![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Pursuant to the overwhelming consensus reached at Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, attempts to introduce discredited tax protester theories as "fact" will be deleted on sight. Because the theories put forward in the Zeitgeist film are exactly that sort of nonsense, any reference to the film as factual will equally be deleted on sight. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a note that the USDOJ has begun to refer to those who do not believe there is a legal requirement to pay income tax as tax resisters, as "protesters" seem to imply they have a legal right to not pay taxes (something like that, anyway)? I'm not saying it warrants a page-move, but... — Micahbrwn ( talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
User Arthur Rubin seems intent on keeping the article as it is, with a strident pro-American-nationalist-statist bias. It should not up to A. Rubin or wikipedia to decide what is and what is not 'fringe' or mainstream; the reader must be given neutral info and then decide on his own. If one citation is given of a pro-establishment propagandist, then for balance a dissenting opinion should be cited. I mean, are people like Frank Chodorov [1] really that 'fringe' or psychopathic? It is indeed possible to be a coherent thinker and not divinize the centralized, statist policies of modern American government.
Or does Arthur Rubin consider himself an indisputable authority and entitled to coercion of his opinion on others in the manner of a monarch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.32.112 ( talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you fellows are not listening. Wikipedia should not unqualifiedly cite pro-government sources who state that tax-protesters' arguments are "bizarre" and leave it at that. Who the heck is Evans?
Courts report it is a fringe belief? So what. Is Wikipedia an agent of the American government or an independent encyclopedia? American courts have reported that witchcraft is real and massacred children due to the "court's judgment" (Salem). Mafiosi similarly state that the concept of the Mafia is an "anti-Italian conspiracy theory." So what? We can report the statements of American courts, but an encyclopedia should not be the slavish lackey of any all-too-human wielder of power.
Whether the tax-protesters arguments are sound or not is a POLITICAL JUDGMENT. If Wikipedia is going to cite a pro-statist source, then they should also cite a reasonable alternative source (like Chodorov) for the sake of balanced objectivity.
If we just categorically judge all tax-protesters as insane schizophrenics with "bizarre" arguments, how has our understanding progressed?
An objective encyclopedia does not make political judgments. I mean, should Wikipedia describe the current Iraqi guerilla war as legitimate resistance movement against militaristic American occupation or a lawless terroristlike insurgency against lawful authority? Encyclopedias should present arguments from BOTH and ALL SIDES, not be feudal servants of any particular political regime, and suspend political judgment so the reader can think on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 ( talk) 01:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Now, another anonymous user has tried provided the following edit summary explanation:
Again, even assuming that the Evans material were to be a "political judgment" (which it is not), that is not a valid objection. Read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The material is a direct quote of Daniel Evans. Daniel Evans is a source. There is no Wikipedia rule that prohibits quoting a reliable, previously published third party source, even if that source is biased and even if that source is rendering a political judgment. I think some editors need to step back and familarize themselves with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And please review my comments above. Famspear ( talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, look at this edit summary:
See the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View. There is no requirement that a SOURCE be objective, or that a source not be a "proestablishment propangandist" -- whatever that means. And referring to Daniel Evans, one of the leading recognized experts in the field, as a "proestablishment propagandist", is not going to help your credibility here in Wikipedia.
Again, read the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View. Famspear ( talk) 02:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
--THis is the origianl poster. In your personal opinion as magisterial legal generallisimo, do you consider midwestern Amish kids who refuse to participate in war as "mentally ill?" to what extent are you projecting your own politics into this analysis?
many thoughtful people understand the bloodshed-bound nature of "the state", and refuse to get involved in the whole sordid business of human politics, which is always tainted with guilt by association and bloodshed. many civilized people understand that "the state" is founded inevitably on bloody warfare, and, in a humanitarian perspective, warfare always amounts to self-vindication without due process of law.
i mean, constantly citing establishment theorists and IRS people for the 'correct' view on these matters is self-referentially retarded--its like trying to conduct an independent investigation on whether Jews in Germany were truly acting as a corporately subversive group by constantly refering to Nazi officials opinions on the matter. the self-referentiality of the citations is ridiculous and any logical person sees through them.
only moral degenerates would subscribe to the theory that human courts were to be respected regardless of superior ethical criteria. Human courts have sanctioned the worst crimes in history.
