Talk:IRS targeting controversy

Obama joke

This was recently added:

In 2009, President Obama joked about having the IRS audit Arizona State University, which had refused to grant him an honorary degree. The Wall Street Journal criticized him for this in an editorial, saying that "the President shouldn't even joke about abusing IRS power."[2][3]

I think a fair minded neutral person would perceive this as an editor conflating an (in-poor-taste) joke with an actual scandal, and I think that the inclusion acts to discredit the article.

I'm tempted to remove it. Objections? TJIC (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

· Agreed. The joke here is interpreted as a threat or part of a pattern. There is no evidence of either. Just out of context. Remove it. Tgran (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who added it. I think it's relevant. If you are an IRS employee, obviously something like that is going to look like a signal that this sort of thing will be tolerated. For an example of "background" information being added to an article about a partisan controversy, see [1], where the "background" is from 1972!William Jockusch (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see it's been removed. That a joke by the President of the United States is likely to be taken as a "signal", is, both in general and for this specific case, what Wikipedia calls "original research". And that's against the rules.

If a reliable source makes this connection, then it might be appropriate to include, but that's apparently not the case. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please reread the deleted text. The second sentence references a reliable source, the Wall Street Journal that made the inference. The text should go back in by your standard. TMLutas (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No inference was made that it was at all related to the current controversy, because the current controversy didn't exist in 2009. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If 99% of your so-called "reliable sources" are liberal, which, from reading the reference-list, they almost all are, then of course you'll never find justification for retaining the "Obama Joke." While I don't see it as any sort of obvious signal, it certainly can be a tone-setter. A "joke" like that coming from the president is more than inappropriate. The reactions to delete it are, IMO, just more of the thousands & thousands of examples of Wikipedia's leftist tilt. This site will NEVER be objective if it keeps running to Slate, the NYT, USA Today or the WP for its allegedly "reliable sources." How disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.254.20 (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That you think the NYT, USA Today or Washington Post are "liberal" demonstrates your particular bias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to the NY Times Public editor who wrote a column Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?. By running to the left of the NY Times Public Editor, you're saying something about your own biases. TMLutas (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You are citing an op-ed piece written by someone whose job description includes criticizing the NYT. The news pages of NYT, WaPo, USA Today, and other papers are well-regarded as sources of factual information. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 13:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

While it is well-established that the overwhelming majority of journalists are liberal, that does not necessarily extend to the content of the newspapers, which are universally considered balanced. The op-eds, on the other hand,... -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

spreading rumors?

 Why? Is the IRS investigating Wikipedia? What have they found?
   Are you spreadinfg rumors or can you provide references? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I would venture that it's because no more than just, yet again, a made-up scandal. The best analysis of what IRS employees have to deal with in regards to dubious applications for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status is this Bloomberg piece. The overall news coverage of this supposed scandal has been wildly random and confused, and often leaving off any references to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision, which is the source of the IRS's contretemps here. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't merely an allegation. The IRS admitted it in the case of Tea party organizations and scores of conservative groups. They wrote a letter admitting it. So that they targeted the Tea Party is not up for question, and it isn't an "allegation" or "made up." It is established. How far up the IRS or Dept. of Treasurer chain of command this originated is an open question. Carwon (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a 'made-up' scandal: multiple parties have been accused of misleading Congress (deputy commissioner Miller) when questioned about the activities; the IRS reportedly requested unlawful detail about organizations (e.g., the text of prayers from religious groups); and the IRS is said to have leaked confidential tax information to various parties including Pro Publica. The latter is a crime punishable by a year in prison. MicheleYD (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I just read the entire IG report that came out today. The IRS was stuck with dealing with both very vague guidelines, to quote, "the regulations do not define how to measure whether social welfare is an organization’s "primary activity" as well as multiple complaints about primarily political organizations getting 501(c)(4) status, apparently in regards to Tea Party groups, again to quote, "We also received numerous referrals from the public, media, watchdog groups, and members of Congress alleging the specific section 501(c)(4) organizations were engaged in political campaign activity to an impermissible extent."

