Talk:FairTax/Archive 9

Mediation query
Morphh, would you agree on taking this dispute to mediation? (If you're not sure what that means, see ).Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought about your issue last night and let me try to detail my issues and propose a solution. My main goal is to maintain the standards and policies required in Wikipedia.  I also expect this would be the goal of any future Mediator and I hope you as well.
 * I think your proposal has issues with WP:LEAD and more importantly with WP:FACR 2(a) that requires - "a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;"
 * Your suggestion is neither a summary of the topic, nor concise, nor does it cover subsequent sections. In my opinion, it fails the criteria in every way.  We already have a large lead which we'd like to slim if possible, so long as it maintains the summary of the topic and subsequent sections. The lead currently introduces the main points of criticism (including those defined in the report).  To maintain size, we would end up having to removing another paragraph, one that does exactly what the lead is intended to do.
 * I think your proposal has issues with WP:NPOV - "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."
 * Placing this in the lead gives no counter view to the report. It gives this report significant weight over all other studies, which are more specific to the plan.  Given it's placement, prominence, and weight, it is asserted as being judged as "the truth" or the "most popular view".
 * I have an issue with the base assertion that the report represents the mainstream view on the FairTax. It represents the view of the Treasury Department (over the IRS), who drew up the figures that they won't release. The panel recommendations have received no action and little interest, not a mainstream welcome.  The Treasury Secretary is reported to have later stated they would use resources outside of the department to score the FairTax.  The basis for giving significant weight and placement to the report is based on opinion.  Sales taxes are a mainstream tax policy in this country, as well as around the world.  In regard to federal taxation, the dramatic deviation from status-quo is apparent in the first sentence of the article and covered in higher level articles such as Taxation in the United States.
 * Suggestion: I'd be open to inserting an additional word or two in the lead that clarified that the proposed change is "dramatic" or "major" tax reform. I think the section regarding the bill sitting in committee makes the statement that it is outside of the political mainstream for federal taxation, but we may be able to add some emphasis without much imbalance.   I'd be alright with putting the suggested content (with some tweaks) into the "Legislative history" section.  Since the tax panel study was done recently by the government in an effort to understand tax reform options, I think it fine to mention it as part of the political debate and opinion in Washington.  This would remove my objection to LEAD, FACR 2a, and significantly decrease my objection to NPOV and asserted mainstream views on the plan.  Morphh   (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that one paragraph he tried putting in the lead the only thing you think he has an issue with? Is it not fairly obvious that there are two mutually exclusive camps on this article? If you're so positive you've obeyed the wikipedia guidelines then why not accept binding arbitration on the whole article? Kbs666 (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We should be prepared to show that we tried to resolve the dispute. Arbitration is usually for user conduct and a last measure, but I'm fine to take it to whatever level is needed at the appropriate time.  I hope that providing the policy and guidelines in the context of the dispute will resolve the issue.  We'll address aditional issues as needed.   Morphh   (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to put this on the talk record. I did take the actions that I outlined in the Suggestion. Morphh  (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you did not. You left mediation after about 24 hours when the mediator made a decision you didn't like. Kbs666 (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is before Mediation Kbs666. The suggestions I outlined above, not below in the Mediation discussion.  This thread. See these changes.  Thanks for calling me a lier.   Morphh   (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

POV deleting
It appears that the ref reformatting is done so I'm going to make another stab at cutting the POV in the article. Kbs666 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that you did not gain consensus on this being a fringe issue. The majority stated it was not fringe.  You have also not presented an argument that would constitute acceptable change per NPOV policy by removing sourced proponent arguments.  I do think we might be able to tighten the prose on that section though.. maybe slim it slightly.   Morphh   (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the outside editors who did respond were overwhelmingly of the opinion this page violated POV and fringe. Since you have not seen any edits yet isn't complaining about what I might do more than a tad presumptive.Kbs666 (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess it is presumptive... I'm sorry - I should have waited and was on my way to delete the comment but you posted first. As for your last couple edits, I think they are fine.   Morphh   (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This sentence is unsourced "The studies also did not account for capital gains that may be realized by the U.S. government if the value of the dollar were to decrease following implementation, which would in turn reduce the real value of nominal U.S. government debt." If no source is provided I'm deleting it.Kbs666 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They use to be sourced but the sentence was split in two. Check the next sentences source.  It is the BHI study.   Morphh   (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The first two sentences of the Predicted effects section are significantly plagarized from the Money mag article they source. This is a copyright violation, or very close to one. I'm going to rewrite. Kbs666 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there is a difference in saying "Many economists... many of the same economists" (so many of many - a subgroup of the first), and the changed text, which implies the same economists (no subgrouping).  Morphh   (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is I somehow looked over the second many. I'll fix it. Kbs666 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The prebate chart is unsourced. It needs a source. I'd rather use a chart from elsewhere rather than have one hand generated here or the chart could go as it is of little value in advancing the subject of the article and has a distinct "here's how big a check you'll get" POV pushing feel to it. Kbs666 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a source we can use. www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxPrebateExplained2007.pdf, I'll add it. We did have an image in there at one time but the table is much easier to read.   Morphh   (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The AFFT FAQ is referenced 10 times and is a biased tertiary source. It should go per WP:PSTS. 9 of the references are otherwise unsourced and contain some of the worst POV in the main article. If replacement references to appropriate reliable secondary sources is forthcoming then great else I'm deleting them over the weekend. Kbs666 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, an "aggressive repeal" is not a pov term but a technical one. It means to not only repeal the 16th amendment but to forbid a future income tax.  As far as the FAQ, I can look for additional sources but please give a little more time.  Finding additional sources may require going through books (some of which I don't have on hand).  It is acceptable and expected that we would have sources from one side or another (bias sources are common) and tertiary sources are also acceptable.  I will try to find additional sourcing though.   Morphh   (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoting WP:PSTS "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources", the FAQ is none of these and is going away. It should never have been added in the first place. As to saving the statements it used to support, I see no need. The article is too long as it is and I'm confident the claims will turn out to be yet more unsupported assertions which shouldn't be presented here anyway. I will note that is true of one ref you already added. I'll still wait to the weekend. It needs to be understood that this article is going to get changed to be less blatantly advertising for AFFT. Kbs666 (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Many of these links are reliable secondary sources, which themselves contain references to the primary sources. I agree that the FAQ was tertiary, but that is not a term for exclusion.  You're cherry picking the statement - read the entire section or even the rest of the paragraph which gives it context.  I'm going to ignore your last couple of sentences to avoid conflict - such statements do not help improve the article and only create disruption.   Morphh   (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me also state that our opinion regarding "unsupported assertions" is not sufficient justification for removal. It is defined as the assertion of the proponents (or source). Each reader should form their own opinion regarding the data.   Morphh   (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When data is actually presented I have no problem with that. The whole numbers out of thin air stuff isn't data and has no place here. The article shouldn't contain any statements predicting economic outcomes without good peer reviewed published science backing up those claims.Kbs666 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is overly long giving that the topic is only of interest to a select group of people. However, apart from that, I think it passes NPV. lk (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is certainly room for tightening prose. It is a long article, which seems grow as new studies are introduced.  I have to disagree though that length is tied to interest level of the population.  The topic should strive to be comprehensive (FACR 1b) regardless of popular interest on the topic.   Morphh   (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The transition section's first two paragraphs are only vaguely on topic for that section. The first one on repeal of the 16th definitely should move or go away. The third paragraph, actually about the transition effects of the FairTax should be the lead. The second paragraph should move to below the third. Kbs666 (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 16th Amendment is a big issue with Flat taxers and some Libertarians. It's an often quoted criticism.  I'm fine with reordering.  Put the 16th one last and we can see about trimming it.   Morphh   (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The repeal of the 16th is not a predicted transition effect of the FairTax which is what the section is about. Kbs666 (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, than lets move it under "Other indirect effects".  Morphh   (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference for this sentence "Studies of the FairTax at Boston University and Rice University suggest the FairTax will bring long-term interest rates down by as much as one third." does not point to a study by anybody at Rice or BU but at a Beacon Hill paper. Further there is a single mention of Rice in the whole paper which references a 1998 presentation by W. Gale. If that's the paper referenced then it should be directly referenced. Otherwise that sentence is going away. Kbs666 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it links to Golob, however Golob doesn't mention Boston or Rice University. Kotlikoff is from Boston, can't remember who is from Rice.  I think this is a statement in the FairTax book.  However, I agree that it should be rewritten. I have another source we can use for this type of data.   Morphh   (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Another candidate for deletion "Price changes after the FairTax would largely depend on the response of the Federal Reserve monetary authorities. Non-accommodation of the money supply would suggest retail prices and take home pay stay the same—embedded taxes are replaced by the FairTax." From Theories of Retail Pricing. No ref and an absolutely bizarre claim. Increasing the money supply can cause inflation and decreasing it can cause deflation but the FairTax's effect on consumer prices isn't going to affected by the Fed's money supply policy any more or less than it is under the present system. As a matter of fact this entire section is a mess and needs serious cleanup. The final paragraph includes a claim that the much referenced open letter went to a commission on tax reform when it was actually adressed to the POTUS, Congress and the public. If I rewrite it's going to be straightforward, "Domestic product prices should neither rise nor fall [ref]. Imported goods prices will increase by nearly the entire amount of the FairTax rate[ref]." Since I assume that's unacceptable then somebody has some work to do.Kbs666 (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll work on some references. This is not normal expansion of the money supply - it is the accommodation of the tax.  If the tax is not accommodated, than employees would receive net wages and prices would remain about the same.  If people get some form of gross, than prices will increase accordingly up to the full 30% (or whatever).  This is covered in many papers by Gale, BHI, Bartlett, etc.  You are correct regarding the letter, that should be corrected, although I do think it was also sent to the tax commission.   Morphh   (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Read further... the refs for it are at the end of the full statement describing full accommodation and partial accommodation.  Morphh   (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read the refs. I can see where the info comes from. It's wrong and fandamentally misunderstands what the money supply is and what role it plays in all this. To put it simply for some reason the BHI authors think its a good idea to greatly expand the money supply, i.e. massive price and wage inflation, as part of this plan, conventional thinking would be to leave the money supply unchanged since this plan is supposed to be revenue neutral therefore the increase in wages would be matched by the price rise in all goods and equilibrium would be maintained. This is so phenomeningly a bad idea that I'm going to fall back on WP:FRINGE and suggest that anyone who supports massive inflation is well outside the mainstream and these claims should be dropped since no one outside this little group has or is likely to comment on this idea to provide a rebuttal ref. To be honest it calls into question all the papers by this group and confirms that the entire organization is outside the mainstream and falls into or uncomfortably close to WP:FRINGE. Kbs666 (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Historically, every nation that has imposed a national sales tax such as a value added tax has accommodated the new tax through monetary policy and seen a one-time rise in the price level of about the amount of the tax. So there goes the "conventional thinking".  I also don't see where we state that it would be a good idea to expand the money supply.  We're describing the options of implementation, which has been discussed by both opponents and proponents.  I can add additional refs if needed.   Morphh   (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The calculations you reference in that area is to a substantial increase in money supply. Not a small change in prices like happened in the UK when they instituted VAT. Basically BHI is arguing that several years of double digit inflation are a good thing. That's fringe economics. I will take note that it also is deceptive since they claim the benefit of this plan would be to encourage savings while significant inflation is one of the strongest possible disincentives to saving. At this point I'm back to the inescapable fact that AFFT and BHI are fringe authors and do not qualify as reliable for economics forecasts. Now we could go ahead and you could revert all the deletions that are coming, violate 3RR etc. or we could submit to an independent outside arbitrator. Kbs666 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some of the main economists that have studied and discussed accommodation of the FairTax.


