Talk:Gary Weiss

• Talk:Gary Weiss/Archive 1

New York Times article about Weiss

Appearing as the subj of a NYT article is pretty notable, perhaps some of the admins/editors protecting the article page would like to incorporate this material. It would be an excellent supplement to the section on Weiss's book and commentary about Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, and naked shorting. Here's the article with some details censored out as they are unmentionable:

"Flames Flare Over Naked Shorts"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/business/20online.html [removed copyvio] Piperdown 00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't read the article because I didn't feel like paying the fee to do so, so I can understand why you posted the entire article here. Anyway, the NYTimes, is, of course, a major publication and if it's reporting on a severe and now public dispute between Overstock.com and Gary Weiss, then that merits at least a sentence about it in the article. Please be bold and add this article to the list of references, write a sentence or two about it in the text, and provide an inline citation to the source. Cla68 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

not sure how to incorporate this material, other than an "external link". Here's some of the text that applies to the subject of this article, and so as to not violate copyrights, here's a sample - I'll leave it up to other more skilled editors on how to incorporate it into the article -- that could help others determine what is relevant to include without having to pay the NYT to peek at it. Since this is pretty controversial, I felt it is better to post it in talk first and let editors decide what if any should go into the article.

---

By DAN MITCHELL Published: January 20, 2007, The New York Times (excerpts)...The site...is devoted to combing through message boards and other Web sites to present “proof” that Mr. Weiss misrepresented himself on Amazon, Wikipedia and other sites to promote his own books and settle personal scores....Beyond calling the accusations “lies,” Mr. Weiss hasn’t addressed most of the details of the site’s “findings,” though he denied having edited Wikipedia entries under a pseudonym. Instead, he pointed out that Mr. Byrne has himself posted under pseudonyms on various message boards...Weiss became especially exercised after The New York Post reported last week that the anonymous operator of {my ed: unmentionable} was Judd Bagley, Overstock’s director for social media. Calling Mr. Bagley “hideous” and a “nauseating spectacle,” Mr. Weiss lit into Mr. Byrne and his online lieutenant in post after post...

---

Piperdown 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that if someone wants to read the full article, they can just go back in the history for this page and click on the version that contained the full text (13 May 2007). The article is fairly critical of Overstock and Byrne, and neutral in it's reporting of Weiss' involvement. Thus, I don't think it should be a problem to use this article as a reference for a small section on the issue. I'll try to add a neutral, short section on the issue to the article in a short while. It might should also be mentioned in the articles for Overstock and Byrne. Cla68 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The website, not Byrne, had made the accusations against Weiss. I have fixed and added Weiss's denial from the Bloomberg article. Also have added details of far greater significance than this spat. As written, this section had put a pissing match with a CEO on a par with Project Klebnikov and Weiss's column in Forbes.com, which was not even mentioned. Also have added a link to Weiss' blog, as per WP:EL, but am not using it as a source.--Samiharris 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Sami. IIRC, the attack website in question also criticized reporter Susan Antilla, alleging that she should have revealed that she is married to a hedge fund manager. The problem? She isn't. When this was pointed out to the blogger in question, his initial response was to deny it, to claim that he had spent "thousands of moments on the internet" trying to find proof of her divorce.

When proof was shown him explicitly enough so that stonewalling like that seemed silly, he dropped the demand that she disclose her non-conflict from the non-marriage. Nice of him, eh?