Listen, if you knew me, you would know im not some partizan or lunatick. i just hate one-sidedness. granted that many tax-protesters are mentally unstable and some of them are even predatorial-minded, but it is also true that only in exceptional cases is governmental taxation-enforcement different from outright extortion and protection racketeering--America is evolved and civilized in its taxation system, but there are traces of primitivity in all human activities. Would you consider English peasants who resisted the Danegeld as mental nutcases? You must remember "the law" is intimately involved in history, and in very mundane intergroup competition. this doesn't mean we shouldn't support the american government or any other comparatively civilized govt with taxes (equivalent to religious almsgiving), but that we should not take an absolutist dogmatic stand against so-called 'fringe' whackos. it was once considered a fringe position by the american court for persons to disbelieve in witches and black masses--people should remember human beings, including 'official' bureaucrats and experts, are not gods-on-earth but error-prone evolved-insectivores with tendencies toward Machiavellianism and self-deception. what is needed is more ethical humility here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.103.38 ( talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear anonymous user(s): This is the article that covers what you are talking about: Tax resistance. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 04:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Another comment: Let's look at this verbiage:
This is exactly what I am talking about. I'm just guessing, since I haven't read Chodorov's work but I would think Chodorov is not generally going to be providing dissenting opinions to tax protester arguments. I can't speak for Chodorov or for Evans, but I suspect that Chodorov's views and Evans' views are not necessarily opposed to each other. I suspect that Chodorov's view is that taxes (or some specific taxes) are BAD. He did not, as far as I know, make any of the arguments listed in any of the Wikipedia articles on tax protesters.
There is a big difference between (A) arguing that taxes are immoral, that the uses to which they are put are immoral, and arguing for resisting payment on grounds of principle (which is generally called "tax resistance") and (B) making phony, frivolous statements (especially on tax returns, or in court) about what the law actually is.
Now, it is probably true that some but not all tax protesters do what they do BECAUSE they happen to believe that taxes are immoral, etc., etc. In other words, they are not being motivated by an actual, good faith belief based on some sort of misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the law. Instead, some of them are psychologically impaired to the extent of trying to delude themselves into believing that BECAUSE the tax law is "bad", the law THEREFORE must somehow not really be the law. I wouldn't put Chodorov in that category. In other words, I have never seen anyone claim that Chodorov made any kind of legally frivolous argument about what the law actually is. Again, I have not read his works.
By contrast, I think what my anonymous friends are talking about when they talk about the Amish, about the English peasants (and the Danegeld), and about Frank Chodorov, is really tax resistance, which is (I would think, typically) a philosophical and intellectually honest position about the morality or wisdom of taxation in general, or the morality or wisdom of one tax or another. See the article on tax resistance. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 05:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
--This is the original poster again. Being a non-bureaucratic-elite non-specialist and additionally a non-Wikipedian, I was not aware of the esoteric distinction between tax-protesters and tax-resisters. In deed, what I had more in mind is what is called here "tax resistance" according to your explanation. But still this Evans guy sounds arrogant. Thank you for the free lecture and patience with my lack of academical-legalist esoterism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.137.164 ( talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The lead section to me seems blatantly biased against tax protestors. The second quotation, for example, uses the phrase "bizarre arguments" and is itself extremely biased. The inclusion of such a quotation does not really make sense to me, especially because it doesn't really add any new information other than the "bizarre" statement. A second and more important example is the fact that the lead section seems to assume that all tax protestors refuse to pay taxes. One can protest taxes and still pay them. Many of the more educated tax protestors are well aware of the legal consequences of refusing to pay taxes and as a result continue to pay them, despite feeling that they are unconstitutional. Indeed, the definition of "protestor" used in the next section is consistent with this claim. 