Talk:Orly Taitz/Archive 3

Indiana Challenge

Added a section. I'll fix the REF later. Alanf777 (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I put the REF next to the quoted sentence -- although it actually applies to the section as a whole. Alanf777 (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-RS -- an unofficial transcript of the event. http://bleachandlight.blogspot.com/2012/02/orly-does-indiana.html I'll add links to the official video and transcript when they become available. Alanf777 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite built with http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php Alanf777 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of Primary Sources for lawsuits

WP:BLPPRIMARY talks about using Court filings for the purposes of making assertions about a living person. It does not exclude the use of Court filings for the purpose of documenting that the case was filed. The use of Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi solely to document that the case was filed is proper, and necessary because no news source covers it. I'm putting my revision back in and before someone unilaterally removes it again, please work this out on the talk page.Kevin (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention of the details of the case in the citation you provided. Obama's name is nowhere to be seen in the pdf and no details are provided of the case as your edit describes. I have therefore removed it as original research. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Edit to the main article essentially names the judge, and that is the subject of the court order cited. Basically you arguing that an easily-documented case cannot be listed in a listing of cases just because no newspaper thinks it's worth a story. Let me point you to a more valuable Wikipedia rule WP:COMMON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdavids (talk • contribs) 05:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Before you offer any more tutorial links for me to consider, could you please provide a link where in the main article the Mississipi case against Obama is described, cited and mentioned? Other than your edits of course. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. None of the cases listed meet that criterion. I do not see why you may tutorial me, and I may not tutorial you. But I will say that choosing a nit-pick over common sense, drives well-informed and well-intentioned editors away from the Wikipedia. You may keep your slightly inferior and slightly incomplete article. I have no intention of engaging in further arguments.Kevin (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify further: If you provide a citation which includes Obama's name and the details of the case such as you describe in your edit I will agree with you. But the citation you are currently using names only the judge and the case details are absent from your current citation. How can anyone know the details of the case if you do not use a citation to describe it? For all I know the case may involve a completely different defendant. Are you telling me that I have to trust your word that the case involves Obama and that I should believe that it involves preventing Obama from appearing on the Mississippi Primary Ballot, without supplying any further citations other than your word? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So, we are not allowed to say in this article that Orly is suing the "Democrat" Party of Mississippi, while the Democratic Party of Mississippi is quoting this very article to prove that Orly knows that her suit is frivolous: link to court document. I must say that I find that situation a bit "Arpaiesque". It basically means we can only mention it when a newspaper mentions it, but since it is so utterly frivolous, no newspaper is going to mention it - unless she does get sanctioned. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are referring to my arguments above but if that is the case your conclusion is wrong. I took pains to explain that the edit in question provided another document which did not mention the details of the case or even Obama's name. Now you come with a different document, which I was unaware of, and you reach the conclusion: So, we are not allowed to say in this article that Orly is suing the "Democrat" Party of Mississippi; something I never argued against. I hope you realise that my argument was against asserting that the case involves preventing Obama from appearing on the Mississippi Primary Ballot based on the the original citation, which does not support the information. Your reference supports the details of the case. But it is still a primary source, which IMO, makes inclusion of this detail original research. But I will not argue against including it because, due to limited time at the moment, I don't want to get involved in yet another round of discussion explaining what original research may or may not be. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. K.'s reversions in the article. It's not clear to me what you (Paul) want to add to the article, so I have very little to comment on. But I will say that generally we should not be citing to primary sources. If there is no secondary source, then it probably doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Although a citation to a primary source is not, in and of itself, a violation of the rule against Original Research -- even if there is no secondary source -- the comments of Bbb23, Dr K and others are well taken in my opinion. As others noted, the general rule is that we do prefer secondary sources. General rules have exceptions, and I would agree with user Kwdavids that the "No Original Research" rule does not necessarily exclude the use of a citation to a court filing to show that a particular case was indeed filed. But in this particular case, the cited source (that is, the specific court document in question) does not seem to adequately support the assertion in the text that was proposed for the article. Famspear (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetically, let's assume you have a primary source (a complaint, for example) indicating a case was filed, if the only thing you can do without running afoul of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is to assert "So-and-so filed a complaint in x court against y on z date", what is the point? There has to be some context for the assertion. Otherwise, it's either meaningless or possibly WP:COATRACK, and you clearly can't start interpreting the content of the complaint. So, you're back where you started - you need a secondary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and normally in an existing article you (hopefully) already have the context, in the form of other information from other reliable, previously published third party sources (primary or secondary). Famspear (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If the event is so obscure that no reliable secondary sources picked it up then it is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopaedia. The mere existence of a fact is not enough grounds for inclusion per WP:WEIGHT. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Obscure? There used to be a time when whenever a lawyer quoted a Wikipedia article, we advertised it. And now a lawyer is actually quoting two Wikipedia articles simultaneously, and we are not supposed to mention there is a case. As for OR, is it really OR to suppose that when Orly Taitz is suing the "Democrat" Party of Mississippi, that she is suing over the eligibility of President Obama? Here is another primary source, proving it is about Obama. What do I want to include? Personally: nothing really, since I think this article should be deleted. Newpapers do not treat Orly Taitz seriously, so they do not check what she tells them. In 2008 she told journalists she was born in 1960 and lived for some time in Romania. Now she tells them she was born in 1962. Since she got booked a few times for speeding, there must be primary sources which could settle this issue. Oops, we cannot use those. Whatever happened to verifying information before you put it into an encyclopedia? As for this particular court case, I agree it will probably not get mentioned in newspapers (and thus remain "obscure") unless she does get sanctioned. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason that I used the original citation that I did was because it was from the Mississippi court web site, and so is unquestionably authentic. Certainly the Scribd source has much more information about the case, but is in my mind a second-tier source. I spend half an hour working to find the best quality source that I could to support two sentences.

