Talk:IRS targeting controversy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about IRS targeting controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

split back to a separate article

The Political profiling at the Internal Revenue Service article is a good one, but IRS Tea Party investigation deserves to be its own article. I've split it back, and copied over all of the talk page. TJIC (talk) 11:34, 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)

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)
- done. TJIC (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

large change adding irrelevant c3 info

the adding of all the c3 information needs to come out. One is left with the impression that c3 limits, which are not the same as 501 c 4 are applicable in thee cases. they are not. When this article first appeared I linked to the c4 subsection. Now the link is to the c3 and we also have all kinds of text on c3 which is totally irrelevant.

c4 can be 100% engaged in political issues and public affairs. they are allowed to be. They are constrained (only limited not forbidden) in spending on addressing specific legislation before congress. But a c4 can in fact be completely about political issues and be fully compliant. the mixing in of c3 rules in this article is utterly irrelevant and a diversion. Whoever added a few hours ago is wrong. Carwon (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 May 2013. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

The result was 10 keeps and 1 delete.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjic (talk • contribs) 11:34, 14 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Pro-Israel Group details?

There's now inclusion of additional groups targeted beyond just the Tea Party and Conservative groups. Pro-Israel groups being targeted is now listed in the article, which is causing some potential confusion (no references shown so far stated that Tea Party groups were being asked for pro- or anti-Israel leanings).

Should these be broken into a separate article? Or should wording be reworked to address potential confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.42.34 (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only is it unrelated to audits of tea party groups, there is no evidence presented that groups were targeted that were pro-Israel. The article states that any organization related to Israel or other areas that deal with a lot of terrorism tends to be given extra scrutiny. If anything, the information presented in the article seems to imply that the IRS is looking for anti-Israel leanings, not the other way around. I'm going to remove that item. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

An alternative to making yet another article would be to rename the current one to be more generic to fit the multiple criteria that the IRS used for special handling of 501 tax exempt applications. As I understand matters this would be targeting tea parties, constitutionalists, pro-Israel groups, and groups that want to "make America better". All of these were subject to the same sort of intrusive run around and non-approval while more favored groups sailed through. I suggest as an alternative name Obama Administration IRS Abuse. This would also have the advantage of including the relevant issues of political audits. There's a lady, Dr. Anne Hendershott, who would fit into the wider article because of an audit that seems to have been politically motivated to shut her up but probably isn't properly included in the current narrow title because she was targeted for criticizing what she called fake catholic groups who went against Church teaching and gave cover for Obama. Also there's the whole pro publica issue of leaked applications that would benefit from a wider title. TMLutas (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Context

on 16 May user User:NorthBySouthBaranof removed two major sections of the article:

Background: Citizens United and National Politics
Background: IRS culture

I note that I personally created the former section, and I did it in response to a critique on this talk page from user "-BC aka 68.236.126.150" who argues that Citizens United is key to understanding the situation. The inclusion of this section seems important to the left-of-center understanding of the situation, and while I personally don't dislike the Supreme Court ruling, it is fair and relevant to include the left-wing perspective. Please do not delete an important frame.

Re: the second one: if these numbers are real, then this section also seems quite important. There is no credible assertion that the scandal was directed from the White House (unlike, say, Nixon's IRS investigations). That being the case, the natural questions are "who?" and "why?". Background on the make up of the departments in question seems entirely relevant to me - if only to defeat countervailing arguments that "Obama is evil ; he directed this all".

Please either

leave these sections alone
add information to them
argue here in the talk page about them

Please do NOT just delete large blocks of text that are well sourced and foot-noted. TJIC (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In general, good policy on all articles about potentially contentious political topics is to discuss large proposed changes. Yes, Wikipedia:Be bold, but

substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories... should be done with extra care

I grant that this is a young article, but there are multiple stake-holders here. Let's talk this stuff out instead of engaging in revert wars. I welcome all contributions to this page and have left the vast majority alone because they help the page. I'm only fixing those places where big chunks of text are removed. TJIC (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Citizen's United

Citizens United is key, and I have not removed mention of it. I have simply rewritten the section to remove the pipelink and use the appropriate full name of the case decision. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, great. Again, Citizen's United is not my axe to grind, but I'm trying to be fair and I included it because a left-wing editor ASKED for it. I think fairness requires that we leave it in (as we seem to be agreed), because it seems to be a deeply relevant frame for some understandings of the issue. The political skew within the IRS seems equally relevant to others and I think we should leave it in. TJIC (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The alleged political skew. Political donations do not prove a general bias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

