Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tax protester constitutional arguments/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:25, 7 March 2008.

[edit] Tax protester constitutional arguments

Check external links

Self-nominator - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the criteria. Currently a GA and rated an A-class on the Taxation WikiProject, this article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. It has had two peer-reviews and follows the style guidelines. The article is long (67k of readable prose) but I feel the length is appropriate for the scope of the topic and justifies the added reading time. The lead is the proper length for an article of this size and the TOC, while long, seems to be appropriate. All images are free and have acceptable captions for the topic. We'll work to address comments, suggestions, and any FA requirements that arise during the process. I appreciate the review. Morphh ^(talk) 17:41, 03 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Way way too long, and almost entirely original research--the references go to the cases and the code, but not to protesters actually using these primary sources to make their arguments. For example, "Some tax protesters have cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Stratton's Independence, Limited v. Howbert[65] for the argument that an income tax on an individual's income is unconstitutional." The [65] goes to the case itself, not any tax protester using it as support. The entire article is like this. Mangostar (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See comment below - added References Morphh ^(talk) 14:18, 04 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Mangostar. I can definitely see how much hard work went into this article. It's good that you quote from the cases, but you also need references that those cases and those quotes are actually used by tax protesters. You might want to review Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Renata (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See comment below - added References Morphh ^(talk) 14:18, 04 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - There are a number of sources available which confirm that these arguments are, in fact, used by tax protesters, and perhaps we should reference these sources. They include the IRS report on "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments", the Anti Defamation League handbook of "Idiot Legal Arguments", the Quatloos sections on Tax Protesters, and of course Dan Evans' "Tax Protester FAQ". I've also come across a few law review articles with good coverage of some specific arguments, including Danshera Cords, Tax Protestors and Penalties: Ensuring Perceived Fairness and Mitigating Systemic Costs, 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 1515 (2005); Kenneth H. Ryesky, Of Taxes and Duties: Taxing the System with Public Employees' Tax Obligations, 31 Akron L. Rev. 349 (1998); and Christopher S. Jackson, The Inane Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering Unto Caesar - Whatever His Demands, 32 Gonz. L. Rev. 291 (1997). Cheers! bd2412 T 08:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added all these as References, which should cover pretty much every tax protester argument in the article. We can then start adding them as footnotes as needed but this should satisfy the above concerns. Morphh ^(talk) 14:18, 04 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The title of the article should have "United States" in it somewhere Bluap (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've considered this as well. If we have others that concur, I'll make the move. It has been discussed and I think the thought was that the title only applied to the U.S., since the term tax protestor as used is predominantly U.S. and particularly when applied as an argument regarding constitutionality. Morphh ^(talk) 14:49, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. (Disclosure: I wrote a significant part of this article.) Regarding the comments by editors Mangostar and Renata, I have also thought about the point that we should have sourcing to texts where the tax protesters themselves have cited a particular case. That can certainly be done -- with the understanding that citing to a particular tax protester web site is being done only for that specific purpose. Regarding the separate point on "original research," I respectfully disagree. This article has virtually no original research in it, as that term is used in Wikipedia. What this article does have is plenty of citations to primary sources. In a legal subject of this type, the preponderance of primary sourcing versus secondary and tertiary sourcing is going to be more likely, and perhaps more appropriate, than in other areas of Wikipedia. "Original Research" as the term is used in Wikipedia relates to doing things such as taking statement A from source A and statement B from source B and having the Wikipedia editor reach his or her own novel conclusion C - a conclusion not reached by source A or B. By contrast, the extensive use of primary sourcing in a Wikipedia article is not "original research", per se. The proper test is: Does the primary source material actually stand for the proposition that is stated in the article? In the case of this article, every single statement that cites a primary source (e.g., a court decision) is an accurate quote (or paraphrase) of the holding, etc., in that particular case. That is not original research. That is source-based research, and that is what Wikipedia is about. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the cases do not support the propositions stated. (E.g. Limited v. Howbert does not support the proposition that "Some tax protesters have cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Stratton's Independence, Limited v. Howbert[65] for the argument that an income tax on an individual's income is unconstitutional.") If this article is cleaned up to reference actual times tax protesters have used these arguments (which I believe is possible and looks as though it is in progress), I'll reconsider my oppose. Mangostar (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mangostar, I added a reference section that should cover this throughout the article. Is this acceptable for the moment or do you require footnotes? Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 16:27, 04 March 2008 (UTC)

