Talk:Michael Ratner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ohio Portal Michael Ratner is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Removed POV Content

An IP user added this; I pulled it because it reads like an advertising blurb. I assume its factually correct, so I'm putting it here so that anyone who wishes to can reinsert the facts, without the promotional angle.

Michael Ratner is also the co-host of the groundbreaking radio program [Law and Disorder]. Hosts: --Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights --Heidi Boghosian, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild --Michael Steven Smith, New York City attorney and author. --Dalia Hashad, Arab, Four of the top radical lawyers and activists have provided Pacifica listeners with in- depth content on the fight for civil liberties, civil rights and human rights for nearly two years. Bringing individuals from the front lines to our show, we give listeners an inside look at the human issues behind the changing laws and practices that are strangling democracy.

--Robth^Talk 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Section

despite this seciton having been removed and its removal confirmed by wikipedia it was placed back. It has again been removed Route42 (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

: route42 you are wrong it was removed because it was a blog - at least that was the excuse given by the admin - i suspect typical wikipedia bias they said it had to be from a media source, which it now is. 

i put back in this section with a link the New York Campaign Finance Board. There is a link in the controversy section to New York Magazine, which vetern political reporter Chris Smith outlines the corruption and abuse by Bruce Ratner, Michael Ratner's brother. The Finance links show Michael is aiding his brother, Bruce. Because Michael claims to be a constitutional attorney and human rights lawyer, and because his brother, Bruce is currently has multiple lawsuits against him involving eminent domain abuse, and violation of civil rights, this is indeed an issue.

These claims are verifiable. Michael Ratner has offered no comment or response.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mywikieditor2007 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi. I left you a note on your talk page, but to repeat, Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of thing. Please see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. We cannot accept submissions that involve criticism of living people's financial dealings that are not unimpeachably referenced to reliable sources. Your investigation would need to be published in such a source before we could repeat those claims here. Thank you for understanding. Jkelly 18:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have pointed out: a. this is not original research it is from a reporter for the Downtown Brooklyn Star. http://www.brooklyndowntownstar.com/home.asp?PID=4 b. It is referencing official government sites. Therefore is not original research. It meets the criteria for unimpeachable research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditor2007 (talk • contribs)

There is nothing at that URL that mentions Ratner. Please provide a reliable source to reference exactly what you want to add to the article, not a brand new synthesis of various sources to argue for a specific conclusion. Jkelly 20:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

you obviously haven't read it :

Contribution/Donation Public Disclosure Report

it's showing Michael giving campaign contributions to local, Brooklyn politicians - where he does not live - but where his brother is involved in highly controversial real estate deals -that include eminent domain abuse - The blog referenced is a reporter Norman Oder, who has uncovered these links. http://therealestate.observer.com/2007/02/qa-norman-the-mad-overkiller-oder.html So who exactly, are you and why are you applying this standard to Michael Ratner? Because supporters of him are complaining? That's objectivity? I can see why wikipedia is considered such a joke with people you claim to be open and have objective standards, but that's clearly not the case. And that's not a 'personal insult' but verifiable, just like the information above. Again can you please provide some disclosure into your interest about this? I will provide mine - I think Michael Ratner is a hypocrite. I have come to that conclusion by analyzing his actions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mywikieditor2007 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

We apply these standards to every biography of living persons on Wikipedia. Wikipedia really isn't the place to publish what you've uncovered by doing database searches and reading blogs. This is an encyclopedia, and we have high standards for verifiability even when it doesn't come to articles about living people. Jkelly 20:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

once again jkelly you're not listening. I didn't uncover it, a reporter did and he's referencing the NEW YORK STATE 'database' that you brush off. Wikipedia is just a big blog - yet you brush off the blog of reporter who has reputation for impeccable research standards - even those who are annoyed by his findings respect his research (as refernced in the New York Observer...oh i guess that's 'just another blog'. I can see I won't get anywhere with this not because you're right, but because you have admin privileges. Well, I guess wikipedia really is educational, but not in a way you intended. Please tell me how this has not met your alleged 'high standards' of verifiability. you 'claim' you do this for everyone - that was not the question....WHO prompted you to do this for this bio?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditor2007 (talk • contribs)