OR

Are there significant secondary sources which refer to IRS employees' political contributions in relation to this matter? If not, linking those political contributions is original research and synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Are there significant secondary sources which refer to IRS employees' political contributions in relation to this matter?" Please read the footnotes that were attached to the text you deleted. TJIC (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:OR] "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed". The deleted text went about and beyond that; it actually attributed it. TJIC (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The material was attributable but it was not attributable to be relevant to the topic. That is, linking those political contributions to this topic is prohibited synthesis unless sourced to a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

One column by a conservative pundit in a conservative online magazine is not necessarily a "significant secondary source."NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's Huffington Post making the same point: [1] TJIC (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's sufficient in my opinion. But it belongs not in a "Background" section, because it's not "background" nor does it have anything to do with "culture." It's a reaction piece written after the fact discussing what some allege to be a skew or a motivation. It belongs either in "Reaction" or in a section about alleged motivations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

misc

I replaced the mention of Douglas Shulman because 1. your removal of it left his last name hanging all over the article without mention of who the heck Shulman was and 2. if it is relevant that the acting commissioner of the IRS resigned because of this matter, it is relevant who the person in charge of the IRS during the entire time the scandal developed was. There are extensive secondary sources noting his connection, and he is scheduled to testify before Congress. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion version

Please discuss proposed edits re: this version. My proposal contains all the related information, but is more readable, less repetitious and unwieldy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Article name

I think the title of the article "IRS Tea Party Investigation" is sub-optimal.

not all organizations were tea-party affiliated
the word "investigation" is ambiguous, and does not focus on the fact that the IRS is the entity that's the focus of the news.
the problem was not merely investigations done by the IRS; foot-dragging is at least as big a deal.
the problem also encompassed the illegal release of as-yet unapproved applications to third-party groups

I've looked at media coverage to see what terms are being used and in Wikipedia for similar articles. Typical suffixes are "-gate", "Affair" and "Scandal"

I note also the report has been released with the title

Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review

I propose the new title for this article of

2013 IRS Inappropriate Criteria for Conservative Charities Scandal

as in keeping with Wikipedia norms

Thoughts? TJIC (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Charities" is not the appropriate term for c4. C4 are civic education not for profits orgs. "Charities" implies their issues education work is somehow outside a c4 purview, when in fact advocacy and education of civic issues can legally be 100% of their activities. "social welfare" can be 100% civics, ie advocacy of a point of view in the political sphere. A prior editor even when to the c4 section and incorrectly linked social welfare to the article on "welfare", which gives you a hint of the problem using the term "charities."

I would suggest "2013 Criminal Probe into conservative group targeting by the IRS"Carwon (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also since a criminal probe was just launched by the FBI, "inappropriate" maybe too soft a word.Carwon (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a rename, since it appears Liberal groups were targeted as well. What to change it to, I'm not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest WP:COMMONNAME What are sources calling it? As for liberal groups, I have no doubt that some liberal groups were caught up in the dragnet, but that source, and no others that I have seen to this point, say that liberal groups were targeted. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I concur. A scan of Google news shows that most sources are calling it just "IRS Scandal". So, what do folks think? "2013 IRS Scandal" ?

Since the behavior seems to have started in 2010 and there are RS mentions of this that far back, perhaps the 2013 is a bit too optimistic. I'm fine for "Obama Administration IRS Scandal" or "Obama Administration IRS Abuse" TMLutas (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The scandal began in 2013 whether the activities that caused the scandal began earlier. IRS Scandal is what most news sources are using. As a result 2013 IRS Scandal seems the best title. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

When did Watergate begin? The timeline says 1971 but it really didn't hit the papers until much later. Obama Administration IRS scandal works better because it doesn't have a date that artificially limits the article. TMLutas (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Background should not be three giant sections

Having three giant sections labeled "Background" is terrible writing. I've consolidated the three and rewritten the section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You've not "consolidated" it; you've removed 90% of it.

