Talk:List of allegations of misuse of the Internal Revenue Service

political balance

I don't want this article to be perceived as favoring one political party over another. I've created a section for Nixon in the 1960s. Please help me fill it out! Information on other Republican abuses would also be useful. TJIC (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

edits by 193.239.220.249

I see a lot of edits by an anonymous user at IP address 193.239.220.249. Please login and create an account!

I've kept many of these edits but cleaned up or reverted several others.

Thoughts:

• please don't change "origins" back to "allegations". At this point the 2013 issue has been admitted to by the IRS and apologized for, so it's not merely an allegation. That would be a proper term if one side was claiming something that the other side was not agreeing to. If there are allegations in the future, then we should definitely introduce the "allegations" section
• Operation Leprechaun - From what I've been able to find, this is about a PERSONAL vendetta by three agents against one tax filer. It does not fit in the topic of this article. It also does not seem at all noteworthy.
• Political bias - I commend your efforts to show that IRS profiling happens under both parties. I'm sure you're right. However, we need less assertion that it's true and more documentation. We've got sections for FDR, Kennedy (thanks!) and the current adminsitration. A section about documented abuses under Nixon /Reagan / Bush etc would be great. Please dig up relevant material; it would be a great addition.
• I've removed the footnotes about the book "Scandal". The book seems off topic and is not being cited in support of any particular point. Political scandals have their own pages; let's keep this page about Political profiling at the Internal Revenue Service. TJIC (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

spreading rumors?

Why? Is the IRS investigating Wikipedia? What have they found?
Are you spreadinfg rumors or can you provide references? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I would venture that it's because no more than just, yet again, a made-up scandal. The best analysis of what IRS employees have to deal with in regards to dubious applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status is this Bloomberg piece. The overall news coverage of this supposed scandal has been wildly random and confused, and often leaving off any references to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision, which is the source of the IRS's contretemps here. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't merely an allegation. The IRS admitted it in the case of Tea party organizations and scores of conservative groups. They wrote a letter admitting it. So that they targeted the Tea Party is not up for question, and it isn't an "allegation" or "made up." It is established. How far up the IRS or Dept. of Treasurer chain of command this originated is an open question. Carwon (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The IRS is famous as a tool for political targeting. This is a documented fact. The title of this needs to be changed, or the article needs to be re-written.

The IRS is famous as a tool for political targeting. That's one article. The Tea Party case is an allegation, yet unproven. That's another article. One is a subset of the other.

The U.S. administration can, and will attack individuals with any tool in its arsenal: financial is one of the favorites. It sounds like a red-herring, until it happens to you. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I fixed it. Fair enough. This does exist. Lots of things exist that you don't realize happen, until they happen to you. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Tea Party targeting needs to be returned to separate article

I don't know why an editor moved the existing separate article over to here without discussion, talk or vote. Reading Wikipedias criteria, the previously existing separate article on the Tea Party IRS auditing objectively and fully met all the criteria for a separate article.Carwon (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I entirely agree. TJIC (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There needs to be a better job done summarizing it in this article. 71.251.46.7 (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

poor quality

Just reading through this, there are issues with poor writing and poor sourcing. The most-cited source is an op-ed piece, rather than a straight news article. It probably shouldn't even be used. It would also be nice to see page numbers for citations to books or other long publications. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• So why not jump in and fix it. X02:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't really feel like looking through those books. But I can certainly remove content sourced to the op-ed and do some proofreading if people won't dispute it. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 04:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

criticism of article content and sources

The second sentence of the article is misleading. As noted by Source 4 (Bovard article), after the exposure of Nixon’s IRS abuses during Congressional hearings, “Congress enacted legislation to severely restrict political contacts between the White House and the IRS.”

In the 1930’s section, historians note that Elliott Roosevelt’s recollections have long been suspect and in many cases invented. See Hansen, Chris. Enfant Terrible: The Times and Schemes of General Elliott Roosevelt. Tucson: Able Baker Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0615-66892-5

Source 4 (Bovard) cites no sources itself and its viewpoints betray the strong libertarian bias of the author with no counterpoint.

Source 4 and Source 9 misrepresent the IRS survey responses. See: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-03-22/news/1991081003_1_ethics-internal-revenue-service-irs

Source 2 covers material relevant to Kennedy and Nixon, yet it is only cited wrt Kennedy. The article’s section on Nixon quotes from the Nixon Bill of impeachment, but there is much more on Nixon’s abuses, which an objective analysis would reveal to be the worst abuses of the IRS. This is even cited by Source 4, but ignored in the article.

