher slant. Is it your opinion that "talented" is too subjective or amorphous a term but "difficult to work with" is le mot juste the article needs to capture the man? How would you happen to know that? Are you related to Melissa Lee? (As to her name, it would seem she has no relation to Ratigan. It's unclear whether she is a permanent or an interim host, she is not mentioned in the article either, and anybody interested can click on the link to Fast Money [which you improperly style—it belongs in italics].)

You write that this was "a characteristic which sometimes showed on-air." While incorrect grammar, my problem with this edit is that the Times article does not suggest that the allegation is something that showed on the air. That, then, is your interpretation of Ratigan's style. Have you ever watched CNBC, anonymous editor? Could you not accuse Larry Cudlow or Melissa Francis or Dennis Kneale or Joe Kernen or Michelle Caruso-Cabrera or Ratigan's roundtable sparring partner Jeff Macke of similar "ease to anger" and other unpleasant emotions and attitudes which "sometimes show" on the air? I certainly could, but I wouldn't think of doing so in an encyclopedia article.

Charlie Gasparino and Rick Santelli, on the other hand, are constantly shouting angrily about one thing or another, Gasparino belligerently talking over anchors and demanding that he finish his thought. Justified? Perhaps. Hmm. Think about that. Would you get angry with people asking you snide questions about complex issues and then cutting you off after twenty-six words? Or what about if you were asking others questions of people who meandered around making any declarative statement? Even exempting Jim Cramer and MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough from the equation, it seems like "quick to anger", an inability to carry on a civil conversation, and combativeness that shows on the air are all prerequisites for employment by NBC's cable channels. To add such a thing, then, to a bio of one individual would both be undue weight in a bio as brief as Ratigan's and it would also be undue weight in the context of his profession, given the combative nature of cable talk in general and the rapid-fire, boys-club ribbing and sparring that was part of the design of Ratigan's show in particular. So, while not completely untrue, is hearsay which the article arguably presents in order to present Ratigan's response to it, and your inclusion here merely amplifies the negatives while taking the whole thing out of context. Doesn't belong here.

Next we come to your use of the word "plotting". The article said merely that these same unnamed sources "suggested" that he had told "people" that "at some point he envisioned himself heading an entertainment show like David Letterman's." The next paragraph includes Ratigan's own dismissal of that as an old idea, and an assertion that he was currently "dedicated to covering the economy". In what way was he "plotting"? Are you privy, perhaps through pillow talk with Jeff Macke, that there were behind-the-scenes machinations and deviousness? Even your phrase "the next David Letterman" is at once squishy with derision and inflated with megalomania. Neither of these attitudes are struck in the Times, much less "direct quotes" as you scream on this page and put in the article. There is also no indication whatsoever that he intended to leave CNBC or the NBC networks if he were to develop an entertainment-oriented talk show such as he had mused about. This information is neither vital nor is it appropriately weighted or sourced for inclusion in the biography of a living person. Anyone who wants to read the Times article may do so, as that is the point of footnotes. They may also scan the web for whatever tabloid slurs, gossip column tidbits and fansite fawnings as may exist.

While I shouldn't think it necessary to assert, I have never met Ratigan and do not represent anyone who has.

You are an unregistered user adding personal POV under the false claim that it is not only supported by a source but a direct quote, when it is nothing of the kind. I have indulged you in addressing each of your edits, on the off chance that you did not purposely choose to present the most negative things you could imagine from skimming the Times article and are new to digesting and paraphrasing key points of the biography of a living person. However, if you revert these edits or engage in similar behavior, it will be considered vandalism. Abrazame (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC) '''

