Jump to content

Talk:IRS targeting controversy/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Reorganization

This article is in serious need of reorganization. I'm not sure how controversial this is likely to be, but I would suggest that the sections titled "Controversial intensive scrutiny of political groups," "Document leaks," and "Gift tax enforcement" be subheadings under a heading entitled something like "Controversial IRS conduct." I would further suggest that "Screening of progressive groups" be moved under the subheading "Controversial intensive scrutiny of political groups."

A second change would be to move all of the post-TIGTA-report investigations under one heading. If we're going to keep adding things like the missing Lerner emails, those should be placed under the 2013-2014 Congressional investigation heading rather than under their own headings to avoid giving them undue weight. Dyrnych (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the proof is in the pudding, but I don't see a problem with organizing in this way a-priori, assuming nothing is lost or significantly re framed (Which is not to say that things couldn't be lost or re framed, but just that that is a different discussion than organization). What does TIGTA stand for? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The intention there is to separate the pre-disclosure 2012 investigation from the post-disclosure investigations.
I think that to some extent, some things will be reframed purely by giving them less weight than they currently have. I'm thinking specifically of the emails here, because that's a part of the 2013-2014 investigation and probably doesn't warrant its own heading. Reframing isn't the intent behind reorganization, though. The article is currently pretty sloppy and I think that reorganizing it would improve its readability and coherence. Dyrnych (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a need for reorganization and I certainly don't trust your judgment at all on issues pertaining to weight. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Noted. I'll give your opinion the consideration it deserves. Dyrnych (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've reorganized the article as I proposed. The only other thing I plan to add is a section detailing subsequent reactions to the controversy as more information has come to light, focusing particularly on liberal reactions (because I think that conservative reactions have remained approximately the same, a fact that I intend to note). Dyrnych (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
To definitely-not-my-surprise, you used your proposed "reorganization" as an excuse to conduct a massive, un-discussed WP:WEIGHT shift, eliminating large amounts of material that just happens to reflect views from the political faction you don't like — and re-wording some the content you "moved" to make major changes to the tone. You finish with a giant dollop of editorializing SYNTH in WP's voice. I'm not going through these edits with a fine-toothed comb to discover which of them might have been appropriate. If you are genuinely interested in a content-neutral reorganization of this article, then please try again without the stealth POV shift. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That is absurd and appears to based entirely on your own prejudices. If you think I've deleted information (and I removed very little), you can re-add the information. But reverting my entire reorganization effort just because you're too lazy to find and re-add the information that you support appears to me to be more indicative of your dislike of me than any effort to improve the article. Dyrnych (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, I very deliberately confined each individual edit to a specific task precisely so that any objection to a particular edit could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Instead of doing that, you've just reverted the entire thing as some kind of unsubstantiated "POV/WEIGHT shift." I find that inappropriate in the extreme and not indicative of good faith. Dyrnych (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"eliminating large amounts of material that just happens to reflect views from the political faction you don't like" I don't see that. Could you summarize please what's been eliminated that should be put back? And we're talking about 'views' not 'facts'? How many 'views' do we need? Expressions of outrage become redundant pretty quickly. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You don't see it? Do you know how to use the edit history? Just look for four digits worth of red. No, I won't waste my time writing Cliff's Notes for you.
If editors wish to make a major change to the weighting of views in this article, especially via the wholesale deletion of notable viewpoints, we really ought to talk about it here first. A reorganization was discussed, not this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Some of the edits reorganized. Some of them deleted what I consider to be redundant information. Some of them may have deleted information that you want included in the article. Why don't we discuss the individual changes instead of broadly categorizing the reorganization as "a major change to the weighting of views" (something that I neither intended nor believe that I caused)? Dyrnych (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
And yes, I deleted a series of quotes that (in my opinion) adds nothing to the article that noting their negative reactions doesn't add. If that's your only objection to my reorganization, why have you reverted the entire thing rather than that edit on its own? Dyrnych (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Edits such as this — purporting to only "reorganize" but actually introducing stealth POV changes — were exactly what I was worried about.
If there were any content-neutral edits, please feel free to make them again without discussion. But if you wish to make POV adjustments, however large or small, it would be better to discuss them here first, under an appropriately titled discussion, since you know this is a controversial topic and your changes will likely be disputed.
In any event, you must please at least let people know what you're doing, explicitly, when you are adjusting POV or tone. Don't say "I'm going to reorganize this" and then go and do something else. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
How is that a stealth POV change? It's under the heading "controversial conduct," which describes all of the IRS's conduct that is considered to be part of the controversy. It is an example of such controversial conduct. Therefore it should be clear to readers that the intensive scrutiny is controversial. I can't even begin to imagine how someone could construe that as a POV change. Dyrnych (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
My mistake, struck out that part. However it ought to be clear that you can't be making the other POV changes under the guise of "reorganization". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I think there may have been one instance in which I did not specifically note that I was removing content, and that was an oversight on my part. Otherwise, my edit summaries contain precisely what I did, including noting removal of content. I am attempting to improve the article and have no interest in being anything other than transparent about doing do. Please stop assuming that I'm acting out of bad faith. Dyrnych (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to reinstate each edit in which I did not delete content, as it appears to me that you've confirmed that you don't find this problematic. Dyrnych (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"No, I won't waste my time writing Cliff's Notes for you." If your complaints aren't significant enough for you to state them, then you have no complaints. I have no objection to the reorg of the article as it stands now. "Edits such as this" I'm sorry, what's the problem? That info about IRS conduct is under fewer separate headings in the article? Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I did state my objections, in roughly the appropriate level of detail. I was not, however, going to summarize the content that was inappropriately removed. Linking it to you (when you said you were unable to find any removed content) was more than enough. As I suggested, if you folks feel like a lot of views should be removed from this article, let's talk about it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've now reinstated, in identical or nearly identical fashion, most of my edits from yesterday. I've also changed content in two edits, either for clarity or to remove an irrelevant statement. Dyrnych (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Quotes in Public Opinon