 * Laurence Kotlikoff is a professor of economics at Boston University, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Professor Kotlikoff earned his Ph.D. in economics at Harvard. Before joining BU, he served on the faculties of UCLA and Yale and with the president's Council of Economic Advisers. He consults for governments, international organizations, and corporations and is the author or coauthor of thirteen books. Professor Kotlikoff's articles on personal finance and economics appear routinely in the nation's top papers and magazines.


 * Bruce Bartlett was formerly Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy and executive director of the congressional Joint Economic Committee. His articles often appear in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Fortune, Commentary and other major publications.  He is a frequent guest on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, NBC Nightly News, Nightline, Crossfire, Moneyline, Nightly Business Report, Wall Street Week, CNN, CNBC, the Fox News Channel, MSNBC and other news programs.  Bartlett's influence among policymakers was recently acknowledged by International Economy magazine, which did a study of the most important think tank scholars in the United States. He ranked number 9 on the list in 2004.


 * William Gale is the vice president and director of Economic Studies and holds the Arjay and Frances Miller Chair in Federal Economic Policy at the Brookings Institution. He conducts research on a variety of economic issues, including tax policy, fiscal policy, pensions and savings behavior. He is also co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of Brookings and the Urban Institute. Gale was an assistant professor in the Department of Economics at the University of California at Los Angeles, and a senior staff economist for the Council of Economic Advisers. He has also served as a consultant to the General Accounting Office and the World Bank.


 * David Tuerck is the executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute and serves as professor and chairman of the Suffolk University Department of Economics. Prior to joining Suffolk University in 1982, he was a director in the Economic Analysis Group at Coopers & Lybrand, Washington, DC. Prior to that, he served as director of the Center for Research and Advertising at the American Enterprise Institute. He holds a doctorate in economics from the University of Virginia.


 * Dale Jorgenson is the Samuel W. Morris University Professor at Harvard University (PhD in economics from Harvard in 1959). He served as Chairman of the Department of Economics from 1994 to 1997. He was a Founding Member of the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy of the National Research Council in 1991 and has served as Chairman of the Board since 1998. He also served as Chairman of Section 54, Economic Sciences, of the National Academy of Sciences from 2000 to 2003 and was President of the Econometric Society in 1987 and President of the American Economic Association in 2000.


 * I could list more but the point being that it is not FRINGE (Paul is dead, Time cube). My last count was 7 to 3 stating this was not fringe (with 2 of the 3 editors for fringe being very new to Wikipedia policy).  This material is not only from a reliable source but it is published in a peer-reviewed journal - it doesn't get much better.  They're not generically arguing for inflation.  They're discussing the methods for accommodating a replacement tax system and the removal of costs from a supply chain, which can have different effects depending on the method.  Inflation could be good if it averts economic contraction during transition.  Proponents would prefer and expect some method of partial accommodation, not full, but that is not the point of the section.  It is important to describe the different scenarios that have been discussed with regard to price and wage changes. A common misunderstanding is that people believe they would get both a pay raise and prices would stay the same.


 * The average VAT is between 15-25% inclusive, which has be implemented by many countries. Points could be made on either side regarding the different effects of monetary policy change for such a tax.  Non-accommodation could lead to an economic contraction.  Full accommodation would place an additional burden on the owners of existing assets, which could be argued to create progressive effects in the short run and also reduce the value of debt (both private and government).  You could make an argument that full accommodation would hurt retires and those with significant savings, as well as lenders.  We discuss some of these issues under the Transitional effects section.  After the transition (which may or may not effect savings depending on the model), the tax would be good for savings (which is the "deception" you implied).  I'm sure we could think of many possible outcomes but we don't know what the Feds would do and the sources here haven't really engaged deep in that discussion.  I can try to hunt down some points to include (possibly empirical VAT research), which dives a little deeper into transition effects if that would help.


