| Revision as of 04:52, 24 January 2008 editSamiharris (talk | contribs)1,443 editsm →WEIGHT and Nocera← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:36, 25 November 2024 edit undoQuick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers3,786 edits →The description "conspiracy theory" seems like a conclusion: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (344 intermediate revisions by 79 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|living=yes |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|class=Start |
|
|
|
{{Old AfD multi| date = 25 February 2006| result = keep| page = Patrick Byrne}} |
|
|priorty= |
|
|
|listas=Byrne, Patrick |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp = yes|class=B|listas=Byrne, Patrick|1 = |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|USPresidents=yes|importance=Low|USPresidents-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|needs-photo = }} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Image requested|business and economics people}} |
|
|
{{Connected contributor|PatrickByrne|editedhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(365d) |
|
⚫ |
|archive = Talk:Patrick M. Byrne/Archive %(counter)d |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== The description "conspiracy theory" seems like a conclusion == |
|
|
|
|
|
At this point, there is a truckload of evidence that partisans in top positions used a fake dossier from Christopher Steele and Fusion to abuse the FISA process and wiretap the Trump campaign, but the label "conspiracy theory" seems to suggest that any such conclusion would be tantamount to mere paranoia. Thus, the article seems very politically biased. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"The Deep State Conspiracy Theory" in the top section is incoherent - WTH is this? If it had its own page and linked to it, okay, but there is zero explanation, which leads to the transparent effort, once again, to hang the "conspiracy" label on anyone who questions anything. A simple sentence that actually uses Byrne's own words would suffice, but the job of wikipedia editors is to shape the narrative for the readers, even if it makes no sense. ] (]) 05:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;" |
|
|
|
:: The ] is indeed a conspiracy theory. He did indeed promote it. And boned a Russian spy. We're not here to sugar coat that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|- |
|
|
| width="50px" | ] |
|
|
|| This article was nominated for ] on 25 February 2006. The result of the ] was {{{result|'''keep'''}}}. |
|
| ⚫ |
|} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{Off topic warning}} |
|
|
{{calm talk}} |
|
|
{{TrollWarning}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole article is so biased it doesn't even warrant improvement. If the authors let references to Proud Boys get into this article and not the evidence Byrne can present that the 2020 election was indeed fraudulent, we might just as well throw this whole bio away. It's an utter smear against Byrne coming from political propagandists instead of an attempt to objectively describe what happened. Disgusting to see how low wikipedia has gone. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
| ⚫ |
Archive: ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"Evidence Byrne can present" not "has presented" - the tense you have chosen in your comment says a lot. Though if you have this "evidence" the "election was indeed fradulent" we have all been waiting with baited breath for, please do share! ] (]) 02:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Turns == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Now apparently giving extreme advice to Dponald Trump == |
|
(removing comment by sock ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See this article: -- ] (]) 11:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
:Hog the article? Everyone is welcome to participate. It's a collaboration. ]] ] 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:On further review, I see I've made just three edits to the article. You've made eleven edits, as of this moment. It is inappropriate to tell other editors to stay away because they've edited too much. ]] ] 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021 == |
|
(removing comment by sock) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Patrick M. Byrne|answered=yes}} |
|
:::It's great that you're helping, just please don't denigrate the contributions of others, or demand that they stop contributing. ]] ] 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
There seems to be an error in this sentence in the "Financing and promoting claims in blog, books, media, organizations, and film" section: |
|
|
In 2021 . . . The book, largely compiled of text copied-and-pasted from Byrne's blog, was hastily produced, with the print version including hyperlinks and video embedded video useful for paper format. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems clear that the text SHOULD read ". . . with the print version including hyperlinks and embedded video NOT useful IN THE PRINTED format." ] (]) 02:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
== RidinHood25, Mightyms , MoneyHabit et al... == |
|
|
|
: Good catch! ] (]) 03:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Don't lie about filmmakers! == |
|
