Talk:IRS targeting controversy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Use of word "Targeted," "Targeting" etc.

I am moving some of this from above section "Progressive groups 'were not subjected to the same level of scrutiny'" where it began to be out of place. Also I wanted to point out a dead link.

True on partisan sourcing, (ex.: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/04/23/3429722/irs-records-tea-party/ ) but much in the article (and in the press, unfortunately) relies on "interpretations" of what is said rather than direct quotes. BOLO is expression used often, as is NPOV "flagging" and "flagged," so have replaced some wording esp. when linked reports show no use of words as quoted in news text by people quoted. Mydogtrouble (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The RS news article ref used the term "Targeted". We stick with what RS say, not with what one would like them to say. Looking through original source material for preferred language is OR and not allowed. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, although they used "scrutiny" twice. You are right I should not use the word "flagged" as, although it's NPOV, it wasn't in the article cited. However in your revert you inadvertently put the word "primarily" back in, which was not in the article. I fixed that. Mydogtrouble (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

To me, the word "targeted" is very NNPOV, and I did replace it. In the source WSJ, they used the word "scrutinized" in the lede. When a source uses NPOV and NNPOV in the same article, Wikipedia standards of neutrality are preferred. As an aside I will note not a single instance of anyone in the IRS using the word except indirectly described as having denied it, and I have not found a single direct quote from one employee using it. I have seen numerous cases of news organizations misquoting this by interpretation. In such a situation I would emphasize neutrality when possible. A comparable situation would be if a headline alleges a critic "attacked" a politician, when what occurs is better described in an encyclopedia as "criticism" Mydogtrouble (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Perhaps we might move this to a new section - anyone else have input? Re. ref 12. it is an Associated Press article now removed from the Boston Globe site - dead link - but viewable here http://news.msn.com/us/irs-chief-says-inappropriate-screening-was-broad http://news.yahoo.com/irs-chief-inappropriate-screening-broad-193026105.html http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-IRS-Political-Groups/2013/06/24/id/511588/ wherein "inappropriate criteria" is the direct quote and several other neutral terms are used by AP and one use of "target," a NNPOV term apparently inserted by a reporter for a wire service, not an encyclopedia.Mydogtrouble (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydogtrouble (talk • contribs) "The Chief Counsel (TIGTA - Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration)suggested removing the word “targeted” from the report, because “targeted has a connotation of improper motivation that does not seem to be supported by the information presented in the audit report.” The audit team removed the word from the report except when describing the allegations that led to the audit.Mydogtrouble (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The Blaze

Is there a better source than The Blaze for the quote that you added, RightCowLeftCoast? I'm skeptical of the source as an RS in general and the fact that the quote is at odds with how the committee report has been covered in every reliable source that I've seen leads me to question whether it should be included. The lack of connection of the IRS's conduct to the Obama administration by Issa's committee seems to be much more widely reported in more neutral and reliable sources. Also, the Blaze article contains the line "It [the report] said efforts to cover up the scandal were ultimately led by Obama himself," which makes me even more skeptical; it seems like it would be the headline in this particular source were it an accurate reflection of the report. Dyrnych (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear: every other source for the report cited in the article contains some variation of the phrase "Issa has yet to find a smoking gun linking the IRS's inappropriate screenings to political direction from the White House" (that's from the CNN source). If you feel like we need to balance the statement that the report failed to link the conduct to the White House, would you accept some variant on "'The fact-finding is not yet complete,' according to the the report" (again, CNN) rather than a quote that misleadingly suggests that there is some connection to the White House? Dyrnych (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the quote after reading the other sources for it. While Weigel acknowledges that the quote is present in the report, his entire article is devoted to demonstrating that the quote is misleading ("Throughout the report, the White House is linked to "targeting" by the very simple method of defining literally every interaction between the executive and the IRS as "political" [...] Any attempt by Democrats to ask the IRS about what were understood to be its policies was coordination."). Similarly, the Salon piece characterizes the quote as "the official version of the longstanding conservative allegation that the targeting scandal happened because employees at the IRS picked up on the White House’s anti-Tea Party psychic vibrations." The Hill source is more noncommittal, but its assertion that "Issa says the IRS took cues from Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which gave corporations and unions freer rein to spend on elections" broadly tracks the Weigel and Salon analyses. Dyrnych (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze is a partisan source just as Salon is, both were provided as both have the quote from the report and both are on opposite sides of the political spectrum in the United States. The quote was also included in reliable sources that were removed including The Hill & Bloomberg. Therefore, to remove the quote, which balances the assertion made at this time in Wikipedia voice, leaves it unbalanced, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the neutral conclusion of relatively neutral sources needs to be "balanced" with partisan sources of any kind. If there were a controversy over whether or not the conduct was linked to the White House by the report, I could see including multiple perspectives. But that's not the case here, I think; the quote just serves to mislead without context, and the quote itself is not important enough to devote space to including that context. Dyrnych (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

To be slightly more clear, per WP:BALANCE "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." Here we do not have reputable sources (for fact) contradicting one another. Even if we were to concede that The Blaze is a reputable source, it is not relatively equal in prominence to the numerous other sources that state that the report does not link the IRS's conduct to White House direction. Dyrnych (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

As per previous discussions on WP:RSN, The Blaze is a reliable source for its opinion only. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

And yet, the above editor says nothing of Salon, or the other sources removed? Why attack The Blaze. Also RSN is for the context of the discussion which is about the article about the movie America 2014, and the content at that article only. To make a blanket statement about The Blaze only being reliable for its own opinion, would be like saying content from HuffPo, Salon, Mother Jones, are only reliable for their own opinion. IMHO they meet the requirements set forth at WP:IRS.

Also look at the statements of the sources removed, as there is more than just The Blaze, those articles did provide balance in that although they stated that no direct instructions from The White House was found, the report stated

"evidence shows an IRS responsive to the partisan policy objectives of the White House and an IRS leadership that coordinates with political appointees of the Obama Administration."

This is not misleading, it is a direct quote from the report itself which was verified by tertiary sources in those different sources which I provided, which other editors removed. Therefore, to only state what tertiary sources concluded from the report that (stated in Wikipedia voice), "The report did not link the IRS's conduct to the White House", is only providing part of what has been reported about the source (by a source, CNN, that is center-left). Therefore, balance was disrupted by removing the well cited quote, and reads as pro-White House, thus it is a WP:NEU concern.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

1. I called out The Blaze and said nothing about the other sources because initially I didn't realize that you had incorporated other sources. So my initial issue was about citing a dubious source when better sources might exist.

2. That said, you didn't cite The Blaze for "its own opinion"; you cited it for a quote from the House report. You can certainly present the conclusions of The Blaze as opinion identified as coming from The Blaze, and I doubt that anyone would have an issue with that (assuming that the opinion itself is a notable one).

3. I don't think that we need any discussion at all in the article of the quote from the report, notwithstanding that the quote certainly appears in the report. It is cherry-picked from the report to present a conclusion that is not backed up by the report. We know this because reliable non-opinion sources are in broad agreement as to the conclusions of the report, and those reliable non-opinion sources—including the right-leaning Washington Times source that you initially cited when you added the report to the article—note specifically and prominently that the report does not link the actions of the IRS to White House direction.

4. It looks like your idea of "balance" here is mistaken. The balance that we're trying to achieve is not between "pro-White House" and "anti-White House." See my response above as to the standard that we're trying to apply here. I have not found a reliable source that states that the House report linked IRS conduct to White House direction, which is important because in the absence of such a source there is nothing to balance. You'll note that even your article from The Blaze does not state anything contrary to what is currently in the article.

5. All that said, look at the initial sentence of the paragraph. It presents the report's conclusion that the IRS acted out of political concerns rather than being "an apolitical tax collector." Presenting that while still noting the report's failure to link the IRS conduct to direction by the White House seems like a perfectly neutral presentation to me, especially given the uniformity of reliable sources in coming to and explicitly reporting the "no direction" conclusion. Dyrnych (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Cherry picked? I would say it was highlighted in not just one news article, but four. Why was it highlighted in four different news sources? That seems like it is significant enough to include here, just as it is significant that (and why I did not make an attempt to remove) that tertiary sources state the no direct instructions from the White House statement.

As it stands it has one part of a sentence that reports the problem found at the IRS in the targeting Democrat criticism of the report, and a statement absolving/defending the White House.

Perhaps the section should read, as compromise language:

On December 23, 2014, Chairman Issa's staff released a new report that found that "[t]he IRS’s inability to keep politics out of objective decisions about interpretation of the tax code damaged its primary function: an apolitical tax collector that Americans can trust to treat them fairly." and "evidence shows an IRS responsive to the partisan policy objectives of the White House and an IRS leadership that coordinates with political appointees of the Obama Administration." The report did not link the IRS's conduct to direct instruction(s) from the White House. The report was also criticized by Cummings as "cherry-picked" to support a political narrative. Republicans stressed that the investigation is ongoing and will continue in the next Congress.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that YOU cherry-picked it, but the statement seems peculiarly suited to being taken out of context given that of the sources we have one (The Blaze) reports it uncritically, two (Salon and Weigel) call it out as extremely misleading given the report's definition of "coordination," and the final source (The Hill) explicitly contradicts the implicit claim of coordination by stating that "the 210-page report finds no evidence that Obama or White House officials ordered the special treatment of Tea Party groups." I'm just not convinced that it belongs in the article at all. I'd be interested in hearing what other editors have to say, though. Dyrnych (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I dislike the overuse of news media spin when the documents themselves are in the public arena. Wikipedia is not selling newspapers, and encyclopedia articles definitely are not to be in newspaper style, especially headlines. Nor should text from documents be "filtered" by using citations from news articles when direct quotes from documents are available and the documents themselves ought to be the sources cited. In the case of Congressional reports, please use exact quotes from reports, not newsy "reinterpretations" of language.Mydogtrouble (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible Anti-IRS POV

The subsection "FBI investigation" states: "the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully understand". Calling the IRS a "mismanaged bureaucracy" seems excessive--especially because the statement has no citation. How should we make the description supported and neutral?

