Talk:Orly Taitz

Deletion

It should be deleted. The case might belong in the conspiracy theories article, but there's almost nothing of note about this attorney-cum-dentist, whose only coverage is on the right-wing, anti-obama blogs (not hits at all in any reliable source. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The above is opinion. Note the references in the article as reliable sources. Polarized coverage notwithstanding, it's irrelevant to the facts. Also, doesn't belong under conspiracy theory since that article is a sweeping generalization aimed to categorize individuals genuinely interested in the constitution of the US as kooks - "A number of fringe activists, pundits and political opponents..." no mention of people who are concerned only about upholding the law. I'm interested in those type people and that's why I looked for her here. Unfortunately I'm finding content subject to someone's interpretation rather than a presentation of the history of the case - which has merit - http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.htm .Huckit (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

'Leave all causes to be measured by the golden and straight mete-wand of the law, and not to the incertain and crooked cord of discretion.' Sir Edward Coke 4 Inst. 41 (1628). Huckit (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Huckit - You do realize that michigan law review article mentions neither taitz, keyes, ligthfoot, bowen or obama, right? Do you also realize that it argument boils down to "constitutional originalism is a bad approach to determining presidential eligiblity in general." That law review article, while of interest to people who care about the arcana of constituational law, is completely irrelevant to "Orly Taitz." Not that this is relevant, it also appears to favor more lenient constitutional interpretations that would make it even less likely the preposterous claims that obama wasn't born in hawaii would ever be believed, or considered relevant. If you're interested in wikipedia i urge you to read all of the following: WP:OR WP:V WP:NOTE WP:BIO. There's a lot more, but that's a good start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 January 2009

ANY approach to determining the eligibility of candidates is better than the current methods of indolence which stink like corruption. Also, the article is relevant even though doesn't wholeheartedly support the argument of Orly Taitz. It is established that persons trained in the art are interested in the matter. It is an argument. Not giving the different sides of an argument is bias. Not listening to arguments is ignorance. Also, the article on this matter in wikipedia contains unnecessarily biased statements detracting from the integrity of people using terms such as conspiracy theory where it isn't applicable. I'm not totally interested in wikipedia, mostly just interested in finding the most objective source of information. I do end up reading wikipedia a lot and made some minor contributions and monetary as well.Huckit (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Huckit. You seem to have some kind of point to make. There are places for that point. I make no further comment on the validity of the point accept this: It is completely irrelevant to the task at hand of finding reliable, secondary sources that might establish notability and verifiability for this article on orly taitz.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This woman is notable. There is no question about it. The article is poorly written and probably should not have been published in a premature form, however. It should have been fully developed before it was posted. --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I eagerly await the provision of reliable sources that would establish this claimed notability and otherwise allow for independent verification of claims made about her. So far, there are none.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

what's so unreliable about the supreme court docket?

These things should be noted since they continue to pop up through the years. This isn't a new issue. Also the details of the Donofrio case and others are hard to find. For instance to get the complete AP release requires an archive search and some small payment. Requiring payment for information reduces intelligence. It would be a positive thing if they were properly noted here.Huckit (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The docket of the Supreme Court helps, but probably does not by itself establish notability. After all, the vast majority of cases in front of SCOTUS are dismissed and are definitely not notable. What IS notable about Dr. Taitz is that she has literally thousands of mentions in the press and has an unusual background and is involved in increasingly high profile litigation. And she is the lead attorney for Alan Keyes, who was the former US ambassador to the UN and a media personality and has run for a variety of offices. That is what establishes her notability, not appearing on the SCOTUS docket. And to firm up the notability means you have to work very very very hard. And this article is a mess with dead links etc. Just was put out prematurely, so you left yourself and your article open to attack.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote for deletion. Other than being counsel for a "notable" court case, no notable accomplishments beyond that. The lawsuits themselves already have a page. [1] --Weazie (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That page is biased from the start.Huckit (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Other than being an attorney for a couple conspiracy theory cases, I fail to see what she has done that's notable or worthwhile PatGund (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Moldova

Wasn't she born in Moldova? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Early life" section says she was born in the now defunct Soviet Union, which of course includes Moldova. The lead says "Russian born". Does it make sense to say "Soviet born"? What is your source that she is specifically from Moldova? Dems on the move (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OCWeekly [2] .. I've adjusted the article. thanks, --guyzero | talk 05:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tarbut V' Torah controversy

While it is possible that this brouhaha occurred in the last couple of years, at least one of her children no longer attends the school because he graduated. See Orange County Register article from June 5, 2007. I think the paragraph is currently original research, but since dozens of people received the letters, it's only a matter of time before someone speaks out about it. Dems on the move (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This has now been documented on some blog which probably does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, but the court case filed by Taitz is on the Orange County Superior Court web site. I'm sure somebody will eventually get the documents for this case and discuss them in more detail. Yonideworst (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protect Proposal

This article has recently been hit with heavy, and in some cases sexual, vandalism. I propose semi-protecting it. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You missed one btw (I fixed it). When stuff like that happens, its better to look thru the history and find the most recent clean version rather than editing them out by hand. And page prot requests can be made at WP:RPP. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The most recent clean version was quite a while ago, as people kept blanking the "taint" version of the page and bots kept restoring it. But thanks for the advice, will remember that in the future. And I put in a page prot request, too. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

This needs to be stopped. This is a biographical page. Dr. Orly Taitz DOES EXIST. If there is some vandalism or problem with specifics of the article fine, fix it. I would like to see someone explain how the very existence of Dr. Orly Taitz constitutes libel. It does not. This is book burning of the most odious kind.

As far as libelous goes, when this page was deleted, the user was automatically redirected to "Barak Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories" which is -heavily- editorialized, and via redirect, puts Dr. Taitz in the category of conspiracy lunatics. How is that -not- defamation?

Can we please stop deleting the very fact of a persons existence based on political bias?