76.93.90.245 ( talk) 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The short answer would be no. In a sense, the "definition" is "biased" -- and that's OK. We're talking about a legal term for people who make arguments on tax returns or in courts of law that are prohibited. As odd as it may sound, there is no First Amendment right (or any other kind of legal right) to make any argument you want to make on a tax return or in a court of law, just as there is no legal right to lie under oath, or to defame someone, or to falsely cry "fire" in a crowded theater. In Wikipedia, Neutal Point of View not only does not require that sources be unbiased, the rule virtually assumes that sources often are biased. And that's OK. The article is about a legal topic and, from a legal standpoint, tax protester arguments are indeed bizarre, almost by definition. Moving the quote down in the article could be construed as an misguided attempt to improperly afford equal weight to the tax protester "point of view." Wikipedia does not need to sugar coat the definition of "tax protester." By definition, tax protester arguments are arguments that not only have zero legal validity; these are arguments which, if presented on a U.S. federal income tax return or in a court of law, can result in penalties of $5,000 to $25,000 or even more. Famspear ( talk) 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject header on the talk page lists this article as Start-class...but the article seems to be more complete and better-sourced than that. It should probably be at least B-class. Is there any reason why it's still listed as Start-class? FlyingPenguin1 ( talk) 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have two "Arguments" sections? Could we either merge them, place one as a sub-section of the other, or at the least put them in the same area of the article (one after another, and not one up top and the other after penalties). Morphh (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason this article isn't located at Tax protester? There's no need for the parentheses. Any objection to moving it back? Prezbo ( talk) 07:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, the edit summary for moving it was " US-centric title" and there's no talk page discussion as far as I can tell. Prezbo ( talk) 00:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a strong position one way or the other. I would tip slightly toward leaving it like it is, just because the marginal benefit to changing it would be small. Famspear ( talk) 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Prezbo: You may want to consider waiting. You seem to be the only one in favor of a name change. Famspear ( talk) 14:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The quoted phrase "And, this is important, and taxes specific and concrete action to violate the law." should probably be "takes", although I admit that it says "taxes" in the source. Not quite sure how to put that in the article. GreenReaper ( talk) 17:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The Court of Federal Claims hears some income tax cases as well, and has much the same standards for dealing with frivolous litigation as the District Courts. This may be a trivial detail, but I think it is worth mention, probably in the same section as the District Courts. bd2412 T 23:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
IP 67.164.224.243 added the neutrality template to the top of the article, but given the outcome of the RfC and its corresponding comment at the top of the article source, as well as the fact that there is no consensus on this talk page's 2009 & 2010 discussions that finds the article to violate NPOV, I reverted this IP's edit to remove the neutrality dispute tag. I had just re-read the NPOV discussions on this talk page yesterday, so forgive me if I missed anything. John Shandy` • talk 23:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The identification of the article should be with the subject, ie. tax protesting, and not with the individual or group, ie. the tax protester. Therefore, the name should be changed to "Tax protesting" IMHO. Int21h ( talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the story behind Save-A-Patriot Fellowship (SAPF) organization? It is notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia? Maxal ( talk) 06:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It is hilarious to see the writers of the article themselves patting themselves on the back and making statements as to how the article overall is "balanced".
Where are quotations of the subjects themselves whom this article portrays in such as negative light?
Looking at the references one can clearly see this is a one-sided story, the official line rammed down the throats of the innocent reader. Where are the links to the main "tax protestor" arguments?
A summation of the convictions of protestors in court as a subtle suggestion of the invalidity of their arguments is absurd for reasons that are revealed in your very "article" and that are well known beyond the flatulent air in which self-congratulating government line purveyors circulate: and that is this:
In the overwhelming majority of "protestor" cases, where there is a jury, the jury is PREVENTED from hearing the argument relied on by the defendant. In most cases, the jury is prevented from even reading or hearing the law itself. At the Appeals level, as the article already revealed, due process is inexistent, because the argument is considered frivolous without review.
Therefore, to list any cases in which a jury was involved and did not hear the defendant's argument; or an appeals court, where the argument was considered frivolous without review, or the review was superficial without addressing key points of the argument; is dishonest. Honesty would include for example, the blatant irregularities (crimes) committed against defendants in these types of cases, of which examples abound but the white-wigged lords who write the official line cannot be troubled to include!
"The final arbiter on what the law is is a court of law". Typical argument of the priestly class! To protect us from the brood of vipers that populate the court system, our forefathers sacrificed everything to guarantee we would be judged by a jury of our peers. Is it not true, oh purveyors of Supreme Knowledge who Write these Words of "Wisdom", that juries were intended to view both the Law and the Facts? These are the same jurors whom judges and prosecutors conspire ALL THE TIME to prevent from hearing the arguments or even seeing the law relied on by the defendants! Gimme a break!
Judges have been quoted as saying :"I will not allow the Law into my Courtroom", but Famspear et al will never think these quotes, and the myriad others, mean anything, lest it confuse their intended victims, er. I mean audience.
