Talk:IRS targeting controversy/Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2014
Please remove the reference section's "ibid" template; the article no longer has such citations.

209.6.114.98 (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of group which was revoked
I am opening discussion on a proposed change from status quo - the removal of information added here by User:VictoriaGrayson back in January, as pertains to the one group that was revoked following "intensive scrutiny" by the IRS. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014
What needs to be changed: "The only denial of tax-exempt status by the IRS was to a progressive group.[10]" What it should be changed to: "The only true denial of tax-exempt status by the IRS was to a progressive group[10], but they have yet to approve tax-exempt status for some conservative groups, even after years of reviewing their applications."

According to http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2014/05/07/burying-scandal-tv-news-hides-facts-irs-s-targeting-conservatives, the Tea Party Patriots have been denied tax-exempt status through silence:

"The next day on CBS This Morning, correspondent Kristen Fisher related that “about 75 groups were flagged by the IRS for further review for one reason: Their applications for tax-exempt status contained the words ‘Tea Party’ or ‘patriot.’...Jenny Beth Martin is the founder of one of those groups, the Tea Party Patriots. They applied for tax-exempt status four years ago. And to this day, they’ve received no reply from the IRS.”

24.9.66.23 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * NewsBusters is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that NewsBusters is not a reliable source. Who are the conservative groups in question? The "Tea Party Patriots" were granted their exemption some time ago. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tea Party Patriots received their status the morning just before their testimony before Congress. This was February of this year, according to reports. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 123chess456 (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Emerge America
I was just doing some opposition-research and hoping you could clean this up before pubbies notice.

During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive", "progress", "liberal", or "equality".[51][52] (However, the IRS also selected several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[50]

This nonsense in article which claims we were denied as opposed to revoked status makes our cause look retardedly desperate with easily discoverable lies. Please fix before mid-terms.

''As of last week, Emerge America, a small organization that exists to identify and train Democratic women to run for office in local, state, and national elections, is no longer a 501(c)(4)—not by choice, but due to a finding from the Internal Revenue Service. Jonathan Salant of Bloomberg News reports that the IRS has determined that Emerge America is a political organization with scant “social welfare” programming to warrant its 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status. The IRS letter to Emerge America read, in part, “You are not operated primarily to promote social welfare because your activities are conducted primarily for the benefit of a political party and a private group of individuals, rather than the community as a whole.”

As a result, Emerge America has been reclassified as a 527 organization and so it must now disclose its donors. It has long been our assumption that a large proportion of the 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations have scant social welfare content. As Melanie Sloan of citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) noted, “There’s a boatload of groups that they should looking [be] at.”''

We need to clean it up before the mid-terms people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.85.80 (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to be more clear and civil. For example

I think you have the wrong website, this is Wikipedia, not a SOAPBOX. Please try to be more clear next time, and be more collaborative. 123chess456 (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What are "pubbies"? Elaborate
 * "Our cause". What do you refer to by "our"? This is Wikipedia, and we maintain a neutral point of view on everything we do.
 * "Retardedly desperate with easily discovered lies?". What do I say to that? You aren't supporting those claims with any sort of reference whatsoever. There are sources supporting "this nonsense", can you find a better one?
 * I can only assume that the rest of your message is an edit request, and I have to deny, as that entire message is POV pushing.

Scope of the scandal
The IRS reported back that 10 percent were audited — substantially higher than the average rate of 1 percent of average Americans who are audited each year. 
 * selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for closer scrutiny only addresses the tax-exempt status of a group.
 * I suggest we add something about individuals being audited at a 10x rate over average taxpayers. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest we don't, given that we don't know whether Tea Party donors are actually comparable to "average taxpayers." Are they wealthier than the average American? If so, they're more likely to be audited — the IRS audits significantly more rich people than poor people. We might add that House Republicans *claim* that Tea Party donors were unfairly targeted for audits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

misleading lede
Further investigation revealed that liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, untrue, progressive groups were given "TAG" status meaning they received NO ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY, as their designation is "Touch And Go". ''progressives are listed under the label of TAG Historical, short for Touch-and-Go Historical, or issues that had been raised in the past. Tea Party is listed under Emerging Issues.'' and. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your claim that they received no additional scrutiny is interesting, but the reliable sources say otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The section is about 501(c)(4) PACs, not 501(c)(3) charities
from the existing source, ''The term “progressive” appeared on a November 2010 document released by House Ways and Means Committee Democrats. It appears to refer to applications for 501(c)(3) status, not the 501(c)(4) status sought by many Tea Party groups.''
 * an editor added this after i removed it. Other "BOLO" lists existed for non-profit applications, which targeted key words such as "progressive,"...  other list exist for every tax classification, the section only concerns the PAC class 501(c)(4) the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4), not 501(c)(3)charities. plz self revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then the section should be rewritten to note that groups were scrutinized for both issues. I will do so. Reliable sources state that the BOLO list applied to applications for both sections of the code and you've offered no reason why we should discuss one section and not the other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Scandal"?
I think we need to look at the title of this article. Is the term "scandal" really supported by reliable sources, or does it violate WP:POVNAMING? ("If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. ") I'd like to see the evidence that this case is really widely referred to by neutral reliable sources as a "scandal". It has been shown that the additional scrutiny by IRS agents was applied toward groups that had political sounding names, whether conservative or liberal. Also that the granting of 501-c-4 status is supposed to be limited to groups whose primary purpose is not lobbying and campaign activities, so it can be argued that IRS scrutiny of groups with political-sounding names was simply a case of IRS agents doing their jobs. Who really decided that this was a "scandal", and were they neutral reliable sources? --MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the usa today could be considered neutral/reliable, yesterday they referred to it as a scandal the size of Watergate. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion column by a notably-conservative blogger. It's a reliable source for Paul L. Caron's own opinions and nothing more. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ok, but his column proves the term is widely used given the circulation regardless of his opinions on the 2013 IRS Cover-up''. not convinced, maybe the Post would suffice?
 * Well, no. That column is also a partisan op-ed written by a "Republican strategist." What you're doing is citing right-wing opinions to support a right-wing framing. The question is, what do reliable, neutral sources call this incident?

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ok, is CNN considered right-wing? ? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The only use of the term "IRS scandal" in that article is here: "Republicans see an IRS scandal that remains highly flammable on the right". In other words, CNN reports that the Republicans are calling it a scandal; CNN does not call it that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * hmm, would Mother Jones work? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, you're missing the point. While you struggle to find an occasional use of this term by neutral sources, it's irrelevant. According to WP:POVNAMING, we can only use a word like "scandal" in the title if that term is widely used as the common name for the subject. That is obviously not the case here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * would you consider the UPI "widely used"? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean where it says "alleged targeting scandal"? That doesn't exactly support calling this article "IRS scandal", does it? Your persistence is notable, but this approach is getting you nowhere. Most of the citations you have suggested do NOT amount to a reliable source using the term "IRS scandal" to describe this subject, and even if you do manage to find one or two that do, it still doesn't meet the widely used requirement. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ok, what would meet the widely used requirement? Do you consider huffpo neutral? they have 12 pages of links to articles about the scandal, so many it has its own sub-domain http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/irs-scandal, or what about http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-scandal-reaches-farther-than-just-cincinnati/ or http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-votes-to-hold-lois-lerner-in-contempt/ or http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/51929105#51929105 all of these use the term scandal. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the additional scrutiny by IRS agents was applied toward groups that had political sounding names, whether conservative or liberal kinda, the exact wording used was, tea party, patriots, or 9/12 none of these terms could be applied to liberal organizations. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "However, the IRS also selected several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status." But the point here is not whether WE think it's a scandal; the point is whether "scandal" is the "widely used" name in neutral reliable sources. I'm still waiting for that evidence. If "scandal" really is the widely used name for this subject, it shouldn't be hard for us to come up with dozens of examples. --MelanieN (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I just did some Google News searching for "IRS scandal" and discovered that the term is used almost exclusively by opinion pieces and blogs. It does not appear to be used much by neutral Reliable Sources. Thus, our title fails WP:POVNAMING. I'm inclined to take this to the NPOV discussion board for resolution, but first we need to figure out what the article should be called - if not "scandal". I found the term "IRS targeting" used in some neutral news reporting, although that search term is also is heavy on blogs and opinionated sources. "IRS controversy" finds some use in neutral sources. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly support renaming this article and in fact attempted to do so last month or so. In no sense has "IRS scandal" become a proper noun (even in the title of this article, it's not rendered as "2013 IRS Scandal") and thus WP:POVNAMING suggests a different title.  The title I proposed was "2013 IRS profiling controversy." Dyrnych (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For reference: Previous move request Dyrnych (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm going to try "2013 IRS controversy" because that seems to be the most common term used by neutral sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move #2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved to 2013 IRS controversy. The result of this discussion is that the title of this article is more a descriptive phrase than a proper name; hence, the neutrality demand of WP:NDESC takes precedence over any "common use" arguments as envisaged by WP:POVNAME. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

