Talk:Orly Taitz/Archive 2

Starting over

I've archived the past discussions. Let's start fresh and critique the article from the current state and move forward. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

where did you archive them? I cannot find the link that is customarily on this page. User:Smith Jones 20:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Here they are. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "birther"

The term "birther" is a term largely propagated by the media and generally draws up an association with "crazy" conspiracy theories and racism. Shouldn't this be replaced with a less "slanted" word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.63.253 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is the term widely used in the media; Taitz is often referred to (and refers to herself) as "Queen of the Birthers." It would be POV and give undue weight to eliminate it. --Weazie (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

generally draws up an association with "crazy" conspiracy theories and racism -- that's (obviously) not the fault of the word. And even if it were it would be irrelevant ... what is "propagated by the media" is a large part of Wikipedia documents. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of the merits of Taitz' theories

Should the article include detailed discussion of the refutation and critiques of Taitz' theories?

• Pro: Mentions could be construed as endorsements
• Con: It might result in significant duplication of the contents of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

What does everyone think? Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mention - yes. Her lawsuits based on birther theories are her road to media attention and notability. Without those she'd be just another person with decidedly odd views. Given that, it makes sense to keep the details at the Obama article, where most people would generally go looking for those. Here, mentioning they exist, cover the broad argument and the eventual result (if settled) is all that should be present. This article is about Taitz (who filed the suits), not the lawsuits. If it was just about the lawsuits, we wouldn't have this article. Not having them in the article would look pretty bad for the same reasons. So a mention of the case, and direct readers to the Obama article. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should sick with the "Taitz asserts this" format, which is what the article is about. If Taitz asserts the world is flat, we don't have to discuss the merits of the issue. PhGustaf (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

we could link to the Barack Oama citizenship conspiracy theories thread, and only briefly summarize that taitz related material from that area, like we do in every other article that intersects with another article. User:Smith Jones 20:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no citation for the statement, "She is also known as the crazy bitch who need to go get a life, and stop coming up with idiotic conspiracy theories." I'm just sayin'...

I think they should be mentioned - without them she would not be an entry here at all. However, I think the October 13 Federal sanction against her is helpful because it allows there to be a source behind just saying she's nuts. Now its been officially ruled that she's nuts by a judge. I made changes that moved a sentence about that to the abstract, and elaborated on it in the text... this will allow a mention of what her crazy theories are, but to say - hey, she's been deemed officially insane by a federal judge in Georgia.--Beersquirrel (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

- Mention how she is also a racist and possible anti-Semite - BigFrank360X (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am Orly Taitz. Many dissidents to Communist regimes were called nuts. Corrupt judges attacked them. Useful idiots in the Communist media attacked the dissidents, calling them nuts, yet the dissidents were right and today we know much more about the atrocities of the Communist regimes and about the hounding of the dissidents. You are hounding me and not showing journalistic integrity in relation to Obama and his regime.

Why are you not reporting about the fact that originally Judge Carter in CA ordered the trial of Barnett et al v Obama et al to be heard on the merits on January 26. Only after the White House Counsel Robert Bauer was able to place with Judge Carter one Sidharth Velamoor, to work as his law clerk, did judge Carter change his opinion. Velamoor is still listed as an attorney for Perkins Coie, Obama defense firm. This is a lack of integrity and impartiality, that should have the judge impeached, but because the media does not report it, nothing is done. Please contact me at [personal information elided - PhGustaf (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)], I can forward a lot of information

Orly Taitz (by the way, it takes a lot of courage not to hide behind the made up names, be in the forefront and fight for the citizens Constitutional rights and liberties, which includes your rights.)

Many dissidents to Communist regimes were called nuts. -- Fallacy. That others were wrongly called nuts has no bearing on whether Orly Taitz is nuts. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Her Religion

Does anyone know what Miss Taitz's religion is?

She was born into a Jewish family and sent at least one child to Hebrew school, but there don't seem to be any sources about her current practice. PhGustaf (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to respect WP:BLP in this matter. A living person's religion does not belong unless it's significant to their primary cause for notability, or they publicly self-identify as such. Ray^Talk 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

While in general I don't think religion should be relevant here, I don't have an issue with mentioning her religion, because she brings it up a lot, and uses the Holocaust and Pogroms as a way of using her Judaism to shield her from criticism, which is pretty sick... In addition, its pretty standard to include ethnicity and religion in biographical information. I would, however, like to see documentation of her religion... she gained citizenship to Israel by claiming she was Jewish. She was supposedly sent to live with an Uncle who was also allegedly Jewish. However, many Soviets claimed Jewish ancestry (real or contrived) in order to escape the USSR and gain access to western states. Because Judaism was illegal in the USSR, it was an ethnic linkage, though not a religious observance for most. Thus, many Russians have some Jewish ancestry. Anyhow, she also likes to invoke Holocaust references a lot... to use them as a shield against being attacked. She's big on documentation, so... show the documentation of relatives dying in the Holocaust. It sounds mean, but - the Nazis kept really good records... ironically. In addition, because she is so adamant about getting documentation from others - perhaps she should abide by her own standards. So, in a word, I think mentioning religion is fair, I'm just not convinced she's Jewish - as she may have used it to gain citizenship in Israel and subsequently to the U.S. (she was put in an arranged marriage with a U.S. man). --Beersquirrel (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All of this may be totally true, but we are here to merely distill the specific reliable sources about her into this article. That is, if the sources state that he has said she is Jewish, without all of the doubts that you suggest, then we need to present this information with the same inflection. It is particularly important to impartially stick to the sources in biographies of living people articles, regardless of how we might personally feel about the subject. If you find a reliable source that makes these particular claims with regards to Taitz, then please present them. thanks, --guyzero | talk 04:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am Orly Taitz Here is a name of one of my relatives killed in the Holocaust: Sander Somers, brother of my grandmother Bertha (Beila) Somers. Prior to WW2 he went to France to study in Sorbonne and was killed. My 3 sons are named after 3 brothers of my father in law, who were killed as children in the Holocaust. When I was in GA, representing capt. Rhodes, I brought this as an example, of what happens when army officers are told to follow illegal orders, I brought this as an example of importance of officers having an ability to question illegal orders, specifically to make sure that another holocaust does not happen. Judge Land called it a political rhetoric and sanctioned me $20,000, which will be appealed to the Supreme Court. It is not a matter of money, I spent more on the campaign, it is a matter of principal. Specifically to make sure that you Beersquirel do not end up in another Holocaust. They start with jews, they continue with others. (you can verify the transcripts from Rhodes and ad it to the article), this way people will understand what I am fighting for and why I was sanctioned PS my marriage is not an arranged marriage.