What concerns me most about this is that when rules are used in such a legalistic and inflexible way, the Wikipedia becomes nothing more than a summary of newspapers, and that would be a bad thing. If a fact can be documented in an authoritative way, and there is no one would make the claim that it wasn't true and sufficiently supported, then finding a rule that prevents the information from appearing in the Wikipedia would seem to me to be against the spirit of the rules, and I should point out to those who didn't look at WP:COMMON, that it is not a rule, but a principle above the rules. I should also point out that the Wikipedia is full of statements unsupported by the sources citations next to them, but I don't go around yanking them out unless there's reason to believe that they are in error. That would be, in my view, vandalism. Kevin (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, sometimes. The hard part about using primary sources, particularly court cases, is that it's very easy to draw conclusions from them that may or may not be correct. Case X said A and in case B the facts are the same so A should happen again. Or Case X said A so that's always true everywhere when that's rarely the case. Throw in the side comments (Orbiter dictum) that sometimes appear and it can get interesting. Especially around legal cases, requiring secondary sources helps mitigate those problems. I'm not a big fan of using a ruling as a source except to highlight certain quotes from the ruling, but a lot of times if the quote is really strong it gets noted by a secondary source.

We use secondary sources to demonstrate notability for an article. I think we should use some effort to make sure that a court case that Taitz files gets some secondary source exposure. It's really at the point that unless something unusual happens (see Georgia), I don't think a case that gets filed and quickly dismissed is notable. If she keeps this up (and I don't doubt she will), we'll need a secondary article for Taitz's challenges to the Democratic primary elections, and then probably one for her challenges in the 2012 Presidential election. In here, I think it's starting to push WP:UNDUE territory. Ravensfire (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Taitz Citizenship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On June 4,2012, I posted a link to Taitz' passport, which Taitz posted on her website in response to requests for verification of her US citizenship. Previously, the only source used regarding Taitz' citizenship was from a newspaper article. Wiki prefers original sources. In 2010 Taitz ran for California Sec of State. Currently, she is running for the US Senate. Because of her political ambitions, the date of Taitz' naturalization is relevant; her date of naturalization is relevant to US law.

Factual, verifiable info shouldn't be removed if presented in a neutral manner. Funnyhaha71 (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A newspaper article, as you call it, is considered a reliable source. The only "factual, verifiable, info" which was removed was original research on your part from this edit of yours with details and edit summary as follows: Revision as of 20:37, 4 June 2012 (edit) (undo)Funnyhaha71 (talk | contribs)(Added info regarding Orly Taitz' a possible conflict about Taitz' date of naturalization.) This investigation about the perceived conflict is not reported by any third-party reliable source but only by yourself. You went to Taitz's website, which by the way is a WP:PRIMARY source and thus not preferred, and dug out the 2004 passport evidence and you came back to report it. This is not how things work here. This is simply not allowed because it is original research. Also in a biography we must be even more vigilant per the Biographies of living people policy. Regardless I just added another reliable source from Time.com confirming the 1992 date. And by the way your statement: Wiki prefers original sources. is wrong. Wiki does not prefer original sources. Wikipedia prefers reliable, secondary sources. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dr.K, From Wiki about sourcesWP:SOURCES: "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable." Taitz, the subject of the page, provided personal info and published it on 3 major websites. No one else provided that info for her; thus it is not original research. Regarding original research. Taitz provided her own passport, making it a WP:Primary source. Primary sources are allowed. Also, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, UNLESS written or published BY THE SUBJECT (see below)." Taitz published the info herself on 3 sites. "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites." Claiming that my edit was "original research" is as valid as saying linking to Time mag is "original research".My edit was valid and within the rules of Wiki. No has has disputed it's neutrality.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