The list of quotes in the Public Opinion subheading is plagiarized from this source. Per WP:PLAGIARISM, it is "[c]opying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution." I have asked the user who added these quotes to repair the plagiarism. Dyrnych (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's also a copyright violation, so I'm tagging the offending sections. Dyrnych (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Neither of these seems to apply, especially because the in-text attribution called for by the policy is quite clearly there. Removed tag. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Show me the in-text attribution. I think you are a confusing a citation with an attribution. In any event, it is absolutely a copyright issues when entire portions of a copyrighted source are copied and paste into a WP article. Compare the material to its source and tell me that's not precisely what happened. And then undo your reversion, which was unwarranted and perpetuates a copyright issue. Dyrnych (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
"MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow concurred" is an example of what I am referring to as in-text attribution. I'm not aware of sourced attributed exact quotations from specific pundits being a copyright violation, and unless you can point me to a WP policy saying otherwise, I'm content to let lawyers for the respective copyright owners worry about it. In any event, it should be clear that you could simply fix this issue, without introducing the same kind of WP:WEIGHT problems that heralded your attempts at "reorganizing" the article, by simply paraphrasing the offending quotes, or reducing the portion of quoted langauge. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
This informs me that you've read neither my responses nor the source, which is honestly incredible. The source for the material is Commentary Magazine, and the material is lifted wholesale from that magazine. This particular issue isn't a weight issue and never has been. I've suggested PER WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES that the editor who inserted the material fix it, and I've already suggested multiple times that s/he could do so by rephrasing the surrounding material. Please stop edit warring, revert your edit, and read what I'm saying next time. Dyrnych (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh? I've definitely read your responses, and it is entirely unclear to me how reading the source that a quote appears in is supposed to tell me whether including that quote in a WP article is a copyright violation.
There was most definitely a WP:WEIGHT issue when you removed the entire section of quoted media reactions indicating public outrage, as part of your "reorganization" of the article. If you effect the same removal again based on a hypertechnical or mistaken reading of WP policy on copyrighted material — which I am still asking you to cite for me — then perhaps there is also another type of problem at work here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe the material is correctly attributed and I don't think the copyright violation tag is warranted here. Inline citations are sufficient, because we're not quoting the magazine itself - we're quoting someone the magazine quoted. Commentary didn't have any creative effort in the quote. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that Commentary does have creative effort in the material that surrounds the quotes, which has also been copied and pasted. So (for example) while the Maddow quote itself may be OK (and despite certain people's bellowings, I'm not advocating for its removal because of copyright), the material describing the Maddow quote is copyright infringement. I'm on a mobile phone and can't easily copy and paste at the moment, but if you look at the material in the article and the material in Commentary itself you'll see what I mean. I'll expound later, as well as on copyright (though this one should be obvious from the policy article itself). Dyrnych (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dyrnych: I'm unclear as to why you believe there is copyright infringement (as long as the material is properly cited and attributed). Merely providing a brief quote directly from a written copyrighted work (where the quote is properly attributed, etc.) is not in and of itself, always a copyright infringement. In other words, "copying and pasting" is generally perfectly legal, as long as you're not copying and pasting too much of each item of source material. Of course how much is "too much" can be a question, but that would be a separate issue. Can you explain your point in a bit more detail? Famspear (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, wait, I think I see what you mean. You are talking about five different quotes from the same source -- Commentary Magazine. I missed that when I first looked at the edits. Hmmmm. Sort of a judgment call. Stay tuned. Famspear (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The quotes have been pared down to identifying information and the quotes themselves. I imagine this should resolve the "material surrounding the quote" issue. (Or I would hope that it does.) Thanks to Dyrnych for raising the issue. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I've only glanced over it, but it looks to me like the problem is solved. Thanks! The point is now moot, but I'm still going to post a bit about my reasoning and the policies that were implicated later this evening. Dyrnych (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the material that was originally in the Wikipedia article (citations, all of which were to this Commentary Magazine article, omitted):

Press reaction to the scandal was intense.

