Talk:Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 11

RFC on Saturday Evening Post source

 * Please stop with all the RFC, Cabal, Mediation stuff... You barely even discussed it here. It is bad faith to have the second post here as one for an RFC.  Now, as for the article... Restore Liberty is not a valid source but I do think that the Saturday Evening Post is and it can be verified for $25 (cost to receive the back issue).  Searches on the web show the Income tax article in that issue of the Magazine, so it is likely that the Restore liberty site does have a recreation (although probably violating copyright in doing so).  So, don't link the the website - just use a magazine ref and leave it at that.  Try using the Cite journal template.  Morphh   (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Mpublius: Do you really think that other editors can't see what you're doing? You are not linking to the "Saturday Evening Post" at all. You are linking to something called "restoreliberty.com" and calling it the "Saturday Evening Post." As editor Morphh has stated, the Saturday Evening Post itself would probably be a reliable source. Therefore, if you want to cite the Saturday Evening Post, then cite to that -- and not with a link to "restoreliberty.com" without the proper qualifying language. I am not going to hold your hand on this one, at least not yet. Read the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, and especially on how to cite to sources. I think you should make the effort to find and understand the relevant rules without other editors having to copy and paste them here on this talk page for you. Yours, Famspear 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A source is not unreliable merely because you disagree with some of the assertions made on a web site. The restoreliberty source is the only place on the web that has posted the 1913 article, and it should remain in this article for easy access. The Benton McMillin article is particularly useful because it describes the legislative history of the origin of the income tax, and it was written by the legislator who introduced the income tax bill in 1894.

The dispute resolutions mechanisms of Wikipedia exist to achieve consensus. Please assume good faith on the prt of other editors. Mpublius 17:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, they exist as a mechanism to achieve consensus, not a bludgeon to beat other editors over the head with forum shopping when WP:CONSENSUS is against you.--Isotope23 talk 19:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources subject to (and not yet in compliance with) restraining orders for posting fraudulent information should not be considered reliable sources. This may not be in our guidelines, but it reflects common sense.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mpublius, Please review Reliable sources and Verifiability. I don't think restoreliberty qualifies, but I don't see what the issue is. The direct source of the Saturday Evening Post should be sufficient for the statement. If a reader wants to try and find the article on the web, they can search for it and likely find RestoreLiberty but we should not link to it here as a reliable source.  Morphh   (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: With all due respect, the mere fact (if it is a fact) that "restoreliberty.com" is the only place on the web that has posted the material does not make "restoreliberty.com" a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia. And why are you saying that a source is not unreliable merely because I, Famspear, disagree with some of its assertions? That is not the issue here. The rule is:


 * Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged; see WP:SPS for details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources (emphasis added).

I don't know who the restoreliberty people are, but it doesn't appear to be a self-published book, personal web site, or blog. It appears to be a group of people with a minority religious viewpoint. Do you have any proof that the source is unreliable? If you read the article, it is obvious that Benton McMillin is the only person who could have written it, since he is the only person with such knowledge of the legislative history of the income tax and the Sixteenth Amendment. I don't have access to 100 year old articles from the Saturday Evening Post, and very few other people have such access, which is why the restoreliberty people posted the article on their site. The legislative history of the Sixteenth Amendment should not be suppressed merely because Benton McMillin or restoreliberty has a different political or religious viewpoint than some Wikipedia editors. Mpublius 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to me to be a personal web site. I may be wrong about there being an injunction against them, as was reported by other editors, as I can't find a source for it&mdash;but I would hope that the United States Department of Justice is seeking such an injunction, as some of the pages could certainly be interpreted in no other way than as an incitement to commit criminal acts.  As such, they might marginally be used as a sub-reference, but the citation in the article should be to the actual article, with the web page possibly be used within the citation.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare notes. You have previously been on a crusade to delete sourcing in the article on Tom Cryer with respect to a legal definition of "tax protester" as given by Daniel B. Evans, a Philadelphia tax lawyer and a recognized tax law commentator -- whose work is published by, among other things, the American Bar Association (see, e.g., ) and who has been cited in the New York Times (see, e.g., -- and yet you contend that citing a source and providing a link to "restoreliberty.com" is just fine? Just look at the restoreliberty.com web site, Mpublius. Does this look like a reliable source to you? Do you think any reputable encyclopedia would use this as a source? Who published the material in "restoreliberty"? What is the individual's name? Is the individual an "established expert" in legal matters? Is the individual recognized as an expert at anything? As recognized by whom? Famspear 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: Minor clarification: I think that just as much (or even more) of the Mpublius crusade against the Daniel B. Evans legal material may be found at the article Tax protester as is found at the Tom Cryer article. Mpublius has been fighting the Evans material in both places. Famspear 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the issue under discussion. This discussion page is already too long, and Wikipedia policy requires that you assume good faith. Mpublius 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mpublius, why don't you just add the citation as I described above. You don't have to buy the magazine.  I don't know that anyone is in dispute with the content of the article.  The dispute is with the website being used as a reference for the real article.  Use the real article as the source cite journal.  Morphh   (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Like this..., which would produce this as a reference...   Morphh   (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that very few people have access to a magazine article that is 100 years old. Even people with access to a university library will probably not have access. And even if they do have access, it is very inconvenient compared to a cite on the web. There is no good reason to suppress the restoreliberty cite. Some people might use your suggestion to create search terms for a search engine and thereby find the article, but most people will assume that it is unavailable on the web. Mpublius 21:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter that people may not have easy access to the magazine, which can be purchased for $25 online? Are you trying to source the statement or direct people to the website?  The first can be done without issue, the second has created this debate.  I've added a url to the source above that can be used to purchase the article.  Morphh   (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has as much time and money as you, and to force them to pay $25 for an article with an expired copyright is unacceptable. Wikipedia is for everyone, not merely a rich man's resource. The Internet was invented to enable information to enable greater access to information. Mpublius 17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion is getting a bit absurd. Wikipedia should change its rules and consider, as a reliable source for legal materials, a web site like restoreliberty -- that not only is not fact checked or peer reviewed, but doesn't even seem to have a disclosed author's name in it -- merely because it's somehow unfair to "force" people to pay $25 for an article "with an expired copyright"???? Who says anybody has to go out and buy the article? Has anyone ever heard of the local public library?


 * Are free, hard copy sources at public libraries suddenly somehow obsolete? The fact that the Internet was invented to enable information should somehow override the requirement for reliable sources in an online encyclopedia?


 * Under this line of reasoning, since most people do not have ready, free access to verbatim copies of most court decisions on Federal taxation, why not simply forget about citing to authoritative copies, and just use free internet tax protester web sites as sources for texts?


 * We know where that would get us. We have already experienced that problem. We have exposed fake quotations from tax protester web sites -- quotes that were in some cases inserted into Wikipedia.


 * The rule on reliable sources is there for a reason, and it is a good rule, in my view. Just cite the Saturday Evening Post, like we would do in other similar situations in Wikipedia. I go with editor Morphh on this. Yours, Famspear 17:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that Wikipedia change the rules. The restoreliberty site does not violate any rules. It is not necessary for a site to be a peer reviewed journal - the Wikipedia philosophy is the exact opposite of elitism. It merely needs to be reliable, which it is in this case. I wish someone neutral would participate is this discussion. An RFC is worthless when the only people responding are the participants in the dispute. Mpublius 17:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The cite needs to be to the Saturday Evening Post, with the URL being considered secondary (or removed entirely, if the claim made earlier that restoreliberty.com is under court orders to remove fraudulent material from the site.) Give volume, issue, date, and page number, and then we'll talk about the URL.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be very easy for anyone to find out who the restoreliberty.com people are. At the bottom of the page there’s an email link. All you have to do is click on it. Then you could have asked me any relevant questions. My name is Adrian Banks, and I ran for U.S. Congress in my district in S.C. back in the year 2000. The web site has never been censored by court order. Also, you can easily get the name and address of web site domain owners by doing a simple web search. All this squabble about not wanting to link to the Benton McMillin Saturday Evening Post article from the May 17, 1913 issue is a bunch of nonsense. I, and I alone, am responsible for the content of restoreliberty.com. Every bite of data on the site was typed and uplaoded by me. I have spent many years doing legal and historical research, and to deny to the people the ability to read Mr. McMillin’s article has nothing to do with whether or not the source is reliable. I found the article while doing research at the Denver Public Library over 10 years ago. I have binders of many articles and editorials that I copied while doing my research. I have studied many supreme court cases also. The majority of the people who are making the decisions as to the content of Wikipedia obviously don’t want people reading what’s on my web site. If all the web site did was have the “Income Tax” article and a few other old articles, there would probably be no problem at all. There is no copyright infringement as long as the authors have been dead for over 50 years. The real issue is the truth, and whether we let it shine or put a bowl over it. Sincerely, Adrian Banks, owner and author of restoreliberty.com.

“Of all powers, the last to be entrusted to the multitude of men is that of determining what questions shall be discussed. The greatest truths are often the most unpopular and exasperating; and were they to be denied discussion, till the many should be ready to accept them, they would never establish themselves in the general mind. The progress of society depends on nothing more than on the exposure of time-sanctioned abuses, which cannot be touched without offending the multitudes, than on the promulgation of principles, which are in advance of public sentiment and practice and which are consequently at war with the habits, prejudices, and immediate interests of large classes of the community. Of consequence, the multitude, if once allowed to dictate or proscribe subjects of discussion, would strike society with spiritual blindness and death. The world is to be carried forward by truth, which at first offends, which wins its way by degrees, which the many hate, and would rejoice to crush. The right of free discussion is, therefore, to be guarded by the friends of mankind with peculiar jealousy. It is at once the most sacred and most endangered of all our rights. He who would rob his neighbor of it should have a mark set on him as the worst enemy of freedom.” William Channing, taken from “The Abolitionist,” 1836. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restoreliberty (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear user Restoreliberty: Thank you for your comments. Although you may feel that the above discussion contains a bunch of "nonsense," you may want to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly those on "verifiability," "neutral point of view," and "no original research" -- and, in your case, perhaps "conflicts of interest."


