Talk:Patrick M. Byrne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom; additionally, make use of {{User article ban arb}}.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

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

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Archive: Talk:Patrick M. Byrne/Archive1

Article probation

Restrictions...Editors are directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Do not remove this notice — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Revising lead

I am going to attempt to revise the lead to make it what seems to me more neutral and conventional. Of course I am open to any criticism. Generally per WP:Lead the lead should be a brief overview of the article, so I tried to round it out a little. Possibly a little more could be added. I considered revising the sentence about an SEC investigation to say that Byrne and some of his rivals have been subject to SEC investigations, but concluded that the material is probably better left to the article. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Media attention section

As part of the Mantanmoreland arbitration I've done a rather rudimentary analysis of every edit in the history of this article up to late last month.

• User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The/Sandbox/Analysis/Patrick M. Byrne

One thing I noticed was that up until October, 2007, this article had a paragraph or two about positive media attention given to Byrne. How it was removed I don't know, but the pattern of editing makes me wonder if it was a deliberate ruse. Whatever the truth, and perhaps we'll never know, I think it would be a good idea if somebody examined this link to see if the first paragraph contains anything worth salvaging. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Removing lots of overly negative stuff

On a complaint from the subject, I've assessed the amount of negative content, and agree that for whatever reason it looked unbalanced. In particular, there was much dwelling on a single epithet "Sith Lord" which Byrne used a few years ago in a particular social context. To spend several paragraphs on this, even if some commentators have enjoyed tweaking him about it a lot, is not reasonable in an article that is supposed to present a balanced view of the person. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article did not spend several full paragraphs on it. The article is not supposed to present a balanced view of the person as such- rather, we present a balanced overview of relevant viewpoints on Byrne. And if people think of Byrne as someone with an inclination towards bad Star Wars analogies, and he doesn't like it, that's just too bad for him isn't it? John Nevard (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read this and the other articles that have received so much attention in the blogosphere, and this was the only one that bothered me a little. I thought it was negative, perhaps excessively so, so I tend to agree with Anticipation. However, John Nevard has a good point as well. My knowledge of Byrne is skimpy but what little I know of him is related to his outspokeness on market issues, as well as the "Sith Lord" issue. I am surprised that this is not mentioned in the article. If no one objects, I would like to add that back in.--Stetsonharry (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd like to see broader discussion of this subject. I've called an RfC on the general balance of the article. I agree that the article probably looks a bit odd without some mention of the "Sith Lord" matter, but we should be careful to write about it in context. The article as it stood before went on for paragraphs about this one matter, which was obviously unacceptable. Somewhere in between will probably be about right.

For example, a Google News search on "overstock.com byrne" today (from the UK Google site) finds about 20 stories featuring Byrne, but only one of those, an online stock pundit piece by someone called Frank Lara Jr on a site called thestockmasters.com, mentions the Sith Lord affair. Lara, the cofounder of the website, compares a plummeting stock to Byrne's company, and refers to "the Sith Lord" in terms of Overstock's poor PR profile. But when all's said and done, that site is just a financial blog representing one trader/pundit's opinion.

One or two of the other entries do contain oblique references to "a vast conspiracy of market manipulation involving a character from Star Wars and crooked reporters", and quite a number of the other entries are just press releases.

One other story in Utah-based Deseret News gives Byrne's side of the story [1]:

Byrne criticized various local and national media depictions of financial and education-related news, saying no media outlet has either the integrity or know-how to investigate such a crime. He feels he has been "demonized" by mainstream press accusations while "the statistics could tell the story on their own."

The story goes on:

' Byrne and Mitchell agreed that not all hedge funds are bad. They said that only about two dozen of the 11,000 are unsettled where the money is never delivered.'

'"Legal shorting is great," Byrne said. "Short-selling is good for the market and can provide useful information." He's received support from some journalists, but continues to stand by his claims, "waiting for the lid to come off one of these days."'

The "Mitchell" in the above is Mark Mitchell, a journalist, formerly of Columbia Journalism Review, who, according to the article, said he is close to releasing an article detailing a similarly corrupt media presence in what he calls the "single biggest scandal in American journalism."