I.E., yet another fake scandal/controversy. But I'm sure, given Wikipedia's history with this sort of thing, right wing trolls will do their darnedest here to make it all seem very serious and legitimate sounding. This UK newspaper report covers the issues here probably better than any of our American news outlets (what's up with that?) -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Fake controversy?" "right wing trolls"? I don't understand those claims. Also the IG report has been severely debunked. Without ascribing motive for the widely reported false statements in the IG report, there is no doubt that its claims have been shown to be untrue in may respects. That is why the investigation has moved to the FBICarwon (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"The IG report has been severely debunked."? No, it hasn't. Which marks you as one of those right wing trolls I mentioned who will do his/her darnedest here to make it all seem very serious and legitimate sounding. The only thing the FBI can do is check to see if those Tea Party groups really were lying about their political activities to the degree the IRS had been tipped off about and suspected. Again, this is yet another fake scandal/controversy courtesy of right wing fruitcakes and their pandering, humoring Republican reps, no more, no less. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The IRS is famous as a tool for political targeting. This is a documented fact. The title of this needs to be changed, or the article needs to be re-written.

The IRS is famous as a tool for political targeting. That's one article. The Tea Party case is an allegation, yet unproven. That's another article. One is a subset of the other.

The U.S. administration can, and will attack individuals with any tool in its arsenal: financial is one of the favorites. It sounds like a red-herring, until it happens to you. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I fixed it. Fair enough. This does exist. Lots of things exist that you don't realize happen, until they happen to you. 193.239.220.249 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

One of my fellow editors claimed on May 15th that the May 14, 2013 Treasury Inspector General's report has been "severely debunked."

To "debunk" means "to expose the sham or falseness of". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 292, G. & C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976). Unless the report states that the Inspector General found that The Moon is made of Green Cheese or something along that line, it would be physically impossible for all the reporters at all the major networks and the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., working together to "debunk" the Treasury Inspector General's report in such a short period of time -- much less "severely debunk" it -- even if they had received advanced copies and thereby had some extra time to investigate.

A Treasury Inspector General's report such as this one results from a particular kind of audit by a separate agency of the Treasury Department that is not a part of the Internal Revenue Service. Such an audit involves far more time and effort than could be mustered by the news media in just a few hours or days. And believe me, when it comes to (1) time and effort spent in an audit, (2) Treasury Inspector General's reports, and (3) how a reporter does his or her job, I know whereof I speak. "Severe debunking" does not occur when some news article contradicts something in the Inspector General's report. Whether the report includes erroneous or unfounded conclusions, or whether the underlying audit was somehow flawed, remains to be seen.

I see that the phrase "right wing" appears about 13 times on this talk page right now. It is almost certainly true that some right wing elements are milking this story (as serious as the problem at the IRS is) for far more than it is worth. However, for purposes of Wikipedia, the fact that a source is massively biased toward the right politically (or toward the left) does not in and of itself make that source not reliable or not acceptable as a source for purposes of Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, sources are allowed to be biased. Neutral point of view means presenting sources, sometimes even biased and conflicting sources, without taking a position as to which "side" is correct. Let's keep that in mind when deciding what sources we should use and how the material should be presented.

I see that editing in the article is currently blocked and, considering the heat on this talk page, I can see why. I would suggest that as Wikipedia editors, we all try to generate at least a little hot air (and a little more light) than some of the members of our Congress who are scrambling to try to make points with voters over this affair. Famspear (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: I'm still in the process of reading the Treasury Inspector General's report. Everyone here on this talk page should consider reading it. Famspear (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Known bias and the fringe nature of some allegations may well make the source unreliable for the purpose of unambiguously claiming that something happened or is true.

For example, many people have claimed that George W. Bush had foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There are a great many sources which could be found to document those claims. However, no mainstream sources have made such claims, they have been generally debunked and are considered as little more than conspiracy theories. Nowhere does Wikipedia state that George W. Bush had foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It may note in appropriate places, where it is notable, that these allegations have been made, but it is a fringe theory that does not deserve prominence.

This applies in this article - for example, the claim, made below and sourced to a Human Events opinion piece, that the IRS was engaged in some sort of conspiracy with the Department of Labor, EPA, FDA and possibly even the Bureau of Reclamation. It is true that such a claim has been made. However, at this point, that claim is a fringe theory not widely reported in mainstream sources. What has been widely reported in mainstream sources is that IRS filings from non-profit organizations with political leanings (primarily conservative groups, but some liberal ones as well) have been inappropriately targeted for higher levels of scrutiny. That is the thrust of the scandal at this point.