 * Starting an edit war over it would not be helpful. While I may be one of the few editors willing to discuss the disputes, I'm not the only one watching this article to revert questionable changes.  As the person wanting to delete the content, it is up to you to sufficiently argue why it violates Wikipedia policy, which you have not done.  Let me also note that FRINGE is not a policy but a guideline, so this argument is even on thinner ground particularly when it conflicts with other policy.  I'm not fearful or resistant to escalating dispute resolution but question if arbitration is the next best step.  We have not gone through mediation, but I'll read through it and consider the next stage.  I'd like to resolve this quickly as well.   Morphh   (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The same group of economists that get trotted out for every discussion of the article. No change in them not convincing me. I've been down the road of the peer reviewed claims for this article. 1 article by Kotlikoff has actually been in a peer reviewed journal. After some research Tax Notes is definitely not peer reviewed so that leaves Kotlikoff and Jokisch. None of the BHI or AFFT claims. I've tried polite. You ignored me and reverted every reasonable change I made. You fought dumping self published sources and tertiary sources that there are no reliable secondary sources for. I read over the entire archives of this article and the sub article and you've stubbornly refused to accomodate anyone who has had issues with this article and just waited till they went away. You were clearly thinking that had happened when you tried to remove the POV dispute tag from the article earlier this week. I'm not going away and the reason is simply because of your behavior. I'm going to continue deleting POV and if you don't like it then lets go to a mediator. Kbs666 (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What I've stubbornly refused to do was accommodate violations of Wikipedia policy. That is what the discussion is for.  Just because editors disagree doesn't make them correct or that their suggestions are acceptable changes.  This is the case with your disputed suggestions.  I have not refused to remove self-published sources, only your incorrect definition of self-published sources.  As for the tag, I went to remove it per the instructions for the tag placement.  A fringe dispute does not equal an NPOV policy violation tag.   Morphh   (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article has problems with fringe sources, questionable sources, self published sources, use of tertiary sources, undue weight, plagarism and weasel words at least. I've made a little progress on getting rid of the worst of the claims and the worst of the sources but there's a long way to go before the article is NPOV. I don't expect a lot more will get done before you start reverting stuff but I might be wrong. Kbs666 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article has POV issues. I think a big problem here is that most of the literature is from proponents; other economists have not wasted their time on a proposal that has so little chance of being enacted, and is so obviously a ploy on behalf of the wealthy. I think it is probably difficult to construct a reasonable article from the available sources. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So the solution is to strip out proponent positions and arguments? I think you can have more data from one side and still be NPOV, if you present all sides neutrally.  If you have 5 studies on one side, and one on the other, you should report each - it shouldn't matter which is for or against and you shouldn't weight one study as equal to the other five.  You seem to be saying that you can't have a neutral article if one side has more research.  I don't think this is true per our policy.  You could have a subject with only one major point of criticism, so long as all significant criticism and other viewpoints are included, you're following policy.  Perpahs "POV" is the wrong term as it implies compliance with Wikipedia policy, which may be different than presenting some 50/50 ratio.   Morphh   (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You really need to read WP:FRINGE. It's quite clear that in cases like this the minority view is not to be given undue weight simply because the mainstream has ignored the subject. That does mean that all these pro sources are inappropriate. This has been pointed out before. Kbs666 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a fringe subject and has been stated as such by a super-majority of editors reviewing the point. The continued push to use it as a basis for content removal is inappropriate and may be considered disruption.  Morphh   (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Another tertiary source,. All the claims in it are sourced to other sources which are already in the article. Some claims in sentences that reference this do not appear in it at all. Kbs666 (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This would be a secondary source, not a tertiary source, with the study itself being a primary source. Sometimes a reference may be used to support part of the sentence, and another reference to support another.  If this is not the case, than please identify the statement so it can be corrected.   Morphh   (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are things like actual data or eyewitness accounts. Secondary sources are interpretations of primary sources. Tertiary sources are sources that summarize other sources. This is definitely a tertiary source. Kbs666 (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tertiary sources are usually things like encyclopedias or other compendia but in either case it doesn't really matter.  On an article about the FairTax, Fairtax.org sources become more significant as it is an articles about themselves.  Morphh   (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually according to WP:SELFPUB the sources coming from AFFT need to be not contentius, not unduly self-serving and not make claims about third parties. All of AFFT's articles used for sources for this article fall very close to and in many cases well over these lines. As such the tertiary sources which clearly violates WP:PSTS as well are going to be removed. In the process it will make the article cleaer by reducing the number of pro references that simply quote from or summarize already referenced pro sources. I anticipate being able to remove a number of outright unsupported claims as well. Kbs666 (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Selfpub is to stop people from tossing up a website or a book and than using it as a source. Things like newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, and forum postings.  This is not about organizations like a 501(c) who has commissioned over 20 million in research on a topic, which they publish on their website.  Likewise it doesn't apply to a research team that publishes their paper on the university website.  The closest thing we have to a selfpub is a couple references to Nealz Nuze, which falls into the acceptable selfpub by an expert on the topic.  I don't think the Nuze references anything contentius.   Morphh   (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoting from WP:QS "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Which clearly includes the AFFT website. Then WP:SELFPUB says this "Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:" and then goes on to list a series of requirements including not being contentious, unduly self-serving and does not make claims about third parties. So the AFFT website qualifies as a questionable source about fringe science and we are sourcing a lot of this article from it which is inappropriate based on both WP:FRINGE and WP:SELFPUB. I've gone over all the refs once now and am going over them again in detail I'll list the ones from AFFT that are over the line sometime this coming week. Kbs666 (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A bill that has 17% of the House cosponsoring it (which is always less than support) and over half of the Republican presidential candidates (and one Democrat) is not extremist. Minority political support does not equal fringe science, nor does lack of criticism in one particular area.  Consumption taxes like this are used all over the world.  The economics on sales taxes are older than income taxes. AFFT does not have a poor reputation for fact-checking.  They are not widely acknowledged as extremist and they are not relying on rumors or personal opinions.  I don't have time at the moment to properly respond and review the changes, which at the moment might not be a bad thing for WP:DISENGAGE and WP:ATM.   Morphh   (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Laws in favor of creationism routinely get passed by various legislatures, one just did in LA for instance, and that doesn't change creationism's status as a fringe theory. So please stop trying the "it's popular with some politicians" gambit every time the science is challenged on this. AFFT's website is promotional in nature and is extremist (libertarians are by definition extremists on taxes). As to research on generic consumption or sales taxes those aren't being challenged and neither is any real peer reviewed research on FairTax. I gave warning before every major deletion and will continue doing so but there is still a lot of editing to be done.Kbs666 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes us qualified to define what is extremist and not (and remove content and sources based on your opinion in that regard)? Who brought up Libertarians?  I brought up 75 Republicans and a Democrat.  AFFT is not Libertarian.  Libertarians would generally be considered extreme on taxes in regard to them wanting to eliminate or significantly reduce them.  The FairTax does neither, and for that reason is rejected by those same libertarians.   In either case, it doesn't matter.  Even if we considered AFFT some extremist organization (which we have no clear basis for), it is still an article specifically about the FairTax and thus would carry those viewpoints of its proponents (extremist or not).  Promotional?  The intent of that term is to discourage linking to sites that are overly selling products or generating advertising revenue.  Every site that is an authority or takes a position on a particular issue is going to promote their viewpoint.  That's not the intent of the term.  This is not a matter of challenging science as we have no authority to do so.  We should not remove their viewpoints based solely on our belief.  What if I took your position on removing critical content (point)?  We'd be left with a raped article that does not properly express either viewpoint.    Morphh   (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This sentence sources the above ref "Proponents state the incentive to work would increase by as much as 20%, the economy’s capital stock would increase by 42%, labor supply by 4%, output by 12%, and real wage rate by 8%." Almost all of these claims are contained in articles already referenced in this article and should be directly sourced, in a couple of cases sentences discussing specific economic claims based on those articles already exist and these should be folded into those other claims otherwise the appearance of trying to present overwhelming pro sources to make a point seems to be the only reason for this sentence. Kbs666 (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Another source we likely should remove. The authors specifically request "Please do not quote or cite without permission of authors." So unless such permission has been obtained and if so it should be kept available somewhere, this is another source on the way out. Kbs666 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to remove at the moment. I just sent an email to them to see if we can cite them. Let's wait until we hear back.
 * Permission has been granted by Bill Fox to cite the article. --Patrick (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So that it doesn't come up again can you get something to prove that. Posting the grant of permission to this page seems appropriate. Kbs666 (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a version of the paper from Tax Analysts (although I see there is some discussion about peer review). Tom Joad 2k (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know it is a peer-review tax journal. Specialists in tax policy try to have their researched published in it, which then goes out to the general tax expert community.  They also published the data on their site for review.  Anyway... peer-review or not.. it doesn't matter.  That is not the qualification for a reference.   Morphh   (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Peer review occurs before publication. Usually the journal's editor sends out every submitted manuscript to one or more refereees, experts in the specific area of the paper usually, who critically examine the methodology and conclusions. The article doesn't get published till the referees are satisfied with the methodology and that the data supports the conclusions. WP:V has this to say on the matter "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources" and "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." So since economics is a field with peer reviewed journals that would be the preferred sources for any such subject related to economics and even more preferred in regards to the exceptional claims made in this article. The paper in question was originally presented at a symposium and then subsequently published in a not peer reviewed journal. It is however presented in a way that suggest good methodology, extensive footnotes, references and clear statments of the models and underlying assumptions. It looks like an acceptable source as long as it doesn't make extraordinary claims. Assuming it is now clear of copyright entanglements I have no issue with including it.Kbs666 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, my edit previously wasn't vandalism. I unintentionally edited from the history. I thought I had reverted but I guess I hadn't. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Going through the AFFT sources and this one really jumped out and grabbed me with its falsehoods and misrepresentations:. It violates numerous rules for wikipedia sources. I'll give Morph a couple of days to find a replacement ref for the claim it is used to support. Kbs666 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The information in the paper has sources. This is their opinion based on the sources they reference - their position.  So, it seems you're going to remove it based on your opinion of falsehoods and misrepresentations.  What if everyone did this (point)?  If there is something that is factually inaccurate, and we can reasonalby show that it is a mistake and not opinion, than I'm fine with excluding data that would repeat a mistake or error.  If the errored data is not what is being referenced, than the other content referenced should be fine.  We did this on one of Bartlett's articles where he mistakenly stated the rebate amount was based on income (it's based on family household size).  We still reference the article and much of Bartlett's criticism in it but we're not going to repeat his error.   I'm not saying we can't find a better replacement source, just arguing the justification for removal.   Morphh   (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi there, I've volunteered to mediate the case you have proposed over at WP:MEDCAB.

Firstly I'd like one of you to clarify the situation as of now for me, and I'd ask that each party giving me a statement about what you feel should be done.

Clarification
Please provide a clarification of the current situation here.

Kbs666's view
It is my view that many of the sources used here, virtually all of the fairtax.org and Beacon Hill Institute documents, are, at least, questionable sources under WP:QS and that fairtax.org is also fairly close to being an unacceptable self published source. Since they are being used to support many extraordinary claims, growth of the economy by 10.5% in a single year for instance, that they are therefore inappropriate under WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. I see no actual need for the article to contain any of the assertions about the economic impact of implementing this plan or for there to be three subarticles containing even more of the same.

What I am trying to accomplish at this time is the removal of sources that simply regurgitate claims made in other sources we're already using as well as getting rid of tertiary sources entirely when no source for any claim in the source is referenced, the case with the fairtax.org FAQ I removed.

Ultimately I want to edit this article so that it is less of a cheerleader for the fairtax.org and related groups.