I think you mean "matter of principle", but $20K is considerable principal, so your spelling just might be right. PhGustaf (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed Sentence

Why does someone keep removing the statement that she doesn't want to be President, even though she said so herself in the same interview where she said she might run for an office? It's like someone's trying to slander her.Leo-Isaurus-Rex (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it terribly encyclopedic to report on Tait'z own idle speculations of what she may or may not do in regards to running for office. Maybe if a legitimate "Draft Orly!" movement were out there to document, showing that the possibility actually hsa outside support and sourcing, that'd be article worthy. But if it is just her own pontificating? No. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's like someone's trying to slander her. -- You have failed to comprehend several basic concepts. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

She can't be President, whether she wants to be or not, since, ironically, she is not a native born citizen. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Orlt Taitz Esq has again been hacked!

Going to her site yesterday, I saw it wanted to send me to malware.cn. Like the .cn domain responsible for the earlier malware, this domain is owned by AA Nevedomskiy, who in the past has been caught phishing for logins: [1]

Orley's site should certainly not be visited without resident anti-virus and anti-adware programs. In view of the fact that this is the second infection, should there not be a warning attached to the address in the info box? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Orly keeps claiming that the malware claims are politically motivated and are not true. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

rexcatly. there is a problem with us using the anti-Orly Taitz arguments without attibution. There is NO evidence that there was a malware.cn link (and by evidence i dont meant your original research but an actual WP:RS that is WP:VERIFIABLE. wITHOUT THIS EVIDENCE, we cannot post something defematory about a nother person User:Smith Jones 23:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be possible that there's something in the malware filters built into most browsers. Almost might be something in archive.org. Ravensfire (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would have to be considered a primary source, but here's the link to Google's safe browsing diagnostic page for her site - [2] and from a similar site [3]. Several other tools also reports hits, mostly for what looks like injected javascript creating a hidden iframe. There's a fair number of hits on google, but I was only seeing links to blogs or non RS sites.

My suspicion is there's a vulnerability being exploited on the site's server stack, or your average XSS attack. Honestly, unless something major happens because of this, there's no reason to include it. It doesn't get done for other sites that have this happen, no reason to do it to this article. But it would ironic to include some of the conspiracy theories about what's happening, then find a lawyer demanding proof that her site is safe and secure! (I kid! I kid!) Ravensfire (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you for a fact that her site is hacked. It's a Wordpress exploit, she's running an older version. Someone needs to

help her. But she trusts no one. K8cpa (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

K8cpa (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, please leave the "OMG malware!" warning out of the article, as it appears to no longer be flagged as such. If it still is for you, then the problem is on your end, or your ISP's. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we keep the "warning" for her official site as a "potential" problem. Her site gets hacked and listed by googlge/firefox almost every other month as being untrustworthy because she relies on hosting on a shared server (which is hacked constantly), and that she doesn't upgrade her software and do timely patches to fix the software she runs on her site, until its been listed as hacked. The constant changes on her link to the site is getting ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeLite2000 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed : Malware warning on 03. April 2010 at 05:30 UTC (AVAST) --- She's also telling her "visitors" to hit ignore in order to see her site, thereby risking her visitor's to malware and virus downloading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeLite2000 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither Google [4] nor Dascient [5] are showing her site as suspicious. Google does note that it's gotten some problems in the past. I think her site is more vulnerable than similar sites, mostly because of who she it, but it's not significantly more vulnerable than the thousands of other, similar sites that we don't have a warning listed. Unless there is a sustained period where her site is hacked and it's covered by a WP:RS, we should not put anything on the article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the Google Diagnostic Link again: "and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-04-07" - There is a block on her from Google (A warning) as of 11:37 pm PST April 7, 2010. Her site is constantly hacked due to her inability to maintain and upgrade her software and keep it up to date on her server. AND she tells here visitors to IGNORE this warning. I run several Wordpress blogs, and have never once been hacked anyone; and they get twice as much visitors as Dr. Taitz's site. By continuing to link to her site, without a warning, we are subjecting visitors from this site, to enter a site that has the potential to hijack their computers, download malware and redirect them to sites that can open their computers up to potential problems.DeeLite2000 (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And when I posted that, it was not showing as suspicious. Her site has been going on and off the Google list for quite some time. Hmmm, might post this to NPOV and EL noticeboards. Ravensfire (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to our obligation to warn our readers, it would seem that the frequent hacking of her site is an interesting bit of information about her. Hasn't she contended that she's the frequent target of such maneuvers because she's made enemies? I don't have a citation but I think I've read that. JamesMLane t c 15:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, she's gone quite a ways beyond that! Of course, you are a Marxist thug interesting only in perpetrating hate crimes and other nefarious acts. Why, hacking her site sounds JUST like something you'd do! (sarcasm detected in previous statement) There's a wee bit of paranoia in that one. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) I've taken the liberty of posting this to the WP:ELN noticeboard. Here is a direct link to the discussion, please add any comments you might have on this there as well. Ravensfire (talk)

