Talk:Tom Cryer

RFC on neutrality dispute

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute:

MPublius stated that article is biased against Tom Cryer, a citizen, and in favor of the government. He believes article goes to great lengths to explain why Cryer is a bad lawyer, and includes long section of original research synthesized by Wikipedia editors citing court cases that were not included in government's case against Cryer; and Cryer's arguments in support of motion to dismiss case have been deleted; and article is supposed to be an unbiased biography of Cryer and his tax dispute with the government, rather than an extended discussion of tax law containing legal mini-briefs by editors; and paragraph with Cryer biographical information excessively states 3 times that Cryer is the source.

Other editors have responded that Cryer mentions taxes on his web site, so any discussion of tax law is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpublius (talk • contribs) 24 Sept. 2007

This is the latest in a series of complaints by Mpublius regarding this article. For background, see the extensive discussions on this talk page and, in particular, the material in the headings entitled "Behavior of Mpublius," "More on behavior of Mpublius," "Famspear bias," and "an article on Tom Cryer and for other purposes."

The latest Mpublius complaint -- essentially that the article paints Cryer, "a citizen," as "a bad lawyer" -- is still another pretext in a series of pretexts (exposed on this talk page) that Mpublius has dreamed up to remove material that Mpublius believes is unsympathetic to Cryer's tax protester arguments. Up to now, I don't even recall any discussion on this talk page (or in the article) about Cryer himself being a "bad lawyer." Indeed, the only references in the article to Cryer's lawyering abilities are positive references -- from Cryer's own resume.

As noted above, this is an article about Tom Cryer. It is not limited to the recent Shreveport, Louisiana criminal case in which Tom Cryer was acquitted of certain Federal tax charges. The scope of the article is not limited to arguments that Cryer raised in that trial. Cryer has made tax protester arguments on the internet and, probably, in other places as well. Things that Cryer has said or done outside his recent trial are just as relevant to an article on Cryer as things Cryer said or did at the trial.

Likewise, the tax protester arguments that Cryer has verifiably made outside his trial are fair subjects for reporting in a Wikipedia article on Cryer -- just as the long history of court decisions that have consistently rejected Cryer's theories may properly be mentioned in the article. There is no Wikipedia rule that limits the article in the way that Mpublius would like the article to be limited.

In terms of court decisions over the past thirty years that have already rejected the argument Cryer makes, there are literally dozens of cases (perhaps hundreds) that fill that bill; the article mentions only four or five cases that specifically ruled the argument to be legally frivolous -- and the article mentions only the holdings (the rulings) in those cases. A listing of holdings in four or five cases is hardly an "extended discussion of tax law containing legal mini-briefs," and is hardly "original research." Yours, Famspear 20:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have given the "Rulings by the courts" sub-section some thought. That sub-section could be much shorter and much more direct. Using "frivolous" six times is inappropriately silly, and that someone would have to continue to repeat it is questionable. Also, much of the "substance" of the sub-section is long, easily misunderstood outside of context, quotes. Wikipedia should not just parrot info; it should construct real meaning in the minds of our readers. In addition, this sub-section is littered with unreferenced suggestive language; particularly, the use of specific legal terms as if they were words in common speech. Lastly, there is an old maxim about how to read laws, that if a "term" is defined its meaning can be inferred to be different to that of the "word". N0 D1C4 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

edit conflicted Outside view by Into The Fray

Well, I'll wade into this, though I have not gone over the extensive debate above. I limited my review to the RfC commentary beneath it, as well as to the article's content itself. Even taking into consideration Mpublius's near single purpose account status and his unfortunate recent blocking, I have to agree that the article does have a couple POV issues, outlined as follows:

1. I should start by saying that I'm not certain that Cryer's resume is a suitable source to begin with, but the phrasing of this clause: "Cryer's resume further claims that he is a member of the Order of the Coif (a law school honor society)" is somewhat problematic in that it the use of the word "claims" suggests that it is of dubious validity.
2. What appears to be the most hotly debated section, "Rulings by the Courts", does indeed smack of OR. In any of the cited cases, was Cryer himself directly involved? It does not seem so and really doesn't seem biographical. If anything, a comment such as, "though they are not generally accepted by the courts, Cryer argues on his website that," might be appropriate. But as it stands, it reads like: "This is what he says", and "this is why he's wrong". "This is what he says" is fine, but "this is why he's wrong" is not.

That's my take on the POV issue. The article really does read like an argument against Cryer's views, though as a layperson somewhat familiar with the law, I don't think that it "paints him as a bad lawyer". I think simply that it doesn't belong.

Other thoughts

• NPOV aside, and with all due respect to all the editors who have put a good deal of time into this and many other articles, I am curious to know how Cryer passes WP:BIO? He doesn't seem to have received much press coverage. Recognizing that I'm dealing with lawyers at least one lawyer here, is his name so widely recognized in your field that he warrants an article? I was honestly tempted to simply nominate this article for deletion when I came across it, but since I decided to weigh in on the POV complaint, I thought I'd just throw it out here, because I may be missing something.
• I noticed earlier versions of this page included the term tax protester (which also seems to have received an edit or two from those involved here) and links to it. Why was this removed? I had a look at Cryer's web page and tax protester certainly seems to apply.

That's my uninvolved take. Into The Fray ^T/C 02:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I would say that I agree that this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Cryer is just a person who has made (or repeated, really) a bunch of preposterous arguments about the existence of the income tax in the United States. He refused to pay his taxes, and was charged with willful failure to file his tax returns. He tried to dismiss the charges by using more of his absurd arguments, and the court easily rejected his claims, as the courts have done over and over again for tax protester claims. The case then went to trial, and Cryer was acquitted of willfully failing to file—because he convinced the jury that he really did not believe he owed the taxes. That's it. Cryer didn't argue anything a thousand other tax protesters have argued unsuccessfully. His acquittal had nothing to do with his tax protester claims and has absolutely no effect for anyone besides himself.

At most, I think this article should say that Cryer made tax protester arguments (perhaps with a brief summary of his claims), say he tried to have the charges dismissed and failed, and say he was acquitted, making sure to point out that he was acquitted only of willful failure to file. But I think the best solution would be to redirect the article to Tax protester history, where we would insert a paragraph about Cryer in the section Notable tax protesters.

I would say that the reason this article has received so much attention is that various people sympathetic to tax protester arguments have tried to edit it here so they can get the message out: that a tax protester—Cryer—has "beaten the IRS" and that soon, very soon, the "whole income tax system will collapse". (See the very first edit [1], where it's claimed that "Cryer was recently on trial for tax fraud, and was aquitted, presumably on the merits of the arguments he espouses.") Various editors have come in to try to make sure that this article doesn't become a vehicle for tax protester propaganda. Various tax protester sympathizers have worked furiously to try to make sure the "truth" is revealed. Tom Cryer is not widely recognized in the legal field—he is widely recognized in the tax protester community, where is (incorrectly) seen as having beaten the IRS with tax protester arguments. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As one of the approximately 3 (United States income) tax protesters who have been ever been acquitted, that seems to provide adequate notability. However, I think just calling him a tax protester is adequate coverage of both his views and the Treatment/rulings/??? by the courts section. On the other hand, the court ruling section is not original research, as it points out that all the claims made by Cryer in court and on his web site have been declared frivolous by the courts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I like the idea of a merge, Mateo. Mr. Rubin, thanks for your response, which inevitably just draws more questions from me: Was Cryer a direct litigant in any of the cited cases and, if not, how is it not original (legal or otherwise) research gathered to oppose his opinions? Were these cases specifically cited in rulings by the courts in which Cryer was directly involved? And, if his notability rests on the fact that he is one of approximately three tax protesters to be acquitted (which sounds like OR as well, though probably sourceable), shouldn't that be included in the opening of the article? Are the other two cases in the tax protester article, or do they have their own articles? Thanks for your time. Into The Fray ^T/C 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: I agree that Cryer is notable, if at all, only because he happens to be a tax protester who was acquitted of tax charges in a criminal trial -- a fairly rare occurrence. I'm not sure one way or the other whether he warrants his own article.

Regarding the removal of the term "tax protester," Mpublius and perhaps other editors have fought to have this term removed on a variety of theories. This is a repetitive problem in tax protester related articles in Wikipedia. Because supporters of tax protesters perceive -- correctly -- that the term "tax protester" has negative connotations, they resort to attempts to have it excised, or replaced with euphemisms such as "tax honesty advocates." This has been happening sporadically in articles for at least the last year and a half.

