Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-21 Tax protester

message: All discussion on this page will remain civil.  Any Personal Attacks, Rude comments or vandalism will be removed and reported.  Æon Insanity Now! 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

message: Ok, here is my neutral take on this issue before the discussion begins.  Please keep in mind a few things, that one I have no interest in the subject of Law, two I'm not a member of the Tax project, and three that my opinions are just that opinions and can be ignored.  Now that being said lets get to business.
My overall take on the article is that it is fairly NPOV.  I will grant you that some work does need to occur with it in order to achieve a better standard but for the most part the cites and information are presented fairly clearly.  Reviewing the proved difs and keeping in mind that this article seems to cover the United States definition they seem to be very relevant to the article.  The dictionary definitions are ok but as this is an encyclopedia more is really needed for an article.  If the arcile only contained a basic dictionary definition it mostly be Transwikied over the Wiktionary which would be the correct venue for that type of entry.  I again as a neutral editor do not see the overall problem of having the current legal definition (for lack of a better term) from the courts included and cited in the article. 
As for the opening paragraph (assuming by first paragraph you MPublius are referring to the opening paragraph), per Wikipedia's manual of style an introductory paragraph is needed.  The current opening in my opinion is fairly well written and does what it needs to do quite well, granted given the article quality and topic.  To remove it again in my opinion could harm the article needlessly. 
Now this is open for a calm debate.  Hopefully I will be able to help guide you all to a solution that doesn't involved other DR steps.  Æon Insanity Now! 00:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator View of the Issue

message: Here is the basic issue in a nutshell. Mpublius, in his opening statement on this mediation he requested, said "The government, Daniel Evans, and some Wikipedia editors are destroying the English language to advance a biased political agenda". Well, if we take out "Daniel Evans, and some Wikipedia editors", what's left is the really relevant point, which is Mpublius' belief that "The government [is] destroying the English language to advance a biased political agenda". When he says the government, he is of course referring to the entire United States government, the legislative, executive, and most of all judicial branches, each of which have used or are using that specific phrase to advance that "biased political agenda". And the "biased agenda" to which Mpublius refers is not that taxes are "good" or "useful" or "well-designed", but that they exist. 
Courts use the phrase "tax protester" specifically to designate those who contend that there is no such thing as an income tax. The term itself is not inherently pejorative, but those to whom it has been applied have come to believe that it is because it's use invariably precedes the determination by a court or other factfinder that an individual has raised an utterly nonsensical theory against the legality of the income tax. Somehow, I doubt it would be well taken if we were to change the name of this group of articles to "frivolous arguments about income tax" or "discredited arguments about income tax". Cheers! bd2412 T 05:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue Discussion