So there is another side to this that we have to take into account. Our argicle shouldn't give the impression that it's just one CEO ranting about naked shorting scammers. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, and I agree with the removal. If we wanted to write a paragraph about analogies he makes and people's reactions, that would be fine in my view, but otherwise the various quotes don't seem to rise to any level of encyclopedic importance. But it's an idea of its own if it should be addressed, not something that should be combined with several other paragraphs. Mackan79 (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anticipation, I read the request for comment. The subject's complaints do not appear to be reflected on this page. Were they posted elsewhere in a public forum?--Stetsonharry (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is here; it's all going on in a somewhat dicey arbitration case that I think we're probably intended to leave mostly over there. But you can see his comments if you do a search for "Comment from Patrick." Mackan79 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be mainly concerned about use of the terms "jihad" and "Sith Lord." I guess the question is whether they rise to the level of encyclopedic importance, as Mackan79 suggests.--Stetsonharry (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be difficult to get rid of "Jihad" altogether as it's a term he used himself and his father, in resigning, used the term. But I think we can avoid using it in a way that denigrates the campaign. For instance there has been a lot of to-and-fro in the history about naming the section about the campaign--Crusade and Jihad were considered before settling on Campaign because it's the word that best fits our neutral point of view. At the same time it doesn't seem sensible to rewrite history. Where someone has used the term in a statement that is essential to an understanding of the campaign (and I think Byrne senior's statement is one such) then it makes sense to reproduce a brief quote containing that word. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This article troubled me originally because of imbalance, but I think it is better now. I agree about rewriting history and I think that a reference to the Sith Lord is needed. He referred to the Sith Lord speech as one of the proudest moments of his life, according to the NY Times.--Stetsonharry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Stetsonharry. "Sith Lord" is a very famous remark (I'm saying this as a one-time Utah news junkie). That said, it and "jihad" were used to denigrate the campaign which made the article very imbalanced. It's improving. Cool Hand Luke 01:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Another article in The Register

I just removed (for now) a link to an interview in The Register, "A Shaolin monk, Warren Buffett and a Russian mobster walk into a bar . . ." [2]

Referring back to earlier discussions of articles in The Register, I seem to recall that consensus was reached that this often opinionated source is not suitable for inclusion in biographies of living persons. On the other hand, this is apparently some kind of podcast involving an interview. Should it be included? The introduction is a little sensationalist, but doesn't look like a smear piece. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We could probably use our judgment. BLP raises the standard for criticism of living people, as I understand, but not for anything that isn't controversial. Unless there is something controversial I don't see the problem with adding it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think it can go back. But in looking at the external links I see that there are a lot more isolated items there than I'd normally expect. Ideally if any of these is significant it should be written about in the body of the article and the link can appear in the associated reference so that we provide some context to it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I put it back, and I removed a couple of the external links that were duplicates of material cited in the article. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An interview is different, especially considering the recording. If anything, it's more reliable that Wikinews interviews, which have been strongly pushed on Wikipedia. That said, interviews are something like self-published sources, so should only be used for their subject, and should not be used as a reference for anything controversial. Cool Hand Luke 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as soon as I realised it was a fairly extensive voice interview. Some "interviews" are just opinion pieces with soundbites, and I was concerned it might be like that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is now far more balanced than when I first read it. The blog attention to these items is what got me interested in editing Wikipedia in the first place, and yet I read the articles and find that people seem to have gotten the same thoughts and made the required changes. I just had a queation about the Register article linked. It uses the word "insane" in a semiserious manner in refering to Byrne. Does that present problems? I had the same question about the Deep Capture blog, and the accusations there. Is it permissible for Wikipedia to link to websites and articles that make accusations about people?--Stetsonharry (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the whole piece the comment in the introduction isn't problematic. In fact Byrne comes off quite well in the piece and there is clearly no animosity between him and the journalists concerned, although they have no always been polite about him in the past. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-naked shorts campaign

I'm considering what to do about two sections in different articles. We have a section on the anti-naked shorts campaign in this article and one in Overstock.com. There is probably also stuff about the campaign on the naked short selling article. Perhaps there should be a separate article on this, or perhaps all three sections should be consolidated in a single article (either this one or the Overstock article) with a "main" link to the section in that article in each of the others. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As a quick impression, I'd say the issue is probably of relevance in decreasing order from Naked short selling to Patrick M. Byrne to Overstock.com. Of course, the angle for each then would also be a bit different. The section here seems to be improving, although maybe it could be focused in more on Byrne himself. Some subsections might help as well. The section in Overstock.com probably needs a bit more trimming, to focus on the material most relevant to the company. If we did that I'd be surprised if we need another article, particularly as there might be problems with how to structure it (I'm not sure if it would be Byrne's lawsuits, or "controversy over naked short selling" or something else). I think probably a little trimming and focusing the material would solve most if it. (I'd planned to work on this myself bit by bit.) Mackan79 (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd be hesitant to put much about Byrne's anti-naked shorts campaign into Naked short selling because that is an article about the phenomenon. I wouldn't want to give the Overstock campaign undue weight there (as it has had at various times). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See also and external links

The "See also" and "External links" section disappeared, presumably by accident. I've restored them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Cancer survivor

Two things, as starters: should we perhaps archive this talk-page, and just make a fresh start? Secondly, I have watched the interviews with Byrne that are on the net. All of them mentions his long battle with cancer (starting when he was in his early 20s), ..and how that has influenced his life and "world-view". Nothing of that is now in the article. Shouldn´t it be? Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC),