Now, I am not denying that it could be true that the IRS is in cahoots with the Department of Commerce, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Library of Congress. But those allegations are, at this point, a non-notable fringe conspiracy theory and do not deserve space in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Biased sources (politically right or left wing, for example) are inappropriate to use to back up statements of fact on Wikipedia, beyond detailing their own opinion. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 21:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Current inclusion of The Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration's Report

Events and disclosures have moved well beyond this report. We already know multiple offices were involved, including the Washington IRS office. We also know many more conservative organizations were targeted than stated in that report. We also know that the statement that the private data was destroyed is false. The report is actually part of the scandal or controversy. If it is going to sit in the article and cant be there uncritically without notation that a) the numbers have of conservative groups turns out to be higher b) private data was not destroyed before being leaked c) the targeting began a year earlier than asserted d) multiple offices were involvedCarwon (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Carwon, I agree with all of your points. I think you should go ahead and add those annotations, perhaps in a new section "problems with the report". TJIC (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Will you wingnuts actually include any real sources for your "interpretation" of things, or will it be business as usual in trying to massage yet another Wikipedia article about yet another fake "controversy" with delusional right wing garbage until it's as disinformational as possible? Inquiring minds already know the answer.... -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You have now made several disparaging remarks against other editors. I suggest you read up on WP:NPA. If your only purpose here is to attack others than I suggest you edit somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Should I point out that these editors I'm criticizing seem intent on only taking the right wing POV on this, including citing *no* reliable or balanced sources, and that I actually referenced a good, balanced and thoroughly researched source (from Bloomberg), as well as direct quotes from the IG report that contradicted them? Or did you not bother to look at my overall comments before deciding to make a completely offbase assertion/threat? But I'm well aware of how Wikipedia works when it comes to "controversial" articles, so I'll back off and let things drift into....whatever. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Calling other editors "right wing trolls" "right wing fruitcakes" and "wingnuts" is unacceptable. Arzel (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Will you wingnuts actually include any real sources" I've written 90% of this article and I've cited sources from across the media: CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, White House press releases, etc. If you think that there's information that should be added to the article, please do so! TJIC (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cherry-picked your sources and omitted key points in an obvious attempt to shape the article according to your politics. This renders the article worthless as an encyclopedic source. Specifically:

* There is no mention of the 2010 Citizen's United Supreme Court decision, which drove many if not most of these 501(c)(4) applications, as well as changed the rules for the IRS.

* There is no mention of how vague the rules were that the IRS was operating under to enforce 501(c)(4) compliance.

* There is no mention of how the IRS started giving right wing groups like the Tea Parties extra scrutiny after receiving tips and complaints about how these groups were actually engaged in a far higher percentage of political activity than c(4) status allows, a point I had already made earlier, to quote from the IG report: "We also received numerous referrals from the public, media, watchdog groups, and members of Congress alleging the specific section 501(c)(4) organizations were engaged in political campaign activity to an impermissible extent."

* There is no mention of how right wing/conservative groups went after c(4) status much more aggressively than liberal organizations, even when they were obviously blatantly political organizations first and foremost.

* There isn't even a mention of how the Tea Party groups apparently were just plain inept at filling out the paperwork needed to obtain 501(c)(4) status, another point made by the IRS in the IG report: "Many applications included what appeared to be incomplete or inconsistent information. For example, a number of applications indicated that the organization did not plan to conduct political campaign activity, but elsewhere described activities that appeared in fact to be such activity. It was also clear that many organizations did not understand what activities would constitute political campaign intervention under the tax."

In short, like I said, yet another fake scandal/controversy. Now I'm really done here. -BC aka 68.236.126.150 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Othering, it's what's for breakfast. TMLutas (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The article seemed to be saying that this TIGTA report was released to congressional investigators, "but not to the public." That makes no sense, so I deleted that phrase. Obviously, the May 14, 2013 report (number 2013-10-053) was released to the public. I downloaded a copy that same day, directly from the IRS web site. Famspear (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you did download it that day, but such a thing cannot be the basis of Wikipedia content. You need a reliable secondary source stating when/how the report was released in order to make that statement in the article. See WP:OR Federales (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would argue that that's incorrect. First, the WSJ source (which is where the link for the PDF text of the report goes) does not say even that the full report was released on May 15th. The report is dated May 14th, and unless we have some reliable, previously published third party secondary source that says the full report was released on May 15th, there is no need to find yet another secondary source that says that the report was available on May 14th. I hear what you are saying about primary and secondary sources, but this is really a minor point -- I don't think it rises to the level of "original research." Famspear (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is this: Had I added the link to the IRS web site itself (rather than the link to the WSJ web site, which was added by someone else) on May 14th, the very day it was made available, and I had added text to the article to the effect on that very day that "the report was released on May 14th....." followed by the link, I don't think that would be objectionable. That would not be original research.

A bit tangentially, I would add: Citing to and linking to the TIGTA report on the IRS web site, or on the separate TIGTA web site, might be considered to be citing to a primary source but, contrary to what many Wikipedia editors believe, citing to primary sources is allowed in Wikipedia. Citing to secondary sources is preferred, but some use of primary sources is allowed.

The term "original research" as used in Wikipedia is a term of art. Broadly speaking, practically everything that Wikipedia editors do here is "original research" -- but not in the sense in which Wikipedia is using that term. Finding, summarizing, and citing even to a secondary source is ITSELF original research in some very broad sense -- but again, not the the sense that this term is being used in Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 04:47, 21 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)

Naming of article 2013 IRS scandal

This seems appropriate. As the story has developed the IRS and Treasury have admitted that more than just Tea Party organizations were targetted.Capitalismojo (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to create a redirect based on the earlier talk section above when the lockdown began. Does anyone disagree that a new name is appropriate? Capitalismojo (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your proposed new name is appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur. "2013 IRS Scandal" is good. TJIC (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Since the behavior seems to have started in 2010, I have a bit of a problem with the title. Why not name it after the administration, Obama Administration IRS scandal. They own this round of this ongoing problem. TMLutas (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't call it the Nixon Administration Watergate scandal or the Reagan Administration Iran/Contra scandal, so no. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, the scandal occured in 2013. the behavior may have begun in 2009,2010, 2011, whenever. The event i.e. the scandal errupted in 2013. The events that triggered the War of 1812 began in the years leading up to 1812 but the war was an event. The scandal is an event. The common name is IRS Scandal. We should probably go with that. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The scandal has been going on since at least 2010. That *you* noticed it only in 2013 does not mean that other people have not noticed, talked about in RS and even litigated this thing before this year was born (just read an article that one of the pro-Israel groups is supposed to have filed papers in 2010). TMLutas (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It didn't become a news issue until 2013. It would make little sense to call it the 2010 IRS scandal when everything is referenced to 2013 sources or later. Arzel (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It didn't become news until 2013 only if you have a restrictive idea of what news outlets are. The Huffington Post has a story on 2011-2012 coverage. I don't think Wikipedia actually subscribes to the "if it's not in the NY Times, it doesn't exist" NE liberal parochialism. We shouldn't do that here. TMLutas (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Typically it's nice for a name to include an indication of what happened (WP:NCE) but if simply "IRS scandal" is the common name then your 2013 IRS scandal suggestion may be best. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 05:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

How about "IRS targeting of conservatives scandal?"William Jockusch (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The IRS was "investigating" tea party groups. Some might say they were harassing and hindering them to help Obama. Whatever. Now it is the IRS that is being investigated. Title should change to IRS Investigation.True Observer (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked to move the article to 2013 IRS Scandal. I am seeing mostly agreement but some dissent though I am not sure how serious some of it is. Can you clarify?Slp1 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"scandal" should be lowercased per WP:MOS - it's not a proper name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, thanks for reminding me! I think I would have done it right for the actual move. I was meaning more the actual words being used. Slp1 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the move, merging page histories to clean up over someone's copy-and-paste move in the process. Everyone, please keep in mind that a copy-and-paste move is against Wikipedia policy and is never an appropriate way to evade page protection. —Lowellian (reply) 02:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My main concern is the lack of "this article has issues" notification, but my first issue of such concern would probably be with including "scandal" in the title. NPV? Not hardly, though perhaps that's fundamentally impossible given the current state of the American political system. As I write now, we (the people) clearly have no concrete idea what really happened or when. One of the few things we do know is that the events took place before 2013. If there really is a scandal involved, then I think it would have to involve pre-election events, which means the date would have to be before 2013. Actually, the only rationale I can imagine for "2013" is if the article is going to evolve into a focus on partisan media manipulation in 2013, which is sort of scandalous, but obviously not what the partisans on either side intend. If that is true, then this entire article will be up for deletion in a few months, though there ought to be a Wikipedia list of 'scandalous events' or 'public outrages' involving the IRS. Let me reiterate my two main points: (1) There should be 'issues' tags on the article (at least for currency and fluidity) and (2) The use of "scandal" in the title is not a neutral point of view. Shanen (talk) 00:22, 24 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.