are socks of banned user {{user6|Amorrow}}. Our policy is ban on sight, revert on sight. Deleting their commentary outright (which I am about to do) will leave holes. Therefore, other editors are encouraged to decide to remove their replies if desired. ++]: ]/] 00:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger R. Richards never blamed the 9/11 attacks on aliens! He did claim that the 9/11 attacks were intended to destroy information about aliens, but never claimed that aliens caused the 9/11 attacks! Being biased against his views does not give you the right to lie about him. Please delete this lie. |
|
== Register articles == |
|
|
|
: We can only go off what appropriate third-party sources have said. In this case, that means the mainstream media, that have dug pretty deeply in recent months given the notability of Byrne's new political involvements and ... well ... "unique" choices for recent company. This is how the useable sources discuss Richards and his involvement with Byrne (Rachel Maddow made the direct conneciton, as have others), and that's why he is described as such here. ] (]) 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:You didn't really counter my argument. You are merely trying to persuade me that Rachel Maddow's a more trustworthy authority on filmmakers than Imdb; that's at least what you seem to be doing to me. I repeat: please cut out this smear on Roger R. Richards's name. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:: Yes, she is a third-party source, IMDB is not. We go by third-party sources here. Have a pleasant day! ] (]) 15:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:IMDB's not a third-party source? Then what political ideology does it identify as, might I ask? |
|
|
:: I have no idea what you are asking, what does IMDB have to do with politics... ] (]) 01:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's just my point. It doesn't! |
|
|
:: And why would politics matter in this situation? We are talking about the need for third-party articles, not poltically neutral ones. ] (]) 13:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Rachel Maddow makes a living bashing conservatives. IMDB does not care about politics. Therefore, IMDB is a third-party source, while Maddow is not. Remember Misplaced Pages's NPOV rule, please. |
|
|
:: Feel free to review the rules of the site if you feel that way - specifically here: ] and ]. If you are concerned about either of these regulatory documents, I would take that up on their talk pages, where editors can discuss how they might be changed (as there isn't anything a discussion here is going to do about how we follow them). Have a great day! ] (]) 17:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Watch the trailer for Above Majestic (the movie I think your article's lying about). It tells you what the filmmakers really believe about 9/11. |
|
|
::: A filmmaker's own trailer would not be a proper independent third-party source unfortunately. ] (]) 23:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::A filmmaker's own work is not a reliable source for telling people what he thinks? I'm afraid I can't get that logic. |
|
|
::: Then, I am afraid, there is nothing more to talk about :) ] (]) 04:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mistake in wording == |
|
Per , I was prepared to remove the Register link from here. Some IP had removed it earlier. I've gone ahead and removed the other Register story from there that was linked as well, about the mail lists. If one article isn't a reliable source on one article, theres no reason it would be acceptable on another. To apply double standards along those lines would be a total NPOV violation and not good. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 07:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: Whether the Register is a "reliable source" is debatable (I see that the Register is quote in ]), but the most recent attempt to add the link placed it in the SEC investigation section, which doesn't make sense. I'd tend to agree that the Byrne/Wikipedia/Register thing doesn't merit mention here as long as the Register is the sole source, but it might be worth mentioning in the aforementioned "Criticism" article. <b>] ]</b> 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, I think there was a New York Times source mentioned over on the Weiss page. If the NYT plus the Register is talking about the petty feud between Weiss and Byrne, we would have no excuse to not cover it at least in passing on both articles. Which NYT articles were they? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There's been some hesitancy about adding that language to this article on WEIGHT and duplication grounds, as it is covered in ], and it's been discussed elsewhere with Jimbo ruling The Register is not an RS source on this subject matter. That is why JzG removed Register cites from that article. But I imagine one can borrow some of the language and tone of the reference in Overstock for a brief mention here.--] (]) 16:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Which NYT article was the source? There shouldn't be any problem with related language appearing in both or all three articles. If the NYT has covered the feud, we have no reason not to mention it on both this page and Weiss's at least in passing. The existence or acknowledgement of a feud that was reported on in an internationally distributed newspaper isn't any sort of possible BLP or WEIGHT violation that I can see. Also, one person can rule an entire site non-RS? I doubt that. I thought it was the fact that I kept seeing multiple people saying that the Register wasn't an RS specifically in regards to Misplaced Pages, not Weiss and Byrne. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It's not a "feud," it is a proxy campaign by Overstock against critics. Look at the sources in the link. That said, I think what's needed here is a reference to the smear campaign on this page that is consistent in tone and sourcing with the stable, consensus version at Overstock.com. Jimbo's authority re sourcing is a mega-issue and you'll have to ask elsewhere on that. Specifically, an article critical of Overstock from the Register was removed from the Overstock page by Jzg.--] (]) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The New York Times , or more precisely as an "increasingly vicious online dispute," and as a "flame war among 14-year-old boys."--] (]) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::OK, I was just curious since I kept seeing this all referred to everywhere. What was that NYT source by the way? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::It's cited in the Overstock section on ASM, a portion of a "What's Online" column.--] (]) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Thanks Sami. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Hello folks, what's with the blatant censorship of Misplaced Pages criticism? You might as well go and call this place Jimbopedia. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
(restoring indent) There's no "censorship." A Register article highly unfavorable to Byrne was removed from ]. The Register is simply not an RS source as relates to BLPs.--] (]) 13:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am a long-term reader of The Register and find it very reliable, thank you very much. However, if you want to turn Misplaced Pages into Jimbopedia, I guess you are free to do whatever you like. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This text, "he repeatedly promoted unevidenced claims that ] had won the ] due to voter fraud." indicates that he believes that Trump won the election, but only through voter fraud. I doubt he believes that. He might think that Trump LOST the election due to voter fraud. |
|
==WEIGHT and Nocera== |
|
|
We seem to be giving a lot of weight to Nocera. I take him as a mainstream source, but I'm a little wary about quoting hearsay like "Though no one will say so publicly, the word is that Utah officials now feel they were snookered by the Overstock C.E.O. And that his behavior at that meeting further damaged his credibility. ..." ] '']'' 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't find a way to submit this change directly. ] (]) 21:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Perhaps, to put that in context, we need to add a quote from this Deseret News article, describing his prominence as a largest individual campaign contributor in the state. I think that might assuage any WEIGHT concern, by putting it in context. --] (]) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: I think it's clear enough, as the first text is just there to provide an overview of the whole page. Byrne believes Trump "won", and that voter fraud denied him the victory. ] (]) 02:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, the article clear -- clearly nonsensical. It's disappointing to see that Misplaced Pages is ok with this. Why not just correct the clumsy wording? One possible fix is to add five words e.g "... promoted unevidenced claims that Donald Trump had won the 2020 U.S. presidential election AND ONLY APPEARED TO LOSE due to voter fraud." ] (]) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::: He did not "appear" to lose; he lost, fair and square. ] (]) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
At this point, there is a truckload of evidence that partisans in top positions used a fake dossier from Christopher Steele and Fusion to abuse the FISA process and wiretap the Trump campaign, but the label "conspiracy theory" seems to suggest that any such conclusion would be tantamount to mere paranoia. Thus, the article seems very politically biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The whole article is so biased it doesn't even warrant improvement. If the authors let references to Proud Boys get into this article and not the evidence Byrne can present that the 2020 election was indeed fraudulent, we might just as well throw this whole bio away. It's an utter smear against Byrne coming from political propagandists instead of an attempt to objectively describe what happened. Disgusting to see how low wikipedia has gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:262D:C500:135F:39E3:207E:B246 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be an error in this sentence in the "Financing and promoting claims in blog, books, media, organizations, and film" section:
In 2021 . . . The book, largely compiled of text copied-and-pasted from Byrne's blog, was hastily produced, with the print version including hyperlinks and video embedded video useful for paper format.
It seems clear that the text SHOULD read ". . . with the print version including hyperlinks and embedded video NOT useful IN THE PRINTED format." 173.77.17.45 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Roger R. Richards never blamed the 9/11 attacks on aliens! He did claim that the 9/11 attacks were intended to destroy information about aliens, but never claimed that aliens caused the 9/11 attacks! Being biased against his views does not give you the right to lie about him. Please delete this lie.
