Talk:Patrick M. Byrne/Archive 2

Revising lead

I am going to attempt to revise the lead to make it what seems to me more neutral and conventional. Of course I am open to any criticism. Generally per WP:Lead the lead should be a brief overview of the article, so I tried to round it out a little. Possibly a little more could be added. I considered revising the sentence about an SEC investigation to say that Byrne and some of his rivals have been subject to SEC investigations, but concluded that the material is probably better left to the article. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Media attention section

As part of the Mantanmoreland arbitration I've done a rather rudimentary analysis of every edit in the history of this article up to late last month.

• User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The/Sandbox/Analysis/Patrick M. Byrne

One thing I noticed was that up until October, 2007, this article had a paragraph or two about positive media attention given to Byrne. How it was removed I don't know, but the pattern of editing makes me wonder if it was a deliberate ruse. Whatever the truth, and perhaps we'll never know, I think it would be a good idea if somebody examined this link to see if the first paragraph contains anything worth salvaging. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Removing lots of overly negative stuff

On a complaint from the subject, I've assessed the amount of negative content, and agree that for whatever reason it looked unbalanced. In particular, there was much dwelling on a single epithet "Sith Lord" which Byrne used a few years ago in a particular social context. To spend several paragraphs on this, even if some commentators have enjoyed tweaking him about it a lot, is not reasonable in an article that is supposed to present a balanced view of the person. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article did not spend several full paragraphs on it. The article is not supposed to present a balanced view of the person as such- rather, we present a balanced overview of relevant viewpoints on Byrne. And if people think of Byrne as someone with an inclination towards bad Star Wars analogies, and he doesn't like it, that's just too bad for him isn't it? John Nevard (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read this and the other articles that have received so much attention in the blogosphere, and this was the only one that bothered me a little. I thought it was negative, perhaps excessively so, so I tend to agree with Anticipation. However, John Nevard has a good point as well. My knowledge of Byrne is skimpy but what little I know of him is related to his outspokeness on market issues, as well as the "Sith Lord" issue. I am surprised that this is not mentioned in the article. If no one objects, I would like to add that back in.--Stetsonharry (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd like to see broader discussion of this subject. I've called an RfC on the general balance of the article. I agree that the article probably looks a bit odd without some mention of the "Sith Lord" matter, but we should be careful to write about it in context. The article as it stood before went on for paragraphs about this one matter, which was obviously unacceptable. Somewhere in between will probably be about right.

For example, a Google News search on "overstock.com byrne" today (from the UK Google site) finds about 20 stories featuring Byrne, but only one of those, an online stock pundit piece by someone called Frank Lara Jr on a site called thestockmasters.com, mentions the Sith Lord affair. Lara, the cofounder of the website, compares a plummeting stock to Byrne's company, and refers to "the Sith Lord" in terms of Overstock's poor PR profile. But when all's said and done, that site is just a financial blog representing one trader/pundit's opinion.

One or two of the other entries do contain oblique references to "a vast conspiracy of market manipulation involving a character from Star Wars and crooked reporters", and quite a number of the other entries are just press releases.

One other story in Utah-based Deseret News gives Byrne's side of the story [1]:

Byrne criticized various local and national media depictions of financial and education-related news, saying no media outlet has either the integrity or know-how to investigate such a crime. He feels he has been "demonized" by mainstream press accusations while "the statistics could tell the story on their own."

The story goes on:

' Byrne and Mitchell agreed that not all hedge funds are bad. They said that only about two dozen of the 11,000 are unsettled where the money is never delivered.'

'"Legal shorting is great," Byrne said. "Short-selling is good for the market and can provide useful information." He's received support from some journalists, but continues to stand by his claims, "waiting for the lid to come off one of these days."'

The "Mitchell" in the above is Mark Mitchell, a journalist, formerly of Columbia Journalism Review, who, according to the article, said he is close to releasing an article detailing a similarly corrupt media presence in what he calls the "single biggest scandal in American journalism."

So there is another side to this that we have to take into account. Our argicle shouldn't give the impression that it's just one CEO ranting about naked shorting scammers. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, and I agree with the removal. If we wanted to write a paragraph about analogies he makes and people's reactions, that would be fine in my view, but otherwise the various quotes don't seem to rise to any level of encyclopedic importance. But it's an idea of its own if it should be addressed, not something that should be combined with several other paragraphs. Mackan79 (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anticipation, I read the request for comment. The subject's complaints do not appear to be reflected on this page. Were they posted elsewhere in a public forum?--Stetsonharry (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is here; it's all going on in a somewhat dicey arbitration case that I think we're probably intended to leave mostly over there. But you can see his comments if you do a search for "Comment from Patrick." Mackan79 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be mainly concerned about use of the terms "jihad" and "Sith Lord." I guess the question is whether they rise to the level of encyclopedic importance, as Mackan79 suggests.--Stetsonharry (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be difficult to get rid of "Jihad" altogether as it's a term he used himself and his father, in resigning, used the term. But I think we can avoid using it in a way that denigrates the campaign. For instance there has been a lot of to-and-fro in the history about naming the section about the campaign--Crusade and Jihad were considered before settling on Campaign because it's the word that best fits our neutral point of view. At the same time it doesn't seem sensible to rewrite history. Where someone has used the term in a statement that is essential to an understanding of the campaign (and I think Byrne senior's statement is one such) then it makes sense to reproduce a brief quote containing that word. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This article troubled me originally because of imbalance, but I think it is better now. I agree about rewriting history and I think that a reference to the Sith Lord is needed. He referred to the Sith Lord speech as one of the proudest moments of his life, according to the NY Times.--Stetsonharry (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Stetsonharry. "Sith Lord" is a very famous remark (I'm saying this as a one-time Utah news junkie). That said, it and "jihad" were used to denigrate the campaign which made the article very imbalanced. It's improving. Cool Hand Luke 01:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Another article in The Register

I just removed (for now) a link to an interview in The Register, "A Shaolin monk, Warren Buffett and a Russian mobster walk into a bar . . ." [2]

Referring back to earlier discussions of articles in The Register, I seem to recall that consensus was reached that this often opinionated source is not suitable for inclusion in biographies of living persons. On the other hand, this is apparently some kind of podcast involving an interview. Should it be included? The introduction is a little sensationalist, but doesn't look like a smear piece. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We could probably use our judgment. BLP raises the standard for criticism of living people, as I understand, but not for anything that isn't controversial. Unless there is something controversial I don't see the problem with adding it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think it can go back. But in looking at the external links I see that there are a lot more isolated items there than I'd normally expect. Ideally if any of these is significant it should be written about in the body of the article and the link can appear in the associated reference so that we provide some context to it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I put it back, and I removed a couple of the external links that were duplicates of material cited in the article. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 10:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An interview is different, especially considering the recording. If anything, it's more reliable that Wikinews interviews, which have been strongly pushed on Wikipedia. That said, interviews are something like self-published sources, so should only be used for their subject, and should not be used as a reference for anything controversial. Cool Hand Luke 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as soon as I realised it was a fairly extensive voice interview. Some "interviews" are just opinion pieces with soundbites, and I was concerned it might be like that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is now far more balanced than when I first read it. The blog attention to these items is what got me interested in editing Wikipedia in the first place, and yet I read the articles and find that people seem to have gotten the same thoughts and made the required changes. I just had a queation about the Register article linked. It uses the word "insane" in a semiserious manner in refering to Byrne. Does that present problems? I had the same question about the Deep Capture blog, and the accusations there. Is it permissible for Wikipedia to link to websites and articles that make accusations about people?--Stetsonharry (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the whole piece the comment in the introduction isn't problematic. In fact Byrne comes off quite well in the piece and there is clearly no animosity between him and the journalists concerned, although they have no always been polite about him in the past. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-naked shorts campaign