 * I think your comments highlight the problem. You state that it:


 * "would be very easy for anyone to find out who the restoreliberty.com people are. At the bottom of the page there’s an email link. All you have to do is click on it. Then you could have asked me any relevant questions. My name is [ . . . ]. The web site has never been censored by court order. Also, you can easily get the name and address of web site domain owners by doing a simple web search."


 * When a user inserts material into Wikipedia, the burden is on that user to demonstrate to Wikipedia editors that the material should remain there. No Wikipedia editor who challenges the material is under some sort of obligation to "click on an email link" on what appears to be an anonymous web site, to try to find the name of the person running the site. Neither are Wikipedia editors under some sort of obligation to do "simple web searches" to obtain the names and addresses of web site domain owners, in an effort to track down the identity of the operator of a particular web page.


 * Even if your restoreliberty.com web site were not anonymous, there is a separate problem. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines require that we source to previously, published, reliable third party sources. You are indicating that you yourself are the operator of the web site restoreliberty.com. In general, many Wikipedia editors would not accept a user citing to a web site that the user himself operates.


 * Also, on a separate point about your edit to the article: Wikipedia itself cannot take the position that "Benton McMillin" somehow had the correct information on the Sixteenth Amendment. (Another editor reverted your commentary on that point.)


 * Further, this is an encyclopedia article about a legal topic. The legally correct interpretation on a given legal point (at least in the case of U.S. law where courts have actually ruled on that point) is determined by what the courts have ruled, not what "Benton McMillin" thinks (or thought). Yes, secondary sources are also desired for the article, but all the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No Original Research continue to apply. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Vaultdoor

 * Effectively, you are claiming that just because later courts have interpreted a law in a particular way,  all other POV's should be censored and prevented from presenting verifiable documentation.  True,  while the law as enforced is based upon contemporary judicial prejudice and government convenience,  this can change. "Original intent" and legislative history are very important,  if only for perspective.  The Post article appears authentic and can be verified.   Why should the poster run the risk of being throughly discredited if it is proved to be wrong?  If this is such an issue with you,  spend the $25 and prove him wrong.   I join the emerging concensus here that say to leave it in,  whatever the personal prjudices of some editors.   Deleating it is a clear violation of NPOV.Vaultdoor (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional commentary by Vaultdoor regarding Famspear comment
Famspear comment, per above: Even if your restoreliberty.com web site were not anonymous, there is a separate problem. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines require that we source to previously, published, reliable third party sources. You are indicating that you yourself are the operator of the web site restoreliberty.com. In general, many Wikipedia editors would not accept a user citing to a web site that the user himself operates.


 * Vaultdoor: Straw argument.   This is not what NOR is intended to cover.  You confute (deliberately or not) Wikipedia's prohibition on self-published "original research" published on (e.g.) a website with perfectly-OK material (in this case,  a magazine article) posted on website. A Saturday Evening Post article is clearly not "original research".Vaultdoor (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Famspear
Dear user Vaultdoor: This was the edit by user Restoreliberty:


 * To understand the congressional intent behind the Sixteenth Amendment, read Benton McMillin’s May 17, 1913 Saturday Evening Post article entitled “The Income Tax.”

See

The edit was removed by editor SMP0328 here:.

I cannot speak for editor SMP0328 as to his/her reason for removing the material, but I agreed with the removal. First, the statement itself was tantamount to a statement by Wikipedia that the McMillin article itself accurately reflects the original intent of the Congress. Wikipedia itself cannot say that. Second, the link was to the restoreliberty website, which is not a reliable source.

Neither I nor editor SMP0328 has referred to the McMillin article itself as somehow being “original research.” I made the point above that user Restoreliberty should review the Wikipedia rules on original research (as well as the rules on verifiability and neutral point of view). User Restoreliberty was attempting to change the Wikipedia article itself to virtually say, essentially, that the views expressed by McMillin in the article represent the original intent of the Congress (in other words, the Congress as a whole) with respect to the Sixteenth Amendment. That may well be true, or it may not be true. But Wikipedia itself cannot say that.

I am not claiming that “just because later courts have interpreted a law in a particular way, all other POV’s should be censored.” Please re-read the purported McMillin article. Please re-read the actual words of the Restoreliberty edit -- the edit that was removed. And re-read the comments by me and other editors above.

Again, there might be nothing wrong with citing to the McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post. Unfortunately, that is not what users Restoreliberty and Mpublius were trying to do. Instead, they were trying to cite to the restoreliberty web site, which is a not a reliable source as explained above.

Again, getting back to the other point: Wikipedia itself cannot take the position, in a Wikipedia article, that Benton McMillin’s position represents the “original intent" of the Congress, any more than Wikipedia itself could take the position that the congressional committee reports accompanying a particular statute represent, as legislative history, the “original intent” of the Congress in enacting that statute. (It may well BE THE ORIGINAL INTENT, but that is not for us as Wikipedia editors to say.) For this reason, the above-quoted verbiage by user Restoreliberty is in my view prohibited original research.

Your statement that “while the law as enforced is based upon contemporary judicial prejudice and government convenience, this can change” is illuminating – but perhaps not in the way you intended. It is an incorrect statement. The law as enforced (or, at least the case law on the Sixteenth Amendment, which is what this is about) is not based on “contemporary judicial prejudice.” For more information on this, you may want to read or re-read the history of the 1895 Pollock case (pre-Sixteenth Amendment) and the 1916 Brushaber case (post-Sixteenth Amendment) and the other court cases on the Sixteenth Amendment down through the years.

Please refrain from assuming that because other editors have done something with which you disagree, it must be because of some “personal prejudice” on the part of other editors.

By the way, you may want to carefully read (or re-read) the purported text of the McMillin article at the restoreliberty web site. Assuming that this is a valid, verbatim reprint (and I don't know whether it is or not), ask yourself what McMillin is saying. Then ask yourself what it is that you erroneously think other editors are trying to “censor”.

A separate point: I urge you to avoid rhetoric that makes it appear that you believe that Wikipedia editors are trying to "censor" information. Also, avoid rhetoric that makes it appear that you believe other editors' actions are based on "prejudices." Focus on the material itself, and assume good faith with respect to other editors. That's a Wikipedia rule. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Saturday evening post article--splitting commentary
Famspear: Further, this is an encyclopedia article about a legal topic. The legally correct interpretation on a given legal point (at least in the case of U.S. law where courts have actually ruled on that point) is determined by what the courts have ruled, not what "Benton McMillin" thinks (or thought). Yes, secondary sources are also desired for the article, but all the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No Original Research continue to apply. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Response by Vaultdoor: Effectively, you are claiming that just because later courts have interpreted a law in a particular way,  all other POV's should be censored and prevented from presenting verifiable documentation.  True,  while the law as enforced is based upon contemporary judicial prejudice and government convenience,  this can change. "Original intent" and legislative history are very important,  if only for perspective.  The Post article appears authentic and can be verified.   Why should the poster run the risk of being throughly discredited if it is proved to be wrong?  If this is such an issue with you,  spend the $25 and prove him wrong.   I join the emerging concensus here that say to leave it in,  whatever the personal prjudices of some editors.   Deleating it is a clear violation of NPOV.Vaultdoor (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear: Dear user Vaultdoor: This was the edit by user Restoreliberty:


 * To understand the congressional intent behind the Sixteenth Amendment, read Benton McMillin’s May 17, 1913 Saturday Evening Post article entitled “The Income Tax.”

See

The edit was removed by editor SMP0328 here:.

I cannot speak for editor SMP0328 as to his/her reason for removing the material, but I agreed with the removal. First, the statement itself was tantamount to a statement by Wikipedia that the McMillin article itself accurately reflects the original intent of the Congress. Wikipedia itself cannot say that. Second, the link was to the restoreliberty website, which is not a reliable source.


 * Response by Vaultdoor: Er, the link goes directly to the Saturday Evening Post article,  which we can reasonably assume is a reasonable reflection of at least some contemporary opinion.   Whether restoreliberty.com is a credible website or not is irrelevant.   The article meets the criteria of NOR and verifiabliity.   Remember,  it is this,  not whether the source is "right" or not that makes it legitimate as a reference.

Famspear: Neither I nor editor SMP0328 has referred to the McMillin article itself as somehow being “original research.” I made the point above that user Restoreliberty should review the Wikipedia rules on original research (as well as the rules on verifiability and neutral point of view). User Restoreliberty was attempting to change the Wikipedia article itself to virtually say, essentially, that the views expressed by McMillin in the article represent the original intent of the Congress (in other words, the Congress as a whole) with respect to the Sixteenth Amendment. That may well be true, or it may not be true. But Wikipedia itself cannot say that.