The two instruments put in place to protect us from oppression, the jury system and the Grand Jury, have been manipulated into submission under the direction of the establishment, so that now they are merely an additional tool to assist in our servitude!
The courts are circuses, and the producers of the show are clowns. They lie, they steal, they perjure themselves, they falsify or erase the recordings, there's collusion between judges and prosecutors, etc. This is added to the crimes committed by the DOJ in preparing the kangaroo courts for the lynching of the defendants. They break in, terrorize, and steal, with bogus, often falsified affidavits, corrupt judges that sign them... the show is so perverse that your article is theatrical in its entirety... what a crock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.68.40 ( talk) 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear user at IP72.224.189.211: No, go back and read my comments. They're neither "long-winded" nor "nonsense." And please read Wikipedia policies. By the way, I did not use the word "bizarre" in the article. The source used that word. It's a direct quote from a reliable, previously published third party source.
However, tax protester arguments are indeed "bizarre". That's not just my personal opinion. Look up the legal term "frivolous." This is now March of 2012. In all the 99 plus years of the existence of modern federal income tax, not one of these goofy arguments has ever been upheld in a court of law. Not even one. They lose every time. The only thing that is a "joke" is the way a few people cling to these hilariously erroneous theories. Period. Famspear ( talk) 19:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Should we introduce coverage of the 2010 Austin suicide attack and Andrew Joseph Stack into this article?
Here is just one of many sources available:
I'm not sure myself. I think it's definitely relevant, but my concerns are more to do with weight and fit (in terms of where it should go). John Shandy` • talk 21:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax..." Then what do you call someone who protests paying taxes, but still pays? Can I not be a "tax protester" and still pay my taxes? 67.169.185.246 ( talk) 04:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The same family of tax protest arguments (natural persons, individual sovereignty, constitutionalism, common law) are showing up in other countries, e.g. Canada [2] and the U.K. [3].
I think it may be worthwhile to either change the title of this article to "Tax protesters in the U.S." or to change the article to be more cosmopolitan. — Moorlock ( talk) 17:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The scope, topic, and naming of Tax protester arguments is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester arguments -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Pursuant to the overwhelming consensus reached at Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment, attempts to introduce discredited tax protester theories as "fact" will be deleted on sight. Because the theories put forward in the Zeitgeist film are exactly that sort of nonsense, any reference to the film as factual will equally be deleted on sight. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a note that the USDOJ has begun to refer to those who do not believe there is a legal requirement to pay income tax as tax resisters, as "protesters" seem to imply they have a legal right to not pay taxes (something like that, anyway)? I'm not saying it warrants a page-move, but... — Micahbrwn ( talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
User Arthur Rubin seems intent on keeping the article as it is, with a strident pro-American-nationalist-statist bias. It should not up to A. Rubin or wikipedia to decide what is and what is not 'fringe' or mainstream; the reader must be given neutral info and then decide on his own. If one citation is given of a pro-establishment propagandist, then for balance a dissenting opinion should be cited. I mean, are people like Frank Chodorov [1] really that 'fringe' or psychopathic? It is indeed possible to be a coherent thinker and not divinize the centralized, statist policies of modern American government.
Or does Arthur Rubin consider himself an indisputable authority and entitled to coercion of his opinion on others in the manner of a monarch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.32.112 ( talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you fellows are not listening. Wikipedia should not unqualifiedly cite pro-government sources who state that tax-protesters' arguments are "bizarre" and leave it at that. Who the heck is Evans?
Courts report it is a fringe belief? So what. Is Wikipedia an agent of the American government or an independent encyclopedia? American courts have reported that witchcraft is real and massacred children due to the "court's judgment" (Salem). Mafiosi similarly state that the concept of the Mafia is an "anti-Italian conspiracy theory." So what? We can report the statements of American courts, but an encyclopedia should not be the slavish lackey of any all-too-human wielder of power.
Whether the tax-protesters arguments are sound or not is a POLITICAL JUDGMENT. If Wikipedia is going to cite a pro-statist source, then they should also cite a reasonable alternative source (like Chodorov) for the sake of balanced objectivity.
If we just categorically judge all tax-protesters as insane schizophrenics with "bizarre" arguments, how has our understanding progressed?