On a personal point, Morphh's behavior in this has become an issue for me. When I first started trying to edit this article I was dismissed out of hand (a treatment common to other editors who have tried to improve this article as is quickly evident from the archives of this talk page). It was only when I drew outside attention to the article by posting a request for help on WP:FTN that any progress at all was made, simply allowing a NPOV disclaimer to be put on the article and removal of clearly self published sources. I've made my opinion clear that an outside mediator was a good thing for some time but Morphh never informed me of his change of heart or that he had posted such a request. I accept mediation and will abide by the results, assuming Morphh agrees to do the same, but hope that some improvement in this situation will also occur. Kbs666 (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think it would be a good idea for Morphh and I to stop all editing of the article until mediation is finished and will abide by this if Morphh agrees. Kbs666 (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed Morphh   (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Morphh's view
I'd like to resolve the policy/guideline issues around WP:FRINGE and its use in the dispute for content removal justification in this article. If we could move past the dismissal and name calling of proponent opinion and points of view (extremists, fringe, falsehoods, misrepresentations, etc), I think we could move forward to address the content that Kbs666 has issues with. We need to respect fairtax.org as a source of authority on the plan for the proponent viewpoint. At this point, I don't have a problem with Kbs666's actual changes thus far (except for one). I'm hoping we can move past this sourcing debate and address the actual content that is objectionable and discuss ways to improve it. If "improving it" requires removal of sourced data that represents a pov, I may have an issue with it. Ultimately, we need to present and attribute both points of view and I may object to the removal of content justified on the grounds of Kbs666's opinion regarding the source's assertions. Morphh  (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight, you have no issues with Kbs666's changes except for the removal you have linked? There are no other issues to resolve? — Cyclonenim T@lk? 19:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point, the dispute is not over content changed. The dispute is content to be changed and the justification for the changes.  I may very well be open to the specific content changes (like the past changes), but am not open to some of the larger and more aggressive suggestions presented on the talk.  Even though I'm fine with some of the changes, I feel I should comment on the justification so that it does not become acceptable practice for future changes.  While I'm ok with removing a source and spending time finding improved sources, there is dispute on the justification for the source's removal in the first place.  If we're working to improve sources, great - improve away.  If we're using it as a backend method to delete a pov, than we have an issue.  Kbs666 is selecting sources he/she is planning to delete, to which I must scramble to find new sources before the content is deleted.  I argue that the base justification is invalid for the removal of the source and the proponent pov.  If there is an issue with specific content, than let's address it, but I'm tired (as Kbs666 is) of going round and round regarding sources he labels as extremist for the purpose of removing a proponent statement(s).   Morphh   (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that is very much a bad thing. We have strict rules on NPOV, as all good encyclopaedias should. I'd have to say, though, that I agree with the previous change that you linked in your first response. I think the text removed was full of weasel words, like Kbs666 suggested, and is very much not neutral. I haven't yet reviewed the previous discussion, it's fairly substantial, and I'm going to have to get back to you on the proposed changes.
 * I also have to ask, what do you want to come from this? Do you simply want a third opinion from myself or do you wish to have a thorough conclusion with all sides agreeing what needs to be done. The former shouldn't take to long, the latter could take days or weeks. — Cyclonenim T@lk? 20:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That statement use to have specific figures in it regarding growth, which made it more direct, but it was changed recently. I'm not oppose to rewording or reorder such statements - I just objected to the removal of that argument and opinion, which tries to rebut the criticism.  In either case, that is a good discussion to have.  There have been no specific changes proposed, just general comments regarding deleting content in sections - removing POV.  I guess we could start with the opinion and go from there if need be.  My hope is that we can move past the fringe / ref dispute and get to addressing the content changes (if need be).  Morphh   (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Other comments by other users
Should any other users wish to comment on the situation, they may do so here.


 * Part of the issue in my mind is the use of economic predictions. Economist have used different models for several decades to try and predict how different things might affect the economy. Have any of them been proven reliable? Not to my knowledge.


 * So what we have here is an organization, The Americans for Fair Taxation (an "organization solely dedicated to replacing the current tax system"), paying economists to plug some numbers into a economic model and say the FairTax will grow the economy X% more than the current system. Really? How could any such claim possibly be considered reliable? (BTW, the financial arrangement between the AFFT and some of the economists making these claims isn't even mentioned in the article.)


 * I believe the article should cover the specifics of the proposal and leave the economic speculation out. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the key to sorting out this argument will be establishing which sources are considered reliable sources, when this is agreed the article can be changed to reflect that. We should focus on USer:Kbs666's assertions that the fairtax.org and Beacon Hill institutes are not reliable sources.
 * I strongly disagree with the second of User:Kbs666 suggestions "I see no actual need for the article to contain any of the assertions about the economic impact of implementing this plan" . As an interested reader I do want to know about the theorised economic impact, both positive and negative, for an article on a proposed economic change this is especially important.
 * User:Kbs666 suggests there is no need "for there to be three subarticles containing even more of the same". An important issue for wikipedia is that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no harm in having plenty of information on FairTax, there is a problem with it all being in one article (see WP:SIZE ) which is I assume why these sub articles have been created. As long as all information in these sub articles is well sourced or obvious it should be kept. GameKeeper (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This article reads like an advertisement for the tax proposal in question. Regardless of it's verifiability, the book "The FairTax Book" receives far too many references, it would be like having an article with most of it's references being an Al Franken book (another best selling non-fiction) or focusing a person's page on their autobiography. i.e. claims of Greenspan's support for the tax should be references with source material (almost all of it should be public record). Pdbailey (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The book is often used to source neutral statements that just describe the plan, which is why it tends to have more footnotes than most. It is also used to source criticism, and of course pro points.  We have few books on the FairTax, so it makes sense that a book on the topic would receive more footnotes for describing the plan than any particular study or new article.   Morphh   (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I point to the Autobiography analogy where I think all your points hold, but an article based on the book would not be a great encyclopedia article. Pdbailey (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article is based on the book. It is not even vaguely based on the book (either books).  Morphh   (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediators comments
I agree it is a good idea for you both to cease editing the article temporarily in order to resolve this issue. Right now, whilst trying to remain neutral in this dispute, I'm leaning towards 'remove the POV'. The problem I have here is finding what the proposed changes are. The discussion above is so extensive I cannot retain all the information. Instead, there is a section below now called 'Proposals'. I'd like a list of the supposed removal of POV to be listed here for review, considering all the above points are jumbled between those which have been accepted and those which have not.

What I will say is this—anything that is sourced from the FairTax FAQ should be removed if it hasn't been already. It's not a reliable source and it's biased. But yes, a list of proposed changes would be very useful. I might end up calling in another mediator to help here as well, this might be a fairly big job for my first mediation case

— Cyclonenim T@lk? 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The source has already been removed. However, just to be clear, a source being bias on a particular viewpoint is not an issue as you seem to suggest as part of your reasoning.  Most sources are bias (see WP:NPOV).  I'm also not sure why you would consider the authority for the plan (the group that created it) and the research presented by the non-profit organization as not being a reliable source on this article (see WP:RS).  This is quite different than debating points on it being extreme, tertiary, or self-pub.  Morphh   (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposals
Please list your proposals to the articles here. — Cyclonenim T@lk? 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have two proposals. One is extreme and I realize unlikely to happen, that is delete all of the sections except legislative history and fairtax movement, including the three subpages based on those sections to be deleted. Let interested parties go to fairtax.org for the pro side.