As of 4/11/2010 OrlyTaitzEsq.com website has been upgraded. All malicious code and malware has been removed by the webmaster.75.42.198.125 (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Doctor596@live.com (4/11/2010)

Johnuniq (beat me to it) reverted the removal of the warning as it is better to be safe than sorry and the site has been 'cleaned' a few times only to be comprimised again. If nothing comes up after a few days then definately remove it (a week at most?). RutgerH (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Given the frequency of problems on Taitz's site, I'd like to see it considered "safe" by google for at least a week before removing the warning and restoring the link. How about if Google Safe Browswer isn't reporting any new malware found on 4-15, we restore the link and remove any warning? There's just too much history here of poor site management to trust without making sure. Ravensfire (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The website has been clean since 4/9/2010 according to Google's safe browser. Would this warrant the removal of the warning and activation of both links to www.orlytaitzesq.com? Thanks Doctor596 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

No. Is there a rush? Surely anyone interested can copy the URL. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would use Google's diagnostic tools to see if its been clean for the last 90 days. Diagnostic says its clean (but it's only been a month), but tomorrow it may not be. DeeLite2000 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Traffic alert - article linked from AboveTheLaw

A post on AboveTheLaw, a moderately high-traffic blog for lawyers, links to this article. Resulting vandalism would not be surprising... [6] MirrorLockup (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Romania, former swimsuit model,

This has a few more details. It seems she lived in Romania for some time before she went to the United States. Since she is portraying herself as fiercely anti-communist, the fact that for some reason she went to live under Nicolae Ceauşescu is notable. Whether that is also true for the "former swimsuit model" part remains to be seen.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How sure are we that she was called Averbukh or Averbukha in the Soviet Union? This name seems to be on her marriage license as well.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

National Press Club event

By this edit, Magnus Johansson added a reference to the press conference at the National Press Club, sourcing it to World Net Daily. As others have told him, WND is not considered a reliable source. This particular statement happens to be true and could be properly sourced, but it's not notable. It doesn't represent endorsement by the National Press Club, or even a decision by that entity that Taitz's charges deserved attention. Here's the story:

Although the event was at the National Press Club, that's no guarantee of mainstream media interest. Groups may appear legitimate because they hold a news conference at the club, but the dirty little secret is the club rents out its rooms to anybody who shows up with the money. Most of the people apparently came from the weirder corners of the media. (from this article)

Taitz has held lots of press conferences, and there's no reason for our article to mention this one. JamesMLane t c 20:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically the same reason I reverted the changes. The first line in that section is about her hitting the media in late 2008. In fact, the source talks about the National Press Club conference. Notability is, to me, the main factor here though. Unless something major happened at the press conference (see MSNBC meltdown), maintaining a trivia list of every speech is something for a fan site, not for WP. Ravensfire (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for fun: Taitz herself doesn't approve of JamesMLane's edits: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=9047 --Weazie (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow - that's probably one of the funniest things I've read in a while! "Marxist thug"? "hate crimes"? All while calling for people to "find out all they can". Ahhh, the irony! Ravensfire (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you describe what you mean with the expression "MSNBC meltdown"? Magnus Johansson (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See the second paragraph in the Media section. "Implosion" and "she turned into barking Bessarabian goo on camera" were phrased used to describe it. That event got significant notice from notable, reliable sources, hence its inclusion. (BTW - using indention (colons) helps with the readability on talk pages) Ravensfire (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

But Taitz's "barking" is caused by the arrogant and bullying style of David Shuster; the first 11 seconds of the YouTube video of the interview is enough to understand that. The meltdown is a lot more about this circumstance, and therefore on MSNBC's part, than Taitz's "barking". Magnus Johansson (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of this talk page is to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. It is undisputed that a Salon writer used the word "barking." If you have a NPOV RS that describes Taitz's MSNBC appearance in positive terms, edit the article (and cite your source). --Weazie (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't take personal opinion, i.e. "arrogant and bullying style", into account when editing articles here. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that my description of David Shuster can be dismissed as only "personal opinion" (those opening 11 seconds would make a good starting point for a scientific investigation on Shuster's non-verbal communication in that clip). Furthermore, since MSNBC is here on Wikipedia considered a reliable source, how can the intellectual dishonesty performed by Shuster and Hall after the opening 11 seconds of using the communication level of a dog be in line with the notion of MSNBC as reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus Johansson (talk • contribs) 07:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

After seeing the blog post linked above, I would like to see you repudiate the statements made by Taitz towards other editors before I will comment any further on this, or any other matter with you. Those statements were in response to your post on that site. Ravensfire (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tatttling to Taitz AGAIN isn't going to help you make your case: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=9158 You are new to wikipedia; please review the Conflict of Interest guidelines. --Weazie (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want me to repudiate Taitz's statement regarding e.g. JamesMLane? She might be right. I can not repudiate something that might be true; it would be intellectually dishonest to do so. Magnus Johansson (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Taitz is not right about me being a "criminal" (OK, a little jaywalking here and there, but, hey, I'm a New Yorker). Nevertheless, I don't think you have any obligation to repudiate her statements just because your inquiry to her provoked her response. By the way, you might check out this edit of mine, in which I removed anti-Taitz material that, in my judgment, did not conform to Wikipedia's standards. If you want to get really ambitious, you could go into more detail in the article history and find that I personally had nothing to do with the vast majority of the edits of which Taitz complains in her attack on me. You're not familiar with Wikipedia so it would really be too much for me to expect that you'd dig deeply enough to discover that I opposed an attempt to delete her biography from Wikipedia, and even provided citations to show that the article should remain. JamesMLane t c 04:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While you, personally, may have a philosophy that baseless accusations, unsupported by any facts or sources, deserve respect because they "might be true," wikipedia does not. --Weazie (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How did you reach the conclusion that Taitz's accusation was baseless? Magnus Johansson (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