“There is a reasonable fear by all of us, by any of us, that the kind of power the IRS has could be misused,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow concurred, noting that the scrutiny that Tea Party groups faced was “not fair.”

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart observed that the scandal had removed “the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver,” Stewart said the IRS’s disclosure cast doubt on Obama’s “managerial competence” and had vindicated “conspiracy theorists,” shifting the burden of proof for their wild accusations away from them and onto federal authorities.

“A truly Nixonian abuse of power by the Obama administration,” wrote ABC News host Terry Moran in reaction to the revelations.

“It’s time for action,” NBC newsman Tom Brokaw demanded of the president.

“It didn’t seem like they had a sense of urgency about it, a real sense of outrage,” said NBC’s White House correspondent Chuck Todd. “This is outrageous no matter what political party you are.”

“This is tyranny,” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said of the “unspeakable” abuses by the IRS on his morning news program. "This time it’s real.”

Here is the material from the cited source, which is an article in Commentary Magazine:

“A truly Nixonian abuse of power by the Obama administration,” wrote ABC News host Terry Moran in reaction to the revelations.

“It’s time for action,” NBC newsman Tom Brokaw demanded of the president.

“It didn’t seem like they had a sense of urgency about it, a real sense of outrage,” NBC’s White House correspondent Chuck Todd agreed. “This is outrageous no matter what political party you are.”

“This is tyranny,” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said of the “unspeakable” abuses by the IRS on his morning news program, which is appointment television inside the Beltway. “This time it’s real.”

“There is a reasonable fear by all of us, by any of us, that the kind of power the IRS has could be misused,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow concurred, noting that the scrutiny that Tea Party groups faced was “not fair.”

Even Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart initially ran for the lifeboats. Observing that the scandal had removed “the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver,” Stewart said the IRS’s disclosure cast doubt on Obama’s “managerial competence” and had vindicated “conspiracy theorists,” shifting the burden of proof for their wild accusations away from them and onto federal authorities.

With a few exceptions, these passages were lifted whole from the Commentary Magazine article and placed into the Wikipedia article. This is WP:PLAGIARISM, one species of which is "[i]nserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text." Although the Commentary article was cited as a source for each passage, no in-text attribution of the creative aspect of the quotes (the surrounding text) was present. Based on that, I followed WP policy: "If you find an example of plagiarism where an editor has copied text, media, or figures into Wikipedia without proper attribution, contact the editor responsible, point them to this guideline, and ask them to add attribution." I did this, contacting Capitalismojo. I was also mindful of the admonishment: "[g]iven that attribution errors may be inadvertent, intentional plagiarism should not be presumed in the absence of strong evidence." I hope that Capitalismojo didn't feel that I was making an accusation of intentional plagiarism, because I didn't intend to do so. In fact, based on Capitalismojo's careful use of inline citations, I think that it's unlikely in the extreme that the plagiarism was intentional. Nevertheless, it is plagiarism.

It is also a copyright violation, which is much more serious than plagiarism. Plagiarism is an academic issue; copyright is a legal concern. Hence this text in WP:CV: "However, copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure; this is known as close paraphrasing (which can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues" (emphasis mine). As with plagiarism, there's no malicious intent requirement or presumption in a copyright violation situation: it just is.

Per WP policy, what I should have done was this: "If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known." However, given the tendency of Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) to default to reversion of my edits, I decided that it was sufficient to tag the offending passages with copyright questions. My more cautious approach was rewarded with a revert from Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) and accusations that I was trying to have the quotes removed on a "hypertechnical or mistaken reading of WP policy on copyrighted material," despite at no point suggesting that the remedy was to remove the quotes (and, in fact, suggesting the opposite based on this particular policy concern).

It's possible that I should have been more clear about the nature of the plagiarism/copyright violation given that we're essentially talking about quotes within quotes, but I think that I did the best that I could given the limitations of mobile editing. If anyone was confused about the nature of the offending material, I apologize for that lack of clarity. That said, I'm genuinely am unsure what I could have done to balance sufficient demarcation of the copyright concern with sensitivity to the particular concerns on this page. Suggestions?