I'm considering what to do about two sections in different articles. We have a section on the anti-naked shorts campaign in this article and one in Overstock.com. There is probably also stuff about the campaign on the naked short selling article. Perhaps there should be a separate article on this, or perhaps all three sections should be consolidated in a single article (either this one or the Overstock article) with a "main" link to the section in that article in each of the others. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As a quick impression, I'd say the issue is probably of relevance in decreasing order from Naked short selling to Patrick M. Byrne to Overstock.com. Of course, the angle for each then would also be a bit different. The section here seems to be improving, although maybe it could be focused in more on Byrne himself. Some subsections might help as well. The section in Overstock.com probably needs a bit more trimming, to focus on the material most relevant to the company. If we did that I'd be surprised if we need another article, particularly as there might be problems with how to structure it (I'm not sure if it would be Byrne's lawsuits, or "controversy over naked short selling" or something else). I think probably a little trimming and focusing the material would solve most if it. (I'd planned to work on this myself bit by bit.) Mackan79 (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd be hesitant to put much about Byrne's anti-naked shorts campaign into Naked short selling because that is an article about the phenomenon. I wouldn't want to give the Overstock campaign undue weight there (as it has had at various times). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See also and external links

The "See also" and "External links" section disappeared, presumably by accident. I've restored them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Cancer survivor

Two things, as starters: should we perhaps archive this talk-page, and just make a fresh start? Secondly, I have watched the interviews with Byrne that are on the net. All of them mentions his long battle with cancer (starting when he was in his early 20s), ..and how that has influenced his life and "world-view". Nothing of that is now in the article. Shouldn´t it be? Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC),

Yes, it should definitely be there. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree on the material; I think it actually was here once. I archived up to the recent revisions, good thought. Mackan79 (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the mention that he's a cancer survivor, and about the bike rides. I haven't seen the more extended discussions, but that could be interesting as well for some background if anyone finds a good source. Mackan79 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked for reference to the bike riding. It's mentioned in passing in this Washington Post article (not freely available), and covered in more depth at: "Cyclist on a mission to raise cancer awareness," Reno Gazette-Journal, June 7, 2000, and "Cancer victims in hearts of PMC riders," Telegram & Gazette (Massachusetts) August 05, 2000, which says: "... Since its inception in 1980, the PMC has raised more than $42 million for the Jimmy Find. In that first year, 36 riders raised $10,200. Last year, slightly more than 2,500 riders raised $8.7 million. This year's 3,000 riders are hoping to raise $12 million. | A driving force behind that goal is Patrick Byrne of Hanover, N.H., who is chief executive officer of e-commerce site Overstock.com. A three-time cancer survivor, he has been bicycling across the United States since Memorial Day to raise awareness in the fight against cancer. | Mr. Byrne began his trek in San Francisco, and will ride to Provincetown with the PMC participants. He pledged $1 million to the PMC if it would increase its original $9 million goal to $11 million, which it did. ..."

Incidentally, the article does not now say he's from New Hampshire. That claim is repeated in this voucher story. Cool Hand Luke 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke. Looking through it a bit I don't see anything specific to add here, but if there's anything I'm missing others are free to try. Mackan79 (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, looking much better

One of the most amazing change I see is the paragraph that used to read, "During the school voucher debate, Byrne said of high school dropouts, 'You may as well burn those kids.' He was criticized for the comment by the Utah NAACP, but refused to apologize." With the quote in context, it seems he probably meant the opposite of what was implied here—that he believes the current policy causes bad results and burns kids, not that we may as well burn them since they're dropouts anyway.

Good source-checking, Hulda! Cool Hand Luke 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same thing as well. I found something similar with the quote on Google, actually, where it sounded before like he was talking down participation in its IPO, rather than talking down the opposition to the Dutch auction method, as was evident in the article.[3] A small thing, but of course, saying Wall Street had to be dragged into participating in Google's IPO out of context makes him sound like a nut. Mackan79 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Many of the a sources seem to be used strangely: just checked the source on his criticism Utah governor Jon Huntsman; the main thing, IMO, namely that Huntsman didn´t keep his word (according to Byrne) ..isn´t mentioned. Just mentioning that A is angry with B, without mentioning that A apparently has very good reason for being so... isn´t very fair, IMO. Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, and Cool Hand; it is HuldRa, as in this lady (I didn´t knew that I already had an article here when I chose the name!)

I applaud both these observations. They are entirely true: I denounced society's indifference to low income and minority kids, arguing that accepting the current state of affairs is like throwing kids away, and I denounced Huntsman for reneging on a point-blank campaign promise. Yes, the more you hang around this story the more you will see "sources [that] seem to be used strangely." Understanding the reasons for that means taking The Red Pill. PatrickByrne (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes

I've been in email contact with Patrick Byrne following his complaints about this article. He has sent me an alternative version of the article. Since I started discussing this with him, other editors have got involved in editing it, so I have decided to publish it to Google.

• http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df9gr9pz_0gk26pzhg

As you might expect, it doesn't comply with all of Wikipedia's policies in its current form (Byrne doesn't claim to be familiar with them all) but rather than discuss this fact I would suggest that we regard it as a starting point for changes and corrections to Wikipedia's article. As a derived form of our Wikipedia article, its content is covered by GFDL. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That is very good, Anticip. I will try to look at some of it. I definitely think that the awards (“Entrepreneur of the Year") should go into the opening. As for that last sentence ("Other Black leaders who had initially demanded an apology of Byrne, such as radio host Michael Baisden, later apologized to Byrne over their handling of the issue."): I cannot find a source for that. Also, I cannot see that this source is used anywhere in the article, is there any reason for that? Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, in what year was he born? He is -according to the sources -about 45 years old, but is there any source for the year? (1963?) Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have done i little bit (I don´t think I will do more on this today). The "Campaign against naked shorting" is still far, far too messy. And the opening should still be reworked, IMO. On the changes that Byrne have suggested in the google ducument I have some comments:

• A: I do not agree with his suggestion that the title should be changed to "Campaign to prevent systemic collapse (“naked shorting”)". Very few use that phrase, and I think it is quite POW, as not many others (AFAIK) see any danger of "systemic collapse".
• B: Just one example, he states in the draft that: "they captured the federal regulators to prevent them from addressing the issue, and co-opted various members of the national business press (specifically, Carol Remond, joe Nocera, Jim Cramer, Bethany McLean, herb Greenberg, and Roddy Boyd) and instructed them to downplay the severity of the issue and distort his allegations about it." My comment: if this is his opinion, I think it is so noteworthy that some of it should go into the article. (not including anything which violates BIO) The problem is: I have a problem sourcing this! I find a lot on his blog, but not even there can I find a source for most of this. And as long as that is the case it must obviously stay out. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his draft is very opinionated but we can work around that. I'm gathering a list of requests for sources and he's promised to help with that. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked hard for his birthday. The June 7, 2000 Reno Gazette-Journal story mentioned above says he was 37 (as do other stories from the summer of 2000). That places him at 1962-1963. A March 3, 2006 AP article places him at 43, and this November 14, 2005 Fortune article places him at 42. If these are all correct, his birthday must be between November, 14 1962 and March, 3 1963. In any case, he would currently be 45. Cool Hand Luke 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and "Hedge fund allure is not all it seems," Contra Costa Times, December 5, 2005 also says 42. Would be between Dec. 5, 1962 and March 3, 1963. Cool Hand Luke 18:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect his birthday is November 29, 1962, but I have no RS. Going to see if I can find it in NH newspaper births. Cool Hand Luke 18:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tch. Scratch that. I'm not that tenacious today. He's 45 now. Cool Hand Luke 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank, Luke, and Anticip: that is certainly one thing you can ask Byrne about. (Also: I hope you native English quackers will clean up my language! As you might have noticed: I am not a native English speaker (But if you need assistance with anything in Danish, Swedish or Norwegian: just ask!;-) ) Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And I have a small problem with the "Entrepreneur of the Year" award. Now, the Riding on a Raft- article states that it was awarded in 2003. However, if you go to the "source" at E&Y, (try: http://eoyhof.ey.com/SearchHallofFame.aspx and search for "Byrne")...then you will find that it says 2002. I suspect that the "source" is correct, ie it is 2002. But it isn´t very "neat" linking to a search-page...I think. If anybody find a better source: do tell. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have expanded a bit about early history of Byrne and Overstock: there is still more information which should be included.

As for the section named "Campaign against naked shorting": Should we rename this? There are two separate lawsuits; one in 2005, and one in 2007. As far as I can see, the 2005 lawsuit is not about naked short selling. It is about short selling, for sure, but not "naked". However, the 2007 lawsuit is about naked short selling (if I have understood things correctly.) Are the texts of the lawsuits available anywhere on the web?? If so, we should definitely link to them. Also, apparently some journalists are named in these lawsuits(?) If journalist X is mentioned, and then write an article about Overstock/Byrne, well, then it should, IMO, be noted if we quote from that article. Possible COI, and all that.

As for the structure of that section: should we possibly divide it into two sub-sections: one named, say ===2005 lawsuit===, and the other ===2007 lawsuit=== ? Regards, Huldra (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Without having read Byrne's suggestions in detail, I wonder if something like =="Deep capture" campaign== would be a better heading. I think you're right that the focus entirely on naked shorting isn't entirely accurate, but also that the 2005 lawsuit and releated claims are equally part of the whole thing. Then we could make a little clearer that the naked shorting issue is just one part of it. Mackan79 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Added section on Deep Capture

Hello all, it's been about 2yrs since I first tried to correct some of the obviously biased information on this article and met head on with TomStoner & Manatanmoreland (see: Archives). I'm happy to see that they no longer control this article.

I added a section on Deep Capture since Patrick is currently working on it and thought it notable since it also reflects his passion. I am happy to have discussions about the wording and such.

Good to finally see this article get cleaned up.

Mfv (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that personal blogs can be used as sources concerning third parties. Patrick' blog, if you can call it that, is a reliable source concerning possibly himslf at the most. --Bassettcat (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bassettcat up to a point. The wording in this edit seems somehow slanted. How about this rewording?

Before:

Currently, Patrick blogs about the darker side of the players on Wall Street at Deep Capture. While still a work in progress, many notable people including Michael Steinhardt, Jim Cramer, Tim Mullaney, and author Gary Weiss are documented in a compromising light. Future articles, per comments by Patrick at Deep Capture, will include famed short seller David Rocker and journalist Herb Greenberg.

After:

Byrne has created a blog called Deep Capture "to bypass the captured institutions mediating our nation’s discourse" and publicise his thesis that "Wall Street is colluding in massive financial crimes against the United States, enabling hedge funds to loot pension funds in return for a share of the spoils", and that the financial press and the regulators have become "captured institutions", incapable of discussing this. In this blog he makes detailed accusations of corruption and criminal activity against named hedge fund managers, journalists.

You see what I'm trying to do? My version is intended to describe Byrne's blog without somehow entering into it in spirit. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Second thoughts I wonder if it's wise to include the link to that blog at all. I've spotted what appear to be several inaccuracies in his blog, which have the effect of making potentially defamatory statements about some people. I would not want us to be a secondary publisher to such accusations. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to make that point myself. This blog makes some truly wild accusations against several persons, and accuses both Steinhardt and Cramer of being market manipulators. I don't think it helps to adopt his language even if the persons are not named.--Bassettcat (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this go to his personal character, as say, Lobbying for Education? That it's a more polarizing topic shouldn't make a difference. Characterizing it as his thesis/opinion should be sufficient. Frankly, it's difficult to speak about the man, currently, w/o bringing up his involvement against wall street. It's part of who he is these days right or wrong. That he writes about it at Deep Capture in such volumes is an indicator to his passion here.--Mfv (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is really all of a part with his campaign against naked shorts. I suggest that the name of the blog (but not the link, for reasons I've already discussed) can be mentioned in connection with that campaign. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If that can be done in a manner that does not republish his comments. Perhaps something to the effect that "His personal blog, Deep Capture, comments further on his views concerning naked short selling." Evem that is debatable since, according to Google News, it has never been mentioned in a news account.--Bassettcat (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Added your "After" rewrite with a word or two added/removed as the last para to the Naked Short Selling section. Thanks --Mfv (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Anticipation's point about not wanting to be a secondary publisher of the defamatory and inaccurate statements made in the blog, I've changed that to a brief reference and removed the link.--Bassettcat (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Added back link. Many people have their blogs listed on their page. See Mark Cuban/Gary Weiss's page as an example. Content there ranges across the board. Also, how do we leave in content like "Worse CEO in the world" and yet argue about defaming? --Mfv (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that action, irrespective of whether we might currently include links to other problematic content. That blog contains actual accusations of past and ongoing dubious activity, including crimes, against named people. I don't think it's appropriate to compare that to things like "Worst CEO in the world", which is not defamatory, being a matter of opinion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we publish someone's blog simply by linking to it, if that's what I understand this discussion is about. That would make us responsible for the material on every blog that we link, as well as presumably responsible for vetting the same in terms of Wikipedia policies. I can't see how that kind of approach would hold up on a wide basis. Mackan79 (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anticip: do you really mean that we should not link to his blog? If so, I strongly disagree. In all other controversial bios on WP that I know of we always link to their blogs/personal web-sites, if they have one. And I´m thinking about extremely "controversial" (<-this is todays understatement!) people like David Duke, and Ernst Zündel. I find it totally absurd if we cannot/should not link to the "Deep Capture" blog, while we keep links to e.g. Zündelsite: Ernst Zündel's Web site. Last time I checked the policy was that we could always state any persons views (on others) on his/her bio. page, but not on the pages of the other person. (And my apologies to Patrick Byrne for mentioning him together with such %&$#/*$ as Duke and Zündel: It´s just for the argument..). Regards, Huldra (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so much concerned with having a link to his blog as having a link to his blog associated with the accusations he makes (which are, for the record, potentially defamatory and, for accusations of that gravity, exceptionally poorly founded). I wouldn't repeat the accusations in connection with the blog, but I think a bare link (which seems to be the current version) is okay. I've no idea what zundelsite is, but if it makes similar allegations of criminal activity against named individuals I would most likely object to it. Similarly, if as you seem to be suggesting David Duke makes accusations against named individuals we wouldn't want to publicise his libel here. If the Metropolitan of Alexandria, the Dalai Lama, the Grand Mufti and the Pope all made such accusations on their blog, we wouldn't want to republish them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the link to his self-published accusations should more than suffice. Anything beyond that should await media coverage.--Bassettcat (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, we are publishing it: check Dukes article; it notes e.g. that he thinks that Ariel Sharon was "the world's worst terrorist" and that Mossad was involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks.... And I believe Zundel is still in jail for the things he has published at his Zundelsite (which we link to).

Anticep; I think the short paragraph you had above was ok (That is: your "After" paragraph). But I can live without it -for now. What I will protest strongly against is removing a link to Byrnes blog altogether. Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To Bassettcat: first, welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you are a brand new user. Just one small point: your edit-lines when you have removed stuff from the article have not quite been according to policy: you are allowed to quote peoples own blogs in their own articles. (Also: I assume you have read the top of this page? About Article probation?) Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.:) I am definitely aware of the article probation, and researched the policy before removing. I relied on "Selfpub," under "Wikipedia:Verifiability," which allows self-published materials, inter alia, when "it does not involve claims about third parties." I read that as suggesting that Patrick can be quoted from his blog about himself, but not be quoted about things he says about other people. --Bassettcat (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes? Then you would not object to Anticep´s suggested paragraph? (the "after" version). Also, I cannot see that he made any "claims about third parties" in the paragraph you cut out here? Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that version (Anticipation's) helped much, as he is still making claims about third parties. I decided to remove my own, much shorter wording as I had doubts the blog was important enough, and it has never been cited in any news stories. I think it is better that, instead of my describing or someone else here describing his blog, we should wait until the media does. This is a sensitive biography and I see that an editor just removed the starting date of the Overstock SEC investigation as "provocative." Certainly the claims in his blog are at least as provocative.--Bassettcat (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the reasons are analagous, but I tend to agree that it isn't necessary to discuss the blog unless we had a source that did so. Otherwise I also agree that including it in the external links is appropriate. Mackan79 (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)Well, the Anticip version didn´t "name names", so I thought it was quite usable. And there has never, AFAIK, been any policy that a blog should be noted by external sources in order to be referred to in the authors bio. And Byrnes blog is innocent Sunday school reading ....compared to Duke/Zundel/Adelheid Institute web-sites/blogs, which we routinely link to in their articles.

