Talk:Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Portal

This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.

This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-priority on the Project's priority scale.

	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] RFC on Saturday Evening Post source

Please stop with all the RFC, Cabal, Mediation stuff... You barely even discussed it here. It is bad faith to have the second post here as one for an RFC. Now, as for the article... Restore Liberty is not a valid source but I do think that the Saturday Evening Post is and it can be verified for $25 (cost to receive the back issue). Searches on the web show the Income tax article in that issue of the Magazine, so it is likely that the Restore liberty site does have a recreation (although probably violating copyright in doing so). So, don't link the the website - just use a magazine ref and leave it at that. Try using the {{Cite journal}} template. Morphh ^(talk) 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Do you really think that other editors can't see what you're doing? You are not linking to the "Saturday Evening Post" at all. You are linking to something called "restoreliberty.com" and calling it the "Saturday Evening Post." As editor Morphh has stated, the Saturday Evening Post itself would probably be a reliable source. Therefore, if you want to cite the Saturday Evening Post, then cite to that -- and not with a link to "restoreliberty.com" without the proper qualifying language. I am not going to hold your hand on this one, at least not yet. Read the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, and especially on how to cite to sources. I think you should make the effort to find and understand the relevant rules without other editors having to copy and paste them here on this talk page for you. Yours, Famspear 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A source is not unreliable merely because you disagree with some of the assertions made on a web site. The restoreliberty source is the only place on the web that has posted the 1913 article, and it should remain in this article for easy access. The Benton McMillin article is particularly useful because it describes the legislative history of the origin of the income tax, and it was written by the legislator who introduced the income tax bill in 1894.

The dispute resolutions mechanisms of Wikipedia exist to achieve consensus. Please assume good faith on the prt of other editors. Mpublius 17:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, they exist as a mechanism to achieve consensus, not a bludgeon to beat other editors over the head with forum shopping when WP:CONSENSUS is against you.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources subject to (and not yet in compliance with) restraining orders for posting fraudulent information should not be considered reliable sources. This may not be in our guidelines, but it reflects common sense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mpublius, Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I don't think restoreliberty qualifies, but I don't see what the issue is. The direct source of the Saturday Evening Post should be sufficient for the statement. If a reader wants to try and find the article on the web, they can search for it and likely find RestoreLiberty but we should not link to it here as a reliable source. Morphh ^(talk) 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: With all due respect, the mere fact (if it is a fact) that "restoreliberty.com" is the only place on the web that has posted the material does not make "restoreliberty.com" a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia. And why are you saying that a source is not unreliable merely because I, Famspear, disagree with some of its assertions? That is not the issue here. The rule is:

Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged; see WP:SPS for details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources (emphasis added).

I don't know who the restoreliberty people are, but it doesn't appear to be a self-published book, personal web site, or blog. It appears to be a group of people with a minority religious viewpoint. Do you have any proof that the source is unreliable? If you read the article, it is obvious that Benton McMillin is the only person who could have written it, since he is the only person with such knowledge of the legislative history of the income tax and the Sixteenth Amendment. I don't have access to 100 year old articles from the Saturday Evening Post, and very few other people have such access, which is why the restoreliberty people posted the article on their site. The legislative history of the Sixteenth Amendment should not be suppressed merely because Benton McMillin or restoreliberty has a different political or religious viewpoint than some Wikipedia editors. Mpublius 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me to be a personal web site. I may be wrong about there being an injunction against them, as was reported by other editors, as I can't find a source for it—but I would hope that the United States Department of Justice is seeking such an injunction, as some of the pages could certainly be interpreted in no other way than as an incitement to commit criminal acts. As such, they might marginally be used as a sub-reference, but the citation in the article should be to the actual article, with the web page possibly be used within the citation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare notes. You have previously been on a crusade to delete sourcing in the article on Tom Cryer with respect to a legal definition of "tax protester" as given by Daniel B. Evans, a Philadelphia tax lawyer and a recognized tax law commentator -- whose work is published by, among other things, the American Bar Association (see, e.g., [1]) and who has been cited in the New York Times (see, e.g., [2] -- and yet you contend that citing a source and providing a link to "restoreliberty.com" is just fine? Just look at the restoreliberty.com web site, Mpublius. Does this look like a reliable source to you? Do you think any reputable encyclopedia would use this as a source? Who published the material in "restoreliberty"? What is the individual's name? Is the individual an "established expert" in legal matters? Is the individual recognized as an expert at anything? As recognized by whom? Famspear 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: Minor clarification: I think that just as much (or even more) of the Mpublius crusade against the Daniel B. Evans legal material may be found at the article Tax protester as is found at the Tom Cryer article. Mpublius has been fighting the Evans material in both places. Famspear 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the issue under discussion. This discussion page is already too long, and Wikipedia policy requires that you assume good faith. Mpublius 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Mpublius, why don't you just add the citation as I described above. You don't have to buy the magazine. I don't know that anyone is in dispute with the content of the article. The dispute is with the website being used as a reference for the real article. Use the real article as the source {{cite journal}}. Morphh ^(talk) 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Like this... <ref name="mcmillan">{{cite journal |last=McMillan |first=Benton |date=[[1913-05-17]] |title=The Income Tax |journal=The Saturday Evening Post |volume=185 |issue=46 |pages=6-7 | url=http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/resources/magazine/archives.shtml }}</ref>, which would produce this as a reference... McMillan, Benton (1913-05-17). "The Income Tax". The Saturday Evening Post 185 (46): 6-7. Morphh ^(talk) 23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that very few people have access to a magazine article that is 100 years old. Even people with access to a university library will probably not have access. And even if they do have access, it is very inconvenient compared to a cite on the web. There is no good reason to suppress the restoreliberty cite. Some people might use your suggestion to create search terms for a search engine and thereby find the article, but most people will assume that it is unavailable on the web. Mpublius 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter that people may not have easy access to the magazine, which can be purchased for $25 online? Are you trying to source the statement or direct people to the website? The first can be done without issue, the second has created this debate. I've added a url to the source above that can be used to purchase the article. Morphh ^(talk) 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has as much time and money as you, and to force them to pay $25 for an article with an expired copyright is unacceptable. Wikipedia is for everyone, not merely a rich man's resource. The Internet was invented to enable information to enable greater access to information. Mpublius 17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is getting a bit absurd. Wikipedia should change its rules and consider, as a reliable source for legal materials, a web site like restoreliberty -- that not only is not fact checked or peer reviewed, but doesn't even seem to have a disclosed author's name in it -- merely because it's somehow unfair to "force" people to pay $25 for an article "with an expired copyright"???? Who says anybody has to go out and buy the article? Has anyone ever heard of the local public library?