In this case, either changing the text surrounding the quote or adding an in-text attribution to Commentary would have sufficed. Capitalismojo did the former (with good grace about the situation, which I appreciate), and although it approaches close paraphrasing I am satisfied that it is neither plagiarism nor a copyright violation at this point. Dyrnych (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like all this heartache is self-imposed, and could have been avoided if you had merely edited the offending material yourself, or come to the talk page to discuss it (or at least explain to others what was going through your head). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Right. Instead of following policy, I could have edited the material without discussion and been reverted by you for editing material without discussion. Is there an editor here who believes that would not have happened? I noted the source from which the quotes were plagiarized and the material that was plagiarized. Also, it's obviously copyrighted material (and obvious upon examination that it's likely to be infringement), so I didn't think that I would need to reference Commentary's copyright. So you tell me: did you go to the source to compare it to the article (the "further investigation" that you accused me of neglecting) before reverting my tags? Dyrnych (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think anyone's gonna object to you doing trivial housekeeping like adding attributions to sources to conform to WP copyright policy.
Your comments are puzzling. You say you "noted" that the quotes were plagiarized, but the purpose of discussion pages is for you to do things like explain what it is you're talking about. Simply declaring conclusions without explanation doesn't really give others a basis to respond. Notice that other editors immediately posted queries expressing confusion as to what you were trying to say — how is this plagiarism, how is this copyvio — to which you responded with more opaque, standoffish argument. Followed by the long hurt-feelings essay above.
And yes, of course I knew it was copyrighted material, as is virtually all material used as sourcing on WP. No, I didn't need you to cite me anybody's copyright paperwork. Yes, I did need for you to explain what the hell you were talking about.
No, as I already stated, I did not go and read the source because there was no indication that doing so would shed any light on the subject — again, because I didn't know what you were talking about, because you couldn't be bothered to explain your reasoning. (Protip: a simple note like "the prose is attributed to the wrong source, hence the source is not properly attributed, this is my objection" would have gone a long way.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you still don't understand the nature of my complaint with the material, probably because you didn't read my "long hurt-feelings essay" with anything that approaches care (in an similar manner to how you treated my "opaque, standoffish argument"). You also seem not to understand that while you can attribute statements to copyrighted material, you can't just copy and paste that copyrighted material wholesale, slap a citation on it, and pretend that there's no issue. On the bright side, your continued ignorance is immaterial, and I'm done trying to educate you; the editor who added the material clearly understood the issue and fixed it. I'll leave you to your confusion. Dyrnych (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I am confident that if I have failed to understand the nature of your complaint with the material, that is 100% your fault. I am not a mind reader, nor are any of the others here.
So what is the solution? Are you going to go ahead and correct the attribution, or do we need another 5,000 words of discussion about how your perplexing and unexplained complaints weren't treated with the proper deference? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Read what I wrote. As I said, I'm done explaining. I'm not the first person who has noted your obtuseness. Dyrnych (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
So in a nutshell, you're still very very mad that people didn't understand your complaint without you having to explain it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think that "people" have trouble understanding anything at this point. Just you. You could solve this by reading, but you've clearly declined to do so. And, as the point is moot, I genuinely don't care. I assume that this will not stop you from posting whatever nonsense you'd like to post in response, but unless you're breaking some new ground and not just recapitulating your usual insults I have no intention of responding further to you. Dyrnych (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Kindly direct your attention to the other users who didn't understand your complaint and explicitly asked you to explain it. I notice it took you almost 24 hours to give a thorough explanation of your complaint. If you're getting mad at us me for allegedly failing to properly analyze arguments that you hadn't even made yet, that's just silly.
Perhaps if you had directed your efforts at resolving the problem you saw, instead of expressing indignation that others didn't see it, a lot of this discussion could have been pre-empted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Contempt of Congress

I don't see anything written in this article about Lerner being held in contempt of Congress a few months ago ([1][2]). I would think this information is pretty relevant to this article as well as the Lerner article where a summary of the situation can already be found. I suggest at least a brief summary be added here. What do other think? --Philpill691 (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I cannot fathom how the article reached this length without mentioning such a pivotal turn of events. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems fine. I wouldn't say that any in-depth treatment is necessary, but the fact of the contempt vote should probably should be noted under the Congressional investigation section. Dyrnych (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree. I think it would be appropriate the mention the opposing points of view: that the House considers her to be in contempt, while her defense is that she has invoked her right not to testify for fear of self-incrimination. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
While of course not forgetting to mention the retort that she waived any privilege against self-incrimination by giving partial testimony before refusing to answer further questions. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That is a legal argument whose accuracy is in dispute (even among Fifth Amendment scholars) and which is already noted in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, do you realize Lerner's BS excuse is a questionable legal argument whose accuracy is in dispute even among Fifth Amendment scholars? Anyway, good thing we've got it reflected in the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, as usual you're totally not pushing any sort of POV of your own. But as to your straw man: did I suggest that Lerner's argument was settled law? Dyrnych (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
No, was there some reason you felt the need to share your opinion on the subject to the talk page? You didn't appear to be objecting to mentioning the waiver argument, so what's your point? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If your point was that we should mention the ARGUMENT that she waived her Fifth Amendment rights, I have no objection to that (and in fact, we have already done so). If your point is that it is the case that she waived her Fifth Amendment argument (which makes sense given your characterization of her argument as a "BS excuse"), that's just, like, your opinion, man; the article should not present that as fact. It appeared that you were making the second argument; if that's not the case, it's not the case. Dyrnych (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was plain as day when I said we should "mention the retort" that I was merely saying we need to mention the retort. Ditto for "mentioning the waiver argument". Could I be clearer somehow? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The dispute over Lerner's invocation of Fifth Amendment rights is germane to the article. Let's try not to refer to it as a "BS excuse" in the article's text.
"She waived any privilege against self-incrimination by giving partial testimony before refusing to answer further questions" Witnesses may answer some questions before a Congressional hearing while invoking the Fifth, or the First Amendment, on other questions. For examples, see any Congressional testimony ever given. Contempt of congress would be either refusing to testify, refusing to answer questions without invoking one's Constitutional rights, or perjuring one's self. It's really pretty simple. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Without RS commentary, that's just a cool story, bro. Also, I can't imagine where you got the idea of referring to anything as a "BS excuse" in the article text. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
"I conclude that the requisite legal foundation for a criminal contempt of Congress prosecution mandated by the Supreme Court rulings in Quinn, Emspak and Bart have not been met and that such a proceeding against Ms.Lerner under 2 U.S.C. 194, if attempted, will be dismissed. Such a dismissal will likely also occur if the House seeks civil contempt enforcement." -Morton Rosenberg, Legislative Consultant to the House Committee on Oversight And Government Reform, 3/12/14. [3] Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"we need to be cautious about what we say in emails"