Anyway; I can let the matter rest for now; there are other things missing/or should be reworked in this article which are far more pressing, IMO. I´m especially interested in knowing if the text of the two court-cases (2005, 2007) are online?? Does anybody know? If so, I would very, very much like a link (or two). Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Looks like we went full circle without any changes :-( . A couple of comments:

1. Mackan79, I thought the start date to the SEC investigation gives a little more clarification since it's been going on for so long (approaching 2 yrs now) -- feels more back-burnerish at this point then something that's actively being pursued.
2. I find it inappropriate to quote journalists that are openly in conflict with Byrne. I am referring to Herb Greenberg who's actually listed as a defendant in one of the lawsuits. Google him and OSTK and you will not find one smattering of balance in his reporting with respect to anything surrounding OSTK. In fact, he openly mocks Byrne at every opportunity. I don't think any "journalist" has carte blanc on comments on a person's BIO; Their motives and situation should be considered. --Mfv (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. (But if you add Anticips version (see above): I certainly will not object) Anyway, again; do you know if the text of the two lawsuits (2005, 2007) are online? If so, I would very much like a link (or two). And I totally agree: if Greenberg is mentioned in one of the lawsuits, then it should definitely be noted here (Actually, I have made the point earlier on this page) Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the start date, I was more put off by the wording, though it might have been just me. I believe it's also referred to as an "informal" investigation, correct? I thought the way I worded it was a fair balance by not making too big a deal out of any of it, but I suppose if someone feels strongly about adding a date I'm not dead set or anything. Mackan79 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Huldra, Ostk v. Gradient is here: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=65285&div=4&doc_no=A113397 . You can search for the Prime Brokerage lawsuit at the same site. There's a bunch of info on Overstock's investor relation site: http://investors.overstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131091&p=irol-lawsuits including sworn affidavits, etc. This post: http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3532&mn=4832&pt=msg&mid=1442348 extracts from the affidavit and implicates Herb.

Mackan79, I'll re-add the date for clarification. Feel free to adjust to your liking but I would like to preserve the timeframe. Thanks. -- Mfv (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Huldra's comment. If Greenberg is named in the suit it is essential to point that out in the article. --Stetsonharry (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

He's not named in the suit. He is named in affidavits that have since been discredited. Aside from Greenberg's own denial, there is the article in the New York Post, quoted in the Wall Street Journal, indicating that Anifantis was fired for "violations of corporate policy." http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,615153450,00.html The affidavit was drafted by Overstock. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/greenberg/2006/06/more_questions_.html

I think that there are problems under the "no original research" as relates to "synthesis to advance a point of view." I think that in general Wikipedia should not be delving into stuff that is filed in lawsuits, yanking it out and putting it in articles when the lawsuit is ongoing and everything is disputed. Either the discrediting of Anifantis should be added to provide the other side of the story or it should be removed enitrely.--Bassettcat (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in general use commonsense and avoid delving into court documents (other than, perhaps, rulings and appeals to cite the court's decision). Journalists' opinions should be selected according to the merits, not the opinion of the subject of the article about the journalist. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This entry has several problems, in terms of significant negative maerial removed, notably the entire Sith Lord affair, and trivial "awards" added in their place. I cannot find any reference to Byrne being named "Entrepreneur of the Year for 2003." There is a source for that I know, but Ernst & Young says otherwise: http://entrepreneurs.about.com/cs/breakingnews/a/eoy2003.htm. The reference to his $800 million in revenues is absurd, given the history of mounting losses and the fact that the company has never made a profit. These are significant problems and omissions IMHO, aside and apart from an absence of basic biographical details such as DOB and earlier job history. I will nose around and try to find something to fill in the blanks.--Bassettcat (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So far, all of the motions in the Rocker/Gradient case, by OSTK, have advanced in court and all of the appeals, by the defendants, have been thrown out. Not surprising that the employees were fired for whistle blowing as well as Greenberg's denial of the charges. The affidavits still remain on record and none of the authors have been charged with any perjury. In fact, in a ruling against a Rocker appeal, the court wrote "The Anifantis declaration is sufficient prima facie evidence demonstrating Gradient's predecessor (Camelback) published "Special Reports" in reckless disregard of the truth" ruling. That Greenberg is implicated in one of the cases, his opinion is suspect and should be removed or balanced via the affidavit's implication. Mfv (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You (plural) are veering into advocacy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I encourage thoughtful discourse from reliable/unbias sources (I would think a court document would be one). There is a lot of negativity (hyperbole) surrounding this whole issue that I would caution everyone for the need to dig a little deeper then the typical sources. I was overpowered here several years ago while trying to argue the other side. My talk pages were scored by Mantanmoreland and Tomstoner by veiled threats and wiki rules jargon. Both accounts have since been disabled for sock puppetry. Mfv (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into personal attacks and whatnot. My point is that I think that when you (Mfv) start arguing the merits of the case Overstock.com versus Rocker and Gradient, and when Bassettcat starts arguing the plausibility of revenue claims, you both appear to me to be taking a point of advocacy. There are guidelines here for reliable sources that should help us. I don't even know where the affidavit fits into this matter, but it's obviously just one person's version of events (albeit sworn). As an illustration of what a minefield these matters can be, I need only point to the recent fraud charges levelled by SEC against Biovail. We're better staying away from this kind of stuff and letting the courts do their job. Second-guessing the outcome based on interim appeals and whatnot will only be a waste of time (not to mention, original research) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing the plausibility of the revenues, but pointing out that the number is misleading without noting that the company has never turned a profit. I just corrected that, as I presume there is no objection to that, as well as adding biographical details from Marquis who's who online. There is no usable URL as this is a proprietary database. There were two references to his E&Y award, which I have reduced to one. I have not touched the affidavit business as there seems to be some dissent, but I think that is troublesome and needs to go.--Bassettcat (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it had been established that, rather than being named in the suit, Greenberg had simply been mentioned in an affidavit submitted by a witness in the suit. The list of parties to the case is here and does not include Greenberg. I think our article currently has a problem caused by an attempt to shoehorn a third party statement about Greenberg into it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is established. So why not remove it? Also I believe that one reference to Byrne's alleged E&Y award, and his being on a Business Week list six years ago, is sufficient. Prominent mention of these two minor distinctions, with peacock terminology "for his achievements," makes this entry read like a corporate press release. There is some evidence that he did not win that award. See link earlier provided.--Bassettcat (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