Are free, hard copy sources at public libraries suddenly somehow obsolete? The fact that the Internet was invented to enable information should somehow override the requirement for reliable sources in an online encyclopedia?

Under this line of reasoning, since most people do not have ready, free access to verbatim copies of most court decisions on Federal taxation, why not simply forget about citing to authoritative copies, and just use free internet tax protester web sites as sources for texts?

We know where that would get us. We have already experienced that problem. We have exposed fake quotations from tax protester web sites -- quotes that were in some cases inserted into Wikipedia.

The rule on reliable sources is there for a reason, and it is a good rule, in my view. Just cite the Saturday Evening Post, like we would do in other similar situations in Wikipedia. I go with editor Morphh on this. Yours, Famspear 17:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that Wikipedia change the rules. The restoreliberty site does not violate any rules. It is not necessary for a site to be a peer reviewed journal - the Wikipedia philosophy is the exact opposite of elitism. It merely needs to be reliable, which it is in this case. I wish someone neutral would participate is this discussion. An RFC is worthless when the only people responding are the participants in the dispute. Mpublius 17:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The cite needs to be to the Saturday Evening Post, with the URL being considered secondary (or removed entirely, if the claim made earlier that restoreliberty.com is under court orders to remove fraudulent material from the site.) Give volume, issue, date, and page number, and then we'll talk about the URL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be very easy for anyone to find out who the restoreliberty.com people are. At the bottom of the page there’s an email link. All you have to do is click on it. Then you could have asked me any relevant questions. My name is Adrian Banks, and I ran for U.S. Congress in my district in S.C. back in the year 2000. The web site has never been censored by court order. Also, you can easily get the name and address of web site domain owners by doing a simple web search. All this squabble about not wanting to link to the Benton McMillin Saturday Evening Post article from the May 17, 1913 issue is a bunch of nonsense. I, and I alone, am responsible for the content of restoreliberty.com. Every bite of data on the site was typed and uplaoded by me. I have spent many years doing legal and historical research, and to deny to the people the ability to read Mr. McMillin’s article has nothing to do with whether or not the source is reliable. I found the article while doing research at the Denver Public Library over 10 years ago. I have binders of many articles and editorials that I copied while doing my research. I have studied many supreme court cases also. The majority of the people who are making the decisions as to the content of Wikipedia obviously don’t want people reading what’s on my web site. If all the web site did was have the “Income Tax” article and a few other old articles, there would probably be no problem at all. There is no copyright infringement as long as the authors have been dead for over 50 years. The real issue is the truth, and whether we let it shine or put a bowl over it. Sincerely, Adrian Banks, owner and author of restoreliberty.com.

“Of all powers, the last to be entrusted to the multitude of men is that of determining what questions shall be discussed. The greatest truths are often the most unpopular and exasperating; and were they to be denied discussion, till the many should be ready to accept them, they would never establish themselves in the general mind. The progress of society depends on nothing more than on the exposure of time-sanctioned abuses, which cannot be touched without offending the multitudes, than on the promulgation of principles, which are in advance of public sentiment and practice and which are consequently at war with the habits, prejudices, and immediate interests of large classes of the community. Of consequence, the multitude, if once allowed to dictate or proscribe subjects of discussion, would strike society with spiritual blindness and death. The world is to be carried forward by truth, which at first offends, which wins its way by degrees, which the many hate, and would rejoice to crush. The right of free discussion is, therefore, to be guarded by the friends of mankind with peculiar jealousy. It is at once the most sacred and most endangered of all our rights. He who would rob his neighbor of it should have a mark set on him as the worst enemy of freedom.” William Channing, taken from “The Abolitionist,” 1836. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restoreliberty (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear user Restoreliberty: Thank you for your comments. Although you may feel that the above discussion contains a bunch of "nonsense," you may want to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly those on "verifiability," "neutral point of view," and "no original research" -- and, in your case, perhaps "conflicts of interest."

I think your comments highlight the problem. You state that it:

"would be very easy for anyone to find out who the restoreliberty.com people are. At the bottom of the page there’s an email link. All you have to do is click on it. Then you could have asked me any relevant questions. My name is [ . . . ]. The web site has never been censored by court order. Also, you can easily get the name and address of web site domain owners by doing a simple web search."

When a user inserts material into Wikipedia, the burden is on that user to demonstrate to Wikipedia editors that the material should remain there. No Wikipedia editor who challenges the material is under some sort of obligation to "click on an email link" on what appears to be an anonymous web site, to try to find the name of the person running the site. Neither are Wikipedia editors under some sort of obligation to do "simple web searches" to obtain the names and addresses of web site domain owners, in an effort to track down the identity of the operator of a particular web page.

Even if your restoreliberty.com web site were not anonymous, there is a separate problem. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines require that we source to previously, published, reliable third party sources. You are indicating that you yourself are the operator of the web site restoreliberty.com. In general, many Wikipedia editors would not accept a user citing to a web site that the user himself operates.

Also, on a separate point about your edit to the article: Wikipedia itself cannot take the position that "Benton McMillin" somehow had the correct information on the Sixteenth Amendment. (Another editor reverted your commentary on that point.)