In general, the article does not provide an unbiased list, but rather, a politically biased interpretation of a selected historical incidents. A quick internet search turned up a particularly well-rounded article entitled, "History of IRS Abuse" at RealClearPolitics.com that covers a longer list of abuses from an objective, “what are the facts” perspective. Here's the url: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/lists/irs-scandal/introduction.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamb&Biff (talk • contribs) 05:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with the above. Although it seems to be something of an article of faith among right-wing sources, I have found absolutely no primary evidence for the claim that 75% of IRS managers feel entitled to lie to Congress. To the contrary, the author of the cited study noted that the IRS "is the most honest organization I've ever worked with." See: http://articles.philly.com/1991-03-22/news/25793042_1_irs-managers-senior-irs-officials-irs-whistleblowers . Anyone have any neutral evidence that the study says what it is claimed to say? Dyrnych (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've located a better source for the survey at issue than the current page's reference. The survey provides NO support for the claim that 75% of IRS managers feel entitled to lie to Congress. Thus, I am deleting the factually false section on IRS Culture, which consists entirely of this claim. Dyrnych (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The results of your original research are not what matters. We have reliable sources to support that material. You need reliable secondary sources that contradict those findings before you can just pull the material based on a claim that "this is false". Federales (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to see that you don't have some kind of overwhelming need to undo all of my edits. But when your source doesn't say what you claim that it says, it's not a reliable source for that claim. Therefore, I don't need a secondary source to contradict the claim; it is sufficient that the source itself does not make the claim that is stated. The "better source" that I located for the survey is THE SAME SURVEY CITED, only in a format where you can actually VIEW the results of the survey instead of having Google Books tell you that the content isn't available. If you're somehow claiming that the source that I cited is not the same as the source cited by the article, I'm not sure how you'd even begin to make that argument as you can't view the source at the current reference.

So, to recap. The "reliable" source for the claim (accessed at a different site that actually allows viewing of that primary source) does not support the claim. No original research was done in MY edit; I simply checked the facts claimed by the article against the source cited by the article. In fact, the page as reverted by you now incorporates original research due to the fact that it doesn't support the material clearly and directly, as required by WP:NOR. So unless you embrace factual inaccuracy in articles, you were absolutely wrong in reverting my edit. My edit followed WP:AD guidelines, including citations to the source that CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHES the factual inaccuracy. Please undo your reversion or engage with the actual basis for my edit. Dyrnych (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything you're doing here is original research. You're going to a primary source, making your own interpretation and then using that to contradict the findings of a respected, reliable secondary source (which is now the Wall Street Journal, following my last edit). That is the very definition of original research. Find a secondary source to back you up, and then we'll have something to discuss. Federales (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's rich. You add a secondary source to support the claim that the "reliable" source originally cited doesn't actually make, then claim that I was using the original source to contradict the "reliable" secondary source that YOU JUST ADDED. Interesting, especially since the only source for that claim at the time that I made my edit was the actual survey itself. And, to the extent that the survey isn't only raw statistics but rather also analysis of those statistics, it's reasonable to actually look at the analysis in the survey before citing to it to make a claim that it does not make.

And now you're asking me, essentially, to prove a negative. The originally-cited source does not include the claim that is attributed to it. So now you're asking me to go out and find a secondary source that states that the original source does NOT include a claim that isn't in it.

Further, I question the reliability of the source you've cited. Per WP:IRS, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." You're doing exactly that: relying on an opinion piece for the factual claim that the survey says something that it manifestly does not say. So I absolutely dispute that your source is reliable, and I challenge you to find a non-opinion piece that makes that claim or undo your revert. Dyrnych (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, to the extent that your secondary source states that the IRS is dishonest, the secondary source I cited above in which the study's own author refers to the IRS as "the most honest organization I've ever worked with" seems like a fairly clear secondary source rebuttal of your source's premise. And it's (shockingly) even a non-opinion piece! Dyrnych (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a rebuttal, that's a subjective, seat-of-the-pants statement of personal opinion with no apparent tie to empirical fact. And for Pete's sake, look at the sentence right before that one: "The watchdog group cited a finding that about 70 percent of the managers said there was a "lack of honesty" in their workplace as evidence that top IRS officers were dishonest and deceitful. " That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of IRS ethics. Federales (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You really need to review the meaning of original research and Wikipedia policies in general. First of all, using a primary source is not original research unless you are the primary source, though secondary sources are preferable. Second, the original Google books link appears to be to the same primary source, if you compare them, the only difference being that you can't actually read it to verify the claims attributed to it. Third, the version of the source that you can actually read says nothing to back up the claim that you are inserting into the article. Fourth, he is not "interpreting" the source by trying to confirm that an apparently made-up claim is being attributed to it. Fifth, the WSJ source you are now using is an op-ed piece written by a libertarian commentator, and is not reliable for statements of fact according to Wikipedia policy (and the claim isn't even in the actual body of the column). Sixth, even if what you are doing didn't go against every Wikipedia policy, the title of this article is "List of Internal Revenue Service political profiling controversies," and this little factoid is not a political profiling controversy and thus does not belong in such a list or this article. I'm re-removing the claim.