 * Response by Vaultdoor: All of which is irrelevant, because the link goes directly to the article itself.  Unless you assert that the editor somehow faked the article, naturally,  hic looks unlikely.   It is true that for NPOV the wording might better be changed to "Here is a Saturday Evening Post article reflecting the contentious contemporary views on the amendment".   But that is what editors are for.   It is simply outrageous and a clear violation of NPOV to censor such a site.

Famspear: I am not claiming that “just because later courts have interpreted a law in a particular way, all other POV’s should be censored.” Please re-read the purported McMillin article. Please re-read the actual words of the Restoreliberty edit -- the edit that was removed. And re-read the comments by me and other editors above.

Again, there might be nothing wrong with citing to the McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post. Unfortunately, that is not what users Restoreliberty and Mpublius were trying to do. Instead, they were trying to cite to the restoreliberty web site, which is a not a reliable source as explained above.


 * Response by Vaultdoor: Reliable or not. It does not matter.   The link was directly to the Saturday Evening Post article.   You may object to the fact that the article supports the opinions given elsewhere on the website.  But that is irrelevant to whether it is a legitimate reference.

Famspear: Again, getting back to the other point: Wikipedia itself cannot take the position, in a Wikipedia article, that Benton McMillin’s position represents the “original intent" of the Congress, any more than Wikipedia itself could take the position that the congressional committee reports accompanying a particular statute represent, as legislative history, the “original intent” of the Congress in enacting that statute. (It may well BE THE ORIGINAL INTENT, but that is not for us as Wikipedia editors to say.) For this reason, the above-quoted verbiage by user Restoreliberty is in my view prohibited original research.


 * Response by Vaultdoor: Then edit the text to reflect this.  But do not remove the cite.   Unfortunately,  it looks like you-all are attempting to censor inconvenience evidence that disagrees with your POV.  To me,  the cite looks like a reflection of one side of the contemporary arguement around the passage of the 16th amendment.  It can be labled as such.  But the expressed POV is documentably part of the history,  like it or not.

Famspear: Your statement that “while the law as enforced is based upon contemporary judicial prejudice and government convenience, this can change” is illuminating – but perhaps not in the way you intended. It is an incorrect statement. The law as enforced (or, at least the case law on the Sixteenth Amendment, which is what this is about) is not based on “contemporary judicial prejudice.” For more information on this, you may want to read or re-read the history of the 1895 Pollock case (pre-Sixteenth Amendment) and the 1916 Brushaber case (post-Sixteenth Amendment) and the other court cases on the Sixteenth Amendment down through the years.

Please refrain from assuming that because other editors have done something with which you disagree, it must be because of some “personal prejudice” on the part of other editors.


 * Response by Vaultdoor: My mistake. An editor posts a reputable source that meets all the usual and customary criteria and you-all remove the cite.   And then make spurious straw arguements that because the website itself may be "unreliable",  the cite is itself "unreliable",  even though it is an original source.  Pardon me for feeling you may be violating NPOV.Vaultdoor (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear: By the way, you may want to carefully read (or re-read) the purported text of the McMillin article at the restoreliberty web site. Assuming that this is a valid, verbatim reprint (and I don't know whether it is or not), ask yourself what McMillin is saying. Then ask yourself what it is that you erroneously think other editors are trying to “censor”.

A separate point: I urge you to avoid rhetoric that makes it appear that you believe that Wikipedia editors are trying to "censor" information. Also, avoid rhetoric that makes it appear that you believe other editors' actions are based on "prejudices." Focus on the material itself, and assume good faith with respect to other editors. That's a Wikipedia rule. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Response by Vaultdoor: If you-all are going to censor what appears to be an original source, then you should have better reasons than mere assertions of "unreliability",  a violation of the "assume good faith" rule if I ever saw one.Vaultdoor (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear response
Dear Vaultdoor: If you really want the Wikipedia article to cite the Benton McMillin Saturday Evening Post article, then why not simply cite directly to the Saturday Evening Post, as I and other editors have suggested? Why are you arguing in favor of getting a link into the restoreliberty.com web site inserted into Wikipedia?

I’m not sure, but based on your comments, I am wondering whether you feel that the McMillin article somehow contradicts the court decisions on the Sixteenth Amendment, and that you feel that the McMillin article is important for that reason. Have you actually read the reprint of the McMillin article at restoreliberty.com? (Let’s assume for a moment that it is an accurate verbatim reprint of the real Saturday Evening Post article.) Can you clarify what your position is, exactly? Can you quote a specific example of language in the reprint of the McMillin article that you feel is important (again, assuming it’s an accurate reprint)? And if the McMillin article is so important, then why not simply paraphrase (or even quote from) the important information in the Post article, and cite directly to the Post – without the restoreliberty.com link? Why the repeated argument about wanting to bring restoreliberty.com link into this?

Why do you say that the link goes directly to the article itself, when it does not? Anyone can see that the link goes not to the Saturday Evening Post, but instead to the purported REPRINT of the article at the restoreliberty.com web site. Again, I sense that you feel it is urgent that a restoreliberty.com link be placed in the Wikipedia article.

Indeed, you are now down to the point of making statements like “reliable or not it does not matter” with respect to the restoreliberty.com web site. Again, if this is really about the McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post, then why the insistence that restoreliberty.com be a part of this? Are you going to re-submit the already rejected argument that a copy of the actual Saturday Evening Post article is somehow too difficult or too costly to obtain (an argument made by another user; see above), and that we should therefore waive the Wikipedia rule on reliable sources?

Regarding your statement: “You may object to the fact that the article supports the opinions given elsewhere on the website” – Please ask yourself: What in the world are you trying to say here? The McMillin article supports WHAT opinions given elsewhere in the web site? Ask yourself: What exactly are those “opinions” to which you are referring, and why do you believe Wikipedia editors would object to the supposed “fact” that the article somehow “supports” those opinions?

A “reputable source”?? Come on now. The Saturday Evening Post is a reputable source. Also, the Post was founded before I was born. A long time ago.

By contrast, “restoreliberty.com” is an anonymous internet web site. Does restoreliberty.com even HAVE a “reputation”? And what is its “reputation”? On its anonymous status, however, see the recent posting by editor Restoreliberty, above. The web site is slightly less anonymous as it used to be. The editor now gives his real name, and he asserts that restoreliberty.com is his web site. So the question becomes: What are HIS qualifications, how is HIS material on his web site being fact-checked? And, does the fact that he has posted his name on a Wikipedia talk page change the fact that his web site is still technically anonymous?

Regarding your comment about “original source”: The mere fact that a source is an “original source” does not mean that the source is reliable for purposes of Wikipedia. And as already noted over and over, restoreliberty.com is not the “original source” for a Saturday Evening Post article by Benton McMillin from the year 1913. Come on now.

You are now incorrectly contending that I (Famspear) am making the argument that because the website itself (restoreliberty.com) may be unreliable, the cite (i.e., the citation) itself is unreliable. No. What I am saying is that you should cite the Saturday Evening Post if that is what you really want to do – and not cite restoreliberty.com, and certainly not add a link to restoreliberty.com.

Now, let’s look at this statement by you:


 * Remember, it is this, not whether the source is "right" or not that makes it legitimate as a reference.

No, I don’t need to “remember” that. I already know that. You see, I am not the one making the argument that the Benton McMillin article is wrong. I am not the one making the argument that the “rightness” of the source makes it legitimate as a reference. And I am not making the argument that the Benton McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post is not a reliable source. Indeed, I don’t remember ANY editors making those arguments here. Indeed, I and at least one other editor have said that if someone wants to use the Post article, he or she should do just that – AND CITE THE POST, not “restoreliberty.com”

Now, let’s look at this statement by you:


 * If you-all [Wikipedia editors] are going to censor what appears to be an original source, then you should have better reasons than mere assertions of "unreliability", a violation of the "assume good faith" rule if I ever saw one.

No, that is incorrect. First, restoreliberty.com is not an original source (see discussion above). Second, when a Wikipedia editor questions the reliability of a web site (restoreliberty.com), that does not mean that the editor is violating the Wikipedia rule that requires each editor to assume good faith.

The rule requiring editors to assume good faith essentially means that each editor should assume that the other editor with whom he is dealing is acting in good faith. I am not the one arguing that someone is trying to engage in “censorship." I am not the one arguing that the “personal prejudices” of Wikipedia editors are somehow preventing something you want from being in the article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Vaultdoor response
Famspear says: Dear Vaultdoor: If you really want the Wikipedia article to cite the Benton McMillin Saturday Evening Post article, then why not simply cite directly to the Saturday Evening Post, as I and other editors have suggested? Why are you arguing in favor of getting a link into the restoreliberty.com web site inserted into Wikipedia?


 * Vaultdoor says: If the Saturday Evening Post has the text, then link to their site.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: I’m not sure, but based on your comments, I am wondering whether you feel that the McMillin article somehow contradicts the court decisions on the Sixteenth Amendment, and that you feel that the McMillin article is important for that reason. Have you actually read the reprint of the McMillin article at restoreliberty.com? (Let’s assume for a moment that it is an accurate verbatim reprint of the real Saturday Evening Post article.) Can you clarify what your position is, exactly? Can you quote a specific example of language in the reprint of the McMillin article that you feel is important (again, assuming it’s an accurate reprint)? And if the McMillin article is so important, then why not simply paraphrase (or even quote from) the important information in the Post article, and cite directly to the Post – without the restoreliberty.com link? Why the repeated argument about wanting to bring restoreliberty.com link into this?


