Talk:Patrick Byrne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or 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. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

{{blp}} Removing details inserted by user concerning naked short-selling, which as stated were skewed entirely to the "anti-shorting" position. Interested users can go to the naked short selling page, where a consensus article is being hammered out. I've also removed a paragraph of hagiography and unduly self-promotional and does not belong in a Wikipedia profile. --Tomstoner 02:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added some details re recent controversies and widespread press coverage. Also I did a bit of reassembly of the article, which I think was a bit disorganized. Tried my best to be as neutral as possible. Let me know what you think. --Lastexit 14:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Added the following: (1) His semi retraction of the Sith Lord comment (2) Gradient Analytics as the firm being sued with Rocker Partners (3) Worldstock Reference (4) Patrick's presentation on NSS

Removed the following: (1) Links to articles that were one sided as reference. Mfv 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your links and quotes from non-notable websites and reinstated the notable links you removed. Please review WP:RS. Thanks. --Mantanmoreland 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, I reverted your changes as the reference was given directly by Overstock : http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2006/0004248568&EDATE=. I also felt the reference to Gradient Analytics and WorldStock to be pertinent. Please let me know if you feel otherwise before reverting with a broad brush. Thanks. Mfv 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, just because a non-notable website is mentioned in a press release does not mean that you can quote from it and link to it in the article. Please study WP:RS, which specifically refers to quotes on non-verifiable bulletin boards and websites. Even if it were quotable, the quote re "Al Qaeda" doesn't retract the "Sith Lord" comment and is used way out of proportion to the significance of the quote. Additionally it is improperly placed in the beginning of the article, where it does not belong.

Additionally, I cautioned you against removing citations to notable publications and substituting a non-notable "BusinessJive" website. Again, I ask that you study WP:RS.

These changes strike me as POV edits. Do not make further reversions without discussing. Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 04:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

These are quotes and presentations made and written by Patrick Byrne, for which the article is about (are you questioning this?). Overstock is his company and that they made reference to the source is pertinent to whether the source is reliable. "Al Qaeda" is supplemental to the phrase "By the way, the "Sith Lord" reference which so excited you fellows is probably imperfect" which eludes to a retraction. --Mfv 04:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, even if this quote appeared on a verifiable website you are inflating that comment out of proportion. It does not belong in the first paragraph, and it is not a "retraction." Your other edits, particularly the removal of critical links, are POV pushing, pure and simple. I've asked you twice already to stop this POV pushing; you have responded by further reverts. Stop the edit warring. --Mantanmoreland 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How am I inflating the comment? He clearly states that the Sith Lord term is "imperfect" <verbatim>. That you are arguing this seem POV to me. The links you published are media links and highly one sided. Feel free to post them in context under the "Media" column where they belong. I've published works and companies directly attributed to Patrick Byrne, again, for which this article is about. --Mfv 04:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Al Qaeda" comment does not belong in the very first paragraph. "Worldstock" is a non-notable PR endeavor by the company and does not belong in this article at all. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Reread my previous comments concerning your other changes. I'm not going to waste my breath further on this, as you are clearly here to edit war and to push an agenda. These are not good faith edits on your part.--Mantanmoreland 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You make statements (and accusations) without justification. Why does it not belong? Patrick made a "Sith Lord" statement and later clarifies on it. Why would you desire to publish one and not the other? And that you claim WorldStock is "PR" and "non-notable" is certainly your opinion and quite frankly, speaks volumes to your interest here. People can google worldstock and come to their own conclusions. --Mfv 04:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Request for 3rd Party Arbitration 2 Jihad language 3 Sources 4 "Crusade"/"Jihad" 5 Removing Utah Connect magazine link

[edit] Request for 3rd Party Arbitration

I have attempted to add some content that is relevant to this article and have properly sourced where necessary. It appears Mantamoreland has disasgreed. I am asking for a third party review before I go to mediation. Here are my justifications:

1) Patrick indeed made reference to a "Sith Lord" during one of his conference calls. Several months later, Tim Mullaney, of Businessweek sent Patrick a list of questions to which Patrick responded openly on the internet. The precise questions can be found here: [1]. The particular response, from Patrick, pertinent to this discussion reads:

"By the way, the "Sith Lord" reference which so excited you fellows is probably imperfect. A better one is Al Qaeda: a loosely organized confederacy united by an ideology but lacking central control."

Which I've tried to include in response to the "Sith Lord" reference in the first paragraph of this article. Mantanmoreland first claims this was reference from a non-notable website, yet when I responded that Overstock itself issued a PR release referencing this site as the source for Patrick's response [2], I am told that it simply doesn't belong here, though it speaks directly to what the first paragraph of this article is about. I remain confused.

2) I attempted to add a reference to WorldStock, an endeavor that Patrick calls the "Best idea of my life." [3] in his response to a poster on The Motley Fool. He also mentions it again in his cancer speech (currently referenced in this article [4]). I am met with a statement, again from mantanmoreland, that claims that Worldstock is a "PR" stunt and "non notable". Again, I remain confused.

3) I posted a link in the "External Link" section that points to a presentation on Naked Short Selling authored by Patrick Byrne and was, yet again, told this is hosted from a non-notable site. Again, I point out that the reference was given by Patrick himself [5].

4) I recommend that we move the media references from the External Links to the "Media" section and provide context as one of the articles is highly biased (The Register). There has been no response to this.

5) I attempted to add the name "Gradient Analytics" to the article to clarify the research firm that Overstock is suing along with Rocker Partners. This was removed wholesale without justification.

Can someone outside of Mantanmoreland and Eskog (who re-editted w/o discussion) comment?