First: thanks for finding his birthday! We had been looking for it ;-P Secondly, about the lead: I do think the E&Y award, and the Business Week list belongs in the lead. The two other awards are local for Utah, and those should not go into the lead, IMO (even if they do so in other articles). I´m not sure that I would use the words "peacock terminology" about "for his achievements," but feel free to change that wording. Also, there is nothing "alleged" about his E&Y award: to quote myself from earlier: "I have a small problem with the "Entrepreneur of the Year" award. Now, the Riding on a Raft- article states that it was awarded in 2003. However, if you go to the "source" at E&Y, (try: http://eoyhof.ey.com/SearchHallofFame.aspx and search for "Byrne")...then you will find that it says 2002. I suspect that the "source" is correct, ie it is 2002." Thirdly, about Greenberg: I inserted the information about Greenberg being named in the 2005 lawsuit, basically to balance the very negative articles/refs to/from Greenberg in the article, where he "called Byrne the runner-up for Worst CEO of the Year two years running." Now, I´m perfectly willing to take it out again, but then I think we also should take out the reference to the Greenberg article. Greenberg is simply not a neutral observer, IMO, and if his views are presented here, then that should be made clear. Also; I completely agree that there are are still big gaps in this biography; both regarding earlier job history, and cancer-involvement/research/support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the E&Y site. Sorry I had overlooked it earlier. It is definitely 2002 and it is a Utah regional "milestone" award, not a 2003 national life achievement award. This is a major inaccuracy and needs to be corrected. Obviously such a minor award does not belong high in the article. I think the same goes for a mention in a six year old Business Week list.--Bassettcat (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree there. The lead is supposed to contain the "highlight"/milestones; not only recent issues. The fact that the Business Week list was 6 years ago does not make it irrelevant; far from it. I think that was the trouble with the lead as it was earlier: far too focused on recent issues. Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the posts clarifying the "named" status of Greenberg in the Overstock suit. Since he is not named as a defendant, I agree that delving into the suit and taking out an affidavit is probably not warranted. I don't advocate taking him out entirely, on the basis of the affidavit, as long as he meeets other criteria. I am an agnostic as to whether the two awards should be named twice. I think that including them does more harm than good, as the Utah award sounds picayune, and the Business Week list is definitely dated. It is like me putting my Eagle Scout merit badges in my resume.--Stetsonharry (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see that Herb Greenberg´s part in the Overstock suit is taken out. I suggest that we then also remove the reference to Herb Greenberg´s article ("Worst CEO of 2006 " etc). After all, that article is only an opinion piece. Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe one has much to do with the other. Removal of the reference to the affidavit was necessary as original research and because Greenberg is not a party to the suit. However, I think that the "worst CEO" reference is an important part of the press coverage and should be retained.--Stetsonharry (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I repaired an erroneous reference to Byrne's "Ernst and Young Award" which was fixed in the Lead but not in the awards section. This does not belong in the introductory section and should be removed. WP:LEAD says the introduction "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article," "the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources," and "the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." --Bassettcat (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that a blog? It reads more like a website with third party content to me. Link to it shud go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.201.51 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mitchell Report

Very long but an absolute must read to give the Byrne side of Herb, Nocera, etc.: http://www.deepcapture.com/ Mfv (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am once again diving in for a few evenings to catch up on these strange debates. I have never been to this talk page before tonight (I'm pretty sure). Wow. Respect to all. I see that some total strangers are digging and starting to put two and two together. Bravo, and thank you for your efforts to fix these things (though I know you did not do it to be thanked). And for those who honestly weigh in on the other side.... Respect as well. I can easily see how the vision of an honest person could still be fogged by what has been published. I see, however, that someone has discovered Mark Mitchell's story on the front of "DeepCapture.com" (I hope the site's mention is not a thought-crime, Bassettcat). To the many of you who seem honestly to piece together the truth, I suggest you read Mark's piece. It is long (about the length of The Crying of Lot 49, I'd guess) but it is also a shortcut if you want to know the truth. By the way, I do not mean to be intrusive by writing to you like this. I read the discussion and wished to express gratitude, and also to be helpful, though I know some could argue my presence on this page is inappropriate (just as they argue that linking to the blog of Gary Weiss is legitimate, but any link on my page to DeepCapture must be illegitimate). I do see a lot of questions up above that I could easily answer, and save the efforts that some are apparently putting into this. Let me know. Best, PatrickByrne (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in answer to the poster asking for a clear, simple statement of my Mitzvah (that's my preferred term for it), here is something I wrote: http://www.deepcapture.com/cnbcs-ron-insana-patrick-byrne-and-the-miscreants-ball/ All the stuff about "Sith Lord" and "jihad" is just blue-smoke-and-mirrors to keep people from hearing those claims. PatrickByrne (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOAPBOX. One wonders why Byrne said "stuff" about the "Sith Lord" (quoting Patrick M. Byrne) and his "jihad" (quoting Patrick M. Byrne) if it was "smoke-and-mirrors". John Nevard (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See [[4]]. One wonders why John Nevard sees no distinction between using a phrase in passing about one thing versus giving an hour long talk about something else. To avoid mention of that "something else" by pretending the talk was about the incidental phrase is the "blue-smoke-and-mirrors" thing.PatrickByrne (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

SEC Investigation Terminated

An administrator needs to insert at the appropriate point that the SEC investigation was terminated. See [5]. There is a sentence with the word "ongoing" which can be changed to "terminated in June 2008 without action."--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, someone seems to have removed the meat of the sentence based on the reference on that investigation. From the opening sentence of that report: "Overstock.com founder Patrick Byrne received a [SEC] subpoena in May 2006 of last year but... appears to have waited a year before alerting investors that he had been served." John Nevard (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be moot now that the investigation has been terminated? May not be, but I assume that is the reason it was removed.--Stetsonharry (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The delay in disclosure hasn't become any less of an issue. Seems to have been removed sometime in the past- I stopped bothering to try and edit these articles while they were being gutted. John Nevard (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this [6] is the reason no one wants to repeat the bizarre claim that in May 2006 my alerts to investors were insufficient ("Overstock.com Celebrates Receipt of SEC Subpoena...SALT LAKE CITY, May 9, 2006...Overstock.com Chairman and CEO Patrick Byrne said, 'I may be the first CEO in history to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena...'" Or perhaps it is the video shown here [7]. PatrickByrne (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If Overstock issued a press release on the subject, perhaps it should be mentioned? Evidently the whole subpoena issue is considered newsworthy by Mr. Byrne, and should be by Wikipedia as well. Perhaps also Mr. Byrne's participation in Wikipedia should be mentioned if he is acknowledged to be the person above.--Stetsonharry (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

His identify was confirmed by OTRS, but we would only mention his participation if a reliable source published it first. We are not a forum for original research. Cool Hand Luke 00:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There's this talk-page template: {{Notable Wikipedian|PatrickByrne|Byrne, Patrick M.|editedhere=no}}. It puts up a header and adds the page to Category:Notable Wikipedians. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be all factually orientated about it, but your press release of May the 9th is hardly the issue, the real one is the lack of one from May the 17th after "On May 17, 2006, Patrick Byrne also received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Salt Lake City District Office."- or, as the coverage of the issue states, in the quarterly or annual reports (or in an additional filing with the SEC as with the beginning of the investigation of the company. I don't see how the link to a press release before you received your subpoena nullifies that you failed to disclose it. John Nevard (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters, since the issue here seems to be whether to talk about the investigation and if so how much. Since he does not appear to be disputing the need to discuss the investigation in this article, then I lean toward the view you are right that it requires more than a brief reference. My first impulse was "no," because the investigation was just concluded, but I don't want to be holier than the Pope.--Stetsonharry (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

John, you are making distinctions without differences. Would you say that when I put out a press release on May 9, 2006 (saying "I may be the first CEO in history to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena") that I was lying, because precisely speaking, only the business had received one? To be consistent you have to maintain such a position, which is, to me, ridiculous. For example: imagine you heard that the SEC had subpoenaed a CEO, and you asked him about it and he denied it, but months later it turned out his company had already been subpoenaed when you'd asked him, and he explains, "Yes but you asked if I had been subpoenaed, and I had not been subpoenaed, only the company had." That would be ridiculous splitting of hairs. Well, to maintain your current position you have to defend precisely such splitting of hairs: holding that when I said "I may be the first CEO in history to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena" I was lying because, at that point, I had not received one, the business had. (If you care to rebut this, please start by answering the simple question, "When I announced on May 9 that I celebrated receiving an SEC subpoena, was I lying about receiving an SEC subpoena?") However, this is a swell example of the kind of absurd picking of nits that underlies the vast bulk of the criticisms cited on this page. Notwithstanding any of this: does it seem odd that, weeks after the newspaper stories have appeared confirming that the SEC investigation has been dropped, unequivocally, and with no action, that the page here still says "an SEC investigation of Byrne and Overstock.com was initiated and remains ongoing"? I mean, the fact that the SEC dropped the investigation and issued a no-action letter is not in any dispute. Here is my "Yipikaye" press release on the subject. Here is the AP story confirming it. Here is a BusinessWeek article confirming it. Here is a Barron's story. Yet nearly one month later, the article still says, "an SEC investigation of Byrne and Overstock.com was initiated and remains ongoing" while John Nevard insists upon a Talmudic distinction between a two-old old subpoena addressed to my office and a nearly identical one sent to me care of my office a week later. Lecture me all you want on "Good Faith": John Nevard's bickering is an ideal example to use to open people's eyes to the agendas and systemic bias that lie beneath these putatively neutral processes.PatrickByrne (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable person would have considered that "saying "I may be the first CEO in history to celebrate receiving an SEC subpoena"" meant that you were claiming to be the "first CEO in history to celebrate [his company] receiving an SEC subpoena". There are referenced sources supporting the fact that a literal reading of that statement later became true without being disclosed, and that that troubled observers. If writing the proper text takes time, too bad. This article isn't here to promote your conspiracy theories. John Nevard (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