• http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-is-the-irs-asking-tea-party-groups-if-they-know-me/article/377566
• http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2529471

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)

Statement unsupported by the source

"Additionally, during this time "the same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups" to liberal groups.[9]"

The bolded words are not supported by the source - the article states that the applications were improperly released to ProPublica, which is an independent investigative journalism organization, not a "liberal group." That needs to be changed when the article is unprotected. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That ProPublica is a liberal group is not under serious dispute. They're a Soros backed outfit and you can find them described as liberal all over the place. National Center for Public Policy Research [2] , Dave Kopel of Cato talks about their slant here [3] TMLutas (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Your bald assertion that your label "is not under serious dispute" is laughable. You have cited nothing more than a 5-year-old unsupported opinion piece and a conservative think tank. Those are not sufficient reliable sources to label ProPublica a "liberal group." Our article on ProPublica does not describe the organization in that manner. Contrast NewsMax. That line will be taken out, as it is factually wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TMLutas (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: I just clicked over to the ProPublica article. As of writing, the Wikipedia article on ProPublica is tagged because large chunks of it seem to be written by someone heavily connected with ProPublica which makes judging ProPublica's ideology by the Wikipedia article on it an especially bad idea. TMLutas (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I referenced our article because if there were significant reliable sources arguing that the group was biased, they would likely be found there. There are none, apparently.

You do not get to label a nonprofit news organization a "liberal group" on the say-so of two people from conservative think tanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, irrelevant to the point that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. And if those two people are published in RS saying so, Wikipedia rules say that you can do that. TMLutas (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it does not, any more than Wikipedia may label FOX News as a "conservative group" every time it's mentioned in an article because Media Matters for America and Michael Moore accuse it of being biased. There is a place to discuss disputed political labels for an organization - that is on the Wikipedia page for that organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to describe ProPublica as a liberal organization, the burden of proof is on you to provide a reliable source saying that it is. Its Wikipedia article had a small piece modified by someone called ProPubPR (not a piece discussing its ideology), and the user is already banned. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 21:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether a given source is a "liberal group" or a "conservative group" in and of itself is not generally material. In Wikipedia, sources used in the articles are allowed have liberal bias, conservative bias, or other kinds of bias. I repeat: sources can be biased, and their biased views may properly be presented in Wikipedia articles. Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia refers to the way the material is presented by Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What he said. TMLutas (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Properly presenting those views (which should be done in the ProPublica article) does not permit describing the group as a "liberal group" in this article any more than any mention of FOX News in this article permits describing it as a "conservative group." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

ProPublica and MMfA are both self-admited Liberal organizations. Arzel (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

ProPublica seems a bit more circumspect but MMFA's about page lets the cat out of the bag. They're there to counter conservatives. TMLutas (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The tag referred to ProPublica. Arzel attempted to group the two organizations as if they are the same. That's not going to fly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's reach consensus: three background sections, one, or something else

NorthBySouthBaranof and I have different visions for the background section.

I think that a version like

 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IRS_Tea_Party_investigation&oldid=555376198

with the sections

1 Background: IRS criteria and requirements

2 Background: Citizens United and National Politics

3 Background: IRS culture

is useful. One section is purely neutral (IRS criteria), one addresses left-wing concerns about motivations (CU), one addresses right-wing concerns about motivations (IRS culture).

In addition to thinking that it's good to have all of this information, I also think that it's good to have it broken up as sections - the organization by topic is useful.

I will let NorthBySouthBaranof explain the version that he likes and what he sees the virtues of it as being.

Then I'd love to hear people's thoughts. TJIC (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We also need a section on the effect of the delays. Were the groups not allowed to operate at all, or was the impact limited to the groups not being able to assure their donors that their names would not be publicly dsclosed? What if they said one thing when applying, and then did something else? Would the change in tax status be retroactive, or would the donors still be shielded? Did the IRS recommend applying for a different tax exempt status, and the groups balked at that? Exactly what sort of taxes were involved? 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a new section for every paragraph (that's part of the reason that 3 different background sections seems silly). The effect of the delays was probably minimal beyond making them do a lot of extra work. I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that any group awaiting a determination of tax-exempt status from the IRS actually gets to operate as tax-exempt until and unless it is denied. I think the usual reason that groups will apply for 501c4 (rather than a different type) is to avoid disclosing donors. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 21:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"The effect of the delays was probably minimal beyond making them do a lot of extra work." Says who? This is speculation / original research. Lots of news sources are reporting the delays as if they're significant; we should reflect that. 209.6.113.123 (talk) 12:26, 20 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)

Useful source - NYT article on the office in question

The NYT has done some in-depth reporting at the Cincinnati office of the IRS where many of the questionable issues arose. Confusion and Staff Troubles Rife at Cincinnati I.R.S. Office - it's likely to be a useful source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I read this article this morning, and it's not useful at all. All it does is throw red herrings around to protect the President, claiming that not enough resources were allocated (essentially blaming the conservatives for the incident). It doesn't shed any light at all in regards to the targeting of the Tea Party groups.