Duxwing (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The terminology of mismanaged bureaucracy appears to come from the Wall Street Journal, and also repeated by Reuters. It appears to be factual from the report put out by the FBI.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted by editor RightCowLeftCoast, the material is indeed sourced -- and the verbiage is supported by the source material. By comparison, here's an exact quote from yet another source -- a Reuters News Service report on January 13, 2014:

The newspaper [the Wall Street Journal] quoted officials [at the FBI] as saying that investigators probing the IRS actions, which unleashed a political furor in Washington, did not uncover the type of political bias or "enemy hunting" that would constitute a criminal violation. The evidence showed a mismanaged agency enforcing rules it did not understand on applications for tax exemptions, the Journal reported.

To digress a little: in Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View does not mean that a criticism in an article is not allowed to be "excessive." Wikipedia includes information on what reliable sources have said. Neutral Point of View does mean (in part) that Wikipedia does not take sides as to whether the criticism is valid or not.

The original source was the FBI report. The FBI report was covered by the Wall Street Journal, which in turn was mentioned by Fox and Reuters. We have more than one reliable source using the phrase "mismanaged agency enforcing rules it did not understand" (or words pretty close to that). That tells me that the FBI report probably used wording pretty close to that, and that the Wall Street Journal probably accurately reported what was in the FBI report. Famspear (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I will incorporate your "probably accurate" wording in the article, if there are no objections.Mydogtrouble (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this edit mainly involves changing "bureaucracy" to "agency?" Dyrnych (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing is a made up controversy

WP:NOTFORUM

It just happens that they were targeting the right people, please delte this article--85.180.182.132 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC) One vote for deleting this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:280:32C:1011:7F1:D0C7:875A (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC) It's illustrative of the mindset of the people who brought about this scandal in the first place. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Mild bias

This article reads very much like it's going out of its way to distance members of the democratic party and left-leaning media from the IRS's actions. Might be beneficial to include some conservative voices in the reaction section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:280:32C:1011:7F1:D0C7:875A (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

For that, you basically need conservative WP editors, a dying breed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, the reaction section was added by an editor who seems fairly conservative. Dyrnych (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool story, but do you see any liberal editors lining up to correct the imbalance? Nope. Leftists on WP are much more likely to emphasize leftist perspectives, and many are prone to removing right-leaning perspectives wherever they perceive even a faint excuse to do so. Hence my comment. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

My point was that the IP editor's argument about the intention of the reaction section is probably mistaken. I doubt very much that User:Capitalismojo intended the quotes to be some kind of exoneration of liberals and the media. Dyrnych (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Lede changes

I wanted to explain why I made the lede changes that I did here.[1]

The Issa report referenced would seemingly be WP:OR so the only source given for this claim was by The Hill: "The Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee issued a report which concluded that no liberal groups were targeted; however, the report was criticized by the committee's Democratic minority, who concluded that the report ignored evidence that liberal groups were targeted."[2]

However, in checking The Hill source, it does not appear to actually say the report concluded no liberal groups were targeted, in fact it says the opposite, that liberal groups were just not subjected to the same degree of scrutiny. The following are quotes from The Hill article which contradict what the lede had previously said:

• "While organizations on both sides of the aisle were probed, the report from Issa (R-Calif.) claims that Tea Party groups received tougher scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status."
• "Republicans argue that the IRS broadened its criteria in the summer of 2012 only to be 'cosmetically neutral,' but that the IRS still was primarily focused on conservative organizations. Republicans point to an analysis by members on the Ways and Means Committee, which found that 83 percent of the groups that underwent further review were conservative, compared to 10 percent that were liberal. The analysis also found that 70 percent of the liberal groups ultimately were approved, compared to 45 percent of conservative ones."
• "While Democrats have been quick to point to liberal groups that have also gotten a closer look as evidence the IRS’s actions were not motivated by politics, Republicans argued in their reports that the two are not comparable. Some left-leaning groups were listed on the 'Be On the Look Out' or BOLO lists the IRS used to pull groups for a closer look, but Republicans argue they received different treatment than Tea Party organizations."
• "Those groups were not subject to a 'sensitive case report' or referred to the IRS chief counsel’s office, as many Tea Party groups were. Republicans contend that groups labeled 'progressive' did not receive the same level of scrutiny that groups including the words 'Tea Party' did. In fact, Issa’s report found that all seven groups in the IRS backlog with 'progressive' in their names ultimately were approved."