“I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails — so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails,”, Lois Lerner. “For her to be worried right on the heels of this draft IG report that Congress may search her instant messages. … That is very troubling,” said Rep. Ron DeSantis.

What's the context? Everyone needs to be caution about work emails because someone might read them. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If you've already found a source for the quote, why would you decline to cite that source? Dyrnych (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You do not intend to provide a source for what you claim? Yeah, no. Everything in Wikipedia must have a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention the WP:PRIMARY http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Lerner-email-use-2.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
So is the contention that this article should immediately reflect anything that the Republican Party claims is damning? Because the trend with these stories seems to be "Lois Lerner said/did something. Quoted Republicans spin that thing as nefarious." And I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the appropriate place for breaking news of that nature, especially because a concurrent trend with these types of stories is a flurry of coverage that almost immediately dies down. Dyrnych (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This is an article 100% dedicated to this controversy. This is highly sourced, and is certainly a development in that controversy. We shouldn't be adding this to her BLP or anything, but in this article? Yes, we should absolutely update it with the most recent updates, particularly when they are being discussed in house oversight hearings, and that discussion is being covered by reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely accept that there are numerous sources for the Lois Lerner quote; I question whether it is appropriate, even with those sources, to include this type of breaking news in the article. My concern is that the page not become effectively a repository or mirror for every Republican claim about the controversy, especially given that this particular claim is only being related to the controversy by quotes from Republicans spinning her statement as evidence of malfeasance. Dyrnych (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
SO your argument is, "Republican, therefore we should ignore". Is that about it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've made an argument based on policy. You've distorted that argument. Feel free to engage with what I actually said. Dyrnych (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm unable to identify any rationale you've stated, other than a rationale that says we should not include this material because it is a complaint by a Republican and you feel the article should not reflect too many views by Republicans? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Factchecker: On this, Dyrnych has a point. Please respond to what he actually wrote, and avoid re-characterizing his argument as something completely different.

As someone who has no dog in the fight over the controversy over IRS handling of the 501(c)(4) applications (I'm neither conservative nor liberal, neither Republican nor Democrat), it is interesting to watch.

I have contributed relatively little to this article, but I would like to make the following observations.

Certain Republicans in Congress are in an uncomfortable situation. As it currently stands, they are trying to milk this for every political advantage they believe they can obtain. They realize that it is unclear whether anything will ever come of this, from the standpoint of election victories. Further, the likelihood of anyone being indicted is relatively low, and the chance of any convictions is lower. Some Republicans have called for a special prosecutor as a way of trying to convince voters that the Justice Department under the Obama Administration is somehow refusing to do its job - and is refusing for nefarious reasons. Some Republicans are concerned that if a special prosecutor is appointed, he or she will find nothing worth prosecuting, or that any prosecution will result in acquittals. Such results would be disastrous for the Republicans, as least in their own minds.

If the shoe were on the other foot, certain Democrats would be thinking the same way.

The proper reason for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to focus on this is not to obtain political advantage, and not to assure that someone is prosecuted or convicted. The proper reason is to determine whether legislation is needed to correct any problems.

Let us keep in mind that eventually, someone will be convicted -- or not. Let us keep in mind that eventually, the evidence will become overwhelming that someone in the IRS deliberately did bad things for nefarious, political reasons -- or not. Let us keep in mind that eventually, someone in the White House will be discovered to have done bad things in connection with this controversy - or not.