For starters please remove your comment I'm sorry if your political affiliations are getting in the way of your neutrality. because it is considered a personal attack. Please see our WP:NPA policy and try from now on to comment on contributions not contributors. Also please do not presume to guess my political affiliations. As far as your reply I only have to say that I don't think you understand the No original research policy. Again I repeat: There are two reliable sources supporting 1992 as the date Taitz became naturalized. End of story. Anything else you want to add is original research. Except of course if you find another reliable source, say the New York Times for example, saying that because her passport is from 2004 there is a problem with the 1992 date. But until you find such source this is not going into the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed; my apologies. Truly.I shall allow others to resolve this for us.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Most probably the other editors will agree with me but if it helps you I'm fine with it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I did no original research. See the links I provided. How is WP:Primary Source interpreted as "original research"? Did you know that you didn't change an edit from another user who used the same source? Many sources use Orly's webpage as a source for her Wiki. Which leads me to ask why you are specifically targeting my edit but not all edits using the source I used.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

One more time: You cannot use information from Taitz's website about her passport in order to synthesize a new conclusion that there is a problem with her 1992 naturalisation date, a fact not found in the source. This is called synthesis WP:SYNTH. You must realise that noone thinks that there is a controversy here other than yourself. If other editors use her website it is ok as long as they do not draw novel conclusions from it. I hope this helps. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I reworded the edit the 2nd time I posted it to address your concerns. Still, you yanked my edit. I rephrased to say "On June 3, 2012, Taitz posted her US passport on her website as evidence of US citizenship; however the passport was issued in 2004." That is factually accurate and is from a Primary Source who has published the info on their own site(s). I made no evaluation of the document. None at all. I BELIEVE are jumping to conclusions. Again, this was a Primary Source. You refuse to address that? And yes, I read your links and find that I am not in violation of anything. Funnyhaha71 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Who said: however the passport was issued in 2004? Do you have a reliable source for this conclusion or is this your personal synthesis like I explained to you before? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

So, if I remove the "however" are you going to remove my edit again? I don't see the however as relevant, but if you agree to not yank my edit, I will remove the however. So, my edit would say this: "On June 3, 2012, Taitz posted her US passport on her website as evidence of US citizenship; the passport was issued in 2004." Would that in any way violate anything? If so, please explain.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Who says the passport was issued in 2004? Is it a reliable source or is this your personal original research? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is on the passport that Orly published as a Primary Source. The Passport itself has that date on it. The link was provided, so you can check. The passport says: "Date of Issue: 24 Nov 2004 Date of Expiration: 23 Nov 2014"That is an exact quote from the passport page with Orly's picture on it. How is that objectionable?Funnyhaha71 (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

@Funnyhaha, the sentence you wish to add has no place in the article. It's irrelevant, and given the other content in the article, is non-neutral. There's also now an added problem, the passport is no longer on her homepage (don't know if it's elsewhere on her website). Thus, we now have a sourcing problem just for the birthdate.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

@Bbb23: thank you for letting me know that the sources have disappeared. As I noted below, I won't post about the passport now.

The passport is still available; sometimes Orly's website is unreliable.

Regarding neutrality. Orly is running for a federal office that requires her to have been naturalized in 2003. Orly once claimed that she became a naturalized citizen on the date of her marriage in 1987. Thus, there has been confusion. Since Orly's run for state office in 2010, she has been asked by several media sources to provide her naturalization docs. About 2 weeks ago, she said that she contacted the US State Dept to verify her naturalization date. Orly posted her passport because that verification hadn't arrived yet. Anyone running for public office has rules to meet. I'm in no way challenging Orly's passport. I was saying that the only documentation she has presented was her passport (which is valid and legal). That is factual info. Esp since mention of her naturalization has been on the page forever!! Date of naturalization is highly relevant to her run for Senate. Orly, through her actions, acknowledges that as well.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I realise that the passport is from 2004. But you cannot insert this conclusion to the article, because it would be your personal observation. Personal observations=Original research. Simple. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with Bbb23 when he says that the whole edit does not belong here and with the reasons he advances for his conclusion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How, uh, convenient for Orly Taitz! Agreed; without a source, the passport info would be inappropriate. Orly has excellent timing!Funnyhaha71 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The passport is still available; sometimes Orly's website is unreliable.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dr.K. One question. How was linking to one date on a source not "original research" in your opinion, but another date from the same Primary Source is original research? Can you see the inconsistency? Please explain the difference. They are the same. Both have to be "observed". Both are from a Primary Source. Again, I won't post anything now that the link is dead. I'm still trying to understand Dr.K.'s thinking. Funnyhaha71 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The passport is still available; sometimes Orly's website is unreliable.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't know what date you are talking about but I am just an editor. I cannot correct all wrongs on Wikipedia. I just happened to see your edit and corrected it. If I had caught the edit you are referring to maybe I would not have allowed it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