Further, this is an encyclopedia article about a legal topic. The legally correct interpretation on a given legal point (at least in the case of U.S. law where courts have actually ruled on that point) is determined by what the courts have ruled, not what "Benton McMillin" thinks (or thought). Yes, secondary sources are also desired for the article, but all the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No Original Research continue to apply. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Vaultdoor

Effectively, you are claiming that just because later courts have interpreted a law in a particular way, all other POV's should be censored and prevented from presenting verifiable documentation. True, while the law as enforced is based upon contemporary judicial prejudice and government convenience, this can change. "Original intent" and legislative history are very important, if only for perspective. The Post article appears authentic and can be verified. Why should the poster run the risk of being throughly discredited if it is proved to be wrong? If this is such an issue with you, spend the $25 and prove him wrong. I join the emerging concensus here that say to leave it in, whatever the personal prjudices of some editors. Deleating it is a clear violation of NPOV.Vaultdoor (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional commentary by Vaultdoor regarding Famspear comment

Famspear comment, per above: Even if your restoreliberty.com web site were not anonymous, there is a separate problem. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines require that we source to previously, published, reliable third party sources. You are indicating that you yourself are the operator of the web site restoreliberty.com. In general, many Wikipedia editors would not accept a user citing to a web site that the user himself operates.

Vaultdoor: Straw argument. This is not what NOR is intended to cover. You confute (deliberately or not) Wikipedia's prohibition on self-published "original research" published on (e.g.) a website with perfectly-OK material (in this case, a magazine article) posted on website. A Saturday Evening Post article is clearly not "original research".Vaultdoor (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Famspear

Dear user Vaultdoor: This was the edit by user Restoreliberty:

To understand the congressional intent behind the Sixteenth Amendment, read Benton McMillin’s May 17, 1913 Saturday Evening Post article entitled “The Income Tax.”

See [3]

The edit was removed by editor SMP0328 here: [4].

I cannot speak for editor SMP0328 as to his/her reason for removing the material, but I agreed with the removal. First, the statement itself was tantamount to a statement by Wikipedia that the McMillin article itself accurately reflects the original intent of the Congress. Wikipedia itself cannot say that. Second, the link was to the restoreliberty website, which is not a reliable source.

Neither I nor editor SMP0328 has referred to the McMillin article itself as somehow being “original research.” I made the point above that user Restoreliberty should review the Wikipedia rules on original research (as well as the rules on verifiability and neutral point of view). User Restoreliberty was attempting to change the Wikipedia article itself to virtually say, essentially, that the views expressed by McMillin in the article represent the original intent of the Congress (in other words, the Congress as a whole) with respect to the Sixteenth Amendment. That may well be true, or it may not be true. But Wikipedia itself cannot say that.

I am not claiming that “just because later courts have interpreted a law in a particular way, all other POV’s should be censored.” Please re-read the purported McMillin article. Please re-read the actual words of the Restoreliberty edit -- the edit that was removed. And re-read the comments by me and other editors above.

Again, there might be nothing wrong with citing to the McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post. Unfortunately, that is not what users Restoreliberty and Mpublius were trying to do. Instead, they were trying to cite to the restoreliberty web site, which is a not a reliable source as explained above.

Again, getting back to the other point: Wikipedia itself cannot take the position, in a Wikipedia article, that Benton McMillin’s position represents the “original intent" of the Congress, any more than Wikipedia itself could take the position that the congressional committee reports accompanying a particular statute represent, as legislative history, the “original intent” of the Congress in enacting that statute. (It may well BE THE ORIGINAL INTENT, but that is not for us as Wikipedia editors to say.) For this reason, the above-quoted verbiage by user Restoreliberty is in my view prohibited original research.

Your statement that “while the law as enforced is based upon contemporary judicial prejudice and government convenience, this can change” is illuminating – but perhaps not in the way you intended. It is an incorrect statement. The law as enforced (or, at least the case law on the Sixteenth Amendment, which is what this is about) is not based on “contemporary judicial prejudice.” For more information on this, you may want to read or re-read the history of the 1895 Pollock case (pre-Sixteenth Amendment) and the 1916 Brushaber case (post-Sixteenth Amendment) and the other court cases on the Sixteenth Amendment down through the years.

Please refrain from assuming that because other editors have done something with which you disagree, it must be because of some “personal prejudice” on the part of other editors.

By the way, you may want to carefully read (or re-read) the purported text of the McMillin article at the restoreliberty web site. Assuming that this is a valid, verbatim reprint (and I don't know whether it is or not), ask yourself what McMillin is saying. Then ask yourself what it is that you erroneously think other editors are trying to “censor”.

A separate point: I urge you to avoid rhetoric that makes it appear that you believe that Wikipedia editors are trying to "censor" information. Also, avoid rhetoric that makes it appear that you believe other editors' actions are based on "prejudices." Focus on the material itself, and assume good faith with respect to other editors. That's a Wikipedia rule. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saturday evening post article--splitting commentary

Famspear: Further, this is an encyclopedia article about a legal topic. The legally correct interpretation on a given legal point (at least in the case of U.S. law where courts have actually ruled on that point) is determined by what the courts have ruled, not what "Benton McMillin" thinks (or thought). Yes, secondary sources are also desired for the article, but all the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No Original Research continue to apply. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Vaultdoor: Effectively, you are claiming that just because later courts have interpreted a law in a particular way, all other POV's should be censored and prevented from presenting verifiable documentation. True, while the law as enforced is based upon contemporary judicial prejudice and government convenience, this can change. "Original intent" and legislative history are very important, if only for perspective. The Post article appears authentic and can be verified. Why should the poster run the risk of being throughly discredited if it is proved to be wrong? If this is such an issue with you, spend the $25 and prove him wrong. I join the emerging concensus here that say to leave it in, whatever the personal prjudices of some editors. Deleating it is a clear violation of NPOV.Vaultdoor (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear: Dear user Vaultdoor: This was the edit by user Restoreliberty:

To understand the congressional intent behind the Sixteenth Amendment, read Benton McMillin’s May 17, 1913 Saturday Evening Post article entitled “The Income Tax.”

See [5]

The edit was removed by editor SMP0328 here: [6].

Response by Vaultdoor: Er, the link goes directly to the Saturday Evening Post article, which we can reasonably assume is a reasonable reflection of at least some contemporary opinion. Whether restoreliberty.com is a credible website or not is irrelevant. The article meets the criteria of NOR and verifiabliity. Remember, it is this, not whether the source is "right" or not that makes it legitimate as a reference.