 * Vaultdoor says: Again, the link is important because it reflects contemporary opinion about the passage of the 16th amendment.  History is important.   Let the chip fall where they may.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Why do you say that the link goes directly to the article itself, when it does not? Anyone can see that the link goes not to the Saturday Evening Post, but instead to the purported REPRINT of the article at the restoreliberty.com web site. Again, I sense that you feel it is urgent that a restoreliberty.com link be placed in the Wikipedia article.


 * Vaultdoor says: Do you think that the reprint is somehow not authentic? If it is not, then it is a pretty good fake.   It looks pretty good to me.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Indeed, you are now down to the point of making statements like “reliable or not it does not matter” with respect to the restoreliberty.com web site.


 * Vaultdoor says: Straw argument again. Clearly,  I was referring to the Wikipedia rules for inclusion,  which include verifiability and NOR,  but not necesarily reliability,  particularly for political issues,  where opinions may vary.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Again, if this is really about the McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post, then why the insistence that restoreliberty.com be a part of this? Are you going to re-submit the already rejected argument that a copy of the actual Saturday Evening Post article is somehow too difficult or too costly to obtain (an argument made by another user; see above), and that we should therefore waive the Wikipedia rule on reliable sources?


 * Vaultdoor says: As a major media outlet, the Saturday Evening Post qualifies as "A reliable source",  as much as any media source anyway.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Regarding your statement: “You may object to the fact that the article supports the opinions given elsewhere on the website” – Please ask yourself: What in the world are you trying to say here? The McMillin article supports WHAT opinions given elsewhere in the web site? Ask yourself: What exactly are those “opinions” to which you are referring, and why do you believe Wikipedia editors would object to the supposed “fact” that the article somehow “supports” those opinions?

A “reputable source”?? Come on now. The Saturday Evening Post is clearly a reliable source.

Also, the Post was founded before I was born. A long time ago. By contrast, “restoreliberty.com” is an anonymous internet web site. Does restoreliberty.com even HAVE a “reputation”? And what is its “reputation”? On its anonymous status, however, see the recent posting by editor Restoreliberty, above. The web site is slightly less anonymous as it used to be. The editor now gives his real name, and he asserts that restoreliberty.com is his web site. So the question becomes: What are HIS qualifications, how is HIS material on his web site being fact-checked? And, does the fact that he has posted his name on a Wikipedia talk page change the fact that his web site is still technically anonymous?


 * Vaultdoor says: Straw argument again. The restoreliberty.com website is merely hosting the SEP article.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Regarding your comment about “original source”: The mere fact that a source is an “original source” does not mean that the source is reliable for purposes of Wikipedia. And as already noted over and over, restoreliberty.com is not the “original source” for a Saturday Evening Post article by Benton McMillin from the year 1913. Come on now.


 * Vaultdoor says: As far as I can tell, the article is presented as such,  no more, no less.   Now,  if you want to maintain the article is somehow faked,  we can consider that issue separately.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: You are now incorrectly contending that I (Famspear) am making the argument that because the website itself (restoreliberty.com) may be unreliable, the cite (i.e., the citation) itself is unreliable. No. What I am saying is that you should cite the Saturday Evening Post if that is what you really want to do – and not cite restoreliberty.com, and certainly not add a link to restoreliberty.com.


 * Vaultdoor says: Why not?  Your argument seems to be that the article is somehow polluted by being posted on this website.    Tell you what,  if you want to avoid giving a link to a page on restoreliberty.com,  then put the article on your own website or on some other site.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Now, let’s look at this statement by you:


 * Remember, it is this, not whether the source is "right" or not that makes it legitimate as a reference.

No, I don’t need to “remember” that. I already know that. You see, I am not the one making the argument that the Benton McMillin article is wrong. I am not the one making the argument that the “rightness” of the source makes it legitimate as a reference. And I am not making the argument that the Benton McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post is not a reliable source. Indeed, I don’t remember ANY editors making those arguments here. Indeed, I and at least one other editor have said that if someone wants to use the Post article, he or she should do just that – AND CITE THE POST, not “restoreliberty.com”


 * Vaultdoor says: Fine, but only if the alternative source also has a copy of the Saturday Evening Post article,  which seems otherwise difficult to get hold of.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Now, let’s look at this statement by you:


 * If you-all [Wikipedia editors] are going to censor what appears to be an original source, then you should have better reasons than mere assertions of "unreliability", a violation of the "assume good faith" rule if I ever saw one.

No, that is incorrect. First, restoreliberty.com is not an original source (see discussion above).


 * Vaultdoor says: Straw argument again. The original source is the SEP article,  which just happens to be hosted on the restoreliberty.com site.   The latter may be "reliable" or not.   But here it just passively hosts the article.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear says: Second, when a Wikipedia editor questions the reliability of a web site (restoreliberty.com), that does not mean that the editor is violating the Wikipedia rule that requires each editor to assume good faith.

The rule requiring editors to assume good faith essentially means that each editor should assume that the other editor with whom he is dealing is acting in good faith. I am not the one arguing that someone is trying to engage in “censorship." I am not the one arguing that the “personal prejudices” of Wikipedia editors are somehow preventing something you want from being in the article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Vaultdoor says: What am I to think? You seem determined to keep an original source from being linked to because of your personal ( and "original research" ) opinion that the site on which it happens to be hosted on is "unreliable".    Again,  the issue is not the reliability of the hosting website,  but whether the hosted article meets the wikipedia criteria for inclusion.  The only way it does not is if the article is a fake.   Always possible,  but this does appear to be unlikely.Vaultdoor (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Famspear response
Vaultdoor says: If the Saturday Evening Post has the text, then link to their site.


 * Famspear responds: Excellent suggestion.

Vaultdoor says: Again, the link is important because it reflects contemporary opinion about the passage of the 16th amendment. History is important. Let the chip fall where they may.


 * Famspear response. No, the LINK is not important for that reason. The Saturday Evening Post article itself, however, might be important for that reason.

Vaultdoor says: Do you think that the reprint is somehow not authentic? If it is not, then it is a pretty good fake. It looks pretty good to me.


 * Famspear response: No, I don't know whether the reprint is either authentic or fake. I simply don't know. But I am suspecting that it is AUTHENTIC, or at least assuming that it is authentic for the sake of argument. Even assuming that the reprint is accurate, my argument is the same: Since restoreliberty.com is not a reliable source, I have no way of knowing whether the text of the McMillin Post article is accurate -- without looking at the actual Post article (or at a reprint in a website that IS considered reliable).


 * Perhaps some historical perspective is in order here: Wikipedia editors have had problems in the past with people copying and pasting material from other web sites -- web sites that claimed to be presenting verbatim "quotes", especially of court decisions, where it turned out that the quotes were fake (especially in the tax-law related area). For example: The fake quote claimed to have been a decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Lucas v. Earl. (The "quote" actually turned out to be the argument of the losing party in the case -- the argument that was rejected by the Court.) Even with web sites that aren't anonymous, we have found fake "quotations" that are supposedly from court decisions, where the "quotes" literally do not really exist. This is a particular problem in the area of tax-law, and there is always the danger that this kind of stuff will bleed over into Wikipedia articles on tax law. This is an intermittent battle: to keep fakery out of Wikipedia.


 * Again, I am ASSUMING that the quoted McMillin (Saturday Evening Post) material in restoreliberty.com is an ACCURATE quote - but that does not change the point that we need to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Therefore: Leave out the link and citation to restoreliberty.com, and find a better source for the Post article. The burden of persuading Wikipedia editors that a given link or citation or quote should be in Wikipedia is on the party trying to insert the link or the material, not on the rest of the Wikipedia community. That's the rule in Wikipedia. I didn't make the rule.

Vaultdoor says: As a major media outlet, the Saturday Evening Post qualifies as "A reliable source",  as much as any media source anyway.


 * Famspear response: Ah, now you're agreeing with me! So, as I said before: Cite directly to the Saturday Evening Post, if that's what you want to do. Or, find a more RELIABLE web site that includes a RELIABLE reprint of the article. Don't confuse "accuracy" and "reliability." Accuracy alone is not enough. We need reliability. There is no compelling reason to cite to restoreliberty.com or to link to restoreliberty.com merely because that web site contains what purports to be a reprint of the article -- or merely because we can't seem to find another web site that does include a reprint.

Vaultdoor says: [. . . ] The restoreliberty.com website is merely hosting the SEP article.


 * Famspear response: Bingo! And I am reiterating that restoreliberty.com is not a reliable source for that purpose. If you want to include something about the McMillin article in the Saturday Evening Post, then leave the link to restoreliberty.com out, and simply cite to the Post.

Vaultdoor says: [. . . ] Tell you what, if you want to avoid giving a link to a page on restoreliberty.com, then put the article on your own website or on some other site.


 * Famspear responds: Bingo! Actually, I don't have my own website, but I do think it would be very beneficial if I could get to a downtown library and obtain a copy of the actual Post article.

Vaultdoor says: What am I to think? You seem determined to keep an original source from being linked to because of your personal ( and "original research" ) opinion that the site on which it happens to be hosted on is "unreliable". Again, the issue is not the reliability of the hosting website,  but whether the hosted article meets the wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The only way it does not is if the article is a fake. Always possible, but this does appear to be unlikely.


 * Famspear response: What are the rest of us to think? You keep referring to the restoreliberty.com link as being to an "original source" -- when clearly it is not.