2013 IRS scandal → 2013 IRS controversy – The current title is POV and does not meet the requirements of WP:POVNAMING, because the term "IRS scandal" is not widely used by neutral reliable sources. According to POVNAMING, a slanted word like "scandal" can only be used in a title if that is the widely used common name of the subject. That is not the case for this topic. In a Google News search, I found that the term "IRS scandal" is almost exclusively restricted to opinion pieces, such as op-eds and blogs; the term does not appear to be used much (it's certainly not "widely used") by neutral Reliable Sources. I found that the term "IRS targeting" is used in some neutral news reporting, although that search term is also much more common in opinionated sources. "IRS controversy" finds considerable use in neutral sources and is probably the closest thing we have to a "widely used name". MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this is not the place to argue about whether the incident does or does not amount to a scandal in our individual or collective opinions. That would be original research. The title has to be based on what neutral reliable sources call the subject, not on what we think it ought to be called.

A previous move request can be found here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons stated in my previous move request (although I would support "2013 IRS profiling controversy" over the proposed move). The current title is non-neutral and is not so commonly used that it's functionally a proper noun.  "2013 IRS controversy" is a more neutral variant that conveys precisely the same information. Dyrnych (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support to "2013 IRS Profiling Controversy" per the beginning of WP:NAME: "The title indicates what the article is about ". "IRS Scandal" or "IRS controversy" just don't indicate what the article is about. Most people have never hears of this scandal/controversy, so a title with more expressive power would IMO be apprioriate. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I would be fine with "2013 IRS profiling controversy" as well. My main goal is to achieve a neutral title. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons given above. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I also prefer "2013 IRS Profiling Controversy", or maybe "2013 IRS investigations controversy", but can live with the choices above. The current name is not NPOV.  Useitorloseit (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. There is no evidence that this is POV. There is massive evidence that the current article title is the common name. Let's look. Google search shows 21.6 million results for 2013 IRS scandal and 4.2 million results for 2013 IRS controversy. If you put those search terms in quotes, "2013 IRS scandal" bring 272,000 results and "2013 IRS controversy" brings 16,800 results. What if we only use google news results? In news the results bring up 15,500 for "IRS scandal" and 8,940 for "IRS controversy". This suggests to me that the decisive common name is, in fact, "scandal". It is not even close. Policy requires that we stick with the common name. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any support for the proposition that the Google/Google News results are made up exclusively of reliable sources? Dyrnych (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And in fact we need to base our title on reliable NEUTRAL sources. If discussants at a million partisan political forums use the term "IRS scandal", that does not contribute toward our finding a title that meets Wikipedia criteria, specifically neutrality. This is one of the reasons why raw Google counts are almost worthless in determining a title. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: "do you have evidence that they are exclusively RS"? No, of course not. That is not how Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME works.

"In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books[7]). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test." --from Wikipedia COMMON NAME