Like I said, Dr. Taitz DOES EXIST. If there is something wrong with the specifics of the biographical information, then it can be fixed, and the article protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killigan (talk • contribs) 20:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Taitz is a birther, so in the absence of an article for herself (which is currently being debated), it is a restperfectly plausible redirect. It isn't libel to associate a birther with the conspiracy theories that the birthers promote. As for an article on taitz herself, you are free to weigh in at the discussion page, which is linked at the top of the main article here. Not having a article on a person does not deny that person's existence; the wikipedia isn't that all-powerful. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts

Taitz is clearly emerging as the leader of this movement. I think she deserves an article of her own. She made another appearance on cable news today, this time MSNBC. --Tocino 21:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just take a look at [3] and [4].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In the second, more recent AfD, the majority favor having an article dedicated to Orly Taitz. --Tocino 00:35, 4 Auguts 2009 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia to learn who this woman is:

* what is she a doctor of?
* what is her national background?
* what is her current nationality?
* what political parties or other organizations has she been associated with over the years?

It's bizarre to me that anyone would think that these questions do not deserve to be answered on a page about her. I feel like I've been blocked from useful information by a bizarro censor.

This woman is the leader of a movement to bring down the most powerful leader in the world. She's mentioned on every news program every day. The notability page says: "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered...If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The event is very notable (every news outlet covers it every day) and her part in it is very notable (she is the leader). So according to the preceding sentence, she is notable.

None of Orly Taitz's biography is covered under the redirect-target page. -- Prescod —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 4 August 2009.

Exactly. Taitz is an interesting, or some would say odd woman. I would like to know more about her qualfications and how she became prominent. I'm sure thousands of other people are looking for the same information, and usually they would come to Wikipedia to find it. But not in this case. The blocking of this article goes directly against WP:Common sense. --Tocino 02:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Might I point out that WP:COMMON is not an official policy, as might be expected from the existence of WP:NOCOMMON (also not an official policy)? Two AfD nominations led to delete, separated by six months. It remains to be seen if Ms. Taitz will be notable enough for an article devoted to her on Wikipedia (see WP:NTEMP), but for now the consensus that has been (twice) established indicates that any information about her should be located in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. -- Kalmenius (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's flatly wrong to say "the consensus that has been (twice)" that there shouldn't be a standalone article about Taitz. As Tocino pointed out, in the second AfD, the majority of editors who responded favored keeping such an article. That's why the closure of that AfD as "delete" is being challenged at Deletion Review -- see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31#Orly Taitz. JamesMLane t c 19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't wrong, as the the "majority" of the keep calls were deemed to be weak and insufficient. Do labor under the false notion that Afd is a roll call, and the only reason it is at DRV is because some view DRV as AfD Round 2. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to say that my choice was 'weak' or 'insufficient', or implicate that me or others with similar views were 'single purpose accounts'? How dare you! riffic (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I went to revisit the AfD and see if perhaps yours was a more reasoned response, and would be excluded from my generalization. What I found was "Her colbert show appearance proves she is notable as a dentist and martial arts expert", which is perhaps the worst of the lot. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, you are perfectly free to deride the "keep" comments as "weak and insufficient" if you choose. My point is that to claim a consensus existed for your position, which was in fact in the minority, is to drain all meaning from the word "consensus". JamesMLane t c 19:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy and consensus is not reached by a majority vote but rather by valuable arguments. You should know this. You both could keep arguing here (on the wrong page) instead of the AD page (or maybe just on your own talk pages since you both seem to take it personal).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the right page isn't any of those you mention -- it's the DRV, which is why I linked to it above (linking again). As for taking it "personal" (sic), I have nothing against Tarc. I just disagree with a particular assertion he made. Love men, slay errors, as St. Augustine said. JamesMLane t c 18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving Forward

I've gone through, cleaned up all the references, added and tweaked a few facts, and reorganized the entire article to cover both her personal life and controversies.

• Do we have a source for her birth (maiden) name?
• Is it Birthers or birthers or "birthers" or some other variant?
• Is immigrate really the right word, or is emigrate the better word to describe her moving to Israel and then the USA.

At any rate, I may add a bit more to the article, but the major cleanup is done. I will patrol it for vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• One more thing I'm going to add is a media reactions section, to catalogue what the various media outlets have said about her. There's some pretty interesting quotes in the mainstream media. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

good idea Jdclemens. You did the right thing by the way. User:Smith Jones 20:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Has anyone found a particular good source for her activities as a real estate agent? I see a few places reference it, but they don't elaborate. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another source

If this article survives the latest AfD, we should include information from the "2-minute bio" in Time magazine (here). The quotation about how everyone at MSNBC should be serving long prison terms is particularly interesting. JamesMLane t c 06:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That article is already cited--feel free to add that quote to an appropriate section. And don't worry about the AFD--improve the article to demonstrate that keeping it is the only correct outcome.

Here are some more sources that I don't see currently linked that look reasonably promising. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/08/03/birther-leader-orly-taitz-implodes-on-msnbc/
• http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2009/08/05/replacing_paula_abdul/
• http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-daum6-2009aug06,1,4033319.column
• http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/treder20090807/
• http://thefastertimes.com/football/2009/08/08/chuck-norris-doesnt-lecture-why-should-michael-vick/

Education section- deleted?