 * Alternatively, realistically, I propose reviewing all of the sources and eliminating those that restate data contained in others and thereby reduce the total number of sources while improving the quality of the article's sources. As part of the review a decision would need to made as to whether the economics claims presented in favor of the FairTax are or are not fringe theories per WP:FRINGE and how to balance the pro and con sides better. Kbs666 (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Will you assist in finding sources or adding the sources if need be when sources are removed? I have an issue with the content getting deleted in some cases, which may be a separate discussion (as you stated).  I have no problem with improving sources.  I do have major issues with the economic data removal, so this would need to go to a larger discussion on fringe (such is beyond a one person mediation).  It would make sense though to understand what you're proposing.  If it is a sentence here or there, than it might be something we could easily compromise on.  For example, I had already removed the 10.5% GDP growth sentences.    Morphh   (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be necessary to look very far. If you take almost any of the AFFT sources they either present completely unsupported assertions which are hard to justify being used in this article or they reference one of the Kotlikoff or BHI papers. So it should be a simple matter to actually follow the footnotes to the original source of the claim, verify that the claim is actually there and it isn't just an assertion without supporting evidence. The big problem and where we're sure to disagree is that most of the BHI papers present a lot of claims but present very little information on how those claims were arrived at and it has always been my contention that such claims are worthless as sources since no one can examine them with an eye to checking their math and models. Kbs666 (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that is the point of attribution. NPOV states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."  So as long as we say, BHI says or Kotlikoff says, or Proponents state, we're stating a fact about opinion.  We're not to take a position on what is truth or the right view.  How about we do this on unverified claims... add a dubious tag after the statements you have issues with, and than we can discuss it if needed.  In some cases, I may just delete the statement, which I expect would be fine with you.  In other cases, I may try to rewrite it or resource it.  In other cases, I may fight to keep it as is.  This would seem to at least be a way to move forward.   Morphh   (talk) 0:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At some point editorial judgement has to be exercised. For instance I cannot see including anything from fairtaxfraud.com, even though they agree with my POV, the site fails as a viable source for wikipedia for a whole host of reasons and I simply will not post a claim simply because I can point a link to some page that says the same thing. 03:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbs666 (talk • contribs)
 * I have to agree with Morphh on this one. It is fine to state that a source has said something as long as it is fact. If it is cited in the original source (e.g. Kotlikoff or whatever) and the source is reliable, then it is suitable for inclusion. As far as I'm concerned, anything that is a POV and not sourced in such a way should be removed. — Cyclonenim T@lk? 08:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is where part of the trouble has been. It has always been my view that these sources aren't reliable and fall under such guidelines as WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. They make a whole slew of specific economic claims with little in the way of actual research behind the claims and since the mainstream of the economics community ignores this idea there has been no independent research arriving at any conclusions pro or con on the subject. Kbs666 (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand where you're coming from. Remember though that guidelines are guidelines, not rules you have to follow. You must use your best judgement when reviewing sources. By all means, remove any information which is poorly sourced but you must show that the source really is poor (i.e. prove it is original research and without sources that abide by our reliable sources). However, if any source used in this article is not original research, and has been created using other sources of good quality, it should be by all means kept. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is a bare assertion, no footnote, endnote, bibliography or other indication of how the number was arrived at, ok to remove? I can remove most of the source I have issues with if that standard of proof is sufficient under WP:RS. Morphh however insists that such claims are ok.Kbs666 (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify, we're not talking about unreferenced bare assertions in the Wikipedia article. We're talking about the source making a statement that Kbs666 believes is a bare assertion. For example, Congressman Linder (the bill sponsor) states in a source that the FairTax would create a 26% initial increase in exports.  Congressman Linder does not reference where he got the data.  So Kbs666 states this is a bare assertion.  In the article we state something like, "John Linder states the FairTax would create a 26% initial increase in exports".  We've attributed the statement to Linder - it is a statement of fact and the source verifies the statement.  It is Linder's point of view with regard to exports.  Kbs666 would remove this source since it does not reference where the 26% figure was derived.  This leaves the statement without a source, so the material has to be rewritten and resourced if possible.  One could contact Linder's office but I guess that doesn't count for some reason. Of course, most publications do not provide a reference list for the statements and such a requirement that every source point back to the primary source would be impossible on Wikipedia.    Morphh   (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no belief to it. It is a bare assertion. A fairly simple part of WP:RS is that we only source things that are published somehow and in these cases we shouldn't be putting assertions without even an attempt to support them in the original source in this article. That's why peer reviewed sources are prefered in general and should be prefered here, we know that the data and claims were reviewed by neutral experts prior to publication.Kbs666 (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * AFFT has not published all their commissioned research. I think they had spent 20 million before BHI was even approached.  So it is possible that the claims you reference are based on research, but the detailed studies just haven't been published.  Jorgenson's work was unavailable for a while, in fact his rate and economic study is still unavailable. AFFT happen to send me a copy when I was reviewing the data for the article (I had e-mailed them in regard to his research), so I know it exists, just can't find it publicly.  They restate his findings in other documents.  From what I understand, John Linder also has his own economists.  Morphh   (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a saying in academia that holds true in this case, "publish or perish." AFFT can assert that they spent $20 million on research but until I can go over the math and models used in the study why should I give any credence to the claims? The Discovery Institute claims to be doing research through the Biologic Institute but the simple claim does not make Intelligent Design scientifically valid and yes, I'm directly comparing AFFT and the Discovery Institute and can back up the aptness of the comparison. I will also state that if you're working with AFFT closely enough that they're sending you unpublished material you are awfully close to violating WP:COI and WP:OR. Kbs666 (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not working with AFFT. They've sent some of their research to several people that I know of, Joe Miller of FactCheck comes to mind.  If you e-mail them and state you're working on the Wikipedia article and would like clarification on a particular point, they may just provide you with the data.  Imagine that.. contacting someone.  I've also contacted Gale, Kotlikoff, the BHI economists, Walby and Jorgenson.  I have not included OR, the referenced material I inquired about was released/found.  Keep your insults and accusations to yourself.   Morphh   (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing at all should be in this article that is not available in a publsihed source period. I'm a quite able researcher and have never ever needed to contact anyone in person to do valid research on a subject and WP:RS makes clear that it isn't allowed here at all. As to any insults, please quote the insult in my above post otherwise retract the accusation. As to my accusation that you are close to breaking WP:COI and WP:OR they're based upon your own claim that you are doing original research and are working with AFFT. Kbs666 (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Google is not the be all to finding data. You're welcome to go searching through every book, journal, and archive that may have information your looking for, but I'd rather just contact the person that made the statement and ask them what the source of their data was.  For example, contact John Linders office and ask where the 26% figure is derived.  They may provide you with the primary source (a book, an article, a publication, a link, or in some cases they'll just send you the study).  I never stated I was doing original research, which is a Wikipedia term for including my own view without reference.  I was trying to find additional source data to better reference material.  The insult was to my intergity.   Morphh   (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about Google? I don't start a search for academic papers with Google. That's how I know how little peer reviewed material has been published about FairTax and that's how I know its a fringe topic in economics. I don't need to contact Linder to know his claim isn't in a peer reviewed article on the subject and as an extraordinary claim it needs to come from a high quality source which a bare assertion by anyone is by definition not. Kbs666 (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a proposal. First, I should say that I believe the FairTax is a sham and the "research" that supposedly supports the FairTax is all contrived research paid for by the primary advocates of the FairTax. Now that you know my bias, I should also say that I've followed the Wikipedia article for years, occassionally contributing (or vandalizing, depending on one's point of view.) All in all, I believe that Morph has done a great job trying to be neutral on a very controversial subject. And much of the controvery stems from the primary proponent of the FairTax, who's a very vocal talk-show host, who some people love and others hate. So many of the comments/revisions/deletions on the FairTax article over the years have been based on one's views towards the talk-show host rather than the facts.

In light of the above, this article will never be left alone. People are always going to jump in with their own two cents based on what they hear over the radio or read on fairtax.org. So, I would suggest that the editors accept that as a reality and instead of trying to make the text completely neutral, instead have an "arguments in favor of the FairTax" section and "arguments against the FairTax" section. I believe if the arguments pro and con are given their own sections, the article and the arguments will be easier to follow, and you will see less deletions/revisions/vandalism to specific sections. You can also make it clear that the arguments for or against might come from biased sources (and identify the biases, if known.)

That's my suggestion.68.211.163.188 (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)GeorgiaTex

Proposals by Looie496


 * 1) The belief that the FairTax is a good idea is a fringe theory.  Therefore this article should be governed by wp:fringe, and the mainstream view that the FairTax is a bad idea should be given priority wherever the two come into direct conflict.
 * 2) In most cases where pro and con views are contrasted, the pro views are given the privileged position:  they are explained at greater length, and given the last word.  This ordering of privilege should be reversed, or at least balanced.
 * 3) This article cites too many primary sources, in violation of wp:source.  If assertions cannot be supported by high-quality secondary sources, they should in most cases be deleted.
 * 4) The section on Predicted effects should be radically shortened, because there is a sub-article on this topic.
 * 5) The section on Changes in the retail economy should also be condensed.
 * 6) The single highest-quality source for this topic is Chapter 9 of the Tax Panel Report.  The conclusions of that chapter should be summarized in the lede of this article.

(I respectfully ask that this list of proposals be left intact, and that comments, if any, be added below this line.) Looie496 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, as I agree with Kbs666's last comment above. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 21:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What experience do you have with U.S. tax policy that you're so opinionated - I've looked at your bio. Quickly agreeing to what is fringe, what is extreme, what is mainstream, what should go in the lead, on a topic you know nothing or little about.  I think I'm done working with you Cyclonenim, you're welcome to continue to offer your opinion but I will not be moderated by someone that has already incorrectly stated policy and offers little rational for such dramatic changes on a FA article.  I'm done.   Morphh   (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Morphh, I'm not moderating you, the mediation cabal is a group of volunteers. I am simply offering a third opinion. You are correct, I have very little experience with U.S. tax policy considering I am a British individual interested in medical articles. Firstly, I wish to point out to you that what Looie496 has proposed is not extreme, nor am I agreeing to it 'quickly'. Both Looie and Kbs666 have made very good points, citing policy, and producing good arguments for why they propose these changes. The fact that the article relies so heavily upon primary sources and that is not a good thing as it's bordering very closely on original research. Therefore, sources that do not cite their secondary sources are not reliable and shouldn't be used unless there is no alternative to keep them. I feel that you, Morphh, are opposing these changes because you feel it is you who has to find the new sources, not because the changes are bad in themselves.
 * Secondly, you may wish to be a little more courteous towards those who are just trying to help you out. The changes Looie has proposed are not that extreme, except perhaps a radical shortening of Predicted effects, but since there is a sub-article on this subject, as Looie stated, it should be shortened and have a tag applied to it. I will step out of this discussion now, it's clear you are not interested in my help here and that is fine. Further disputes should be taken to the mediation committee rather than the cabal. You are certain to recieve a more thorough approach there since it is the next step up. I apologise if I was inadequete here, but I was merely stating my opinion on what should be done from a perspective of someone with no conflicting interests.
 * Kind regards,
 * —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had noted that you never agreed to abide by the mediator's decisions. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but it is now clear that you had no intention of allowing mediation to succeed unless it was in your favor.