My understanding of "original research" as that term is used in Wikipedia is as follows. Merely gathering and citing examples of the hundreds of court cases that reject Cryer's opinions is not "original research." Let me illustrate.

Suppose for whatever reason Wikipedia has an article on someone, we'll call this person "Fleebus," who claims that the Moon is made of green cheese. Suppose that Fleebus has at least some recognized expertise in physics (as Cryer does in law), and that Fleebus engages in a formal debate with another physics expert, we'll call him "John," on the topic. John argues that the Moon is made of Moon dust, Moon rocks, and so on (or whatever NASA and other scientists assert the Moon is made of). At the debate, a "jury" of 12 non-experts vote Fleebus the "winner" of the "debate." In the Wikipedia article on Fleebus, it is not "original research" for an editor to locate and cite reliable, published third party sources that are totally unconnected with the Fleebus-John debate but which stand for the proposition that the vast majority of experts in the field of the Moon support John's position on Moon rocks, etc., and not that of Fleebus.

Original research does not mean "a Wikipedia editor gathered this stuff together himself, therefore it's not allowed." Original Research means that a Wikipedia editor has attempted to create "new knowledge" if you will, or has taken source A and source B to come up with the editor's own Conclusion C.

In the case of Moon dust and green cheese, the data is presumably overwhelming to the effect that every reputable expert rejects the Fleebus green cheese theory. In the case of tax law, the data is absolutely and without question uniform and consistent that every single court case on this has rejected the Cryer theory. Not one single exception in the history of American jurisprudence. This is an astonishing record.

Gathering and summarizing information from various sources -- regardless of whether those sources were cited by Fleebus or John -- is not "original research." It's source-based research, and it's part of what Wikipedia is all about.

To attempt to limit the Fleebus article to a mention of only those cases cited by Fleebus or John in their debate would have the effect of mischaracterizing the nature of the debate, or at least leaving a false impression among readers not conversant with the topic. Under the rules of neutral point of view, this is known as the "undue weight" problem. If virtually no reputable scientist contends that the Moon is made of green cheese, then it is neither original research nor non-neutral POV to include citations to verifiable, reliable, published third party sources to that effect. The Fleebus green cheese theory is what Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy calls a "fringe" position. The Cryer "my income is not taxable" is what Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy calls an extreme fringe position.

There is another wrinkle to this. In the Fleebus debate example, the 12 jurors ruled that Fleebus won the debate. In the Cryer criminal tax trial, the jury did not rule that Cryer was correct on the law. Cryer and other tax protesters have been trying to leave the false impression otherwise. Indeed, in Cryer's case, the court specifically rejected Cryer's arguments. Cryer was found not guilty of willfully failing to timely file his returns for certain years. That's it.

In the Cryer case, the analogy is even more telling. The only primary authorities for what the law is would be the actual statutes, regs, and court decisions. Literally every Federal court that has ever decided the issue has ruled Cryer's arguments to be without merit, and many courts have gone further and have specifically ruled them to be "frivolous" - actually using that legal term.

The average person over the age of about ten years old reading an article on the Moon and green cheese probably will not make any false assumptions about the validity of the green cheese argument.

Tax law, however, is not so well known by the average person. To deliberately leave out information on how the law actually has treated Cryer's arguments -- over and over, in hundreds of cases -- is to mischaracterize the debate, and to tend to cast Cryer's arguments as having even a shade of legal validity -- which they do not.

In Wikipedia, neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all sides. Neutral point of view means affording each argument a weight in accordance with that argument's standing with experts in the field. In the case of the Cryer arguments, literally every court decision on point has rejected Cryer's arguments.

Wikipedia should not say, and the article does not say, that Cryer is right. Wikipedia should not say, and the article does not say, that Cryer is wrong. Neutral point of view relates mainly to how the information is presented, not to what is presented. To strain to remove verifiable, reliable third party sources merely because they are not mention in Cryer's particular case (and I don't know, some of the cases may actually have been cited in his case) under what is in my view a mistaken view of the concepts of original research and neutral point of view is to do a disservice to Wikipedia readers. Yours, Famspear 18:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: For convenience, here's an excerpt from the rule on neutral point of view and undue weight:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.[2]

To give Cryer's arguments as much space (see "depth of detail," "quantity of statements" above) in the article as the listing of the actual court decisions -- including the ruling in Cryer's own case that his arguments are invalid -- would be misleading as to the shape of the debate, and would give undue weight to Cryer's arguments.

Also, "though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint." Yours, Famspear 18:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: Now, here is an excerpt from the policy on No Original Research:

Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.

[ . . . ]

[ . . . ] the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately. [some emphasis added by Famspear]

The summaries of the court cases in the article are absolutely accurate, and they are not my "personal viewpoint." The courts actually did rule the way the article says they did, and the courts actually used the legal term "frivolous." Further, the cited court cases deal with the very topic Cryer argued about: taxability of wages and other ordinary income. I would argue that accurately summarizing four or five prior court decisions (in this case, leading decisions by courts of appeals) that have specifically used the term "frivolous" to describe the arguments raised by Cryer is not "original research" (especially since we could have easily found scores or perhaps even hundreds of cases where Cryer's arguments have been rejected). By contrast, Cryer and his supporters cannot find one single case where a court ruled in their favor. Yours, Famspear 19:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Well, at the expense of appearing to beat a dead horse, I'll add the following quote from the policy on Original Research:

Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways.

As I previously wrote, the concept of source-based research is fundamental. Proper source-based research and prohibited "original research" are two different things. In the case of an editor's summary of a holding in a published court case, an accurate summary that does not go beyond the source or use it in a novel (new) way is not "original research" for purposes of Wikipedia. Famspear 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to keep my comments in response to Famspear's well-considered argument brief.

• Notability

Famspear, in your detailed response, I did not get an idea of where your position is on either merging this article or simply deleting it, considering WP:BIO. I know you've covered a lot, but I am curious on your thoughts there. I am in favor of a merge with Tax protesters. I don't think that Cryer, based on what I have seen, is notable enough to support an article of his own.

• The term tax protestor

I have seen before where pejoratives have been avoided for POV issues. But how, then, would we categorize these people? I am not sure that it's a pejorative in any event. If the crux of this man's notability is his position on Fedaral Tax law (or its interpretation), which seems to be decidedly against it, then doesn't that make him a tax protester? I don't think that there's anything inherently negative about that term? Is there an alternative term that's been suggested? Certainly "tax evader" has connotations that probably do not belong.

• Original research of the section "rulings by the courts"

As he likely expected it might, Famspear's well-considered response prompted me to go back and read WP:NOR for the umpteenth time. Famspear, you make excellent points and drive them home with clarity. Looking over NOR again (and I think we can all agree that the policy, as written, labels trials as primary sources), the only other concern I have with the article on this topic is this statement from it:

“ An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. ”

The question is then whether or not the statement "The argument that wages and other compensation amounts are not taxable has been routinely rejected by courts as frivolous," is simply descriptive or in some way analytic. To me, and perhaps this is pedantic (sue me . . .harhar), the words as frivolous may be (unless it was used in all the published decisions) analytic, but the rest of the statement is obviously fine.

• Neutral point of view of the article as a whole

I disagree with the green cheese moon analogy (or the world is flat as stated in the policy) only inasmuch as, at least to me, the average layperson would view Cryer's claims as spurious. I don't think you need to be a tax attorney to understand that the law is such that Americans must pay taxes, though we must always consider that this is not an American encyclopedia. It is, at least to this tax paying American, obvious settled fact that we must pay Federal taxes. And die, right? Anyway, I understand what Famspear's saying and, in fact, now agree with him. We do not want to lend credence to a minority view. I think perhaps the section is still overkill because, to me at least, it reads a bit like, "Smith has been outspoken in his theory that the moon is made of green cheese, now let us tell you all the million reasons why this is wrong." It's apparent. But I'll concede that there are audiences who this reaches to which it might not be so apparent.

• The article as a whole

Clearly, as Famspear's outlined, if we're to give weight to Cryer's position by outlining it here, we must still give the appropriate, balanced weight to the majority view, which this article does do. That being said, I'm still not happy with the article. I find the inclusion of the arguing sections to be unnecessary and, without them, I am brought back once more to notability. I'd still seriously consider a merge or a deletion here. Of course, in the event of a merge, we'd doubtless be back to a position where the parties cannot agree. But I think a blurb in another article is sufficient to cover this man.

