Jump to content

Talk:Tax protester

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 7 August 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed 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: No consensus. While a slight numerical majority favored moving the article, I find the consensus insufficient for a move considering that at present, the base name Tax protester would be left redirecting to the new title anyway. Opposes made strong arguments in two areas: that the "tax protester" is originally and primarily an American phenomenon, and that equivalents in other countries could reasonably be added to this article. The issue may be resolved should one of two things happen: someone adds more material on incarnations of tax protesters outside the US to this article, or someone starts a draft article to cover international tax protesting that could go at tax protesting. Cúchullain t/c 13:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Tax protester → United States tax protester – Almost all of this article is about the United States, so the article should be so named. The non-US content would be split off back to tax protester, with a summary of the United States material, while almost all of the current content would appear at the new name. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
67.70.32.190 Jonpatterns There is also an article on Tax resistance. Could an alternate descriptive title be Tax resistance in the United States? I do not know the commonly used terminologies in the states and can only view the generalities of Ngrams GregKaye 10:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; the premise of this proposal is factually incorrect. Tax protesters are a U.S. phenomenon. There is a difference between a "tax resister" (covered in its own article) and a "tax protester", who is essentially someone who raises a conspiracy-theory type argument as to why they should not have to pay income tax. It would be impossible to write a "general" article of the type that is imagined in the proposal, because there is nothing more to say about it in other countries. This is like proposing to move Springfield, Illinois to Springfield, Illinois, United States in order to write an article at Springfield, Illinois that covers "Springfield, Illinois" occurring in other countries. Compare Patriot movement, Redemption movement. bd2412 T 13:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Patriot movement" is a phrasing largely unique to the US so there is no need to limit the scope in the title. However, "tax protester" is a generic term that applies to other countries. If this article only deals with tax protesters in the US, the title should say so. —  AjaxSmack  01:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @AjaxSmack: Are there sources that refer to "tax protester" activities in other countries that are not references by comparison to those activities in the United States? bd2412 T 02:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, there are and here, here and here are examples. But I agree that the phrase is almost always used by Americans. I should have made clearer here what I said below: the phrase "tax protester" is generic enough to be read as a descriptive (rather than a term) and the article title should therefore limit the topic to the US. —  AjaxSmack  03:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; we have been through this over and over and over and over again. The title has been renamed back and forth several times over the years. Please review the history. This has already been discussed over and over. If the title is changed yet once again (eg, back to "Tax Protester (United States)"), eventually someone will yet again ask that it be changed back. Famspear (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
99% of the article is US specific. In this case it is probably best to 'move', then create a stub article for Tax protestor.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonpatterns: Why don't you create the stub article first, in draft space, so we can see whether there is anything there that would justify moving this article? bd2412 T 13:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions need to be sorted out first, the Tax protester and Tax resistance article contradict each other (see Inconsistent definitions section below).Jonpatterns (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments below regarding "sorting out" definitions. The problem is that there might be a limit to what we as editors can do to "sort out" this sort of thing. Some of these terms have technical definitions that are generally accepted, but others (such as "tax resister") might be more difficult to pin down. Famspear (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this is technically a split proposal, a move should still be conducted first to keep the edit history with the majority of the content. Then the split can be conducted. —  AjaxSmack  01:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent definitions

[edit]

@GregKaye: the articles disagree about what a tax resister (resistance) and a tax protester are.

The article states:

Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against the government or its policies, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid.

However, the Tax resistance article says:

Tax resistance is the refusal to pay tax because of opposition to the government that is imposing the tax or to government policy or as opposition to the concept of taxation in itself.

Also the phrase opposition to the concept of taxation in itself is linked to Taxation as theft, rather than this article. Perhaps a tax protesters are a subset of tax resistors that specifically opposes the concept of tax?Jonpatterns (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some nuance here that maybe could be communicated better: Tax protesters don't typically oppose taxation on principle, but tend to insist either (1) that they happen not to be among those legally obligated to pay the taxes currently in force, or (2) that the taxes currently in force are not the ones that are legally authorized, or (3) that the legal authorization for the taxes currently in force is questionable. On the other hand, tax resisters include a minority who believe that compulsory taxation is by its very nature invalid, but also include those who resist as a protest against government behavior, as a form of nonviolent struggle to force government change, or as a form of conscientious objection; usually they do not make legalistic arguments about the validity of the tax laws, in contrast to the tax protesters. -Moorlock (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed reply. So a tax protester specifically denies 'tax liability'. Are they a subset of tax resisters, as a separate category? Also, do you have any sources for this definition? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nuance is more along the lines of tax resisters think taxes are excessive, or bad for the economy, or immoral (or the money is used immorally), while tax protesters say "if you turn the Constitution sideways and kind of squint at this one line, it means I don't have to pay taxes!" bd2412 T 17:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can probably find reliable sources for definitions for all these terms. However, in looking at the sources, we need to bear in mind that the definitions might be overlapping -- or even inconsistent -- or even contradictory or illogical -- or some combination of those attributes. If the definitions turn out to be overlapping or even illogical, we cannot change that. As editors of Wikipedia, we cannot "force" logic or consistency on reliable, previously published third party sources.