John - Returning to the real world for a moment, 100% of the press coverage of my announcement that I "celebrated" receiving an SEC subpoena interpreted it in the manner I suggest as natural. Not a single piece of the press coverage interpreted it in the manner you call "reasonable". Here is Herb's story, for example. The only interesting question here is how long you are willing to go on demonstrating for all observers precisely the kind of tortured reasoning that has infused all coverage of these issues by the very reporters whom I accused three years ago of shilling for hedge funds. How funny that they, and you, would be so determined to dance on heads of pins to establish patently inane propositions. Its virtue, however, is that it makes my case for me. And as far as my "conspiracy theories" (as you call them) go, readers should note that the take-down of Bear Stearns, by precisely the players using precisely the methods I have been explaining for three years, is being called "the greatest financial scandal in history" by the new issue of Vanity Fair, a fact that readers might use to calibrate their thinking about these "conspiracy theories" when trying to find their way through such smoke as Mr. Nevard creates. PatrickByrne (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in making an actual contribution to Wikipedia, you might want to read WP:SOAPBOX. The gravitas of Vanity Fair covering conspiracy theories about the collapse of Bear Sterns and its criminally incompetent managers really doesn't have anything to do with the Wikipedia article on Patrick M. Byrne. John Nevard (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Nevard weirdly dismisses an attempt to get the page on me to report my position accurately by saying, "This article isn't here to promote your conspiracy theories", apparently hoping the reader will take it as received truth that what I believe is a conspiracy theory. Now I point at the current issue of Vanity Fair precisely echoes my claims, and Nevard dismisses those as more conspiracy theories. So, if I have him right, the page on me is not supposed to report what I believe because it is a conspiracy theory, and the fact that Vanity Fair now takes precisely the same position is something that should not be mentioned because it is a conspiracy theory, etc. etc. As far as I can tell, Mr. Nevard is using the term "conspiracy theory" to mean precisely and only "Something with which I, John Nevard, disagree." The upshot of this is, if a person holds a position with which John Nevard disagrees that position is not allowed to be stated, not even on the page about that person, because it must be a "conspiracy theory". And if a major publication comes out and reports the same thing then that must not be mentioned either, because it must be a "conspiracy theory", because John Nevard disagrees with it. Did I miss anything? Note that by that logic, if John Nevard disagrees with quantum mechanics, then mustn't the page on Niels Bohr refrain from describing quantum mechanics, because it is a "conspiracy theory"? PatrickByrne (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this exchange. I've lost the thread of the conversation, but I think that this debate harkens back to the subpoena issue I raised initially. It is now absent from the story, so this discussion is moot. Perhaps this and earlier tempests should be archived.--Stetsonharry (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose removing the "ongoing" SEC investigation?

The investigation is not ongoing, so it's unsupportable negative commentary. Does anyone mind if we request an edit per WP:BLP?

Incidentally, I also wonder if there's support for unprotection. It was protected after Mantanmoreland (User:Bassettcat) edit warred on the article in violation of ArbCom and almost certainly with a conflict of interest toward the subject. I think the article's current state is indefensible. Cool Hand Luke 05:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With Mantanmoreland and his socks out of the picture (hopefully), I don't see why this article can't be unprotected. Cla68 (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain that GW/Mantanmoreland has at least one sock active on WP. I have found two accounts that I think is him, but I am only sure (99.99% ) of one of them. (The other I would say is >50% probability is him). But there is little use in reporting him, as he use dial-up lines, and is only caught when he makes a mistake. Perhaps we need a new policy on these pages? That you cannot edit them from dial-up lines? (Exception could be made for known editors, or editors willing to identify themselves to an admin.) Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC) PS: if GW/Mantanmoreland wants to edit other articles that the 4-6 contested ones, then I think he should be allowed to.

Unprotect, so that the BOLD cycle can commence on the SEC investigation. John Nevard (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm requesting at WP:RFP (I'm not uninvolved). Cool Hand Luke 12:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say "I told you so" but I asked for that back on the sixth of June. It is now D+24. I think the Allies were in Calais by then.:)--Stetsonharry (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

and I hate to be a nag and a scold, but the same thing needs to be done in Overstock.com. Just an addition that the investigation was ended.--Stetsonharry (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I am happy to have the article mention that we were the target of a two-year SEC investigation, of which I said in radio interviews, "I'll meet the SEC in any court in the land, and I'll put the SEC on trial," and which they subsequently dropped. It seems that if some wanted to smear me by mentioning it, then the fact that it existed, went nowhere, and was dropped, also qualifies as news. Or not, as you see fit. PatrickByrne (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference to the investigation was removed entirely. There doesn't seem to be any sentiment to return it. I agree that doing so would not necessarily prejudice the article, if done in a neutral way.--Stetsonharry (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any room left to mention that I turned out to be right?

Gosh, I wonder if somewhere in this article, perhaps after the lengthy section about how The Worst Business Journalist in America Herb Greenberg thinks my campaign to end naked short selling before it brings about systemic failure makes me the worst CEO in America, and New York Times’ Joe Nocera dismisses it as a campaign of menace, and Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins claim that capital markets do not operate according to the laws of supply and demand, and so forth… I wonder if there is room left to mention that in the last two weeks everyone finally figured out I was right, and are working overtime to keep naked short selling from collapsing the US financial system?

At the risk of being accused of “soap-boxing”, I am going to give extensive citation and quotation because it appears that nothing but a nuclear blast will penetrate the hermetically-sealed version of reality that it seems to be the intent of some to perpetuate.

• Here on July 18 is a public statement by SEC Chairman Cox (printed in Investors Business Daily and appearing on the SEC website “Public Statement” section):

"Naked Short Selling Is One Problem a Slumping Market Shouldn't Have: The demise of IndyMac, coming on the heels of Bear Stearns' desperate sale to JPMorgan Chase, is a sure sign of the fragility of today's markets….The classic "pump and dump" scheme, in which a stock is inflated through false information and then dumped on unsuspecting investors when the perpetrators flee, is one example of how this works. "Distort and short" is the same thing in reverse. Naked short selling can turbocharge these "distort and short" schemes. In a naked short, the usual process of short selling is circumvented, because the seller doesn't actually borrow the stock and simply fails to deliver it… It allows manipulators to force prices down without regard to supply and demand. Next week, the SEC will implement an emergency order designed to prevent naked short selling in the financial firms that the Federal Reserve Board has designated as eligible for access to its liquidity facilities… At the same time, eliminating the prospect of naked short selling will help assure investors that it is safe for them to participate, and that the current declining market is not the product of unseen manipulators and "distort and short" artists... The abusive practice of naked short selling is far different from ordinary short selling…But when someone fails to borrow and deliver the securities needed to make good on a short position, after failing even to determine that they can be borrowed, that is not contributing to an orderly market — it is undermining it. And in the context of a potential "distort and short" campaign aimed at an otherwise sound financial institution, this kind of manipulative activity can have drastic consequences….Naked short selling can undermine the market's integrity. For the financial sector in this crisis, certainly, but as soon as possible for the entire market, this is one worry investors shouldn't have."