In summary, the article actually says the reverse of what the lede had said, and rather than showing the GOP was claiming no liberal groups were being targeted, acknowledges the GOP was claiming liberal groups were targeted, just not in the same way or to the same extent. As a result, I wrote that part of the lede to agree with the lone source on the subject being cited.

Furthermore, this claim in the lede was unsourced, and would seemingly contradict The Hill article as well, so I removed it: "The use of such lists continued through May 2013."

I also thought it relevant to mention the exact statistics of total applications held up as reported by PolitiFact, it may be useful to cite some additional fact-checking organizations such as the Washington Post Fact Checker as well. --7157.118.25a (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall, this seems fine. I removed the Politifact stats because it's a level of detail that's not necessary in the lead. Also, the claim in the article misstates the Politifact piece. Here's what we had in the lead:

PolitiFact in fact-checking Democratic claims determined that while 16 progressive applications were flagged by the IRS amounting to 30% of all progressive applications, 100% of conservative applications, 96 in all, were 'held up.'

From the Politifact piece, 298 cases were referred for extra scrutiny, of which 96 contained the words "tea party," "9/12," or "Patriot." The remaining 202 cases were classified as "other" by TIGTA. We know that 16 of these cases had "progressive" in their names, but that accounted for 30% of the applications with that particular keyword. By contrast, 100% of the cases with tea-party-related keywords received additional scrutiny. However, we know nothing about the political makeup of the remaining 186 groups; they could have had any political leaning at all, to our knowledge. The report is just looking at keywords, not necessarily political leanings. So while it's not correct to say that 100% of conservative groups were held up, while it is correct to say that 100% of groups with the keywords "tea party," "9/12" or "Patriot" were held up. That should be noted in the article, but it's too much detail for the lead. Dyrnych (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, the GOP report is presented with the headline "New Oversight Report Debunks Myth that Liberal Groups were Targeted by IRS".

The report itself has the following formal title: "Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives: How the IRS and Congressional Democrats Misled America about Disparate Treatment."

Then the body of the release goes on to say: "[T]he Administration and congressional Democrats have seized upon the notion that the IRS’s targeting was not just limited to conservative applicants,” the report states. "These Democratic claims are flat-out wrong and have no basis in any thorough examination of the facts. Yet, the Administration’s chief defenders continue to make these assertions in a concerted effort to deflect and distract from the truth about the IRS’s targeting of tax-exempt applicants."

"[T]here is simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected the organization’s political views."

So, it would appear this edit is utterly contrary to the sources. I'm going to restore the prior, well-sourced language. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

From report (p32):"Where the IRS identified liberal-oriented groups for scrutiny, evidence shows that it did so for objective, non-political reasons and not because of the groups’ political beliefs"; from The Hill:"Republicans point to an analysis by members on the Ways and Means Committee, which found that 83 percent of the groups that underwent further review were conservative, compared to 10 percent that were liberal." Therefore, some liberal groups did receive scrutiny, and your edit stating that none did appears to be incorrect. Perhaps a re-wording to clarify that the report stated that none received scrutiny based solely on liberal or progressive views would be better. Hal peridol (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to change this to reflect the sources. Thoughts? Dyrnych (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any need to distort what the source actually says, which is clear from the bolded text above. I'm going to undo this pending further discussion. One thing to note, there are some different uses of terminology in play. The GOP report doesn't say that liberal groups didn't receive scrutiny, it says they weren't targeted for additional scrutiny, while conservative groups were. It is clear in stating that conservative groups were "singled out", as even The Hill notes. But note we're already explicitly pointing out, right in the text, that the Democratic minority disagrees with that characterization. Thus there is emphatically no need to re-word the Republican claim so that it conforms to the Democratic claim. This is one of those cases where he-said/she-said is as encyclopedic as we can get. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The way it is worded does not make that clear, though. Again, it is clear from the report and the Hill citation that extra scrutiny was received on some, albeit a small proportion, of the "progressive" cases. Drawing this distinction between "extra scrutiny" and "targeted" gives the impression of self-contradiction (some liberal groups received extra scrutiny, but no liberal groups were targeted). Hence my preference for the previous clarification. Hal peridol (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's try to find some prose that doesn't misrepresent or understate the view stated by the report. Also, it's not self-contradiction to say "GOP SAYS X" and "DEMS SAY Y". That's just plain old contradiction, where one party denies the truth of what the other party is saying.