 * Cyclonenim, I appreciate your efforts and am sorry your first mediation was started by an editor acting in bad faith. Kbs666 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Points 1 & 2 seem a big step to me. Especially saying that " the FairTax is a good idea is a fringe theory". I agree it is a minority opinion but this in no way falls under the WP:Fringe definition, which means something very specific here on wikipedia, it's normally reserved for conspiracy theories , etc. I personally think FairTax would be a economically a bad idea, but since I am from the UK it would not affect me anyway. Removing well sourced positive descriptions should not be done, simply because the positive view is a minority view. It should be clear who is making the assertion. There should rarely ever be a need to remove well sourced information from any article. If we agree not to remove well sourced items. I think this discussion comes down to what should be accepted as reliable sources for this article which should make the discussion simpler. GameKeeper (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We've covered this though, GameKeeper. What you have just said is perfectly true but it is what is in debate. One party believes that the items to be removed are not well sourced since the come from primary sources. The other side believes that these are reasonable sources. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I am a bit confused then, above you say I agree to User talk:Looie496's proposals above, which include saying that " the FairTax is a good idea is a fringe theory". I strongly disagree with that particular statement. It may be a minority view, but this does not make it a fringe view ,which means something quite specific on wikipedia, such as using creationist sources for biology articles, or various conspiracy theories. If we are arguing about the reliability of various sources then I totally agree, if we are talking about treating the positive sources as WP:Fringe views then I disagree. Your statement that you agree with User talk:Looie496 above seemed to imply the later. Do you think actually agree it should be classified as a WP:Fringe idea?
 * A number of the positives ( the majority even) are supported by sources that are have not been mentioned above by User:Kbs666, so these positives supported by other sources should remain even if any sources we agree are questionable are removed. I've added some comments to theTalk:FairTax above too. GameKeeper (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm simply saying that both sides have good points going! This is not somewhere where I believe I should go completely one way or another, and I realise by me saying "I agree" earlier kind of looks a bit abrupt, I apologise. Looie and Kbs666 have both correctly pointed out that SOME sources are primary sources, and are not suitable for inclusion. I don't think they are saying that all primary sources should be removed. If they are, I disagree. Without a detailed background in U.S. taxation (as Morphh has pointed out) it is difficult for me to decide what is minority (fringe), although I'm getting a general background from this discussion that FairTax is mainly seen as a bad idea in the media, making the positive view of FairTax a fringe theory. You've said that Wikipedia uses the term differently but in WP:FRINGE is states that "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study".
 * As per WP:FRINGE some primary sources may be used to verify the text as a whole, as long as they are not the sole sources used. Since secondary sources (I think there are independant sources being used?) are being used as well, I don't see a problem with their inclusion in this article.
 * I hope this clears my current view but it might be wise for me to step back from this discussion per Morphh's point about my lack of knowledge in American economics? I realised I've messed this one up big time, really. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Morphh's point about your lack of knowledge os US economics was completely wrong. In the first place I simply would have requested a different mediator if you had been an expert in economics since almost be definition if you had expertise in the area you wouldn't be a neutral third party which IMO is vital to successsful mediation. The only big mistake I think you made was in writing terse responses. Lengthier explanations would, again IMO, have been better than simply posting "I agree" type responses. Kbs666 (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is my issue with Cyclonenims comments. No sources or evidence have been presented that the FairTax is Fringe or that AFFT is an extremist organization.  No evidence or sources have been brought forward that the FairTax is considered a bad idea or that the current system is a good idea (I could reference polls that state otherwise).  If it's such a bad idea that everyone hates, than why did over half of the Republican U.S. Presidential nominees support the plan (politians don't do anything without support)?  Looie gave no examples, no specifics, and there was little rebuttal, yet Cyclonenim's "agreed" with this major list of changes.  I can present aguments against every point, not saying I disagree with every point, but he hadn't even heard the debate.  This is where the experience point was implied - you don't know enough about it to take the statements at face value.  There was not enough to understand what the impact would be on the FACR, there is not enough understanding with your background to state what weight to give, we have no idea as to what the specifics would do to NPOV, you have no background on the Tax panel study and why it supposidly should or should not be given a paragraph in the lead (here is my rebuttal on that particular one and why it violates a number of policies).   You have Looie saying there are too many primary sources and Kbs666 arguing to replace sources with more primary sources.  You have Looie arguing for the Tax Panel study, which only references the FairTax with the "bare assertions" that Kbs666 is arguing to remove.  Cyclonenim is agreeing with both.  It's a complete clusterfuck.  I appreciate your efforts Cyclonenim and I hope this doesn't discourage you from helping others in the future.   Morphh   (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The first proposal that suggests the fairtax is a good idea is a fringe theory doesn't really make sense. The fairtax is basically a consumption tax. Is the suggestion that consumption taxes are a good idea is a fringe theory.  45 of the 50 states in the US have some type of consumption tax (44 are retail sales taxes, as is the fairtax although they are narrower in base).  How can that be described as fringe?  The second proposal seems the article should be blatantly biased against the fairtax.  I won't comment on proposals 3 to 5 since they seem to deal more with the nuance of wikipedia guidelines which I am just becoming familiar with.  But proposal 6 is more of a specific item to use towards implementing proposal 2 considering the tax panel study had negative conclusions of a consumption tax that wasn't the fairtax.  It may be better suited in the consumption tax article. --Fbdajm (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by GameKeeper
 * 1) We list any sources we consider to be unreliable here and remove these sources from the article after consensus has been reached. Any statements supported solely by sources which we have agreed to remove can also be removed from the article.
 * 2) We do not remove any sourced material from the article. We keep all sub articles with well sources information.
 * 3) We retain information on the economic impact of FairTax
 * 4) We keep multiple sources for statements
 * GameKeeper (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We're not going to reach consensus on your first point, Morphh had a problem with removing the obviously unusable fairtax FAQ. Since he has also withdrawn from mediation I can't see any point in attempting to reach consensus with him. Until he accepts that others consider most of the AFFT stuff to be no good and that a lot of the BHI stuff fails to reach the level of quality to make it acceptable under WP:REDFLAG I see no way forward. Furthermore the one source simply regurgitating something said in a different source, with a note in one directly sourcing the other document, and both often being used to support the same claim needs to be gotten rid of. I will say I'm still willing to work to some sort of acceptable middle ground but Morphh has to give a lot of ground before that middle can be reached. Kbs666 (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you give an example of the BHI RedFlag that you describe? I'll note that China has been growing at 10% since 2003.  What makes there statements so extreme?  Considering the OECD source in the below section and a hundred other sources that reflect such sentiments.  Also provide some sources for your statements that most consider AFFT stuff to be no good and something beyond your opinion regarding BHI's research.   Morphh   (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See this is why it's not possible to work with you. Even with my post directly above that anyone can read you still said I said most people said something when nowhere in that post does most appear anywhere. If you don't understand why a developing economy can grow at a high rate while a developed economy cannot I simply can't be your remedial macroeconomics instructor. BHI's claims are only research when someone can replicate their findings by replicating their process but they never include the required information. It's how I know their stuff isn't intended for peer reviewed publication because it would never get past review.Kbs666 (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry it was "others consider most of the AFFT stuff to be no good".  Morphh   (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me also note that I am willing to work and am flexable on #1, as I stated above when it appeared we were making some progress. I may disagree on the rational for removing the source, but am willing to work on improving sources or perhaps removing data that does not significantly impact the point of view.   Morphh   (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You entered mediation in bad faith and refused to participate. I see no reason now to accept your claims. I will continue what I was doing before unless you are willing to re-enter binding mediation with no more of the throwing tantrum stuff and a clear apology to Cyclonenim and a clear statement that you will accept the outcome of mediation no matter what.Kbs666 (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not enter mediation in bad faith and I did not refuse to participate in discussion. I'm done with the Cyclonenim as the mediator, but will continue to work on a resoution.  Mediation is not binding, it's an additional person that we try to work through.  This is not arbitration.  He was to help guide us into working through the dispute.  Based on his actions, I no longer feel he is a appropriate mediator for this case.  I oppologize to him if he felt insulted by my statements, but that doesn't change the situation.   Morphh   (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You requested mediation without posting saying you were doing so. You refused to agree to accept the mediators decisions. When the mediator indicated that things weren't going your way you threw a tantrum and quit. Looks like a duck etc. At this point I cannot see any way forward if you continue to refuse to accept neutral binding mediation. So until I see some change I will continue the work I started last week. Kbs666 (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The mediation request was posted here - look at the top of the article! It was posted on the same day!!! The mediator doesn't make decisions.  They try to guide you to resolving a dispute through discussion, not make vast opinion statements on something unfamilar.   Morphh   (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After you made the request. You certainly never posted saying you had changed your mind on the subject. One of the most basic parts of mediation is that both parties have to agree to accept the outcome of mediation. Otherwise its just a waste of time. As you so aptly demonstrated. Kbs666 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said I was opposed to mediation. I was considering the next best step, which at this point I thought was mediation.  I didn't think you'd object so I just put in the request.  You are incorrect regarding mediation having to agree to accept the outcome of the Mediator.  Mediation is not arbitration. WP:MC The role of the Mediation Committee is explicitly to try to resolve disputes, especially those involving content, to the mutual satisfaction of all.  See WP:M "Mediation is an activity in which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement on a matter of common interest."  What mediators are not: "Mediators are not advocates. Mediators will not take sides in the dispute or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person."  Morphh   (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OECD study
Not sure if this will be useful or not but I ran across it and thought I would post it real quick. WSJ - America the Uncompetitive. "A new OECD study, 'Taxes and Economic Growth,' examines national tax burdens and their impact on growth and incomes in member countries. It concludes that 'corporate taxes are most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes.' The study adds that 'investment is adversely affected by corporate taxation,' and that the most profitable and rapidly growing companies tend to be the most sensitive to high business tax rates." Morphh  (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, but the OECD is essentially the global representative of transnational corporate interests. Sure, they detest progressive taxation and any other sort of regulation which tends to make them share their profits. Check out their 1990s push for a Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And, the least distortionary of all, according to the authors? "Recurrent taxes on immovable property appear to have the least impact." In addition, this is a working paper (not peer reviewed, self published). Pdbailey (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this bit about working papers is actually a critical point. A lot of the sources in this article are working papers (e.g., the BHI papers). They have not been peer reviewed and are not necessarily the official position or beliefs of the hosting orgainization. The OECD specifically states on their Working Papers page that "The views expressed in these papers are those of the author[s] and do not necessarily reflect those of the OECD or of the governments of its Member countries." I believe the NBER makes a similar claim about the working papers of their members. I believe these working papers may not reach the threshold of reliable source and if they do, associating them with the author's organization gives them undue weight by implying that they are the views of that organization. For example, the working paper from the OECD is not a "OECD study." They do publish "studies" and this isn't one of them. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the NBER's statement on Working Papers: "NBER Working Papers have not undergone the review accorded official NBER publications; in particular, they have not been submitted for approval by the Board of directors. They are intended to make results of NBER research available to other economists in preliminary form to encourage discussion and suggestions for revision before final publication." Tom Joad 2k (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The OECD is an reliable source since they are quasi government, so there is no reason not to use the report if we need to. --Patrick (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think in this case the source would be the WSJ, unless we wanted to directly source the study for particular points. Morphh   (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? If you want to report on the OECD then reference the OECD study. I hate this stuff where one source references another which references another back along a trail of indeterminant length that finally leads to the original source. We should always use studies rather than spin by anyone on the study when possible. Kbs666 (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like to source both when possible but Wikipedia generally prefers the indirect source. They like it when someone else is stating what the primary data is, and not us stating what the primary data is.  This helps remove the editor and reader from trying to interpret the data.  We can and do reference primary sources, but we should be careful not to introduce OR.  Morphh   (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Kbs666, then what you hate is journalism and journalists. They read the press release (if you are lucky) about the report and the paste most of it into the article. Press releases are even written in the correct form for the pasting to happen. What I find annoying is the blatant omission of the next sentance which compeltely changes the tone of the claims. Pdbailey (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the WSJ left that out. I just quoted what they stated.  I agree though they should have included that point.   Morphh   (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The WSJ link isn't reporting on the OECD study - it's commenting on it. It's an opinion piece. Unless you are discussing the WSJ's opinion (and I don't know why you would be in this article), I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia. If you want to use some of the data, go to the original source, IMO. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of the AFFT sources
Continuing my work on getting rid of the pro bias and improving the quality of sources in this article.

