Talk:Patrick M. Byrne

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "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. GreenIn2010 (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The deep state conspiracy theory is indeed a conspiracy theory. He did indeed promote it. And boned a Russian spy. We're not here to sugar coat that. Guy (help!) 21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Now apparently giving extreme advice to Dponald Trump
See this article: -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021
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.[53][70]

It seems clear that the text SHOULD read ". . . with the print version including hyperlinks and [DELETE: video] embedded video NOT useful IN THE PRINTED format." 173.77.17.45 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't lie about filmmakers!
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.
 * 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. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CB00:103:9900:FCB6:6921:1F2D:E262 (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, she is a third-party source, IMDB is not. We go by third-party sources here. Have a pleasant day! Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 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... Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 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. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 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 Wikipedia's NPOV rule, please.
 * Feel free to review the rules of the site if you feel that way - specifically here: WP:CITEIMDB and WP:RELIABILITY. 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! Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 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. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 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 :) Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Mistake in wording
This text, "he repeatedly promoted unevidenced claims that Donald Trump had won the 2020 U.S. presidential election 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.

I couldn't find a way to submit this change directly. Beorn59 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2023 (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. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article clear -- clearly nonsensical. It's disappointing to see that Wikipedia 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." Bsmith496 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He did not "appear" to lose; he lost, fair and square. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)