So you can't explain your contradictory comments? You addressed both issues using different explanations? Why? Please note that the birthdate and passport date were added within 24 hours of each other. You didn't ever touch the birthdate info even after I pointed it out to you. In fact, after several hours, you haven't touched the birthdate. It hasn't changed at all. I'm just trying to understand your assertions on sourcing. You have repeatedly said I was wrong; were you incorrect? Perhaps, if, as you and Bbb23 say, the naturalization info is "irrelevant", that should be completely removed from the page?Funnyhaha71 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the birthdate issue. Do you understand that? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

@Funnyhaha, I'm getting a bit lost in this, and your not indenting isn't helping me follow this thread. Let's put aside your argument with Dr. K. about his supposedly conflicting explanations. Just put it behind you, and let's address the issues. Taitz posted the passport on her website (I don't care what her motive was). It demonstrated that the birth year previously in the article was incorrect. In this case, the policy that applies is WP:BLPSPS, and I don't believe that the passport on her page violates that policy. So, I put it in. You now want to add a sentence about her citizenship (and the date of issuance of the passport), but it's not necessary. The passport on her website could be used to source her American citizenship, but the material you wish to add is not noteworthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about not indenting. I think this is the first day I've used wiki's talk pages.

Here's a question. Now that the source has disappeared, is her birth date going to be re-edited to be consistent with previous sources? Orly has obviously been less than truthful about her date of birth. How do we determine which birth date to keep?

Since the passport is down, I'm going to deal with the relevance issue later. I believe it to be relevant. Perhaps others will weigh in on the issue if more evidence is provided.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if I get indenting right. @Bbb23, I saw your edit on the birth date. The previous year was 1962. The August date was correct; the year was not.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to indent (you didn't get it quite right, and I fixed it). One source says 1962, and one source says 1960. I used the one that said 1960 because her passport said 1960. I currently don't have a source that has the rest of her birthdate, so I left it out - not all that important anyway, but if you can find a reliable source, that would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23! It appears the passport is still available; sometimes Orly's website is unreliable. So, the info can be used for the birth date without concerns of sourcing. I have thoughts on the passport issue, but am leaving it for now. I'll revisit the issue in a day or so. Can we agree that since the birth date is correctly SOURCED, any mention of data from her passport would be correctly sourced if it matches the birth date sourcing? Thanks!Funnyhaha71 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to use the date of issue of her passport? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K. I answered your question at the very top of this talk page section.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That is precisely what I was afraid of. At the top of the section you said: Currently, she is running for the US Senate. Because of her political ambitions, the date of Taitz' naturalization is relevant; her date of naturalization is relevant to US law. So you still insist on using your own original research to raise an issue which does not exist in the mainstream media and you want to do it for political reasons (in your own words: Because of her political ambitions,...). The answer therefore is still no. Not until you understand original research, WP:OR, reliable sources WP:RS and the biographies of living people policy WP:BLP. Let me put it another way: If the issue existed someone other than you, someone in the mainstream media like the New York Times, would have said: "Gee the passport is from 2004, it is not from 1992, so it does not prove she was naturalised in 1992". But noone did, noone from the thousands of mainstream outlets. So you come to Wikipedia to fill the void, which you only perceive as a problem, and want to do it by original research and insinuation, not to mention the occasional personal comments. Again, Wikipedia is not your publishing medium. If you want to publish your original research the best thing to do is start a blog. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K. One last comment for a while. I don't think I am confused about original sourcing. I see the error though. In my ANSWER on the talk page, I explained my thoughts based on personal knowledge. If you would like, I can source that for you, the US Constitution is pretty easy to source. Again, I am talking about the PASSPORT, provided by Taitz. You don't have any problem with other info posted on this wiki from that same passport which IS NOT posted in the media. You attempted to put words in my mouth when you say I want to prove her naturalization as being in 2004. Actually, far up the page, I quoted exactly what I would have posted on the Wiki page; it was factual, concise and edited for neutrality based on discussion on the talk page. Also, you don't get to tell anyone "No" they can or cannot edit on Wiki. This is a discussion; I haven't done an edit because I am waiting for some consensus. It would be good for Bbb23 to return or some new faces. Now, some of what you said in your most recent comment fits your definition of a personal attack as you claimed on my talk page. "So you come to Wikipedia to fill the void, which you only perceive as a problem, and want to do it by original research" and "Wikipedia is not your publishing medium". Perhaps you and I should take a one day time out. Could we agree to leave each other alone for one day and both come back a bit more polite to each other?