In any event, if linguistic construction forces us to give short shrift to one of the views here, it's going to have to be the minority view. Concur? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear - all I was saying is that it appears self-contradictory (in this case, to say that 10% (Hill article) or seven (HOC press release) is the same as none), based on a reading that "targeting" has an obviously different meaning than "received extra scrutiny". Perhaps the wording "...a report which concluded that conservative groups were singled out for greater scrutiny..." (or without the "greater")? Hal peridol (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this all seems to be an argument over what it means to be "targeted," I reworded the lead to reflect that the Republican majority doesn't consider the scrutiny that liberal groups received to be targeting. That reflects that liberal groups received scrutiny (which everyone acknowledges) but that Republicans and Democrats differ on the reasons for and effects of that scrutiny. Dyrnych (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: something like "GOP report concluded no liberal groups were targeted, but the committee's Democratic minority argued that the majority only reached this conclusion by ignoring evidence that some progressive groups were flagged for further review." The two sides are still talking past each other, but I think this wording makes it a little clearer what each side says. It reflects the full-bore view of the GOP majority and then essentially cites the committee Dems as calling the Republicans liars. Thoughts? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, this formulation lends itself to misinterpretation more so than the current one. No one—Republican or Democrat—is disputing that the IRS used keywords to identify liberal groups as well as conservative groups; the dispute is over what effect that selection had. So when Republicans say that the liberal groups weren't "targeted," it doesn't mean that they weren't selected by keyword, just that the selection by keyword itself doesn't amount to "targeting" without additional action. If we say "no liberal groups were targeted," we leave out that context. Dyrnych (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW

For what it's worth, the "move request" at the following Talk Page (Talk:Hillary Clinton email system#Rename this? (June 2015)) has finally been resolved. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Polling

As an addendum, you're using polling from May 2013. Think about the current utility of that polling. Dyrnych (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I did. Given that the WSJ ran a half page op-ed today with several reps calling for the IRS director to be fired or face impeachment, I conclude that the idea that this event is stale or over is apparently not true. There is also a poll released yesterday, it is Likely Voters not adults. I'll find it and share it here. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Here it is. "Fifty-two percent (52%) of Likely U.S. Voters continue to believe the IRS broke the law when it targeted the groups, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey." July 27 2015 Capitalismojo (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A bare majority of "likely voters" (rather than the population at large) in a poll with a conservative house effect support that proposition? That's hardly convincing evidence. Dyrnych (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Convincing evidence? Of what? All we are looking at is the definition of "scandal" which revolves around "general public outrage". When more than half the voters believe a crime has been committed that seems to fit the basic definition. This was brought up in regards to the personal opinion that "scandal" only should be used upon criminal convictions. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I'm not "looking" at the definition of "scandal." I'm talking about whether the name of the article should be changed back to include the word "scandal". And I don't think anyone rendered an opinion that the word "scandal" should be used only "upon criminal convictions." The fact that no one has been charged with any alleged criminal conduct does not necessarily mean that there is no "scandal."

However, the fact that no one has been charged with anything is a factor weighing against changing the name of the article back to include the word "scandal." Famspear (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Misleading and biased

1st sentence: "In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected conservative political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes." The US IRS, as a body, did not reveal anything, nor as a body did it have a regular practice of using perceived political affiliations as a criteria for scrutiny. What was revealed, by the IRS, is that they discovered some people in their Ohio office were, wrongfully, doing that very thing. A more accurate sentence would be: "In 2013, it was discovered that some employees in an Ohio office of the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were using the names of organizations applying for 501(c)4 status as a criteria for additional scrutiny."

Further, it should be pointed out somewhere in the article that IRS approval is /not required/ to form and operate a 501(c)4, unlike other some of the other 501(c)type charities.

Snertly (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

From the article:

Nonprofit organizations dedicated to social welfare are not required to apply for IRS certification in order to operate under Section 501(c)(4) tax exemption rules.[16][17] However, being certified by the IRS can help organizations attract more donations and provide some protection against further scrutiny.[18]

The sentence that you describe as "misleading and biased" is a pretty neutral account of what the IRS has conceded that it was doing. The implications of that scrutiny are certainly in question, but nearly everyone concedes that it occurred. Dyrnych (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Further investigation by media outlets appeared to confirm [discriminatory levels of scrutiny]

Further investigation by media outlets appeared to confirm this, revealing that some liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, but not at nearly the same rate as conservative groups.[3][4][5][6][7]

Yeah, this is just a lie. That impressive-looking citation list; none of those are "investigation by media outlets," they are media outlets reporting on claims by IRS Inspector General J. Russell George; these claims have been characterized as "damage control", and it's been seriously questioned whether George, who worked in the Bush Whitehouse prior to his work at the IRS, skewed his claims to be politically useful to the GOP. (He also worked as a Congressional staffer on the very same House committee he was now testifying to! What's being presented as revelations of investigations by media outlets are literally just things the Republican members of the Ways and Means committee say happened.

This is noise machine stuff; Republicans make claims in Congress, mainstream media reports on those claims, and then conservative "movement" media – and conservative Wikipedia editors – then cite the reporting about their own claims as mainstream media confirmation. There were no "media investigations." There was an overtly politicized six-hour committee hearing where a Republican appointee to the IRS told Republican lawmakers things. That was the "media investigations." TiC ^(talk) 00:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. How would you propose to edit the text? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

TiC, please edit the lede.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

VG, the ref you reverted said nothing about the "republican legislators". Capitalismojo (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Article name

The name of this article has changed — and changed back — during the past day:

(Move log); 13:47 . . Dyrnych (talk | contribs) moved page IRS targeting during Obama administration to IRS targeting controversy over redirect ‎(Moved back to previous, non-loaded title.)

