| Revision as of 04:23, 21 August 2006 editMantanmoreland (talk | contribs)5,801 edits I've asked you twice already to stop this POV pushing; you have responded by further reverts. Stop the edit warring.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:36, 25 November 2024 edit undoQuick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers3,781 edits →The description "conspiracy theory" seems like a conclusion: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (473 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;" |
|
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
| width="50px" | ] |
|
|
|
{{Old AfD multi| date = 25 February 2006| result = keep| page = Patrick Byrne}} |
|
|| This article was nominated for ] on 25 February 2006. The result of the ] was {{{result|'''keep'''}}}. |
|
|
|
{{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 == |
|
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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages profile. --] 02:29, 24 February 2006 (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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
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. --] 14:18, 29 April 2006 (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. ] (]) 05:22, 2 September 2019 (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 |
|
|
|
:: 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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--> |
|
Removed the following: (1) Links to articles that were one sided as reference. ] 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"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) |
|
:I've reverted your links and quotes from non-notable websites and reinstated the notable links you removed. Please review ]. Thanks. --] 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Now apparently giving extreme advice to Dponald Trump == |
|
: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. ] 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See this article: -- ] (]) 11:21, 22 December 2020 (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 ], 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021 == |
|
::Additionally, I cautioned you against removing citations to notable publications and substituting a non-notable "BusinessJive" website. Again, I ask that you study ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Patrick M. Byrne|answered=yes}} |
|
::These changes strike me as POV edits. Do not make further reversions without discussing. Thanks.--] 04:08, 21 August 2006 (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) |
|
: 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. --] 04:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
: Good catch! ] (]) 03:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Don't lie about filmmakers! == |
|
::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. --] 04:23, 21 August 2006 (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. |
|
|
: 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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't find a way to submit this change directly. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.
