Talk:Patrick M. Byrne/Archive 1

Skewed emphasis
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" .  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 at [the sanity check blog]  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 [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2006/0004248568&EDATE=. ], 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."   in his response to a poster on The Motley Fool.  He also mentions it again in his cancer speech (currently referenced in this article ).  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.

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.[http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2006/0004248568&EDATE=. ]. 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  --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)

"Crusade"/"Jihad"
The article seems to flip-flopping between two versions:
 * ...best known for his "jihad" against Naked short-selling.
 * ..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, 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)


 * Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on Alliance Capital Management. It runs "100 mutual funds," not hedge funds  Are mutual funds part of the conspiracy?--Samiharris 04:18, 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 EL listing for an 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)
 * Wow, so you think I need calming down and I'm up nights? Hmm. I wasn't the one instantly reverting some really minute points (NBC, redundant EL/Ref links) with the calmness of a hair trigger. Do you know Mantanmoreland? He likes to soothe me when he thinks I'm having a "nervous breakdown". It's good to see my fellow editors so concerned, and so able to remotely perform psychoanalysis based on wikipedia copyediting. Kind of like some journalists's ability to discern when Byrne is having a "meltdown". It's all about the spin, isn't it? Piperdown 03:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop the trolling. Your entire purpose on this page is to antagonize. You also need to stop your destructive edits such as this one in which you removed a valid source and replaced it with a "sources needed" tag. If you felt there was a problem with the link, you should have removed the link and left the reference to the Globe and Mail article. Your behavior in the article and on this page is disruptive and violative of WP:POINT. You also do your cause no good by your expressions of hostility bordering on hatred for some of the reputable journalists quoted in this article. Remember that "silence is golden" and may be a good strategy for you in furthering Mr. Byrne's cause, as is your obvious objective.--Samiharris 04:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm not going to respond to that total B.S. characterization. Not sure why I even tried to dialogue with you any further. Have a good one, sam. Piperdown 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your removal of proper sourcing and replacement of that sourcing with an unwarranted "sources needed" tag - a tag necessitated by your own destructive edit - is not "total B.S." The edit was B.S., not my characterization of it, which is accurate.--Samiharris 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "rgm.com" is not a valid source for anything, regardless of your declaration that it is. I think that's enough b.s. in your attempts to characterize me as a "troll", my edits as "desctructive", and your interjection of my "agenda", my "disruption", and my "hostility", all of which is in your head, not my editing. You can call all those names but that doesn't change the fact that "rgm.com" is not a valid WP:RS to link to. I think we're through conversing, I don't converse with such people. Piperdown 14:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat: the issue was not and never was rgm.com, but your unnecessary placement of a "fact" tag even though you knew that the statement was correctly sourced from the Globe and Mail. The rgm link was to a copy of the Globe and Mail story. You were correct to remove the rgm link, but your removal of the sourcing from the Globe and Mail was not warranted. Please stop misstating what happened. You should admit error and move on. You are, again, being disruptive.--Samiharris 15:21, 28 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)

Removed from article, please supply adequate referencing and copyedit for neutrality

 * DJ IN THE MONEY article on 8/1/07 by Carol Remond stated, " “Turns out that one guy did, in fact, illegally trade shares of the company (Overstock.com)sometimes between August and December 2005. Some details about those trades surfaced Tuesday in an American Stock Exchange's disciplinary decision against Scott Arenstein and his options trading firm, SBA Trading LLC.”  She goes on to seemingly dismiss the importance of the action later. "“SBA's improper trading doesn't come close to amount to the massive conspiracy alleged by Overstock, it's likely that Chief Executive Patrick Byrne and his lawyers will use the information to continue building their case against short sellers and brokerage firms through which they trade.”  At this writing, OVERSTOCK.COM has been on the Reg SHO list for well over 550 days.  Ref: "regsho.com".

Suggest article content request for comment to establish consensus. Durova Charge! 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Turns
(removing comment by sock )


 * Hog the article? Everyone is welcome to participate. It's a collaboration. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 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. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(removing comment by sock)


 * It's great that you're helping, just please don't denigrate the contributions of others, or demand that they stop contributing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RidinHood25, Mightyms, MoneyHabit et al...
are socks of banned user. 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. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Register articles
Per this discussion, 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. Lawrence Cohen 07:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether the Register is a "reliable source" is debatable (I see that the Register is quote in Criticism of Wikipedia), 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. OhNo itsJamie Talk 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? Lawrence Cohen  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 Overstock.com, 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.--Samiharris (talk) 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 Wikipedia, not Weiss and Byrne. Lawrence Cohen  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.--Samiharris (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The New York Times clearly describes it as a feud, or more precisely as an "increasingly vicious online dispute," and as a "flame war among 14-year-old boys."--G-Dett (talk) 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? Lawrence Cohen  16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's cited in the Overstock section on ASM, a portion of a "What's Online" column.--Samiharris (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sami. Lawrence Cohen  17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello folks, what's with the blatant censorship of Wikipedia criticism? You might as well go and call this place Jimbopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.234.41 (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(restoring indent) There's no "censorship." A Register article highly unfavorable to Byrne was removed from Overstock.com. The Register is simply not an RS source as relates to BLPs.--Samiharris (talk) 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 Wikipedia into Jimbopedia, I guess you are free to do whatever you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.234.41 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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. ..." Cool Hand Luke 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, to put that in context, we need to add a quote from this Deseret News article, describing his prominence as largest individual campaign contributor in the state. The newspaper said "Patrick Byrne by himself managed to supply about $1 of every $20 given by Utah individuals to candidates or political groups, according to a Deseret Morning News analysis of federal and state campaign disclosure data from 2003 to now." I think that might assuage any WEIGHT concern, by putting it in context. I believe there are other articles along those lines in the local media. --Samiharris (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, he's certainly a large contributer, but you didn't address the problem with the part of the quote I reproduced above. When one party speculates about the mental states of several other parties&mdash;and especially when they claim "no one will say so publicly"&mdash;it seems to be the sort of heresay we don't allow on BLPs. Cool Hand Luke 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the Salt Lake Tribune source I added (which is sadly not online because of how quickly the Trib removes their content) implies that the fight was actually with an attorney representing the Securities Industry Association. It's wild reading, but I think it's too much WEIGHT to detail it (plus it's unclear who started it, ect). Here's the relevent text:


 * Feb. 27--Under threat of a lawsuit by brokers, legislators Monday were just one step away from killing Utah's short-lived law targeting alleged stock trading manipulation.


 * And Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, who was a prime mover behind the measure's passage in a May special session, was livid. "This is worse than mere betrayal," he said. "It is selling out the state of Utah."


 * That conviction boiled over during a Monday morning meeting among Byrne and other Over-stock officials, legislators, state lawyers and brokerage representatives. At one point, Byrne had a heated exchange with Michael Ostermiller, a South Ogden attorney representing the Securities Industry Association.


 * Byrne had told lawmakers an unidentified national journalist told him he "smells skunk" in the rapid genesis of SB277, introduced and passed Friday by the Senate to repeal the naked shorting statute. If something proves to be amiss, Byrne said, he would make sure the facts were known.


 * During the increasingly angry banter that followed, Ostermiller and Byrne began talking about which side of the debate had more "guts." At some point -- accounts differ who first uttered the phrase -- the words "take it outside" came up. According to Jonathan Johnson, Overstock's senior vice president for legal and corporate affairs, it was Byrne who responded: "Is that an offer?"


 * Nothing more came of the dust-up, and Byrne later told The Salt Lake Tribune that he and Ostermiller had since talked. "We made up. [He's] a gentlemanly guy," Byrne said.


 * Ostermiller insists he never meant for his comments to be interpreted as an invitation to fight Byrne -- a former boxer and tae kwon do black belt. Rather, Ostermiller says he and the Overstock founder "were enthusiastically debating. There was no real conversation about anything 'going outside,' There was a spirited, energetic debate on a complex issue. Patrick Byrne and I have spoken since and it's over. I don't harbor any ill will." ...