She made a string of accusations but provided absolutely no supporting evidence. --Weazie (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

From that you can't know if her accusations are baseless, only that they were unsupported in the text. Magnus Johansson (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I say "baseless" because I see no basis for the accusation. If you prefer "unsupported", fine. Either way, Taitz provided no evidence, and I for one don't believe something just because Taitz said it. --Weazie (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That it is "intellectual dishonesty" is your opinion, unless you can produce reliable sources that address this interpretation of the interview. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not my opinion, it is a verifiable fact and like many other verifiable facts it doesn't need what you call reliable sources. To every sensible person the MSNBC "interview" of Orly Taitz is a disgrace for MSNBC itself. So on one hand it is a very valuable example of a total intellectual meltdown on MSNBC's part, but on the other hand it is a violation of the Wikipedia rule of referencing reliable sources. I think the rules here at Wikipedia ought to get priority, but if they don't I am quite content with having a reference to this MSNBC meltdown. Magnus Johansson (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

When you claim something to be a "verifiable fact", then yes, you do need to back it up with reliable sources. Just going by the word or opinion of an editor is what we call original research, which is not allowed here. Of course the WND-style crowd thinks the interview was a "disgrace for MSNBC itself", but that fringe point of view, much like Taitz's opinions about Obama and birth certificates, is WP:FRINGE and has no place here on those grounds either. No matter which way you approach it, the "disgrace for MSNBC" angle is a dead-end. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But you see, with your arguments here the disgrace for MSNBC also becomes the disgrace for Wikipedia. Reliability is not constant over all issues and it is also something that you easily can damage, and if MSNBC had any reliability on the eligibility question of Obama it is totally gone since August last year for those who know the facts of Obama's ineligibility. Talking about fringe point of views is just a bad excuse when not daring to examine the issue at hand. Magnus Johansson (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the issue is not MSNBC's reliability; even you will not dispute that Taitz was, in fact, interviewed on MSNBC. You are free to object to how MSNBC treated Taitz, but your personal opinion cannot appear in a wikipedia article. It is also undisputed that a Salon writer used the word "barking" to describe Taitz's appearance. Salon, as a representation of media criticism generated by Taitz's appearance, is a valid RS (and its reporting was typical of the criticism she received). Again, if you have a NPOV RS that describes Taitz's MSNBC appearance in positive terms, edit the article (and cite your source). But please do not use this talk page as a forum to rail against MSNBC or promote any "ineligibility" issues. --Weazie (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The mere fact that MSNBC interviewed Taitz says nothing about MSNBC's reliability. By what logic did you reach to that conclusion? Even to ones who do not know anything about the Obama eligibility issue it is obvious that Shuster and Hall in the MSNBC interview promote logical fallacies. How can that be compatible with a reliable source? Magnus Johansson (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether MSNBC is a reliable source, as it was never cited as a source. --Weazie (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So if Taitz has media exposure by being mentioned in WND, WND is a source, but when Taitz is interviewed by MSNBC, MSNBC is not a source. Is that correct? Magnus Johansson (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No. MSNBC was the forum in which the interview at issue occurred. Many RS sources corroborate that the interview in fact occurred (and no one is disputing that it happened). RSs were quoted for their analysis of that interview. (And WND did not report on the Shuster/Hall interview, so it is moot point anyway.) --Weazie (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you answering "no" to both that WND is a source and that MSNBC is no source? Magnus Johansson (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WND is not RS; MSNBC isn't cited as a source for this assertion, so a comparison to it isn't relevant. --Weazie (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the MSNBC interview, neither MSNBC nor WND is cited in the article as a source. --TheMaestro (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, here's Hor Air's analysis of the interview; that would be an adequate counterpoint. --Weazie (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What is adequate about the Hot Air "analysis"? The author of that text seems to not even know the basic facts of Obama's ineligibility. Magnus Johansson (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe Weazie's point was that if HotAir meets RS standards, it can be cited as a media report critical of MSNBC's handling of the interview ("the buffoonery of both sides," "MSNBC’s goal was to humiliate her..."). --TheMaestro (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Weazie (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Magnus only wants to include a source that agrees that Obama is in fact ineligible to be president. That rules out pretty much everything except WND. AniMate 18:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP

After rereading this article, I'm struck by how overwhelmingly negative Orly_Taitz#In_the_media is. I reread BLP and came upon this:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability.

In the article we have descriptions of her as "Queen Bee of people obsessed with Barack Obama's birth certificate" and "The Queen Bee of Birferstan". We have "professional whack-a-doodle". She is grouped with people who have "bizarre personalities". She is called a "nut". We even have a quote that implies she is irrational. How in the world is this balanced? Granted, most of the media coverage of her has been negative, but I don't think we really need all of this in the article. BLP says criticism cannot overwhelm the article or appear to take sides. I'm pretty sure this article has taken sides, and we need to pull back. AniMate 21:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "pull back"? Do you mean to delete the section Orly_Taitz#In_the_media or to make necessary changes to it or perhaps to delete the whole article? Magnus Johansson (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:C

Is there a photograph of Taitz that is WP:C compliant? --Weazie (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody could ask her on her site if she's willing to make one of her images available. Woogee (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous lawsuits -- remove?

Could we get some context or details on this statement in the article? Taitz had previously been personally involved in 22 lawsuits in Orange County civil court.

That could be because she is a litigious lawyer, who likes to file lawsuits against her neighbors about any neighborhood issue, or it could be because she runs 3 small dentist practices, and thus has the typical history of minor civil lawsuits against customers who don't pay their bills, or pay with bad checks, or it could be something completely different.

