Talk:Tax protester arguments/Archive 1

message: This article has already reached 59k - I propose splitting it into 3 sub-articles, one on the constitutional arguments (e.g. 16th Amendment is invalid; 1st/5th/14th says I don't have to pay; TONA); a second on the statutory arguments (e.g. "no statute says I have to pay a tax on wages"; OMB control number; the 861 arg.); and a third argument for general wackiness (e.g. I don't have to pay taxes because the court spells my name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS and the like). bd2412 T 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear fellow editors: I agree with BD2412, because this topic (just the tax protester arguments) can still stand some more expansion. We haven't even yet incorporated all the main arguments -- such as the "income tax is voluntary" argument (which is a variation on the "there is no law requiring me to pay or file" argument, but based on a different theory). Yours, Famspear 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - should be easier to break each down now. bd2412 T 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overly long again

message: Due to the major format change, we should make sure we have updated all the What links here links.  I'd also like to note that I think we should change the format slightly.  Remove the bullets and turn them into paragraphs.  Change the numbers sections to headers and add a "main" tag to link to the page.  Morphh 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be glad to check all the "what links here" stuff. Does anybody want to handle the other stuff? Yours, Famspear 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have umpteen Tax Protester pages, I was actually thinking of putting together a template to link them all. bd2412 T 21:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear BD2412: Well, will a template get me lots of hot dates with sexy Italian chicks? Oh, wait a minute, my spousal unit at home would never go for that. Seriously, I'm gonna show my ignorance here: I don't know how a template works or what it does, but I trust your judgment. Go for it! Yours, Famspear 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok.. Made the changes - While I think the other format looked great, I think this follows wikipedia's higher standards.  Wikilinks in titles and bullets do not fair to well on GA or FA review.  The paragraphs should probably be flushed out a little more to provide a better summary of the main article.  Morphh 02:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're also in need of references on these articles. Morphh 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have any specific suggestions.  Books, Internet articles, Magazines... something that says this information is valid and can be verified here.  I'll add some fact tags and perhaps we can fill some in.  Delete them if you think it does not require a source.  Morphh 20:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear fellow editors. I went ahead and removed the rest of the tags and replaced them with references to the materials already covered in the articles. It seems a bit duplicative to me, as the article already contains links to the related articles on constitutional, statutory and conspiracy arguments -- but I've tried to keep the references in this article brief. In my opinion we just don't want the articles to be overly repetitive. Yours, Famspear 15:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the general view that articles may not rely on other Wikipedia articles for verifiability.  Suppose that article A relies extensively on certain cases that are cited in article B, and so linked.  A later edit to Article B replaces those cases with others, and the citations in question are removed.  Article A now has no citations, and neither an editor of A nor an editor of B will necessarily know that fact. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major format changes

message: Dear fellow editors: An anonymous user inserted some incorrect language regarding the Stanton case in the article on the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I have moved that material to Tax protester constitutional arguments and added some additional information showing what the U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled in the case.
Tax protesters have been posting here in Wikipedia regarding the Stanton case since before I began editing here (late in 2005). Unfortunately for tax protesters, Stanton is another classic case where the United States Supreme Court UPHELD the income tax as constitutional -- in this case under both the 5th and 16th Amendments! You would think they would at least try to avoid citing cases with rulings that directly contradict their arguments! Yours, Famspear 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. added to [[Tax protester constitutional arguments]]

message: Dear fellow editors: I have added information on this case to the article on Tax protester constitutional arguments. Although this was a case of statutory construction, I have added it to the "constitution" article (and not at Tax protester statutory arguments), as I think the protesters essentially make a constitutional argument -- albeit an incorrect one -- based on this case. Yours, Famspear 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.