 * What I posted above was the standard search engine test. As I have pointed out, the news search RS/neutral sources matches ratio is two to one "scandal" vs "controversy". (They are not called the 1972 and 1986 White House scandals.)  I suggest we follow policy in this matter. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support "2013 IRS scandal" isn't a "name", like say "Watergate" or "Iran-Contra", just a description. And controversy seems more neutral.  TFD (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose
 * Neutrality is not the goal of WP:POVNAME. Beside a much more basic problem prevents the move.
 * WP:RS. the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd sources and use the word scandal and not controversy. does the term show up in any of the existing sources?
 * WP:No consensus Since the last request is barely a month old, and the majority of common usage since then in appears to dramatically favor the the existing name, i have to wonder why make the request again? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * POVNAME is an exception to "Neutrality in article titles" policy. You need to show why this case warrants an exception.  TFD (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * no, the burden of proof is on the editor seeking to change the established name. from Non-neutral but common names Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal) Darkstar1st (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * no, it is not an exception, rather a common debate whether a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. Since we have clear evidence the majority of usage supports the existing term, those wishing to apply a descriptive title lost the last page move. this request barely a month after the failed move appears pre-mature and ill-conceived. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To the extent that this move request has drawn much more discussion from all sides, it seems to be worthwhile. Dyrnych (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * But a Google news search shows that "2013 IRS scandal" is not the common name. It returns "No results found".  It looks like although some reports say "scandal" and others say "controversy", none have given it a name, like Watergate, Iran-Contra, or Teapot Dome.  So we are left with determining the most neutral description.  TFD (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * try it without the 2013, no periodical is going to has last years date. i got 18,600, the most popular only 4 days old http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2014/05/irs_scandal_link_to_dc_eyed Darkstar1st (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then the article would be called the "IRS scandal", not "2013 IRS scandal." But that is not a name, it is a description.  TFD (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think that one of the main things that's being overlooked by people who are relying on Google searches as some kind of holy writ is that the terms "scandal" and "controversy" are used interchangeably within sources. The philosophy behind WP:POVTITLE hinges on the distinction between titles that are actual names (which should generally be used, even if non-neutral) and descriptive titles (which should be neutral).  When sources use multiple terms within themselves to refer to an incident, they implicitly suggest that there is no generally acceptable name for that incident beyond descriptors of the incident.  Considering that the majority of sources that use "scandal" exclusively are from around the May 2013 time period, the fact that more recent sources use multiple terms to refer to the incident should be dispositive.  Interestingly, a number of the sources from the first several pages Google results actually enclose the word "scandal" in scare quotes; rather than identifying the incident by a common name, they're suggesting that a particular description of the incident is inaccurate. Dyrnych (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * take another look at WP:POVTITLE, scandal happens to be used as a non-neutral "descriptive title" example.
 * the majority of sources that use "scandal" exclusively are from around the May 2013 time period, did you mean the sources cited in this article, or in general? i assume not the latter as several recent examples were present in the above talk sections. the reason the majority of sources are from 2013 is because that is when the article was written. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. "Scandal" in that example is a non-neutral name that is appropriate because it's a name, not a description. Dyrnych (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The main problem with relying on Google searches is that Google searches can't differentiate between sober news sources and partisan blogs. You need to look at the actual search results. I found they are overwhelmingly POV, opinion writing sources. And I found that when a mainstream source uses the term, they are attributing it to partisan viewpoints (as in "Republicans hope they can point to an IRS scandal") rather than in their own voice. Just because a term is widely used in partisan attacks does not make it the "common name" and does not exempt it from our requirement for neutrality. The listed examples of exceptions to the neutrality rule (Teapot Dome Scandal, Boston Massacre, etc.) are exceptions because they are used overwhelmingly as the incident's title, by people of all viewpoints. A term which is used only by people wishing to make a partisan point - and is not used by neutral observers - does not qualify for this exception. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Question has the NYT and/or Washington Post used the term "scandal" to refer to the controversy? &mdash; goethean 18:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question. Of course, we need to ask whether they have used the term when writing in their own, editorially-neutral, news-operation voice; a use of the term in an op-ed or blog would not count. Hopefully someone with the right tools will search and find out. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Both have on a number of occasions (two examples: NY Times, Washington Post). Both have used "controversy" more or less interchangeably with "scandal" and the Washington Post generally refers to the incident as "IRS targeting," sans "scandal." Dyrnych (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Post example is not very convincing. It does use the word "scandal" once, lowercase, toward the end of the piece, but it seems to prefer words like "controversy" and "targeting". Also, it never uses the actual term "IRS scandal". The headline calls it "political battle over targeting by IRS". --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the nyt is more direct using the term scandal in the headline. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion piece that you've linked to, and in any event it just shows that the phrase is in use. If you have an argument for why the word "scandal" in the phrase is a name rather than a descriptor, let's hear it. Dyrnych (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * opinion pieces are RS, see WP:NEWSORG, and use is what determines title often. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Amusing as usual. &mdash; goethean 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * [On the recommendation of MelanieN, I am appearing in the talk section in which I found her to interrupt for a moment and ask if any Admins able to handle a complaint re POVTITLE or POVNAMING have enabled their email systems so I may email the basics re an article's title which I perceive to be in violation (and seek advice). I am hoping she will help point me in the right direction, to the right Admin, since I've tried all other of her suggestions.  Thanks.  (We can surely delete this "sore thumb" once I have someone to email.)]