Three more to go. Will get those done tonight or tomorrow.Kbs666 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) ok. Not great and would be better if peer reviewed.
 * 2) ok.
 * 3) a rebuttal piece. No need for howevers. If we have to keep rebuttals ok.
 * 4) another rebuttal and one with serious errors (GDP != consumption). Ditto above.
 * 5)  second source for a single claim. Very low quality source, a transcript of a phone call. Delete
 * 6)  used as second source to a ref pointing to the actual act. Delete.
 * 7)  no author and essentially a blog post. Delete.
 * 8)  used as a source and references the same source as the claim already refernces. Delete
 * 9) source for chart. Sourced some data it uses. not terribly good. Get rid of chart. If the chart stays keep.
 * 10)  Sources all claims elsewhere. Tertiary source. Includes outright lie in first sentence delete.
 * 11)  Does not contain two of the claims it is sourced for and another paper (Kotlikoff 2008) supports the other claim elsewhere in the article. Delete.
 * 12)  Contains outright lies and made up stuff. Claims that there is a freedom of speech for religions and that religious leaders can't make political comments at all. Delete.


 * With regard to #3 & #4, the consumption base is referenced as a % of GDP. The article states the consumption base is 84.5% of GDP, not that the consumption base is GDP. #5 was the source you made us hunt down for a broken link so you could verify the data in the statement.  #6 is helpful in some cases for understand the language.  I don't object to deleting it but it seems helpful.  #12 does not appear to reference any of the material that you object to.  As for that material, I think the paper is describing the political restrictions of a tax exempt organization. See 501(c)(3) Political activity.  Of course they do it with a bit of bias, but we're not referencing or repeating it that I'm aware of.  I'll go through the article and see what the impact would be on the removal of the sources.   Morphh   (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * #12 If an author comes right out with that sort of straight up lies about something anyone with a brain knows is a lie then I will not use it as a source. This author is basically claiming Pat Robertson doesn't actually exist. Funny as that is it is wrong. #3 & 4 both do say that consumption != GDP but then go to claim that the ratio of GDP to consumption will be unchanged under FairTax. Wrong! You cannot argue in some places that FairTax will encourage saving and investment and then in others say consumption won't change. Any time a proponent uses present concumption to GDP ratios unchanged for activity under FairTax they are either completely uninformed or are intentionally trying to put one over on someone. That is exactly why rebuttals of this sort are of very limited utility. #5 I didn't make you hunt it down. I said if it wasn't available to be read it shouldn't be in the article. Now that I can actually read it it still needs to be deleted. #6 is referenced once and you include the full act as reference as well. So it isn't helpful in some cases it is, in your opinion, helpful in one. Since the link through thomas.gov is to the actual bill in congress which is subject to change and ammendment and there is no guarantee that the PDF on AFFT will be kept accurate we should reference the full act not some organization's "plain english summary." This does seem to be a case where referencing the primary source is the way to go. BTW the change in referencing was supposed to allow for page numbers to be included for references. This source is actually page 34 of a 36 page document. Even searching for keywords took a good while. If possible we really should get all these references to point to specific page numbers where appropriate. Kbs666 (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see in 3 & 4 where they say consumption will not change. They're doing a one year estimation of the rate, in which they state that consumption is 84.5% of the GDP.  Tomorrow when things change, it may be a different percentage.  They're not using the percentage as the basis for calculation, it is a product of the calculation using the data for the year examined.   Morphh   (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a little note on #12, it does have some merit. A church, building and all with a pastor or priest etc, is a tax-exempt entity; it does not pay an income tax.  However, that church will lose its tax-exempt classification should the religious leader include political commentary or arguments or demands in the sermon.  This means if a pastor at your local baptist church demands that his congregation vote for George Bush, then that local church will have to pay an income tax because it will no longer be a tax-exempt church.  Pat Robertson is different.  He can go around exerting people with political opinions and that would be okay because he would pay an income tax on the earnings he makes from selling books, giving speeches, etc.  If he has a separate church where he gives sermons and he does not make political demands or comments then it would be a tax-exempt church.  But if he does make those same demands then his church would not be tax-exempt.  This is controversial because some conservative and some liberal churches have made such political speech and have either lost their tax-exempt status or have been warned that they could lose their tax-exempt status.  Therefore, it is not an outright lie.  EECavazos (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is and you even point out how it is. If a minister or priest wants to say something partisan from the pulpit, get out the vote type sermons are allowed, then we, as taxpayers, should not bear any financial burden for that activity. However if he still wants to do so nothing compels his church to have the tax exempt status. Or he could just as easily not make the partisan speech while fulfilling his duties as an employee of a charitable organization. The article flat out claims that religious leaders are prevented from saying anything political which is still an outright lie and makes the source useless. See Bob Jones University v. United States. Kbs666 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You mangle my comment. You are arguing that financial disincentives are not limits on speech.  My comment reminded everyone it is common knowledge that government imposed financial disincentives constitute limits on speech.  The government imposed financial disincentive is as follows:  politics enter your sermon, then we will take money away from your church.  The controversy over what constitutes politics at the pulplit is somewhat explained in this article from the New York Times: Church Group Calls I.R.S. Unfair on Political Violations of Tax Code, 7 April 2006.  What constitutes politics at the pulpit is a very nebulous area and so churches are cautious with sermons to avoid crossing that boundary.  Religion and political policy have long been intertwined because they often include the same ideas.  You also do not elaborate on exactly how taxpayers would bear a financial burden because the IRS is not giving churches money but rather refraining from taking money from churches.   I suppose you could argue that churches should pay taxes but by the grace of the IRS they do not.  But that would go against the separation of church and state principle, which incidentially is also one of the purposes for taking away the tax-exempt status for churches that include politics in the sermon.  Despite that, it is still a limit on speech because it imposes a financial disincentive.  I happen to agree with this limit on speech because of the separation of church and state, but it is still a limit on speech due to the financial disincentive. EECavazos (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How did I mangle your comment? You admitted There is no limit on religious leaders exercising free speech which is correct and which is not what the article in question claimed. As to your claims about churches and tax exempt status, churches are tax exempt if and only if they abide by a set of rules laid out by Congress and implemented and monitored by the IRS. A fairly large number of religious organizations choose to forgoe that status for a variety of reasons. As to the financial disincentive it is the same disincentive that all tax exempt non profits operate under. We, as a society, choose to allow charities certain benefits as long as they obey certain rules. One benefit is tax exempt status and one rule is no partisan activity. Other benefits exist as do other rules. Enforcing building codes and fire marshall regulations do not restrict religious leaders right to assembly nor does restricting their official speech to non partisan subjects restrict their freedom of speech. And if anyone feels it does restrict their freedom they are welcome to give up tax exempt status. This is the statement in question "Second, the current tax code has a huge effect on religious freedom of speech, requiring American religious leaders to curtail political commentary to preserve tax-exempt status. The effects of the tax code here are very, very real and a dangerous affront to religion freedom." and is wrong on multiple counts. First of course is there is no such thing as "religious freedom of speech" and secondly there is nothing requiring American religious leaders to curtail political commentary. No minister or priest is facing jail for commenting on political matters the worst that might happen is their organization might owe some property taxes and have to start paying sales tax, if it's truly a non profit then no income taxes would be incurred quite obviously. Someone may disagree with the current rules and are welcome to try and get them changed but just as I will not put up with supporters lying about FairTax I won't tolerate lies about this subject. A source that tells a knowing and obvious lie on the first page is simply de facto not a reliable source. Kbs666 (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are ignoring the truth that a financial disincentive is a limit on speech, and ignoring that completely mangles my comment. Further, I did not admit that there is no limit on religious leaders exercising free speech because I stated that they would be subject to a financial disincentive which amounts to a pay-to-speak situation.  Dick/Jane-average-preacher has their small church where they give sermons and that is where they give their "religious speech" which then may be subject to financial disincentives from content penalties.  The government is punishing the content of what is in a sermon. What are the penalties?  The biggest would be paying an income tax on donations received.  That's what happens when a tax-exempt entity loses its tax-exempt status, it must pay an income tax on the donations it received.  The mere fact that you did not include this major point in your argument suggests that your argument is wrong on this particular issue.  Again, financial disincentives are well recognized as limits on speech because this is not just some fee but an income tax imposed on the donations received.  That is a big deal and would result in churches being closed down or at least radically limiting the services they provide like soup kitchen etc.  Further, "religious freedom of speech" just means 1st amendment free speech with religious content further protected by the free exercise clause.  It should be noted that your comments including allegations of lies being made are rather radical and counter-productive particularly since such allegations are clearly wrong according to the tax code and the history of the controversy.  Further, alleging that editors such as myself are lying assumes bad faith and is a discouraged.  