Famspear: Neither I nor editor SMP0328 has referred to the McMillin article itself as somehow being “original research.” I made the point above that user Restoreliberty should review the Wikipedia rules on original research (as well as the rules on verifiability and neutral point of view). User Restoreliberty was attempting to change the Wikipedia article itself to virtually say, essentially, that the views expressed by McMillin in the article represent the original intent of the Congress (in other words, the Congress as a whole) with respect to the Sixteenth Amendment. That may well be true, or it may not be true. But Wikipedia itself cannot say that.

Response by Vaultdoor: All of which is irrelevant, because the link goes directly to the article itself. Unless you assert that the editor somehow faked the article, naturally, hic looks unlikely. It is true that for NPOV the wording might better be changed to "Here is a Saturday Evening Post article reflecting the contentious contemporary views on the amendment". But that is what editors are for. It is simply outrageous and a clear violation of NPOV to censor such a site.

Famspear: I am not claiming that “just because later courts have interpreted a law in a particular way, all other POV’s should be censored.” Please re-read the purported McMillin article. Please re-read the actual words of the Restoreliberty edit -- the edit that was removed. And re-read the comments by me and other editors above.

Response by Vaultdoor: Reliable or not. It does not matter. The link was directly to the Saturday Evening Post article. You may object to the fact that the article supports the opinions given elsewhere on the website. But that is irrelevant to whether it is a legitimate reference.

Famspear: Again, getting back to the other point: Wikipedia itself cannot take the position, in a Wikipedia article, that Benton McMillin’s position represents the “original intent" of the Congress, any more than Wikipedia itself could take the position that the congressional committee reports accompanying a particular statute represent, as legislative history, the “original intent” of the Congress in enacting that statute. (It may well BE THE ORIGINAL INTENT, but that is not for us as Wikipedia editors to say.) For this reason, the above-quoted verbiage by user Restoreliberty is in my view prohibited original research.

Response by Vaultdoor: Then edit the text to reflect this. But do not remove the cite. Unfortunately, it looks like you-all are attempting to censor inconvenience evidence that disagrees with your POV. To me, the cite looks like a reflection of one side of the contemporary arguement around the passage of the 16th amendment. It can be labled as such. But the expressed POV is documentably part of the history, like it or not.

Famspear: Your statement that “while the law as enforced is based upon contemporary judicial prejudice and government convenience, this can change” is illuminating – but perhaps not in the way you intended. It is an incorrect statement. The law as enforced (or, at least the case law on the Sixteenth Amendment, which is what this is about) is not based on “contemporary judicial prejudice.” For more information on this, you may want to read or re-read the history of the 1895 Pollock case (pre-Sixteenth Amendment) and the 1916 Brushaber case (post-Sixteenth Amendment) and the other court cases on the Sixteenth Amendment down through the years.

Please refrain from assuming that because other editors have done something with which you disagree, it must be because of some “personal prejudice” on the part of other editors.

Response by Vaultdoor: My mistake. An editor posts a reputable source that meets all the usual and customary criteria and you-all remove the cite. And then make spurious straw arguements that because the website itself may be "unreliable", the cite is itself "unreliable", even though it is an original source. Pardon me for feeling you may be violating NPOV.Vaultdoor (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear: By the way, you may want to carefully read (or re-read) the purported text of the McMillin article at the restoreliberty web site. Assuming that this is a valid, verbatim reprint (and I don't know whether it is or not), ask yourself what McMillin is saying. Then ask yourself what it is that you erroneously think other editors are trying to “censor”.

Response by Vaultdoor: If you-all are going to censor what appears to be an original source, then you should have better reasons than mere assertions of "unreliability", a violation of the "assume good faith" rule if I ever saw one.Vaultdoor (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famspear response

Dear Vaultdoor: If you really want the Wikipedia article to cite the Benton McMillin Saturday Evening Post article, then why not simply cite directly to the Saturday Evening Post, as I and other editors have suggested? Why are you arguing in favor of getting a link into the restoreliberty.com web site inserted into Wikipedia?

I’m not sure, but based on your comments, I am wondering whether you feel that the McMillin article somehow contradicts the court decisions on the Sixteenth Amendment, and that you feel that the McMillin article is important for that reason. Have you actually read the reprint of the McMillin article at restoreliberty.com? (Let’s assume for a moment that it is an accurate verbatim reprint of the real Saturday Evening Post article.) Can you clarify what your position is, exactly? Can you quote a specific example of language in the reprint of the McMillin article that you feel is important (again, assuming it’s an accurate reprint)? And if the McMillin article is so important, then why not simply paraphrase (or even quote from) the important information in the Post article, and cite directly to the Post – without the restoreliberty.com link? Why the repeated argument about wanting to bring restoreliberty.com link into this?

Why do you say that the link goes directly to the article itself, when it does not? Anyone can see that the link goes not to the Saturday Evening Post, but instead to the purported REPRINT of the article at the restoreliberty.com web site. Again, I sense that you feel it is urgent that a restoreliberty.com link be placed in the Wikipedia article.

Indeed, you are now down to the point of making statements like “reliable or not it does not matter” with respect to the restoreliberty.com web site. Again, if this is really about the McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post, then why the insistence that restoreliberty.com be a part of this? Are you going to re-submit the already rejected argument that a copy of the actual Saturday Evening Post article is somehow too difficult or too costly to obtain (an argument made by another user; see above), and that we should therefore waive the Wikipedia rule on reliable sources?

Regarding your statement: “You may object to the fact that the article supports the opinions given elsewhere on the website” – Please ask yourself: What in the world are you trying to say here? The McMillin article supports WHAT opinions given elsewhere in the web site? Ask yourself: What exactly are those “opinions” to which you are referring, and why do you believe Wikipedia editors would object to the supposed “fact” that the article somehow “supports” those opinions?

A “reputable source”?? Come on now. The Saturday Evening Post is a reputable source. Also, the Post was founded before I was born. A long time ago.

By contrast, “restoreliberty.com” is an anonymous internet web site. Does restoreliberty.com even HAVE a “reputation”? And what is its “reputation”? On its anonymous status, however, see the recent posting by editor Restoreliberty, above. The web site is slightly less anonymous as it used to be. The editor now gives his real name, and he asserts that restoreliberty.com is his web site. So the question becomes: What are HIS qualifications, how is HIS material on his web site being fact-checked? And, does the fact that he has posted his name on a Wikipedia talk page change the fact that his web site is still technically anonymous?