 * And what in the world is so important in the text of the McMillin article? We don't know, because neither you nor the other one or two editors who are interested in McMillin have said. And "the issue" certainly IS the reliability of the hosting web site. That is PRECISELY the issue. I am so curious about the cryptic interest in this McMillin article in the Post that I am going to try to obtain a reliable reprint of the McMillin article. Since you and the one or two other editors who are pushing this article seem so reluctant to discuss the substance of the Post article itself, maybe I can push the process along. This may take a while, as I will have to go across town to a university or down town library. (I might have to make a few phone calls first, to see which library if any has a copy of the article.) Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Restoreliberty response: I found the McMillin article at the Denver Public Library. Any large library should have it. I also found the May 17, 1913 SEP issue on Ebay and bought it 3 years ago. It is indeed authentic. I wish another site you approve of would put the article on their site. The people have a right to know the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restoreliberty (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem, as I see it, is that web sites known to have false quotes should not be allowed in a reference, even for courtesy links, except as support for the claim that that website reports something. And, as tax protester web sites notoriously have false quotes, such sites as restoreliberty.com should not allowed unless an independent editor vets the quote.  User:Restoreliberty is unlikely to be such an independent editor.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's the further question as to whether the article is relevant. As an aside, I might consider it reliable if a scan was posted on the site, especially since it's out of copyright.  Others might not consider it reliable anyway, or may not agree it's out of copyright.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1913 tax statute
I moved the relatively new reference to the 1913 statute down in the article, down to the end of the section on ratification. The 1913 statute only indirectly relates to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment (enactment of a statute is a separate process from ratification of a constitutional amendment). Also, the reference incorrectly stated that the 1913 Act was passed in "April" 1913. The Act was actually passed in October 1913. As stated in the cited article, April was when the Congressional session began. I also added a link to the Wikipedia article on the Act -- the Revenue Act of 1913. Famspear 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request
A request has been made by a user (here) to change a reference format to cite journal. Of course, as this is the dispute, it is necessary to build up consensus for this change. Please comment below, if consensus is in support of changing the reference format (although not required) per WP:CIT, the change will be performed and the medation request closed. If consensus is against this, the mediation case will be left open and another resolution will be made in the near future by either myself, or another medaitor. Thank you for your co-operation


 * For the Mediation Cabal:'' Qst (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Support
''If you support the change of the reference format, please leave comments here in the format of *Support. Comment here. ~ ''
 * Support change to cite format for readability. Uncertain whether the URL should be there at all, but needs to say "reprint" if it is.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
Please use the same format as above, but changing the fields as necessary.

Should include URL with 'reprint'. Mpublius 19:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Qst, I have not responded (and perhaps others) as the above assessment and thus the premise for achieving consensus is incorrect as I see it. This is discussed on the Mediation page. Mpublius did not request the cite journal, I did. The cite format is not the dispute and I believe consensus regarding using cite journal is already achieved. So to the poll above, I guess I support using the cite journal as I suggested it but that is not what the mediation is about. The mediation is if we should use the RestoreLiberty URL in the cite, since it is not needed to reference the material and links to an unreliable source. Concensus was not to include it, but Mpublius choose Mediation to try and overturn this consensus. The cite journal without the URL is perfectly fine for the purpose of Wikipedia sourcing requirements. It comes down to the reader having direct web access to the sourced material vs. Wikipedia policy on sources. The new addition in the Mediation was the option of using "reprint". Is adding the term "reprint" acceptable for linking to an unreliable source? Since the material is republished, is it acceptable, even though the website is very questionable? Morphh  (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps adding "format=disputed reprint" may be adequate. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with "format=reprint" or "format=disputed reprint" so long as it is acceptable to Wikipedia policy. I don't care to reach some compromised consensus that violates the policy, particularly when there is no real purpose in having the url to cite the material.  I'm opposed to the url in the stance that it is an unreliable source.  I think we've all agreed that it is an unreliable source.  So the question is if using the "format=reprint" is acceptable inclusion under Wikipedia policy to use an unreliable source.  Perhaps this needs to be a question posed to WP:V.  If it violates the policy, then it should be removed. If it is acceptable to policy, then I'm fine with inclusion.  Morphh   (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've posted the question titled "Unreliable source reprints reliable source" to the Verifiability talk and Reliable sources noticeboard.  Morphh   (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm coming here after reading the post on Reliable sources noticeboard to respond in more detail about this issue. Reliability seems to be just one of many attempts to find a justification for not including the link; the real issue seems to be whether or not we should give this particular site the implicit "approval" a site gets by being linked from Wikipedia. IMO, the consideration should be (1) whether the link complies with WP:EL (excepting the points regarding relevance to the article subject) and (2) whether there is any reasonable belief that this particular reprint is not an accurate reproduction.
 * However, since the article in question is in the public domain, I have a much better solution for this situation. Someone should just go ahead and pay the $25 (or otherwise obtain a verifiably-accurate copy of the original) and upload the thing to Wikisource. Anomie⚔ 23:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about doing that myself. If I or another editor does that, however, we do not want to set that up as some sort of precedent; it would be a very bad precedent. The web site in question is indeed highly unreliable. Trying to justify a link to that website merely because the purpose of the link is to avail readers of the text of an article not otherwise readily available is pretty dubious in my personal opinion. I respectfully disagree with the implication, if there is an implication, that we as Wikipedia editors are under some sort of burden of proof to demonstrate a reason to believe that the reprint is accurate when the reprint comes from highly dubious -- indeed, anonymous -- source. To posit otherwise would be to turn the rule of Verifiability on its head. Essentially, we would be saying: "Here it is, the text is from an anonymous source pushing a point of view, now prove the text is not an accurate reprint." Indeed, to accept that argument would be a tacit invitation to any editor pushing a point of view to include links to wacky websites promulgated by anonymous authors that show "reprints" of articles -- and then to have that editor demand that the rest of the editors prove that the reprint is accurate. I don't think that is going to fly. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What would be a bad precedent, exactly? Uploading a public-domain article to Wikisource can't be it, that's a great precedent. Note I never said to upload the copy from this site of disputed accuracy; either pay the $25 to order an official reprint, copy a copy in a major library archive, or get it from another source everyone agrees is accurate.
 * I didn't say anyone is under an obligation to prove the reprint on that site is inaccurate; rather, the burden in the face of reasonable doubts is on those wanting to include it to prove that the reprint is accurate (just as a citation is required for material that is reasonably challenged; if we omit "reasonable" we end up with this ). But there is no call for dragging WP:V and WP:RS into the matter, since the reliability of the source is not in question. The only question is whether a particular convenience link is appropriate, which IMO rests on WP:EL and whether there is reasonable doubt that the reprint is and will remain accurate. If the site is as bad as you say, #2 here would easily enough exclude the link if my opinion is followed. Anomie⚔ 13:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting point, I'm making assumptions that the reprint is valid, which I have no evidence of. Morphh   (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Other comments regarding this have been posted at Verifiability talk and Reliable sources noticeboard. Morphh  (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: there is quite a bit of discussion with our issue at the Verifiability talk post.  Morphh   (talk) 14:34, 05 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicative tax protester material reduced
The section on tax protester arguments about the Sixteenth Amendment had become fairly large. I have deleted most of the material; repeating it here in this article seemed to defeat the purpose of having the separate article devoted to those kinds of arguments, as well as defeating the purpose of the link to the separate article. This is a chronic problem with "tax law" related Wikipedia articles, as they gradually grow to include tax protester material that is already covered (or which could be covered) in the numerous tax protester articles already devoted to the material: Tax protester, Tax protester history, Tax protester arguments, Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments, and Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment
A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment reminder
Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting of citation to "famguardian" web site
Dear editors: I reverted the good faith addition by editor SMP0328 of the citation to the "family guardian" website in this article. The textual statement is certainly correct, but the website in question ("famguardian") is a tax protester website that is in the process of being closed down by court order. Much of the material in that web site is fraudulent. I realize that SMP0328's addition of that source was made in good faith, and in fact I have seen the many good edits SMP0328 has been making to various tax-related articles.

I will try to locate a source for the statement in the article. Again, thanks to editor SMP0328 for all the help on these tax articles! Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't know about that website. If I had when I used it as a source, I wouldn't have used it. I have dated the cite tag to save the BOTs the trouble. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I have found, and have added, a reference for the Interpretation section of the article (see Footnote #23). The source is from FindLaw. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird edits
An anonymous user at IP66.74.137.69 has been adding odd edits to this article. Contrary to the user's post, Ohio was not made a state ex post facto in 1953. Ohio was made a state in the year 1803. The resolution passed by Congress in 1953, Pub. L. 204, H.J. 121, did not retroactively make Ohio a state. Ohio was already a state.

The purpose of Pub. L. 204 was to settle an issue about the specific date on which Ohio became a state -- no later than March 1, 1803. See Baker v. Commissioner, 37 T.C.M. (CCH) 307, T.C. Memo 1978-60, CCH Dec. 34,976(M) (1978), aff'd, 639 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1980). In this case, the court stated: "Petitioner's theory [that Ohio was not a state until 1953 and that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified] is based on the enactment of Pub. L. 204, ch. 337, 67 Stat. 407 (1953) relating to Ohio's Admission into the Union. As the legislative history of this Act makes clear, its purpose was to settle a burning debate as to the precise date upon which Ohio became one of the United States. S. Rept. No. 720 to accompany H.J. Res. 121 (Pub. L. 204), 82d Cong. 2d Sess. (1953). We have been cited to no authorities which indicate that Ohio became a state later than March 1, 1803, irrespective of Pub. L. 204."