Thanks much for your time. I may be back later with more thoughts, but this has been an interesting discussion. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Into The Fray: Thanks for your help on this.

On the issue of merging the article or simply deleting it, I am personally a bit "torn." I guess that the subject of the article is perhaps only marginally notable, if that. A while back, somewhere in a talk page on Wikipedia, I think I had given the opinion that if a tax protester were acquitted in a criminal tax case, that might make him/her somewhat more notable than would otherwise be the case. Well, Tom Cryer fits that bill, but I'm just not sure about Cryer.

On the term "tax protester," yes, that's the technical legal term. I would argue that Wikipedia should not be in the business of avoiding the use of actual technical terms in actual technical areas (law, science, or whatever) merely because those terms also have negative connotations. Indeed, it is the tax protesters themselves who have brought the negative connotation upon themselves. The term did not always carry that connotation. The term tax "protest" as outlined in the main article on Tax protester is a legal term that was used for many years prior to its modern use to describe people who make outlandish arguments about Federal income tax.

On the synthesis point, yes I would argue that all the list in the article does is describe what the court ruled in each case. The article does not synthesize, or come up with anything new. Also, you can read the texts of the cases and verify that the court, in each case, actually used the word "frivolous" -- which is also a legal term. First, it is used by the courts to describe litigation that is so out of bounds that the person bringing it can be subject to monetary penalties for wasting the time and resources of the legal system. The term is also found in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 6702), where taxpayers can be penalized for taking legally frivolous positions on tax returns (to avoid paying taxes that are legally owed, etc.). The term "frivolous" is the term used in the statute. By the way, the problem of tax protesters taking legally frivolous positions on tax returns has been so bad that the Congress recently increased the monetary penalty to $25,000, if I recall correctly.

Regarding the concern that part of the article is overkill, I share that concern, and I believe as a result of a similar point by editor Arthur Rubin, that section had already been pared back at least once. And, regarding your concern that it reads a bit like, "Smith has been outspoken in his theory that the moon is made of green cheese, now let us tell you all the million reasons why this is wrong" -- I agree to some extent. However, I would argue that the fact that you are walking away with that impression might not necessarily be an indication of lack of neutral point of view in the article, but is rather a natural result of an accurate presentation of the debate and the relative weights of each position. However, I can always be wrong. Maybe the section needs more editing?

Getting back to the issue of whether to delete this article, move the material to the list of notable tax protesters found at Tax protester history, or just keeping the article -- I just can't seem to come up with a definitive opinion. Helllllp! Any additional thoughts from Into the Fray and other editors would be beneficial. Yours, Famspear 14:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That takes care of my concerns regarding the word "frivolous". Officially, my position is that this article be merged with Tax protester and, in the event that it is not, the term be re-included in the article, and the arguing sections be removed. I am going to make some gentle edits to the article today as suggestions. Like Famspear, I'd be curious for more editors' opinions. Into The Fray ^T/C 13:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a footnote: In my earlier discussion about the increase on the penalty for taking a frivolous position on a Federal tax return, I checked on it, and the penalty was increased from $500 to $5,000 (not to $25,000). 17:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 66.223.161.81 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

an anonymous two cents:

Tax protester is a discriminatory claim that identifies Tom Cryer irrationally with any individual in the past that has decided not to pay their taxes. I think the term should be in the article once, as an accusation, such as many editors here are trying to make, and such as the first government response tried to make in his trial.

The argument against him has a place in the article, but so does the argument for him, because the article is 'about' him and a pro-con format is only logical. this is further backed by the POV guidelines that were quoted in this discussion

He received very little press because this topic will NEVER make the press because of the political connotations. There are a large number of people that recognize him as a significant figure and regardless of whether that is a conspiracy group or not it still merits an article. A balanced article.

Citing the cases against him is absolutely fair, however, why is there no mention of his own case citings that are in his favor? Have any of the editors here read his court memorandum? The 109 page legal document, in a very level manner, discusses his claims rationally, and cites more supreme court cases and much more closely related cases to his own situation than the Revenue service's rebuttal document.

It is also argued here that he won his case by side stepping the tax issue and citing a personal understanding that he truly believed. It is true that this happened but it was a very calculated strategy. By taking on the system directly, he was fighting the ingrained assumptions of the jury. Instead he ran his case by citing all his legal findings suggesting that he was not guilty, showing with court examples and quotations of law that he was not in the wrong, and then concluded by saying that he truly felt that he was right, instead of concluding by attacking the whole governmental system. The fact that some of the charges were dropped before it even got to court does not in any way weaken his case, but instead demonstrates that the IRS backed down to a worthy adversary. Does Tom Cryer deserve an article on Wikipedia? Absolutely.66.223.161.81 (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC) (please feel free to move my text to a more appropriate location on this page, I was unsure as to how I post a comment.

Why not Cryer's "legal findings"? Perhaps because none of them are on point, as noted by the trial judge? This is WP:OR on my part, but if any of them were on point, the judge would have dismissed the case, rather than allowing it to go to the jury. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

section break

I note actually that there's discussion on Tax protester of creating an article for the movement. I am considering placing complimentary merge tags on this page and Tax protester, but will wait for some input. Into The Fray ^T/C 13:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Into The Fray: I personally am interested in your idea, except that I would suggest an alternative to merging this article into the article Tax protester, which I don't think should be expanded very much more, as I'll explain below.

When I began editing here in Wikipedia in late 2005, there was only one article on Tax protesters, if I recall correctly. Various people pushing tax protester arguments had been chronically trying to change various tax-related Wikipedia articles to have Wikipedia expressly and specifically take the position that the U.S. Federal income tax is invalid, illegal, etc., etc., under the usual wacky, nonsensical theories. (That of course would be a violation of several Wikipedia rules, quite aside from the fact that these theories are nonsensical from a legal standpoint.) A decision was made, apparently before I became an editor, that the regular substantive tax-related articles (of which there are many) should not cluttered with tax protester material -- even if that material could be edited to conform to the rules on Verifiability, NPOV, and NOR. The Tax protester article apparently was created to serve as a central place for reporting these kinds of theories.

Unfortunately, as tax protesters and those who support them continued to add new material, the article just got too large. In early 2006 I believe an administrator separated the material into several different articles. The articles are now as follows: Tax protester; Tax protester history; Tax protester arguments; Tax protester constitutional arguments; Tax protester statutory arguments; Tax protester conspiracy arguments.

The de facto procedure since at least early 2006 or so seems to be that as people continue to add tax protester material to "regular" or "substantived" tax articles like Tax, Income tax, Income tax in the United States, Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a host of other tax-related articles, the tax protester material (which virtually always consists of POV pushing and blatantly false and unverifiable original research) is either deleted or is edited to conform to Wikipedia rules and then moved to the applicable "tax protester" article. In intermittent starts and fits, tax protesters (and for purposes of this discussion I'm using the term "tax protester" here simply to mean people who try to push tax protester POV in Wikipedia) have continued (and probably always will continue) to try to change Wikipedia tax articles to say "there's no valid income tax law", etc., etc., etc. And experienced Wikipedia editors will continue to move that material from the regular articles and put it where it belongs -- in one of the specific tax protester articles.

The article Tax protester is essentially only an introductory article -- with links to the expanded articles such as Tax protester history and so on. I would argue that if the material is to be moved or merged, it should not go to Tax protester but should to go Tax protester history or something like that. I do agree that the idea of creating a new article on "Tax protester movement" or some such title might help relieve some of the strain on the other tax protester articles.

Personally, I still haven't taken a position on whether the Tom Cryer article should be deleted, moved, etc., etc. I would also like to hear more input from other editors on all the points raised by Into The Fray. Yours, Famspear 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cryer is notable because he is a successful lawyer who has not filed a tax return since 1993, and has not been convicted of a crime. Like former IRS agent Joe Banister, he has successfully defended himself against the government interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment. Banister has his own article, as should Cryer. Mpublius 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I sort of tentatively agree with Mpublius, but for a different reason. First no one has ever successfully defended himself or herself against "the government interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment." Not once. This has already been explained. Banister and Cryer's cases were criminal cases. The "government interpretation" of the Sixteenth Amendment has been upheld by the courts in every case, both civil and criminal, without exception. Whether Tom Cryer is a "successful" lawyer or not, merely being a successful lawyer who has not filed a tax return since 1993 (if such is the case) does not in and of itself make Cryer sufficiently "notable" for purposes of Wikipedia. There are probably a million lawyers in the United States, and with a population that large there are always going to be a few who have not filed tax returns, etc. If Cryer is notable, it might be because he is a tax protester who was acquitted in a criminal tax case. That is unusual. Personally, I'm not sure if that alone makes him notable enough, but maybe it does. Same with Banister. The fact that Cryer is a tax protester acquitted in a criminal tax case (which is true) is not the same as saying that Cryer's arguments were upheld in court (which is false, as already documented). Yours, Famspear 18:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cryer is not a tax protester. Black’s Law Dictionary is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions. It has been the accepted dictionary for most courts, including the Supreme Court, for more than 100 years. It defines a tax protest as:

The formal statement, usually in writing, made by a person who is called upon by public authority to pay a sum of money, in which he declares that he does not concede the legality of justice of the claim or his duty to pay it, or that he disputes the amount demanded; the object being to save his right to recover or reclaim the amount, which right would be lost by his acquiescence. Thus, taxes may be paid under "protest.” Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 1101 (5th Ed. 1979).