P.S. A group with an ax to grind cites a study to support their claim that managers are dishonest. The scientists who actually conducted the study say their study shows that the workplace is the most honest organization they've ever worked with. You want to give the former more weight? – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 20:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, we now have a third opinion, but you appear to be heading towards your own edit war. We've both identified reliability issues with your source for the claim that 75% of IRS managers feel entitled to lie to Congress. We've both disputed your characterization of my "original research." ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ has noted the utter lack of pertinence to this page of the "IRS culture" section of the page. And your response is to revert the changes to include all of the material identified as suspect. Dyrnych (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your new edit violates WP:NPOV by including one claim from the article while ignoring the fact that the bulk of the article supports the competing claim. It violates WP:IRS by sourcing factual claims to an opinion source. It violates WP:NOR because it attributes a claim to a source that the source does not directly support. It violates WP:REL because, not being a political profiling controversy, it is not within the scope of the article. As the person advocating for the inclusion of the IRS Culture section, it's your responsibility to address those issues, not mine to disprove them. Dyrnych (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained why the "competing claim" is not worthy of consideration. You don't have to accept the explanation if it doesn't suit you, but don't falsely say that I've provided no reason. Similarly, I've also already explained why your earlier edit constituted rather flagrant OR. I can see from what you've just written that you still don't understand the concept.

I will allow that the WSJ material should probably be attributed to the author. Your argument concerning relevance fails at first glance, although it does lead me to believe that the material we are discussion should probably be moved into an explanatory section closer to the top of the article. Federales (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The bulk of the article is devoted to the competing claim, which is from the authors of the study. Ignoring that absolutely violates neutrality. You've already been disabused of your claim that I'm somehow using OR by REMOVING a claim that has no basis in the source cited for the claim, but I see you're just ignoring that as well. Maybe it's you who needs the refresher on OR? I'm not offering my ANALYSIS of the study. I'm not adding anything new to the study or characterizing the results of the study. I'm noting that the claim that is attributed to the study does not appear in the study. And if that's OR, then the entire premise of citing sources for claims is useless, because I can always cite a source for a claim that it doesn't make and then accuse people who call me out on it of OR. If you attribute the WSJ material to the author, you're pushing it even further past the point of relevance. Who cares what some opinion author has to say about a study if we can't factually verify that the study makes that claim? And while you dismiss out of hand the notion that a non-political-profiling controversy topic does not belong in a list of political controversies, you still have failed to live up to your burden to provide a basis for its inclusion. This isn't a "list of terrible things that the IRS has done" article. Dyrnych (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

References

RfC: Should the article contain an IRS Culture subheading?

This article, a list of Internal Revenue Service political profiling controversies, contains a section entitled "IRS Culture." The section has been discussed at length in the article's talk section with no apparent consensus in sight. It lists a series of three statistics portraying the IRS as dishonest, deceitful, and unfair in its handling of complaints.