But there isn't enough information here to know. Without some more info to give the context for these 22 previous lawsuits, this statement seems to add little to the article, and might be considered for removal. T-bonham (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

They're mostly her being sued for malpractice. They're on the Orange County Superior Court's docket; may be some WP:OR issues. --Weazie (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Scribd

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21451147/Lucas-Daniel-Smith-10-12-09-new-Declaration-SACV09-00082-DOC-Anx Scribd is not a reliable source. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. If it's official court documents and press releases, then the documents are reliable. DeeLite2000 (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I too disagree. And the recent edits by Chaser make no sense: Even if scribd documents aren't to be used there are many other sources that cite the same information. Instead deleting whole patches of the article, it would be better to use other sources. --Weazie (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources (news articles, for example) are OK. Court documents, although usually reliable, are primary sources. See the long thread we had on this at WP:BLPN#Orly Taitz.--Chaser (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I followed, and I still disagree. Citing court documents to demonstrate that Taitz did, in fact, file these cases is not particularly controversial (or in violation of that policy). And deleting whole patches of the article doesn't improve the article because there are also secondary sources that also confirm she filed these suits. --Weazie (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Then the recourse is to rewrite those sections using and citing secondary sources.--Chaser (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Chaser. If these lawsuits are notable, find sources discussing them. Should be simple enough. AniMate 10:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Then go ahead. --Weazie (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The new image...

kinda...sucks, to put it mildly. It is a bit blurred at the current resolution, which is already kinda tiny as it is. Could the esteemed Ms. Taitz perhaps submit one a bit larger? Tarc (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

i hardly think that a public figure has any time in to spending on WIkipedia to look for bad images ov her. Although i agree that the image sucks, and it looks like it came from an enalarged stamp~~ User:Smith Jones 04:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, she spent a few days here complaining about the lack of an image before going to OTRS. I believe Chaser is the volunteer handling it, so you should talk to him. AniMate 05:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnett v. Dunn and Taitz v. Dunn

Capt. Barnett (named plaintiff in Taitz's suit Barnett v. Obama and Taitz's campaign manager) has filed suit against her opponent in the primary election, as well as California's Secretary of State and Attorney General, alleging Taitz's opponent is ineligible to run. --Weazie (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph, solely because it was sourced to a blog. If you can find a reliable source, that would be great. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And I reverted; Total Buzz is not "a blog"; it is an online column of the Orange County Register. The author of this particular piece is on OCR's staff. I would just source to the original court documents, if that wouldn't draw someone else's ire. --Weazie (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is it hosted on freedomblogging.com instead of on the OC Register's own webpage? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't work for the OCR, so I don't know. But you can access Total Buzz via OCR's page, and the author of this piece is on the OCR's staff. --Weazie (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Taitz has filed a post-election challenge against Dunn in the Orange County Superior Court. (Case No. 30-2010-00381664.) --Weazie (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup for GA

In the past two hours I've been cleaning up the article to get it up to good article standards; this mostly involved reworking the article's citations (many of which were bare URL's; I changed them to full citations including the author, publication date, publisher, etc.). After I finished the cleanup, I nominated this article for GA. Anyone who wants to contribute to the GA review can do so. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of Fox News

Bbb23 has reverted an edit ("...the fact that the second largest shareholder in NewsCorp, the parent company of Fox News, is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal") as unsourced, but a source is available at NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129584557) which would support the removed verbiage if it were edited to refer to voting stock. Do we consider the information relevant? -- TheMaestro (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch. What I think it means is that we should take out the Saudi Arabia bullet completely. Before listing the bullets, we describe them as "theories." Doesn't sound like a theory to me, but a fact, in which case why list it? According to the source (Esquire) it's derivative of the Chavez/software claim anyway. I'd simply remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but it does raise a problem. The theory/fact remains one of "Taitz's other claims"; we are removing it because we believe this one has a good chance of being valid. I think that removing it forces us to consider whether we ought to have language that more accurately reflects the fact that we are speaking of claims that are generally considered unlikely to be true. -- TheMaestro (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. The word theory means that they are unproven. This line may be a statement she's made (although the article cited presents it imbedded in a different claim), but it's not a theory/claim. I've removed it from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the word "claim" rather than "theory." The header "Taitz's other claims" fails to reflect the fact that only a specific subset of her claims qualifies for inclusion. -- TheMaestro (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think claim falls into the same category as theory. I've no doubt she says all sorts of things that are true. For example, she may say it's sunny today (a fact), but a claim implies that something has to be proven. I think the context is clear as it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Orly as a person is not notable

Only the b irther movement itself. She has no notability apart from this fringe conspiracy theory. As such how to petition that she's artcile vbe Mderged with Birther artciles. 132.216.55.26 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the heavy number of frivolous lawsuits filed by her and her run for office, I think she merits her own entry. Merging this with the birther articles would deliver a very bloated page.Shabeki (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Lacey painting.

Let's not edit war over this. Please discuss here; thanks. (And Lacey's "George" comment was obviously a joke.) --Weazie (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

His presentation, like his work, appears to be lighthearted. That does not justify the conclusion that his direct statement was necessarily a joke, nor does the source report it as such. Are there any later reliable sources around showing the statement was retracted or identifying it as a joke? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"George Soros paid me to paint a picture of Orly Taitz, naked with a pancake on her head." Yes, that's a joke. (The main article, however, does not specify that is was a joke.) --Weazie (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Taitz, Esquire?

On the Orly Taitz web site and others connected with the "birther" and other movements, she is referred to as "Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire".

Reading her personal educational history on this article I see no mention of her being a recipient of a degree as a PhD (only as a "degree", which on its own would normally be no higher than a Bachelor degree - two levels below a PhD) and wonder about that. Does her degree in dentistry allow her to be addressed as Dr.? Has she received a PhD?

As a side issue, only male persons are referred to as "Esquire" are they not?