An objective encyclopedia does not make political judgments. I mean, should Wikipedia describe the current Iraqi guerilla war as legitimate resistance movement against militaristic American occupation or a lawless terroristlike insurgency against lawful authority? Encyclopedias should present arguments from BOTH and ALL SIDES, not be feudal servants of any particular political regime, and suspend political judgment so the reader can think on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 ( talk) 01:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Now, another anonymous user has tried provided the following edit summary explanation:
Again, even assuming that the Evans material were to be a "political judgment" (which it is not), that is not a valid objection. Read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The material is a direct quote of Daniel Evans. Daniel Evans is a source. There is no Wikipedia rule that prohibits quoting a reliable, previously published third party source, even if that source is biased and even if that source is rendering a political judgment. I think some editors need to step back and familarize themselves with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And please review my comments above. Famspear ( talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, look at this edit summary:
See the Wikipedia rule on Neutral Point of View. There is no requirement that a SOURCE be objective, or that a source not be a "proestablishment propangandist" -- whatever that means. And referring to Daniel Evans, one of the leading recognized experts in the field, as a "proestablishment propagandist", is not going to help your credibility here in Wikipedia.
Again, read the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View. Famspear ( talk) 02:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
--THis is the origianl poster. In your personal opinion as magisterial legal generallisimo, do you consider midwestern Amish kids who refuse to participate in war as "mentally ill?" to what extent are you projecting your own politics into this analysis?
many thoughtful people understand the bloodshed-bound nature of "the state", and refuse to get involved in the whole sordid business of human politics, which is always tainted with guilt by association and bloodshed. many civilized people understand that "the state" is founded inevitably on bloody warfare, and, in a humanitarian perspective, warfare always amounts to self-vindication without due process of law.
i mean, constantly citing establishment theorists and IRS people for the 'correct' view on these matters is self-referentially retarded--its like trying to conduct an independent investigation on whether Jews in Germany were truly acting as a corporately subversive group by constantly refering to Nazi officials opinions on the matter. the self-referentiality of the citations is ridiculous and any logical person sees through them.
only moral degenerates would subscribe to the theory that human courts were to be respected regardless of superior ethical criteria. Human courts have sanctioned the worst crimes in history.
Listen, if you knew me, you would know im not some partizan or lunatick. i just hate one-sidedness. granted that many tax-protesters are mentally unstable and some of them are even predatorial-minded, but it is also true that only in exceptional cases is governmental taxation-enforcement different from outright extortion and protection racketeering--America is evolved and civilized in its taxation system, but there are traces of primitivity in all human activities. Would you consider English peasants who resisted the Danegeld as mental nutcases? You must remember "the law" is intimately involved in history, and in very mundane intergroup competition. this doesn't mean we shouldn't support the american government or any other comparatively civilized govt with taxes (equivalent to religious almsgiving), but that we should not take an absolutist dogmatic stand against so-called 'fringe' whackos. it was once considered a fringe position by the american court for persons to disbelieve in witches and black masses--people should remember human beings, including 'official' bureaucrats and experts, are not gods-on-earth but error-prone evolved-insectivores with tendencies toward Machiavellianism and self-deception. what is needed is more ethical humility here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.103.38 ( talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear anonymous user(s): This is the article that covers what you are talking about: Tax resistance. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 04:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Another comment: Let's look at this verbiage:
This is exactly what I am talking about. I'm just guessing, since I haven't read Chodorov's work but I would think Chodorov is not generally going to be providing dissenting opinions to tax protester arguments. I can't speak for Chodorov or for Evans, but I suspect that Chodorov's views and Evans' views are not necessarily opposed to each other. I suspect that Chodorov's view is that taxes (or some specific taxes) are BAD. He did not, as far as I know, make any of the arguments listed in any of the Wikipedia articles on tax protesters.
There is a big difference between (A) arguing that taxes are immoral, that the uses to which they are put are immoral, and arguing for resisting payment on grounds of principle (which is generally called "tax resistance") and (B) making phony, frivolous statements (especially on tax returns, or in court) about what the law actually is.
Now, it is probably true that some but not all tax protesters do what they do BECAUSE they happen to believe that taxes are immoral, etc., etc. In other words, they are not being motivated by an actual, good faith belief based on some sort of misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the law. Instead, some of them are psychologically impaired to the extent of trying to delude themselves into believing that BECAUSE the tax law is "bad", the law THEREFORE must somehow not really be the law. I wouldn't put Chodorov in that category. In other words, I have never seen anyone claim that Chodorov made any kind of legally frivolous argument about what the law actually is. Again, I have not read his works.
