Talk:Orly Taitz

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)

I OBJECT. NOWHERE does it mention that her REAL name is Oily Taint. She changed it in 1984 after a severe reaction to melanin in her neighborhood, I "heard". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.25.122 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2010 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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... [4] 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)

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)

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)