If she can be addressed as Doctor and Esquire I think the article should include this with an explanation of why it should be so. Thank you.184.41.39.195 (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Taitz is a lawyer. Many lawyers sign their names as Joan Lawyer, Esq. American lawyers have a juris doctor degree. Although a doctoral degree, it's unusual for an American lawyer to call herself Dr. Joan Lawyer. (Gender has nothing to do with any of this.) Most American dentists do call themselves doctor. None of this needs to be in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the article Esquire in the United States (and only in the US), the term Esquire can be used in a gender-neutral way referring to lawyers: In the United States, the suffix Esq. most commonly designates individuals licensed to practice law, and applies to both men and women. Difluoroethene (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And it's also just used by people to make their name look prestigious. Fred Flintstone used it once or twice. As for the Dr. part, if she does indeed hold a Doctor of Dentistry, then fairplay to call her Doctor. Any use relating to anything else would require her to have a recognized Ph.D or doctorate, though she could also use the title if she's received an honorary doctorate from some place (i.e. Dr. William Shatner is not improper usage after Shatner received an honorary doctorate from McGill, just as long as no one expects him to be able to prescribe medicine!). 68.146.80.110 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use academic titles in articles. We can say she received a doctorate, but we won't call her "Dr. Taitz". Per WP:CREDENTIAL.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The license to practice law carries with it the title Esquire. It does not matter if a person has been to law school or even an accredited law school. The Esquire tag is based on the license to practice. Some states allow persons to take the bar exam without going to law school and some states allow taking the bar after attending unaccredited law schools. A dentist has a DDS or Doctor of Dental Surgery. In America, Dentists do use the title "Dr." Lawyers have a Juris Doctor, but the only ones who use the title Dr or the ones who flunk the bar exam and are trying to find their way in life and the only way they can find it is to confer the title Dr upon them sevvs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.75.64 (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Birther" in opening paragraph

In the opening paragraph, it discusses Taitz's involvement with the birther movement, "which challenges whether Barack Obama is a citizen eligible to be POTUS". I think it would be precise, NPOV and appropriate to say something like, "which challenges, despite the proven fact, whether Barack Obama..." At Flat Earth Society, we say that they believe that the world is flat, contrary to the scientifically proven fact that it is a sphere (my emphasis). In other words, in keeping with WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, we should note from the start, that Obama's U.S. birth is not the subject of any legitimate debate. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's already undergone discussion multiple times. Read the history. --Cabazap (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Despite the proven fact"

I agree with Fat&Happy's revert here. The source that the IP editor inserted has nothing to do with Orly Taitz, and the added text in effect calls her a liar: something not to do on a biography of a living person. Anonymous editor, please forward a proposal on this talk page instead of trying to re-insert a sentence that multiple users find unacceptable. Shrigley (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that WP:BRD indicates this issue should be discussed rather than the subject of the edit war. But the IP editor (and others; see the section above) do make a good point that Taitz's thesis is demonstrably false. WP:BLP does not prohibit wikipedia from pointing out that liars are, in fact, liars -- provided there are WP:RSs that say that. --Weazie (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Proven fact" in Wikipedia's voice? In the lead, yet? What in the article demonstrates Obama's natural-born citizenship is a "proven fact"? Many of the birther theories are demonstrably false; he would not have lost his citizenship as a child by being taken to Indonesia or even being adopted by an Indonesian national. That's clear U.S. law. That his long-form birth certificate is not a forgery is widely accepted, but some so-called experts maintain that it is; majority opinion may define "fringe", but it doesn't define "proof". No matter how many legal scholars and laypeople offer opinions that "natural-born citizen" and jus soli "citizen at birth" are interchangeable terms, the one opinion that counts – that of a Supreme Court ruling – has yet to be given.

Somehow, the articles of a few holocaust deniers I checked manage to survive without lead statements that "Foober is a leading denier of the holocaust despite its proven existence." This article should be able to similarly provide background, not argument. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. Supreme Court may be the final arbiter of the U.S. law, but it is not the only arbiter. A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is not necessary to determine this (and many other) questions of law.

WP:BLP does caution, however, to be conservative in POV. The tone of this article (as well as that of the birther article) makes it clear that these arguments are false. --Weazie (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust denial isn't something that is a major political issue or current event. Not stating that Orly's thesis is false is akin to propaganda by birhters. 50.29.175.192 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Has she ever argued a NON-birther case?

Or is her entire career as an attorney built on losing birther cases? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Court records indicate that Taitz has also represented herself for nonbirther matters (medical malpractice, contract disputes) during legal "career." (Technically, she represented her corporate entities, which are legally distinct from her, but for all practical purposes are her.) However, such cases are not notable and lack a reliable source. --Weazie (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Taitz is not happy

Taitz is unhappy with wikipedia. If people respond to her plea, there likely will be an uptick in IP edits. --Weazie (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Joy. She ranted about WP before though and there wasn't too much of an increase in vandalism. Interestingly, when I tried to hit that link, I got an security alert pointing out a possibly malicious file: Possible_Hifrm-5. Got to the link via another way and had a good laugh about it. Once again, someone who totally manages to miss the point of WP. I think we graduated though. We're only "despicable thugs" now. If I remember right, her language last time was much harsher. If I see anything start to pop in, I'll be quick to request semi-protection, citing that post as the basis. Ravensfire (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Taitz that her witnesses should have been mentioned. Quote from ruling added. Alanf777 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

On the GA case, I suggest adding a few more sentences.