Thanks --Mfv 11:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, Mantamoreland boxed comments (at the top of this page) are misguided. I am quoting VERBATIM, what Patrick Byrne has said as sourced through a site that OVERSTOCK (Patrick's company) has referred to as the standard for the information.[6][7]. It's like saying if Microsoft said www.billgates.com was the official site for information regarding Bill Gates, one would take it on face value the information published there is the standard. The underlying idea of WP:RS is to provide credible sources. That the company of Patrick Byrne vouches for this source makes it credible. Why Mantamoreland is arguing this correlation is quite confusing. --Mfv 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Mantanmoreland has the same type of love for Mark Cuban [8] --Mfv 11:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jihad language

Please don't removed sourced content relevant to the subject matter. Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 07:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing wasn't what I found deficient. It was the lack of relevance (ie: his father's career trajectory) and the general cluttered nature (explaining short selling in addition to offering a link to same...that's why you link, to avoid restating). I also object to terms like "market-wide conspiracy." I read the transcript and he goes out of his way to not paint it as a market-wide consipiracy.

Might make more sense to move this to the article talk page. I'll meet you over there.--Beware of Cow 17:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

An editor removed this external link:

• "The bizarre world of Patrick Byrne's Overstock" - The Register

With this comment:

• I'm sorry, The Register is not a reliable source[9]

However I don't see how it violates WP:RS. Why is this not a reliable source? -Will Beback 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me answer this way...if you think that article belongs here, then I assume you'll back me up when I add this to Jimbo Wales.

Deal?--Beware of Cow 07:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That article is obviously a joke. You haven't answered the question. Why is the Register not a reliable source? -Will Beback 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He isn't responding because it is obviously a reliable source. I have reverted.--Mantanmoreland 14:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The register's a reliable source? LOL. OK, lets use the Drudge Report as a source too. Mantanmoreland is obviously here to bash Patrick Byrne, Overstock, and several other things on his and Gary Weiss's POV agenda. Stop the POV pushing, Mantanmoreland.

According to whom is the Register an unreliable source? What reason do we have to believe that? While we're discussing it please stop deleting material. It may be considered vandalism. -Will Beback 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Will, if I delete a slam job article from a crank website in the UK, (can you say NY Post/National Enquirer crap?) it's vandalism. If Mantanmoreland deletes articles from Forbes and Time, it's correcting sockpuppet vandalism. I'd say you're Mantanmoreland's sock puppet. Since Mantan's the creator of the Weiss entry in Wiki and promotes his book (spam) tirelessly on this site hourly, how about you (Will) start a Herb Greenberg Wiki entry to make sure the "right" side of this issue (and only side, if these Wiki slam jobs are too be believed from you guys) is represented in full.

And one more thing, Will. You keep on having fun upholding the Wiki hatchet job of Patrick Byrne here in trying to define him as unstable. The people that are hoping to benefit from this crap aren't going to be judged on Wiki, they're going to be judge in courts of law, so you folks have your fun on Wiki with the Byrne is crazy slam jobs. The same thing didn't work during the S&L crisis either.

Added link to Patrick's forum on Overstock site. Before the Gary Weiss/Anti-Byrne brigade deletes it, may I remind that that Gary Weiss has his own self promotional blog linked on his own Wikipedia site. This Byrne forum link is not promotional or spam, and does not exist to sell a book, as does the Weiss blog. It does provide unfiltered access to clarifications from Byrne himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.70.155.234 (talk • contribs) .

Do you have some independent review of the Register which calls it a "crank website"? To the best of my knowledge, it's a professionally-run news source focused on the IT industry. If you have verifaible inforamtoin to the contrary I'd be happy to hear it. That's what I've been asking for the last week. -Will Beback 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Crusade"/"Jihad"

The article seems to flip-flopping between two versions:

• ...best known for his "jihad" against Naked short-selling.[10]
• ..also known for his crusade to clean up what he claims are several forms of corruptions on Wall Street, ...including Naked short-selling.

May I suggest that we avoid this extreme language and compromise on something milder, such as "fight against", "campaign against", or "effort to clean up"? Religious terminology isn't needed. Introductions should be the most neutral part of the article.

(And we can we agree that the intended article is "naked short selling", which has no hyphen and is not a proper noun? thanks.) -Will Beback 05:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Jihad" is Byrne's language, and use of that inflammatory language and the "Sith Lord" is what has made him well known.--Mantanmoreland 13:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is the subject's term, it isn't neutral and shouldn't be in the lead. We can quote him using the term later in the article. -Will Beback 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. However, have clarified the first paragraph to note that he is known for calling attention to naked short selling. That is why he is known and has received such public attention. --Mantanmoreland 04:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

re:this Patrick Byrne edit:

Although the practice is somewhat controversial, virtually all economists and those well-versed in the topic, such as Warren Buffet [11], agree that the practice is an essential part of the price discovery mechanism, which can be useful in uncovering fradulent accounting and other problems at companies.

- This is false. Virtually all economists? What kind of conjecture is that? And Buffet was talking about "short selling", not "naked short selling" as price discovery mechanism. I'm not going to revert your edit as it is useless to keep on pointing out these POV pushing inaccuracies from people who confuse short selling and naked short selling on purpose, and use quotes talking about the former to justify the latter. 71.70.155.234 17:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Utah Connect magazine link

Utah Connect Magazine cannot be used as a reference, it is a 'questionable source' per Wikipedia guidelines:

"A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that ... are promotional in nature... Questionable sources should not be used, except in articles about themselves or their activities."

Lumin Publishing, publisher of Utah Connect Magazine, does not produce independent journalism but "for hire" Public Relations articles designed to look like actual journalism, according to its website

--Valwen 00:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)