Or are we talking about different attack websites? Anyway, Susan Antilla should probably get an article of her own. --Christofurio 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the same attack site, and I agree that it has been well handled by Samiharris. --Mantanmoreland 23:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that reads, "Weiss has been attacked by an anonymous website whose operator has admitted to being an employee of Overstock.com." doesn't appear to be true. The front page of that website identifies its owner and operator as Judd Bagley. Also, the NYT article did potray the conflict between Weiss and Byrne as a "pissing match," even comparing the both of them to 14-year-old adolescents. As rewritten, the section no longer reflects the mood of the article. Cla68 23:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Times article accurately referred to the website as "anonymous" and as "anonymously written." That is correct. It is an anonymous website whose author was revealed by the New York Post to have been an employee of Overstock.com. I'm afraid that your version skipped over that rather significant point. As for the "mood" that you mention, I think that was a problem and that it has been corrected. It is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article to reflect the "mood" of one article, even a New York Times article. Certainly the "mood" of the Bloomberg piece made Overstock appear to be thuggish in that particular instance and Weiss as something of a hero. The current version provides appropriate weight to this issue and takes neither approach. Also, as Christofurio pointed out, what this essentially is about is the allegations of a non-notable website that is of the "attack" variety and appears not to be very accurate. --Samiharris 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As to your point about the current apperance of the website, that was evidently changed after the identity of the author was revealed by the New York Post. At the time the article was written, presumably, this was an anonymous website as stated in the Times article. I think that might be a point of confusion.--Samiharris 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, the section as written now points out that the site was anonymous until "outed" by the press. Anyway, the NYT piece characterized the conflict as a "vicious online conflict" between Byrne and Weiss, giving equal balance to their accusations and counter-accusations, although apparently giving somewhat more credibility to Weiss' position. That's what I've tried to reflect in the way I wrote the section. Cla68 00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Times article was apparently a quick-and-dirty, oversimplified "what's online" column. I think it needs to be read in conjunction with the Antilla piece, which quoted both parties and made it more apparent that what we have here is a corporate disinformation campaign. The Times article was somewhat labored in that it conjured up a dispute between Weiss and Byrne, when in fact Byrne was not the one on the attack here, but rather a website run by a surrogate. I think your initial misimpression was understandable and I am sure it was a good-faith error.--Samiharris 00:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reflecting accurately what a source depicts isn't an "error" but the very way that we're supposed to conduct research from secondary sources. We're supposed to write what the sources are actually saying as much as we can, not what we think they should say. I read the Antilla piece and it much more takes Weiss' side in the conflict. I'll add a sentence or two reflecting her reporting to the section. Cla68 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You said in your original edit that Byrne had made the accusations against Weiss. That was an error, which I am assuming was made in good faith as the Times article said explicitly that the accusations were made anonymously by a website. I have reverted your insertion of those anonymous accusations. It is simply not fair of you to insert them here, as they are libelous in the extreme, and were made anonymnously. That simply is not fair to Mr. Weiss and appears to run counter to WP:BLP, which states that poorly sourced material should be removed. The source of this was an anonymous website whose author was revealed to be the employee of a company having a major axe to grind against this person. Additionally you say that the identity of the operator of this website was revealed by the New York Times. Not correct. It was identified by the Post. Lastly, you made a correct link incorrect.--Samiharris 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence from Antilla, although she is identified as a "columnist," not a reporter, which is an important distinction. I think it's ok to repeat the accusations becuase they're in a major source and are labled as accusations along with Weiss' response. Cla68 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you were correct to remove the allegations. While it is true that they were republished in a major source, they were originally published anonymously and that is, at bottom, poor sourcing under WP:BLP. I think that this is a good example of the principle "when in doubt, don't." --Samiharris 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be argued that Antilla's comments could be removed also, since it leans the text towards Weiss' side. I don't, however, have that much of a problem with it, since it is sourced correctly and doesn't misrepresent what she was saying in her column. Cla68 01:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is all right. What she is saying is in the realm of opinion, and it is not especially inflammatory. The anonymous allegations were clearly libelous, however. That is an important distinction.--Samiharris 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Two tweaks. "Attack" is correct, not "criticize" and also I fixed the link. It kept getting changed back to an incorrect link.--Samiharris 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Byrne and Bagely aren't anonymous, and the article from the New York Times clearly cited who they were. And the reporter clearly stated that they are accusing Gary Weiss of some pretty unethical behavior for a Journalist/Author, and in return Weiss is accusing them of lying about him. It this all notable? It's certainly context for Weiss's comments on Byrne being used in wikipedia, and it's also the only major news media coverage of Gary Weiss in a year. This isn't from a blog, it's from the New York Times. If they are violating Gary's BLP rights, then imagine what Byrne must think about the New York Post, Joe Nocera, The Register, and Gary Weiss claiming they are qualified to issue psychological evaluations of a CEO who is pursuing some of their friends in court. Context is everything in accurate reporting and presenting a balanced article.Piperdown 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Byrne is not accusing anyone in the Times article. The accusations are entirely by an anonymous website whose author was identified by the media. Those accusations were anonymous personal attacks and were about as poorly sourced as you can imagine. They were indeed accusations of unethical conduct. That is my point. They were libelous personal attacks. I'm a bit perplexed by your comment that this was the "only major news media coverage of Gary Weiss in a year." As you can see by perusing the article, there were several other articles quoting Weiss, including one specifically relating to this issue by Susan Antilla, and I presume there were also book reviews. If you have an issue about BLP issues concerning Byrne, you should broach them on the talk pages of that article. I agree that there is a need for a balanced article, one free of libelous and poorly sourced material.--Samiharris 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly take the position, and it is a reasonable one, that Bagley is a surrogate or "cat's paw" of Byrne and that it is really Byrne engaging in these attacks. However, Byrne denies that and the article does not say so. So we are left with anonymous personal attacks that, lo and behold, turn out to be by an employee of Overstock.com, a company criticized by Weiss. In light of all the circumstances, I think this controversy is dealt with in a remarkably even-handed fashion in this article as currently written. It is dealt with in an appropriate amount of space and without violating Wikipedia policies.--Samiharris 03:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The source isn't the website. The source is Dan Mitchell of the New York Times. So what should be cited if anything is Mitchell. He is the reliable source in in this instance. No one is trying to use the unmentionable site as a source for wikipedia. Should we go down a layer and do orig research on every WP:RS that is used in BLP's? That would be interesting - where did The Register's reporter get a PhD in Pysch. to determine Byrne's mental health? Does Weiss have a qualifications to determine that Byrne is having a "meltdown"? Nocera is using him as a source - Nocera is a WP:RS, but are his sources? Every biography on here uses WP:RS's that themselves use anonymous sources, biased named sources, and a myriad of other COI's. All we can do is use those WP:RS's. If Mitchell is libeling Weiss, that is between him and the NYT. I'm sure Byrne feels that every negative source used on his wikipedia entry is "borderline libeling" him, but they are from WP:RS's, aren't they? Interesting game going on here with wikipedia rules and how to selectively apply them.Piperdown 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're so anxious to replicate a rather petty personal attack of the "smear" variety in Wikipedia. This is an attack on the character of a respected journalist, and it was made anonymously. I am surprised we are debating the inclusion of such an attack. It seems to me that any fair-minded editor would not sanction such material. It also troubles me as being a fly speck compared to the other material contained in this biography, of the same caliber as maintaining that Weiss cheats on his income taxes or takes bread from the store, and yet would be given the same amount of space as substantive material. Appearance of this material in the New York Times does not alleviate us, as Wikipedia editors, of our responsibility to not include libelous material in the project. Mr. Weiss may well have a lawsuit against the New York Times as well as Bagley, and perhaps Wikipedia as well if we include this material. None of the criticism of Byrne's actions and of his company have been of the same caliber as the petty character assassination that you seem to desire to include in this article.