Cryer never paid taxes or sued the government for recovery of a disputed payment. Mpublius 17:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: We have been through this over and over. If start this up again, your edits may be treated as POV pushing, which is a form of vandalism. Yours, Famspear 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking about as frankly and bluntly as I will, the fact that a single purpose account created just today decided to make POV edits to this contentious article seems, to me, suggestive of sock puppetry. I am not looking to get embroiled in a lengthy dispute here, but nor am I looking to play games. I came here on an RfC filed by an individual who is inarguably in the minority regarding his edits to this article, discussed my concerns openly and received satisfactory responses from Famspear, Arthur Rubin and Mateo SA to them. If the term "tax protester" which, to a lay person's reading, is neither a slur nor a legal term, is so contentious, I would be glad to back away from it and provide a more gentle re-write to the lead. But reversions at this point, sans discussion and consensus, will not be helpful. Into The Fray ^T/C 18:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules require an assumption of good faith, not juvenile name calling. If you read the previous discussion, you'll see that Black's Law Dictionary is accepted on Wikipedia, not only in this article, but also in the tax protester article. Libelous comments are not allowed. Mpublius 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mpublius, I came to this article via your Request for Comment without an agenda and I have participated here in what I feel to be the utmost good faith. I have asked many questions, many of which have been answered to my satisfaction, some which go unanswered. Certainly, you have answered very few of them. Furthermore, my single edit to this article also removed some of what I did view as unnecessarily POV language [3]. I am sure that Webster's dictionary is as accepted on Wikipedia as is Black's Law. Regardless, I offered a more gentle rewrite, understanding that the term "tax protester" can be seen as a technical term with a strict legal definition into which Cryer does not fit. I don't think its inclusion is worth the arguing of simple semantics, but to a layperson (which I would argue the vast majority of Wikipedia's readers are), that he is a tax protester (or a person who protests taxes, if you prefer) seem utterly obvious. Into The Fray ^T/C 21:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius and Into The Fray: I just reverted the Mpublius edit, not realizing that Into The Fray was in the process of discussion on this. (Mpublius had removed, for the umpteenth time, the reference to Cryer being a "tax protester.")

I perceive that there is still some confusion on the part of Mpublius, or at least some disagreement, over what the term "tax protester" means -- even after my having provided all the definitions from Webster's and from Black's Law Dictionary. The description of the development of the term at Tax protester, most of which I probably wrote, was intended as a response to the original objections by Mpublius. The term, as used to describe Cryer, is from a legal standpoint a correct use of the term. I believe, at this late stage in the game, that Mpublius simply does not want the term applied to Cryer in Wikipedia, and indeed does not really want the term to appear in other places in Wikipedia as well.

The Webster's definition, from about 1970 (before the term began showing up in reporteded court decisions) was put there to counter the spurious Mpublius charge that the term was merely "libel" against Cryer. The detailed history at Tax protester shows that the term does indeed have multiple legal connotations -- some neutral and others "negative." I myself have filed formal "protests" on behalf of taxpayers. That is not what Daniel Evans is talking about when he correctly uses the term to apply to Cryer. As applied to Cryer, the term is being used the way section 6702 of the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "frivolous" -- in a negative way.

Yes, as used to describe Cryer, the term probably has negative connotations. Cryer is not merely contesting a tax on some valid legal grounds. Cryer is making frivolous arguments which can result in civil monetary penalties and, in certain circumstances, in criminal charges -- frivolous arguments that have already been rejected over and over and over. The use of the term by Daniel Evans to accurately describe Cryer has been well-documented as being accurate and appropriate for purposes of the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, NPOV, and NOR.

Mpublius, you have yet to come up with a single coherent argument for why or how the use of the term "tax protester" to describe Cryer somehow would violate any Wikipedia rule. Yours, Famspear 21:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that I do believe that the term should be included and so I will not revert your edit, Famspear. But to me it seems a small detail, to be honest, and hardly worth bickering over. But inasmuch as I'm trying to seek consensus here, I'll say that I do support its inclusion. Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 21:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Into The Fray: Yes, and had I realized you and Mpublius were in discussion, I would not have reverted the Mpublius edit so quickly. Famspear 22:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

rv Famspear's POV rewrite session.

The article has been reverted because too many changes were made, many completely with out discussion. Some of your changes, like formating and section headings, are acceptable; but far too much was simply rewritten without the permission of the other editors. Minor edits, like punctuation, are okay, but ALL MAJOR changes should be discussed before, during, and after. N0 D1C4 14:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The changes were significant, I agree, and I was watching them as Famspear made them. None of them really seemed to me to push a POV or to be out of line, so I didn't say anything. We have been having a rather detailed discussion about this article brought about by Mpublius' RfC as listed above. Can you elaborate on which of Famspear's changes you disagree with and why? Into The Fray ^T/C 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As a footnote and, again with all due respect to the editors here, I am still not convinced that this article/subject is of sufficient notability to warrant an article. The lone claim to fame here is that he was acquitted on tax evasion charges, something that doesn't seem to have been covered by any reliable secondary sources save for the single local newspaper in the references section. I am not by any means a deletionist, though. Are there any other reliable secondary sources out there for which attributions might be added? If not, I will probably nominate this article for AfD to seek a broader audience in discussing its notability. Into The Fray ^T/C 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear User N0 D1C4: Yes, you should identify precisely which edit or edits you consider to be "major" (and presumably objectionable). If you object to a particular edit, then state how that edit violates a Wikipedia rule, such as Verifiability, Neutral POV, or NOR. I stated all the reasons for each edit in the applicable edit summary. Famspear 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have previously given Famspear, a lot of leeway; since Famspear's changes could not help but push his POV, whether his view is positive, negative, or neutral, it is still his POV, which is to be expected of any editor. But this time Famspear's changes were essentially a complete rewrite of sections he did not write. If you do a history comparison of before and after, it is clear that virtually everything was changed. Such major changes, should have be posted here in the talk and discussed before transferring the finished version to the article. In short, I disagree with how he went about it, because such major changes can cause rv wars and degrade the quality of the article. N0 D1C4 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I reverted N0 D1C4's reversions, as it reintroduced clearly false material which may also violate WP:BLP. We should not leave a trace of evidence that someone thinks Cryer's arguments are valid, without approriate commentary that they've been rejected and considered frivolous by the courts. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe his changes degraded the quality of the article, nor do I think it matters if sections he did not write were edited, though I can understand how such changes to the article would raise an eyebrow. I don't honestly think that that is automatic call for a reversion of all his work, however. Can you give us some more detail on what aspects of his changes you consider to be disruptive? Also, the issue of POV/NPOV was discussed ad nauseum above. Can you elaborate on which of the edits you found objectionable? Into The Fray ^T/C 16:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, "sections he did not write"? Can you elaborate on what bearing this has here? Into The Fray ^T/C 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Into The Fray. If there was unsourced materials please contribute by adding sources or removing the offending material. Also, Arthur Rubin reverting a valid revert is rude and is disrespectful to all the editors and from an SYSOP such actions, without so much as a word on the talk page, can appear to be an act of favoritism. N0 D1C4 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If I read the history correctly, the unsourced objectionable material was deleted by Famspear. If you want a "clean" revert, you're going to have to revert much further back, to September 19 or earlier. That would lose signifcant productive changes, but if you insist that all edits be discussed, we need to revert to a more-or-less accurate and NPOV version. 17:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. So, you agree with Into The Fray that your reversion was unwarrented. That's what he appears to have said.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As for your question Into The Fray, if you check the history ( and do a compare) the "Rulings by the courts" section was almost completely written by Famspear, and no surprise was the only section not changed. N0 D1C4 17:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, by him I meant Famspear. His edits were too radical. N0 D1C4 17:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(double ec) I have to admit to being confused by the statement that you agree with me, NO D1C4. I didn't say anything about unsourced statements. As I said above, I have already gone through Famspear's edits (though, at your request, I just did so again), which appear both factual and balanced according to the lengthy discussion that we had regarding it above. I do think your reversion was a touch unwarranted, though perhaps understandable given the contentiousness that this article has invited. I remain confused by your comments regarding "sections he did not write", unclear on what, exactly, you find objectionable in Famspear's edits and I fail to see how Mr. Rubin's actions here relate in any way to his Administrator status (which I didn't even know, actually), given that he used no Administrator tools and made no Administrator warnings that he might use them, etc. An admin is no different than you or I. Into The Fray ^T/C 17:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Into the Fray for the mix-up, from now on I will have to avoid pronouns. What I was agreeing with you about was that Famspear’s changes were significant, and to me overly aggressive, considering no prior notice was given. If Famspear thought a rewrite was warranted, the clean up template (or similar) should have been used. Also, Famspear's major edits were made without any discussion with other editors. When editors are given free roam to rewrite articles, the quality of those articles suffers. N0 D1C4 17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, acquittal in a criminal tax case does not relieve the defendant of tax liability

