Talk:Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments

The main section of this article seems to violate Wikipedia’s current NPOV policy

The main sections of this article are sections 1 and 2. Section 2 ("Sixteenth Amendment effectiveness"), which is very long, is actually off topic. (Benson, who was important enough of a protester to have been hit with an injunction to stop selling protesting materials didn't apparently use the argument of section 2. See paragraph #1, page 1, document 116 of USA vs. Benson, case #1:04-cv-07403, 2008.) Section 1 is entitled, “Sixteenth Amendment ratification.” I submit that this section seems to violate Wikipedia’s current NPOV policy and for the following reasons. The NPOV policy requires that articles here are neutral, and do not favor one side or another. In the instant situation, it is important to recognize what the exact titles currently are. The overall article title is not “Court Decisions Regarding the US 16th Amendment.” Rather, it is “Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments.” However, none of the three quoted sections of section 1 present tax protester arguments. Rather, they only present opinions from courts. [A court's perspective in United States v. Thomas is first quoted. Then, a court of appeals' perspective is quoted. Lastly, in Baker v. Commissioner, that court is quoted.] This is a general reflection of the bias of the article. The lack of disclosure of arguments from the protesters goes against the title and also violates NPOV for two reasons. First, the protesters arguments are not being presented except through the bias of the rulings of the courts against them. Second, normally one might get away with viewing courts as NPOV, but not when they are, as here, essentially, defendants. The protesters are implicitly asserting that the government is corrupt and dishonest. From a theoretical perspective, the base assertion of a ratification issue would not seem ridiculous. (That a politician might be fearful of not getting reelected if they were "caught" voting in favor of taxing their voters.) The US court system is a branch of government. Therefore, for section 1 of this article to only be showing the government’s side of the argument against them (which asserts they are dishonest) is clearly biased, since only the defendant’s counterargument to the arguments are outlined. It is also relatively worthless, since it uses circular reasoning. (If the plaintiff's argument is correct, then the defendant's words cannot be trusted in the first place.) In short, section 1 currently just says, "We, accused of lying about ratification, did not lie, and actually told the truth, and, therefore, are totally innocent."

Section 1 is basically doing a bait and switch, claiming to present tax protesters’ arguments but only presenting counterarguments of tax protesters’ arguments. If either side should be presented, it would be the side not shown; there's not really any need to present the government's rebuttals, since the article title does not encompass their disclosure here.

It is important to realize that the title does not require restricting things to legal cases. Indeed, some arguments never end up in any court of law, and that would almost certainly include some arguments from tax protesters. Articles on Higgs boson arguments do not only consider what courts think, and the same should be true of this article allegedly about tax protesters. This makes the article's focus on Benson seem only to intentionally sandbag and obfuscate whatever the more legitimate arguments might be, and dilute the Wikipedia brand, for this obvious and blatant bias would only be here for bad reasons.

I propose any of the following solutions to the situation:

1. Deleting the entire article. 2. Including the best actual arguments of the tax protesters, such as a listing of which states ratified what Congress actually voted on, which did not, and exactly why. 3. Changing the title to be congruent with the existing pro-government POV, like “US Court Decisions Regarding the 16th Amendment.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasontaylor7 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia does not give equal weight to theories which fall far outside of mainstream thought on a topic. The vast majority of people who work in the field of taxation in the United States, including those whose interest is in reducing taxes payable, consider the Sixteenth Amendment to be valid and effective. Furthermore, like the rest of the constitution and laws of the United States, the Sixteenth Amendment is a legal construct. Therefore, the determinations of courts, whose function is to parse legal constructs, is dispositive regarding the meaning of the text or the validity of arguments against it. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have not been hesitant to strike down unconstitutional laws, or incorrect agency interpretations of the constitution, so there is no basis to question the determinations of courts with respect to the Sixteenth Amendment specifically. As for arguments that have not been brought before the courts, given the wide array of arguments about the Sixteenth Amendment that have been brought before the courts, and the ease with which such arguments can be brought, it is implausible that there is a decent argument that has not yet been litigated. bd2412 T 16:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

BD2412, if WP:FRINGE indeed prevents the title-teased subject from being addressed accurately in an unbiased fashion in the body of the instant article, then indeed delete the article or change the title of it so it is not incongruent with the title-teased content. (You're basically saying Wikipedia does not discuss arguments about X even though there's an article, "Arguments about X.")

Your argument that US courts supply good answers to articles similar this one is generally contradicted because many court cases are disposed of for reasons of legality unrelated to the real issue a reader of an article about a group's argument would probably be interested in. For instance, if an otherwise winning legal case/brief is presented to the wrong court, the plaintiff will likely lose on jurisdictional arguments not of actual interest the readers here. Similarly, the first-quoted case basically was disposed of on the basis that that court does not need to review what they deem beyond review; the underlying arguments were not really addressed.

But, for the sake of argument here, let's just give you the benefit of the doubt. Even in that case, the title still implies that only the opening plaintiff briefs, reply briefs, and appeal or request for rehearing briefs of related lawsuits should be quoted. Instead, as already pointed out, we only see quotes of what is effectively the defendant's briefs. Your argument does not alter this problem. Rather, it suggests the article be deleted, if anything. Indeed, my fears wikipedia could be biased against anti-government ideologies and for pro-establishment ones is bolstered both by the clear bias of the existing article and your comment, which essentially defends the existing clash of the title and the article body, and in no way admits anything I wrote is reasonable. Jasontaylor7 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Documents filed directly by the plaintiffs in these cases would be primary sources, which are disfavored because they can say literally anything. A litigant can file a suit with a pleading alleging that the Earth is flat, Santa Claus is real, and cats secretly rule the world through mind control rays. It is the role of the court to weigh those claims and determine if they are factually evidenced and legally sound. As for jurisdictional arguments, those are irrelevant here. Courts have ruled upon the actual arguments that have been raised, and those rulings are reflected in the article. If you feel that the article should be deleted, instructions are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you feel that the article should be renamed, instructions for that are at Wikipedia:Requested moves. None of those efforts will change the reality that arguments about taxation being unconstitutional or illegal are fringe arguments, not taken seriously by experts in the field. bd2412 T 19:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

bd2412, thanks but I'm not going to delete anything. I mean, I was just wanting to point out a potential violation of a Wikipedia policy, that's all. I don't have any dog in this fight; just wanting to bring the issue to the attention of the powers that be (i.e., you). I came here to learn what the deal was with an odd comment someone had sent me, and was disappointed to learn that the article here was a bait and switch. It failed to teach me what the title promised to teach, and largely kept me in the dark about whatever their arguments were.

You wrote,

"Courts have ruled upon the actual arguments that have been raised, and those rulings are reflected in the article."

Feel free to think this, but I'm not so sure, and your missing the point of the jurisdictional example does not help your case. Setting aside the dicta, as the last sentence of the first quoted passage explained, that court disposed of that case on the basis of precedent allowing it to not address the actual allegations at hand. That might seem as a ruling upon the actual arguments, but it is the opposite to me (i.e., it is a ruling based on a different argument that allows disposition without touching upon plaintiff's arguments). Moreover, because some of the protester cases are stamped "cert denied", this means that the protesters challenged this precedent, and scotus (which in a broader context is the defendant), basically said that even though they are totally free the precedent that was used, it is and was still best to not be addressing (or ruling upon) those protester arguments. In other words, scotus essentially has the power and discretion to not address the main protester argument, so it was not addressed. Jasontaylor7 (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)