The term "tax protester" has more than one technical meaning, as I believe is explained in this article, or in one of the other tax-protester related articles, of which there are several in Wikipedia. (There are several of these articles for reasons that, in particular, editor BD2412 and I are familiar, having edited these articles since at least the year 2005).

Terms such as "tax resister" probably have less of a "technical" legal sense to them than do the terms "tax protester" (a term used by U.S. federal courts since the mid-1970s to describe people who make frivolous arguments about the U.S. federal income tax) or the term "tax denier" (a term more recently used by the U.S. Justice Department, and by the federal courts, meaning the same as "tax protester") -- but that fact might even make the meanings of terms like "tax resister" even more difficult to "pin down." Famspear (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources have contradicting definitions then Wikipedia should state that, rather than having two contradicting articles.Jonpatterns (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not actually as much of a contradiction as it seems. One can believe that the concept of taxation is bad without believing that it is legally invalid. bd2412 T 15:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me, I'm not talking about the concepts, the ledes of Tax protester and Tax resistance articles contradict each other.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US only phenomenon

[edit]

@BD2412: The concept denying personal 'tax liability' may have originated in US, but it has spread to other countries. It is also conceivable in any country with taxation and a legal system (although that may be a mute point). From the article:

The tax-protester phenomenon is not restricted to the United States. Similar arguments are raised in the context of other legal systems in other countries, although it is more notorious in the United States tax system.[14] It has been noted that tax protester theories originating in the United States, such as denying the authority of courts, have spread into Canada.[15]

It has also spread to the UK, with at least one person being jailed. ref 1ref 2 Jonpatterns (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should correct myself then, and say that it is so overwhelmingly a U.S. phenomenon that there is not enough to say about its more recent debut in other countries to take an article beyond being a stub. bd2412 T 17:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
US only phenomenon? The term "tax protester" may be largely an American phenomenon but it is a sufficiently vague/generic descriptive that the country should be included in the title to define the scope of the article. Wikipedia has many articles limited by country (e.g. with "XXX in the United States") that have no parent article (e.g., Professional and working class conflict in the United States, Cousin marriage court cases in the United States). —  AjaxSmack  01:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Calidum: See above discussion on whether 'tax protester' is only a US phenomenon. The term is kind of generic, and the ideas associated with the US meaning have spread to Canada and the UK. (BTW your 'vote' has gone in the discussion section, should be under survey) Jonpatterns (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we see the draft first?

[edit]

Before deciding to move this page in favor of a currently nonexistent draft, can someone actually put this draft together so we can see what we would be getting? It does not make sense to move this page from its current title and leave behind a red link or a stub that can not be expanded. We should see what it is getting replaced with first. bd2412 T 15:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about the first paragraph of the current article? —  AjaxSmack  02:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the first paragraph of this article is enough material to justify having an article. bd2412 T 02:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Stubs start small (see WP:TOOLITTLE). If it isn't enough, I would say delete it but I still support the move for reasons above. —  AjaxSmack  03:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have on several occasions successfully created a draft in draft space, and once it was fairly complete, proposed a multi-move to displace the existing article with the one that has been drafted. This avoids any period of having a stub of questionable value occupy the article title. bd2412 T 03:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea of creating a draft stub to better see how a separate article would look. I will create one if I get time.Jonpatterns (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

This article doesn't seem very neutral

[edit]