You've done this repeatedly, despite my requests that we talk over contentious changes here in the talk page. Please stop removing huge chunks of information from the article. This is not about who can hit the "undo" button faster; this is about reaching a consensus on what constitutes good information. I've listed this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring; hopefully we can get some third party to step in here and help negotiate a reasonable solution. TJIC (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fundamentally untrue that I "removed 90% of it." I rewrote it and moved parts of it around to relevant sections, consolidating the headings to avoid the really, really ugly version that exists now. "Background" should be a single section, not three giant headings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Background should be a single section, not three giant headings." Says who? That's your personal aesthetic preference, and that's fine, but I suggest that there are three different things that contribute to background, and it makes sense to call them out. As an olive branch: Perhaps we can agree to use three-equal-sign headings to break them up within one background section? TJIC (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"IRS culture" is not "background." Those accusations are *reactions* to the scandal. You don't mention alleged motives before you've mentioned what actually happened. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Background" is matter that happened before an event and which is useful to know to help understand an event. You are arguing that the background information (the political culture of the IRS) only was investigated after the scandal. That's not true - the data was there well before the scandal. It only became interesting and relevant after the scandal. That doesn't argue against it being background, though - it's actually an argument FOR it being background. TJIC (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You've made a number of significant (one could even say contentious) additions to the article without talking it over or reaching consensus first, and now you are asking that editors who have a problem with those and similar additions talk to you before removing them. There are a number of serious problems with the article now that didn't even exist yesterday, including basic formatting, style and typos. There are also major issues that include WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and others. For example, statements concerning what "critics say" about IRS culture and political spending by the IRS union. I'll try to fix some of this. I'd suggest we talk about reasons that it **should** be included if you are tempted to undo their removal, because really, the responsibility for providing good, verifiable, neutral content is on the person adding it. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 23:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"You've made a number of significant additions to the article without talking it over or reaching consensus first". Guilty as charged. I started the article and wrote 90% of it. Which is not remotely to say that I own it or have any more right to edit it than anyone else...but it is to say that the context of my large additions was "started with nothing, added 500 words. Later, added 500 words. Later, added 500 words. etc." So it's not like I took a 4 year old article and suddenly doubled it in size without talking to the dozens of people who had been working on it. I also started the talk page, despite the fact that no one else was editing the article. Why did I start it? Because I wanted to create a community and get input. User:NorthBySouthBaranof is the one who came to an existing page with a lot of information and made huge edits without discussing them. I've been trying to get a good article here AND I've been trying to get a good group to work together on this article since the beginning. TJIC (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's nice that you took the initiative. I guess it was inevitable that this article would get controversial. From what I've seen, most of North's concerns are likely valid. An article about a politically sensitive topic should be more careful than most to be neutral, high-quality and use reliable sources. I think the article in its current state is pretty good in terms of reliable sources, and we should build on that with more such information. A lot can still be done in terms of organization and formatting. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

what I removed

I just removed quite a bit. This included content sourced to hotair, newsmax, etc., which is just a terrible idea. I would not be opposed to adding some of it back with half-decent sources. I removed something from dailymail (not a great source either) that conflicted with content from CNN. I removed content about what "critics say" which is just POV and doesn't help to inform anyone. I removed content about IRS union/employee political donations, which seems to be making a political point and is probably synth (besides, those trends are probably similar for all government employees and unions). I removed a poll from a possibly biased source that also doesn't provide actual information on the topic. I removed a couple of small things that are just unnecessary, like Obama being elected in 2008. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 23:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You removed info and refs from ABC News, Daily Mail, The Atlantic, Open Secrets, Newsmax and Hot Air. Only Hot Air and Newsmax haven't always been accepted at RS/N. Frankly the information from hotair can be sourced at a variety of other RS. Please self-revert and remove only the bad sourced info. 00:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Please self-revert; you've removed a lot of good info. TJIC (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if you delete crtiticism from a scandal article you won't have much content.Capitalismojo (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, our primary goal should be to report on the "scandalous" behavior that occurred and the consequences as reported in reliable sources. There is no need to include criticism from ideological pundits and columnists, or if it is included, it should be for a good reason and balanced by other points of view. As I said, some of what I removed due to bad sourcing might be worth keeping with better sources, like the info on required documentation. Just show us the sources. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 02:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit needed

The second sentence in the Background section starts "501(c)(4) organizations ...". A sentence should not start with a digit. It should be changed to something like "Organizations under 501(c)(4)..." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section Description, reformat the references in the following passages so that (1) the reference follows the punctuation and (2) there is no space immediately before the reference:

were focused on challenging the Affordable Care Act — known by many as Obamacare [5]
questioned the integrity of federal elections. [5]
Flagged organizations had their applications delayed for up to 27 months, and/or were required to provide further documentation that was "overreaching and impossible to comply with" [6].