Yes, it should definitely be there. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree on the material; I think it actually was here once. I archived up to the recent revisions, good thought. Mackan79 (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the mention that he's a cancer survivor, and about the bike rides. I haven't seen the more extended discussions, but that could be interesting as well for some background if anyone finds a good source. Mackan79 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked for reference to the bike riding. It's mentioned in passing in this Washington Post article (not freely available), and covered in more depth at: "Cyclist on a mission to raise cancer awareness," Reno Gazette-Journal, June 7, 2000, and "Cancer victims in hearts of PMC riders," Telegram & Gazette (Massachusetts) August 05, 2000, which says: "... Since its inception in 1980, the PMC has raised more than $42 million for the Jimmy Find. In that first year, 36 riders raised $10,200. Last year, slightly more than 2,500 riders raised $8.7 million. This year's 3,000 riders are hoping to raise $12 million. | A driving force behind that goal is Patrick Byrne of Hanover, N.H., who is chief executive officer of e-commerce site Overstock.com. A three-time cancer survivor, he has been bicycling across the United States since Memorial Day to raise awareness in the fight against cancer. | Mr. Byrne began his trek in San Francisco, and will ride to Provincetown with the PMC participants. He pledged $1 million to the PMC if it would increase its original $9 million goal to $11 million, which it did. ..."

Incidentally, the article does not now say he's from New Hampshire. That claim is repeated in this voucher story. Cool Hand Luke 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke. Looking through it a bit I don't see anything specific to add here, but if there's anything I'm missing others are free to try. Mackan79 (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, looking much better

One of the most amazing change I see is the paragraph that used to read, "During the school voucher debate, Byrne said of high school dropouts, 'You may as well burn those kids.' He was criticized for the comment by the Utah NAACP, but refused to apologize." With the quote in context, it seems he probably meant the opposite of what was implied here—that he believes the current policy causes bad results and burns kids, not that we may as well burn them since they're dropouts anyway.

Good source-checking, Hulda! Cool Hand Luke 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same thing as well. I found something similar with the quote on Google, actually, where it sounded before like he was talking down participation in its IPO, rather than talking down the opposition to the Dutch auction method, as was evident in the article.[3] A small thing, but of course, saying Wall Street had to be dragged into participating in Google's IPO out of context makes him sound like a nut. Mackan79 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Many of the a sources seem to be used strangely: just checked the source on his criticism Utah governor Jon Huntsman; the main thing, IMO, namely that Huntsman didn´t keep his word (according to Byrne) ..isn´t mentioned. Just mentioning that A is angry with B, without mentioning that A apparently has very good reason for being so... isn´t very fair, IMO. Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, and Cool Hand; it is HuldRa, as in this lady (I didn´t knew that I already had an article here when I chose the name!)

Suggested changes

I've been in email contact with Patrick Byrne following his complaints about this article. He has sent me an alternative version of the article. Since I started discussing this with him, other editors have got involved in editing it, so I have decided to publish it to Google.

• http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df9gr9pz_0gk26pzhg

As you might expect, it doesn't comply with all of Wikipedia's policies in its current form (Byrne doesn't claim to be familiar with them all) but rather than discuss this fact I would suggest that we regard it as a starting point for changes and corrections to Wikipedia's article. As a derived form of our Wikipedia article, its content is covered by GFDL. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That is very good, Anticip. I will try to look at some of it. I definitely think that the awards (“Entrepreneur of the Year") should go into the opening. As for that last sentence ("Other Black leaders who had initially demanded an apology of Byrne, such as radio host Michael Baisden, later apologized to Byrne over their handling of the issue."): I cannot find a source for that. Also, I cannot see that this source is used anywhere in the article, is there any reason for that? Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, in what year was he born? He is -according to the sources -about 45 years old, but is there any source for the year? (1963?) Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have done i little bit (I don´t think I will do more on this today). The "Campaign against naked shorting" is still far, far too messy. And the opening should still be reworked, IMO. On the changes that Byrne have suggested in the google ducument I have some comments:

• A: I do not agree with his suggestion that the title should be changed to "Campaign to prevent systemic collapse (“naked shorting”)". Very few use that phrase, and I think it is quite POW, as not many others (AFAIK) see any danger of "systemic collapse".
• B: Just one example, he states in the draft that: "they captured the federal regulators to prevent them from addressing the issue, and co-opted various members of the national business press (specifically, Carol Remond, joe Nocera, Jim Cramer, Bethany McLean, herb Greenberg, and Roddy Boyd) and instructed them to downplay the severity of the issue and distort his allegations about it." My comment: if this is his opinion, I think it is so noteworthy that some of it should go into the article. (not including anything which violates BIO) The problem is: I have a problem sourcing this! I find a lot on his blog, but not even there can I find a source for most of this. And as long as that is the case it must obviously stay out. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his draft is very opinionated but we can work around that. I'm gathering a list of requests for sources and he's promised to help with that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked hard for his birthday. The June 7, 2000 Reno Gazette-Journal story mentioned above says he was 37 (as do other stories from the summer of 2000). That places him at 1962-1963. A March 3, 2006 AP article places him at 43, and this November 14, 2005 Fortune article places him at 42. If these are all correct, his birthday must be between November, 14 1962 and March, 3 1963. In any case, he would currently be 45. Cool Hand Luke 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and "Hedge fund allure is not all it seems," Contra Costa Times, December 5, 2005 also says 42. Would be between Dec. 5, 1962 and March 3, 1963. Cool Hand Luke 18:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect his birthday is November 29, 1962, but I have no RS. Going to see if I can find it in NH newspaper births. Cool Hand Luke 18:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tch. Scratch that. I'm not that tenacious today. He's 45 now. Cool Hand Luke 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank, Luke, and Anticip: that is certainly one thing you can ask Byrne about. (Also: I hope you native English quackers will clean up my language! As you might have noticed: I am not a native English speaker (But if you need assistance with anything in Danish, Swedish or Norwegian: just ask!;-) ) Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And I have a small problem with the "Entrepreneur of the Year" award. Now, the Riding on a Raft- article states that it was awarded in 2003. However, if you go to the "source" at E&Y, (try: http://eoyhof.ey.com/SearchHallofFame.aspx and search for "Byrne")...then you will find that it says 2002. I suspect that the "source" is correct, ie it is 2002. But it isn´t very "neat" linking to a search-page...I think. If anybody find a better source: do tell. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have expanded a bit about early history of Byrne and Overstock: there is still more information which should be included.

As for the section named "Campaign against naked shorting": Should we rename this? There are two separate lawsuits; one in 2005, and one in 2007. As far as I can see, the 2005 lawsuit is not about naked short selling. It is about short selling, for sure, but not "naked". However, the 2007 lawsuit is about naked short selling (if I have understood things correctly.) Are the texts of the lawsuits available anywhere on the web?? If so, we should definitely link to them. Also, apparently some journalists are named in these lawsuits(?) If journalist X is mentioned, and then write an article about Overstock/Byrne, well, then it should, IMO, be noted if we quote from that article. Possible COI, and all that.

As for the structure of that section: should we possibly divide it into two sub-sections: one named, say ===2005 lawsuit===, and the other ===2007 lawsuit=== ? Regards, Huldra (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Without having read Byrne's suggestions in detail, I wonder if something like =="Deep capture" campaign== would be a better heading. I think you're right that the focus entirely on naked shorting isn't entirely accurate, but also that the 2005 lawsuit and releated claims are equally part of the whole thing. Then we could make a little clearer that the naked shorting issue is just one part of it. Mackan79 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Added section on Deep Capture

Hello all, it's been about 2yrs since I first tried to correct some of the obviously biased information on this article and met head on with TomStoner & Manatanmoreland (see: Archives). I'm happy to see that they no longer control this article.

I added a section on Deep Capture since Patrick is currently working on it and thought it notable since it also reflects his passion. I am happy to have discussions about the wording and such.

Good to finally see this article get cleaned up.

Mfv (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that personal blogs can be used as sources concerning third parties. Patrick' blog, if you can call it that, is a reliable source concerning possibly himslf at the most. --Bassettcat (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bassettcat up to a point. The wording in this edit seems somehow slanted. How about this rewording?

Before:

Currently, Patrick blogs about the darker side of the players on Wall Street at Deep Capture. While still a work in progress, many notable people including Michael Steinhardt, Jim Cramer, Tim Mullaney, and author Gary Weiss are documented in a compromising light. Future articles, per comments by Patrick at Deep Capture, will include famed short seller David Rocker and journalist Herb Greenberg.

After:

Byrne has created a blog called Deep Capture "to bypass the captured institutions mediating our nation’s discourse" and publicise his thesis that "Wall Street is colluding in massive financial crimes against the United States, enabling hedge funds to loot pension funds in return for a share of the spoils", and that the financial press and the regulators have become "captured institutions", incapable of discussing this. In this blog he makes detailed accusations of corruption and criminal activity against named hedge fund managers, journalists.