• I guess the original research (OR) comment came about because I linked to WP:OR page. Well, I never actually said the article is OR. I linked to the page only because that's the only place that I know that talks about primary vs secondary vs tertiary sources. And the prime reason for my oppose is over-reliance on primary sources (which is so common in law) when preference on Wikipedia is to go by secondary sources. BD2412 found some good secondary sources and those should be converted to footnotes to meet FA requirements. Renata (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Renata3: Point well taken. Tonight I will be looking to add some more secondary source material. By the way, part of the reason there is so much reliance on primary sources in law-related articles may be just the nature of law. "Primary source" in Wikipedia parlance is roughly analogous to Primary authority as that term is used in law, especially in U.S. law, while secondary and tertiary sources (in Wikipedia) are both roughly analogous to the residual catch-all category of Secondary authority in the legal world. In legal publications, "Primary Authority" is of course your first choice over Secondary Authority, everything else being equal. So, lawyers who edit here may have the tendency to treat primary sources and secondary sources (the Wikipedia concepts) the way they treat Primary Authority and Secondary Authority (in the legal world). In Wikipedia, of course, I realize that the rule is the opposite: Secondary sourcing is preferred over primary sourcing. Therefore, I need to dig harder for secondary sourcing. Thanks, Famspear (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, part 2. I see what editor Mangostar is saying. Citing to Stratton's Independence itself does not support the statement that the tax protesters themselves have cited that case -- good point. Along this line, I would like to clarify that there are, in a sense, two kinds of citations to court cases in the article. One kind -- the kind mentioned by editors Mangostar and/or Renata, are cases like Stratton's Independence and Evans v. Gore and Coppage v. Kansas. These are old U.S. Supreme Court cases --usually pre-1945 -- that were not "tax protester" cases themselves - they are just old cases that tax protesters began citing when the tax protester movement really took off. These are the cases I believe editors Mangostar and Renata are talking about when they say that we need to provide sourcing that shows the protesters are citing a case for "argument X," etc. Instead of citing to the case itself on that point, we need to cite to a place that supports the statement that the tax protesters have cited that case, etc. By contrast, the second kind of case is exemplified by Parker and Perkins in the section on taxation of wages. These -- generally the post-1945 cases -- are the cases where tax protesters actually were the litigants. By definition, the citations to the cases where tax protesters were the litigants (i.e., where tax protester arguments were raised and rejected) do support the assertion that the tax protesters made the arguments they raised in those cases, and that those arguments were rejected by the court (also, in many or most of these cases the judge either uses the term "tax protester" to describe the litigant or uses the term "frivolous" to describe the litigant's argument -- right in the text of the decision). If I am understanding editors Mangostar and Renata correctly, the need for further citation applies to the first category -- places where protesters are citing the old, pre-1945 cases, but were not actually the litigants in those cases. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Famspear that cases in which tax protesters actually raise these issues (including cases in which they raise prior cases) should be considered very strong support for those contentions. However, I would add that the secondary sources I cited above are also very good for these contentions. For example, the Jackson article published in the Gonzaga Law Review states that "Protesters argue that requiring a person to file and sign a return under penalty of perjury violates the Fifth Amendment because it forces protesters to witness against themselves" (p. 308); that "Protesters contend that paying taxes is a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment" (p. 310), and that "Many protesters contend that they are not citizens of the United States but rather are one of the following: (1) freeborn, natural individuals; (2) citizens of State X; or (3) nonresident aliens. As a result, protesters claim they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' tax laws" (p. 310-311). bd2412 T 17:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• In addition to the articles mentioned by editor BD2412, I believe I can find specific examples in the texts of numerous court decisions rendered in the "modern era" (say in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, etc.), where a tax protester specifically cited Stratton's Independence or Lucas v. Earl or Coppage or some other pre-1945 cases (as described above). So, I think we can find and add both primary sources (e.g., actual texts of court cases) and secondary sources (e.g., the law review articles noted by editor BD2412) to address the points raised by editors Mangostar and Renata), if desired. I will try to begin work on this by tonight. Famspear (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Moved long list of citations to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I will try to add some more secondary sourcing this weekend. Famspear (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - it's length is definitely a problem but other than that the article kind of has a pervading "pay your taxes or else be convicted" type of message, and POV, that I don't really believe should be the fundamental point of the article. The reason I believe this to be true, is that many tax protesters do knowingly risk conviction and incarceration to battle against what they would deem as a miscarriage of justice, IMHO. I believe that is that main issue and purpose of protesters in general and should be better represented in this wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkygravity (talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.