1. Is this section warranted or unwarranted? Responding to RFC. In principle the subheading could be justified but the article is presently to brief for such a section to be included, which leads me to conclude that organisational culture should appear as a heading within the main IRS article. However as the issues dealt with and organisation culture are intrinsically linked it does seem appropriate for there to be a sentence to cross reference to the main article for the reader who wishes to delve further.Isthisuseful (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

2. If this section is warranted, does it violate Wikipedia policies (specifically, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) to remove the claim "[t]hree out of four [IRS executive and manager] respondents [to a survey] felt entitled to deceive or lie when testifying before a congressional committee" when that claim is sourced primarily to a survey that does not contain that statistic and secondarily to an opinion piece? Such matters are in my opinion, as long as they are accurately presented, matters which are completely appropriate. In the UK we are currently having such discussions about our Parliamentarians, our Police, our newspaper journalists and the BBC to name a few. Isthisuseful (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

3. If the claim at issue in #2 is acceptable, should the section also contain other secondarily-sourced statistics from the survey which portray the IRS in a more positive light to avoid cherrypicking? The issue is one of accuracy, not simply a matter of presenting another point of view. Isthisuseful (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Dyrnych (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's less an issue of consensus and more an issue of one editor determined to make a point, but ok. The whole section doesn't belong in a list of political profiling controversies (WP:REL). If we keep it, the 75% claim seems to clearly violate WP:V and WP:RS and shouldn't even be a question. The rest seems like cherry-picking with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT issues right now. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1 - Yes The section is warranted because it provides useful background information. There is no valid reason to restrict this article to a bare list of events, and in fact the goal of all contributors should be to move the article towards FA status, which would necessarily involve expansion.

2 - No This point of the RFC is framed falsely. The originator is still trying to counter secondary sources with his own OR.

3 - No More false framing. Ironically, the originator suggests that we do our own cherry-picking from a primary source to counterbalance what secondary sources have seen as being most significant. No RFC can make such a thing legitimate. Federales (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you feel like the questions are improperly framed, you're welcome to provide an alternative instead of just accusing me of false framing. I feel like I was pretty charitable to you, especially on question #2 (which, interestingly, you seem to have misunderstood). That said, I'm much more interested in what other editors have to say about this than in arguing further with you. Dyrnych (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Using a single study conducted 22 years ago as the definition of "IRS culture" seems to me to be completely unwarranted and unsupportable. At best, it is one claim to a historical view.

Furthermore, it is prohibited original research and synthesis to connect this alleged "IRS culture" with the political profiling controversies unless reliable sources are cited making that connection. Unless such citations are added, the section must be removed.

This article can never be a featured article, because it's a list. It could end up a featured list. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Re-read WP:SYNTH. I don't think it means what you think it means. And who says this article is going to be a list forever? Of course, if there is a campaign to keep it in that state... Federales (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It does mean what I think it means. There are no sources cited linking this alleged study of culture to the issues listed above. Moreover, the study was conducted in 1991, which means that its relevance to anything in the 2000s, let alone the 2010s, is highly suspect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. " This really isn't too difficult to understand, and it doesn't relate to the section we are discussing in any way, shape or form. Federales (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You just proved my point. Thanks.

By including material from the study in this article, we are implying that the findings of the study are related to the political profiling controversies, when no reliable source has been cited which explicitly makes that connection. Ergo, it is original research and synthesis, which we may not do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. In fact... rubbish. The material in that section is derived from secondary sources, and there is no implication at all that it relates to anything other than the managerial climate within the agency. Your allegation of SYNTH fails prima facie. Federales (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If it doesn't relate to anything other than managerial climate within the agency, it has no business in the article. Unless you're implying that it relates to the remainder of the article, in which case it's synthesis. Dyrnych (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've posted the official Wikipedia definition of SYNTH above. Please describe how your accusation fits within that definition, or drop it. Federales (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's very simple. This article is not about the IRS' managerial culture. It is about political profiling controversies related to the agency. That is stated by the title of the article. The fact that something about the agency's culture is included in an article about the agency's political profiling controversies inherently implies that the two are related. There are no sources cited that says they are in any way related. That is the definition of synthesis, which we may not have. Ergo, it should be removed.

That material belongs in an article about the IRS, or a separate article about the IRS' culture if there are enough reliable sources for one to exist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. That is not the definition of SYNTH. Now you're just grasping at straws. Federales (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A few editors have explained to you why that section is inappropriate. If you don't like the WP:SYNTH argument, take your pick of the others. There was a template stating that the factual accuracy of that section is disputed, as it is by me and others on this talk page, and you removed the template. This is completely inappropriate. I am going to remove the section again as it violates multiple policies. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 08:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, while I would say that including it in this list article would be undue weight, the content which was removed is verified content and perhaps in a more summarized form might be useful elsewhere on Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Remove - that section is grossly inappropriate to this article. It is also full of original research and synthesis, and seems to have been inserted to further the agenda of a single editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Move. There is a place for reliable sources about the organizational culture of the IRS, but it is not on this list. It should either have its own article or be included in Internal Revenue Service. Andrew³²⁷ 13:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Paula Jones

I've edited it myself a couple of times, but on further thought there's no real reason to include Paula Jones. Even assuming the worst of Clinton, it's a personal vendetta and not an example of political profiling. This isn't a page for every instance of harassment by the IRS or even every instance of presidentially-directed IRS harassment; it's a page for harassment by the IRS based on political profiling. I'm inclined to remove this section unless there's some justification offered (i.e., which political beliefs/actions of Paula Jones arguably prompted the audit). Dyrnych (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Should this content be on the Paula Jones article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That would probably be appropriate. Dyrnych (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nixon

History is extremely clear on this. Nixon's articles of impeachment were because he tried (unsuccessfully) to use the IRS, not because he succeeded. This is all rather famous actually. Even a cursory google search, or a brief look through WaPo or LA Times [3] archives more than confirms this. The IRS did not engage in political targeting at Nixon's direction. They resisted. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me be further clear, the articles of impeachment does not say that Nixon used the IRS improperly it says:

"He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to... cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

Endeavor means tried. This is a well known part of the Watergate story, we can't write into it what doesn't exist. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk about the Commissioner of the IRS Donald C. Alexander. From the LA Times obit: Donald C Alexander, the Internal Revenue Service commissioner who successfully fought the Nixon administration's attempts to use tax audits and investigations to punish its political enemies, died of cancer Tuesday at his home in Washington, D.C. He was 87. This seems dispositive. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So in your view, it's only misuse of the IRS if it's successful? It seems that a high-profile attempt to use the IRS to persecute political rivals--whether or not it was successful--constitutes a "political profiling controversy." The focus here shouldn't be on the guilt or innocence of the IRS in the matter, it should be on instances in which leaders have arguably attempted to use the IRS for political gain. It is nonsensical that the 2013 profiling controversy (when the political motivation of the actions is in dispute) should be included and Nixon's attempts to use the IRS for political purposes (when the actions are NOT in dispute and are in fact referenced in the articles of impeachment) should not. Dyrnych (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, reinstating your change to the article when there's a dispute about that change is inappropriate. I'm not re-reverting your edit to avoid getting into an edit war, but I would appreciate it if you'd undo your own revert until some kind of consensus is reached. Dyrnych (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few days and you haven't responded. I'm reinstating the section that you removed. Dyrnych (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been busy. In answer to your question about whether there must be a successful misuse of the IRS for it to be a "political profiling controversy", the answer is yes. There is no controversy related to the IRS' actions. There isn't a "controversy" about Nixon's actions, though there is a hell of a lot of criticism. We can find no RS refs saying that there is a controversy about the IRS related to profiling under Nixon. None. It is classic Original Research to assert that there is an "IRS controversy" related to Nixon's misdeeds and then cite the impeachment documents. Those are WP:PRIMARY source material and not suitable as a ref for that assertion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

1. You're being obtuse and dogmatic. There's no requirement that the source say "controversy" for it to be a controversy. There's no requirement that the actions of the IRS (or, in this case, the administration's attempted actions using the IRS) to be debatable as to their merits or propriety in the modern day.

2. I don't think that you understand WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, but primary sources are certainly not forbidden. INTERPRETATION of primary sources is WP:OR, not using primary source materials as a reference for A QUOTE FROM THOSE MATERIALS. It is, factually, an instance in which the administration was accused of misusing the IRS, and the primary source contains that accusation. We are not interpreting the accusation. We are not commenting on that accusation. We are stating that the accusation was made, and the primary source is appropriate for that claim.

3. It continues to be inappropriate for you to revert the page to the version with your CONTROVERSIAL change included, and I am once again requesting that you self-revert. You are the one proposing the change, not me. It is incumbent upon you to wait until there is consensus in order to make the change to the page, and constantly reverting the page to your preferred version is the paradigmatic edit war. ("Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable"). Please self-revert. Dyrnych (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand WP:OR and Primary well and disagree with each of your assertions above but believe we can resolve this with the changes proposed below. I have self-reverted while we work to resolve it. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Rename this List

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This list could be better and more inclusive if it were renamed "List of incidents of IRS political misuse and attempted misuse" (or similar). There are no refs for "controversy" related to the IRS political misuse from FDR through Nixon yet although they are not "controversies" they are notable and well ref'd historical incidents. (Also the term "profiling" is a relatively recent usage and constrains efforts to find appropriate RS refs.) Capitalismojo (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You should resubmit this as a move request. That said, I would have no objection to a new title for the page. Dyrnych (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The result of the move request was: moved to List of incidents of misuse of the Internal Revenue Service. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