I'm a day to day subscriber to the NYT, and you can find it on my table for every breakfast. But I'm also not so naive as to believe that they're going to cover anti-Obama incidents with an open mind. It's a disservice to Wikipedia readers to make this article into one that blindly defends Obama...we need to keep an open mind, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.133.172 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. The New York Times is a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of this Wikipedia article is not to attack (or defend) President Obama in connection with the IRS scandal. The argument that the New York Times article is "not useful at all" and that the Times article throws "red herrings around to protect the President" is off base.

I have been dealing with IRS personnel at various levels (revenue agents, revenue officers, appeals officers, special agents, IRS attorneys, low-level customer service employees, etc.) for over 22 years. I can tell you that while I do not believe I have any personal knowledge of "Group 7822" at the Cincinnati IRS exempt organizations unit, I do speak (by phone) with many employees at the Cincinnati IRS Service Center (which is actually right across the Ohio River, in Kentucky) on a fairly regular basis. The New York Times article definitely rings true for me, especially this excerpt:

While there are still many gaps in the story of how the I.R.S. scandal happened, interviews with current and former employees and with lawyers who dealt with them, along with a review of I.R.S. documents, paint a more muddled picture of an understaffed Cincinnati outpost that was alienated from the broader I.R.S. culture and given little direction.

Overseen by a revolving cast of midlevel managers, stalled by miscommunication with I.R.S. lawyers and executives in Washington and confused about the rules they were enforcing, the Cincinnati specialists flagged virtually every application with Tea Party in its name. But their review went beyond conservative groups: more than 400 organizations came under scrutiny, including at least two dozen liberal-leaning ones and some that were seemingly apolitical.

Over three years, as the office struggled with a growing caseload of advocacy groups seeking tax exemptions, responsibility for the cases moved from one group of specialists to another, and the Determinations Unit, which handles all nonprofit applications, was reorganized. One batch of cases sat ignored for months. Few if any of the employees were experts on tax law, contributing to waves of questionnaires about groups’ political activity and donors that top officials acknowledge were improper.

“The I.R.S. is pretty dysfunctional to begin with, and this case brought all those dysfunctions to their worst,” said Paul Streckfus, a former I.R.S. employee who runs a newsletter devoted to tax-exempt organizations. “People were coming and going, asking for advice and not getting it, and sometimes forgetting the cases existed.”

--from Nicholas Confessore, David Kocieniewski & Michael Luo, "Confusion and Staff Troubles Rife at I.R.S. Office in Ohio," May 18, 2013, New York Times.

(bolding added by me).

Please note in particular the passages for which I added the bolded font. It's not just the exempt organizations unit, and it's not just the IRS facility at Cincinnati. These kinds of problems are PERVASIVE at the IRS, and have been so for many, many years. This New York Times article represents the kind of information that is helpful to know -- about how things work or DON'T work inside the IRS -- in order to understand what has happened. Famspear (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And, yes, as NorthBySouthBaranof has noted, the New York Times is a reliable source. Famspear (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to support the idea that the NY Times is a reliable source. I would also support the idea that this article is more useful as a barometer of liberal spin on the actual events than the unvarnished truth. TaxProfBlog is posting daily roundups of news coverage where you can find perspectives from both sides.

• Day 11
• Day 10
• Day 9
• Day 8
• Day 7
• Day 6
• Day 5

My point is that RS exist from multiple perspectives and the article should reflect that and we should be using the widest possible sourcing and clearly identify biases both on the right and the left. TMLutas (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following to the article

Here are some things that I suggest adding to the article. Ss6j81avz (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IRS division head Lois Lerner said she didn't know about this. But here's a letter she wrote to a conservative group with intrusive questions.

All of this information should be in the article:

When this was first reported by the media in May 2013, Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that had conducted these activities, claimed that only low level employees had known about it, and that no high level IRS officials had known about it. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/10/conservatives-have-themselves-a-real-scandal-on-their-hands/

However, soon afterward, NPR reported that an Inspector General report showed that Lerner herself had actually been aware of it since June 29, 2011. Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=183057320

In addition, in March of 2012, Lerner herself had written such a letter to American Patriots Against Government Excess, a conservative group. Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/lerners-name-on-irs-letter-to-conservative-group-91373.html

Lerner’s letter can be read here. Source: http://images.politico.com/global/2013/05/14/irs_march_12.html

