Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Template:TrollWarning

Archive: Talk:Patrick M. Byrne/Archive1

(removing comment by sock )

Hog the article? Everyone is welcome to participate. It's a collaboration. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I see I've made just three edits to the article. You've made eleven edits, as of this moment. It is inappropriate to tell other editors to stay away because they've edited too much. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(removing comment by sock)

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

are socks of banned user Amorrow (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Our policy is ban on sight, revert on sight. Deleting their commentary outright (which I am about to do) will leave holes. Therefore, other editors are encouraged to decide to remove their replies if desired. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, I was prepared to remove the Register link from here. Some IP had removed it earlier. I've gone ahead and removed the other Register story from there that was linked as well, about the mail lists. If one article isn't a reliable source on one article, theres no reason it would be acceptable on another. To apply double standards along those lines would be a total NPOV violation and not good. Lawrence Cohen 07:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the Register is a "reliable source" is debatable (I see that the Register is quote in Criticism of Wikipedia), but the most recent attempt to add the link placed it in the SEC investigation section, which doesn't make sense. I'd tend to agree that the Byrne/Wikipedia/Register thing doesn't merit mention here as long as the Register is the sole source, but it might be worth mentioning in the aforementioned "Criticism" article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think there was a New York Times source mentioned over on the Weiss page. If the NYT plus the Register is talking about the petty feud between Weiss and Byrne, we would have no excuse to not cover it at least in passing on both articles. Which NYT articles were they? Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some hesitancy about adding that language to this article on WEIGHT and duplication grounds, as it is covered in Overstock.com, and it's been discussed elsewhere with Jimbo ruling The Register is not an RS source on this subject matter. That is why JzG removed Register cites from that article. But I imagine one can borrow some of the language and tone of the reference in Overstock [1] for a brief mention here.--Samiharris (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which NYT article was the source? There shouldn't be any problem with related language appearing in both or all three articles. If the NYT has covered the feud, we have no reason not to mention it on both this page and Weiss's at least in passing. The existence or acknowledgement of a feud that was reported on in an internationally distributed newspaper isn't any sort of possible BLP or WEIGHT violation that I can see. Also, one person can rule an entire site non-RS? I doubt that. I thought it was the fact that I kept seeing multiple people saying that the Register wasn't an RS specifically in regards to Wikipedia, not Weiss and Byrne. Lawrence Cohen 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "feud," it is a proxy campaign by Overstock against critics. Look at the sources in the link. That said, I think what's needed here is a reference to the smear campaign on this page that is consistent in tone and sourcing with the stable, consensus version at Overstock.com. Jimbo's authority re sourcing is a mega-issue and you'll have to ask elsewhere on that. Specifically, an article critical of Overstock from the Register was removed from the Overstock page by Jzg.--Samiharris (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times clearly describes it as a feud, or more precisely as an "increasingly vicious online dispute," and as a "flame war among 14-year-old boys."--G-Dett (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was just curious since I kept seeing this all referred to everywhere. What was that NYT source by the way? Lawrence Cohen 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's cited in the Overstock section on ASM, a portion of a "What's Online" column.--Samiharris (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sami. Lawrence Cohen 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks, what's with the blatant censorship of Wikipedia criticism? You might as well go and call this place Jimbopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.234.41 (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(restoring indent) There's no "censorship." A Register article highly unfavorable to Byrne was removed from Overstock.com. The Register is simply not an RS source as relates to BLPs.--Samiharris (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a long-term reader of The Register and find it very reliable, thank you very much. However, if you want to turn Wikipedia into Jimbopedia, I guess you are free to do whatever you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.234.41 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be giving a lot of weight to Nocera. I take him as a mainstream source, but I'm a little wary about quoting hearsay like "Though no one will say so publicly, the word is that Utah officials now feel they were snookered by the Overstock C.E.O. And that his behavior at that meeting further damaged his credibility. ..." Cool Hand Luke 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, to put that in context, we need to add a quote from this Deseret News article, [2] describing his prominence as largest individual campaign contributor in the state. The newspaper said "Patrick Byrne by himself managed to supply about $1 of every $20 given by Utah individuals to candidates or political groups, according to a Deseret Morning News analysis of federal and state campaign disclosure data from 2003 to now." I think that might assuage any WEIGHT concern, by putting it in context. I believe there are other articles along those lines in the local media. --Samiharris (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool Hand Luke 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source and I think it needs to be reflected in the article, as does Byrne's colorful language. According to the Nocera article, he has called Bramble a "squish" and a "yellowbelly," and that he was "cursing" at the meeting. Surely such language, from the largest political contributor in Utah and CEO of a public company, is notable. While Nocera has an opinion on Byrne, I don't believe his column rates as an "opinion" piece. Even if it were, I believe that it would be considered a reliable source under RS. Your point re "speculation" does resound with me somewhat and I'd have to think about that.--Samiharris (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate because the tone of the Nocera piece is very derisive, and because I couldn't find confirmation in the Utah sources. He was "miffed" at Curtis Bramble, but the papers doesn't quote language against him (even though Bramble is recognized by Utah political junkies as one of the most influential Utah legislators). Maybe there's a story for this—maybe Utah Republicans weren't frank with local reporters because they didn't want to further offend one of their biggest donors. Still, I think sourcing it to the Nocera article is just a bit too speculative for a BLP, and his specific insults are a very small part of his life story. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but are we to be arbiters of whether the "sourcing" of a New York Times article is proper? It can surely be used if attributed to Nocera. That issue aside, your WEIGHT concerns as regards the "cursing" bit do make sense. The material in the Deseret News on his major role as a political contributor is of far greater importance and should be inserted somewhere, if it is not buried somewhere in the article already.--Samiharris (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. And I see that the Times strives for accuracy in their columns as well as articles (they actually issued a correction to this piece related to one of the Rocker partners). But the tone of this piece itself obscures the facts. It quotes several sober remarks from Bramble, then—for comic effect—it says "Byrne, in turn, publicly called Bramble a squish and a yellow belly."