 * Now, as to the issue at hand...


 * Topic-Related Comment: For what it's worth, the word "scandal" can, in a sense, be perceived as neutral, because perception is in the eye of the beholder.  For those who believe the IRS targeted 501(c)(4) applicants, which are aligned with tea party/patriotic organizations, the word implies what the President stated, "...that's outrageous," so they would read the title to be in reference to the targeting  by  the IRS.  For those who believe the IRS is the victim of a political ploy to undermine the Democratic party or federal government, the word implies what Harry Reid asserted, that Republicans are hypocrites for failing to support the "Disclose Act" and for "exploiting the tax code," so they would likely read the title to be in reference to the targeting  of  the IRS. (I did not search for either of the above linked URLs using the word "scandal" as a search term, although both use it to describe the matter.)  It would appear, that the use of "scandal," by now, is so commonplace as to render any change seem like little more than a contrite contrivance. Dr. Matt 00:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PresidentistVB (talk • contribs)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014
Please update with information http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/irs-lois-lerner-email-107850.html 184.77.68.158 (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The edit semi-protected template is meant to allow users to edit articles which have been protected for unrelated reasons, not for making suggestions. Suggestions are welcome but do not need the template. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Lost emails
unless objection, i will add a few words about the 6 email accounts the irs has misplaced. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In my best Foghorn Leghorn voice: Why, I say, I'm shocked--shocked, I say--that no Wikipedian has added this information to the article yet. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

May 2011 Congressional Investigation
is an image of the letter requesting records in June of 2011, 10 days before the hard drive crash. Without objection i would like to add some material from this letter.
 * Correct the date in the lede, In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status should be 2011, not 2013.
 * Add Rep Dave Camp's role in initially uncovering the controversy. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The letter is a primary source, and from a brief reading of its plain text, appears to touch on a different aspect of tax law than the controversy referred to here. We need reliable secondary sources which link the letter to the current controversy - otherwise, what you propose would be original research. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"Scandal" in body
Per the recent article rename, I've changed most usages in the body of the article from "scandal" to "controversy". In these instances, "scandal" was not supported by the underlying sources referenced.