It may be helpful if you reviewed the many comments you and I made in the past 24 hours, Dr.K. I indented the page for easier reading for everyone. I screwed up by not indenting originally, which made it easy to lose track of some info. That was completely my error. Finally, if I have misunderstood anything in your most recent comment, it was in "good faith". Honest. Best wishes,Funnyhaha71 (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read my comments more carefully before you complain that: You attempted to put words in my mouth when you say I want to prove her naturalization as being in 2004. I did not put any words in your mouth because I never said that you wanted to prove that her naturalisation was in 2004. What I wrote was: "Gee the passport is from 2004, it is not from 1992, so it does not prove she was naturalised in 1992". Can you see the difference? I never said that you are trying to prove she was naturalised in 2004. So please stop the false claims. As far as using the passport for her date of birth that's uncontroversial so it may be done. But putting the date of issue of the passport in the article is useless, as Bbb23 said, and is also original research and used to prove a controversial point in a WP:WEASEL way and without using reliable sources WP:RS to make the point. According to the WP:BLP policy

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous

Therefore, and for hopefully the last time: Until you come up with an independent third-party source which will make this info notable, this information about her passport is not going in just by using your own original synthesis WP:SYNTH and research WP:OR. As far as your comment that you think that telling you that you came here to fill the void by original research is a personal attack, it is obviously nothing of the kind. I did not call you anything personally; I just described your actions as evidenced by your edits. This is not a personal attack but an accurate description of your actions to date which mainly consist of attempting to push this non-notable piece of trivial original research into the article. And this despite the patient and lengthy advice you have been getting both from me and Bbb23. You may benefit from reading some information about tendentious editing and stop arguing ad infinitum about a dead issue. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K. Thank you for referring me to so many useful pages. They have been helpful and I appreciate the time you have taken to help me find that info. I'm going to leave this for a few days so that things settle down. When I return, I hope we can both do a better job of assuming good faith WP:AGF; I have certainly failed in my responsibility to do so. Finally, a request; please, DBTN WP:DBTN! I know that you are well respected, and it is my hope to earn that respect as well. Best wishes.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use acronyms like DBTN as a weapon to insult me. If this is the thanks I get from you for my patience with you explaining to you these policies, then you have to re-examine your priorities here. It was not only my patient analysis of these policies that didn't get any rewards though. You also attacked me personally twice. Does your newbiehood justify these attacks? Is being a newbie synonymous to being presumptuous when you implied I am politically affiliated to Taitz? Being a newbie simply means someone who does not undertand the rules and needs guidance, which I provided to you in spades and very kindly. Being a newbie doesn't mean you can attack people. You also reported me to the edit-warring noticeboard. There you admitted that I did two (2) reverts: He has reversed my edits twice in less than 24 hours!. Yet you showed 6 reverts in your report. Why did you not correct your report? Or were you hoping that the admin would not check and block thinking that I went over the limit? Your report at WP:3RRN was baseless because in your own words I did two reverts which is below the limit of 3. You also wrote: I read the 3 RR page before posting this.. So this can't just be a newbie mistake. So much for getting any appreciation from you for my efforts to explain these rules to you. But it is ok. I am not expecting any thanks from you. However stop the silly insinuations of not accommodating you as a newbie. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll chime in one more time, and then this discussion needs to come to a close. The date of issuance of her passport is useless information. It supports nothing of value to the article. If the intent is to show when she was naturalized as an American citizen, it doesn't do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's time to end this; both of you make good points on the passport are good and I accept them; I won't make edits regarding that. Thank you both for the helpful info; I've bookmarked all of the links provided! Best wishes.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Order of "Professions"

Given that Orly Taitz is significantly better known for being a Birther than for being a Dentist, perhaps a reordering of the professions in the first sentence might be reasonable. I appreciate that it is probably easier to phrase with the Birther last because it has an explanatory clause, but I think the fact that she is not really notable for any of the other jobs would override that. In fact, I would submit that running for two state wide offices in California would be more notable than being a dentist in that regard.Naraht (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)