RJaguar3 | u | t 13:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The poor copy editing and grammar is fully protected? Only on Wikipedia. 24.190.48.127 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

On the bright side, you can fix it after three days. I've seen worse in "mainstream" sources that just don't get fixed ever. TMLutas (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Also did a bunch of others I found. ~ Amory (u • t • c)

edit needed: planted question

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/irs-planted-question-at-aba-mtg-disclosing-targeting-of-conservatives/

At the hearings this morning, Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller admitted Lerner knew about the question in advance, and that it was planned by the IRS

TJIC (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Deceptive Title & Missing Information

Why does the title mention "Tea Party," a term that only accounted for a small minority of the criteria used to identify applicants that required additional scrutiny? The article seems to be written from the assumption that the IRS was intentionally "targeting" conservative groups specifically and intentionally delaying their assessment. Poor criteria / mismanagement lead to a disproportionate amount of conservative groups being selected for additional scrutiny. This is never explained. In the second section: "Flagged organizations had their applications delayed for up to 27 months" acts like these applicants were intentionally delayed, it never mentions the back log was caused by staffing shortages, cuts, etc. All investigations found no evidence of intentional bias against or "targeting" of any particular group, just a poorly managed process of identifying political organizations. The article should be revised to better illustrate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octopunch (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Obama's brother's application went through in one month. Does this "better illustrate this".True Observer (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Why does the title mention "Tea Party," We already have agreed to rename it "2013 IRS Scandal". See above.
"In the second section: "Flagged organizations had their applications delayed for up to 27 months" acts like these applicants were intentionally delayed, it never mentions the back log was caused by staffing shortages, cuts, etc." It's been documented that non-profits with left-sounding names were approved much faster, so your point doesn't seem to be true.
"All investigations found no evidence of intentional bias against or "targeting" of any particular group" This does not seem to be true. Source? TJIC (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's under protection. We can't make the change unless the admin assists. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Non Tea Party incident sourcing

Since there doesn't seem to be serious opposition to turning this into a more general roundup article of all the IRS dirty laundry coming out on the theory that these things are connected, add in more and better sources so we don't have this stuff go back and forth because of source issues. Here are some starter topics with one source each.

Pro-life groups targeted http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-irs-denied-tax-exempt-status-to-pro-lifers-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/article/2529750 TMLutas (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Catholic professor targeted http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/2251/Catholic-Professor-Claims-She-was-Targeted-by-IRS-Auditors.aspx TMLutas (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hispanic conservatives targeted http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/05/16/irs-allegedly-targeted-latino-run-conservative-group/ TMLutas (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

pro-israel groups targeted http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/israel-related-groups-also-pointed-to-irs-scrutiny-91298.html TMLutas (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There must be more connecting each incident than "a theory" or unsupported speculation. I haven't reviewed all the claims you listed, but at least the Catholic professor's claim is highly speculative, and there's no evidence presented to suggest that it was anything more than a standard audit. Moreover, she is not a non-profit organization claiming tax-exempt status, which means that she would not have fallen under either the allegedly-improper guidelines or the purview of the particular staff which has been said to have acted improperly. For her to claim that her audit is connected in any way is an extraordinary claim that needs more evidence than bald assertions.

Scandals can easily become a coatrack for all sorts of wild claims and speculation, and we need to scrupulously avoid that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't reviewed it, you have no cause to comment. Go review and then comment. Some of this stuff may not pan out which is why I'm looking for sourcing, not putting out proposed texts. And as for the Catholic professor, it's really unusual to audit a joint return and bar the attendance of the major breadwinner on that return. To dismiss that as a 'standard audit' is an odd, shoot from the hip choice.