• Here is CNBC, saying that I have been vindicated.

• Then here is Fox Business News saying that the kooky guy (that would be I) turned out to be right.

• Then here is Fox Business News discussing with me how it turned out that I was right.

• Here is The Washington Post describing the emergency action the SEC took this week to prevent our financial system from being destroyed by … precisely what I have been talking about for three years:

"SEC Order On Naked Short Selling Takes Effect: An order from the Securities and Exchange Commission aimed at protecting some of the country's largest financial companies against a form of short selling took effect yesterday, provoking complaints from smaller firms that they have been left vulnerable to the practice.... Shares of the 19 large companies in the SEC's order have been rising since the commission announced last week that it would shelter them from the practice, known as naked short selling, while organizations representing banks and investment firms excluded from the list have been pressing to have the protection extended to them…. In naked short selling, the seller doesn't actually borrow the security but conducts the rest of the transaction as if he had. Since the seller is not constrained by the number of available shares, he can sell an unlimited number of securities that may not even exist. In large volumes, naked short selling can depress a company's stock by creating sustained downward pressure and ultimately destroy it, driving down the price until it is worthless, critics say. The SEC's order, issued last Tuesday, provides further protection against abusive naked short selling -- which was already barred by securities law with only a few exceptions -- to 19 companies, including mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and leading Wall Street investment banks Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, among others… The ABA, which represents 8,500 banks, last week wrote a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox expressing fear that naked short sellers would turn their attention to the banks and bank holding companies not on the list. The Financial Services Roundtable, which represents 100 of the largest financial services companies in the country, sent a similar letter… Naked and abusive short selling are not new. Robert J. Shapiro, a former undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs, testified before the SEC's rules committee in 2003 about the then-growing problem. He noted that one form of manipulative short selling that was widespread in the 1990s, called death-spiral financing, created "strong incentives for large-scale naked short sales focused on small and medium-size public companies." His research found that a sample of 200 companies victimized by the technique posted a combined market loss of more than $105 billion. Shapiro, who is chairman of Sonecon, a District economic advisory firm, said in an interview yesterday that the troubled financial market had made it possible for naked short sellers to affect much larger companies than before, including the major firms covered by the SEC order. 'Finally, the real concern has arisen because the target of it is a financial institution whose failure could pose a systemic risk to the capital markets," Shapiro said. "That's why they're concerned. But the phenomenon has been around in significant scale, and cost thousands, maybe millions, of investors money, who have been in stocks that have been driven down by naked short sellers for years now.'"

• And here is Fox again having me on to discuss this issue.

• Then here is SEC Chairman Chris Cox again, in another op-ed (this one to the WSJ) and again, appearing in the public comment section of the SEC website:

"What the SEC Really Did on Short Selling: The classic "pump and dump" scheme, in which a stock is inflated through false information and then dumped on unsuspecting investors when the perpetrators flee, is one example of how this works. "Distort and short" is the same thing in reverse. 'Naked' short selling can turbocharge these "distort and short" schemes. ... For this reason, naked shorting can allow manipulators to force prices down far lower than would be possible in legitimate short-selling conditions....Last week, in close consultation with the Treasury and the Fed, the SEC issued an order to further the objective of existing commission rules that restrict naked short selling...Illegitimate naked short selling is different. In the context of a potential "distort and short" campaign aimed at an otherwise sound financial institution, this kind of manipulative activity can have drastic consequences….Eliminating the prospect of naked short selling will help assure investors that it is safe for them to participate, and that when the market declines it is not because of unseen manipulators and "distort and short" artists....When the SEC announced this order, I also made clear my intention to ask the full commission to apply operational protections against abusive naked shorting to the broader market....Although the Commission's order was issued under emergency authority in unusual market conditions, it is based on several years of experience and analysis...But Regulation SHO also offers an alternative to these requirements if the broker has "reasonable grounds" to believe that the security can be borrowed. This could create opportunities for evasion of the rule's purpose....We are also exploring other remedies to "distort and short" and naked short-selling abuses, such as the reporting of substantial short positions (akin to the long-standing requirement to disclose significant long positions). All of this comes on the heels of the agency's recent elimination of other exceptions to Regulation SHO, and our March proposal of a new antifraud rule targeting naked short selling....Abusive naked short selling is far different from ordinary short selling, which is a healthy and necessary part of a free market. Manipulative naked short selling is one worry investors shouldn't have."

So once again, amidst all the stuff about how whacky I have been about this, any chance there is room for someone to mention that the SEC, Fed, Treasury, and US Congress now finally get that our financial system is brinkering on a Chernobyl from this figment of my imagination? PatrickByrne (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, finally, that the stakes are clear, does anyone want to revisit Huldra's observation that when it comes to everything about me, "sources seem to be used strangely"? Does anyone see a possibility that forces might have had an interest in distorting this page? I mean, given that this subject has now emerged as being at the heart of the meltdown of our capital market? While we're at it, I am not part of First Class Education and have not been for some time. If you want to have a paragraph up there about how it has been criticized, why not another about how it has been praised, and was adopted in several states? In addition, I am now the co-Chair (with Rose Friedman) of the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, and my work with the Friedman Foundation far, far exceeds, in money, time, and commitment, any work with First Class Education (try, one or two orders of magnitude more). PatrickByrne (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for largely pasting this from my response to your nearly identical post in naked short selling. Three points:

1. Please don't use this forum to slander people (Greenberg).

2. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Cox has not endorsed your Wall Street conspiracy theories.

3. You omitted from your presentation the following pertinent facts contained in the article Overstock.com:

'In February 2007, Overstock.com launched a $3.5 billion lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and other large Wall Street firms, alleging a "massive illegal stock market manipulation scheme" involving naked short selling. Among its allegations, Overstock stated that since at least January 2005, naked short selling has accounted for large portions of Overstock stock, in some cases exceding the 23.4 million total shares outstanding.[27] The lawsuit alleged that this had created "immense downward pressure" on share prices over time.'

As CEO of Overstock, you have a direct personal interest in the outcome of this litigation. Thus I think it desirable that you desist from commenting on this talk page on the subject of naked short selling in an effort to slant its contents in your favor. --Janeyryan (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"1. Please don't use this forum to slander people (Greenberg)" Why is it reporting when Greenberg says it but slander when I say it? (By the way, the word you are looking for is "libel".)

"2. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Cox has not endorsed your Wall Street conspiracy theories." Returning to the real world for a moment, that is exactly what he has done, which explains why CNBC and Fox are reporting that I have been vindicated (links above). Have a beef with that? Take it up with CNBC and Fox.

"3. ... I think it desirable that you desist from commenting on this talk page on the subject of naked short selling in an effort to slant its contents in your favor." It may be desirable to you for it to remain slanted (as I have shown above), but it is desirable to me to expose the slant, and I intend to keep posting links to articles and TV clips on this talk page until the WikpediElite (of which you may be one) decide that Washington Post, CNBC, Fox, etc. are BADSITES, or entartete kunst, or whatever their word for it is. Let's see how many Wikipedians want to see that farce return, or want to see the Project be used in a cover-up (as my post on this talk page amply demonstrates). So go ahead, make my day. PatrickByrne (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Janeyryan, it's perfectly acceptable for Byrne to edit the talk page of his own article. He's not the only one to do it in Wikipedia. He has just provided a good list of sources to be used in the article. Here's another one:

• Metz, Cade, "Wikimadness XVII: The Return of Byrne", The Register, August 11, 2008. Covers Weiss' and Byrne's battle over Naked Short Selling and Byrne's allegations that Weiss was employing the User:Mantanmoreland account and its socks to try to control the subject in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As was explained to you in Talk:Naked short selling, where you sought to add the same source, the Register is not suitable for inclusion as a source. I see also that there is a reference above to the Register previously being discussed on this page and then rejected. As for Byrne commenting here, he can certainly comply with policy, but using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAP does not constitute complance.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to a discussion at WP:RS/N that determines this, please, if you want your statement to be given credence. --Relata refero (disp.)

That's not necessary, as there is a centralized discussion of the use of this article in Talk:Naked short selling, concerning precisely the same source in precisely the same context. Here is a link for your convenience.[8]--Janeyryan (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review the definition of "centralized discussion" before misusing the term again. My request continues to hold. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I now see that Jimbo had previously opined against use of the Reg for these article.[9] I think that his opinion needs to be given deference, even when not having the force of law.--Janeyryan (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that there is consensus for your view that User:Jimbo Wales' view on the reliability of sources should be "deferred to" unless he speaks in his capacity as a representative of the Foundation, in which case there might be legal issues of which we are unaware. Unless you have specific information that that was the case, your post is irrelevant. My request continues to hold. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than continue to wikilawyer about where this should be discussed, why not simply weigh in at the current discussion in Talk:Naked short selling, where every editor except one has not favored inclusion of The Reg article? As for Jimbo, you are perfectly free to be unpersuaded by his strong comment that the Reg not be used for these articles.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

When you say "every editor except one", you presumably mean "one other editor"?

Again, please review what it means to use the word "centralized" in this context, and link to a discussion at WP:RS/N, the generally accepted venue for such discussions, that determines this if you want your statement to be given credence.

Thank you for your permission to be unpersuaded. I, and most others, will use it gratefully. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I must tell you in all candor that I could not possibly care less whether I used or 'misused' the expression 'centralised discussion,' but please don't let me prevent you from continuing to hold forth on that. The fact remains that the Reg is a gossip-generating rag, and for that reason it was Jimbo's wise counsel that this not be suitable for a BLP. If it were, then this article [10], from the Reg and entitled 'The Bizarre World of Patrick Byrne' would be far more relevant to Mr. Byrne than the one Cla68 is proposing to include. It too is sensational hash, and does not belong in a BLP, and neither can it be used as a reliable source on naked shorting or even clothed shorting.--Janeyryan (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you wish to back up your further, similarly unsupported, statements on this subject with some sense of consensus on-WP or evidence from the wider world? Please frame your answer, and any further arguments or stated "facts", in terms of our policies and guidelines, including WP:RS and WP:V, with which you are perhaps unfamiliar. My question, about whether you could link to any form of support for your claim of consensus, continues to hold. Perhaps you should just say "no, I can't." --Relata refero (disp.) 03:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Any reliable source that mentions Byrne would be suitable for this article. But I'm not sure which of the sources listed above do so. The WaPo article doesn't, nor does the CNN video. I'm not going to sit and watch every video, but only those which mention the subject by name should be used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Some minor factual corrections which none should find objectionable

Just reading this through for the first time in awhile, I find some minor errors whose correction should disturb no one, and should be immune to the pettifoggery:

" has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Chinese studies from Dartmouth College..." It was a double major: Philosophy and Asian Studies. I usually put them in that order because if one says "Asian Studies and Philosophy" people may be tempted to assume that the scope of "Asian" includes "Philosophy", though in reality it did not. That is, I studied classical Western Philosophy, and also, Asian Studies. So my degree is best described as "a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy and Asian Studies".

"a Master's degree from Cambridge University..." That degree was in moral philosophy. Not sure whether it should be mentioned - the other degrees do mention the course of study.

"Byrne was a teaching fellow at Stanford University from 1989 to 91" I think it would make sense moved to the end of the preceding paragraph, which would then make it wholly about my academic background. Also, to make it complete, you might add that I was a Visiting Professor at Dartmouth in 1999. That would make the paragraph wholly about academic affairs, and the next paragraph, wholly about corporate positions.

"The company was one of the first to go public under a system advanced by WR Hambrecht + Co to retain a greater share of capital within the company rather than going to the investment bank underwriters used in conventional public offerings." First, we were in fact the first independent company to use Bill Hambrecht's method: the others had been companies related to Bill Hambrecht's (I'm pretty sure, e.g., Peet's Coffee, Ravenswood Vineyards). In addition, the virtue of the Dutch Auction method is not only that the company retains more money, but mainly, that it eliminates the allocation-and-kickback system of the conventional IPO.

"Byrne is head of First Class Education..." I am no longer affiliated with FCE and have not been for some time. In addition, the two paragraphs describing this strike me, for one, as poorly organized. It goes: mention my involvement, mention the objections, mention where it has passed. It would make more sense to mention my involvement, mention where it has passed, mention the objections. In short, rearrange the ACB to ABC. That is, if it is Wikipedia policy to mention that when someone promotes something, here is the opposition. Or, since my association with this ended some time ago, I wonder if it belongs at all. If so, there are lots of other things I used to belong to as well....

"Byrne also serves on the board of directors of The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. " I am now co-Chair with Rose Friedman.

Now to the tougher part, regarding naked short selling. Here is an unobjectional, neutral article whose mention would not violate any Wikipedia policy I can think of. Of course, I know that it remains Wikipedia's policy to label as thought-crime mention of basic truths about the naked short selling debate (that it has turned out to be real, that the CEO's of major banks have implicated it in the destabilization of our financial system, that the SEC passed an unprecedented emergency order this summer to protect the heart of our financial system, that the American Banking Association, the US Chamber of Commerce, and dozens of Senators and Representatives have come out publicly in support of our side, as has the SEC Chairman). But I do not see why the following would transgress any stated policy of Wikipedia:

"Naked shorting's early critic starts to see some vindication Byrne's Battle Helps Bring Curbs on Naked Short-Selling Practices By Steven Oberbeck The Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10079510 Saturday, August 2, 2008

Over the past several years, Patrick Byrne's campaign to clean up Wall Street and end a practice that has destroyed companies and cost unwary investors billions of dollars generated plenty of publicity for him, mostly the wrong kind. Critics labeled him nuts, a conspiracy theorist, a complete wack job. Byrne, the chief executive of the Utah-based discount online retailer Overstock.com, even found himself tagged a member of the "tin-foil hat" brigade, a reference to the flying saucer fanatics of the 1950s who adorned their heads with aluminium to ward off, or enhance, thoughts from aliens in outer space. These days, when people talk of Byrne, the word "vindication" comes up a lot. "You can always tell who the pioneers are -- they're the ones with all the arrows sticking out of their backs," said James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University. "You really can't understate what Byrne has accomplished." PatrickByrne (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to update this. But it would really help if you could supply some ref. to statements like "we were in fact the first independent company to use Bill Hambrecht's method" ..all the inf about your education/degrees ..and any other inf. you supply. Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To Patrick Byrne: Hint: it would be great if you could place the educational details, say, in connection with this page, so we could use that as a source. Huldra (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

Restrictions...Editors are directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Do not remove this notice — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this article based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, so any change to the protection will be dependent on support from or appeal to the Committee. Regards,  Skomorokh  19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Education lobbying

In the section on the '65% solution,' the language lifted from the Time article, "Byrne was appalled" etc., sounds more like a magazine than an encylopedia. Could I edit this part for tone and balance without running afoul of the arbiters? --Thelema12 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right that it doesn't seem encyclopedic. I don't see the problem with fixing, but if you're in doubt you can post the proposed change here.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Byrne and Overstock are mentioned several times in this law journal article that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. I didn't know if it was central enough to the subject matter to insert in the article proper. See * http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawbusiness/issues/uploads/5-1/NYB103.pdfORT —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColJenkins (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent article in The Big Money

Important article on Patrick Byrne published recently, discusses his campaign against critics and some serious issues concerning sales tax violations and internal controls. http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2010/01/19/americas-nastiest-ceo Shouldn't this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.183 (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am, in fact, one of the business reporters Byrne has castigated most frequently
Are you serious? You can't even call the source NPOV, let alone reputable. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)