Hi, folks! Thought I'd write here to try to gain some insight and hopefully avoid any sort of content issue. I am wondering why the Education section was deleted from the profile? It contained information pertinent to the subject of this article. As well it had appropriate sourcing. Just thought I'd drop a note and see if we can agree as to include or keep it removed. Thanks!! Basket of Puppies 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It didn't get removed per se, but I integreated it (with the sourcing) into the personal life section. Everything should still be there. I think we need one sentence on her dentistry and one on her law degree, which really don't merit a whole section subheading, do they? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jclemens! Thanks for responding SO quickly! I am very impressed! :D I had made the "Education" section as I have seen that many, many other BLPs have them. So, in an effort to model after those, and also to make a section with very clear and high-yield information I thought it might be best to have its own section. I am the sort of person who does best when the information is clearly marked, but that's just me. Yeah, a sentence each for her dentistry degree and law degree sound great. Thanks, again! Basket of Puppies 22:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to breaking it out again if it turns out more is needed. Let's see what additional relevant content we can add, and then see where the natural breaks fall. I absolutely agree that an education section may be appropriate for many BLPs, but there's very little RS'ing about Tatiz' performance, formative experience, thesis or project, etc. in relation either to law or dentistry school. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"dentist, real estate agent, and lawyer"

is there a set pattern for which one of those 3 is mentioned first? Because Taitz is only known for the work she has done as a lawyer, as opposed to dentistry or real estate. So that could be "lawyer, dentist, and real estate agent" instead. --RobbieFal (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty well established that dentist came first chronologically of those three. Not sure whether lawyer or real estate agent was most recent--I haven't seen any RS'ing one way or the other. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Taitz's realtor's license is presently expired: http://www2.dre.ca.gov/PublicASP/pplinfo.asp?License_id=01410896 Weazie (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While Orly is "notable" as a lawyer she is anything but a "notable lawyer". According to the transcript in the Brockhausen hearing (http://www.scribd.com/doc/18284002/BROCKHAUSEN-v-ANDRADE-Transcript-of-Proceedings-Pleas-to-Jurisdiction-Hearing-12209), she has never actually tried a case. She makes her living as a dentist and it is just being kind to call her a lawyer. Since her real estate license has expired, I suggest we remove all references to that. Result, "Dentist and lawyer" Kevin (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Madsen/Iran allegations

part 1

While they may themselves be out of left field, other sources have picked up the story. I think the way we have it makes it clear to whom the theory is attributed, which is, per NPOV, stated without much comment, so the readers can decide for themselves. What is the issue with it? Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it dares to mention something about Israel in negative light, it is attracting old hands of the Israeli-Palestine topic area like moths to a flame, unfortunately. The acrimony of I-P makes the Obama-related article probation look like a tea cozy. Tarc (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

These types of preemptive personal attacks are what makes the talk pages acrimonious, Tarc. Try not to make it look like you're comparing editors to insects. Thanks,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

i get what you're saying, Tarc, but this is an encylcopedia not a battleground. if we back down of using WP:RS, WP:N, materials just because someone from another article might attack us, we'll never really get anything done. to a certain extent, everything is controversial with someone else, so if this Madsen thing has any credibility we should work on portraying it with the weight that it deserves within this article if it belongs. User:Smith Jones 13:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It gets one sentence, which clearly attributes it to an Iranian source quoting a journalist himself noted for conspiracy theories. I'd call that due weight, and it informs the user in the text (well, anyone who doesn't live under a rock, that is) that the official Iranian news agency might not be the most credible source in the world. And yet... the article speaks a lot about conspiracy theories advanced or supported BY this woman, so on what basis would we exclude someone else's conspiracy theories about her? Jclemens (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith, I-P is one gargantuan battleground here, with combating players and admins alike. I have no problems with retaining the passage, just giving a heads up. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am no fan of Taitz because I am no fan of any intellectually dishonest conspiracy theorist. I would not quote Taitz in any article as an WP:RS. I find it difficult to understand why Wayne Madsen would be treated better than Taitz on an article. He (and Press TV) do not pass the WP:RS or WP:FRINGE tests. I propose the removal of the meta-conspiracy theory from the article within the next couple of days and will do it myself unless I hear relevant, sound arguments against its removal. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have temporarily reworded the sentence so that the source of the story is clear. Having done that, I have to agree with GHcool as to the wisdom of quoting from the Iranian media. Yonideworst (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that if an alternate WP:RS can be found for Wayne Madsen's theory then I would support leaving it in the article. Yonideworst (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see GHcool's declaration to edit war; always good to know where one stands, I guess. Apart from that, if someone has a question about the reliability of a source, they are free to bring it to WP:RSN for a wider input. Unilateral declarations are not terribly convincing. And oters have picked up on this, as noted above. voltaire.net and the Charleston Daily Mail. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no "edit-war declaration." Please don't personally attack other editors, especially on a false basis. Sincerely, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Yondeworst, but your rewording doesn't go far enough. Imagine if somebody quoted Taitz in the article on Barack Obama. Would anybody even flinch at removing it as the WP:FRINGE unreliable source that it is? --GHcool (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere on Wikipedia, including searching WP:RS/N, that gives PressTV a default presumption of unreliability. Likewise, WP:FRINGE doesn't seem to apply in that the theory isn't "advanced" by the article, much as Taitz' own theories aren't advanced: their existence is reported on without comment. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that any idiotic conspiracy theory advanced by Press TV is valid in an article about a subject? Would you include, for example, quote the Press TV article denying the Holocaust in the article on the Holocaust? As long as Wikipedia isn't advancing Holocaust denial, why not report on it without comment? Is that the kind of thing we aspire to here? --GHcool (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I said would lead any reasonable person to believe what you stated. Your post is irrelevant. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Please answer the question: What's the difference between PressTV's Holocaust denial conspiracy theories and PressTV's anti-Israel conspiracy theories?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the Iranian press is tightly controlled by the Iranian government, I would say that the Iranian press is not reliabe about anything that is regarding Israel. To further illustrate that point, if the Iranian press is the only source that should instantly raise red flags. Yonideworst (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Therefore, lets do everything possible to find an alternate source that quotes Madsen. Yonideworst (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We have alternate sources. I'll augment the section with them. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't just the Iranian press (although that is a HUGE problem). The problem is also that Madsen himself is an unreliable source no matter who quotes him. This sentence has to go. --GHcool (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, this is written under a "Media reactions" section. Therefore, if more than just the Iranian media covers Madsen, then it would be fair to include him in the article. Otherwise, it would have to go, due to notability reasons. If only one media source covered some nut who talked about her, it's just not notable (all the more if that one media source is the Iranian media). Yonideworst (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck finding it. Its not gonna happen. I'm deleting it now. This is clearly bunk. --GHcool (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring against consensus. You have said nothing to justify the removal, let alone the repeated edit warring. Talk, don't edit war, or you will be blocked appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing that prevents the neutral presentation of a fringe theory. It's been advanced by Iran and picked up a couple of other places, which means WP:V has been met. Even if we treat PressTV as an unreliable source, they're certainly an expert source for what they allege. Again, what justification can anyone provide for the removal of such a theory from such an article. It's certainly no less well sourced, nor more damaging personally to Taitz, than any of the rest of the reactions to her. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, consensus appeared to be on my side until you reverted. Nevertheless, if you insist on using the talk page, then I will insist that you explain why we can quote Press TV with respect to Orly Taitz, but not quote Press TV with respect to the Holocaust. I submit that Press TV is completely unreliable when it comes to anything pertaining to Judaism, Israel, or individual Jews or Israelis just as Ms. Taitz is unreliable when it comes to anything pertaining to Barack Obama. --GHcool (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not quoting press TV with respect to Taitz. We're quoting what they said Madsen said--that's an extra step removed. If you'd like to argue that PressTV is unreliable by default, WP:RS/N is the place to seek such an adjudication.