1. Kemp's warning that Jablonksi/Obama stay away "at their peril" (link to his letter -- scribd?)
2. That J/O did stay away : quote from Malihi's ruling (link to ruling -- scribd? )
3. That M offered a default judgement
4. That the atty's preferred to argue on the merits, and lost to an empty table

Is http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/03/1061562/-Orly-Taitz-loses-birther-case-to-an-empty-table a RS? Alanf777 (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a user blog at Daily Kos; not WP:RS. --Weazie (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It says it's a story ... copied from a blog (the distinction between news and official blogs is very blurry these days.) I was trying to get the "empty table" in. Alanf777 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops!!! -- I am working on a proposed edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alanf777#Orly_Taitz -- and accidentally put it in the main article, so I undid it. I'll finish my proposed changes there and then ask for approval here. Alanf777 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. It shouldn't be too hard to find a decent source on this though - Drudge has an article on it as does The New American. I think it does make some sense to add a bit more as the case did get past the initial request to dismiss which is unusual. It's also a case where the judge explicitly said that born on US soil == NBC. Maybe this (after adding in reliable sources) ...

"At the January 26 hearing, Taitz called multiple witnesses, including herself, presenting various theories as to why Obama should not be on the George 2012 primary and general election ballot. Neither Obama nor his lawyer appeared at the hearing. Taitz asked Malihi to find Obama in contempt for failing to appear. Taitz and the other plaintiffs requested the judge not issue a default judgement and to instead rule on the merits of the case." Ravensfire (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

From your edit, Alanf777, you're going back a bit farther than I did, starting at Kemp's statement. I'm wondering if this article may be the wrong place for it, as it's about Taitz, but the eligibility article would make more sense. The judge combined several cases into this ruling, so maybe only focus on aspects that directly tie into Taitz? Kemp's comment is, looking back, exceedingly ironic though and something that adds a bit of punch. Ravensfire (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Another source: Birtherism 2012: To the nation born The Economist.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

But that's a .... BLOG !!!! =8-) Alanf777 (talk)

I have a draft of the entire section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alanf777#Orly_Taitz -- feel free to edit it there. I included the official transcript and ruling from the court site. Alanf777 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the first sentence ... it's a bit of a summary, because Taitz originally represented only one plaintiff, and then snuck in four more in an unopposed motion. Objections? Otherwise I'll paste the whole thing into the article. Going, going .... Alanf777 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Following Ravensfire's note on my talk page, I'll hold it until tomorrow. Feel free to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alanf777#Orly_Taitz Alanf777 (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my "quick match of volleyball" turned into 3 matches. Gah, I'm such a junkie sometimes. "Can you stay and sub for us? Sure!" But I've only got a few good years left to play at the higher levels before age really catches up, so there I go! Overall, I like the changes. I think, though, that you've got too many quotes in there when more of it could be summarized. Take the second paragraph. Instead of quoting the judge, just go with "... testify in the case, saying that Obama did not show why him attending would be unreasonable or why his testimony would not help." Likewise the last paragraph can be cut back some by summarizing rather than quoting. Keeping the quote from Kemp and the last quote from the judge would be good as I think they really help note the tone of the case that would be lost in a summary. And Drudge's quote is truly priceless. Ravensfire (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

New version up -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alanf777#Orly_Taitz -- with summaries rather than quotes. (Though I haven't touched the second para yet). The references need to be adjusted. Alanf777 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts, your draft is way too long. There are WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP issues. --Weazie (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Length: It currently stands at 338 words (including ref numbers) vs 245 == 93 more -- but it contains MUCH more information (names of the attys [5 words] , clients [8], links [4+] extra factual narrative). WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP are fully supported by the linked press reports, the transcript and the ruling. Alanf777 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Length : down to 323 words = 78 more, of which only 65 are narrative. Alanf777 (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is much unneeded (and incomplete therefore unhelpful) information; it is also repetitive of other parts of the article as a whole. Both implicate WP:UNDUE. And I'm no Taitz fan, but there are obvious WP:POV issues that implicate WP:BLP.

Really, it was just a hearing in one case, not the trial of the century. --Weazie (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's now at 295 words, only 50 more the current version (20 of which are names or links) . So length is not an issue. The only unnecessary information wrt to the Taitz article (vs the general one) are the other two cases. I could cut them out entirely, and just say there were two other plaintiffs. (Maybe with a link to the general eligibility article, which I don't plan to touch.) The only repetition is the list of specific claims Taitz made. It IS one of HER more important cases, where she actually got to present evidence with witnesses. On WP:POV I'd be happy to include a WP:RS link which praises her performance Alanf777 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I would edit it further ("only 50 words" is a 20% increase). But, hey, WP:BEBOLD. --Weazie (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dedenting : It's now at 272 words (including names, refs ..). The verbiage is at a minimum, without reverting to telegraphese STOP I believe that every fact is relevant (the names of the attorneys and their clients are important because they appear in the various court documents.) Please indicate which SPECIFIC parts you think could be deleted. Alanf777 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD : I took out the names of the other two groups of plaintiffs and their attorneys. That's my final edit. Alanf777 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Going, going .... Alanf777 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been following this much, so I don't have the Wkikipedia high ground. That said, I will place my trust in Weazie, who has done a tremendous job editing this article. If Weazie's okay with it, then any objections I might have would probably be minor (I can't completely let go, can I?).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Do I have another bid ... ? No? Minor edit -- I moved some of the ref's around : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alanf777#Orly_Taitz Alanf777 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I find debating a proposed edit to be unproductive; WP:BRD. --Weazie (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

... Gone. Alanf777 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence is now wrong. There were a total of FOUR Georgians, ONE represented by Taitz, and THREE non-Georgian, not-on-the-Georgia-ballot presidential candidates (only ONE of which was actually admitted by Mahili). I preferred my phrasing (but leave out the names if you insist). Since the three cases were actually separate, there's really no need to mention the others.Alanf777 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I made a minor grammatical change to clarify what "it" was. Apart from the first sentence it's all fine by me. Alanf777 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The cited WP:RS says five Georgians. Taitz represented one of them. The non-Georgians that Taitz later added aren't relevant.