You see what I'm trying to do? My version is intended to describe Byrne's blog without somehow entering into it in spirit. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Second thoughts I wonder if it's wise to include the link to that blog at all. I've spotted what appear to be several inaccuracies in his blog, which have the effect of making potentially defamatory statements about some people. I would not want us to be a secondary publisher to such accusations. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to make that point myself. This blog makes some truly wild accusations against several persons, and accuses both Steinhardt and Cramer of being market manipulators. I don't think it helps to adopt his language even if the persons are not named.--Bassettcat (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this go to his personal character, as say, Lobbying for Education? That it's a more polarizing topic shouldn't make a difference. Characterizing it as his thesis/opinion should be sufficient. Frankly, it's difficult to speak about the man, currently, w/o bringing up his involvement against wall street. It's part of who he is these days right or wrong. That he writes about it at Deep Capture in such volumes is an indicator to his passion here.--Mfv (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is really all of a part with his campaign against naked shorts. I suggest that the name of the blog (but not the link, for reasons I've already discussed) can be mentioned in connection with that campaign. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If that can be done in a manner that does not republish his comments. Perhaps something to the effect that "His personal blog, Deep Capture, comments further on his views concerning naked short selling." Evem that is debatable since, according to Google News, it has never been mentioned in a news account.--Bassettcat (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Added your "After" rewrite with a word or two added/removed as the last para to the Naked Short Selling section. Thanks --Mfv (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Anticipation's point about not wanting to be a secondary publisher of the defamatory and inaccurate statements made in the blog, I've changed that to a brief reference and removed the link.--Bassettcat (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Added back link. Many people have their blogs listed on their page. See Mark Cuban/Gary Weiss's page as an example. Content there ranges across the board. Also, how do we leave in content like "Worse CEO in the world" and yet argue about defaming? --Mfv (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that action, irrespective of whether we might currently include links to other problematic content. That blog contains actual accusations of past and ongoing dubious activity, including crimes, against named people. I don't think it's appropriate to compare that to things like "Worst CEO in the world", which is not defamatory, being a matter of opinion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we publish someone's blog simply by linking to it, if that's what I understand this discussion is about. That would make us responsible for the material on every blog that we link, as well as presumably responsible for vetting the same in terms of Wikipedia policies. I can't see how that kind of approach would hold up on a wide basis. Mackan79 (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anticip: do you really mean that we should not link to his blog? If so, I strongly disagree. In all other controversial bios on WP that I know of we always link to their blogs/personal web-sites, if they have one. And I´m thinking about extremely "controversial" (<-this is todays understatement!) people like David Duke, and Ernst Zündel. I find it totally absurd if we cannot/should not link to the "Deep Capture" blog, while we keep links to e.g. Zündelsite: Ernst Zündel's Web site. Last time I checked the policy was that we could always state any persons views (on others) on his/her bio. page, but not on the pages of the other person. (And my apologies to Patrick Byrne for mentioning him together with such %&$#/*$ as Duke and Zündel: It´s just for the argument..). Regards, Huldra (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so much concerned with having a link to his blog as having a link to his blog associated with the accusations he makes (which are, for the record, potentially defamatory and, for accusations of that gravity, exceptionally poorly founded). I wouldn't repeat the accusations in connection with the blog, but I think a bare link (which seems to be the current version) is okay. I've no idea what zundelsite is, but if it makes similar allegations of criminal activity against named individuals I would most likely object to it. Similarly, if as you seem to be suggesting David Duke makes accusations against named individuals we wouldn't want to publicise his libel here. If the Metropolitan of Alexandria, the Dalai Lama, the Grand Mufti and the Pope all made such accusations on their blog, we wouldn't want to republish them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the link to his self-published accusations should more than suffice. Anything beyond that should await media coverage.--Bassettcat (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, we are publishing it: check Dukes article; it notes e.g. that he thinks that Ariel Sharon was "the world's worst terrorist" and that Mossad was involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks.... And I believe Zundel is still in jail for the things he has published at his Zundelsite (which we link to).

Anticep; I think the short paragraph you had above was ok (That is: your "After" paragraph). But I can live without it -for now. What I will protest strongly against is removing a link to Byrnes blog altogether. Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To Bassettcat: first, welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you are a brand new user. Just one small point: your edit-lines when you have removed stuff from the article have not quite been according to policy: you are allowed to quote peoples own blogs in their own articles. (Also: I assume you have read the top of this page? About Article probation?) Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.:) I am definitely aware of the article probation, and researched the policy before removing. I relied on "Selfpub," under "Wikipedia:Verifiability," which allows self-published materials, inter alia, when "it does not involve claims about third parties." I read that as suggesting that Patrick can be quoted from his blog about himself, but not be quoted about things he says about other people. --Bassettcat (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes? Then you would not object to Anticep´s suggested paragraph? (the "after" version). Also, I cannot see that he made any "claims about third parties" in the paragraph you cut out here? Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that version (Anticipation's) helped much, as he is still making claims about third parties. I decided to remove my own, much shorter wording as I had doubts the blog was important enough, and it has never been cited in any news stories. I think it is better that, instead of my describing or someone else here describing his blog, we should wait until the media does. This is a sensitive biography and I see that an editor just removed the starting date of the Overstock SEC investigation as "provocative." Certainly the claims in his blog are at least as provocative.--Bassettcat (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the reasons are analagous, but I tend to agree that it isn't necessary to discuss the blog unless we had a source that did so. Otherwise I also agree that including it in the external links is appropriate. Mackan79 (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)Well, the Anticip version didn´t "name names", so I thought it was quite usable. And there has never, AFAIK, been any policy that a blog should be noted by external sources in order to be referred to in the authors bio. And Byrnes blog is innocent Sunday school reading ....compared to Duke/Zundel/Adelheid Institute web-sites/blogs, which we routinely link to in their articles.