One editor inserted this verbiage:

Although Cryer was acquitted of the criminal charge, that did not relieve him of his liability to pay his unpaid taxes, interest and penalties.

Another editor removed the verbiage, with the claim that it was incorrect and unsourced.

The verbiage is actually correct. Acquittal in a criminal tax trial does not relieve the defendant of the liability to pay the unpaid taxes, interest and penalties.

However, the verbiage is unsourced. Yours, Famspear 14:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Another example of this concept is the case of Vernice Kuglin, who was acquitted in her criminal trial for tax evasion in August of 2003. This means she was not found guilty of a willful intent to evade income taxes. That's a criminal law concept. Unfortunately for Ms. Kuglin, she eventually had to enter into a settlement with the government (in 2004) in which she agreed to pay over $500,000 in taxes and penalties. Kuglin v. Commissioner, United States Tax Court, docket no. 21743-03; 2004 TNT 177-6 (Sept. 13, 2004), as cited at [4]; and Daily Digest, Memphis Daily News, April 30, 2007, at [5]. On April 30, 2007, the Memphis Daily News reported that Kuglin's Federal tax problems continued with the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien in the amount of $188,025. The Memphis newspaper also stated that Kuglin has "given up her fight against paying taxes, according to a Sept. 10, 2004, Commercial Appeal story." Daily Digest, Memphis Daily News, April 30, 2007, at [6]. Yours, Famspear 14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I reinserted a generic statement. However, if the IRS or DoJ is still seeking civil assessment of taxes, that fact could be noted in the article. (Primary sources should be adequate for inclusion.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the problem in finding sourcing for this is that because of 26 USC 6103, the Internal Revenue Service might not release that kind of confidential information. It might have to come directly from Cryer himself, or indirectly through a published newspaper article. Maybe a filing of a Notice of Federal Tax Lien or something. Famspear 14:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, another thing - I wouldn't be surprised if the taxes, etc., were already assessed long ago, with a formal "notice and demand" having been issued to Cryer shortly thereafter. If so, that would mean that the statutory tax lien (26 USC 6321) on Mr. Cryer's assets would already be in effect -- since (possibly) long before the criminal trial even started. In such a case, the Internal Revenue Service can legally proceed with forced administrative seizure (levy or distraint) of Cryer's assets without even having to go to court, and without having to file a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, either. See generally 26 USC 6331. I have no idea on whether the assessments against Cryer have been made yet, though. We'll just have to watch the news media for any reports of verifiable information that could be relevant to this article. Famspear 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If a lien were filed (against real property, anyway), that would be public record. Normally, we cannot use primary sources for derogatory statements about living people, but contradicting a statement made by the subject of the article is an allowable use of primary sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Arthur Rubin: Are you talking about this rule?:

Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details--such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses--or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

--from [7]

I can see how in a given particular tax protester's case, if a duly filed Notice of Federal Tax Lien were located, Wikipedia should be able to use that primary source to the extent (if any) that the tax protester is publicly trying to give people the false idea that his tax liability magically "went away" merely because he was acquitted. The concept should be that although lots of things are part of a public court record or other public record, Wikipedia shouldn't be dragging that item out -- unless (A) it's already been disseminated by reliable, published secondary authority, or (B) the individual himself is publicly lying about it, or (C) the individual has already made the subject matter a point of public interest.

In the case of Cryer, I would argue that virtually any primary sourcing in the public record in connection with his Federal income taxes is fair game at this point, since he himself has made his Federal income tax liability such a public issue, AND since his tax problems have been reported so extensively in the news media.

On a completely separate point, I was just thinking that in the context of defamation law, privacy law, and the media's First Amendment right, Cryer may have already done enough to make himself what the law calls a "public figure" on the subject of the Federal income tax. That would mean that the public media's First Amendment right to publish information about Cryer's taxes is probably stronger than it would be for, say, someone who has never made any public statement about Federal taxes at all. Yours, Famspear 16:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go

Mpublius is still at it. He has now opened a request for arbitration:

[8]

Yours, Famspear 17:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

About the "Rulings by the Courts" section.

The referenced section was deleted and then restored, but I wonder if it actually does belong in this article - it's duplicative of information available at Tax protester, so shouldn't we just have a line saying something like, "Although the jury was not convinced of Cryer's willfulness, the theories he raised in his motions for dismissal have been repeatedly rejected by the courts (see Tax protester arguments and related articles)." Cheers! bd2412 T 06:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would go for that. Any thoughts by anyone else? Famspear 10:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: I think I'm the editor who provided this material. Although trying to delete the material on the ground that it's "unsourced," as another user tried to do, is a bit bizarre considering all the sources provided, and although I think inclusion of the material here gives the article better balance, I would want to go along with what the consensus of editors would be on this subject. The main thing is to provide this article with a balance -- that is, we don't want to give undue weight to Cryer's tax protester arguments (or, indeed, any weight at all, since no court has ever ruled in favor of any of the arguments at all). Therefore, at least some reference to how the courts have treated the arguments is needed. Famspear 11:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another editor is now trying to add an "OR" tag. We have already been through this. Sourced-based research is not "original research" as that term is used in Wikipedia. And this material is fully sourced, with direct quotations. Blatant statements by an editor that the material is "unsourced" -- when the citations to each court case are right there in front of us -- are not going to taken kindly.

If an editor feels that some verbiage is "original research," then that editor should discuss it here on this talk page, specificially identifying the material and specifically explaining how in the world that editor comes up with the idea that it is "original research." We are not going to start playing games again. Yours, Famspear 15:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This section has been under constant dispute for a while now. There was at one time a better template for this type of dispute, but now this is the best template to express the ongoing dispute. To be fair, readers MUST be made aware of this. Several repetitive statements like "wages are not taxable" and "taxpayer was required", while not false, can easy be miss-interpreted by readers unfamiliar with the use of specific legal jargon. This article is a biography about a living person, covering past and ongoing events. This article is not a meant to exist as a rant session for or against the "income" tax(es). As for being "balanced" their are other pages that accomplish this far better than can ever be done here. Wikipedia is not in the practice of giving legal advice, exspecally not to those unable to properly understand it. If people have legal question they should sit down with an attorney, not assume anything a user-created free encyclopedia has written on it will ever stand up in court. Also, the template has nothing to do with POV, just that it contains unverified claims or may be opinions rather than facts.

At the bare minimum, this section template should exist until things are finally (who know how long it will take) over. N0 D1C4 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear N0 D1C4: You have inserted an "original research" template. That is not appropriate. There is no "original research" in this section. There is absolutely no statement in this section that is not fully backed up by the actual texts and rulings by the courts in the cases cited. And there is no instance whatsover of me or any other editor taking Source A with Conclusion A and adding Source B with Conclusion B and reaching our own Conclusion C.

Also, you have falsely stated that the material is "unsourced," when the material is fully sourced, as any reader can plainly see. To "source" a statement in a Wikipedia article means to provide a citation to the source where you found the material -- in this case, the actual court decisions. That is what we have done.

