Talk:Patrick M. Byrne

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  The deep state conspiracy theory is indeed a conspiracy theory. He did indeed promote it. And boned a Russian spy. We're not here to sugar coat that. Guy (help!) 21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The description "conspiracy theory" seems like a conclusion 

message: See this article:  -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now apparently giving extreme advice to Dponald Trump 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good catch! Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021 

message: 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.
I couldn't find a way to submit this change directly. Beorn59 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's clear enough, as the first text is just there to provide an overview of the whole page. Byrne believes Trump "won", and that voter fraud denied him the victory. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  He did not "appear" to lose; he lost, fair and square. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in wording