 * Cool Hand Luke 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good source and I think it needs to be reflected in the article, as does Byrne's colorful language. According to the Nocera article, he has called Bramble a "squish" and a "yellowbelly," and that he was "cursing" at the meeting. Surely such language, from the largest political contributor in Utah and CEO of a public company, is notable. While Nocera has an opinion on Byrne, I don't believe his column rates as an "opinion" piece. Even if it were, I believe that it would be considered a reliable source under RS. Your point re "speculation" does resound with me somewhat and I'd have to think about that.--Samiharris (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hesitate because the tone of the Nocera piece is very derisive, and because I couldn't find confirmation in the Utah sources. He was "miffed" at Curtis Bramble, but the papers doesn't quote language against him (even though Bramble is recognized by Utah political junkies as one of the most influential Utah legislators). Maybe there's a story for this&mdash;maybe Utah Republicans weren't frank with local reporters because they didn't want to further offend one of their biggest donors. Still, I think sourcing it to the Nocera article is just a bit too speculative for a BLP, and his specific insults are a very small part of his life story. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but are we to be arbiters of whether the "sourcing" of a New York Times article is proper? It can surely be used if attributed to Nocera. That issue aside, your WEIGHT concerns as regards the "cursing" bit do make sense. The material in the Deseret News on his major role as a political contributor is of far greater importance and should be inserted somewhere, if it is not buried somewhere in the article already.--Samiharris (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying. And I see that the Times strives for accuracy in their columns as well as articles (they actually issued a correction to this piece related to one of the Rocker partners). But the tone of this piece itself obscures the facts. It quotes several sober remarks from Bramble, then&mdash;for comic effect&mdash;it says "Byrne, in turn, publicly called Bramble a squish and a yellow belly."
 * It's a fun column to read, but as a factual matter it begs some questions. Like when did Byrne say this, and in what context? Adding this to the WEIGHT concern is too much for a BLP, I think. Cool Hand Luke 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it begs some questions. So what? It begs questions that have no bearing on its reliability or usability. What "facts" are obscured that prevent this material from appearing in this article? I don't quite understand what difference it makes that the article does not state "when" Byrne said what he did. Also there is no question as to when Byrne was cursing. It was at the meeting. --Samiharris (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is getting tendentious, and I don't think it should be. Or do you seriously contend that we should write&mdash;without any context, for the column source has no context&mdash;that Byrne called Bramble a squid and yellowbelly? Cool Hand Luke 23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It was in an email to a Forbes reporter :


 * "Tuesday night, Overstock Chief Executive Patrick Byrne compared Bramble's about-face on the issue to a betrayal, using a reference to the movie Jerry Maguire to make his point. "It's like that scene where Jerry McGuire figures out that a prospect's father has sold him out by signing with a competitor. McGuire says, 'Now. Wait. Tell me you didn't sign. Because I'm still sort of moved by your "my word is stronger'n oak" thing,' " Bryne wrote in an e-mail.


 * "Byrne said Bramble had repeatedly told him in the last year that he wouldn't move to repeal the law. "In the year I've known Bramble [he] has given me a dramatic 'look you in the eye' speech three times. A few weeks ago I got it again: 'I want to look you in the eye and tell you, I will not let them repeal this bill,' " Bryne wrote in the e-mail. "He turned out to be a squish and a yellowbelly. What a surprise."

This reporter, Liz Moyer, who is quite sympathetic to Byrne, also describes the confrontation with Utah legislators in terms similar to those used by Nocera: "Descriptions of the meeting were reminiscent of the physical battles fought in the Taiwanese legislature on a regular basis."--Samiharris (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Radically different context than the article implies. At any rate, do you really think this should be in the article? Cool Hand Luke 00:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not? These are Byrne's words, not what is being said about Byrne. I thought the WEIGHT argument re the Nocera article was arguable, even if I did not agree with it. But I can't see how quoting the subject of an article, speaking in an email to a journalist and for publication, can possibly be impermissible on the grounds of WEIGHT. That applies if this were criticism of Byrne, or the reflection of a minority viewpoint. This is the subject of the article talking, so obviously he cannot be expressing a minority viewpoint as it concerns himself. It is not him in an outburst but a carefully composed email to a journalist at an RS publication writing an article about him.