No, statements like ""wages are not taxable" and "taxpayer was required" cannot be easily miss-interpreted by readers unfamiliar with the use of specific legal jargon. Get real. There is nothing misleading about those statements, and there is absolutely nothing that can be reasonably misinterpreted. These are court rulings, and they apply to you and me and Tom Cryer and everyone else who is a resident or citizen of the United States. Wages are taxable, and there is nothing that you or I or Tom Cryer can do about that. There are no exceptions to these specific court rulings at all, in the entire history of United States jurisprudence. Not a single one. There is no way for anyone can be misled by these statements.

Citation of court rulings in an article on legal topics is not the "rendering of legal advice." Further, the Wikipedia rule against rendering legal advice does not prohibit citation of court rulings, for heaven's sake.

This article should not be used as a rant session for or against income tax. This article began as a short group of misleading statements about what happened in the Cryer case, and has been corrected.

Your statement that the template "has nothing to do with POV, just that it contains unverified claims or may be opinions rather than facts" betrays the weakness of your position. Merely putting a template on the article is not acceptable. You yourself should specifically state, on this talk page, what the "opinion" is, and what the "unverified claim" is.

There is not a single unverified claim in the material to which you are referring. There is not one single "opinion" here in the verbiage you keep deleting. The material is only accurate statements of what the courts ruled - in some cases with verbatim quotes.

Please identify, here and now, exactly what language from the article (from the material you deleted) that you are talking about, and state specifically why you contend that language is "opinion" rather than fact.

We would also ask that you state specifically the language that is unverified. If you do not support your statements by referring to the actual text of the court decisions involved, we will draw the appropriate conclusions. Famspear 18:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear N0 D1C4: Please do not tell us that you do not have access to the texts of the court decisions to which you are referring. You hve put the "original research" template on the article; you have stated that the article contains "unverified claims" and that the article may contain "opinions rather than facts." The article text to which you refer includes only summaries and quotations from actual court decisions. Therefore, you should have reviewed the texts of the actual court decisions before making your claims and adding the template. Let's see your support for your claims. Famspear 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this is a biography article; it's not the place for an extensive analysis of a legal situation, see WP:COATRACK. If the recent Cryer case is somehow unique/notable in itself, it should have its own article. If not, a simple synopsis appropriate for a biography should be here, possibly with references to other articles that go into depth on the legal issues. The biography article should not be a wrapper around a legal case article. Also keep in mind, an encyclopedia article is supposed to be a summary. Just because a fact has a reliable source and is somehow related to a notable topic doesn't mean it should be in the encyclopledia. Studerby 18:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am with Studerby on this one. Such a section does not belong here. N0 D1C4 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Studerby: Editor BD2412 has proposed that this verbiage essentially be deleted as duplicative of material in another article anyway, and be replaced with a reference to the applicable article. That proposal is on the table. Also, I have expressed some qualified agreement to the proposal. Editor N0 D1C4 has now endorsed your comment, as this would serve his/her purpose as well. My purpose in pressing user N0 D1C4 on his points about this very same material may eventually be mooted if the material is eventually deleted anyway.

I am trying to emphasize a point and a recurring problem on this particular article -- which is that a couple of editors have been, in my personal opinion, engaging in tendentious editing on this article off and on since August. This has been done by using edit summaries and explanations and tags which do not accurately describe the material (e.g., referring to a section that is obviously fully sourced, fully referenced as being somehow "unsourced"), or even accurately describing the substance of the editor's objection, or by adding tags such as "neutrality" without providing a talk page debate about neutrality, or by adding an "original research" tag merely because a better one cannot be found -- but without identifying any language in the article that somehow constitutes "original research."

In my opinion, tags are not a substitute for back and forth discussion among editors on the talk page. Putting a "neutrality" tag on the article is not appropriate merely because a reader doesn't think an article is neutral. And putting an "original research" tag on an article is not appropriate merely because a reader doesn't like what these courts ruled, or because the reader can't find another tag that expresses the reader's feeling that he or she doesn't like what the article says. Placing tags is not a substitute for clearly identifying what language in the article we are talking about, and specifically stating why we believe that the language violates a Wikipedia rule. Please be specific.

So, we have two trains of thought moving on this right now. One involves an argument over deleting the material at the end of the article because the material is somehow "unsourced" (obviously, that is blatantly false) or that the material is "original research" (that in my personal view is incorrect).

The other train of thought is the suggestion that the material should be deleted and replaced with a short reference to what is essentially the same material already found in another article (the BD2412 suggestion).

I would suggest that we drop the nonsense about the material being "original research" or "unsourced" and get to the real issue: Should the material simply be deleted as duplicative of material already shown in a separate article, and be replaced with the short statement and reference described by editor BD2412? Any thoughts, anyone? Famspear 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the analysis should be removed, but not because there is any material fault with it (it is both sourced and verifiably); it is simply out of place (else we could have a similar analysis in every article on a noted tax protester). However, we also can not leave the article in a state that gives the misleading impression that Cryer won his case because he "proved" anything at all about the tax law. If anything, he won because he persuaded the jury of his ignorance, not of his knowledge. Cryer is still on the hook for taxes owned, and will either quietly pay a rather large sum in past-due income taxes, or will face a civil court proceeding in which his ignorance of his liability will not serve as a defense (as with Cheek). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(Notice to Famspear: Take note that I ignored you previous comment because of my previously stated policy of ignoring pretentious statements, and anytime "legalese" is improperly used.)

Actually there are TWO MAIN options here,

1) Rewrite (or replace) to fix concerns

2) Delete the section.

The two are mutually exclusive, and at this point I prefer the second option. N0 D1C4 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There are have been no stated concerns which relate to the {{OR}} tag. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't hear that is really a fallacious argument for keeping the tag. But, tags or no tags, there are a couple interesting comments that have been made here. First, the suggestion that the section be distilled down to a comment about tax protester arguments. The second, that this is a biography and therefore should not include this material. Unfortunately, while COATRACK is a great essay, it's neither guideline nor policy. I would prefer to rely on WP:FRINGE and the extensive discussion regarding undue balance above. The problem is that his tax case is apparently the only thing for which Tom Cryer is apparently notable, a fact on which I believe we all agree here and there is a sort of cascading effect. e.g. Cryer's fringe arguments are included, thus it's hard to counterbalance that against the removal of the section in discussion. Has there been any though to moving this article to something on the order of The United States vs. Tom Cryer, or some other similarly styled title. Because, really, this is about a man's court cases, not about a man. Just my first thought on the subject. Into The Fray ^T/C 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The following statement favors neither Cryer nor the government, and contains no original research:

Cryer and the government made various claims pertaining to tax law, and cited many rulings by the courts that supported their positions, which can be found on their web sites.

I think this is a good place to start, but the briefs filed by the parties are long, and should be summarized, with equal weight given to both sides. Wikipedia should not be used as a forum to argue in favor of one side. Mpublius 21:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a really bad place to start. The fact that none of Cryer's arguments as to tax law have been supported by any US Court may not need to be stated, but any implication to the contrary is WP:BIAS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear user N0 D1C4: You do not have any "previously stated policy" of ignoring "pretentious" statements -- at least no such policy that I have found you previously announcing on this talk page, or in the edit summaries for the article itself (I haven't checked the edit summaries for this talk page though). Also, you have not identified any statements by fellow editors as being "pretentious." And you have not identified any examples of "legalese" being "improperly used."

In spite of complaining about "unsourced" material and "opinions," you also have not even attempted to identify any such text in the article, even at this late stage. The rhetoric about "previously stated policy" (where there is no previously stated policy) and "pretentious statements" (without stating which statement is pretentious, or why) is still another example of what I am now identifying as critique without substance. A request for a specific example to support your arguments is hardly "pretension," and is in my view a reasonable request.

On the "coatrack" issue raised by editor Studerby: Unless the material is presented without affording undue weight to the overwhelmingly and uniformly frivolous tax protester arguments of Tom Cryer, the article simply cannot help but being a "coatrack," at least to some extent. Tom Cryer by himself has no notability except that he is a tax protester who happens to have been acquitted in a criminal tax case -- a very unusual (but not unheard of) occurrence. As originally posted, the article was a brief but very clear coatrack for the frivolous and erroneous, newly-minted urban legend that Tom Cryer obtained a court ruling that supported his tax protester arguments. He did not; indeed, the court ruled against him. Every time a tax protester wins an acquittal on a jury verdict (Vernice Kuglin, Joe Banister, Tom Cryer), the tax protester community immediately whips up the lie that the court ruled in favor of the tax protester arguments of the defendant, that "the court could find no law" imposing the income tax, etc., etc.