The same issue came up in the Soros article pertaining to unfounded and unfair allegations that he somehow "collaborated" with the Nazis at the age of 14. Yes, these too were published in reputable publications but were not ultimately included in the Wikipedia article on George Soros. We should be proud of our attentiveness to excluding such material from Wikipedia and not zealously try to include it.Samiharris 04:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed we are having this discussion as well. See WP:LIBEL: "All contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." --Mantanmoreland 04:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed that editors that claim that all "defamatory" material to living persons should be removed yet add quotes about Patrick Byrne having a "meltdown" (ironically in this article) and use a piece from the Register about Byrne being "Bizarre", among other instances. Perhaps samiharris can apply these noble concepts of BLP editing to Patrick Byrne on the Patrick M. Byrne, Joseph Nocera, Overstock.com, and Naked short selling articles as well?Piperdown 05:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The three articles that we're discussing here (Antilla, Mitchell, and Boyd) used several terms to describe the purpose of Bagley's website. Boyd used: "levelling sharp charges," "launched bitter attacks," "accused," and "allegations." Antilla used: "attack." Mitchell used: "flame war," "bashing critics," and "accusations." Mitchell also said that Weiss "lit into" Byrne. You can use any of these phrases in the article, as long as they're sourced and they should be in quotations to show that they're someone's words.