You seem to be under the impression that the major problem here is the slowdown in approvals. That's not the only major problem in this scandal. The intrusive questions on the tea party applications were data gathering for other activities, like improper audits on tax and regulatory matters according to people who have been looking at this for several years now. Pro Publica, not a water carrier for the right wing wrote about getting leaked confidential docs by the same people at the IRS. There are also allegations that this goes beyond the IRS. TMLutas (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I just told you that I reviewed the Catholic professor entry. That's why I questioned it - because at this point, the scandal is about reviews of tax-exempt non-profit organizations which were screened using improper criteria. A Catholic professor is not a tax-exempt non-profit organization. The article you cited presents no actual evidence that her audit was related to the scandal, only an unsupported assertion and rank speculation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed them all, but you aren't going to like my comments. As far as the pro-life groups, first of all it's a low-quality source, a conservative columnist writing for a conservative organization, rather than a hard news source. And even they don't present the incident as a fact, but say it's a claim by a law firm. There's no good reason for us to repeat it. The Catholic professor is a claim via The Blaze (another poor source) that someone is unhappy that they were audited and happen to disagree with the administration politically. There's no evidence of an actual connection between the audit and her political beliefs presented in the article. The Fox Latino one might be the most valid, but there's nothing new - it's a Tea Party group claiming unfair targeting. The article isn't even clear about what being Hispanic has to do with it (it sounds like it's a tea partier who just happens to be Hispanic). If you read the article about the pro-Israel group, it's clear they likely weren't targeted for being pro-Israel. In fact, it's more likely they were reviewed to ensure they weren't anti-Israel and/or terrorist.

Finally, I just want to point out that the IRS is not only capable, but actually required by law, to ensure that tax-exempt organizations are not engaging in inappropriate political activity. The scandal is not that they asked groups which appear to get near that line to answer some questions to ensure they didn't cross the line - that's really part of their job. The scandal is that certain groups were flagged specifically because of their names which implied a certain political leaning. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 05:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the early reporting was largely done on the right and the right is taking this story much more seriously. That doesn't disqualify them as reliable sources. Right wingers don't have cooties making them unfit for RS status as a blanket matter. Neither do left wingers for that matter. Since we're in the middle of a debate on what to call the article, you're assuming facts not quite in evidence that the application delays were the extent of the scandal. The scandal is unfolding and there's plenty of allegation that this is a larger story that includes inappropriate audits and other enforcement activity based on information gleaned from these intrusive questions.

I simply do not accept that "the scandal is about reviews of tax-exempt non-profit organizations which were screened using improper criteria". That's as facile as the nixon administration line that Watergate was about a 3rd rate burglary. Multiple IRS officials lying to Congress in 2011-2013 both in correspondance and testimony is already recognized as a major component of the thing. The question of what happened to the intrusive information that was handed over is also part of the story. Were there inappropriate audits done of Tea Party and other contributors and collaborators? That would actually be more serious than the intrusive questions in the first place.

The IRS went far beyond the law here and it wouldn't be much better if they were doing it to the left as well. Newt Gingrich has several non-profits, for example created before, during, and after his electoral career and political runs. Should Al Gore's environmental 501 activity come under scrutiny because he's run for office? Digging into that in the manner they did was simply not appropriate. A simple direction stating that 501(c)4 activity can't be cover for a political campaign would be fine but that's not what happened. TMLutas (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't accept it, but Wikipedia is not a source of original research, and it is not a place to publicize your claims or allegations. Reliable sources have stated that the scandal is related to alleged improper examinations of non-profit groups' tax-exempt applications by some members of IRS staff. Those allegations have been largely substantiated by independent investigations, including the Inspector General, and there is substantial evidence presented to demonstrate the apparent wrongdoing.

On the other hand, fringe conspiracy theories that appear to link this issue to all manner of everything else have no place in this article until they are supported by similar evidence which is verifiably reported in reliable, neutral sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And here's some more, including a new name Frank Vandersloot and True the Vote, from Human Events http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/14/more-irs-abuses-of-power-against-conservative-groups/