(Move log); 05:43 . . Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:IRS targeting controversy to Talk:IRS targeting during Obama administration ‎(New title gives an idea of when this occurred. Also, see WP:CRITS.)

I don't see how the change was "loaded". It simply conformed with WP:CRITS and indicated the time frame so people don't think it was in the twentieth century.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I could have come up with a better edit summary there; I wasn't trying to imply that you were pushing a POV with the move or anything like that, and I apologize if it appeared that I was making that implication. My concern is that "IRS targeting during Obama administration" suggests that the article is about targeting during the entirety of Obama's presidency rather than about the specific 2010-2013 targeting that's the basis for the controversy. I agree that the current title doesn't do a good job of conveying the time frame, and I would support changing it to "2013 IRS targeting controversy" to clarify.

Note that WP:CRITS is not a policy and that this article pretty much already conforms to it anyway. It's controversial, it's described in reliable sources as a controversy, and we should be treat it as such. Dyrnych (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a policy, but it's still usual practice. In this instance, we need to describe what the IRS actually did, quite apart from any controversy that also needs to be described.

As for the time frame, the matter still seems to be ongoing, especially with regard to the content of emails. Please note that GW Bush is similarly mentioned in article titles, like Bush White House email system. How about IRS targeting begun in 2010?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: What makes you say "it's still usual practice"? How did you reach that conclusion? Please explain. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe we do describe it in the name by referring to "targeting." As far as the Bush White House email system, the article describes a practice as it existed during the entirety of Bush's presidency.

As far as the ongoing nature of the matter, it is technically true that there remains a Congressional investigation into the targeting/emails. But "begun in 2010" continues to make it seem as though the targeting itself continues into the present—and I'm aware of no reliable source that states that. The controversy itself dates from 2013, which I why I suggested that year. Dyrnych (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Disagree renaming article to IRS targeting during Obama administration. Is there another "IRS targeting" article with which this article might be confused? Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am flexible here, and another title might work. Reliable sources have reported about "IRS targeting" all the time prior to this present kerfuffle. Here is just a light smattering of google books references: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There was certainly a lot of attention to IRS targeting during the Nixon administration; it became one of the articles of impeachment that the House Judiciary Committee passed a couple of weeks before Nixon packed it in – see here, Article 2, item 1. There certainly could be a separate article about this. Alas right now the coverage in WP of the Nixon impeachment process is really poor – there is Attempted impeachment of Dick Cheney and Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, both of which are a whole lot of nothing, but no Impeachment process of Richard Nixon (not sure what exactly to call it), just bits and pieces in other articles. As usual, recentism reigns triumphant. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nixon was scowly and jowly, so he did not get away with it. Anyway, I think the best I can come up with for this article title is IRS targeting during part of Obama administration. This gives a clue as to the time period we're talking about, without suggesting that it happened throughout the Obama administration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This all relates to the general idea of whether or not the word "controversy" belongs in an article title. This is also (currently) being discussed on the Talk Pages for this article (Talk:IRS targeting controversy), as well as these other articles: Talk:Hillary Clinton email system; Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy; and Talk:Bush White House email controversy. The whole "issue" arose – originally – on the Talk:Hillary Clinton email system page. Obviously, there are many, many, many articles on Wikipedia that use the word "controversy" in their title. An editor above (Anythingyouwant) selected several of those articles and unilaterally renamed them by removing the word "controversy". I objected to the unilateral move on some Talk Pages. But (as of yet) not all. Simply because I have not gotten around to doing so. I had specifically asked that editor to give me a list of the names of the articles that he/she edited in this manner. But, he/she did not do so. So, in my free time, I have to resort to scouring the user's edit history and contributions. So, as a result, my approach to this "project" (i.e., my general objection to unilateral renames) is being done piece-meal, one at a time. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The guideline for naming says "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." Well the WP:Commonname for this is apparently "IRS Scandal" as searches quickly and clearly reveal. The numbers of using that term as opposed to "IRS Controversy" are orders of magnitude in difference: "IRS Scandal" (534,000) vs. "IRS Controversy" (19,700) Lets look at "IRS targeting scandal" (40,100) vs. "IRS targeting controversy" (4,330). This becomes even more stark when we limit searches to Google News results: "IRS Scandal" google news (33,500) vs "IRS targeting controversy" google news (54). I'm not exactly sure when the re-naming took place, but we are long into this event's coverage and the media seems to have largely stuck with the common name "IRS Scandal". Capitalismojo (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am "ok" with "scandal". I prefer "controversy". It seems less POV. To me, that is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: You really ought to know when the renaming took place. It's the result of the move request above, in which you participated. I reassert my arguments above regarding Google News results. Dyrnych (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me note that WP:CRITS was mentioned above. It says "The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name..." When 54 news accounts in searches use "IRS targeting contoversy" and 33,500 news accounts use "IRS scandal", I suggest we are not using the common name. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: and @Anythingyouwant: Then, what is the common name you are suggesting? And how many search hits does that name have? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we use a common name, because I don't think one exists.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Common or not, what name are you suggesting? And how many search hits does that name have? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