Can you put forth a cogent argument, without mentioning the Holocaust, why PressTV is unreliably reporting what Madsen said in this instance? I'd really like to hear one. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, my personal view is that the entire assertion that Israel is bankrolling Taitz is easily as ludicrous as most of what Taitz advances as theories. Having said that, the irony--that she herself is accused of being the beneficiary of an international conspiracy--is a notable part of her story, and should be included in a way that reports, but clearly does not endorse such theories, much in the way we report on, but do not endorse, Taitz' own theories. Can we agree to work towards that goal, and, if so, how can we present that information in such a manner? Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that Madsen is unreliable. That makes my job much easier. I don't think its too much of a stretch to conclude, based on past editorial decisions of Press TV (such as Holocaust denial) and the fact that it is a state operated media outlet from a state which threatened to wipe Israel off the map, that Press TV is not a reliable source of information on subjects pertaining to Jews, Judaism, Israel, and Israelis.

However, this does not address your point. Your point is that while Press TV might be propaganda machine for Iran, at least it quoted Madsen correctly. I concede that this is true, however, I fail to see how this is relevant. CNN could have quoted Madsen correctly and I would still insist that Madsen is not qualified to be quoted on Wikipedia according on WP:FRINGE. In fact, Taitz provides the perfect counterargument. She has been on MSNBC, a reliable source by any standards, spewing her nonsense about Obama, yet nobody would ever claim that in the article on Obama, one could write "MSNBC correctly quoted Orly Taitz as saying 'Obama wasn't born in the US."

Lastly, it is not Taitz's reputation that I am concerned about. It is the publication of malicious Jewish conspiracy theories on Wikipedia that I find distasteful and that Wikipedia guidelines rule as unacceptable. I would fight equally hard to rid Wikipedia of malicious Obama conspiracy theories if I found one. --GHcool (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to deal with loony conspiracy theories, of whatever sort, is to represent them in proportion to WP:UNDUE and let the readers decide. Fact is, Madsen's silliness hasn't apparently been taken seriously by anyone--the Iranians may see fit to print it because it suits their agenda, but it's almost a cliche that they'd do so. No one who isn't already an anti-semitic bigot is going to take his statements at face value, are they? I agree that using Wikipedia to further hate agendas is deplorable and should be avoided; I just don't see how this fits that bill. Of course, if it gets serious and notable enough to need debunking, a page such as Blood libel against Jews is absolutely appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We appear to have a disagreement over the interpretation of WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. To me, treating loony conspiracy theories as though they were facts and have the reader decide for themselves is a recipe for disaster. Consider the blood libel. If I were to write an article about Jews, I would not include the fact that "some people say Jews drink blood, but it is a conspiracy theory" whereas it appears that you would. Similarly, I would not say, "According to Taitz, Obama is foreign born and therefore his presidency is unconstitutional, but this is a conspiracy so pay it no regard." If you agree with me that neither of the above belong in wikiepdia, you will no doubt agree with me that something to the effect of "The Iranian media says that Taitz is working with the Israeli government" is also of no value to Wikipedia and violates its core principles. --GHcool (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe doesn't tell us to censor non-majority views. It says "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is." In what way does a single sentence referencing this idea compare to the various ways people have tried to push political, social, or "scientific" agendas? I simply don't see how *reporting* fringe theories, without giving them UNDUE weight (see below), is an issue. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with GHcool. The one reliable source mentioning this conspiracy theory is a blog in the Charleston Daily Mail, who mentioned it in order make some joke about the Iranian and Russian press being "Obama's pocket." There is not one other mention of this conspiracy theory in mainstream sources, making any mention of this conspiracy theory WP:UNDUE-violative. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, there's an assertion that PressTV is unreliable, without anything to back up that assertion: back it up, or leave it aside, please.

