Talk:Patrick M. Byrne

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

"WP:V" redirects here. For discussing particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism.

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. The four types are:

• direct quotations,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people (or existing groups) that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

For how to write citations, see citing sources. Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

Responsibility for providing citations

"WP:PROVEIT" redirects here. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:ProveIt.

"WP:CHALLENGE" redirects here. For challenging closes, see Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closing.

See also: Wikipedia:Editing policy § Try to fix problems

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Using inline citations, provide reliable, published sources for all:

• direct quotations,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons.

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups.

Reliable sources

"WP:SOURCE" redirects here. For how to reference sources, see Help:Referencing for beginners. For the wikitext tag previously labeled <source>, see Help:Wikitext § syntaxhighlight.

What counts as a reliable source

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources

A cited source on Wikipedia is often a specific portion of text (such as a short article or a page in a book). But when editors discuss sources (for example, to debate their appropriateness or reliability) the word source has four related meanings:

• The work itself (the article, book: "That book looks like a useful source for this article.") and works like it ("An obituary can be a useful biographical source", "A recent source is better than an old one")
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist: "What do we know about that source's reputation?") and people like them ("A medical researcher is a better source than a journalist for medical claims").
• The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them ("A newspaper is not a reliable source for medical claims").
• The publisher of the work (for example, Cambridge University Press: "That source publishes reference works.") and publishers like them ("An academic publisher is a good source of reference works").

All four can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for the purposes of Wikipedia is made available to the public in some form. Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream (non-fringe) magazines, including specialty ones
• Reputable newspapers

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria (see details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test).

Best sources

The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

Newspaper and magazine blogs

Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." Never use the blog comments that are left by the readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see § Self-published sources below.

Reliable sources noticeboard and guideline

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority.

Sources that are usually not reliable

"WP:NOTRELIABLE" redirects here. For Wikipedia's own reliability, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Questionable and self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process.

Self-published sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid self-published sources, Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business, and Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works

Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

"WP:SOCIALMEDIA" redirects here. For the policy on what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA.

"WP:TWITTER" redirects here. For the external links essay, see WP:Twitter-EL. For a template used for citing tweets, see Template:Cite tweet. For community evaluation of Twitter as a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Twitter.

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Statements of opinion

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material made public by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.

Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it

"WP:CIRCULAR" redirects here. For links on a page that redirect back to the same page, see WP:SELFRED.

See also: WP:COPYWITHIN, Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents, Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF

Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source. Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.

An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article. These may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case and may be used following the policy for primary sources. Any such use should avoid original research, undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference. The article text should clarify how the material is sourced from Wikipedia to inform the reader about the potential bias.

Accessibility

Access to sources

See also: Wikipedia:Offline sources, Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Non-English sources

See also: Wikipedia:Translators available and Wikipedia:No original research § Translations and transcriptions

Citing

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.)

Quoting

If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people. If needed, ask an editor who can translate it for you.

The original text is usually included with the translated text in articles when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. When quoting any material, whether in English or in some other language, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

Other issues

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

"WP:ONUS" redirects here. For the responsibility to demonstrate verifiability, see WP:BURDEN.

Main page: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Encyclopedic content

See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:IINFO

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Tagging a sentence, section, or article

Further information: Wikipedia:Citation needed and Wikipedia:Template index/Sources of articles

If you want to request an inline citation for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}. Other templates exist for tagging sections or entire articles here. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. It helps other editors to explain your rationale for using templates to tag material in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.

Take special care with contentious material about living and recently deceased people. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
• Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
• Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Verifiability and other principles

Copyright and plagiarism

Further information: Wikipedia:Copyright, Wikipedia:Plagiarism, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, Wikipedia:MOS § Attribution, and Wikipedia:CITE § In-text attribution

Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.

Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material violating copyright.

Neutrality

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what reliable sources say.

Notability

Further information: Wikipedia:Notability

If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (i.e., the topic is not notable). However, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NEXIST).

Original research

Further information: Wikipedia:No original research

The no original research policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:

1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.
3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

See also

Guidelines

• Reliable sources
• Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
• Citing sources

Information pages

• Wikipedia is not a reliable source
• Core content policies
• How to mine a source
• Independent sources
• Identifying and using primary sources
• Identifying and using self-published works
• Video links
• When to cite

Resources

• Backlog – links to articles that need citations added
• Template index/Sources of articles – maintenance templates for articles with sourcing problems
• The Wikipedia Library – free access to newspapers, journals, and magazines for experienced editors
• WikiProject Resource Exchange – where you can ask for help with checking an individual source

Essays

• Citation overkill
• Identifying and using tertiary sources
• Verifiability, not truth
• Wikipedia:You are not a reliable source

Further reading

• Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other.

{{blp}} Template:TrollWarning 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Valwen's application of "questionable source" =

Does "The Register" used here to slander Patrick Byrne, employ "editorial oversight or fact-checking"? Care to dance, Valwen?

Also your cite of Herb Greenberg's award of 2nd place to Patrick Byrne. Do you think Herb's being named in affidavits in the OSTK vs Rocker-Gradient lawsuit as being part of a frontrunning conspiracy might have something to do with Herb's lack of journalistic NPOV?

75.177.152.237 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Byrne's blog

Blog is a external linkable source as it is by the article's subject. see WP:LINKS

Links to be considered

  4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject 

of the article from knowledgeable sources. For example a blog written by the subject of a biography article. Piperdown 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected on that. Cheers, Samiharris 14:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alliance Capital Management editing article today

Well that's interesting. Guess they're not too happy about the Reg SHO news. Log in under a pseudonym next time and don't make your IP so obvious. At least it wasn't a DTCC address this time.Piperdown 02:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not interesting in the slightest. Please don't make comments that have no relationship to the subject matter.--Samiharris 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since 90% of this article is how bad Patrick Byrne is according to several journalists that Byrne has sparred with off-wiki in emails as Byrne's disclosed on his Overstock blog, and since Byrne's lawsuits involve hedge funds, it's pretty darned interesting when IP's from any hedge fund located in NYC metro area edit this article. It's a talk page edit, sam, relax. Piperdown 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Allied Capital is not a hedge fund. Poof goes the conspiracy theory.--Samiharris 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, picking some serious nits

Sam (can I call you that? I'm guessing since it's "samiharris"), do you really need to include the 2/25 Nocera article cite in the External Links section when it's already cleared cited in the References section? How many other articles do you see "External Links and (unlinked Article)"? I don't get it. The external links section is normally for links to web pages related to the article. The 2/25 Nocera piece is there in all its glory in the article and in the references section. Piperdown 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If it will calm you down, go ahead and revert the link or article from a reporter that you clearly despise. I don't want to keep you up nights about this.--Samiharris 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that you're diligently defending the BLP's of George Soros and Gary Weiss from reliably sourced material that's negative about those BLP subjects. Yes, there is always debate about whether negative material merits inclusion in a BLP, especially an extremely thin one such as Weiss's, and the always controverial subject of Soros. Yet this Patrick Byrne article requires introductory paragraph hammers of open ended SEC inquiries, and excessive overkill on critical cites for subtopics naked shorting and education lobbying that really deserve such incredible detail in their own wikipedia articles. No eyes batted. Is there anything negative you're leaving out of Byrne's page? Surely there's a Herb Greenberg video sourced somewhere that can back up Nocera's fantastic investigative reporting on Byrne? Piperdown 03:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention Bill Moyers.--Samiharris 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)