I left the word "scandal" in Speaker Boehner's direct quote. I also left "scandal" in the "FBI investigation" section: the Fox News reference did use the word, while the Reuters reference did not. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cleanup. Very conscientiously done. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just be prepared to re-insert the word "scandal" as recent revelations of destroyed hard drives will only further add objective evidence that logically necessitates the word "scandal". To conclude that this is merely a "controversy" as a final determination is premature, so I request this subject be revisited as more disturbing facts are revealed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.153.76 (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I just checked the logic behind renaming from "scandal" to "controversy". Google news searches now overwhelmingly use "scandal" including dozens of hits on Reuters. These are not opinion pieces. Almost no one is using "controversy" except Wikipedia itself. Perhaps Wikipedia is considering itself the sole determinant factor in whether or not this is a "Scandal"? Controversy no longer applies. Neutral sources now widely use the term 'scandal'. A current GOogle news search for "Irs scandal" results in 102 times as many hits than "irs controversy". Politco, Washington Times, Reuters, Christian Science Monitor, New York Post, Boston Herald...non opinion pieces. To cling to "controversy" at this point rather than embrace the widely used understanding that this is now a "scandal" is only contaminating claims to objectivity. One more note, Wikipedia itself calls it a scandal, and correctly does so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#2009.E2.80.93present_Obama_Administration   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.153.76 (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Literally everything you said has been previously discussed, including the relevance of Google news searches. Dyrnych (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Misleading comparison in opening paragraph
"The only tax-exempt status denial by the IRS involved the revocation of a previously granted tax-exempt status for a progressive group" This statement is misleading. The facts of this case were the group in question was already tax exempt in 2006. It wasn't a "denial" it was a revocation. This sentence is fully misleading comparison. Conservative groups in question never had tax exempt status to begin with. The complaint they were making and what they dealt with is nothing at all like what Emerge America went through, which was a simple conclusion, void of the excessive questioning, excessive intrusion and excessive delays that conservative groups went through. The comparison is objectively wrong, and wholly not intellectually honest, but if there is a particular agenda by wikipedian authors (who are mostly white males in their 20's with a left wing bent, as Wikipedia itself acknowledges) to tamper down the corruption of what the IRS did, then a neutral person would fully expect when coming to an article like this that even with dozens of cases against conservatives, the liberal authors would find one progressive "edge case" that barely even relates, and then somehow work it into the opening paragraph as a way to tamper down the force of the scandal (and I wont say controversy) itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.153.76 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly you have no ax to grind here. The claim is sourced and according to the source, the Maine chapter of Emerge America was denied tax-exempt status (triggering the revocation of the national organization's tax-exempt status).  And, per other sources contained in the article, liberal organizations received the same sorts of "excessive questioning" that Tea Party groups received.  While it's amusing that you're attacking the "average" Wikipedia editor as some kind of means of discrediting the article, it is not in any sense a constructive exercise.  If you have something to say about the source of the claim, say it and stop pretending that your assertions invalidate it. Dyrnych (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * IP's criticism is spot on. Mere mention of that red herring in the lead is highly misleading and is misrepresentative of the WP:WEIGHT that is due to the few opinions that seriously offered it as evidence of non-targeting of conservative groups. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there, you keep reverting, but you're not discussing. Besides the MOS issues of putting somethign in the lead that isn't in the article, this claim was never anything but a red herring and it's misleadingly undue weight to put it in the lead.  Please refer, e.g., to sources such as the recent House Oversight Committee Report which "debunks (the) myth that liberal groups were targeted by the IRS".  Please also see my response to your comments on my Talk about editing procedure and sourcing.  Reverted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's because you haven't gained consensus for your edits. It is your responsibility to gain clear and unambiguous consensus for controversial edits. I suggest opening an RFC process if you wish to gain broader input, as has been done in the past.
 * A partisan Republican report is not a neutral reliable source for "debunking" anything. We may cite it as a notable point of view, but its claims must be balanced against the statements of other reliable sources. You may not remove notable sourced statements simply because you have found a source that disagrees with them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added the report you noted to the lede, to offer the countering POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * North, Gain consensus  is not always justification to revert and i thought it was better the other way. also, you did fail to engage the D part of BRD. Plz undo your last revert and let's discuss more. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Dark. I'd like to add some comments.
 * North, you present a lot of issues in somewhat jumbled form. First, nobody is ever under an obligation to open an RFC to make edits to any article if the edits accord with WP policy; nor does BRD command me to get your permission to change anything — otherwise, it would be a tool for endless mischief and tendentious editing.
 * Besides that, this item isn't even in the article body to begin with, you're giving it undue weight by putting it in the lead, not to mention adding trivial detail that doesn't even belong in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary. Note that WP:POV is not a license to commit OR for the purpose of "balancing" a viewpoint that you feel needs to be disagreed with.  If there is disagreement in reliable sources, use that.  If there isn't, that's that.  Where a notable commentator remarks on the political affiliation of someone propounding a viewpoint, then it becomes relevant to a WP article, but generally not otherwise.  Nor does the fact that a viewpoint is given a source have anything to do with whether it gets stuck in the lead.   The view is quite obviously fit for the article body. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Per LEAD, this sentence does not belong. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a single Tea Party Group was ever denied 501(c)(4) status