In other words, the mere fact that the resolution was passed in 1953 does not change the legal point that Ohio was admitted to the Union in 1803. By contrast, an ex post facto enactment would be a situation where, say, a particular "state" never had really been a state, and the Congress then passed something effective retroactively.

By the way, just so you'll know: There is no legal requirement that Congress pass a "resolution" (or anything else) when a state is admitted to the Union. Many states have had resolutions passed at the time they were admitted to the Union. However, at least one state - Ohio - did not. It may sound reasonable to a non-lawyer if someone says that there ought to be some sort of official "resolution" passed at the time of admission into the Union, but that does not mean that there is a legal requirement for that. Famspear (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The new user also added a nonsense edit about the Glenshaw Glass case - saying it had been "reversed" in April 1954 (the way I'm reading the garbled edit). Glenshaw Glass was a U.S. Supreme Court decision. As of late February 2008, the case has never been reversed. Further, it would be impossible for it to have been reversed in April of 1954, since it didn't even exist then; the case was decided in 1955. Famspear (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, edits are being treated as vandalism. Famspear (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignore tax protesters?
I've been reading the archives of this page and it seems to me there is an awful lot of "ignore tax protesters" going on here, users telling other users to ignore sources because they are protesters. That hardly seems fair to me. Sometimes they cite that the sites used for information contain other innacuracies but don't state what and they don't seem to state what about the point being made is incorrect and rather dance around the issue saying it's too complex to explain. Other times people are insisting no court has found anyone innocent on the whole "no law requiring you to file" thing but that's not true, cases have been cited on the talk pages and are removed. This whole article and the associated talk page is a sham. It's defaulted to a rule of the status quo without question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.173.229 (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear anonymous user at IP68.151.173.299: The meaning of "there is an awful lot of 'ignore tax protesters' going on here" is unclear, but the purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article on the Sixteenth Amendment, not to discuss "tax protesters."


 * Also, Wikipedia articles include extensive treatment of tax protesters and their arguments. Indeed, Wikipedia includes no less than six different articles devoted exclusively to tax protesters and their arguments in general -- not counting other articles about individual protesters. If you want to read about tax protesters, then you should read the relevant articles.


 * There is no "dancing around the issue here." All you have to do is to read the articles.


 * No U.S. federal court has ever ruled that any tax protester argument is legally valid. All tax protester arguments that have been presented in courts of law in the United States have been ruled invalid. From the 1860s, when the first federal income taxes were imposed, to mid-March 2008, that is the state of the law. Not one single exception. None.


 * There is no such thing as someone being found "innocent on the whole 'no law requiring [sic] you to file' thing". However, on occasion, a few tax protesters have been found not guilty by a jury of criminal tax charges brought against them. Some of those cases are clearly documented in the related articles here.


 * Also, as clearly explained in Wikipedia, a jury verdict that a defendant is not guilty of a criminal tax charge is not a ruling by the court in favor of the tax protester's argument about what the law is. Indeed, the Tom Cryer case is a classic example where the tax protester's arguments were ruled to be invalid by the court -- and Cryer was still found not guilty by the jury at the end of the trial.


 * Not guilty verdicts for tax protesters in U.S. federal tax cases are very rare, but they do occur -- just as some people are found not guilty of murder, or theft, etc.


 * As stated over and over here in Wikipedia and in other places, saying that a "not guilty" verdict in a federal criminal tax case means that there's no law imposing the tax or that there's no law imposing a penalty for willful failure to pay the tax is like saying that a "not guilty" verdict in a murder case means that there's no law against murder, or no law imposing a penalty for murder. It's a nonsensical argument.


 * You may want to review the relevant Wikipedia articles. I would suggest that you do a search on the term "tax protester" for starters. Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed
I have removed the following sentence from the Ratification process section:

Democratic Congressman Benton McMillan accused the Republicans of extravagant government spending and excessive reliance on tariffs for revenue.

This sentence was unsourced (see cite tag) and it is not clear how it is relevant to the article. What does McMillan's accusation have to do with the Sixteenth Amendment, or even the income tax in general? Feel free to restore this sentence, as long as it is properly sourced and its relevance is established. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A little tidbit on citing certain cases in abbreviated form
Normally, when citing a case like, for example, Smith v. Jones, if you want to abbreviate the case name, the normal convention is to call the case simply "Smith." -- the name of the first party shown in the style of the case.

However, there is an exception.

For certain U.S. federal tax cases, if the first named party happens to be the Collector of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, etc., the normal practice is to cite the second name. So, if "Smith" was the Collector/Commissioner, etc., you would refer to the case of Smith v. Jones as being the "Jones" case. The reason for this exception is that there are going to be just too many cases with "Smith" in the style of the case. It you cited all those tax cases as "Smith", it would be too confusing.

Thus, Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. (Frank Bowers was the Collector of Internal Revenue) would not normally be abbreviated as "Bowers." It would be abbreviated as the "Kerbaugh-Empire Co." case, or something like that.

This is not a formal legal rule; it's just one of those "habits" that you see being followed when you read citations to lots of court cases. Yours, Famspear (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: This is normally an issue only for relatively old federal tax cases. Years ago, the rule was changed so that the Collector of Internal Revenue was no longer "personally" listed as a party in the case. In relatively modern federal tax cases, the "government" side of the case is usually listed (in cases that start in the U.S. district courts or U.S. bankruptcy courts) as "United States" or (in cases that start in the U.S. Tax Court) as "Commissioner."


 * Occasionally in more recent cases you might see the "government" party named as being "Internal Revenue Service" or "Department of the Treasury" or as the personal name of whoever happens to be the Secretary of the Treasury or the Commissioner at the time the case was filed, but those are fairly rare, now. Famspear (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thick prose needs to be simplified
In the current version of the article, this paragraph appears under the Background section:


 * Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution state that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population. This essentially means that the dollar amount of direct taxes imposed on the taxpayers in any given state is required to bear a relationship to the total dollar amount of direct taxes imposed in the entire nation that is equal to the ratio of that state's population to the total population of the nation.

... What?! I find it impossible to parse this, so I can't figure out what it's saying. I believe someone should clarify this. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 09:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Simplification complete. Let me know what you think of the reworded Background section. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly is simpler. Thank you. However, I was hoping that a clearer explanation would materialize of what it means to apportion direct taxes according to population. I failed to convey that. I searched Google endlessly and couldn't find any explanation of what the rule of apportionment means, and I hoped Wikipedia would have an explanation.
 * For that matter, I think an explanation of the rule of geographical uniformity should be included too; I think I have more of a grasp on that concept, but I doubt my understanding and don't want to contribute faulty info.
 * I greatly appreciate any help here. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to work on the explanations for apportionment and geographical uniformity. Yours, Famspear (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

35 or 36 needed
The article currently incorrectly states that 36 votes were needed for ratification. Only 35 were actually needed. The 16th amendment was sent in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures, after having been passed by Congress, as required. In 1909, there were only 46 states. 46 x .75 = 34.5. To get to 36 votes being necessary, you have to include NM and AZ - which weren't states at the time Congress passed the Amendment; NM became a state in 1912, AZ in 1913.

While this may seem a small and petty point, tax protesters often use the "36 votes were needed" argument to claim that of the 38 that Knox originally certified, 3 were invalid (usually KY, OK, and TN), so the amendment wasn't properly ratified. With the correct number of states needed, 35, even if the protesters were correct (and they aren't) that 3 were invalid, there'd be enough for ratification. I know this isn't the page to talk about the controversy, but the article should be correct on the number of states needed for ratification, so as not to add TO the controversy, n'est-ce pas? ;) Almaward (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If a state is added after a Constitutional amendment has been proposed by the Congress, but before it has been ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, that new state is included in calculating the number of states needed for adoption. A perfect example of this is the Twenty seventh Amendment. When it was proposed by the Congress, there were 11 states in the Union, but it needed 38 ratifications for it to be adopted in 1992. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Addition of new states definitely raises the bar for amendments. bd2412  T 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're incorrect. The 27th Amendment has nothing to do with this - it needed 38 ratifications because there were more states in the Union when it was PASSED by Congress than when it was PROPOSED. My reference to the 16th Amendment needing only 35 ratifications is based on when the Amendment was PASSED, not PROPOSED. Once an Amendment has been PASSED, the number of ratifications needed does not change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaward (talk • contribs) 05:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. "PASSED by Congress" is meaningless.  As there has never been a state removed from the Union (which is possible under the Constitution), and the USSC has refused to consider the question of whether a state can withdraw ratification, the correct phrasing is that the Amendment is adopted if, at any time, the number of state ratifications is at least 3/4 of the number of states at that time.  If more states are added to the Union after that point, it's irrelevant.   &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk from article
There are some severe errors in this article and I don't know how to involve myself in editing or rewriting this article. This article is contrary to what the supreme court stated in at least two landmark cases after the ratification of the income tax. The supreme court stated that taxes on income have been and continued to be excise taxes. The supreme court also stated that the 16th amendment did not alter the supreme court's decision. Are we educating people or carrying out propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Se7ensnakes (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 March 2009
 * Absolutely false. However, if you can provide reliable sources for your statements (i.e., not tax protester web sites), we'll consider adjusting the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Se7ensnakes is misreading this case. The Congress already had the authority to pass, and enforce, an income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment simply removed the major hurdles which had been recognized in the Pollock decision. SMP0328. (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there are no errors in the article. Famspear (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court did not state directly that the 16th amendment did not affect the 1895 pollock decision. The Supreme Court did not state that indirectly, either. This has been covered over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Error of history: Under the “Ratification process” heading it says “Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico.” The IRS website says it was Wyoming on February 3, 1913 that made 36 out of 48 states (3/4 majority). The link to the IRS site is: http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html Who is correct, the IRS or Wikipedia? I understand it was February 3, 1913 for both states (also Delaware ratified was on February 3, 1913), but it would have to come down to what time the three states (Delaware, Wyoming, New Mexico) passed their ratification of the 16th amendment. I did not make any changes to wiki’s page but this needs to be resolved. -DRW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.25.173 (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good question. According to the source in the article, Delaware is the 36th State to ratify. According to the IRS website, Wyoming is #36. According to the body of the article, New Mexico is the winner.