If FairTax goes to arbitration you will only be hurting your arguments. EECavazos (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I never accused you of lying. I am stating that the author of the paper in question lied. If you are the author of the paper please state that publicly else please retract your accusation against me. Maybe you're unaware of this so I'll explain it. All non profits do not qualify as tax exempt. Those that are not file income tax returns just like any business but if they really are a non profit they make no profits and so pay nothing. It is actually required of 501(c)3's as well, although it is very different paperwork, and they are also required not to make a profit and therefore are not required to pay taxes. The IRS recognizes 501(c)3's to allow contributions to be deducted. The taxes the 501(c)3 organization is exempt from paying are things like local property and sales taxes because states and municpalities recognize 501(c)3 status not due to anything inherent in the designation. Therefore an entity that loses tax exempt status isn't going to need to start paying income tax unless they already were committing rather serious tax fraud. As to the claims you're making the US government is not allowed to abridge a right but they are allowed to not grant a privilege period. Tax exempt status is a privilege and we, as a nation, have decided that we don't want tax exempt organizations engaging in partisan activities. But as Pat Robertson, Barry Lynn, Andrew Greeley and countless others prove there is no restriction on religious leaders freedom of speech. The articles author lied about this in no uncertain terms and that source has to be viewed as not reliable due to the bias and untruthfulness of the author. Kbs666 (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement this document is being used to reference is "Taxable property and services purchased by a qualified non-profit or religious organization "for business purposes" would not be taxable." Bias in a particular reference is not an issue so long as what we write in the article is presented neutrally (see WP:NPOV).  I don't see anything bias in the statement that is describing the bill's application to non-profits and religious organizations.  The term "source" in the context of Wikipedia policy is used to describe the publisher.  The WSJ is a source and anything published by them would be considered reliable, regardless of the content of any particular article or opinion pieced published.  If it is an opinion piece, than we attribute it.  We don't go assessing each particular document as to what we feel are truthful statements, removing or including the document based on our opinion of their content.  In any case, it is only one uncontroversial statement where the reference is used.  Finding another source seems like less work than debating the point.   Morphh   (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may claim AFFT is reliable. I do not. I view every source no matter the publisher as a stand alone document. It must be reliable in and of itself. This document isn't and cannot be included. BTW opinion pieces even, especially, printed in the WSJ is still an opinion piece and is supposed to be used for only very specific and narrow purposes. Kbs666 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying to fully understand your argument. You've used ID and DI in your conversation.  Would you remove the wedge document or other DI sourced documents from the ID article that clearly are pseudoscience?  Let me also note that the first reference on that article is the DI FAQ (Top 10 questions).   Morphh   (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it would be possible to compromise? It seems to me that AFFT should be a pretty authoritative and reliable source for the views of proponents, but not a good source for facts.  Thus, it seems reasonable to me to say, for example, proponents claim that the FairTax will produce 10% growth in the first year, using AFFT as source, but not reasonable to show the calculations they use, unless they can be sourced to something better. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your example has the proponents making a very specific economic claim. That's seem like it could be used as a weasel wordy way to get an unfounded claim into the article. I think that claim my be used to say something like "Proponents believe the FairTax would grow the economy at a faster rate than the current system." Leave these specific economic claims out of it. They are all unreliable. Tom Joad 2k (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Leave out all the specific economic claims (all the numbers) and boil all the various statements down to a few that say something like that and I could go along with it. Kbs666 (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First off the Wedge document isn't available from DI, or at least it wasn't last time I checked, it is a leaked document that contains no claims of fact but does lay out the DI's strategy for the the future. If you had a similiar document from AFFT I would be willing to discuss including it. Like I said every document is independent. You've made the mistake of equating AFFT and an idea they invented and have put out into the world. One is not the other. Stuff by the AFFT is relevant when it is about the AFFT, barring unusual circumstances, but is not automatically reliable on anything else, including FairTax (actually IMO it makes them less reliable about FairTax in the same way DI is less reliable when talking about ID than it is talking about it's future plans). Kbs666 (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is such a thing as religious freedom of speech. It is simply practicing freedom of speech through a religion.  As corporate freedom of speech would be practicing freedom of speech via a corporation.  The article doesn't state that political leaders are required to curtail political speech.  It states that they are required to curtail political speech to preserve tax exempt status.  The "tax exempt status" being the whole point (since the fair tax will do away with that).  Curtailment is not defined by jail time nor is it a prohibition.  It is simply a reduction, which in this case, is totally accurate (since ministers can speak politically, just not in a church setting).  Imho, these words actually seem quite carefully chosen for accuracy.  --Fbdajm (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Nothing requires religious leaders to curtail political speech. There is a rule which forbids partisan speech by 501(c)(3) non profit organizations. The religious leader is still allowed to speak on partisan matters when not at the pulpit or otherwise engaged in activity for the not for profit. So the paper is wrong on what type of speech is regulated and on the fact that the restriction is not as sweeping as implied. The FairTax won't do away with tax exempt status. Churches are not going to start paying local property taxes simply because the feds change tax laws. Kbs666 (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's important to note that the FairTax does away with this restriction by making churches (and other non-profits) pay the FairTax on most of their purchases (basically, anything that's not for resale or export or used to create items for resale or export). Tom Joad 2k (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not. It would simply shift the burden of enforcement to the states. For convenience sake most, all?, states accept federal 501(c)(3) status as tax exempt from state and local taxes but not for profits were afforded tax exempt status long before there was an IRS and every state would likely start using their state not for profit registration rules so as to continue to allow most churches to not pay property and local sales taxes. Many states would institute their own restrictions immediately and I'm willing to bet that every state but Utah would quickly follow suit.Kbs666 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A curtailment is not a prohibition. It is a reduction. It does not matter if the religious leader can speak politically somewhere.  What matters is that they can't speak politically everywhere. That freedom is curtailed.  Arguing about the definition of curtailment brings into serious doubt the logic you use to reach other conclusions in these postings.  --Fbdajm (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I never argued or even mentioned the definition of curtail. Please comment on what I write not what you wish I wrote. Kbs666 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote Kbs666: "Nothing requires religious leaders to curtail political speech." To quote the source: "requiring American religious leaders to curtail political commentary to preserve tax-exempt status."  Final quote from Kbs666: "Claims that ... religious leaders can't make political comments at all."  I am assuming you agree that political speech made under certain circumstances will have a negative consequence, i.e. loss of tax exempt status.  Therefore, since you are arguing the sources point, you are arguing the very definition of curtailment.  Or do you not agree that certain political speech can result in the loss of a church's tax exempt status?  If that's the case, I apologize for misunderstanding your argument.  --Fbdajm (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I agree that partisan speech by non profits can result in the loss of 501(c)(3) status. However I still will point out that nothing at all requires religious leaders to curtail political speech. There is a limitation on place and time but nothing prevents them from actually expressing their partisan views as anyone who cares to turn on CBN will be able to discern. The article claims as you quote above that something requires religious leaders to not speak about political matters which is clearly and incontrovertiably wrong. Kbs666 (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "There is a limitation on place and time ..." That's the curtailment.  --Fbdajm (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Political speech isn't required to be curtailed. Partisan speech is what is restricted. This is a difference you seem to be trying stiudiously to avoid. Political and partisan are not synonomous. For instance a 501(c)(3) can actively engage in political activities, I know of several which register voters as a primary part of their program and many others that actively support non partisan causes, Sierra Club for instance. 501(c)(3) are supposed to not engage in partisan activities. So once again the author was knowingly spreading false information and that make sthe whole paper unreliable. Kbs666 (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Partisan speech (in this context) is a subset of political speech. Therefore, if you curtail partisan speech, you curtail political speech.  For example, if a minister says "Republicans will cut your taxes", this is a political statement.  It is also a partisan statement. He can't say it in a church setting without risking the loss of the church's tax exempt status.  --Fbdajm (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed most of the sources listed, and even some I thought should stay. I also removed another AFFT source that was not listed. I think the remaining ones should be kept. I don't agree with the justification and rational brought forward to remove the sources, but I tried to look past that so we could move this article forward. Morphh  (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A disinterested view from BD2412
Hi. I've been asked to provide a disinterested view on the neutrality of this article. I can promise you, no one is more disinterested when it comes to this kind of thing than I am. I've had a quick look over the article and will have a more probing look at the sources in the next few days (time permitting, as I start a new LLM semester and a new job next week). Cheers! bd2412 T 02:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know you and do not mean any insult but since Morphh refused to cooperate with a mediator who seemed to be leaning aginst his position and has effectively forum shopped for help it does cause concern. I would much prefer a third party unknown to either of us. Kbs666 (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but if you review my body of work (particularly the Tax protester family of articles), you'll see that the reason Morphh knows me is that I am a longtime editor who has been involved in addressing a large number of disputes. I am well-versed in vetting theories and sources, and can review this article with no sympathy to any party's previous positions with respect to its neutrality and the quality of its sources. bd2412  T 04:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could talk people into being a bit less verbose, that would be a great start. Every time I come back to this page, there's another ream of prose to get through. Looie496 (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, that may be asking too much of me! bd2412  T 22:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)