Ss6j81avz (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ss6j81avz: The link you provided is to a picture of what appears to be a computer-generated IRS letter. I see these literally every day. Computer generated IRS letters are almost never hand-signed; they almost always show the name (and a photo-copy signature) of the IRS official who is the head of the department. There would be hundreds or even thousands of such letters issued by some IRS departments in just one month. I think the issue would be whether Lerner herself was actually aware at a given point in time. Such a computer generated letter with Lerner's name on it wouldn't prove anything about what she was or was not aware of. Sorry. Famspear (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I see the article at politico.com that you linked, entitled "Lois Lerner's name on IRS letter to conservative group." This is getting silly. The media reporting on this is approaching "Alice in Wonderland". As I basically noted above, Lois Lerner's name could very well have appeared on almost every letter coming out of her department while she headed the department. Famspear (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and there are no questions, "intrusive" or otherwise, in the form letter you linked. Whatever information was being requested would have been listed in the prior document request. This form letter was a follow-up to the prior document request. It's the prior document request that would have included the specific inappropriate requests, if any. Famspear (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: I should add that although the reporters at politico dot com may not have known that Lois Lerner's name would have been on hundreds of form letters like this one, that doesn't mean that that the politico article can't be used in the Wikipedia article. I think politico dot com could be a considered a "reliable source" for purposes of Wikipedia. Nobody gets it right every time. I would just suggest not using that particular article. Politico dot com looks pretty silly on this one. Famspear (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: I deal with the IRS on behalf of clients all the time, and occasionally I also get the same kind of stupid demands for irrelevant information. The demand is ALWAYS from a lower level IRS employee. The problem is that lower level employees generally are not well trained to use the actual texts of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury regulations. Their knowledge of "tax law" is based on internal training by fellow IRS employees, and the quality of the training is uneven. It's not that these people are deliberately trying to break the law; they believe they are following the law, as taught to them. Recently I tried to explain to a lower level IRS employee on the phone why she was wrong, and I cited the specific language of a particular Code section. She replied "I don't do tax law." Of course, she DOES do tax law, whether she realizes it or not. It would be nice if all IRS employees "did tax law" correctly.

The other day, I received an IRS form letter interpreting a particular statute of limitations point of law incorrectly, based on the repealed wording of a particular Internal Revenue Code provision -- wording that hasn't been the law since the year 1958 (when Congress changed it). This IRS letter even directly contradicted the IRS national office official interpretation of the law (and the IRS national office interpretation is the correct one). However, this is not deliberate wrongful behavior on the part of IRS employees. This is systemic incompetence at the IRS. I don't want to overstate the case, but there is quite a bit of systemic incompetence at the IRS. I've been dealing with this for over 20 years. Famspear (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You've nailed an important screening task. There's incompetence and then there is conscious acts of bias. There is also the possibility that this is not an either/or situation and that a conspiracy to kneecap the right intersected IRS incompetence to create the situation we are calling the 2013 IRS scandal. One theory that is circulating is that the Democrat/left wing tactic of "othering" the right as extremist, dangerous, not to be accorded the normal hearing or benefit of the doubt that we give our fellow americans as a matter of course hit the IRS and created a toxic atmosphere something like Henry II had when he complained about the Archbishop of Canterbury and four of his knights went off to do murder. Archbishop Beckett was soon lying dead in Canterbury. Did Henry II's "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" morph into "will no one rid us of this troublesome tea party"? Too early to tell for sure but it's an attractive possibility that has its adherents and a theory that, with the right sourcing, should find its way into the article. TMLutas (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't subscribe to that theory, unless you have reliable sources to back it up. Keep in mind that an investigation was already done before this became a political controversy, as detailed in the IG report. It found no evidence for a vast left wing conspiracy as far as I know. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For 27 months, IRS approved zero Tea Party organizations, but did approve many liberal organizations.

This should be in the article:

For a 27 month period that began in February 2010, the IRS gave exactly zero approvals to Tea Party organizations that had sent in applications. During that same time period, numerous liberal organizations with names including words such as “progress” or “progressive” did get approval. Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

Ss6j81avz (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• This bit is in the article already. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

IRS asked conservative groups what books they were reading.