My thesis is and has always been that there is no actual common name. The best we can do is describe the issue, and the most neutral descriptor is "controversy" (which I doubt either side would actually dispute). Dyrnych (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That is a hard thesis to justify when 33,000 news accounts use one term and our current article title is used in 54. The common name used in searches should be used, per our guidelines. That would seem to be "IRS scandal". The naming conventions for wikipedia suggest the posibility of adding a date. I'm not sure what date that should be, or if it is presently even necessary. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

How did you obtain this 33K to 54 ratio? Using Google search for "IRS targeting controversy" returns a lot more than 54 article using "controversy" rather than "scandal" in the title. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed above above, but to reiterate, that is just Google news searches. The ordinary Google searches ratio (mentioned above): "IRS Scandal" (534,000) vs "IRS targeting controversy" (4,330). Capitalismojo (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

To further the discussion, a search of the academic sources regarding the terms under discussion brings up "IRS scandal" (188) vs "IRS controversy" (2). Capitalismojo (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

So your argument is that the common name is "IRS Scandal," full stop, no further descriptor? And that we move the page to "IRS Scandal?" That is the only thing that you could be demonstrating by this sort of insistence that "IRS Scandal" is the common name. We use our current article title because it's descriptive of the event, not because it's the actual common name of the event (there is none). There was some level of targeting by the IRS, and it's controversial. Also, WP:CRITS is explicitly designed to further WP:NPOV (and, again, I'd reiterate that it's not policy but advice). If you're suggesting that the word "scandal" is more neutral than "controversy," I'd like to hear your argument for why that's the case.

As to your Google news search, it's revealing that the sources on the first page of results are (in order) partisan source The Daily Signal, partisan source The Daily Caller, partisan source TownHall.com, partisan source NewsBusters, partisan opinion piece on Fox News, straight news piece on Business Insider, partisan source NewsBusters (again), partisan opinion piece on Fox News (again), partisan source The Blaze, partisan source WORLD Magazine, partisan opinion piece aggregated on BayouBuzz.com, partisan source NewsMax, and straight news piece from the Tampa Bay Times that mentions "the recent IRS scandal" in passing. Moving on to the next page reveals, again, almost exclusively partisan content: World Net Daily, Powerline, National Review Online, Hot Air, The Federalist, NewsBusters, Newsmax, The American Spectator, and Fox News opinion pieces (to be fair, there's one article from HuffPo interspersed amid the right-wing stuff). Third page is the same. Fourth page is the same. Fifth page is the same. So I doubt very much that the prevalence of "IRS scandal" in news results is because reliable sources are in agreement that the actual name of the event is "IRS Scandal" (or "2013 IRS Scandal" or anything like that) so much as it's a reflection of the fact that a lot of right-wing outlets refer to it as a "scandal." Using the consensus of sources from one partisan bent (right- or left-wing) as a guideline in determining the article's title very clearly violates WP:NPOV. Dyrnych (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it your contention that because the first pages of google news searches found partisan sources that there is not an order of magnitude (actually several orders of magnitude) more use of one term for this? The point is thirty-three thousand to fifty four returns from news search. Academic searches return a similarly lopsided return. Are the universities similarly "partisan"? The general google searches show 534,000 vs our current title of 4,330. Policy directs us to use the Common name. There is no argument to be made given the numbers that suggests the current title is the common name, and is have seen no cogent reason put forward that suggests "scandal" is NPOV. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