Regarding your comment about “original source”: The mere fact that a source is an “original source” does not mean that the source is reliable for purposes of Wikipedia. And as already noted over and over, restoreliberty.com is not the “original source” for a Saturday Evening Post article by Benton McMillin from the year 1913. Come on now.

You are now incorrectly contending that I (Famspear) am making the argument that because the website itself (restoreliberty.com) may be unreliable, the cite (i.e., the citation) itself is unreliable. No. What I am saying is that you should cite the Saturday Evening Post if that is what you really want to do – and not cite restoreliberty.com, and certainly not add a link to restoreliberty.com.

Now, let’s look at this statement by you:

Remember, it is this, not whether the source is "right" or not that makes it legitimate as a reference.

No, I don’t need to “remember” that. I already know that. You see, I am not the one making the argument that the Benton McMillin article is wrong. I am not the one making the argument that the “rightness” of the source makes it legitimate as a reference. And I am not making the argument that the Benton McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post is not a reliable source. Indeed, I don’t remember ANY editors making those arguments here. Indeed, I and at least one other editor have said that if someone wants to use the Post article, he or she should do just that – AND CITE THE POST, not “restoreliberty.com”

Now, let’s look at this statement by you:

If you-all [Wikipedia editors] are going to censor what appears to be an original source, then you should have better reasons than mere assertions of "unreliability", a violation of the "assume good faith" rule if I ever saw one.

No, that is incorrect. First, restoreliberty.com is not an original source (see discussion above). Second, when a Wikipedia editor questions the reliability of a web site (restoreliberty.com), that does not mean that the editor is violating the Wikipedia rule that requires each editor to assume good faith.

The rule requiring editors to assume good faith essentially means that each editor should assume that the other editor with whom he is dealing is acting in good faith. I am not the one arguing that someone is trying to engage in “censorship." I am not the one arguing that the “personal prejudices” of Wikipedia editors are somehow preventing something you want from being in the article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vaultdoor response

Famspear says: Dear Vaultdoor: If you really want the Wikipedia article to cite the Benton McMillin Saturday Evening Post article, then why not simply cite directly to the Saturday Evening Post, as I and other editors have suggested? Why are you arguing in favor of getting a link into the restoreliberty.com web site inserted into Wikipedia?

Vaultdoor says: If the Saturday Evening Post has the text, then link to their site.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: I’m not sure, but based on your comments, I am wondering whether you feel that the McMillin article somehow contradicts the court decisions on the Sixteenth Amendment, and that you feel that the McMillin article is important for that reason. Have you actually read the reprint of the McMillin article at restoreliberty.com? (Let’s assume for a moment that it is an accurate verbatim reprint of the real Saturday Evening Post article.) Can you clarify what your position is, exactly? Can you quote a specific example of language in the reprint of the McMillin article that you feel is important (again, assuming it’s an accurate reprint)? And if the McMillin article is so important, then why not simply paraphrase (or even quote from) the important information in the Post article, and cite directly to the Post – without the restoreliberty.com link? Why the repeated argument about wanting to bring restoreliberty.com link into this?

Vaultdoor says: Again, the link is important because it reflects contemporary opinion about the passage of the 16th amendment. History is important. Let the chip fall where they may.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Why do you say that the link goes directly to the article itself, when it does not? Anyone can see that the link goes not to the Saturday Evening Post, but instead to the purported REPRINT of the article at the restoreliberty.com web site. Again, I sense that you feel it is urgent that a restoreliberty.com link be placed in the Wikipedia article.

Vaultdoor says: Do you think that the reprint is somehow not authentic? If it is not, then it is a pretty good fake. It looks pretty good to me.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Indeed, you are now down to the point of making statements like “reliable or not it does not matter” with respect to the restoreliberty.com web site.

Vaultdoor says: Straw argument again. Clearly, I was referring to the Wikipedia rules for inclusion, which include verifiability and NOR, but not necesarily reliability, particularly for political issues, where opinions may vary.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Again, if this is really about the McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post, then why the insistence that restoreliberty.com be a part of this? Are you going to re-submit the already rejected argument that a copy of the actual Saturday Evening Post article is somehow too difficult or too costly to obtain (an argument made by another user; see above), and that we should therefore waive the Wikipedia rule on reliable sources?

Vaultdoor says: As a major media outlet, the Saturday Evening Post qualifies as "A reliable source", as much as any media source anyway.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Regarding your statement: “You may object to the fact that the article supports the opinions given elsewhere on the website” – Please ask yourself: What in the world are you trying to say here? The McMillin article supports WHAT opinions given elsewhere in the web site? Ask yourself: What exactly are those “opinions” to which you are referring, and why do you believe Wikipedia editors would object to the supposed “fact” that the article somehow “supports” those opinions?

A “reputable source”?? Come on now. The Saturday Evening Post is clearly a reliable source.

Also, the Post was founded before I was born. A long time ago. By contrast, “restoreliberty.com” is an anonymous internet web site. Does restoreliberty.com even HAVE a “reputation”? And what is its “reputation”? On its anonymous status, however, see the recent posting by editor Restoreliberty, above. The web site is slightly less anonymous as it used to be. The editor now gives his real name, and he asserts that restoreliberty.com is his web site. So the question becomes: What are HIS qualifications, how is HIS material on his web site being fact-checked? And, does the fact that he has posted his name on a Wikipedia talk page change the fact that his web site is still technically anonymous?

Vaultdoor says: Straw argument again. The restoreliberty.com website is merely hosting the SEP article.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Regarding your comment about “original source”: The mere fact that a source is an “original source” does not mean that the source is reliable for purposes of Wikipedia. And as already noted over and over, restoreliberty.com is not the “original source” for a Saturday Evening Post article by Benton McMillin from the year 1913. Come on now.

Vaultdoor says: As far as I can tell, the article is presented as such, no more , no less. Now, if you want to maintain the article is somehow faked, we can consider that issue separately.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: You are now incorrectly contending that I (Famspear) am making the argument that because the website itself (restoreliberty.com) may be unreliable, the cite (i.e., the citation) itself is unreliable. No. What I am saying is that you should cite the Saturday Evening Post if that is what you really want to do – and not cite restoreliberty.com, and certainly not add a link to restoreliberty.com.