Your approach to Wikipedia as a blog really cuts to the heart of the problem you're having here. You can look at Wikipedia:Five pillars to see what Wikipedia actually is all about. You posted links above to a website that doesn't have the word "Ratner" in its text, a broken database search, and a blog that contains the word "Ratner" once, in explaining who a person named Jim Stuckey is. I'm sorry that you're frustrated, but we really cannot accept these kinds of contributions in any article, let alone one about a living person. Jkelly 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

inaccurate statement #1: the link is broken - the link above works inaccurate statement #2 there is no link to a blog, but rather, to a new york magazine article. Does that You're lecturing to me about high standards and verifiability? and of course you didn't answer my question about who prompted you to change this. But more importantly, at issue: Michael Ratner, a 'crusading civil rights lawyer' has given money to politicians, including a convicted one in brooklyn that aid his brother's real estate deals. That is easily verifiable by looking at the New York State campaign database. You claim i am partisian -the information about Michael Ratner that is here is now is just that- only it has been put up by his supporters.

Tell me Jkelly why you you don't apply the same standards to statements like this: He and three other progressive lawyers provide Pacifica listeners with up-to-date information on the fight for civil liberties, civil rights and human rights.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mywikieditor2007 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Look, are you interested in finding out how Wikipedia works, learning about how to contribute and what is and is not appropriate, or are you attempting to convince me that what you want to do is okay? If it is the latter, we're wasting our time. Even if I decided that everything you were saying was true, I couldn't add it to the article either -- it violates our content policies. Jkelly 21:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i would first like you to honestly answer the question WHO prompted your to change this, you gave a generic answer. Your question is circular since it predetermines that what I am doing is 'not okay' yet - on the article, there are clear unobjective descriptions of Michael Ratner - as a progressive human and civil rights attorney. I have offered proof which you have brushed off as a database and a blog, when in fact a. from the new york state campaign finance board, and from a reporter (as proven in the link above) who is widely respected for his thorough research. Again, he writes for the Brooklyn Downtown Star (a 'real' paper) and NYPress (another 'real' paper) his 'blog' is supplemental material for his reporting. In addition, I cited an article in New York Magazine by a widely respected, veteran reporter, Chris Smith I do not think you are applying standards here fairly, objectively or evenly. You have not answered my responses - except in accurately - but are taking the time to delete my contributions, I can only assume that you are doing this for ulterior reasons and using 'the rules' as an excuse. Mywikieditor2007 21:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a list of campaign contributions. You have failed to present any external evidence of a "controversy" relating to Mr. Ratner's campaign contributions, instead creating your own personal synthesis of campaign finance records and a newspaper article which doesn't even mention Michael Ratner. Your actions constitute inserting unacceptable original research into the biography of a living person, and will not be countenanced. Should you persist, you may be blocked. Simple as that. FCYTravis 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

FYCTravis, as repeated, ad nauseum, I linked to a reporter for the Downtown Brooklyn Star.It was not a personal synthesis. Now you threaten to block me. I can see why wikipedia has become such a joke - you've adapted the same biases as mass media and the same groupthink - and the same inner circle thinking. I find it funny that the question still hasn't been answer, who prompted these changes, or why terms like progressive and overwhelmingly favorable partisian article of Michael Ratner is allowed. For example

He and three other progressive lawyers provide Pacifica listeners with up-to-date information on the fight for civil liberties, civil rights and human rights.

Jkelly won't answer you answer with a threat. simple as that yes, very simple. Thank you for at least giving us a clear illustration of your so called standards. Mywikieditor2007 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The link you gave goes to a home page for a weekly newspaper. I can't find any article headline referencing Ratner anywhere on that page, and I'm not going to read every single article to find your alleged source. The blog you've linked to simply interviews this reporter, and nowhere mentions Mr. Ratner's name. Similarly, your campaign finance link simply confirms that Mr. Ratner has made a political donation. Your assemblage of these three completely-unrelated facts into an attack on Mr. Ratner is unsourced, unsupportable and not fit for Wikipedia. Either provide a reliable source which makes the assertions you're making, or stop making them. Simple as that. FCYTravis 04:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

you're not going to read, but you're going edit and threaten? I original posted a link to the reporters blog - interveiew link proves he is a reporter. I was told it was 'just a blog' when in fact this reporter is known for his research, and supplements his articles with his blog - all of which are clearly backed up by sources. I'll ask, one more time, who prompted you and jkelly to edit this, you don't seem willing to answer that question.

Below is link fully documenting and outlining the controversy. It is relevant because Michael claims to be a civil rights attorney yet is backing his brother's highly controversial - and possibly illegal Brookyn real estate deals - this includes kicking out 87 year old tenants and using eiminent domain to take people's property. Eminent domain is one of the 'hottest' constitutional issues at the moment and michael ratner is not only ignoring, but supporting his brothers Kelo style land grab.

http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2006/09/ratner-campaign-money-trail-leads-to.html The Ratner campaign money trail leads to... Michael (& his wife) Dennis Kucinich, Jonathan Tasini, and... Edolphus Towns.