it takes seconds to find hundreds, literally hundreds, of RS articles using "IRS scandal". CNN, LA Times, WaPo, NYT, Time Magazine, ...it's the tag NPR uses to identify related stories. I find NPR a relatively tame and NPOV source. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It is my contention that the use of "IRS scandal" is artificially inflated by the fact that partisan sources use the term exclusively to refer to the matter, a contention that is reflected by looking at the actual sources in search results. I am certainly not denying that neutral sources have used the term "IRS scandal." But they use the word "scandal" interchangeably with the word "controversy." They're just descriptors, not the common name! As far as I can tell, you're the only person making the argument that there's a common name at all (rather than "no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic" among reliable sources), so your argument that "IRS targeting controversy" has few results is kind of irrelevant. Dyrnych (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if they were entirely "interchangable" we would expect rough parity in the usage. There is no such parity. (e.g. the 543 to 4 ratio) If there was some concern within the mainstream media (NPR, WaPo, etc) regarding some sort of "bias" with the term we would naturally expect less usage of the term "IRS scandal". What we find instead is the vast usage of "scandal" almost to the exclusion of other terms. Moreover, the term "IRS scandal" is the greatest, not as mere descriptors, but also in article titles and in tags, that is to say in how the media identifies the event. We have a policy, I suggest that perhaps it might be time we start following it. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's be absolutely clear: you are advocating that we move the page to "IRS Scandal." Correct? Dyrnych (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(Sorry, I've been gone for a bit.) Yes, it seems clear that the common name for this is "IRS Scandal". Given that, policy directs that we use the common name. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The original name for the articles was "IRS scandal" or something like that, until about May of 2014. The change to delete the word "scandal" was a smart move in my opinion. To refer to this as a "scandal" some two years later, when it's clear that the whole thing was about 20% light (from the Treasury Inspector General who identified the improper IRS procedures) and 80% heat (much of the heat in the form of hot air from politicians who snorted and hrrmphed and demanded to know who was going to "go to jail" when it was clear that they had absolutely no evidence of criminal conduct), seems to me to be stretching too far. My view is that it's more encyclopedic to leave the article as "IRS targeting controversy." If someone is eventually indicted (very unlikely) and convicted (even less likely) of some sort of crime, I would re-consider that position. Famspear (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, policy and guidelines for the encylopedia trump personal opinion. The policy directs that we use WP:COMMONNAME. The common name is clearly "IRS Scandal" not "IRS targeting controversy". This is true in academic sources (188 v 2), news sources (33,000 v 54), and in general google searches (544,000 v 4,330). This is clearly true by orders of magnitude. There is a common name and we are not currently using it. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the thought that criminal activity or conviction is required, that is not a necessary precondition for something to be a "scandal": "Scandal: an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage." Since 74% of adult Americans polled believe this is a serious matter needing investigation according to Gallup, one can accurately state that there is evidence of "general public outrage" (albeit only 62% of Democrats agreed). Capitalismojo (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course there are more results for a less descriptive term than there are for a more descriptive term (and note how often "IRS scandal" is qualified with "recent," "2013," "targeting," etc.). But unless you believe that this is the only "scandal" involving the IRS, it's odd to suggest that the phrase "IRS Scandal" refers exclusively to this event. If you want to start a move request, go for it; as far as I can tell, you are the only person to advocate for the particular position you hold. Dyrnych (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That theory doesn't hold up either. If we use "IRS Scandal" vs "IRS Targeting" we still get a 33 to 7 ratio in news sources and 5 to 3 ratio in general search. What other post-internet IRS scandal do you suggest these internet articles refer to? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Look, we're just talking past each other here. I believe that there is no common name, only descriptors; you believe that one descriptor is in fact the common name. Numerous editors support my view; to my knowledge, no one supports yours. Either submit your argument to the appropriate process or drop it. Dyrnych (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

First look up above, you will see one editor saying "I completely agree" and another saying "I'm ok with it". Three editors agree. You disagree. Well, I have presented evidence and policy that supports my analysis. I stand ready to be convinced by your evidence, if any, and policy reasons that would support keeping this current name. I'll also note that the current name is unstable given the discussion that began this thread. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The editor who "completely agree[d]" directly stated a belief that no common name exists, so I'm not sure how that bolsters your argument. In any event, neither you nor I will convince the other. You can always request a move if you believe that your argument will prevail. Dyrnych (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what the article is called as long as all of the old names redirect to the new name. 74.98.36.123 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Federal judge threatens to hold IRS Commissioner and other IRS employees in contempt for not turning over documents

This should be added to the article.

In July 2015, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan threatened to hold IRS employees, including IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, in contempt because they had illegally ignored the judge’s orders to release some of Lerner’s emails and other IRS documents. These same IRS employees had previously illegally ignored Freedom of Information requests and lawsuits for those same emails and other documents.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/29/judge-threatens-irs-lawyers-contempt-lerner-emails/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judge-threatens-to-hold-irs-chief-in-contempt-1438207068

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-threatens-to-hold-embattled-irs-chief-in-contempt/article/2569269

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/249700-judge-threatens-irs-chief-with-contempt

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/30/federal-judge-threatens-to-haul-irs-commissioner-into-court-but-has-equally-harsh-words-for-trial-lawyer/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/federal-judge-threatens-to-hold-irs-commissioner-doj-lawyers-in-contempt-of-court-over-lerner/

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/07/29/federal-judge-threatens-to-hold-irs-commish-doj-lawyers-in-contempt-of-court/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/04/federal-judge-threatens-to-hold-irs-commissioner-justice-attorneys-in-contempt-over-lerner-emails/

74.98.36.123 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If the IRS is held in contempt, fine, add it to the article. Obviously this is widely covered on conservative media, but I don't think that there's any indication that this has or will have lasting significance. Also, missing a discovery deadline isn't illegal.Dyrnych (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)