This isn't a subject I'm familiar with, but this doesn't seem very neutral to me. It seems that it leans heavily towards convincing the reader of the "fact" that tax protesters are nothing but a bunch of crackpots, and although the article itself doesn't use strong negative language, there is a careful selection of quotations from sources specifically intended to reinforce the negative viewpoint, with repeated references to them being "bizarre", "frivolous", etc, etc. Where are the quotes from people arguing in favor of this? I would say that just because the courts have decided the arguments are flawed doesn't mean they are by nature; that's merely what the court has found. Doesn't make it fact. It's like how Wikipedia isn't supposed to state that someone IS guilty, but that they were found guilty. This is like doing that, but only including the evidence that suggests that they are guilty or hints that their character is lacking, while neglecting to mention any evidence that could be used is that why you made sure to put "Tax protester arguments" on a separate page, so no-one would happen to see them unless they clicked on the link (which isn't very obvious at all; I didn't even realize it was there until I noticed someone mentioning it by its full name on the talk page; on the main article, there is one link that just says "arguments". I didn't even look at it, assuming it was a page about legal arguments, not specifically a page about arguments pertaining to this subject. Makes me wonder if that was intentional.) Overall, this article sounds like it was mostly written by people who feel strongly against tax protesters, an Wikipedia isn't supposed to sound like it's for or against anything.AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AnnaGoFast: The references to these arguments as frivolous, etc., are found in the texts of the almost countless court cases cited in the articles. The reason that the article comes off the way it does to you is indeed that you are not familiar with the subject, as you stated. Tax protester arguments are the legal equivalent, in the world of astronomy, of arguing that the Moon is made of Green Cheese. We've been through the NPOV issues in tax protester articles over and over and over and over and over for years.
The term "frivolous" is a legal term. It is the term that the law uses to describe tax protester arguments (and other nonsensical kinds of arguments).
The article does not say that the tax protesters are right or wrong. The article simply reports the arguments and the way that the courts deal with those arguments. The fact that their arguments are officially deemed bizarre and frivolous is not something that Wikipedia can change in an effort to appear "neutral." Neutral Point of View does not mean straining to give equal weight to all sides. Famspear (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I want to correct something you wrote. You wrote that "just because the courts have decided the arguments are flawed doesn't mean they are by nature; that's merely what the court has found." That is most certainly incorrect. By definition, under the U.S. legal system, except as noted below, the law is what the courts rule the law to be. There is no objective "correctness" of a legal argument that somehow trumps a court ruling. We do have a system whereby a lower court's ruling may be reversed by a higher court. Lower court rulings that are reversed, overruled, etc., can be said to have been "incorrect" -- but only a higher court can make that ruling.
This is a fundamental concept. Famspear (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may help. From Daniel B. Evans, an attorney who has written extensively about tax protesters and many other legal topics:

I am often asked, “Why do you always assume that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong?” Or, “Couldn’t the courts be wrong about what the Constitution means?” Those questions demonstrate that the questioner doesn’t really understand what is meant by “law” or the “rule of law.”
Law is not some kind of abstraction that floats in the air, free from any connection to people or events. “The law” is what legislatures, courts, and governments do, and the real test of what the law “is” shows in how the law is applied in actual cases.
So when lawyers talk about what “the law” is, they are talking about how a judge will rule. Not how the judge should rule, or might rule, but will rule. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once explained, “the only definition of law for a lawyer’s purposes is something which the Court will enforce.” Letter to Sir Frederick Pollock, 7/3/1874. Or, more famously: “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law.” The Paths of the Law (1897).
[ . . . ] when the courts, the legislatures, and the voters all agree on what the law is, then that is what the law is. The fact that some people believe that the law should be different that [sic] what courts have said it is doesn’t mean that the law is different from what the courts have said, but only that they should argue their positions within the political system and attempt to change the results.
In the case of the income tax, there is no conflict. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of our government, and a majority of the voters, have all agreed for more than 90 years that (1) an income tax is constitutional, (2) it applies to wages, and (3) every citizen and resident of every state is required to file a tax return and pay the tax [ . . . ]

--Daniel B. Evans, The Tax Protester FAQ.

Yours, Famspear (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, from a legal standpoint, it is not a question of "letting the reader decide" what is frivolous or bizarre. Only the courts can make that determination. If a reader decides that something is or is not frivolous or bizarre, the reader's decision does not bind Wikipedia. Wikipedia has to go with what reliable, previously published third party sources have decided. We're not going to delete what the sources say in a misguided effort to be fair or to "let the reader decide." Famspear (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: I'm not sure whether you're trying to argue that the articles need more actual quotations from the tax protesters when you say: "Where are the quotes from people arguing in favor of this?". Perhaps that was your point, perhaps it was not your point.