---

List of Internal Revenue Service political profiling controversies → List of incidents of IRS political misuse and attempted misuse – This list could be better and more inclusive if it were renamed "List of incidents of IRS political misuse and attempted misuse" (or similar). There are no refs for "controversy" related to the IRS political misuse from FDR through Nixon yet although they are not "controversies" they are notable and well ref'd historical incidents. (Also the term "profiling" is a relatively recent usage and constrains efforts to find appropriate RS refs.). --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Capitalismojo (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support with the caveat that the proposed title could be more elegant. "List of incidents of misuse of the Internal Revenue Service?" I still feel like unsuccessful attempts of misuse still qualify under this title as long as it's noted that they were unsuccessful. Dyrnych (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support with Dyrnych's changes. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is essentially a giant pile of OR screaming for deletion

n/t Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AFD. Be my guest. Dyrnych (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to Obama summary

We have now taken this from a summary that notes that the conduct occurred under the Obama administration and gives a neutral synopsis of the situation to one in which we redundantly repeat "conservative" twice in two consecutive sentences (even though the second sentence makes it clear that we're talking about Tea Party and conservative groups) and push the notion that high-level officials or members of the Obama administration may have been involved (despite no evidence of this having occurred). If readers want more than a synopsis, there's an entire article on the matter--an article that itself contains nothing to suggest that high-level officials or members of the Obama administration were involved. There is an investigation, but according to Darrell Issa HIMSELF |"We’ve never looked for the White House, other than the White House is not cooperating and continues to not cooperate." It is both inaccurate and a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR to include this last sentence and not an improvement overall to include any of the changes that have been made today and yesterday. Dyrnych (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what's your objection, exactly? We need to fairly and faithfully summarize the actual article or else we run the risk of POV forking. I'll go ahead and remove that redundant second instance of the "conservative" adjective. I've also gone ahead and removed the mention of the Obama administration per the quote above; sorry if I was mistaken on that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My objection is that instead of a neutral summary, we now have Wikipedia stating uncited and as fact that "an array of other evidence has been brought forth suggesting possible involvement by Lerner and other high-level officials." This an unbelievably broad statement that is not supported by an RS and is absolutely not a neutral assessment of the controversy. I would suggest that if we're concerned about Wikipedia not taking sides in the controversy, we should reinstate the previous summary. I appreciate your removal of the mention of the Obama administration, but it would be more neutral, accurate, and appropriate for a synopsis to state that the matter is the subject of a Congressional investigation rather than inserting the implication that high-level officials were involved. Dyrnych (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Any neutral summary of that article is going to mention the most scandalous tidbits and smoking guns and arguments, not imply to the reader that there's nothing to see here, please move along. What do you feel would not be an overbroad summary? Mentioning the investigation in a vacuum without discussing its nature is a teaser, something summaries are supposed to avoid. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The previous summary was stable, not overbroad, and needed no revision. The juxtaposition of the IRS's claims of low-level employee conduct (which, to date, have not been refuted) with the details about Lerner and the unexplained "array of other evidence" is some combination of OR and SYNTH. You are implying the conclusion that you want the reader to reach. As far as the congressional investigation, this page is a list. Is there a particular policy that you feel is implicated by only mentioning the investigation? If you're going to mention the goals of the investigation, it would help if you had an RS that set out those goals. Dyrnych (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like you to note that I didn't just automatically revert your edits, though I think that they are absolutely POV-pushing. I am trying to help reach a consensus. Perhaps you could do me the same courtesy in the future. Dyrnych (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The previous summary somehow managed to not mention various rather important aspects of the article in question (such as any mention whatsoever of the accusations of targeting by IRS officials, the fact that Lerner was called to testify, pleaded the fifth, held in contempt of Congress, etc.), while taking care to mention all the defenses and retorts by the IRS. It also fails to mention the widespread condemnation that this conduct has drawn. The "summary" needed revision, and badly so.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying it was "stable"; this axe-grinding "article" is only 6 weeks old. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This (axe-grinding?) article was created on May 1, 2013. I have no idea where you got the notion that it's 6 weeks old, but you are mistaken.

