Talk:Patrick M. Byrne
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
 | This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. |
In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means 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is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information.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.[a] 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[b] 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
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[b] the contribution.[c]
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[b] 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.[d] 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.[e] 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[1] 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
What counts as a reliable source
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.[f] 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 pages, columns or rolling text 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.[g] 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
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
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
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.[g] 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.[2] 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
 | It has been suggested that Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source be merged into this section. (Discuss) Proposed since December 2023. |
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:
- The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
- It does not involve claims about third parties;
- It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
- There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
- 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
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.[3]
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
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
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.[h] (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
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
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 sourcing
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[4] 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
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
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
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
The no original research policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:
- 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.
- Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.[h]
- 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
Information pages
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
Notes
- ^ This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". See the essay, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.
- ^ a b c A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations, etc.
- ^ Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.
- ^ It may be that the article contains so few citations it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags. Consider then tagging a section with {{unreferenced section}}, or the article with the applicable of either {{unreferenced}} or {{more citations needed}}. For a disputed category, you may use {{unreferenced category}}. For a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.
- ^ When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.
- ^ This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives as well as inscriptions in plain sight, e.g. tombstones.
- ^ a b Note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.
- ^ a b When there is a dispute as to whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so.
References
- ^ Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
- ^ Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos:
- The University of California, Berkeley, library states: "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee."
- Princeton University offers this understanding in its publication, Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011): "Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe."
- The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition states, "Any site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work."
- ^ Rekdal, Ole Bjørn (1 August 2014). "Academic urban legends". Social Studies of Science. 44 (4): 638–654. doi:10.1177/0306312714535679. ISSN 0306-3127. PMC 4232290. PMID 25272616.
- ^ Hume, David. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Forgotten Books, 1984, pp. 82, 86; first published in 1748 as Philosophical enquiries concerning human Understanding, (or the Oxford 1894 edition OL 7067396M at para. 91) "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence ... That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony is of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior." In the 18th century, Pierre-Simon Laplace reformulated the idea as "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." Marcello Truzzi recast it again, in 1978, as "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." Carl Sagan, finally, popularized the concept broadly as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" in 1980 on Cosmos: A Personal Voyage; this was the formulation originally used on Wikipedia.
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}} 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:
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.