Talk:Slavery reparations scam

Please don't remove the scam sample
Please do not remove text referenced in the article. It leaves a hole where the reader cannot find the referenced sample. The original scam came in all caps and I feel that showing it that way is appropriate. If others feel it should be changed to lower case do so but do not remove the sample as doing so will damage the article. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Referenced sample"? Where have you referenced it?  If you really want it to remain unchanged, put it in Wikisource, etc. and then link to it.  If it stays on here, you're allowing anyone to edit it.  Also, it (and this rest of this article) needs a citation. Bry9000 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, that request is two years old. I think he's talking about the scam-letter sample, which is useful.  --CliffC (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How, exactly is this a scam?
The article doesn't describe a scam at all. Could someone who knows please add the relevant information? Dfuss 03:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a tax scam. The allegation is in the last paragraph: IRS received more than 100,000 attempts to claim reparation tax credits and paid out more than $30 million in erroneous refunds. Bry9000 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is correct, it is the U.S Government (and by extension you and I) that is being scammed in this case. --CliffC (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a scam to steal the identities of people who are often too old to figure out identity theft. Why else ask someone to send you a SS#? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.152.48 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Rangel did not cheat on his taxes, he was claiming the slavery repartations deduction! 69.143.110.86 (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This whole article should be deleted
Why create articles on scams or other illegal activity? snopes is a better place for scams and does a much better job in any case: http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/blacktax.asp 146.184.0.119 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The sample spam text
There are obvious issues with keeping the spam text on the page - it's caused multiple misunderstandings, like one I had today and it appears there has been in the past. I came across the edit on STiki and mistook the edit for actual spam. I think it'd be better to take it off the page and perhaps put an external link showing an example of the scam.  CatcherStorm    talk   18:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * While I don't have strong feelings about including or removing the text, I want to point out that your reading of the article's history is wrong. The text of the scam in the current article was added on August 13, 2007 (although different versions had been in previously), and it remained unchallenged until it was blanked without explanation on August 3, 2015 -- nearly eight years later. It stood again for five months until you removed it yesterday as "vandalism" -- which we both agree it is not. So how has it "caused multiple misunderstandings"? The last discussion about it on this page was in December 2007. A period of eight years with no questions on the talk page or challenges in editing doesn't seem to me to be symptomatic of "multiple misunderstandings". Perhaps you could explain. 69.118.162.150 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)