The material about the 2013 controversy has been in the article since 2013. Some material was added in May 2014 and has remained without controversy since then, despite the involvement in editing the article of editors who support multiple views of the controversy. It is just as "axe-grinding" to have Wikipedia espouse one position on the controversy as it is the other. It is or has become a partisan controversy, and portraying it as unambiguously one way or the other is absolutely a violation of NPOV. Please be consistent in your condemnation of POV-pushing. Dyrnych (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, woops, I saw the tiny number of total edits and misread the date. In any event, "stability" is not really relevant to anything. WP policy tells us how to do things, and one of those things we do is summarize articles accurately when we summarize them at all.

You are clearly suggesting that my edits "portray[ed] [the controversy] as unambiguously one way or the other [in violation of NPOV]". I request that you either substantiate or redact that accusation, or at least stop making it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I have substantiated that. Please see my comments above regarding the implication that high-level officials were involved, the "array of other evidence," and so on.

To the extent that you believe that you're being "accurate" in your summary, a summary by definition need not mention each event. By placing Lerner's testimony and contempt citation in the summary, you are implying that those are some of the most important events in the controversy. I would like to at least hear your rationale for making the determination that these events dominate to the extent that any summary must mention them.

As to stability, stability is at least evidence that the article presented the material in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and was the product of consensus, especially when editors with multiple points of view have accepted it as such. My point was not that the article is inviolable but that your statement that it "[badly] needed revision" may be more reflective of one editor's view than the consensus of multiple editors. Dyrnych (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok well then I'll just let that baseless accusation slide off and ignore it as being made carelessly and in bad faith.

You seem to think that we should only present the "side" of the controversy that says there is no controversy. Are you really arguing that Lerner pleading the fifth and being held in contempt are somehow trivial details that were not intensely scrutinized and reported on by mainstream press, politicians, and other leading sources of public thought? Shall we really go ahead and drily mention the year-old internal IRS report citing "ineffective management" as the cause, and not mention the ongoing reporting and investigations into the possibility that this was actually a case of deliberate political targeting by agency officials beholden to the administration? Seriously, dude? Is that really your idea of "neutral"? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So rather than engaging with my arguments, you're accusing me of bad faith? I think I've been pretty reasonable towards you with respect to these edits, so you might want to reconsider that accusation (which is particularly inflammatory in light of our history). If I were operating in bad faith, I might have actually, you know, ACTED in bad faith (perhaps by undoing all of your edits with no discussion).

You are caricaturing my arguments, as you often do. I have no objection to noting that both sides to the controversy exist and have never stated such an objection. HOWEVER, ascribing those arguments to their proponents is something that we should absolutely do rather than accepting as fact either side of the argument, especially by noting that the "array of other evidence [...] suggest[s] possible involvement by Lerner and other high-level officials." That statement--still unsubstantiated by you with a neutral RS--is improper for inclusion in this article. It's not summary, it's argument.

The Lois Lerner contempt/refusal to testify is important in context. That's why it's in the article. But the actual events of the controversy are what we should summarize. The IRS targeted Tea Party/conservative groups. The IRS says that it was the work of low-level officials and not politically motivated. Republicans argue that the targeting could have been politically motivated (thus far there's been no evidence of that, but the summary need not note that because to do so would probably not be neutral) and that higher officials could have been involved (again, no evidence, don't need to note the no evidence). Done. How is that non-neutral or an inappropriate summary? Dyrnych (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Surreal nonsense. I think I probably will not respond. As you can see, I engaged your arguments — such as they are — face-on. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If we're at the point where you're characterizing my arguments as "surreal nonsense" and accusing me of bad faith, I think it's unlikely that we're going to come to any consensus between us as to an appropriate formulation. I'm reverting to the last stable version until consensus for a change is reached; hopefully some other editors will weigh in so that this isn't just an argument between us. Dyrnych (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The word "target" suggests revenge, but they are not synonyms!

I think the word "targeted" is NNPOV. It most definitely is suggestive of vindictiveness, esp. "shooting at." I think it ought to be minimized. Although it is widely used by spinmeisters and headline writers, I think its connotations are improper in an encyclopedia unless used in a cite-able quote by those accused of it. In the case of Nixon, did he say anything such as "go after (them)" or "get (them)? In the Nixon case, John Dean is quoted as saying "This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration; stated a bit more bluntly—how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies." In this case "targeted" is milder than "screw." Plus the word "enemies" is used. Short of this type of evidence, I don't like the word "target" bandied about recklessly.Mydogtrouble (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)