Coordination of IRS with the Dept. of Labor, the EPA and the BATF? That would throw a wrench into the current article name. TMLutas (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That article is not remotely a reliable source. Nor is "And shortly after that, he was suddenly hit by massive audits from the IRS and the Department of Labor. Shazam! What an amazing coincidence!" anything remotely like evidence of wrongdoing. Rather, it is a speculative, completely-unsupported claim that is presented as fact. Unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A highly respected publication founded in 1944 and with a well established editorial reputation is not reliable because... ? Please justify your categorization of Human Events. TMLutas (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Right wing sources are *all* basically versions of The Boy Who Cried Wolf! x 10. You would be very, very hard pressed to find *any* claim originating from the right that wasn't confused nonsense at best, outright lying at worst. The same goes to claims and reports originating from the House of Representatives ever since Republicans regained control of it. The Oversight Committee headed by Darrell Issa has been particularly unconscionable in making claims by taking small excerpts of documents and communication cables so much out of context that they are directly contradicted by the entire document/cable, especially Issa's repeated claims that there were "urgent requests" by Ambassador Stevens for more security (apparently he doesn't know, among many things, that the Benghazi consulate is different from the U.S. embassy 600 miles away in Tripoli.) Exasperating matters is that the mainstream news media is taking longer and longer to seriously look at these claims, if they get to them at all. This makes things particularly problematic for Wikipedia articles, which are suppose to rely on secondary sources like mainstream news outlets: if many of these news outlets are simply uncritically relaying claims that are actually undermined by the very primary sources they are suppose to be based on, what is a Wikipedia editor to do?

At least with this latest fake scandal involving the IRS, there are some signs that the news media is showing slightly less incompetence, at least. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for laying out in perfect, crystal clarity the challenge posed on one side of the ideological spectrum of getting a decent article out of this process. At least you're not disguising your epistemic closure. TMLutas (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I suffer liars, pretenders, misinformation and deliberate disinformation very poorly, and there are piles of each in this latest fake scandal. *All* of the more serious news reports about this IRS thing admit that the IRS was in a no-win situation with this 501(c)(4) business given the rules they were operating under and the political hypersensitivity of it all. Indeed, that Forbes piece I referenced above was dead on with its ending comment: "In effect, Congress and the Supreme Court have thrown the IRS into a lose-lose situation. And the agency has lost. Why are we surprised?" And what sort of amoral logic thinks it's totally OK to completely ignore the explanation the IRS gave for their supposed (and pretty much imaginary) "targeting"? It was in the IG report, if buried way back in an appendix, and it was pretty detailed regarding why they did what they did: they received a number of outside referrals/complaints regarding how many (if not most) groups like the Tea Parties were getting 501(c)(4) status despite being apparently ineligible for it, and that the paperwork the IRS received from these groups was often not just a mess, but even self-contradictory about whether they were really a "social welfare" organization or not. Some IRS personnel struggled to group these obviously problematic applications under some other more "sensitive" tag besides "Tea Party," but....they didn't, and that's really what this would-be Superstorm Sandy II in a teacup is all about.

A real investigation would look at *all* these factors, motivation, circumstance and so on, but we are getting very little of that from the general news media, and none of it at all from that soap opera of bad actors, overbaked soliloquies, and badly faked rage that make up the Congressional hearing on it. And if you wonder what I personally think is an example of a somewhat more serious news report that shows how really messy this IRS/501(c)(4) business is and how really, really dumbed down and wholly incomplete is the information reaching the general public (which very much includes this Wikipedia article in both its current and proposed forms), this Forbes article from today isn't so bad.

I think I really should stay away from this article like I said I would earlier, and for the reason I stated at the beginning of this post. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Justin Binik-Thomas

One of the oddball aspects of this scandal is the singling out of Justin Binik-Thomas for scrutiny in terms of whether there was an association. It's not yet become clear why a tea party group was asked to explain it relationship with this guy.

This should likely go into the article. It also should put the brakes on the idea that this is a 2013 scandal. The original op-ed was 2012. TMLutas (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to find better sources. The Washington Examiner is not a high-quality source, and the writers you are often citing are columnists rather than journalists. This is a particularly ridiculous example, since both of these are written by Justin Binik-Thomas himself. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of a scandal. A scandal involving government or politicians is not just something bad happening, or there would be a new one every day. A scandal is something widely publicized that is likely to damage the reputation of whoever was involved. This became a scandal (widely publicized threat to reputations) in 2013. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 05:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't make this personal please "I'm not sure you understand the meaning of a scandal" is uncalled for. Personally singling out uninvolved political activists for analysis of their connections in the tax exempt application process is scandalous. Are you raising any question as to the factual accuracy of the point? It's not that hard to just improve sourcing if that's your objection, just google the guy's name:

ABC affiliate http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/why-was-justin-binik-thomas-singled-out-in-irs-tea-party-application CBS affiliate http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2013/05/15/ohio-activists-head-to-dc-as-irs-probe-unfolds/ CNS news http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ohio-conservative-targeted-irs-tea-party-inquiry-says-threats-individuals-more

So please be clearer about what you're aiming for here, improved sourcing, the exclusion of the point from the article, or looking to pick a personal fight. TMLutas (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Improved sources. CNS News is not an acceptable source, but the ABC and CBS affiliates are, so I think it's worth noting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that we at least agree on inclusion. Why is CNS not an acceptable source? TMLutas (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it is owned and operated by a right-wing think tank.