Vaultdoor says: Why not? Your argument seems to be that the article is somehow polluted by being posted on this website. Tell you what, if you want to avoid giving a link to a page on restoreliberty.com, then put the article on your own website or on some other site.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Now, let’s look at this statement by you:

Remember, it is this, not whether the source is "right" or not that makes it legitimate as a reference.

Vaultdoor says: Fine, but only if the alternative source also has a copy of the Saturday Evening Post article, which seems otherwise difficult to get hold of.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Now, let’s look at this statement by you:

No, that is incorrect. First, restoreliberty.com is not an original source (see discussion above).

Vaultdoor says: Straw argument again. The original source is the SEP article, which just happens to be hosted on the restoreliberty.com site. The latter may be "reliable" or not. But here it just passively hosts the article.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Second, when a Wikipedia editor questions the reliability of a web site (restoreliberty.com), that does not mean that the editor is violating the Wikipedia rule that requires each editor to assume good faith.

Vaultdoor says: What am I to think? You seem determined to keep an original source from being linked to because of your personal ( and "original research" ) opinion that the site on which it happens to be hosted on is "unreliable". Again, the issue is not the reliability of the hosting website, but whether the hosted article meets the wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The only way it does not is if the article is a fake. Always possible, but this does appear to be unlikely.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famspear response

Vaultdoor says: If the Saturday Evening Post has the text, then link to their site.

Famspear responds: Excellent suggestion.

Vaultdoor says: Again, the link is important because it reflects contemporary opinion about the passage of the 16th amendment. History is important. Let the chip fall where they may.

Famspear response. No, the LINK is not important for that reason. The Saturday Evening Post article itself, however, might be important for that reason.

Vaultdoor says: Do you think that the reprint is somehow not authentic? If it is not, then it is a pretty good fake. It looks pretty good to me.

Famspear response: No, I don't know whether the reprint is either authentic or fake. I simply don't know. But I am suspecting that it is AUTHENTIC, or at least assuming that it is authentic for the sake of argument. Even assuming that the reprint is accurate, my argument is the same: Since restoreliberty.com is not a reliable source, I have no way of knowing whether the text of the McMillin Post article is accurate -- without looking at the actual Post article (or at a reprint in a website that IS considered reliable).

Perhaps some historical perspective is in order here: Wikipedia editors have had problems in the past with people copying and pasting material from other web sites -- web sites that claimed to be presenting verbatim "quotes", especially of court decisions, where it turned out that the quotes were fake (especially in the tax-law related area). For example: The fake quote claimed to have been a decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Lucas v. Earl. (The "quote" actually turned out to be the argument of the losing party in the case -- the argument that was rejected by the Court.) Even with web sites that aren't anonymous, we have found fake "quotations" that are supposedly from court decisions, where the "quotes" literally do not really exist. This is a particular problem in the area of tax-law, and there is always the danger that this kind of stuff will bleed over into Wikipedia articles on tax law. This is an intermittent battle: to keep fakery out of Wikipedia.

Again, I am ASSUMING that the quoted McMillin (Saturday Evening Post) material in restoreliberty.com is an ACCURATE quote - but that does not change the point that we need to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Therefore: Leave out the link and citation to restoreliberty.com, and find a better source for the Post article. The burden of persuading Wikipedia editors that a given link or citation or quote should be in Wikipedia is on the party trying to insert the link or the material, not on the rest of the Wikipedia community. That's the rule in Wikipedia. I didn't make the rule.

Vaultdoor says: As a major media outlet, the Saturday Evening Post qualifies as "A reliable source", as much as any media source anyway.

Famspear response: Ah, now you're agreeing with me! So, as I said before: Cite directly to the Saturday Evening Post, if that's what you want to do. Or, find a more RELIABLE web site that includes a RELIABLE reprint of the article. Don't confuse "accuracy" and "reliability." Accuracy alone is not enough. We need reliability. There is no compelling reason to cite to restoreliberty.com or to link to restoreliberty.com merely because that web site contains what purports to be a reprint of the article -- or merely because we can't seem to find another web site that does include a reprint.

Vaultdoor says: [ . . . ] The restoreliberty.com website is merely hosting the SEP article.

Famspear response: Bingo! And I am reiterating that restoreliberty.com is not a reliable source for that purpose. If you want to include something about the McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post, then leave the link to restoreliberty.com out, and simply cite to the Post.

Vaultdoor says: [ . . . ] Tell you what, if you want to avoid giving a link to a page on restoreliberty.com, then put the article on your own website or on some other site.

Famspear responds: Bingo! Actually, I don't have my own website, but I do think it would be very beneficial if I could get to a downtown library and obtain a copy of the actual Post article.

Famspear response: What are the rest of us to think? You keep referring to the restoreliberty.com link as being to an "original source" -- when clearly it is not.

And what in the world is so important in the text of the McMillin article? We don't know, because neither you nor the other one or two editors who are interested in McMillin have said. And "the issue" certainly IS the reliability of the hosting web site. That is PRECISELY the issue. I am so curious about the cryptic interest in this McMillin article in the Post that I am going to try to obtain a reliable reprint of the McMillin article. Since you and the one or two other editors who are pushing this article seem so reluctant to discuss the substance of the Post article itself, maybe I can push the process along. This may take a while, as I will have to go across town to a university or down town library. (I might have to make a few phone calls first, to see which library if any has a copy of the article.) Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The 1913 tax statute

I moved the relatively new reference to the 1913 statute down in the article, down to the end of the section on ratification. The 1913 statute only indirectly relates to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment (enactment of a statute is a separate process from ratification of a constitutional amendment). Also, the reference incorrectly stated that the 1913 Act was passed in "April" 1913. The Act was actually passed in October 1913. As stated in the cited article, April was when the Congressional session began. I also added a link to the Wikipedia article on the Act -- the Revenue Act of 1913. Famspear 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

A request has been made by a user (here) to change a reference format to {{cite journal}}. Of course, as this is the dispute, it is necessary to build up consensus for this change. Please comment below, if consensus is in support of changing the reference format (although not required) per WP:CIT, the change will be performed and the medation request closed. If consensus is against this, the mediation case will be left open and another resolution will be made in the near future by either myself, or another medaitor. Thank you for your co-operation

For the Mediation Cabal: Qst (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

If you support the change of the reference format, please leave comments here in the format of *'''Support'''. Comment here. ~~~~

Support change to cite format for readability. Uncertain whether the URL should be there at all, but needs to say "reprint" if it is. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

Please use the same format as above, but changing the fields as necessary.