Anyway; I can let the matter rest for now; there are other things missing/or should be reworked in this article which are far more pressing, IMO. I´m especially interested in knowing if the text of the two court-cases (2005, 2007) are online?? Does anybody know? If so, I would very, very much like a link (or two). Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Looks like we went full circle without any changes :-( . A couple of comments:

1. Mackan79, I thought the start date to the SEC investigation gives a little more clarification since it's been going on for so long (approaching 2 yrs now) -- feels more back-burnerish at this point then something that's actively being pursued.
2. I find it inappropriate to quote journalists that are openly in conflict with Byrne. I am referring to Herb Greenberg who's actually listed as a defendant in one of the lawsuits. Google him and OSTK and you will not find one smattering of balance in his reporting with respect to anything surrounding OSTK. In fact, he openly mocks Byrne at every opportunity. I don't think any "journalist" has carte blanc on comments on a person's BIO; Their motives and situation should be considered. --Mfv (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. (But if you add Anticips version (see above): I certainly will not object) Anyway, again; do you know if the text of the two lawsuits (2005, 2007) are online? If so, I would very much like a link (or two). And I totally agree: if Greenberg is mentioned in one of the lawsuits, then it should definitely be noted here (Actually, I have made the point earlier on this page) Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the start date, I was more put off by the wording, though it might have been just me. I believe it's also referred to as an "informal" investigation, correct? I thought the way I worded it was a fair balance by not making too big a deal out of any of it, but I suppose if someone feels strongly about adding a date I'm not dead set or anything. Mackan79 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Huldra, Ostk v. Gradient is here: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=65285&div=4&doc_no=A113397 . You can search for the Prime Brokerage lawsuit at the same site. There's a bunch of info on Overstock's investor relation site: http://investors.overstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131091&p=irol-lawsuits including sworn affidavits, etc. This post: http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3532&mn=4832&pt=msg&mid=1442348 extracts from the affidavit and implicates Herb.

Mackan79, I'll re-add the date for clarification. Feel free to adjust to your liking but I would like to preserve the timeframe. Thanks. -- Mfv (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Huldra's comment. If Greenberg is named in the suit it is essential to point that out in the article. --Stetsonharry (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

He's not named in the suit. He is named in affidavits that have since been discredited. Aside from Greenberg's own denial, there is the article in the New York Post, quoted in the Wall Street Journal, indicating that Anifantis was fired for "violations of corporate policy." http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,615153450,00.html The affidavit was drafted by Overstock. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/greenberg/2006/06/more_questions_.html

I think that there are problems under the "no original research" as relates to "synthesis to advance a point of view." I think that in general Wikipedia should not be delving into stuff that is filed in lawsuits, yanking it out and putting it in articles when the lawsuit is ongoing and everything is disputed. Either the discrediting of Anifantis should be added to provide the other side of the story or it should be removed enitrely.--Bassettcat (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in general use commonsense and avoid delving into court documents (other than, perhaps, rulings and appeals to cite the court's decision). Journalists' opinions should be selected according to the merits, not the opinion of the subject of the article about the journalist. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This entry has several problems, in terms of significant negative maerial removed, notably the entire Sith Lord affair, and trivial "awards" added in their place. I cannot find any reference to Byrne being named "Entrepreneur of the Year for 2003." There is a source for that I know, but Ernst & Young says otherwise: http://entrepreneurs.about.com/cs/breakingnews/a/eoy2003.htm. The reference to his $800 million in revenues is absurd, given the history of mounting losses and the fact that the company has never made a profit. These are significant problems and omissions IMHO, aside and apart from an absence of basic biographical details such as DOB and earlier job history. I will nose around and try to find something to fill in the blanks.--Bassettcat (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So far, all of the motions in the Rocker/Gradient case, by OSTK, have advanced in court and all of the appeals, by the defendants, have been thrown out. Not surprising that the employees were fired for whistle blowing as well as Greenberg's denial of the charges. The affidavits still remain on record and none of the authors have been charged with any perjury. In fact, in a ruling against a Rocker appeal, the court wrote "The Anifantis declaration is sufficient prima facie evidence demonstrating Gradient's predecessor (Camelback) published "Special Reports" in reckless disregard of the truth" ruling. That Greenberg is implicated in one of the cases, his opinion is suspect and should be removed or balanced via the affidavit's implication. Mfv (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You (plural) are veering into advocacy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I encourage thoughtful discourse from reliable/unbias sources (I would think a court document would be one). There is a lot of negativity (hyperbole) surrounding this whole issue that I would caution everyone for the need to dig a little deeper then the typical sources. I was overpowered here several years ago while trying to argue the other side. My talk pages were scored by Mantanmoreland and Tomstoner by veiled threats and wiki rules jargon. Both accounts have since been disabled for sock puppetry. Mfv (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into personal attacks and whatnot. My point is that I think that when you (Mfv) start arguing the merits of the case Overstock.com versus Rocker and Gradient, and when Bassettcat starts arguing the plausibility of revenue claims, you both appear to me to be taking a point of advocacy. There are guidelines here for reliable sources that should help us. I don't even know where the affidavit fits into this matter, but it's obviously just one person's version of events (albeit sworn). As an illustration of what a minefield these matters can be, I need only point to the recent fraud charges levelled by SEC against Biovail. We're better staying away from this kind of stuff and letting the courts do their job. Second-guessing the outcome based on interim appeals and whatnot will only be a waste of time (not to mention, original research) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing the plausibility of the revenues, but pointing out that the number is misleading without noting that the company has never turned a profit. I just corrected that, as I presume there is no objection to that, as well as adding biographical details from Marquis who's who online. There is no usable URL as this is a proprietary database. There were two references to his E&Y award, which I have reduced to one. I have not touched the affidavit business as there seems to be some dissent, but I think that is troublesome and needs to go.--Bassettcat (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it had been established that, rather than being named in the suit, Greenberg had simply been mentioned in an affidavit submitted by a witness in the suit. The list of parties to the case is here and does not include Greenberg. I think our article currently has a problem caused by an attempt to shoehorn a third party statement about Greenberg into it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is established. So why not remove it? Also I believe that one reference to Byrne's alleged E&Y award, and his being on a Business Week list six years ago, is sufficient. Prominent mention of these two minor distinctions, with peacock terminology "for his achievements," makes this entry read like a corporate press release. There is some evidence that he did not win that award. See link earlier provided.--Bassettcat (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

First: thanks for finding his birthday! We had been looking for it ;-P Secondly, about the lead: I do think the E&Y award, and the Business Week list belongs in the lead. The two other awards are local for Utah, and those should not go into the lead, IMO (even if they do so in other articles). I´m not sure that I would use the words "peacock terminology" about "for his achievements," but feel free to change that wording. Also, there is nothing "alleged" about his E&Y award: to quote myself from earlier: "I have a small problem with the "Entrepreneur of the Year" award. Now, the Riding on a Raft- article states that it was awarded in 2003. However, if you go to the "source" at E&Y, (try: http://eoyhof.ey.com/SearchHallofFame.aspx and search for "Byrne")...then you will find that it says 2002. I suspect that the "source" is correct, ie it is 2002." Thirdly, about Greenberg: I inserted the information about Greenberg being named in the 2005 lawsuit, basically to balance the very negative articles/refs to/from Greenberg in the article, where he "called Byrne the runner-up for Worst CEO of the Year two years running." Now, I´m perfectly willing to take it out again, but then I think we also should take out the reference to the Greenberg article. Greenberg is simply not a neutral observer, IMO, and if his views are presented here, then that should be made clear. Also; I completely agree that there are are still big gaps in this biography; both regarding earlier job history, and cancer-involvement/research/support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the E&Y site. Sorry I had overlooked it earlier. It is definitely 2002 and it is a Utah regional "milestone" award, not a 2003 national life achievement award. This is a major inaccuracy and needs to be corrected. Obviously such a minor award does not belong high in the article. I think the same goes for a mention in a six year old Business Week list.--Bassettcat (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree there. The lead is supposed to contain the "highlight"/milestones; not only recent issues. The fact that the Business Week list was 6 years ago does not make it irrelevant; far from it. I think that was the trouble with the lead as it was earlier: far too focused on recent issues. Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the posts clarifying the "named" status of Greenberg in the Overstock suit. Since he is not named as a defendant, I agree that delving into the suit and taking out an affidavit is probably not warranted. I don't advocate taking him out entirely, on the basis of the affidavit, as long as he meeets other criteria. I am an agnostic as to whether the two awards should be named twice. I think that including them does more harm than good, as the Utah award sounds picayune, and the Business Week list is definitely dated. It is like me putting my Eagle Scout merit badges in my resume.--Stetsonharry (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see that Herb Greenberg´s part in the Overstock suit is taken out. I suggest that we then also remove the reference to Herb Greenberg´s article ("Worst CEO of 2006 " etc). After all, that article is only an opinion piece. Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe one has much to do with the other. Removal of the reference to the affidavit was necessary as original research and because Greenberg is not a party to the suit. However, I think that the "worst CEO" reference is an important part of the press coverage and should be retained.--Stetsonharry (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I repaired an erroneous reference to Byrne's "Ernst and Young Award" which was fixed in the Lead but not in the awards section. This does not belong in the introductory section and should be removed. WP:LEAD says the introduction "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article," "the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources," and "the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." --Bassettcat (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that a blog? It reads more like a website with third party content to me. Link to it shud go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.201.51 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mitchell Report