 * For now, I'm changing it to Delaware, because that is consistent with the source currently provided in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to go with Delaware and stay in line with the U.S. Government Printing Office source in the article. I will do some more research and find out the time of day each state (Delaware, New Mexico, Wyoming) ratified the 16th amendment (this may take a while). I would love to email the IRS and tell them they are wrong on an important factual point in their agency’s history. -DRW

I have a few questions, if I may. Question one would be why are "tax protester" websites a source of unreliable information? My other question is why is having an idea, evidence to the contrary, or in general, going against the status quo viewed these days as being "conspiracy theorist", spurious, unpersuasive, frivolous, or all these things? I mean the entire United States and written constitution was founded by some of the most brilliant minds in history. And every single one of them were anti-establishment, against the status quo. Why is everyone and everything these days trying to suppress the idea, the spirit of rising against those whom wish to be your masters? I'd like to ask you, where you are getting your information from? Are you getting your information from a pro-government, bias source? Are you getting your information from government approved textbooks or other government approved primary sources? I'd also like to ask, do the donations have anything to do with the information you put on your pages? In other words, like a majority of American political figures, can your opinions be bought and sold? - Threesixx


 * "Tax protester" websites are unreliable, because they are wrong, as matter of logic, and as a matter of law. No real court has ever found that a "tax protester" argument was legally valid. (You may find some exceptions of fake courts or courts clearly without jurisdiction.)
 * Your other questions are not relevant to this article, as well as the premises being false. For example, the founders were not "anti-establishment"; most of them just wanted to become the establishment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Harrell v. State of Illinois (not a fake court), United States v. Banister, case no. 2:04-cr-00435-WBS, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (also not fake), just to name two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djskafish (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no court has ever ruled a tax protester argument to be legally valid -- not in the Banister case, not in the Harrell case, and not in any other case either. Famspear (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to have to respectfully disagree on that. I don't know if your in the United States or not, I've noticed that a lot other countries have more of an understanding of what goes on in the USA than most brainwashed Americas do, unfortunately. However the founding fathers of the United States of America, and the many men and women that gave their lives fighting for the Independence of this nation, all wanted the same thing, which was freedom from the status quo, freedom from the Monarchy establishment. It was once said, "When the government fears the people, that’s liberty, when the people fear the government, that’s tyranny." They wanted this country to be as close to anarchy as possible, in a civilized sense, and in comparison to the former monarchy government, they were all anti-establishment. They wanted the right to say and write what they wanted, when they wanted. They wanted the right to worship how they wanted, when they wanted, or even not at all. These "crazy ideas" that went against the status quo, and were thought to be anti-establishment at the time, as well as blasphemies, could literally get your head cut off... or worse.

But the main thing the founding fathers wanted for America was the freedom to make and distribute its own currency as Benjamin Franklin once wrote, "The refusal of King George the 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution." Thomas Jefferson wrote, "To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. .I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared."

From the last quotes, you can clearly see his views of the establishment of a central banking system, so in this sense as well, his views are indeed anti-establishment or against the status quo when compared to the previous ruler and laws. - threesixx


 * Dear threesixx: Let's keep the discussion on this talk page limited to the topic of improving this particular article. This is not a forum for discussing the things you are discussing. Thanks, Famspear (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: To answer your on-topic question, tax protester web sites not reliable sources of information on what the law is. The views of tax protesters not only represent an extreme fringe position, those view represent a position that has been rejected in court every single time. Therefore, for purposes of an article such as this one -- on what the law is -- tax protesters are simply not reliable. In addition to the problem of Verifiability for tax protester material, we have the problem of Neutral Point of View. And Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia does not mean "balancing" or straining to provide "equal weight" to fringe positions. Not one single tax protester argument has ever been upheld in any court in history. Not even once. Tax protester web sites might be acceptable sources for stating what the tax protester arguments are, but not for stating what the law actually is. By definition, tax protester arguments are legally frivolous, and the tax protester community is by and large engaged in criminal activity -- the evasion of federal income taxes, willful failure to file tax returns, willful failure to pay, etc., etc. Wikipedia has a whole series of articles on tax protesters and tax protester arguments. Famspear (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * threesixx, can you give uis a source for that Franklin quote? All I find googling it is ipse dixit from tax protester websites, books, and comments.Sifind (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court rulings
Yes sir, and I will keep the discussion to the topic at hand. I have here at this website, which I will add, is sponsored by the United States Senate, and is on the United States Government Printing Office website. I would also like to add that this information is not under any copyrights law, neither foreign nor domestic. This is public information and can shared as such.

Basically this website contains the United States' Supreme Court Ruling for these cases you've posted on the article page of the subject at hand. According to the United States' Senate sponsored website, the Supreme Court conceded that taxes on incomes from "trades, vocations, employments, or professions" levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was VOIDED on the ground that CONGRESS NEVER INTENDED to permit the entire "burden of the tax to be borne by trades, vocations, employments, or professions" after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635.

So what that means is the Congress passed the 16th amendment, but didn't want it to apply to the common citizen of the United States, which is why they VOIDED the statute in its ENTIRETY because they didn't want me to go to work and be taxed.

The supreme court then proceeded in other cases referencing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. 240 U.S. 1, 18-19 of the year 1916 and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 also in 1916, the United States Supreme Court wrote, "The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which in inherently belonged."

What is indirect taxation? An example of an indirect tax would be the cigarette tax. If you want to smoke, but don't want to pay the tax on cigarettes, then grow you own tobacco. By definition, indirect tax, is clearly a voluntary tax. And according the the United States Senate sponsored website, the United States Supreme Court and United States Congress CLEARLY defined the "personal income" for everyday people, like you and I, completely VOLUNTARY. However, corporations, stocks, interest earnings is another story. Not only that, but the 16th Amendment, according to the Supreme Court, said that Congress is PROHIBITED from taking the income tax out of the category of indirect taxation.

Two years later the Supreme Court decided Eisner v. Macomber, and the controversy which that decision precipitated still endures. Departing from the interpretation placed upon the Sixteenth Amendment in the earlier cases, that the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to correct the "error" committed in the Pollock case and to restore the income taxation to "the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged," Justice Pitney delivered this opinion in the Eisner case.

The United States Supreme Court determines the laws and the constitutionality of the laws in question. Judging by the constitution, the Supreme Court Justices have said the "income Tax" is indeed an indirect tax. And indirect taxation is indeed a VOLUNTARY tax.

- Threesixx


 * There's no truth to your interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings, although that site (not sponsored by the US Senate, as you claim, but to GPO, an agency in the executive branch) seems to have an accurate statement of the ruling; nor would it be relevant to this article if it were accurate. Your descriptions are contradicted by at least 3 sections of the Tax Protester FAQ, which I urge you to read.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I challenge you to go to that website which is www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html Then I challenge you to read the information on the site. Then I challenge you to scroll all the way to the bottom where it reads "This document is sponsored BY the UNITED STATES SENATE on the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE web site. Then I challenge you to click the link that reads "UNITED STATES SENATE" and I guarantee you it will take you to the United States Senate website which is http://www.senate.gov/ Then I challenge you to got back to the www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html Then I challenge you to click the link UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE link. Where it takes you to the Government Printing Office website, which is also a .gov site. In case you haven't realized, a .gov website is a GOVERNMENT SPONSORED website. The hint is the .gov part.

Now, if anymore authentication is needed... then your one of the people who are obviously never wrong about anything, even when authenticated evidence to the contrary is presented right in front of your face.

-Threesixx


 * Well, it's possible that the GPO is an office of the US Senate, but it seemed to be an executive function. It's also possible that the Senate sponsors the web site, not the GPO. That doesn't effect the fact that your interpretation of the ruling is incorrect, and would be inappropriate for this article even if it were correct. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point sir, and it is a valid one. However, the foundation of my interpretations, or arguments, are quotes in the website from the Supreme Court Justices themselves. Unfortunately it doesn't quote every single Justice, it does however quote Justice Mahlon Pitney who was in office March 18, 1912–December 31, 1922.

Departing from the interpretation placed upon the Sixteenth Amendment in the earlier cases, i.e., that the purpose of the Amendment was to correct the "error" committed in the Pollock case and to restore income taxation to "the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged," Justice Pitney, who delivered the opinion in the Eisner case, indicated that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was merely to "remove the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income."

Case referencing: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 in 1920

Also something else I feel is relevant to the 16th amendment I would like to add. According to the website the opinion was, "The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply PROHIBITED the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."

Case Referencing: Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 in 1911 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road, 220 U.S. 1 in 1916 Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 103 in 1916 Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115 in 1916

-Threesixx


 * Dear Threesixx: You are simply repeating the same old tax protester arguments. All this has been re-hashed over and over again here in Wikipedia. I would suggest that you read the following articles and the related talk pages:


 * Tax protester (United States)


 * Tax protester arguments


 * Tax protester constitutional arguments


 * Tax protester statutory arguments


 * These articles contain links to other related articles in Wikipedia.