I also have concerns about using the Drudge Retort, which is not written by Matt Drudge (and the Drudge Report is not WP:RS). --Weazie (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So ... an incorrect WP:RS take precedence over mere facts? Another WP:RS -- in the previous version -- said that Taitz claimed that Obama was born in Indonesia, which she didn't. WP:smiley Change the incorrect FIVE to the imprecise "several"? Alanf777 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The fifth MIGHT be Blanchard NON-RS : http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/12/08/georgia-law-makes-secretary-of-state-responsible-for-vetting-candidates/ -- around Dec 5 he asks Kemp to disqualify Obama, but he probably didn't file an actual suit. So leave it a FIVE. Alanf777 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I did some tweaking of the wording to remove some quotes from the decision that were fairly generic language. Quotes are good to add emphasis, but I don't think qouting a phrase about skipping the default judgement and ruling on the merits of the case warrants that extra umph, especially with the Drudge Report line in there. An article from Examiner (bleh!) had some of Taitz's reaction that probably needs adding since we've gone into some detail on the ruling. That's not an RS, so until I can find something viable, I'm leaving it out. Ravensfire (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to get into an edit war, but I think that the exact words of the judge "on the merits of their arguments and evidence" should be there, because Taitz has repeatedly claimed that she has never (never? hardly, ever) been heard on "the merits". Alanf777 (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, neither Matt Drudge nor the Drudge Report discussed this case. The citation is to the Drudge Retort, which is a liberal "response." --Weazie (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow - I managed to totally miss that one. Grrr. Let me ponder some on that, that might push the POV too much for me. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@Alanf777Weazie might know for certain, but I think Taitz or another lawyer have presented some of her arguments/evidence at prior cases. I don't think she's had the chance to present all of her theories before though. That's actually something I'm REALLY hoping to see in a RS to add here. Hinting at it smacks of WP:SYNTH though. The "merits" clause is, to me, fairly boilerplate legalese so I'm just not seeing the overall impact of it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Taitz habitually files her "evidence," which is promptly ignored. The Georgia challenge really was the first time the facts were addressed (and rejected). (Ankeny had already rejected the legal claim regarding two-citizen parents.)

I'm beginning to think "Chair 1, Taitz 0" pushes POV (see WP:BLP) regardless of whether it was the report or the retort (but more so if it was the retort). --Weazie (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I read of the transcript, Taitz's problem wasn't that she had no evidence, it's that she didn't know the basic mechanics of how to qualify expert testimony or how to enter non-testimonial evidence into the record. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

She's appealed : on the docket ... too soon for an entry? Case No. 2012CV211398 DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY ROBERT JUDY, LAURIE ROTH (One name missing!) VS. BARACK OBAMA, SECRETARY OF STATE Filed on 02/13/2012 Case Type: APPEAL Judge: Cynthia D. Wright Current Status: Filed Alanf777 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

On her blog she says "I actually do, what needs to be done, proceed in different jurisdictions to finally find one judge, who will rule on the merits, based on the evidence. I'm putting the Malihi exact quote back in. Alanf777 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this is the official Fulton County tracking site http://www.fcclkjudicialsearch.org/Scripts/UVlink.isa/tsgdb1/WEBSERV/PUBCivilSearch?action%253Dview%26track%253D746399 Alanf777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

I added the appeal, with refs to the court docket and to a scribd scan of the court-stamped document. If any media pick up on that I'll add the link. I don't know what that 'vandalism' foo was. (Sorry for not signing, mr robato) Alanf777 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very hesitant to use Taitz's filings WP:PRIMARY for anything beyond the fact that she filed an appeal. --Weazie (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't be citing to court cases in a BLP article per BLP policy unless it augments something said in a secondary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See "The sky is blue" at http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ -- but I'll take out the extract pending another source. Alanf777 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Although the Chronicle article is a fun read, first, it's not really relevant to this issue as the professor there was trying to correct what he considered to be factually incorrect information. You just want to include a quote from the case. Second, I can't comment on the merits of the professor's complaint, but it certainly isn't the first time "truth"-sayers have come along complaining that our structure is problematic. In my view, even assuming the professor is right on all points - a big assumption - the system of sourcing everything is a good one and usually leads to better results than a less disciplined model. Finally, I find the verifiability-not-truth comment to be an unhelpful and unnecessary phrase to use in WP:V, and I note that it's currently being discussed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I should have posted a smiley with the link. Actually, it is relevant to some earlier edits I made : in a previous version one source reported that Taitz said Obama was born in Indonesia -- which she didn't. (Established by referring to the transcript). Alanf777 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

But if you'd posted a smiley, I wouldn't have had an opportunity to pontificate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, when editing, please WP:WIKIFY your citations so someone else doesn't have to do it. Thanks. --Weazie (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot next time I add one ... then someone else will have to fix it Alanf777 (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Her Pro Hac application was denied -- but no media seem to have picked up on the story. I'll WP:WIKIFY the links .. real soon. Alanf777 (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikify attempted -- pro hac order -- Did I do it right? Alanf777 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Fat&Happy -- so I did the previous link to match Alanf777 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not at all sure of my approach; my initial objective was merely to get rid of all those judicial capitals, but once I start fiddling with refs, I get a bit carried away. The {{Cite web}} template doesn't lend itself to court documents very well, but {{Cite court}} doesn't seem to either, except for the actual published rulings. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor quibble, on change from "appeal" to "review" -- On February 13, Taitz filed for review,[80][81] -- the docket says it's an appeal and so does her filing. All the GA cases (Farrar,Weldon,Powell,Swennson..) are now Appeals. Alanf777 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

in the order dismissing the cases (which Taitz just posted), the court calls them petitions for judicial review. --Weazie (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it!! According to the order, they appeal by filing a petition for review! And in this document they're identified as "petitioners" and "respondents". Though Taitz is out of it, it might be worth while noting the dismissal? Alanf777 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)