It's a fun column to read, but as a factual matter it begs some questions. Like when did Byrne say this, and in what context? Adding this to the WEIGHT concern is too much for a BLP, I think. Cool Hand Luke 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it begs some questions. So what? It begs questions that have no bearing on its reliability or usability. What "facts" are obscured that prevent this material from appearing in this article? I don't quite understand what difference it makes that the article does not state "when" Byrne said what he did. Also there is no question as to when Byrne was cursing. It was at the meeting. --Samiharris (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tendentious, and I don't think it should be. Or do you seriously contend that we should write—without any context, for the column source has no context—that Byrne called Bramble a squid and yellowbelly? Cool Hand Luke 23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It was in an email to a Forbes reporter [3]:

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

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

This reporter, Liz Moyer, who is quite sympathetic to Byrne, also describes the confrontation with Utah legislators in terms similar to those used by Nocera: "Descriptions of the meeting were reminiscent of the physical battles fought in the Taiwanese legislature on a regular basis."--Samiharris (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radically different context than the article implies. At any rate, do you really think this should be in the article? Cool Hand Luke 00:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Quoted in Forbes and the New York Times, and perhaps elsewhere, and not notable? Come on. It is POV only in the sense of being Byrne's POV, Byrne's words. The entire email does not have to be quoted if what he says is taken in context. I still have trouble understanding how Byrne's words, when relevant to the article and not quoted out of context, are problematic in an article about Byrne.--Samiharris (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was only picked up by a columnist mocking Byrne. That raises BLP flags for me, especially since Bramble and Byrne were subsequently on very good terms. Bramble was the co-sponsor of the voucher bill, and was one the directors of IVP (a pro-voucher group), which Byrne contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to.[4]

Look, I do a lot of editing at Ann Coulter. Like her, Byrne says a lot of apparently crazy things. If several sources don't pick up on them, they just don't belong in the article. This is an encyclopedia entry, not an attack piece, and not a collection of Patrick Byrne's many burps. Cool Hand Luke 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Look, you asked me if it should be in the article and I answered. We disagree on that, and in keeping with BLP practices I'm not going to put it back in. But I still think it is not a good thing to leave it out. More generally, I think the article would benefit from more on Byrne's political contributions, which appear to be significant.--Samiharris (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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