Likewisem you miss the "in proportion to" part of WP:UNDUE: if there's a reliable source reference, which you've agreed, then it needs to be represented in the article. "In proportion to" does not yield zero inclusion unless there are zero references. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, the Iranian government-run PressTV is not a a reliable source, especially when it's espousing anti-Israel conspiracy theories. Any such discussion is a waste of everyone's time. One humorous blog posting that mentions this issue to set up a tangential punchline is just not enough to overcome WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you post that? Seriously--you said nothing original, nothing compelling, and nothing basing any reasoning on policy. If we're going to discuss this, please discuss--don't simply restate your opinion as if it were normative or if your interpretations were incontrovertable and compelling, as I don't find them either. Saying "it's not a reliable source" doesn't make it not a reliable source--rather, it expresses your values. Likewise, referencing UNDUE make no effort to either address or refute the proportionality argument. Not a way to move dialogue forward, really. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

See Media of Iran and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Media of Iran is an article, not a policy document, and WP:IDHT is more applicable to GHcool and Brewcrewer than anyone else. Once again:

• Please provide a link to WP:RSN or similar Wikipedia community decision that PressTV is de facto unreliable. If you can't do that, go get one--file an RFC if desired. But stop asserting it as obvious.
• Please provide argumentation that WP:FRINGE allows the complete removal of reliably sourced fringe theories. To this point, such argumentation has not been forthcoming.

The collective conduct to date has been disruptive and edit-warring. Consensus is not a vote, and two editors making spurious and unsupported arguments against one editor asking for support does not constitute a consensus. It's bold, revert, discuss, so discuss why you think it should be removed, and support your assertions. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN and see WP:CONCENSUS. Three editors have said that PressTV is unreliable, thus in their estimations WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE is violated when this conspiracy theory is included in the article. Please stop saying that we're not giving reasons when we are. Sincerely,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On your second point, I invite you to reread the WP:FRINGE guideline with special attention to this section. On your first point, I have just opened an RSN section on the subject. --GHcool (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Because I say so" is not really a valid reason, though. As you have been directed to do so already, if there is an objection to the usage of a source, then take it to WP:RSN to see if it passes muster or not. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A total straw man and I did take it to RSN. --GHcool (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarc and Jclems: Please stop saying that we're advocating for the removal because "we said so" and wp:idontlikeit when we are clearly stating that we are basing our positions on policies like WP:BURDEN, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. These manifestly false accusations are not conducive to a civil talkpage discussion.

There's now a noticeboard discussion regarding the reliability of PressTV. The consensus there is that they are unreliable and if they are used, everything they say must be properly attributed. This is clear, and I wish Ghcool did not have to waste time with something so obvious. But now that we "know" that they are unreliable, it is now on record that their coverage of a given subject cannot be used as a basis for inclusion in WP. If this conspiracy theory is covered in the reliable mainstream press (outside of one off-hand mentions in the blog of a small newspaper) it is inclusion-worthy, but until then its inclusion violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're defining "unreliable" but the input seems to be 3 or 4 to 2 that the use in this context is proper. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Proper in terms of WP:RS because they are believed for what they claim to say. None of the editors approved the context in terms of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. As a matter of fact, since all the editors agreed that they are not reliable for their content of their publications, their content is WP:FRINGE and their content's inclusion violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You still owe this talk page a detailed explanation of why you think that FRINGE and UNDUE support the removal of the content. I'm losing track of the number of times I've asked for this. Please, take a while and write up a detailed analysis, because I look at those same policies and I just don't see the justification for the removal. Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Please stop with the WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT; it's getting really annoying. I've repeatedly given a detailed rationale despite not having the WP:BURDEN to do so. Again: Per WP:FRINGE, "an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication" before it is included WP. This criteria has not been met in this case, because this idea is only mentioned in an unreliable Holocaust denying publication and the as an aside leading up to a joke in the blog section of a small newspaper.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You've given an excellent rationale why this fringe theory is not notable enough to have its own article. Everyone in this discussion has agreed with you on that point. What is missing, however, is that you have not articulated any reasoning based on FRINGE to remove any mention of it from the article. Again, please do so. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please articulate in a detailed fashion how one can conclude that the WP:FRINGE policy does not concern itself with article content, but with article creation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Brew, the Holocaust denial rhetoric only goes so far. Press TV published an editorial (clearly marked as an op-ed) in which somebody else denied the extent of the Holocaust. Please either provide some evidence that Press TV itself claimed that the Holocaust either was exaggerated or did not happen. If that is what you are basing your belief that it is fringe then you have no case. At both the RS/N and the FRINGE noticeboard the idea that Press TV be censored because it is "fringe" was rejected. To be honest I really dont care about this article, I just do not like how this is being argued on the basis that it appeared in Press TV. Press TV is not a "fringe" source, it is a major news media source. nableezy - 05:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No mainstream reliable source publishes Holocaust-denialism. You're also misassessing the consensus at the WP:RS noticeboard, which concerned itself with PressTV's reliability as a source to something stated by PressTV, not to overcome wp:fringe.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have to prove that at all. It DOES concern itself with article content. Read Wikipedia:FRINGE#Warranting_mention_in_other_articles, and you'll see that a conspiracy theory that is not advocated by any reliable source can be included in a featured article. Since I provided a source (three, actually) for the statement, WP:BURDEN is met and those arguing against inclusion need to demonstrate why their arguments are policy-supported. Yours that have relied on WP:FRINGE to date are actually refuted by that policy. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

There is a fundamental difference between arguing a position and simple repetition.

Stating "we are basing our positions on policies like WP:BURDEN, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE" is meanigless because WP:BURDEN, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE can be (and are being read) to support inclusion. Where in WP:FRINGE? GHcool, you referenced Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories--are you asserting that I'm trying to promote this theory? Are you asserting that a theory can't be mentioned without that mention being promotional? Please... say what you mean so we can have a proper discussion on it. No more red herrings--discuss the issue at hand, and the specific policy argumetns you believe support its exclusion.