 * In this instance, the subject of the article is not only the CEO of a public company, but the person who inspired certain state legislation and, on top of that, is a major player in Utah politics as the top campaign contributor. This seems totally relevant to Byrne's article - if the quotation from Byrne is in proper context. We now have the original source so we know the context. If the words were unwise, it is not our job to protect Byrne from what he says.--Samiharris (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Every fart he made about a Utah legislator is not a notable part of his biography. Before my last edit, this article didn't even mention Bramble, and including this quote would require a bit more context to set up. I also think it's POV to quote that part of the email and no other. It's just not that notable. Cool Hand Luke 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoted in Forbes and the New York Times, and perhaps elsewhere, and not notable? Come on. It is POV only in the sense of being Byrne's POV, Byrne's words. The entire email does not have to be quoted if what he says is taken in context. I still have trouble understanding how Byrne's words, when relevant to the article and not quoted out of context, are problematic in an article about Byrne.--Samiharris (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was only picked up by a columnist mocking Byrne. That raises BLP flags for me, especially since Bramble and Byrne were subsequently on very good terms. Bramble was the co-sponsor of the voucher bill, and was one the directors of IVP (a pro-voucher group), which Byrne contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to.
 * Look, I do a lot of editing at Ann Coulter. Like her, Byrne says a lot of apparently crazy things. If several sources don't pick up on them, they just don't belong in the article. This is an encyclopedia entry, not an attack piece, and not a collection of Patrick Byrne's many burps. Cool Hand Luke 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Luke, with all due respect I don't think it is your role to shield Byrne from what he says because you think it makes him look bad or "crazy." That is your OR analysis of what he says from a p.r. standpoint. That is not our role here. You're imposing, I think, an unreasonable standard here by saying that in order for his words to be quoted if they are "crazy" in your opinion, there must be an orgy of publicity as follows around Ann Coulter. Coulter is an entertainer while Byrne is a CEO and major political contributor. I'm still trying to figure out how what Byrne says can possibly raise BLP flags if accurately quoted, and I'd appreciate your addressing that. I don't see anything in BLP that relates to accurately quoting what the subject of an article says. I also don't see how you "attack" the subject of an article by quoting him.--Samiharris (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I told you already. WEIGHT. This is the same reason we don't include all of Ann Coulter's burps. And then I added that this seems to rather misrepresent their relationship. If you really cared about Utah politics, you would not want to imply that Bramble is Byrne's enemy. Cool Hand Luke 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, you asked me if it should be in the article and I answered. We disagree on that, and in keeping with BLP practices I'm not going to put it back in. But I still think it is not a good thing to leave it out. More generally, I think the article would benefit from more on Byrne's political contributions, which appear to be significant.--Samiharris (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It should. He even donates large sums out of state. Would be better to have overview sources instead of stitching together lots of datapoints. The Deseret News story is the perfect start. Cool Hand Luke 06:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Deseret News story is very good, and I am surprised it has not already been cited and quoted in the article.--Samiharris (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Media attention" section
How is this different from the short selling section? There's already lots of "media attention" and opinion commentary coverage in the naked short section. This seems superflous. Cool Hand Luke 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, organizationally it represents an issue. One can just simply move the contents into the short selling section, and give the short-selling section subsections to break it up or something. After all, that is the major focus of his life and thus of the coverage of him as reflected in RS sources. Incidentally I removed the Cox quote, as it was indeed synthesis and the proper way to deal with synthesis is to remove it, not to add more synthesis. However, if it is to be left in, then I think the other material needs to be re-added.--Samiharris (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I was just wondering if there was a source that connected the rules change in any way to Byrne. The only trace I found was that blog post. It should stay out. We'll merge the sections then (or find a more logical way to subdivide them). Cool Hand Luke 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "media coverage" should be expanded as a subsection of the short selling section, with media criticism and praise (the Bloomberg piece) moved into it?--Samiharris (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)