One other thing, Samiharris, you're trying to have it both ways. You have an extremely weak argument for keeping negative opinions of Weiss' actions out of the article because they are from one of the biggest and most credible newspapers in the world and the opinions/accusations are clearly explained from who they come from and why. Yet, you want to keep Weiss' negative opinions of others in the article, using the very same sources and Weiss' blog. This and all the other associated articles (Byrne, Overstock, Naked Short Selling, etc) should clearly be able to repeat anything and everything from those three articles (Antilla, Boyd, Mitchell) as long as everything is sourced. That's how it works. Look at a few other BLPs here in the project and you'll see that that's the standard for inclusion, that it has to be from a major news source and be quoted in context, which is the case here. The online conflict between Weiss and Byrne is now "notable." Articles in the New York Times and New York Post, two of the largest newspapers in the United States, have made it notable. Now, our duty as project editors is to present the story, without spin. Cla68 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You made several misstatements here. I am not "trying to keep out Weiss's actions." On the contrary, my first edit in this article added material on Weiss's actions - his articles, his appointment as a Forbes columnist, all things necessary to build up this article as a biography. None of that interested you and the other editor in the slightest. You did not add relevant actions such as that. Both of you were singlemindedly fixated not on things that Weiss does but on things that he does not do -- on accusations made against him anonymously on a website whose author was revealed by the media to have been an employee of Byrne.

A source such as that is inherently untrustworthy and has only the slightest credibility. The continued efforts to insert this libelous detail is entirely unnecessary and also is prohibited by WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, as another editor pointed out. The fact that the New York Times repeated clearly libelous accusations against a private person that were made anonymously does not create an "aha!" moment for editors here. We cannot twirl our mustaches and say, "now we can insert the character assassination against this guy we don't like." We are still bound by WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP, and are duty-bound to realize that the sourcing of those accusations is not the Times but an anonymous blog authored by someone identified as having an axe to grind.

You also seize upon the "Weiss vs. Byrne" article and ignore that this article contains no statements from Byrne concerning Weiss. It implies, without saying so, that the anonymous website is a cat's paw of Byrne. As I have said several times, not only the Times article but none of the articles -- not a single one -- include statements from Byrne concerning Weiss. They are all between an anonymous website and what appears to be a large number of critics of Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne. Today I went to that website and lo and behold, the reporter from the New York Post who who we are citing in this section is a subject of attacks.

You and the other editor seem upset by off-Wiki attacks on Byrne, but that is not a reason to sanction allowing libelous material in this article. The "meltdown" comment is certainly not libelous. It is a comment on the actions of the CEO in attacking his critics, which was the subject of several articles in the New Yorkk Times. However, I don't have any objection to taking out that and the Antilla quotes as a compromise and to achieve consensus in this article. --Samiharris 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your full response and efforts to compromise. I don't have any problem with the way the paragraph reads now. But for the record, since this issue will probably arise again in the future as the press continues to follow this story, I'll give a full response to what you say above. In order to make sure I don't misunderstand or misrepresent you, I'll outline what I believe your argument is along with my response.

• 1. The accusations and allegations against Weiss are anonymous and thus inherently untrustworthy, only slightly credible, unnecessary, and prohibited by WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL irregardless of whether they've been mentioned in the New York Times or not.
  • Response: When accusations or allegations are made in non-credible sources, such as blogs or anonymous websites, then they do fall under WP:BLP and WP:Libel. That, however, is no longer the case here. The operator of that website has been "outed," by a major media organization (NY Post), confirmed by another (NY Times), and his name, Judd Bagley, is now prominently displayed on the home page of that website. The accusations are, therefore, no longer anonymous. Also, once allegations are discussed in credible news sources, such as the Times and the Post, it is considered permissible for them to be discussed in Wikipedia BLP articles. An example is the article on Clay Aiken. Editors of that article rightfully resisted any mention regarding rumors in blogs and message boards as to whether Aiken was gay or not. Once the rumor, however, was discussed by major news media, the rumor was rightfully allowed to be mentioned in the Aiken article, because it now met the "reliable sources" criteria of WP:BLP. By being discussed in the Times and Post articles, the allegations are now covered by a reliable source and can be mentioned along with clearly stating that they are allegations along with Weiss' response to them. As to whether it is "unnecessary" to mention them, I disagree. A key element in the story as reported by the Post and Times is the accusations and allegations exchanged between Weiss and Overstock's supporters.

• 2. Byrne never actually made any accusations or allegations of unethical behavior on Weiss' part, only Bagley did via his website.
  • Response: The Times article states that Byrne is "behind" the website. The Post article states that Byrne "supported and aided" the website. The two articles are thus strongly suggesting that Byrne is "behind" or "supports" the accusations detailed in Bagley's website. As long as this is explained in the article, then what the sources are saying is represented correctly.

• 3. Weiss' "meltdown" comment isn't libelous.
  • Response: Okay, but was that comment repeated in any major news source, or only in Weiss' blog? The use of quotes and information from blogs is covered under the BLP reliable sources policy, and has to be done very carefully. Other articles from major news organizations have mentioned Weiss' involvement in the naked short selling controversy with Overstock.com, and those sources can therefore be used to establish Weiss' opinion on Byrne's actions and motivation.

• 4. I'm singlemindedly fixed on the accusations and am upset by off-wiki attacks on Byrne.
  • Response: Remember, I was the one that added Antilla's comment to the article that were highly critical of Byrne's and his team's actions. My motivation is just to report the story as it is being reported in the mass media. The Times, Post and Antilla discuss both sides while being somewhat more critical of Byrne than of his critics. That's also how the story should be presented here and in the Byrne, Overstock, and any other related articles. Both sides need to be presented. If you look at my overall edit history in the project, you'll see that I try to do that in the numerous military history or Japan-related articles I edit. Same thing here. You are clearly advocating for Weiss' side in the matter. I'm advocating for both sides. The "off-wiki" attacks by Byrne (or his supporters) and Weiss on each other are a big part of the story here. I'd like it to be depicted neutrally, fairly, and completely. I hope that is your goal also and I look forward to working with you on this article as and if the story develops further in the future. Cla68 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks yr reply. I read the Clay Aiken article and could find no reference to his sexuality. In fact actually I think that this article supports my position fully. I went to the discussion page and found that apparently consensus was reached AGAINST using blog allegations of his sexuality in the article, despite having been repeated by the media. I refer to the archived discussion that can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clay_Aiken/Archive_13#gay_Clay. I'd like to draw your attention to the following point made by one editor:

"The point is not hiding the story, it is minimizing damage that false tabloid stories can do to a celebrity, and minimizing the libel exposure that Wikipedia has. Right or wrong, this sort of a story CAN damage a mans reputation. Which was the intent. Right now the world has passed by this story. Wikipedia is pretty much the only vehicle that there is any push to spread the gossip in- which is against Wikipedia guidelines. The article does refer to the stories exising. How much more damage should Wikipedia endorse? Note the caution above: " " This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard." Tabloids are NOT a good source. You are trying to subvert the intent of Wikipedia using technicalities."[1]

I could not have expressed it better myself. Here you don't have tabloids of questionable veracity but something much worse, an anonymous blog run by a person with whom Weiss is in a dispute. It is hard to imagine a less credible source of information. Wikipedia should not be used to spread vicious rumors, for indeed that appears to have been the purpose of creation of the website by the CEO in question. Yes, I do not doubt it is run by him. The issue is now mentioned with appropriate citations and sourcing, but without spreading vicious rumors, as was obviously the intent of creation of the website.