It would be like citing Media Matters for America for any purpose other than saying what Media Matters for America thinks, if it is deemed notable that MMFA thought it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source making a statement of fact that this individual was improperly targeted. All you have right now is his allegation, without any evidence as presented by reliable sources. You seem to have a kitchen sink approach to this topic, without much regard for WP:RS or WP:NPOV. Just because someone makes an allegation, or something happens that is tangentially related to this topic that sounds a little bothersome, that doesn't mean it belongs in the article. And if you think it does, start by presenting some decent sources, don't make other editors remind you of Wikipedia policies. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 23:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

On your substantive request, perhaps this Politico story fits? http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=DA016CBA-5054-4D41-BC1A-3AFE4A86CED4 a

I do not make other wikipedians do anything. We have a range of opinion here from this is worse than watergate to this is a fake, ginned up nothingburger of a "scandal" that doesn't even merit its own page. I suspect our perspectives differ not only on this page but on what reliable sources mean. I don't care enough about the RS point usually to insist on my idea of RS unless it's important to a particular article but if you're going to start in on critiques of a fellow wikipedian's approach, you're putting unnecessary stress on the civility level. Cut it out. TMLutas (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Politico story looks fine. It doesn't matter what our perspectives are regarding reliable sources, what matters is the WP:RS policy. Among other things, it says that editorial and opinion pieces, self-published internet sources and blogs are generally poor sources for statements of fact. Therefore, you should stop citing them for your claims—that's not just me talking, it's Wikipedia itself. This is the kind of article where we should be even more careful than usual about using good sources. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 21:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Congressional Hearings

Today the House spent hours taking testimony on this issue. All of the major news organizations covered it extensively. What should be added regarding the hearings?Capitalismojo (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps something about the inquiry into the prayers of members of an applicant organization, NRO picked this out but it's a cspan feed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_a4I4kr308 TMLutas (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That reminded me of when these prayers were in the news. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi There has been lots of back and forth here and so I have protected the page for 3 days so that you guys can discuss and come up with a plan for the future. Let me know if you sort it out early and I or another admin can certainly unprotect sooner. --Slp1 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This one is a no hoper for early consensus. It's a fast moving story that has already gotten one AfD and merging into a larger article. The 'back and forth' is not realistically going to go away. Freezing it for three days is not going to help. Please unfreeze. TMLutas (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So basically you're just reinviting an ongoing slow-motion edit war with everyone constantly going up to, and perhaps over, the 3RR? I don't see how that's going to solve anything. We ought to try and build some consensus. There's a proposed version outstanding on the talk page awaiting discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof and I are the ones who have been feuding, but after discussion, I'm convinced that he's a reasonable person, and I hope he thinks the same about me. We've both indicated a willingness to work together to come up with a compromise. Please unfreeze. TJIC (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that this is a political hot potato that already has people getting fired. The partisans will be out in full force trying to spin it so it's pointless to imagine a kumbayah situation where we can all easily get to NPOV if we just take a breather for a few days. That's not the back story that applies in this case. Just to be clear, I'm not pointing fingers at anybody being in somebody's pay to spin this thing. I just think that it's unrealistic to imagine that somebody won't come buy to do it at some point in future irrespective of whether it's already happened. TMLutas (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The three days of full protection instituted by User:Slp1 have now expired on their own. Reviewing the page history, I don't see a level of edit warring to justify any further days of full protection. Reverting repeatedly seems to be limited to a small number of users; the three-revert rule can be used to deal with those few editors rather than locking down this high-trafficked, developing page for all other editors. As a large controversial and political story, disputes are going to be ongoing and will not be quieted by a few days of full protection. Months of full protection might quiet the disputes, but that would obviously be an excessive measure. I am thus semiprotecting this page as a measure to avoid future full protection. —Lowellian (reply) 00:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)