 * You obviously have been reading tax protester literature, as evidenced by your citations to the Flint case, the Brushaber case, the Eisner v. Macomber case, the Stanton case, the Tyee Realty case, and so on. These are dead giveaways. You need to understand that all this has been thoroughly covered in Wikipedia. These cases do NOT contain the rulings you think they contain. Re-read the quotes and think about what they mean. Unless you can provide something new (and you have not, so far), it would be more productive for you to read all the relevant Wikipedia articles before jumping in head first.


 * Wikipedia is not the proper place to foment tax protester arguments. Positing tax protester arguments in Wikipedia is the rough equivalent of arguing, before a group of scientists, that The Moon is made of green cheese. We've seen it all before. You have to understand that some Wikipedia editors have many years of experience dealing with tax protester arguments.


 * Please review the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, especially Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research.


 * By the way, the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) is indeed an agency of the Legislative Branch, under Congress (it's one of the few agencies that is not in the Executive Branch). Wikipedia has rules about how to use these and other source materials correctly. None of the materials you cited stand for any tax protester argument. In fact, no tax protester argument has ever been accepted in any of the cases you cited. Not even one. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Famspear, I have not read any tax protester arguements. I was doing research on a project for my American History class and stumbled upon this Government website. I'm not saying the tax protesters are right, and I'm not saying Wikipedia is right. I'm simply trying to be a contributing member of Wikipedia, and get this authenticated information from the United States Government added to the page. -Threesixx


 * Dear Threesixx: Again, I would suggest that you review the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, especially those on Original Research. Yours, Famspear (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. Famspear, I understand sir, and that I will do. I would like to, however, motion a request. And that request is, on the article page of the sixteenth amendment, would you please allow me to link three websites for not only myself, but for anyone interested in this fascinating topic, under both "external links, and see also" or allow me to create another header titled "other sources, or A Government Source." Each of the three pages are owned and operated by the United States Government under the title United States Government Printing Office, or GPO. The links of these websites, if you choose to allow, are as follows:

www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution

www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html

And last, but not least a link to a PDF file with the history of the Sixteenth Amendment as per United States Government Printing Office website.

http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=624354279098+6+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Will you please allow me to do that? -Threesixx


 * Dear Threesixx: My main concern is not so much the links as it is that the text in the Wikipedia article should not violate one of the Wikipedia rules or guidelines. Another editor might have a slightly different emphasis. I am just one Wikipedia editor, and I have no special Wikipedia authority (that would be different from the "authority" of any other editor) to either "allow" you or "not allow" you to add a link, etc. If you want to add some links, I or other editors might or might not remove the links, depending on how they are used in the article. By the way, the last link you posted above does not seem to be working.


 * Bottom line: I would like for us to hear input and ideas from editor Arthur Rubin and other editors who watch this article. Famspear (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The history link above at the GPO looks reasonable on its face, although it's also misquoted by tax protesters. For example, the footnote reading "…Congress never intended to permit the entire 'burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations'" is often misinterpreted by such people as "Congress never intended to permit (the income due to) "professions, trades, employments, or vocations" to be taxed.
 * The PDF doesn't work for me. Perhaps it's a session-only link? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the question as to whether the 16th Amendment defines income tax as being indirect, or whether it separately exempts the income tax from the proportionality requirement, has been considered by the Supreme Court, and ruled to be moot. That's dicta, but so is, as far as I can tell, the "indirect" ruling quoted in the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, your assertion that "an indirect tax is voluntary" is usually attributed to law books dating before the 16th Amendment, and, even if ever a legal maxim, was no longer such by the time of the Amendment. Furthermore, it would have no place in this article, even if it were correct.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir, I completely understand your point. My whole point, is that the site in question is a United States Government sponsored site... This particular site has absolutely nothing to do with the tax protesters. Tax protesters and tax protesting sites are not affliated with this particular site. This site IS the official United States Government Printing Office website. And as a person inspiring to be a factual information contributor to Wikipedia, I will work on getting the credentials needed to prove the authenticity of this very web page. www.gpoaccess.gov. As for the PDF file being broken, I also clicked on it and for whatever reason it is broken. I'm not computer literate enough to fix it either. But if you'll work with me here for a moment, I have step by step instructions to getting you to that very page.
 * 1.) In your search engine type http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/
 * 2.) Under the title, "Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation:

2002 Edition & Supplement" Click the link 2008
 * 3.) Scroll down until you see the Sixteenth Amendment--Income Tax then click on the 96k PDF


 * I get http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/034.pdf for the PDF (which you have now, but not above), but I think it's identical to www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt16.html, except for formatting. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The document to which Threesixx is referring is already linked to from this article (and has been for some time). It's under External links as "CRS Annotated Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment". That link goes to a copy of the document hosted on the web site of the Cornell University Law School (or, to be precise, the goes to the section of the document that deals with the Sixteenth Amendment, which is specifically what ThreeSix has been referring to). The document itself is a publication of the Congressional Research Service; its official title is The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 21:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a link to a PDF file, which authenticates the GPO sites' authenticity, but doesn't pretain to the sixteenth amendment. Notice the letter heading. Reads "Authenticated U.S. Government Information, GPO" http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ018.pdf

-threesixx


 * I don't think that anyone is challenging the authenticity of the document or the GPO website. What is challenged is accuracy of your interpretation of the material and (as it relates to your desire to include your interpretation in the article) your comprehension of WP:SYN and WP:OR. And I'd still like to get your answer to me question above: where does the Franklin quote you gave above originate? I see it on various tax protester websites, none of which provide the source.Sifind (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems Constitutionally there would be a difference between payroll taxes (which is basically on sale of service, so an excise), capital gains taxes (which is on sale of stock, so an excise), and income taxes---which are targeted to people by virtue of how much income they earn that year (so is an ownership tax--ownership of income--rather than an excise tax, direct rather than indirect). Income could be taxed indirectly without the 16th amendment, via payroll and capital gains taxes, its the method of taxation in the income tax that I would think had Constitutional issues. Brianshapiro


 * Are you Brianshapiro? If so, please sign-in before posting. If you are not that editor, immediately stop using that editors name as your own. SMP0328. (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A federal tax on income is constitutional as long as the tax is imposed with what is known as geographic uniformity. Example: the federal income tax cannot be validly imposed "only on residents of Montana." It makes no difference whether the income being taxed is compensation for services (such as wages), or interest income, or capital gains, or anything else. There is no rule that says that a federal income tax cannot be "targeted to people by virtue of how much income they earn that year."


 * There are actually relatively few constitutional restrictions on the power of Congress to impose taxes -- of any kind. Even a federal property tax (a "tax on property by reason of its ownership") would be constitutional if the tax could be imposed without violating the rule of apportionment. By definition, an income tax is not a "tax on property by reason of its ownership." Similarly, it would be perfectly constitutional for Congress to impose a capitation -- such as a flat tax of $100 per person per year. Again, a capitation is not an income tax, and an income tax by definition cannot be a capitation. Any federal income tax that adheres to the rule of geographic uniformity is constitutional, regardless of whether that tax would be considered to be an excise (an indirect tax) or a direct tax.


 * As far as a federal income tax on ordinary compensation (wages, etc.), no federal court has ever ruled that there is even the slightest problem of the constitutionality of such a tax. The cases in which the courts have ruled that such an income tax is perfectly constitutional are virtually too numerous to mention. Famspear (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratification
WHERES YOUR CITATION ON WHEN THIS AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED?? THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER PASSED WITH A 3/4'S VOTE. THIS PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED ENTIRELY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.90.222.125 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article cites a US Government Printing Office source listing the states which ratified the 16th Amendment. Discussion of the claim that the 16th Amendment was never actually ratified belongs in "Tax protester arguments", not here.  I would support a one- or two-sentence comment (with a link to Tax protester arguments) noting that some people have argued that the ratification process was flawed but that all such arguments have been rejected by US courts.  Deleting this page entirely, or flatly stating that it was never actually ratified or that it is invalid for some other reason, would be giving undue weight to a fringe theory.  Richwales (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the one place at the official U.S. Government Printing Office web site, the Amendment was ratified by 42 states, although even the official sources vary on the number of states. The courts have rejected - over and over and over and over and over again that arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. All this is fully documented in the applicable articles on tax protesters. Famspear (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Need for more Pollock citations
I have indicated two points at which the text is clearly speculative in tone ("could have", "might have", etc.). I am not saying that the text is speculation, but that it appears so in the absence of citations, such as pointers to where the possibility was clearly stated or suggested in the Pollock decision or where a congressional majority indicated in debate a unwillingness to re-introduce such taxes. If, in fact, citations that move the claims from speculation to supportable fact do not exist, I believe the claims should be removed as speculative.CSProfBill (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a source to that section. I also removed the two recently cite tagged sentences, which say:
 * "From 1895 up to when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, while Congress could have re-imposed taxes on income from labor and other non-property sources without apportionment by population, imposing taxes on interest, dividends and rent income would not have been practical (as the dollar amount of income from interest, dividends and rent would virtually never be exactly the same amount for each and every taxpayer in the United States for any year). The Congress was unwilling to impose an income tax on labor and other non-property sources without also imposing a tax on income from property — and taxes on income from property were no longer realistic. The Pollock ruling made imposition of an income tax politically unfeasible from 1895 until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment."
 * If reliable sources can be found for those sentences, then they can be restored to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)