Oh, and "outside of one off-hand mentions in the blog of a small newspaper" is not a part of any policy of which I'm aware, so do be clear when you're quoting policy and when you're describing your own interpretations of it. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguments based on notability

For whatever reason, you (Jclemens) seem to ignore my Notability argument that a single mention in one place is not notable enough under a section called "Media reactions". This is irrespective of whether this outlet is reliable (and there are good arguments that it is not). Yonideworst (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something surreal here. The editors who are insisting on including this information have agreed to allow for the inclusion of the {{dubious}} template. Why are you insisting on including information that you have agreed is dubious? Yonideworst (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I had meant to go back and remove it, but had to go off for a bit after the last edit there. Came back and it is, unfortunately, locked. So, there's not much to this red herring. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a red herring. The whole point of the FPP is that we civilly discuss the issue here and reach a consensus.

I agree that arguing for its inclusion together with the {{dubious}} tag doesn't really make too much sense. But then again, the whole position for including this clearly unnnotable conspiracy theory doesn't make sense to begin with. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you and GHcool were actually interested in "civil discussion", then you would have 'not edit-warred to get your way before engaging in discussion on this talk page. I find it a bit hypocritical for one to call for "civil discussion" when such a call is preceded by an uncivil act. Tarc (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made one revert to the article, as many as you have. No hurry, but when you get a chance, please strike your false accusation. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I reversed your unsubstantiated removal of sourced information from an article. It is not false. You're welcome. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You did not reverse me, you reversed Ghcool. Regardless, you accused me of edit-warring, but I made one revert and have been discussing the issue on the talkpage throughout. You're false accusations and general uncivil and belligerent tone are very disappointing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, notability applies to topics, not to article content, period. Read WP:NNC if you don't believe me. Notability is an inapplicable issue.

Next, the {{dubious}} tag was meant to appease the edit warriors, by indicating that a discussion was ongoing. My personal opinion is that the statement already makes it abundantly clear that the statement is the opinion of one man, noted as a conspiracy theorist, and published by a biased source.

Having gotten that out of the way, if we're going to start censoring ridiculous things said about Taitz, where do we draw the line and justify not censoring ridiculous things said by Taitz? Nothing about ANY of the conspiracy theories published on this page is designed to promote any of them, and to the extent it does, it should be corrected immediately.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my assertion that WP:UNDUE requires that reliably sourced minority views be proportionally represented. I haven't heard one yet. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Jclemens. This is a bio article. Conspiracy theories by Taitz are appropriate. Conspiracy theories about Taitz are not appropriate unless they pass the notability test. Yonideworst (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

... which notability test would that be? The one where they're referenced in a reliable source? Check, passed that one. Is there another? Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that when it comes to Israel, the official mouthpiece of the government of Iran is not reliable. But be that as it may, notability for inclusion would mean that more than just one source reported the story. Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts. Just because a source (even a reliable source) made a claim does not mean that it needs to be included in an encyclopedia.

Since I've already mentioned all these arguments before, this statement will be my last on the topic. Yonideworst (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, all it is is a quote of a journalist who says something controversial that involves Israel. The source is not being used itself for a critique of Israel. Do you not see the difference? Tarc (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The notability argument is not valid, as WP:N itself says The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. I dont think anybody here has suggested an article be created on this quote. The fringe and RS arguments are also not valid, the RS/N seems pretty clear that Press TV is certainly reliable enough to source the statement in question. Those hoping for its exclusion need to make a content argument that addresses the content. If NPOV is the issue NPOV itself says we need to represent all significant viewpoints. You cannot just say anything that comes out of Iran is no good, that is against NPOV. The only real question here is one of due weight. Unless somebody would like to raise an objection that isn't misrepresenting policy the only question is how to put this in the article, not whether it should go in. nableezy - 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain the subtleties here. The source has an anti-Israel agenda. The source therefore has an interest in destabilizing the relationship between Israel and the United States, which is why the source is pushing this conspiracy theory that Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, is in some way behind Orly Taitz and the birther movement. This may explain why no other source is interested in publishing this conspiracy theory and why it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Yonideworst (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. Very interesting. It doesn't change anything as we (Wikipedia) are not saying this as a fact, we are saying so and so said such and such. It is a fact that so and so said such and such and the reader can decide whether or not they believe the source. nableezy - 16:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

... And Taitz herself is trying to undermine Obama. Why is one allegation qualitatively different from another? The rationale put forth to suppress the PressTV conspiracy theory could equally well be used to suppress all of Taitz' rantings, an outcome which greatly concerns me--at least far more than any hypothesized "destabilizing [of] the relationship between Israel and the United States". I find the notion that diplomats and decisionmakers would be influenced by such a trivial and disclaimer'ed inclusion in a Wikipedia article on a woman notable for her conspiracy theory promotion activities, hubristic at best. Jclemens (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not in the administrating justice business and "she deserves it" should never be a factor in an editorial decision. Here's the difference between Tait's conspiracy theories and PressTV's conspiracy theories: The former was covered significantly by mainstream reliable sources and the latter was essentially ignored by mainstream reliable media sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Will you please stop warping reality to suit your own ends? PressTV IS NOT the originator of any opinion in this matter in regards to Israel or Netanyahu, it just reported what another person said in an interview. Goddamn. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Exacly. Mainstream reliable sources did not find Madsen's opinions important or interesting enough to publish. Content is WP-inclusion worthy when mainstream reliable sources decide that the content is publishable worthy. If PressTV reports on something that is ignored by mainstream reliable sources it is ignored by WP as well.

You're failing to understand one thing, Tarc. Nobody is saying that PressTV is unreliable and we can't trust that they quoted Madsen correctly. Their reliability in terms of the actual content is irrelevant. What we are saying is that PressTV is unreliable so the fact that they deem some content noteworthy does not move the content outside of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE proscribes it omission from WP.

