This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Patrick M. Byrne article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Please stay
calm and
civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and
do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached,
other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article was nominated for
deletion on 25 February 2006. The result of
the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
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
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
The description "conspiracy theory" seems like a conclusion
At this point, there is a truckload of evidence that partisans in top positions used a fake dossier from Christopher Steele and Fusion to abuse the FISA process and wiretap the Trump campaign, but the label "conspiracy theory" seems to suggest that any such conclusion would be tantamount to mere paranoia. Thus, the article seems very politically biased. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.152.216.213 (
talk)
02:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)reply
"The Deep State Conspiracy Theory" in the top section is incoherent - WTH is this? If it had its own page and linked to it, okay, but there is zero explanation, which leads to the transparent effort, once again, to hang the "conspiracy" label on anyone who questions anything. A simple sentence that actually uses Byrne's own words would suffice, but the job of wikipedia editors is to shape the narrative for the readers, even if it makes no sense.
GreenIn2010 (
talk)
05:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)reply
There seems to be an error in this sentence in the "Financing and promoting claims in blog, books, media, organizations, and film" section:
In 2021 . . . The book, largely compiled of text copied-and-pasted from Byrne's blog, was hastily produced, with the print version including hyperlinks and video embedded video useful for paper format.[53][70]
It seems clear that the text SHOULD read ". . . with the print version including hyperlinks and [DELETE: video] embedded video NOT useful IN THE PRINTED format."
173.77.17.45 (
talk)
02:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Roger R. Richards never blamed the 9/11 attacks on aliens! He did claim that the 9/11 attacks were intended to destroy information about aliens, but never claimed that aliens caused the 9/11 attacks! Being biased against his views does not give you the right to lie about him. Please delete this lie.
We can only go off what appropriate third-party sources have said. In this case, that means the mainstream media, that have dug pretty deeply in recent months given the notability of Byrne's new political involvements and ... well ... "unique" choices for recent company. This is how the useable sources discuss Richards and his involvement with Byrne (Rachel Maddow made the direct conneciton, as have others), and that's why he is described as such here.
Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (
talk)
22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)reply
You didn't really counter my argument. You are merely trying to persuade me that Rachel Maddow's a more trustworthy authority on filmmakers than Imdb; that's at least what you seem to be doing to me. I repeat: please cut out this smear on Roger R. Richards's name. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2604:CB00:103:9900:FCB6:6921:1F2D:E262 (
talk)
23:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Rachel Maddow makes a living bashing conservatives. IMDB does not care about politics. Therefore, IMDB is a third-party source, while Maddow is not. Remember Wikipedia's NPOV rule, please.
Feel free to review the rules of the site if you feel that way - specifically here:
WP:CITEIMDB and
WP:RELIABILITY. If you are concerned about either of these regulatory documents, I would take that up on their talk pages, where editors can discuss how they might be changed (as there isn't anything a discussion here is going to do about how we follow them). Have a great day!
Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (
talk)
17:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Watch the trailer for Above Majestic (the movie I think your article's lying about). It tells you what the filmmakers really believe about 9/11.
This text, "he repeatedly promoted unevidenced claims that
Donald Trump had won the
2020 U.S. presidential election due to voter fraud." indicates that he believes that Trump won the election, but only through voter fraud. I doubt he believes that. He might think that Trump LOST the election due to voter fraud.
Yes, the article clear -- clearly nonsensical. It's disappointing to see that Wikipedia is ok with this. Why not just correct the clumsy wording? One possible fix is to add five words e.g "... promoted unevidenced claims that Donald Trump had won the 2020 U.S. presidential election AND ONLY APPEARED TO LOSE due to voter fraud."
Bsmith496 (
talk)
15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply