Talk:Conscientious objection to military taxation

Untitled
Does RFPTFA need its own page, or should discussion of it be included in this one? -Moorlock 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

POV - "bloated military spending"? Bias creeping in there. Perhaps "bloated" in the US - I don't know - but here in the UK it's quite the opposite: funding is very low and resources are overstretched. Panlane 08:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Conscientious objection to military taxation → Conscientious objection to military taxation in the United States This article deals almost exclusively about this phenomenon in the United States. Please discuss at Talk:Tax protester. —  AjaxSmack    06:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is almost exclusively US - although the references are wider - and does not deal with war tax resistance, that is a form of resistance as civil disobedience rather than seeking legal provision for conscientious objection. The point about "bloated military spending" is that those who conscientiously object do regard military spending as "bloated" - in Britain where it absorbs resources that could be used for social ends as well as in the USA. User. Howard Clark 20 Jan 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Clark (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral tone and dubious analogy
> A “peace tax fund” payer, on the other hand, pays just as much money as the ordinary taxpayer, but just cherishes the illusion that her dollars were peaceful ones. It would be as if the government told conscientious objectors that they had to take up arms and shoot at the enemy just like everybody else, but that they didn’t have to take credit for their kills if they didn’t want to.

The use of the word cherish is odd, and the assumption that the author knows the illusions of a "peace tax fund" payer. The analogy is strange and undeveloped. quorn3000 (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conscientious objection to military taxation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205071906/http://www.consciencecanada.ca/references/history.pdf to http://www.consciencecanada.ca/references/history.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001055553/http://www.consciencecanada.ca/home.shtml to http://www.consciencecanada.ca/home.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)