Not even blatantly political organizations like the Tea Party Patriots. This is and has never been more than another fake scandal (Wikipedia really should add "Fake Scandals" as an article category.) -BC aka 209.6.92.99 (talk)
 * Hi, that is not especially salient given that the accusation is primarily that the groups essentially put in limbo and not allowed to go through the approval process like liberal groups. Also that link you posted looks like an utterly un-notable POV from a SPS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"2013 controversy"
This is really much more of a scandal than a controversy. If people were really debating questions like, "Should the IRS use taxpayer money to conduct illegal partisan witch hunts against the party out of power?" -- then it would be a "controversy". But really it's more of a "who was responsible for doing the obviously bad things?" kind of situation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We have had this discussion, and you can view it at your leisure. I'd imagine that it's pretty obvious that there's some debate over whether or not the IRS was "us[ing] taxpayer money to conduct illegal partisan witch hunts against the party out of power" at all. Dyrnych (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Some debate" seems like a bit of an overstatement, but I'll grant you that there is not a total absence of sympathetic viewpoints. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering that the sympathetic viewpoints (i.e., those that hold that the criteria were inappropriate but not malicious or motivated by politics) constitute about half of the political spectrum, I'd say that there's a robust and healthy debate. Dyrnych (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * False. Polls show most Americans think the targeting was both inappropriate and deliberate, and that the Obama administration is hiding something. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs)
 * Your vague invocation of "polls" has very little to do with my argument. Dyrnych (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? How can half of the political spectrum think it's no big deal if considerably more than half of the political spectrum thinks it is a big deal?  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Half of the political spectrum" ≠ half of respondents to a poll. Dyrnych (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that modern polling practices are generally considered to be reliable, and are widely relied upon as authoritative, which is why they're frequently cited by journalists, academics, and political strategists whenever the fuzzy subject of public opinion comes up? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not debating the efficacy of polling. A poll is a fine proxy for public opinion.  It's not a proxy for intellectual thought regarding a particular matter, which is almost uniformly in favor of "SCANDAL!! TYRANNY!!" on one side and "giant nothingburger" on the other.  And in any event, this discussion is entirely irrelevant to whether WP should use "controversy" or "scandal."  It's a matter that's been discussed previously in great detail and with actual reference to WP policies, rather than just claiming that the IRS is obviously on a "witch hunt." Dyrnych (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we're debating the prevalence of public opinion, of which polls are the prime measure.
 * And actually the reaction you attempt to caricature is more like "Scandal! Tyranny!" at one edge, and then "wholly damning and inappropriate exercise of government power for partisan purposes" right along the massive middle, and then a small minority of hard-line lefties trying to pretend it's all hot air as election day approaches (after trying to hide evidence for as long as possible).
 * The actual electorate being a rather intimate element of the "political spectrum", I am puzzled by your attempt to firmly differentiate the two. And personally, I haven't seen too much in the way of "intellectual thought" stating an unequivocal defense of the IRS or the administration.  But maybe that's just my bias at work.
 * Oh and FWIW the "actual WP policy" that appears to have been accepted as dispositive by those participating in this !vote was one saying that we should try to take a neutral tone on this issue even though the sources skew strongly towards a view of condemnation of this incident, and call it a scandal.  I doubt I am the only Wikipedian who is forcefully unimpressed by this rationale. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your perhaps deliberate obtuseness (no doubt in the service of your perhaps deliberate attempts at political advocacy) aside, you are certainly free to advocate that the page be moved back to "scandal." And you will be wrong for precisely the same reasons that have been expressed numerous times. Dyrnych (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the IRS apologized for targeting conservative groups in multiple ways and just gave a group 50k for doing it to them, there should be little to no debate as to if it happened. Debate as to how pervasive it was, and to what levels the misdeeds were known and coordinated remains open though. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The IRS gave $50K to NOM for inappropriately disclosing information about it, not for targeting it. Again, please see the discussion of why we're calling this a controversy and not a scandal. Dyrnych (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You may not be aware, but the illegal disclosure of private info is one of the abusive practices that the conservative groups were (allegedly!) targeted to receive as part of an (allegedly!) extralegal campaign of intimidation aimed at silencing those groups. And the $50k settlement was not mentioned in that naming discussion, so if you think Gaijin is missing something it's unclear what you think he's missing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 20:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The actual controversy is about the additional scrutiny some conservative groups received in applying for tax-exempt status. If you want to subsume every individual action taken by the IRS with respect to conservative groups in the controversy, you are certainly free to do that in your own mind.  But considering that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the IRS had a political motive in disclosing NOM's information (in other words, not "targeting" it within any conceivable definition of the word), it's kind of a stretch for those of us who aren't invested in the notion that the IRS is deliberately persecuting conservatives. Dyrnych (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a view I simply made up on my own, sir, but thanks for your concern. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 20:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The abusive actions against conservative groups during the time period in question by the IRS is the scandal. The illegal action against NOM falls within the scandalous activities being investigated and litigated. Scandal remains the proven WP:COMMONNAME. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Reaction by media
It might be worth noting in this article that one of the major reactions by media was to criticize the IRS for unilaterally changing the tax law decades ago, rather than to criticize the IRS for the harassment scandal, or to sympathize with those who were harassed with selective enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.246.183 (talk • contribs) on 29 June 2014