In case after case described in the various articles, Wikipedia accurately reports one argument after another from the tax protesters. Whether Wikipedia is quoting their arguments verbatim or not, the Wikipedia articles accurately summarize what the tax protesters were actually arguing. In the case of the court rulings, in many or most cases Wikipedia is summarizing the rulings (as opposed to providing verbatim quotations). In every single instance, whether summarizing or quoting, the Wikipedia descriptions of the tax protester arguments are indeed accurate, as are the descriptions of the court rulings. Famspear (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


A "TAX Protest" is in fact a notice of deficiency procedure

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The following is off-topic. The word "protest" is a widely used word; finding the word "protest" (not "protester") in a tax manual has no bearing on the well-defined topic of this article. This talk page is for improving the article on that topic and not a forum for griping about tax policy. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which then gives the taxpayer their "Appeal Rights". I would suggest you start looking at New York States Publication 131. And part 4 0f the Internal Revenue Deficiency procedures. New York seems to have their "Acts together" more so then the "IRS at this time. Please check their Statute of Limitations Laws. They are short, to the point, and in plain enough English for the majority of Americans to understand. 173.62.160.246 (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making a formal protest of an assessment and protesting the underlying laws using long-discredited, frivolous arguments and bizarre documents are not the same thing. It is easy to mistakenly read a common word like "protest" in two different contexts as being the same. The term "tax protester" describes the latter. Recent examples: 2016, 2017. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user at IP173.62.160.246: Under U.S. Federal tax law, the term "protest" is not generally used in response to a "notice of deficiency," but if you're trying to say that there is such a thing as a non-frivolous "protest," you are correct. This is already covered (in part) in the article -- in the section on "Origin of the term." Attorneys and CPAs who represent taxpayers in dealings with the Internal Revenue Service do file a document called a "protest" from time to time. The main subject of this article is not such valid protests. Famspear (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The document that is filed in response to a "notice of deficiency" from the Internal Revenue Service is called a "petition for redetermination" (not a "protest"). The petition is filed with the United States Tax Court. Famspear (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean substantiated and unsubstantiated protest. Or are you talking about a protected claim. I'm definitely not a fan of Appropriations...especially when the IRS doesn't understand the concept of a filed return as it relates to ADP. Someone once told me the reason for the TAX GAP was because of Small Businesses and the self employed...I thought that's what our country was founded on. People thought Scientology was a protest until Fred Goldberg happened. But I have to be honest with you...thank you for your perspective. I believe in and love our country, but not when the three branches standby and keep silent unless they are suffering in silence. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.160.246 (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

The following was prepared by a staff of tax experts and edited by an Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of Tax Litigation in the Department of Justice and formerly legal assistant to Presiding Judge, U.S. Tax Court... During an audit in which the taxpayer disagrees with an overassessment or additional tax due, after receiving a thirty day letter along with report he has thirty days after the date of the letter in which to "protest" formally the "IRS": findings. The taxpayer registers his protest (in triplicate) setting forth the following information: (a) Name and address of the taxpayer (in case of an individual, the residence and in case of a corporation, the principal office or place of business); (b) In the case of a corporation, the state in which incorporated; (c) The designation by date and symbol of the letter advising of the determination with respect to which protest is made (d) The designation of the year or years covered and a statement of the amount of tax liability in dispute for each year; (e) An itemized schedule of the findings to which the taxpayer takes exception: (f) A statement of the grounds upon which the taxpayer relies in connection with each exception: and (g) In case the taxpayer desires a hearing, a statement to that effect.

The protest must be executed by the taxpayer under oath and filed with the IRS. In most cases the taxpayer may secure an extension of time which to file the protest if he can show reason for such extension and the statute of limitations will not expire. It is a matter of judgement in each case as to how full and technical the letter of protest should be. Generally, nothing is to be gained by making the protest brief. In most cases, the taxpayer should file as thorough and carefully prepared a protest as the facts and questions of law require. In some cases involving complicated and technical questions of law, the protest can mostly be in the nature of a legal brief. 

  The taxpayer may prepare the protest himself, but if the questions are complicated he is better advised to turn the matter over to an accountant or an attorney.  If either of the latter prepare the protest, they must be licensed to appear before the Department of Treasury.  In almost all cases where a protest is filed, the taxpayer will wish to request a hearing since failure to request a hearing will normally result in no change in the view of the IRS and result in the issuance of a 90 day letter.