I am glad that you agree that the wording is correct and am pleased that this is a resolution. The reason why I felt you and the other editor were singlmindedly focused on adding this libelous material was the content of the section that was added.[2] I was surprised when I saw this added section as it struck me as an odd addition considering what else could be added. I was aware of the Forbes column and was surprised that it was not mentioned. I imagine that my thinking at the time was, "Why are these people focused on this and not on adding biographical material of greater significance?" The talk page focus on this and some other comments made had influenced my view on this, but I am glad you clarified.

The "meltdown" quote was not from the blog. It was from the New York TImes article. There are no quotes from the blog in the article added by me. However, as was pointed out to me in editing another article and confirmed by an administrator in a note to me, the blog can be added as a link and can be used for personal information.

As for the off-wiki attacks of each side on the other, that can be reflected in the article without spreading vicious rumors planted by one or the other side.

Thank you again for your comment and I do hope to visit your articles on military history as that is an interest of mine as well. My personal interests are in finance and I am not a "Weiss advocate" as I read his book and disagreed with much of it. However, he is a respected financial commentator and people of good will can disagree.--Samiharris 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The sexuality information was in the Aiken article before but apparently has been removed. I should have checked it first. I can find other examples though, if needed. There are plenty. Anyway, I think we've come to an agreement and have explained our positions completely. Cla68 01:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPF

I believe the following paragraph, which was removed from the article by User:Samiharris, doesn't violate WP:NPF:

“ Weiss has been critical of Overstock.com and its chief executive Patrick M. Byrne and has made critical comments about him in articles and in media interviews. Weiss and other Overstock.com critics, including other journalists critical of Byrne and Overstock, were attacked by a website whose anonymous operator was later revealed by the New York Post to be an executive of Overstock.com. ”

My reasoning is that the New York Times and New York Post are major, credible secondary sources and their reporting on the naked short selling disagreement between Weiss and Overstock.com definitely makes the issue part of Weiss' notability, especially since earlier in the article it mentions Weiss' outspoken opinions on the naked short selling issue. I invite comments from other interested parties below. Cla68 06:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "naked short selling disagreement between Weiss and Overstock.com." This is a smear campaign directed against persons perceived as antagonistic to Patrick Byrne. The New York Post article did not mention Weiss. We're talking about personal attacks, not a "disagreement."

WP:NPF says:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.

NPF clearly covers Weiss. That point was clarified by an administrator uninvolved in the editing of this article. Weiss is notable because of his books and articles on stock fraud, not because of the Overstock smear campaign. That commenced long after creation of this article in April 2006.

The Overstock smear campaign is relevant to the notability of Overstock.com,and it is certainly relevant to the article on Patrick M. Byrne, because he is behind this campaign and employs its webmaster, according to the articles cited. Yet his article does not even mention the smear campaign.

Even if NPF did not cover this person, this paragraph still could not be included. In dealing with content of this kind, referencing libelous personal attacks, there must be a strong consensus of the editors of a page, not just a consensus. That point was made clear in the George Soros article, which pertains to far less vicious attacks made over the national airwaves and covered by the media concerning a person of fame and notability not covered by NPF. In this instance, that is the Weiss article, there clearly is no consensus much less a strong consensus. --Samiharris 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The major portion of this paragraph is in Overstock.com, where it belongs. So what else is there to discus? Naked short selling is not "part of Weiss' notability" any more than where he went to high school. It is mentioned in all one sentence, a recent addition to the article I believe. There is no reason to hack through a hornet's nest of BLP issues.--Mantanmoreland 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)