Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tax protester constitutional arguments/1

Tax protester constitutional arguments[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Violates WP:DUEWEIGHT (part of WP:NPOV) so fails GA criterion 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being rather uncited, this 2007 listing is mostly "OR/SYNTH from US legal code & court cases", in the words of Hog Farm. Thus, the article may violate GA criteria 2b) and 2c). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Court cases are primary sources to the extent that they discuss the determinations of the conflict being litigated. However, I see no reason why they can not be secondary sources for supporting propositions not directly at issue in the case, such as the holding in a previous case involving different parties. BD2412 T 18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this could use work, it is written too much like a law review article, has an overreliance on quotes, and its grasp of Bluebook style leaves something to be desired. But I'm with BD2412 that cases can be secondary sources when it comes to summarizing the law (after all, the US legal system already has a rather robust system of deciding what gets published, and how much weight to accord decisions, which meets the general RS requirements). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am seeing that we essentially have no indication that WP:DUEWEIGHT is being followed here. Take, for isntance, the Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe section. We have a statement Another United States Supreme Court case frequently cited by tax protesters is Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, and yet we have no citations in this entire section to anything other than the case itself. Even in other sections that don't claim to have frequent use of these cases, we can't demonstrate that these court cases actually warrant the weight we are giving them unless we have actual sources that support the idea that say, Southern Pacific, is truly important in this field. What we have here is more of a legal thesis than anything else. Hog Farm _Talk 04:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts CaptainEek BD2412? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 I agree that more other sources would be good, I already noted that this is too much like a law review article. Instead we need to be relying more on law review articles to write a neutral encyclopedia article. I do think that this article is not following DUE...it strikes me as the sort of libertarian essay that early Wikipedia turned out a lot of. This got GA reviewed so long ago that it doesn't even seem to have a GAN page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:09, 11 August 2023 (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.