 * I'm not sure what this comment was referring to. I don't remember seeing anything in the media about the IRS "changing" the tax law, unilaterally or otherwise.


 * Anyway, the IRS cannot change the basic U.S. federal tax law, which is a set of statutes enacted by Congress; only Congress can change a statute. The IRS can change the way it interprets the law as it administers the law -- but the IRS is somewhat limited in what it can do in that regard, for a variety of reasons. The IRS has quite a bit of leeway, but there are limits. Famspear (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The anon editor (IP67.249.246.183) may have been referring to the Treasury regs under section 501(c)(4), finalized back around the year 1960. The U.S. Treasury (of which the IRS is the largest bureau) does have the legal authority to make changes in official Treasury regulations governing taxation and, to some extent, to make those changes effective retroactively. Famspear (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

senator targeted
without objection i will add some text on this topic. emails show former IRS official Lois Lerner mistakenly received an invitation to an event that was meant to go to Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa...Lerner suggests referring Grassley for an audit, saying it might be inappropriate for the group to pay for his wife. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Confused, what is the relevance? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How is this part of the controversy? Dyrnych (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We have seen a lot of unbelievable things in this investigation, but the fact that Lois Lerner attempted to initiate an apparently baseless IRS examination against a sitting Republican United States senator is shocking, Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. it does appear to be related to the house investigation at some level. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You understand that this isn't a forum for airing every Republican accusation about Lois Lerner, right? Feel free to add that to the Lois Lerner article if you'd like. Dyrnych (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the notion that this is Lerner "targeting" Grassley is ridiculous. She appears to have suggested that SOMEONE ("[i]t was unclear from the emails whether Lerner was suggesting that Grassley or the group be audited — or both" ) could conceivably be referred to "exam."  Then this happened: "[t]he other IRS official, Matthew Giuliano, waved her off, saying an audit would be premature because Grassley hadn't even accepted the invitation."  And then no one took any action at all with respect to Grassley.  Yet another nothing masquerading as a GREAT OUTRAGE. Dyrnych (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your personal feelings on this subject are really not appropriate for the talk page, and please do not harass or belittle other users who do bring relevant material for discussion. Material on the allegations of Grassley targeting is appropriate given the notable published opinions on the matter. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The source I cited (the AP story) does not in any sense support the notion that Grassley was targeted (nor even that Grassley was the person/entity to be referred to "exam," as the source explicitly acknowledges). That's neither my an expression of my "personal feelings" nor harassment.  Given your own editing history, it might be wise to refrain from making such accusations. Dyrnych (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hogwash. The source clearly supports it, Dark was clearly correct to bring it here, and you barking aggressive nonsense and personal opinions in response is harassment and an inappropriate use of this Talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that we've probably had enough sniping between us. I've made my argument that the source doesn't support the claim that Grassley was targeted by anyone at all.  If someone adds to the article something about Lois Lerner supposedly targeting Chuck Grassley, we can address the matter then.  Dyrnych (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'll be adding material myself. What you've seen here is simply the somewhat routine courtesy of giving other editors prior warning about content they may wish to dispute.
 * The normal procedure is to respond with policy-based objections, or not at all — not to blast the other editor with your own axe-grinding and obviously ridiculous views purporting to rebut the article (in this case, your view that the article somehow "does not support" the targeting accusations which were the exact reason for, and substance of, the writing.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The source states that it's unclear who Lerner was referring to. Any addition needs to reflect that fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Naturally. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And in agreeing with that, you agree with my point--though I note that you still can't resist insulting me. Dyrnych (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be pretty obvious that I'm not agreeing with you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)