Wikipedia should not be in the business of promulgating the claptrap of tax protesters -- claptrap that has ruined lives and sent some people to prison. Tax protester rhetoric is the tax law equivalent of the "moon is made of green cheese" argument in physics or astronomy.

Even if the Cryer article is going to continue to be presented without giving undue weight to tax protester rhetoric, the article will in some sense be a coatrack -- as the article can really be only about tax protester arguments -- with the Tom Cryer matter simply as the vehicle for that. That is, in part, why I am so ambivalent about whether Cryer is really notable enough for Wikipedia.

If the detailed material documenting four or five cases as examples of how the courts (not just Cryer's court, but all courts) have ruled on Cryer's tax protester nonsense is going to be removed, the Tom Cryer article will have to be watched even that more closely, as people in favor of tax protesters will never stop trying to use Wikipedia to spread this kind of virus. Without the balance of a specific presentation of how courts have rejected the Cryer arguments without one single exception, almost any additional material added by tax protesters will simply have to be excised -- to maintain a semblance of balance. And make no mistake, the tax protesters (many of whom fervently "believe" that they have "the truth") will not stop trying to misuse Wikipedia to push their POV, through this article, and all the other tax protester related articles in Wikipedia. I have been fighting a battle to keep tax-related Wikipedia articles from going off into the Delusional Twinkie Zone constantly for nearly two years, and the battle will never end.

Wikipedia articles themselves cannot and do not take a position that the courts are "correct" (even though, by definition, the courts are correct) on what the law is. Neither does Wikipedia state, in its articles, that the tax protesters are correct (or incorrect). Wikipedia can and does state what the tax protester arguments are, and Wikipedia can and does state what the court rulings are, including the specific rulings to the effect that the arguments are legally frivolous. Wikipedia cannot allow undue weight to be given to what is a fringe position, and one which no court has ever upheld.

The Mpublius argument that "equal weight" should be given to both sides is completely incorrect, and would violate Wikipedia policy on UNDUE WEIGHT. We have been through that over and over.

I still haven't made up my own mind about BD2412's proposal. And I believe other editors may want to provide commentary - eg editor Into the Fray's idea of changing this to an article on the Cryer case, rather than Cryer. Yours, Famspear 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

First, on the matter of my policies, look half-way up the page ("Cheshire Cat grin"). Lawyers these days have such short memories.

Second, you want "undue weight" but have dismissed others requests for "equal weight" (ex: Mpublius).

Third, I know "pretentious" is not a word most have ever heard, but it is fun to learn new words, But incase you (Famspear) have not heard it, Google has a really easy function where you insert "define: <your word/term>" where <> represent, in this case "pretentious".

Forth, unreferenced does not ALWAYS mean unsourced. I will have to push for COATRACK to become Wiki policy.

Fifth, a truly "balanced" article (like this article would be without the Rulings by the Courts section) is going to naturally be precarious but,

THIS IS A BIOGRAPHY WRITTEN IN ENCYCLOPEDIC FORM. THAT IS THE POINT.

N0 D1C4 23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to remain civil here, shall we? Into The Fray ^T/C 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For purposes of the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View, "balance" does not mean giving "equal weight" to all sides. Neutral point of view requires that we NOT give equal weight to extreme fringe, minority viewpoints.

Balance, in terms of Neutral Point of View, is as follows:

When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance

(some emphasis added)

In this case, there is no reputable source that adheres to Cryer's tax protester arguments. By contrast, every single court ruling on the subject goes against Cryer. If anything, we are giving tax protester arguments even more weight than they deserve by even including them in articles with summaries of court rulings. The Wikipedia rule on "balance" applies where reputable sources contradict one another.

That aside, the Wikipedia rule that prohibits affording "equal weight" to tax protester arguments is not "my" rule.

Neutral point of view requires that Wikipedia not give undue weight to minority, fringe viewpoints.

"Balance" does not mean giving "equal weight." Equal weight is undue weight, where one side (the fringe position) has no court rulings in its favor and the other side has all court rulings in its favor. Balance does not mean giving undue weight to fringe positions. In Wikipedia, "balance" means giving precedence to the best sources. Yours, Famspear 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been said that no court has ever prohibited a federal tax on income. I will make all you editors a deal. If I can find a court case that did just that, the Rulings By Other Courts section will be removed permanently, if not I will drop my point on the deletion of the Rulings By Other Courts section. Deal? or Any takers? N0 D1C4 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Content in an article is not decided by bets but by consensus. Consensus is against you. Find WP:RS for your points or move on. Tmtoulouse 01:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Were you going to produce the county-level magistrate's court which so found, but the decision and the magistrate were removed from the record (for lack of jurisdiction) and office, respectively? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it was a real tax case. N0 D1C4 01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Who ever said no court has ever prohibited a federal tax on income? It doesn't matter what some court may have done in the past, or under a different regime. What matters is the state of the law today. 150 years ago, all of the courts were in agreement that a married woman could not own property in her own name, and you can find plenty of decisions that say so. That's not the state of the law. You an surely find a plethora of decisions now which illustrate the individual ownership of property by married women (even if they don't each specify that a married woman can own property)? Cheers! bd2412 T 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I'll have to repost, due to database lockup. Look all you have to do is to read Wikipedia and and find at least three Federal court cases where specific Federal income taxes, or specific aspects of some Federal income tax, were ruled unconstitutional -- if that's what you mean. See Pollock, Evans, and Murphy. I'll give you the citations if you like.

That's not what we're saying. And that's not what Tom Cryer and other tax protesters are saying. What we are talking about are frivolous arguments -- for example, the argument that the ordinary wage income of a resident of the fifty states, a non-government employee, for example, is somehow non-taxable. What we are saying is that tax protester arguments have never been upheld in a reported Federal case. Not once. Not ever.

And even if there were one, or five, or ten cases that proved me wrong (there aren't) that would not change the legal point that such arguments are legally frivolous. Neither would it change how we operate here in Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: This is not the place for anyone to be trying to come up with a Federal court decision upholding a tax protester argument. Proceed at your own risk. The chances are that any case you cite has a 50-50 chance or better of having already been exposed right here in Wikipedia. Famspear 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as no one was willing to "put their money where their mouth was", perhaps there is an alternative.

While at this time I still prefer to just delete the whole section, their is an alternative. Famspear, it seems that "frivolous" is your (and others) psychological linchpin. "frivolous" is a specific legal term that "if a jury and a judge decided in favor of the plaintiff in a such case, the plaintiff's claim was not technically frivolous". To me "frivolous" just sound like magical pixie dust, at this point. What remains to be said in this biography might have nothing to do with "frivolous" this or "frivolous" that. What remains of the Tom Cryer case has to do with civil liability. I suggest that a civil proceedings section be created to replace this one. As things develop put the civil stuff there. N0 D1C4 02:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear N0 D1C4: It seems that you do not want to accept the fact that "frivolous" is a legal term, not a term that I made up, not a "psychological linchpin" for me or somebody else. It seems that you still refuse to admit that "frivolous" is the term actually, specifically used by each court in the cases cited in the section of the article we are talking about. The word is right there in the text. It seems that you do not want to face what would happen if you entered a Federal case law data base and typed in the word "frivolous" to see how many cases would come up. It seems that you still do not want to accept that "frivolous" is the term used by Congress in the statute itself -- most recently when section 6702 was amended to impose a $5,000 penalty for using legally frivolous arguments on tax returns.

It seems that you are looking for a way out. Your way out is on two points: First, you posed a false contention (the false contention that someone here was arguing, essentially, that no Federal court had ever "prohibited" a income tax), and Second, you proposed a "bet," the acceptance of which would contravene Wikipedia policy, and which no Wikipedia editor would or should accept.

The point is that you bluffed, and lost. You have no court case that has ruled in favor of any tax protester argument. If you cite a case to argue that a tax protester argument has ever been upheld, you will be blown out of the water and embarrassed. If you do not cite a case, you will embarrass yourself. You are now looking for a way to back out gracefully. Sorry, but you did it to yourself.