To 68.184.95.96: Your edits contained in the 3rd paragraph of the most recent version (11:09, 14 April 2009) are poorly worded and lead the reader to believe that Ratigan was dismissed from CNBC specifically for his comments about Goldman and "government sanctioned insurance fraud". There is nothing in the public domain from credible sources to suggest that Ratigan's departure resulted from anything other than failed contract negotiations. The link to the CNBC video of that very conversation merely details what Ratigan said; unfortunately it does not substantiate an assertion that Ratigan's comments led to his departure. The average reader may mistakenly take it that way, and therefore the internal citation should be removed and instead inserted with the other links located below the article references. ChandleriteWiki, 12:45MST, 15 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChandleriteWiki (talk • contribs)

extreme hyping
As a person who covered Wall Street 3-4 years at bloomberg financial news, followed by another 3-4 years covering markets at CNBC, perhaps the article should point out that the past 6 months coverage by Ratigan of the financial crisis has included extreme erroneous hype denigrating Wall street and its professionals by one who covered them all that time. And NO discussion by Ratigan OR other talking heads about the real main cause of the crisis, just the scape goat hyping & attacking Wall Street, all 100 % un professional.

wall street willy ~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * cool story bro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.193.18 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Corporate interests allegations
To 68.184.95.96: Your edits contained in the 3rd paragraph of the most recent version (11:09, 14 April 2009) are poorly worded and lead the reader to believe that Ratigan was dismissed from CNBC specifically for his comments about Goldman and "government sanctioned insurance fraud". There is nothing in the public domain from credible sources to suggest that Ratigan's departure resulted from anything other than failed contract negotiations. The link to the CNBC video of that very conversation merely details what Ratigan said; unfortunately it does not substantiate an assertion that Ratigan's comments led to his departure. The average reader may mistakenly take it that way, and therefore the internal citation should be removed and instead inserted with the other links located below the article references. ChandleriteWiki, 12:45MST, 15 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChandleriteWiki (talk • contribs)


 * The part I don't understand about those connecting dots with this allegation—which has been added to this article several times in the past weeks—is that the source to which this particular edit links is a currently active video featured on the CNBC network's own website. If corporate interests had scared the network into firing Ratigan in order to silence him, wouldn't they remove the offensive reportage from their own corporation's website?  Wouldn't we be watching it on YouTube instead of General Electric's financial news network?  As Ratigan's final show, and as a subject he was passionate about, I don't oppose its mention in the article, but let's just put forth the notable dot and let the reader see their own designs.  Abrazame (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ratigan was fired for one reason only- he was in the process of doing an expose' on Goldman Sachs, and his producers were ordered to fire him and get him off CNBC.


 * I'm sorry you lifelong wikipedia editors can't understand how the real word works, or what my previous sentence even means, but why don't you take a break from your OCD and allow truth to be told? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.25.11 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Responsible editors do understand your sentence; without references, they are agnostic on its veracity. Wikipedia has policies that require WP:Verifiability for controversial allegations.  If this became a real story, discussed by a notable person in a professional forum, it might be considered for a brief mention in the article.  If it became a major national story, affecting political or corporate events, and discussed through multiple notable sources, it might even be worthy of its own article.


 * Have you read this article lately? Can you tell me why a network/parent co. would "fire" him to prevent him from exploring the Goldman story yet in a month's time re-sign him to a show that allows him more time to discuss precisely this sort of topic in greater breadth and depth and length if he so chooses?  With all the tabloid spin in March, it was suggested he might want to interview celebrities a la David Letterman.  Why wouldn't NBC give him this sort of late-night comedy/entertainment format if they wanted to hamstring him and take him off the trail of the government's favoring of Goldman Sachs?  They could drag out the launch of the show, then complain that his ratings aren't as good as Conan O'Brien or whomever, and put him on hiatus, stringing him along with various promises that never get off the ground.  That sounds like a real-world scenario for a company that wants to hold onto someone but throw them off the scent.  The real-world scenario for a company who doesn't want to keep him would be not to give him the open-format, politically themed three-hour show.  Abrazame (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of why he got there: MM

 * Dylan's move to Morning Meeting gives him an opportunity to broaden his critique of the failures of contemporary corporate culture. Regardless of WHY he moved there from CNBC, his new show gives him an opportunity to freely speak his mind on a wider range of issues than would have been appropriate if he stuck to market wrap reportage. User:Anon

Adding some sources for article expansion

 * Bio from the Huffington Post
 * (notes a detail about the show Bullseye)
 * Bio from the Huffington Post
 * (notes a detail about the show Bullseye)
 * (notes a detail about the show Bullseye)
 * (notes a detail about the show Bullseye)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)