Should include URL with 'reprint'. Mpublius 19:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Qst, I have not responded (and perhaps others) as the above assessment and thus the premise for achieving consensus is incorrect as I see it. This is discussed on the Mediation page. Mpublius did not request the cite journal, I did. The cite format is not the dispute and I believe consensus regarding using cite journal is already achieved. So to the poll above, I guess I support using the cite journal as I suggested it but that is not what the mediation is about. The mediation is if we should use the RestoreLiberty URL in the cite, since it is not needed to reference the material and links to an unreliable source. Concensus was not to include it, but Mpublius choose Mediation to try and overturn this consensus. The cite journal without the URL is perfectly fine for the purpose of Wikipedia sourcing requirements. It comes down to the reader having direct web access to the sourced material vs. Wikipedia policy on sources. The new addition in the Mediation was the option of using "reprint". Is adding the term "reprint" acceptable for linking to an unreliable source? Since the material is republished, is it acceptable, even though the website is very questionable? Morphh ^(talk) 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps adding "format=disputed reprint" may be adequate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with "format=reprint" or "format=disputed reprint" so long as it is acceptable to Wikipedia policy. I don't care to reach some compromised consensus that violates the policy, particularly when there is no real purpose in having the url to cite the material. I'm opposed to the url in the stance that it is an unreliable source. I think we've all agreed that it is an unreliable source. So the question is if using the "format=reprint" is acceptable inclusion under Wikipedia policy to use an unreliable source. Perhaps this needs to be a question posed to WP:V. If it violates the policy, then it should be removed. If it is acceptable to policy, then I'm fine with inclusion. Morphh ^(talk) 20:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've posted the question titled "Unreliable source reprints reliable source" to the Verifiability talk and Reliable sources noticeboard. Morphh ^(talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming here after reading the post on Reliable sources noticeboard to respond in more detail about this issue. Reliability seems to be just one of many attempts to find a justification for not including the link; the real issue seems to be whether or not we should give this particular site the implicit "approval" a site gets by being linked from Wikipedia. IMO, the consideration should be (1) whether the link complies with WP:EL (excepting the points regarding relevance to the article subject) and (2) whether there is any reasonable belief that this particular reprint is not an accurate reproduction.

However, since the article in question is in the public domain, I have a much better solution for this situation. Someone should just go ahead and pay the $25 (or otherwise obtain a verifiably-accurate copy of the original) and upload the thing to Wikisource. Anomie ⚔ 23:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about doing that myself. If I or another editor does that, however, we do not want to set that up as some sort of precedent; it would be a very bad precedent. The web site in question is indeed highly unreliable. Trying to justify a link to that website merely because the purpose of the link is to avail readers of the text of an article not otherwise readily available is pretty dubious in my personal opinion. I respectfully disagree with the implication, if there is an implication, that we as Wikipedia editors are under some sort of burden of proof to demonstrate a reason to believe that the reprint is accurate when the reprint comes from highly dubious -- indeed, anonymous -- source. To posit otherwise would be to turn the rule of Verifiability on its head. Essentially, we would be saying: "Here it is, the text is from an anonymous source pushing a point of view, now prove the text is not an accurate reprint." Indeed, to accept that argument would be a tacit invitation to any editor pushing a point of view to include links to wacky websites promulgated by anonymous authors that show "reprints" of articles -- and then to have that editor demand that the rest of the editors prove that the reprint is accurate. I don't think that is going to fly. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What would be a bad precedent, exactly? Uploading a public-domain article to Wikisource can't be it, that's a great precedent. Note I never said to upload the copy from this site of disputed accuracy; either pay the $25 to order an official reprint, copy a copy in a major library archive, or get it from another source everyone agrees is accurate.

I didn't say anyone is under an obligation to prove the reprint on that site is inaccurate; rather, the burden in the face of reasonable doubts is on those wanting to include it to prove that the reprint is accurate (just as a citation is required for material that is reasonably challenged; if we omit "reasonable" we end up with this). But there is no call for dragging WP:V and WP:RS into the matter, since the reliability of the source is not in question. The only question is whether a particular convenience link is appropriate, which IMO rests on WP:EL and whether there is reasonable doubt that the reprint is and will remain accurate. If the site is as bad as you say, #2 here would easily enough exclude the link if my opinion is followed. Anomie ⚔ 13:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point, I'm making assumptions that the reprint is valid, which I have no evidence of. Morphh ^(talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Other comments regarding this have been posted at Verifiability talk and Reliable sources noticeboard. Morphh ^(talk) 14:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: there is quite a bit of discussion with our issue at the Verifiability talk post. Morphh ^(talk) 14:34, 05 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicative tax protester material reduced

The section on tax protester arguments about the Sixteenth Amendment had become fairly large. I have deleted most of the material; repeating it here in this article seemed to defeat the purpose of having the separate article devoted to those kinds of arguments, as well as defeating the purpose of the link to the separate article. This is a chronic problem with "tax law" related Wikipedia articles, as they gradually grow to include tax protester material that is already covered (or which could be covered) in the numerous tax protester articles already devoted to the material: Tax protester, Tax protester history, Tax protester arguments, Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments, and Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment reminder

Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting of citation to "famguardian" web site

Dear editors: I reverted the good faith addition by editor SMP0328 of the citation to the "family guardian" website in this article. The textual statement is certainly correct, but the website in question ("famguardian") is a tax protester website that is in the process of being closed down by court order. Much of the material in that web site is fraudulent. I realize that SMP0328's addition of that source was made in good faith, and in fact I have seen the many good edits SMP0328 has been making to various tax-related articles.