A case will only be considered by the Technical Staff after a protest has been filed. If you'd like I can continue on how an assessment is made or a claim for refund is prepared along with "jeopardy" assessments, the book... KEY TO INCOME TAX. Please do not be so quick to blow me off. You just might save the country billions of dollars.173.62.160.246 (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.


July 2019 - This article doesn't seem very neutral

[edit]

I know this seems to be an article from Oberlin to use ago and if I'm posted in the wrong spot I do apologize it is only my first day on Wikipedia editing and this was my first edit I have a suggestion that might satisfy both sides because I agreed the way it's written it's written it's slanted way too far against the tax protesters. I would suggest this language or something similar to it. In its own section. Wall most people and legal sources consider tax payer argumentt that's invalid and frivolous. It's is not Wikipedia's place to make that judgment and link to a separate page that woild cover tax protestors arguments in n a positive light. Hi would even volunteer to write it. Bringing TruthToWikiped (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The arguments seem both well balanced and adequately supported by independent and reliable sources. I would suggest that if you have other reliable and independent sources that present a different slant, then please bring them to this talk page for consideration. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   19:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing TruthToWikiped Thanks for using the talk page, although adding these comments to the end of a three-year-old thread isn't ideal - a better approach would have been to use the 'New Section' button near the top to start a new discussion thread. Now, what you are suggesting in setting up an alternative page that discusses tax protestors in a more positive light would be a POVFORK, and it isn't something that we do. Our goal is to have a single, neutral article, but by neutral we mean that we reflect what the balance of reliable, independent sources say about a subject. Where these is substantial disagreement between reliable sources we may describe both 'sides' equally, but where the vast majority of reliable sources say one thing, and a few frenge sources say another, we follow the reliable sources. If you think that there are reliable sources that we are not using here, and which show a different side of things, by all means mention them here, providing links if possible. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "Bringing TruthToWikiped": The article is not "slanted" one way or another. The reason you are getting the feeling that it is slanted is that the article is accurately reporting on what reliable sources say. The article does this in a neutral way. Neutral Point of View is a term of art in Wikipedia; it does not mean giving equal weight to all sides, and it does not mean straining to present the material in a way that leaves the reader with a false impression of what reliable sources say.

I have been studying Federal tax law for over 40 years, and I have been studying tax protester cases for over 20 of the past 40 years. In the United States, as of today, no tax protester argument has ever been upheld in any Federal court. That is a remarkable record. Tax protester arguments, in the legal world, are the rough equivalent of trying to argue, in an article on The Moon, that The Moon is made of green cheese. No reliable source will ever make such a claim. Neutral Point of View does not mean giving equal weight to frivolous positions. Neutral Point of View means reporting on what reliable sources say without taking sides. Famspear (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The EL section was ridiculous under any reasonable reading of WP:ELNO. Wikipedia is not a link directory. I cut it back to the IRS FAQ; if any of the below are adjudged better single ELs, that could certainly be replaced. Some of these might serve as references that cound be pulled back into the article, most wouldn't seem to:

- David Gerard (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverted. Some of these are obviously good. How about a case-by-case analysis for the exclusion of any particular link? BD2412 T 18:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have thought per WP:ELMIN that the onus was the other way: why are each of these such good links they belong at the end of an extensively-referenced article? - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of these obviously are good links, which makes blanket removal problematic. BD2412 T 19:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sites and archives of random non-notable tax protestors would obviously not be, I'd think. Per WP:ELMIN, what are the sites that are obviously good enough to pass WP:EL? - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • At the very least, the Evans, Siegel, Sussman, and Quatloos pages should be retained. The "archives of random non-notable tax protestors" are useful to the extent that they provide examples of what tax protester arguments actually look like. Perhaps they could be better labeled to this end. BD2412 T 19:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, what justifies them? What justifies linking particular non-notable cranks? If we had notable ones, they'd already have wikilinks in the article, making an EL redundant. What makes the particular arguments against cranks worth keeping? What makes a link to FEE, a heterodox (an economics term meaning "crank with a job") blog post worth linking?
              WP:LINKFARM, which is policy, surely applies directly; and it refers to guideline WP:EL, which says Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. This is policy and long-standing established practice that strongly suggests culling the list to a minimum. Is there a countervailing policy and guidelines case that you have in mind? - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tax_protester&oldid=1258761365"