I'm not sure what you mean on your comments about Cryer's civil tax problems. It's unclear whether we will get to hear anything about Cryer's civil tax problems from now on. All future non-criminal actions are completely private -- essentially unless Cryer gets sued, or Cryer sues the government, or Cryer just decides to publicize any IRS tax collection problems he may be having. This is because the IRS cannot unilaterally disclose its own civil tax collection actions against Cryer, including seizure of his property and so on. Section 6103 of the Code. So far I haven't seen anything on Cryer's tax problems after the criminal case (but I haven't checked his web site lately). I know he will have tax collection problems, but if I were him I would not publicize them. Yours, Famspear 03:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Now who is bluffing, I recognize this tactic, it works well in litigation with unexperienced parties. I will illustrate:

First, you open with a completely false statement (read my words: "'frivolous' is a specific legal term"). You follow that up with a fear-full remark about a punishment under some section of some regulation few have ever read. This slip of the tongue freezes the reader in that state of mind, so as prevent the remembering, let alone reading of the regulation in question. Which in this case applies ONLY to "filers" (Under penalty of perjury, I...) and imposes no penalty on "non filers".

Second, you argue a hypothetical case, which is used to redirect the focus of the reader away from flaws of the remarks you are to make next, and further away from any compromise. Ultimately, you need to diminish any simpathy the reader may have, or any constructive points I raised.

Third, you, now the expert of everything in the mind of the reader, now presume to know what I was thinking; not unlike a magician's card trick. The reader never sees you palm the truth and replace it with your untruth(s), which in the mind of the reader is now the truth.

Lastly, you end with an all-knowing claim and carefully excuse yourself from actually doing any research. At this point "monkey see, monkey do" kicks in and the reader disengages from checking anything you said.

Now that everyone knows this trick, back to the article and my suggestion. I suggest that a civil proceedings section be created to replace this one and as things develop put the civil stuff there. N0 D1C4 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if anyone here is practicing a little misdirection, it's you, N0 D1C4. I don't really care, your shifting arguments are your right. But they're rather distracting from the point. You suggested that tax laws had been found unconstitutional based on tax protester arguments, were called out on it by a couple people and have since backed away. Now you're talking about a completely unrelated civil section whose purpose, even if it could be sourced, is unclear to me. The are a couple genuine suggestions here that have gone largely unanswered. First being the suggestion that tax protester arguments be linked to the article. The second my suggestion that this article be renamed U.S. versus Cryer, or something similar, since it is basically about the case and not the man. I'm still interested in considered opinions about those things from those that watch here and don't want that to get lost in this. Into The Fray ^T/C 10:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I think the proposal by editor Into the Fray is interesting: renaming the article, such as "United States v. Cryer". Another alternative would be "Tom Cryer's tax protester arguments," which might be even more precise as a description of what's in the article (as is includes more than just the Cryer case itself. If we rename the article as "Tom Cryer's tax protester arguments," it would make it clearer that this is not a biography, but rather an article about Tom Cryer's tax protester arguments (and would cover all his protester arguments, not just the ones he raised in his criminal trial) and how the courts have treated his arguments. That would (hopefully) eliminate the misguided attempts at straining to provide "equal weight" (which really means undue weight) to Cryer's arguments (although I rather doubt that we will be so lucky). Perhaps the article never really was a "biography" anyway. The text has focused primarily on Cryer's tax problems and arguments, and not on his other legal career or personal history.

Sadly, I have seen no meaningful response from N0 D1C4 -- the latest example being N0 D1C4's denying that the term "frivolous" is a specific legal term (e.g., N0 D1C4 astonishing reference to my statement -- that "frivolous" is a legal term -- as somehow being a "completely false statement"), even after having been confronted with citations to the texts of court decisions and the Code.

Regarding the proposals by editor Into the Fray (and on my related suggestions), input from editor BD2412 (who also has proposals on the table) and all other editors would be greatly valued. Yours, Famspear 14:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the proposal to move this to "Tom Cryer's tax protester arguments", because (so far as I can tell) there is nothing special about them. They are run-of-the-mill tax protester arguments covered under the series of articles on the topic. I doubt that this case is individually important enough to merit an article, but I could be wrong. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Editor BD2412 raises a valid point: that these are run-of-the-mill tax protester arguments, etc.

I remember that we recently went through a proposal for deletion, here:

[9] and that several of the "keep" positions were "weak keep" (mine included). Based on BD2412's input, I am having even more doubts about whether this article really merits retention in Wikipedia at all, and I am now wondering whether changing the title can adequately fix the problem. Famspear 15:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I regretfully have changed my mind and now favor removal of the article. It's obvious that several editors are bent on including original research to promote a biased political viewpoint, and they are very motivated and spend many hours each day in a successful effort to drown out with undue weight the contributions of others. Although I believe Cryer is notable, I'd rather see the article removed than to publish a biased article. The dispute resolution mechanisms are inadequate to resolve the conflict and achieve a consensus. Mpublius 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of like objecting to us having an article on sky blue because it promotes the biased viewpoint that the sky is blue. To both Famspear and Mpublius, Cryer has made himself notable through his actions, and no amount of dispute subtracts from the strength of the case for having an article on him. But surely we can take out the "rulings by the courts" section and leave it with something like the brief statement I proposed above? bd2412 T 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: Wait a minute, I'm confused. I thought editor bd2412 was moving toward suggesting a deletion, based on the statement of doubt "that this case is individually important enough to merit an article." I was slowly moving toward agreeing with that, and by extension this would be in a sense my agreement with the removal suggestion by Mpublius (although Mpublius and I apparently still disagree on underlying rationale).

Sorry if I misinterpreted something. I'm gonna hang back for a while and see how this develops with editor bd2412 and others -- my fellow editors are more creative than I am in coming up with ideas for solutions on this article. Yours, Famspear 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on notability has not changed, of course. The problem in my mind is that Cryer's notability, such as it exists, is based on an amalgamation of two things: First, that he is a tax protester. And second that he was acquitted in a tax case (though not on the merits of tax protester arguments). Neither is sustainably notable on its own (the case is not notable without Cryer and Cryer is not notable with out the case). But the article, as it stands, deals far more with the case than it does with Cryer himself. Hence I suggested the title change. bd2412 has an interesting idea that I'm not particularly adverse to. It ties up the concerns regarding undue balance and makes the article a better read. Into The Fray ^T/C 18:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify - I think the case is not particularly notable (among the hundreds of similar cases, and even among the handful where a tax protestor has succussfully plead his ignorance of the law). While I agree that Cryer would not be particularly notable without the case, I think that the case exists within the context of Cryer's life (in the sense that a teacher of linguistics may write one well-received pamphlet putting forth a hopelessly flawed theory on the origins of a particular language which does not itself achieve encyclopedic notability, but which captures the essence of that teacher's long-standing commentary on linguistics). Cryer has written his pamphlet, and has been lauded by those who approve of his approach, which is what makes him notable, in my view. bd2412 T 19:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editors: Per the discussion by BD2412, I have deleted the citations to the court cases and replaced them with the language that BD2412 had suggested (regarding the suggestion that the reader simply go to the Wikipedia articles on tax protester arguments for background). The case citation material was originally put into the article by me -- as a remedial response to certain efforts that had had the effect of improperly moving the article closer to being a soapbox for Cryer's tax protester arguments. As long as the article is not used as a soapbox for tax protester arguments, however, maybe we can get by without the case citations. I know that other editors (and I myself) have fought long and hard for retention of the citations; hopefully, now, their retention is no longer needed. Yours, Famspear 16:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the case citations in the article, but the Kowalski citation to 432 U.S. 159 is incorrect. The correct citation is 434 U.S. 77. Tcdpenn (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So it is. fixed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, you're too fast for me, thanks! And thanks to editor Tcdpenn as well! Famspear (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping

This page was getting quite large, so I archived a good deal of it, up to the point where the RfC was started. More could probably go, but I didn't want to remove anything pertinent to the current discussion. Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 02:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful about labeling things as "vandalism"

Dear editor N0 D1C4: You reverted another editor here, identifying the other editor's contribution as "vandalism":

[10]

That in my view was clearly not vandalism.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Whether you or I agree or disagree with a particular edit is a separate issue. When in doubt, assume that the edit is NOT vandalism. Yours, Famspear 17:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

EL links do not meet basic standards

The truth attack site fails on two points at least:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

The IRS site does not provide meaningful content for the article at hand that could not be included in a featured article. Therefore, they do not belong. Pro links vs. Anti links is not an appropriate mechanism to create npov. Tmtoulouse 17:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Supersede and supercede

There seems to be a controversy over the two spellings of this word. Both spellings are correct. See, e.g., p.1168 (supercede) and p. 1170 (supersede) as variant spellings, in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G.&C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976). More to the point, the legal document in question used the spelling "supercede," not "supersede." So, the spelling "supercede" is the correct spelling to be used here. Famspear (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)