I will try to locate a source for the statement in the article. Again, thanks to editor SMP0328 for all the help on these tax articles! Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about that website. If I had when I used it as a source, I wouldn't have used it. I have dated the cite tag to save the BOTs the trouble. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have found, and have added, a reference for the Interpretation section of the article (see Footnote #23). The source is from FindLaw. [7] --SMP0328. (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weird edits

An anonymous user at IP66.74.137.69 has been adding odd edits to this article. Contrary to the user's post, Ohio was not made a state ex post facto in 1953. Ohio was made a state in the year 1803. The resolution passed by Congress in 1953, Pub. L. 204, H.J. 121, did not retroactively make Ohio a state. Ohio was already a state.

The purpose of Pub. L. 204 was to settle an issue about the specific date on which Ohio became a state -- no later than March 1, 1803. See Baker v. Commissioner, 37 T.C.M. (CCH) 307, T.C. Memo 1978-60, CCH Dec. 34,976(M) (1978), aff'd, 639 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1980). In this case, the court stated: "Petitioner's theory [that Ohio was not a state until 1953 and that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified] is based on the enactment of Pub. L. 204, ch. 337, 67 Stat. 407 (1953) relating to Ohio's Admission into the Union. As the legislative history of this Act makes clear, its purpose was to settle a burning debate as to the precise date upon which Ohio became one of the United States. S. Rept. No. 720 to accompany H.J. Res. 121 (Pub. L. 204), 82d Cong. 2d Sess. (1953). We have been cited to no authorities which indicate that Ohio became a state later than March 1, 1803, irrespective of Pub. L. 204."

In other words, the mere fact that the resolution was passed in 1953 does not change the legal point that Ohio was admitted to the Union in 1803. By contrast, an ex post facto enactment would be a situation where, say, a particular "state" never had really been a state, and the Congress then passed something effective retroactively.

By the way, just so you'll know: There is no legal requirement that Congress pass a "resolution" (or anything else) when a state is admitted to the Union. Many states have had resolutions passed at the time they were admitted to the Union. However, at least one state - Ohio - did not. It may sound reasonable to a non-lawyer if someone says that there ought to be some sort of official "resolution" passed at the time of admission into the Union, but that does not mean that there is a legal requirement for that. Famspear (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The new user also added a nonsense edit about the Glenshaw Glass case - saying it had been "reversed" in April 1954 (the way I'm reading the garbled edit). Glenshaw Glass was a U.S. Supreme Court decision. As of late February 2008, the case has never been reversed. Further, it would be impossible for it to have been reversed in April of 1954, since it didn't even exist then; the case was decided in 1955. Famspear (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, edits are being treated as vandalism. Famspear (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ignore tax protesters?

I've been reading the archives of this page and it seems to me there is an awful lot of "ignore tax protesters" going on here, users telling other users to ignore sources because they are protesters. That hardly seems fair to me. Sometimes they cite that the sites used for information contain other innacuracies but don't state what and they don't seem to state what about the point being made is incorrect and rather dance around the issue saying it's too complex to explain. Other times people are insisting no court has found anyone innocent on the whole "no law requireing you to file" thing but that's not true, cases have been cited on the talk pages and are removed. This whole article and the associated talk page is a sham. It's defaulted to a rule of the statuse quo without question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.173.229 (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user at IP68.151.173.299: The meaning of "there is an awful lot of 'ignore tax protesters' going on here" is unclear, but the purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article on the Sixteenth Amendment, not to discuss "tax protesters."

Also, Wikipedia articles include extensive treatment of tax protesters and their arguments. Indeed, Wikipedia includes no less than six different articles devoted exclusively to tax protesters and their arguments in general -- not counting other articles about individual protesters. If you want to read about tax protesters, then you should read the relevant articles.

There is no "dancing around the issue here." All you have to do is to read the articles.

No U.S. federal court has ever ruled that any tax protester argument is legally valid. All tax protester arguments that have been presented in courts of law in the United States have been ruled invalid. From the 1860s, when the first federal income taxes were imposed, to mid-March 2008, that is the state of the law. Not one single exception. None.

There is no such thing as someone being found "innocent on the whole 'no law requireing [sic] you to file' thing". However, on occasion, a few tax protesters have been found not guilty by a jury of criminal tax charges brought against them. Some of those cases are clearly documented in the related articles here.

Also, as clearly explained in Wikipedia, a jury verdict that a defendant is not guilty of a criminal tax charge is not a ruling by the court in favor of the tax protester's argument about what the law is. Indeed, the Tom Cryer case is a classic example where the tax protester's arguments were ruled to be invalid by the court -- and Cryer was still found not guilty by the jury at the end of the trial.

Not guilty verdicts for tax protesters in U.S. federal tax cases are very rare, but they do occur -- just as some people are found not guilty of murder, or theft, etc.

As stated over and over here in Wikipedia and in other places, saying that a "not guilty" verdict in a federal criminal tax case means that there's no law imposing the tax or that there's no law imposing a penalty for willful failure to pay the tax is like saying that a "not guilty" verdict in a murder case means that there's no law against murder, or no law imposing a penalty for murder. It's a nonsensical argument.

You may want to review the relevant Wikipedia articles. I would suggest that you do a search on the term "tax protester" for starters. Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

I have removed the following sentence from the Ratification process section:

Democratic Congressman Benton McMillan accused the Republicans of extravagant government spending and excessive reliance on tariffs for revenue.^{[citation needed]}

This sentence was unsourced (see cite tag) and it is not clear how it is relevant to the article. What does McMillan's accusation have to do with the Sixteenth Amendment, or even the income tax in general? Feel free to restore this sentence, as long as it is properly sourced and its relevance is established. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] RFC on Saturday Evening Post source

[edit] Response by Vaultdoor

[edit] Additional commentary by Vaultdoor regarding Famspear comment

[edit] Response by Famspear

[edit] Saturday evening post article--splitting commentary

[edit] Famspear response

[edit] Vaultdoor response

[edit] Famspear response

[edit] The 1913 tax statute

[edit] Mediation request

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Duplicative tax protester material reduced

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment reminder

[edit] Reverting of citation to "famguardian" web site

[edit] Weird edits

[edit] Ignore tax protesters?

[edit] Removed

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search