I'll try for the umpteenth time: can you please try to keep this discussion civil?.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said anyone deserved anything. Really, I'm just asking what criteria (aside from trying to imply that a US reliable source's repetition of the Madsen theory doesn't matter) can be used to justify removing this conspiracy theory without logically applying to the others catalgoued in the article. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Taitz and her nonsense have been profiled substantially in mainstream sources. Madsen/PressTv's nonsense have received one off-hand mention as a lead up to a joke in the on-line blog section of a small Southern newspaper. That's the difference and that's why according to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, Taitz's nonsense is WP-worthy and Madsen/PressTv's nonsense is treated like its treated in mainstream reliable sources - it is ignored.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd still like to see a detailed presentation of why you think FRINGE and UNDUE support the removal of this allegation; it still looks to me like they support its inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. From WP:FRINGE:

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability, again, does not apply to content in an article. And, again, you found no support for calling Press TV "Fringe" at the RS/N. None whatsoever. nableezy - 17:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the "nutshell" above, "an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication (emphasis and bolding added). Has Madsen's conspiracy theory met this criteria?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Press TV is a "major publication" regardless of how you wish to define "mainstream" as you keep adding to the RS requirements. It was a serious story on the allegation. So yes it has. nableezy - 18:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, there is no article about Madsen's theory, and no one has proposed putting one together. It's a single sentence in the article of the target of his conspiracy theory, that's all. Where in FRINGE or UNDUE does it say that fringe theories shouldn't even be referenced in other relevant articles--given that there's RSing that the conspiracy theory exists? Fact is, if there was an article on this non-notable (yet RS'ed) conspiracy theory written, the logical outcome per WP:NNC would be to merge it either here or to Madsen's article.Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We are still patiently waiting for a reasonable answer to the question posed here: "Is Nableezy's argument that Press TV's has extremely low standards, but nevertheless is mainstream in Iran and reliably quote crackpots and therefore ought to be used on Wikipedia?" --GHcool (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that was already answered: "No, that is not my argument. The Guardian has published an editorial by Khaled Meshal, a man many have no love for. Does that make their news reports unreliable?" What does "reliably quotes" mean? You have a problem with them giving coverage to subjects you find distasteful, which is perfectly understandable. But how does that change the reliability of their news reports? And how does that change the reliability of their ability to accurately report what was said on their own network in an interview? nableezy - 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to provide answers to much of anything when people keep moving the goalposts. First it was simply an objection to the source, and when that failed to muster mush support at WP:RSN, the argument has moved on to the quote itself. I'm seeing frequent reminders on why I became less active in I-P topics in the first place. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like an answer to the question, perhaps rewording it in a more neutral manner might help. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll rephrase. It is clear to me that a conspiracy theory written by a known conspiracy theorist quoted accurately on one state propaganda source (but no free press sources) is not sufficient for inclusion in an article. I am having trouble understanding why it is not clear to other editors. --GHcool (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For my rationale, two reasons: 1) the single unbiased RS mention, no matter how you slice it, pushes it over the threshold into "worthy of inclusion", and 2) even without that RS mention, the Iranian press can still be used about such fringe theories as an unreliable source. I don't buy that it is going to harm relations, that we're promoting his theory if we include it, or anything of the sort. If I had to pick a quote to summarize my stance on this sentence, it would be "even paranoids have enemies". Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources to add once full protection is ended

Review these for any nuggets we don't already cover sufficiently:

• http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/lifestyles/health_med_fit/article/I-BIRT0731_20090813-224403/285980/
• http://www.examiner.com/x-16327-Clark-County-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m8d19-Birther-Orly-Taitz-might-give-politics-a-try
• http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/1302 (radio audio)

Unreliable Source

Reference 23, "Hypocrisy With In Our Soilders Freedom to Chose" does not appear to be a reliable source. Examiner.com has been discussed extensively [5] and its use as an RS appears to rely in part on editorial control of some articles. This poorly spelled blog post has clearly not been subjected to any sort of editorial control.

I realise this source is only used to show what people are calling Taitz, but I imagine we could find unreliable sources giving insulting put-downs of just about anybody. It doesn't provide any useful information. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

i recommend that it be removed since we need to rely on WP:RS as an imrpotant guidleine. User:Smith Jones 21:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done It and the associated quote have been removed. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Phil Berg lawsuit

This section leads one to think that just Phil Berg was suing Orly, but the actual lawsuit involves more Plaintiffs and Defendants, indeed the common name of the case is Liberi v Taitz. Kevin (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source for this? Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV problems

This article fails NPOV in just about every way possible. For example, the lead section states that Taitz "challenges whether Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as President of the United States", but it also fails to mention that her "challenges" about Obama lack evidence and are not taken seriously, and are widely considered "fringe". The "Media reactions" section is also deceptively crafted to avoid presenting reliably sourced criticisms of her "challenges" in each section, and isolates such criticisms to one section (against best practices) and focuses only on minor character and personality flaws rather than her outlandish ideas which are the subject of the vast majority of criticism. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