I don't have a strong feeling pro or con on whether the subject passage in the Lois Lerner Email is really worthy of mention, but I do lean toward the conclusion that it is relatively insignificant for what is really supposed to be an encyclopedia article.

Let us keep in mind that we don't know which way any of this will look a year from now, or two years from now. Let's not edit the article in such a way that we end up embarrassing ourselves. We editors here at Wikipedia, whether we happen to be conservative or liberal or (like me) moderate, should take care to avoid pushing one view point or another. As someone who has not contributed substantially to the article, I have to commend my fellow editors because I believe that as a group, editors have done a pretty good job of keeping this article in good shape. Famspear (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"Because the trend with these stories seems to be "Lois Lerner said/did something." Bingo. The article does not need to insinuate that every utterance from Lois Lerner means some significant point of evidence has been uncovered. She said we have to be cautious! She must mean, "because we broke the law and have something to hide." Not seeing much here that belongs in an encyclopedia article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
She didn't just say be cautious in email. She said be cautious in email BECAUSE CONGRESS CAN ASK FOR IT. In the days after being told about questions from congress, her hard drive crashed, the backups were lost, the hard drives were destroyed, the 3rd party offsite backup contract was cancelled, and she inquired about if her chat messages had been saved and when the answer was no she said "perfect". She sure is unlucky with her data... Oh, and the legal requirement to make hardcopies wasn't followed either. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you've got your timeline mixed up here (the computer crash occurred in 2011; the "be cautious" email was sent in April 2013), but that's beside the point. There are a number of reasonable interpretation of "be cautious in email BECAUSE CONGRESS CAN ASK FOR IT," some of which are nefarious and some of which are non-nefarious. Understandably, Republicans support the nefarious interpretations and, when quoted, articulate those interpretations. And all of that is irrelevant to whether it should be included in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear Gaijin42: It appears that you're trying to put roughly five different pieces of evidence together with a sixth piece of evidence (i.e., Lerner's response in the form of the word "Perfect") so that you can reach the conclusion that Lerner's statement about the Email was evidence (or might have been evidence) that she had a nefarious intent, etc. Assuming for the sake of argument that each piece of evidence you cited is properly sourced, here's what I suggest. Look for one, single, reliable, previously published third party that says all those things, and that also mentions the Lerner Email, and that also expressly states that Lerner intended something nefarious in her remark about the Email. Perhaps the article could then mention the matter -- while at the same time making clear that it is the reliable source itself that is citing all those items of evidence and drawing the conclusion, and not merely Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors trying to put all the evidence together and drawing our own conclusion. Famspear (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As editor Joegoodfriend pointed out, those who hope to prove that Lois Lerner did bad stuff would like everyone to interpret her comment about the Email in the form of this thought: "She must mean, 'because we broke the law and have something to hide.' " Similarly, those who hope to prove that Lois Lerner did not do bad stuff would like everyone to interpret her comment about the Email in the form of something along the lines of: "Because Congress might obtain copies of our Emails, we need to be careful to be clear, factual and correct in what we say in our Emails". The former thought could be thought of as typical of someone who believes she has done something wrong, and the latter is certainly typical of someone who (like Lerner) is an experienced lawyer who expects that the correspondence may end up in the hands of other lawyers preparing to present evidence in court (or in the hands of the lawyers on the staff of a Congressional committee). Famspear (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

bad stuff is not the issue, cautioning folks about email which is CLEARLY KNOWN TO BE PUBLIC is troublesome at best and should be part of the controversy. [4] Darkstar1st (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Could an editor who objects to having this article reflect one or more of these notable published views try to state, succinctly, the nature and policy basis of the objection? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
i think we can safely add the passage now. the above appears to be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you think we've achieved consensus on this? Famspear, Joegoodfriend, and I have all articulated opposition to the inclusion of the material based on WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYNTH, and general concerns about WP:WEIGHT. Those concerns are present--explicit or implicit--in our comments, and I see no obligation to reproduce them again for the edification of FCAYS, seeing as how at no point (on any topic) has logic, reason, or reference to policy been able to sway him. I'm not going to waste my time writing Cliff's Notes either. Dyrnych (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Since there is an impasse here I will start an RFC shortly to get a wider consensus on if this material should be included. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with this decision. Dyrnych (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Lois lerner's wrote an email in which she asked about OCS being logged, and saying "I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails -- so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails" There was subsequent questioning of this email in the hearings, and commentary in reliable sources. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Should this email and subsequent questioning/commentary be included in a development in the controversy that is the topic of this article

Survey

  • include as nom. I find arguments about WP:NOTNEWS not very compelling - the entire article is about an ongoing news story. Its undisputed that the email is legitimate, and it is being used in congressional hearings, and has been discussed widely in reliable sources, within the context of the larger controversy. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Include per nom. Suggested wording: Lerner explicitly inquired of IT staff about the retrieve-ability and perpetuity of IRS email and other electronic messages, and she explicitly cautioned colleagues about the matter. Add a ref, and done. Right? --→gab 24dot grab← 18:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Include This content is well-sourced and certainly relevant to the article. Slightly modified version of suggested wording agove: Lerner explicitly inquired of IT staff about the retrieve-ability and longevity of IRS email and other electronic messages, and she cautioned colleagues to be careful "about what we say in emails".CFredkin (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • consensus it appears we have reached consensus and allowed significant time for objection. i suggest we simply add the quote as it speaks for itself. plz feel free to add it yourself, or i will in 48 hours, unless objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added the quote along with a neutral summary of the circumstances of its release. Dyrnych (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Progressive groups "were not subjected to the same level of scrutiny"

The article says, "It was revealed two days later that while certain progressive groups also faced long delays in getting the IRS to approve their applications, the progressive groups were not subjected to the same level of scrutiny as Tea Party groups." Do the editors agree with this text? The AP article used in citation suggests that in general progressive groups were subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Is there another, better citation for this? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As this text not fully supported by the citation, and because it is explored more completely in the next paragraph, without objection, I have deleted the text in question. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


Latest reports seem to be that progressive groups were subjected to more scrutiny than Tea Party groups, as reported here. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
As reported, heh. Not reliable source. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. Source is reliable. Is the article not true? And if not, based on what other source(s)? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It is difficult to accept a Progressive source's review of data supporting a Progressive point of view to be a neutral presentation of the facts. On top of that, the reports are so heavily redacted it is impossible to know how much information is missing. Such a claim should come from a far more neutral source. Arzel (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The TP source is just as reliable as some of the conservative-leaning sources (e.g., National Review) cited in this article: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." WP:BIASED Dyrnych (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
TP is not even remotely in the same league as NR, so please redact that ridiculous statement, or at least realize its wrongness. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk)
No. I have no idea why you're responding two months later to this comment (though I can guess), but your opinion of the quality of the publications has nothing to do with my statement. Dyrnych (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

(contribs) 16:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have moved a portion of this to a new section further down the talk page. If there are no objections I would like to remove the duplicate section here, in a few days, and continue discussion in section "Use of word "Targeted," "Targeting" etc." Mydogtrouble (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC) (Duplicate section removed.)Mydogtrouble (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report

The report of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations came out today. There's a sizable majority report authored by Carl Levin concluding (as did TIGTA) that inappropriate screening criteria were used but that there was no intentional wrongdoing or political bias. The majority also notes that liberal groups were targeted and faults TIGTA for omitting these groups from its report. Additionally, there's a smaller minority dissent authored by John McCain arguing that the majority is minimizing bias against conservative groups by pointing to liberal groups, as "conservative groups received the bulk of unfair and burdensome treatment." I'll probably add this to the article shortly. Dyrnych (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It is probably good to note that the committee is majority Democrat. Arzel (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I plan to do so. Dyrnych (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"Secret research project"

Listing here reliable sources that can be used regarding content regarding a "secret research project" that existed/exists. I am presently of the opinion, as it is not yet known whether this is directly related, on how the content should be (if at all), included in this article.

  • McKinnon, John D. (4 September 2014). "Emails Raise New Questions About IRS Targeting". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 8 September 2014.
  • "New IRS Documents Show Lerner Did Not Need Conservative Group Donor Lists – Emails Mention "Secret Research Project" by Top IRS Official". Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch, Inc. 4 September 2014. Retrieved 8 September 2014.
  • Rubin, Richard (5 September 2014). "Democratic Report Hits IRS, Inspector on Nonprofit Groups". Bloomberg Business Week. Retrieved 8 September 2014.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems like the most relevant quote to me: "Unfortunately, it’s not at all clear yet what this 'secret research project' concerned. If the project involved the IRS systematically targeting conservative donors for extra scrutiny too – as some GOP lawmakers suspect – that’s a very big deal. But if the 'secret research project' only had to do with what the law allowed the IRS to do with the donor lists once it got them – as seems possible from the context of these emails – that’s probably not such a big a deal." I'd hold off until and unless this is connected to the controversy in some way. Dyrnych (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
And thus my statement

I am presently of the opinion, as it is not yet known whether this is directly related, on how the content should be (if at all), included in this article.