Very long but an absolute must read to give the Byrne side of Herb, Nocera, etc.: http://www.deepcapture.com/ Mfv (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am once again diving in for a few evenings to catch up on these strange debates. I have never been to this talk page before tonight (I'm pretty sure). Wow. Respect to all. I see that some total strangers are digging and starting to put two and two together. Bravo, and thank you for your efforts to fix these things (though I know you did not do it to be thanked). And for those who honestly weigh in on the other side.... Respect as well. I can easily see how the vision of an honest person could still be fogged by what has been published. I see, however, that someone has discovered Mark Mitchell's story on the front of "DeepCapture.com" (I hope the site's mention is not a thought-crime, Bassettcat). To the many of you who seem honestly to piece together the truth, I suggest you read Mark's piece. It is long (about the length of The Crying of Lot 49, I'd guess) but it is also a shortcut if you want to know the truth. By the way, I do not mean to be intrusive by writing to you like this. I read the discussion and wished to express gratitude, and also to be helpful, though I know some could argue my presence on this page is inappropriate (just as they argue that linking to the blog of Gary Weiss is legitimate, but any link on my page to DeepCapture must be illegitimate). I do see a lot of questions up above that I could easily answer, and save the efforts that some are apparently putting into this. Let me know. Best, PatrickByrne (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in answer to the poster asking for a clear, simple statement of my Mitzvah (that's my preferred term for it), here is something I wrote: http://www.deepcapture.com/cnbcs-ron-insana-patrick-byrne-and-the-miscreants-ball/ All the stuff about "Sith Lord" and "jihad" is just blue-smoke-and-mirrors to keep people from hearing those claims. PatrickByrne (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOAPBOX. One wonders why Byrne said "stuff" about the "Sith Lord" (quoting Patrick M. Byrne) and his "jihad" (quoting Patrick M. Byrne) if it was "smoke-and-mirrors". John Nevard (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See [[4]]. One wonders why John Nevard sees no distinction between using a phrase in passing about one thing versus giving an hour long talk about something else. To avoid mention of that "something else" by pretending the talk was about the incidental phrase is the "blue-smoke-and-mirrors" thing.PatrickByrne (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

SEC Investigation Terminated

An administrator needs to insert at the appropriate point that the SEC investigation was terminated. See [5]. There is a sentence with the word "ongoing" which can be changed to "terminated in June 2008 without action."--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, someone seems to have removed the meat of the sentence based on the reference on that investigation. From the opening sentence of that report: "Overstock.com founder Patrick Byrne received a [SEC] subpoena in May 2006 of last year but... appears to have waited a year before alerting investors that he had been served." John Nevard (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be moot now that the investigation has been terminated? May not be, but I assume that is the reason it was removed.--Stetsonharry (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The delay in disclosure hasn't become any less of an issue. Seems to have been removed sometime in the past- I stopped bothering to try and edit these articles while they were being gutted. John Nevard (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this [6] is the reason no one wants to repeat the bizarre claim that in May 2006 my alerts to investors were sufficient ("Overstock.com Celebrates Receipt of SEC Subpoena...SALT LAKE CITY, May 9, 2006...Overstock.com Chairman and CEO Patrick Byrne said, 'I may be the first CEO in history to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena...'" Or perhaps it is the video shown here [7]. PatrickByrne (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If Overstock issued a press release on the subject, perhaps it should be mentioned? Evidently the whole subpoena issue is considered newsworthy by Mr. Byrne, and should be by Wikipedia as well. Perhaps also Mr. Byrne's participation in Wikipedia should be mentioned if he is acknowledged to be the person above.--Stetsonharry (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

His identify was confirmed by OTRS, but we would only mention his participation if a reliable source published it first. We are not a forum for original research. Cool Hand Luke 00:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There's this talk-page template: {{Notable Wikipedian|PatrickByrne|Byrne, Patrick M.|editedhere=no}}. It puts up a header and adds the page to Category:Notable Wikipedians. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)