By contrast, I think what my anonymous friends are talking about when they talk about the Amish, about the English peasants (and the Danegeld), and about Frank Chodorov, is really tax resistance, which is (I would think, typically) a philosophical and intellectually honest position about the morality or wisdom of taxation in general, or the morality or wisdom of one tax or another. See the article on tax resistance. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 05:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
--This is the original poster again. Being a non-bureaucratic-elite non-specialist and additionally a non-Wikipedian, I was not aware of the esoteric distinction between tax-protesters and tax-resisters. In deed, what I had more in mind is what is called here "tax resistance" according to your explanation. But still this Evans guy sounds arrogant. Thank you for the free lecture and patience with my lack of academical-legalist esoterism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.167.137.164 ( talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The lead section to me seems blatantly biased against tax protestors. The second quotation, for example, uses the phrase "bizarre arguments" and is itself extremely biased. The inclusion of such a quotation does not really make sense to me, especially because it doesn't really add any new information other than the "bizarre" statement. A second and more important example is the fact that the lead section seems to assume that all tax protestors refuse to pay taxes. One can protest taxes and still pay them. Many of the more educated tax protestors are well aware of the legal consequences of refusing to pay taxes and as a result continue to pay them, despite feeling that they are unconstitutional. Indeed, the definition of "protestor" used in the next section is consistent with this claim. 76.93.90.245 ( talk) 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The short answer would be no. In a sense, the "definition" is "biased" -- and that's OK. We're talking about a legal term for people who make arguments on tax returns or in courts of law that are prohibited. As odd as it may sound, there is no First Amendment right (or any other kind of legal right) to make any argument you want to make on a tax return or in a court of law, just as there is no legal right to lie under oath, or to defame someone, or to falsely cry "fire" in a crowded theater. In Wikipedia, Neutal Point of View not only does not require that sources be unbiased, the rule virtually assumes that sources often are biased. And that's OK. The article is about a legal topic and, from a legal standpoint, tax protester arguments are indeed bizarre, almost by definition. Moving the quote down in the article could be construed as an misguided attempt to improperly afford equal weight to the tax protester "point of view." Wikipedia does not need to sugar coat the definition of "tax protester." By definition, tax protester arguments are arguments that not only have zero legal validity; these are arguments which, if presented on a U.S. federal income tax return or in a court of law, can result in penalties of $5,000 to $25,000 or even more. Famspear ( talk) 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject header on the talk page lists this article as Start-class...but the article seems to be more complete and better-sourced than that. It should probably be at least B-class. Is there any reason why it's still listed as Start-class? FlyingPenguin1 ( talk) 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have two "Arguments" sections? Could we either merge them, place one as a sub-section of the other, or at the least put them in the same area of the article (one after another, and not one up top and the other after penalties). Morphh (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason this article isn't located at Tax protester? There's no need for the parentheses. Any objection to moving it back? Prezbo ( talk) 07:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, the edit summary for moving it was " US-centric title" and there's no talk page discussion as far as I can tell. Prezbo ( talk) 00:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a strong position one way or the other. I would tip slightly toward leaving it like it is, just because the marginal benefit to changing it would be small. Famspear ( talk) 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Prezbo: You may want to consider waiting. You seem to be the only one in favor of a name change. Famspear ( talk) 14:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The quoted phrase "And, this is important, and taxes specific and concrete action to violate the law." should probably be "takes", although I admit that it says "taxes" in the source. Not quite sure how to put that in the article. GreenReaper ( talk) 17:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The Court of Federal Claims hears some income tax cases as well, and has much the same standards for dealing with frivolous litigation as the District Courts. This may be a trivial detail, but I think it is worth mention, probably in the same section as the District Courts. bd2412 T 23:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
IP 67.164.224.243 added the neutrality template to the top of the article, but given the outcome of the RfC and its corresponding comment at the top of the article source, as well as the fact that there is no consensus on this talk page's 2009 & 2010 discussions that finds the article to violate NPOV, I reverted this IP's edit to remove the neutrality dispute tag. I had just re-read the NPOV discussions on this talk page yesterday, so forgive me if I missed anything. John Shandy` • talk 23:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The identification of the article should be with the subject, ie. tax protesting, and not with the individual or group, ie. the tax protester. Therefore, the name should be changed to "Tax protesting" IMHO. Int21h ( talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the story behind Save-A-Patriot Fellowship (SAPF) organization? It is notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia? Maxal ( talk) 06:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It is hilarious to see the writers of the article themselves patting themselves on the back and making statements as to how the article overall is "balanced".