Hopefully with time, more light will be shed on this "Secret Research Project" and then we can create a consensus as to whether or not it should be included.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we can immediately dispense, sans comment, with any suggestions that this is somehow not notable for inclusion — if anyone is making such a suggestion.
Further, it would be silly to not even mention the substance of the claim — that IRS officials were conducting a "secret research project" to uncover information which they were legally prohibited from seeking.
So if we were going to limit ourselves to just one quote, we should not fail to quote the language indicating that "IRS officials had some sort of “secret research project” going that related to the donor lists it had collected – inappropriately, as it turned out – from many conservative nonprofit groups."
Cheers! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

destruction of blackberry

without objection, i will add a few words from Thomas Kane, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for the IRS [the BlackBerry was] "removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012." i do not intend to source the passage. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I object. Famspear (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I object to an unsourced direct quote being included in the article. Since you've repeatedly offered to include information without sourcing it, can I ask you why you believe that it's appropriate to do so? I think you're going to get the same reaction every time. Dyrnych (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
last time i sought approval to add a quote sans source, you User:Dyrnych made the edit. [11] Darkstar1st (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that that edit includes a source and was made after much discussion. Dyrnych (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
A source for this content can be found here, at FoxNews. Additionally a critical reception to this information can be found here, at the USA Today.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have boldly added content verified by reliable sources. If others believe it could be done better, please feel free; that being said I think some mention of the news/revelation of the destruction of the blackberry should be included somewhere in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems fine, although it would be helpful to see a balancing quote if we're going to include Robbins' quote. I have no objection to the material being included in the article, but I do (and will continually) have an objection to a direct quote being included in the article without a source. Dyrnych (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I actually found a quote in (of all places) the National Review and boldly added it. Dyrnych (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Instead of an opinion quote, why not a statement about why some think the matter is significant? I really don't think the USA Today quotes adds value to the article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There's also the bit about how Lerner's "lost" emails are likely preserved in a comprehensive government computer backup system, but that it would be a big hassle to go retrieve the emails from backup.

Backups too hard to search, not worth the effort. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Title Change to Include 2014

Since the scandal (or "controversy", as I suppose we've decided to call it here) is still ongoing as of September 2014, I think the title should reflect that fact. I propose that the page be renamed "2013-2014 IRS controversy" to accurately describe its duration. ABarnes94 (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Another possible solution is to remove the date and go with something like IRS conservative targeting controversy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the name used by CBS News, HuffPo, and Heritage Foundation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think something in that arena is probably going to be the better long term title. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Lets build a consensus first before making the move, and once we have agreement from active editors, lets pull the trigger on this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like they use "IRS targeting controversy" rather than "IRS conservative targeting controversy." I would support that title. Dyrnych (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My sense is "IRS targeting controversy" would be preferred over "2013-2014..." etc. Personally, my first choice would be just to leave the title as-is though. Famspear (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Go for it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Done.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed additions to article

In July 2014, it was reported [12] that Lerner had called Republicans “crazies” and “assholes” in her emails.

In July 2014, it was reported that after Lerner’s hard drive “crashed,” the IRS deliberately destroyed [13] it, without [14] making any attempt to recover her emails. Top IRS officials told [15] Congressional investigators that the hard drive was irreparably damaged before they destroyed it. However, IRS technical experts who had examined the hard drive before the IRS destroyed it said [16] that this was not true, and that the data could have been recovered. Bruce Webster, partner at Provo, Utah-based IT consulting and expert witness firm Ironwood Experts, who has served as a consulting and IT expert in more than 80 civil lawsuits, said [17] of this:

“… the IRS has no excuses for having handled this so poorly… This happens all the time… There are little storefront companies in just about every major city that can do this and there are forensic companies that can restore files and even do higher end recovery of data.”

In August 2014, the IRS admitted [18] in a court filing that it had deliberately destroyed Lerner’s Blackberry after her computer “crashed.” In addition, an IRS official admitted, under penalty of perjury, that Lerner’s Blackberry had contained the same emails that had been on her computer.

In August 2014, the IRS finally admitted [19], under penalty of perjury, that Lerner’s emails had never really been “lost.” The IRS said [20] the “missing” emails had been on its backup system all along.

On November 5, 2014, it was reported [21] that the IRS had admitted to the court that it had not even tried to find Lerner’s “missing” emails in its backup system.

On November 21, 2014, it was reported [22] that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration had obtained as many as 30,000 of Lerner’s “missing” emails from IRS disaster recovery tapes.

Revs438 (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not everything that Lerner has said or done, and not every detail of the status of her emails, needs to be in the article. What are the contexts of these data points? How will they lead the reader to a better understanding of the subject? Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Joegoodfriend. Not only are the sources for many of these suspect (for example: a press release from Judicial Watch, an ideological organization in active litigation with the IRS, "reporting" on that litigation; an apparently unsigned editorial in Investor's Business Daily breathlessly characterizing the controversy as an "abuse of power that has threatened our constitutional republic"; and an opinion piece in the New York Observer), adding this information raises substantial weight concerns without adding anything pertinent to the article. Additionally, I find all of the following problematic: the use of passive voice; the characterization of statements by the IRS as "admissions" and the invocation of perjury; the use of scare quotes; and the phrase "deliberately destroyed". This doesn't even approach NPOV. Dyrnych (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The article has already been updated for last week's 'email recovery' story. I'd say that pretty much covers it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IRS_targeting_controversy/Archive_5&oldid=924559646"