this isn't an anti-Taitz slam piece. If you have sources for these claims, please include them into the article. I unerstand your outstanding claims and I want to help you include them but you need to help us out if you want to have a hand in birthing this article. User:Smith Jones 19:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The article presents her ideas as factual and unchallenged when they are considered fringe and lacking evidence. This is neither factually accurate, broad, or neutral. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not correctly interpreting the article boundaries, actually. NPOV doesn't require that we rehash everything in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. This article focuses on Taitz as a person, inclusing what she's said, sued, and been sued. The rest of that can go in the other article. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm correctly interpreting the article boundaries and I'm correctly interpreting NPOV. Taitz is known only for her conspiracy theories (composing the bulk of the article in the "2008—2009 legal/advocacy activities" section) and the "media reaction" section fails to address any response to her theories, and if it did, it should apear in the related sections inline, not separated into a "criticism" section. The rest of the article presents her ideas as if they are legitimate, unchallenged and accurate. In short, except for the "media reaction" section which fails to address this problem and focuses on criticisms that avoid this topic, the article fails to present a neutral assessment of her career, and the lead section fails to represent these facts. For example, the section about "Other Obama-related conspiracy theories Taitz has repeated include" misleadingly presents false statements as factual without any information explaining that these statements have been have been found to be lacking evidence, and she has been repeatedly criticized for making them. Furthermore, these statements are constructed in a way not supported by the sources, and I cannot find a single article on Wikipedia that willfully misrepresents claims in this way. Non-neutral language implying validity to her debunked and fringe claims, such as "before her rise to prominence" and failing to tell the entire story in each instance ("the court declined to hear the case") reflects a deliberate attempt to violate the NPOV policy and present only one side. Taitz's claims are not taken seriously and her charges have been found to lack any and all merit. Reading the article in its current state, the disinterested reader comes away with the view that her claims must have some truth to them and Taitz has only been criticized for her personality, not her fringe beliefs. The article is highly misleading and deceptive, and appears to have been deliberately constructed in this way. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but calling them "conspiracy theories" takes no position on their factualness, but it does clearly articulate that they are outside the mainstream. If you think any of the statements of her positions aren't adequately supported by the reliable sources cited, feel free to add other reliable sources or improve the citations of her statements. However, if reliable sources can repeat her positions without specific comment, why should not we be able to do so? As far as your assertion that her notability is only related to Obama... no, actually, BLP1E and BIO1E were rejected by the two most recent AfD's. While she may be primarily covered in such context, the article attempts to bring balance to portrayals of Taitz by citing non-Obama issues she's been involved in. It is not a rehash of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You are cherry picking sources which fail to analyze and criticize her claims, and claiming that the sources you are using aren't critical of her so-called "challenges"? That's not exactly a valid argument now, is it? The bulk of the article presents Taitz's claims as factual and unchallenged. This is a deliberate distortion and fails NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to WP:AGF. Refactor the assertion of intentionally selective sourcing, and I'll respond. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. I stand by my observations. You have also failed to address a single criticism of this article. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

you should learn to follow all of the policies especially wp:AGF. if there are problems with this aitcle, they are because accident. No one is saying that Taitz's theories are unchallenged, and you are mistakenly seeing them as such in this article. however, our purpose is not to bash or trash Taitz as a person and violatE WP:BLP. our only purpose is to recorfd what mainstream and reliable WP:RS and WP:V sources have said about this person and her beliefs. if they have not called her nasty names or whateer it is you are insisting, then we cannot do so either. We only report what we see and we don't add what the sources don't say. User:Smith Jones 21:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Four of the six claims in the "2008—2009 legal/advocacy activities" lack references. Please add them. Analysis and criticism of Tatitz's claims, as well as describing her "challenges" with reliable sources, is not "bashing" or "trashing" but rather an essential aspect of neutral encyclopedic writing. You seem to keep confusing analysis and criticism of her claims with criticism of her character, and the "media reception" section perpetuates this distortion. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. Five of them are cited to Salon and one to Ha'aretz. If you'd like to include the specific citations for each one, feel free to add them yourself if you believe it improves clarity. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

it's not my personal responsibility to make the edits that you require. if they are so important, you can either wait fos someone with the time and resources to fix them right now or go ahead and do it yourself. you seem to think that these criticisms exist, and if they do exist it will be easy for you to find sources and help by contributing. User:Smith Jones 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is your personal responsibility to edit in accordance with best practices, such as providing sources for claims when asked, and adhering to NPOV. Your wikilawyering and obstructionism is noted. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's twice you've failed to WP:AGF. Do not continue to do so. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering and obstructionism noted again. Address my criticisms or remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

and as far as i can tell, you are also shirking your responsibilities. I did not create the content in question and i have made only cosmetic edits to this article since it was last created since the previous WP:AFD. your behavior thus far is no better than anything you have accused me of doing. you raise good points but since you are not interested in editing the article directly then it's going to be hard to get anything done. User:Smith Jones 21:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You are misinformed. I am here on the talk page raising issues with the primary contributors, who are required to meet and address this problems. I am not a primary contributor to this article, nor am I even an editor, and I intend to continue to maintain my neutrality by staying on the talk page. My behavior here has been to note the deficiencies in the article and the extreme efforts the primary contributors are going towards to avoid fixing the issues. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A third personal attack. Why don't you take a break and have some WP:TEA before continuing on in this manner? Any semblance of neutrality you may desire is behing hampered by these statements. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Unstable

This article was originally nominated for GA on 17 August 2009, however, since that time, there has not been a stable version, and the article has undergone consistent edit warring and even protection. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about the article as it stands now violates WP:WIAGA #4. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it doesn't meet any one of the criteria right now, and it should be failed in my opinion, based on #2 and #4 of the quick-fail criteria. You and others have managed to keep #3 from being an issue, but looking at the talk page, even though the article currently lacks a cleanup banner, it is an ongoing problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Including #6, eh? Note that articles aren't required to have photos, and in Taitz' case, unless we can identify an appropriate free picture, we can't use one. If you see deficiencies in the prose, per WIAGA #1, please feel free to improve the prose, as that shouldn't be controversial or necessitate discussion. Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I've raised the problems above and expect the primary contributors to address them rather than ignore them as you have done. The article has serious issues with a lead section that does not meet WP:LEAD, unsourced statements, non-neutral tone and presentation, and a failure to accurately present Taitz's claims and the response to her actions. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

thats right, not aalll articles have pictures. In my opinion, Orly Taitz meets the WP:GA criteria, and it very close to becoming a feature article candidate. we need to keeep improving it, and keep it as stable as it is now. User:Smith Jones 21:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Orly Taitz article as it now stands doesn't meet any of the GA criteria as I've said above, and is nowhere close to FA. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No one said it was anywhere close to FA, and it's quite silly to say it fails (or doesn't pass if you prefer) criterion 6: you can't fail it if no pictures are included, and pictures are not required for a GA. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please slow down and read for comprehension. Just above, User:Smith Jones said the article is "very close to becoming a feature article candidate." I also haven't specifically addressed #6 nor have I said it fails because of #6, so your comments are false. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)