Where are quotations of the subjects themselves whom this article portrays in such as negative light?
Looking at the references one can clearly see this is a one-sided story, the official line rammed down the throats of the innocent reader. Where are the links to the main "tax protestor" arguments?
A summation of the convictions of protestors in court as a subtle suggestion of the invalidity of their arguments is absurd for reasons that are revealed in your very "article" and that are well known beyond the flatulent air in which self-congratulating government line purveyors circulate: and that is this:
In the overwhelming majority of "protestor" cases, where there is a jury, the jury is PREVENTED from hearing the argument relied on by the defendant. In most cases, the jury is prevented from even reading or hearing the law itself. At the Appeals level, as the article already revealed, due process is inexistent, because the argument is considered frivolous without review.
Therefore, to list any cases in which a jury was involved and did not hear the defendant's argument; or an appeals court, where the argument was considered frivolous without review, or the review was superficial without addressing key points of the argument; is dishonest. Honesty would include for example, the blatant irregularities (crimes) committed against defendants in these types of cases, of which examples abound but the white-wigged lords who write the official line cannot be troubled to include!
"The final arbiter on what the law is is a court of law". Typical argument of the priestly class! To protect us from the brood of vipers that populate the court system, our forefathers sacrificed everything to guarantee we would be judged by a jury of our peers. Is it not true, oh purveyors of Supreme Knowledge who Write these Words of "Wisdom", that juries were intended to view both the Law and the Facts? These are the same jurors whom judges and prosecutors conspire ALL THE TIME to prevent from hearing the arguments or even seeing the law relied on by the defendants! Gimme a break!
Judges have been quoted as saying :"I will not allow the Law into my Courtroom", but Famspear et al will never think these quotes, and the myriad others, mean anything, lest it confuse their intended victims, er. I mean audience.
The two instruments put in place to protect us from oppression, the jury system and the Grand Jury, have been manipulated into submission under the direction of the establishment, so that now they are merely an additional tool to assist in our servitude!
The courts are circuses, and the producers of the show are clowns. They lie, they steal, they perjure themselves, they falsify or erase the recordings, there's collusion between judges and prosecutors, etc. This is added to the crimes committed by the DOJ in preparing the kangaroo courts for the lynching of the defendants. They break in, terrorize, and steal, with bogus, often falsified affidavits, corrupt judges that sign them... the show is so perverse that your article is theatrical in its entirety... what a crock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.68.40 ( talk) 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear user at IP72.224.189.211: No, go back and read my comments. They're neither "long-winded" nor "nonsense." And please read Wikipedia policies. By the way, I did not use the word "bizarre" in the article. The source used that word. It's a direct quote from a reliable, previously published third party source.
However, tax protester arguments are indeed "bizarre". That's not just my personal opinion. Look up the legal term "frivolous." This is now March of 2012. In all the 99 plus years of the existence of modern federal income tax, not one of these goofy arguments has ever been upheld in a court of law. Not even one. They lose every time. The only thing that is a "joke" is the way a few people cling to these hilariously erroneous theories. Period. Famspear ( talk) 19:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Should we introduce coverage of the 2010 Austin suicide attack and Andrew Joseph Stack into this article?
Here is just one of many sources available:
I'm not sure myself. I think it's definitely relevant, but my concerns are more to do with weight and fit (in terms of where it should go). John Shandy` • talk 21:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax..." Then what do you call someone who protests paying taxes, but still pays? Can I not be a "tax protester" and still pay my taxes? 67.169.185.246 ( talk) 04:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The same family of tax protest arguments (natural persons, individual sovereignty, constitutionalism, common law) are showing up in other countries, e.g. Canada [2] and the U.K. [3].
I think it may be worthwhile to either change the title of this article to "Tax protesters in the U.S." or to change the article to be more cosmopolitan. — Moorlock ( talk) 17:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The scope, topic, and naming of Tax protester arguments is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester arguments -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)