Deborah Glick, Liz Krueger, and... Martin Malave Dilan.

The first two names in each trio are noted progressives, while those coming third are undistinguished products of the Brooklyn machine (who also support Atlantic Yards). Towns and Dilan have drawn criticism from progressives for their votes, respectively, for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and to require inadequate protections against lead-paint hazards.

But all have received campaign contributions from Michael Ratner (right), the eminent human rights lawyer. While Ratner's not talking, his Brooklyn political contributions seem guided not by ideology but by the interests of Forest City Ratner (FCR), the development company run by his brother Bruce.

Michael Ratner and his wife, Karen Ranucci, both Greenwich Village residents, have recently made campaign contributions using Forest City Ratner's Brooklyn building as a return address. Ranucci has matched many of her husband's contributions. And Bruce Ratner's girlfriend, Pamela Lipkin, as well as other Ratner family members, have made contributions engineered by an FCR lobbying firm.

Even though Bruce Ratner no longer contributes to political races himself, his inner circle seems willing to help out. Indeed, Michael Ratner/Ranucci contributions to Yvette Clarke suggest that the developer supports--or at least supported--the pro-AY City Councilwoman in her bid to win the tight four-person race for the open 11th Congressional District seat.

Brooklyn contributions

The state campaign finance database suggests two patterns regarding Michael Ratner's giving. He has supported Manhattan progressives like Assemblymember Glick and State Senator Krueger, likely out of ideological conviction.

On the other hand, Michael Ratner and Ranucci have made regular contributions to Brooklyn clubhouse candidates. They each made $2000 contributions on 1/6/04 to State Senator Carl Andrews, $2500 contributions on 9/4/02 to Assemblyman Roger Green, now a leading supporter of the Atlantic Yards plan, and $3100 contributions on 8/2/2000 to Assemblyman and then county Democratic leader Clarence Norman, who early this year received a two- to six-year prison sentence for campaign violations.

Michael Ratner and Ranucci on 10/20/05 each gave $2000 to Clarke, one of the four candidates for the open 11th Congressional District seat. Clarke was considered a leading candidate due to her history in the district and her gender, but has faltered recently after acknowledging she didn't actually graduate from college.

Michael Ratner and Ranucci on 11/7/05 each gave $2000 to incumbent Towns, who represents the 10th Congressional District. Towns is being challenged by Assemblyman Green, a fellow Atlantic Yards supporter, but his more serious rival is City Councilman Charles Barron, a project opponent.

The contribution from the Manhattan progressives to Towns came just a few months after he provoked the ire of labor and Democratic activists for his CAFTA vote. Mywikieditor2007 13:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, you've just proven my point. Your only source is a personally-published blog (not a blog officially published, backed and verified by any reputable media outlet) - and thus nothing there belongs in the article. End of story. FCYTravis 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A blog published by the reporter - whom is not only reputable but has pointed out the inaccuracy of reporting by 'reputable' media outlets, with 100% verifiable information linking to sources and documents. Reputable' like the new york times? what makes that a better source or a more reputable source? Jayson Blair? Judith Miller? Norman Oder's blog caused the times to print numerous retractions and for example, finally admit their relationship with the Ratner family (real estate development partners) And you STILL won't answer who prompted these changes in the first place. And frankly your tone reaks of someone on a power trip. and you're a perfect example of why someone completely uninformed about an issue using irrelvant criteria should NOT be an administrator. Mywikieditor2007 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On a power trip? No, I'm quite simply enforcing compliance with Wikipedia's long-standing and very clear biographies of living persons policy. If you disagree with the policy, you are free to express your desire that it be changed on the policy's talk page. As to what prompted these changes, a report was made on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. FCYTravis 21:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you're on a 'power trip' because of your repeated threats to ban, your quick judgment on a matter you know little or nothing of. The policy is not the question, as you so quickly assume, but your skewed interpretation of it. You really shouldn't be an administrator -your posts show a clear tendency to demand and control (not to mention patent rudeness). "this is what i say, do this or get banned its that simple' is the jist of your replies - However, that is not the only option, as you imply there is also arbitration, which I will seek. if you were truly an objective administrator you would have mentioned that.

[edit] Controvery Section; BLP

The controversy section periodically inserted into this article is currently under discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Please weigh in with your civilly expressed opinions on this matter there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)