This should be in the article:

The IRS asked conservative groups what books their members had been reading. Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/the-irs-wants-you-to-share-everything-91378.html

Ss6j81avz (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. All three of those points are well-documented and sourced and can be worked in somewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The IRS' defenders have laid out the idea that there was a wave of new applicants. The data was analyzed in this article at the Chronicle of Philanthropy and found to be false. The numbers are:

• 2009 - 1751
• 2010 - 1735 <- scrutiny started
• 2011 - 2265
• 2012 - 3357 <- scrutiny ended

Without laying out the numbers, it's likely that this spin is going to live on, zombie like, near forever. TMLutas (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a complete non sequitur. This is a partial list apparently taken from the IG report which originally included c3, c5 and c6 application statistics. The list was not meant to address the claim of increased numbers as a cause of the scrutiny, but was part of a background section discussing the activities of tax-exempt organizations in general. Further, as you note, the inappropriate scrutiny began in early 2010. This implies that, if numbers were a factor, this would have been done due to an increase in 2009 (or in the years leading up to 2009), since they could not have known what the numbers would be in 2010, 2011 or 2012. Of course, the list only includes numbers beginning in 2009, so it is impossible to evaluate the truth of the claim from these numbers. Or, if they made the decision in anticipation of increased numbers, they ultimately proved to be correct, even if it took a couple of years. In any case, I don't think anyone has "defended" the IRS on this basis. People are looking for an explanation for what happened, and a leading one seems to be an overwhelmed bureaucracy (and in a way, the article you cite supports it). – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 13:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

How can we address the lie that the IRS put out as its official response to the IG report without looking at the numbers? The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a reputable, RS, calls the IRS claim a lie, and backs it up with appropriate figures on c4 organizations, the heart of the early stages. How is this a non-sequitor? The IRS lied to the public and lied to Congress. This is an RS piece that addresses that lie. TMLutas (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your source doesn't call anything a lie. And they say their source is the IG report, which takes no position on that particular claim. Even more interesting, right under the numbers the IG report says "These data were provided by the EO function as background and were not validated for accuracy or reliability." In other words, the IG apparently don't think those numbers are reliable enough to actually use them to analyze the situation. If your source is reliable and reputable, I'm curious why they would. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 00:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the politico dot com article about the requests for information on what books, etc., were being read (the IRS "wants you to share everything" article) could be used. Famspear (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Accusations against senators

The USNWR report that this is sourced to is clearly labeled as an op-ed column, and is written by a conservative campaign strategist who once worked for John Cornyn. It is not ostensibly-neutral reporting. Its accusations must be attributed and labeled accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The above is incorrect. Senator Dick Durbin, among others, publicly called for IRS investigations into conservative groups in the wake of Citizens United. His website still has a public call into said investgiation. *MicheleYD (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Biased reporting can still be used as RS, as can biased sourcing. As MicheleYD notes, the calls for the IRS to investigate the Tea Party were sometimes public. That being said, we certainly could improve sourcing, perhaps by also using the 2010 NY Times article that is used as sourcing in the US News and World Report article referenced above. That gets things out of the Op-Ed page and into the news pages. Or is this going to be knocked out because it's too early. After all, this is the 2013 IRS scandal. We're currently operating under the fiction that it wasn't viewed as scandalous in 2010, a point contradicted by the NY Times article. TMLutas (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Jon Stewart quote

After I added this Jon Stewart quote, it was removed by NorthBySouthBaranof, who commented, "The reactions of political satirists are generally non-encyclopedic. Don't see reactions from Colbert or Stewart posted in similar articles."

Political satirist Jon Stewart said, "Well, congratulations, President Barack Obama. Conspiracy theorists who generally can survive in anaerobic environments have just had an algae bloom dropped on their f***ing heads, thus removing the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver: skepticism about your opponents."

What do other editors here think about including or not including this in the article?

Ss6j81avz (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at other articles on similar political scandals (Lawyergate, Niger uranium forgeries, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, etc.), and didn't find Colbert or Stewart cited in any of them. That suggests to me that their over-the-top satirical commentary is not generally considered useful for Wikipedia purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't help us to explain the facts. I have to agree with the reason given for its removal: it's not encyclopedic. Federales (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It could fit in to a wider section of cultural commentary, see Watergate scandal for an example but it would be an awfully thin section at this point, note it and gather up more and let's see if we get enough to warrant the section. At this point I'm dubious but it could happen. That section is the closest fit I could find for a model. Good luck. TMLutas (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Liberal Bias and Liberal Censorship

I just wanted to put this in here to state that there is no way that this article should be deleted as was suggested further down. If nothing else, it combats wikipedia's liberal bias. Of course no matter what kind of liberal bias wikipedia has, or the mainstream media has, there is no denying that the 2013 IRS scandal exists, and wikipedia is supposed to have a page that addresses every conceivable concept in existence, as the information capacity in cyberspace is theoretically unlimited. Perhaps that should be limited to just things that don't make liberals look bad.

The idea that it should be deleted is a vote in favor of liberal censorship, which is rampant on wikipedia. Liberals tend to be the wing that is more strongly in favor of limiting knowledge, information, and enlightenment, as is evidenced here by the suggestion that this article be deleted, and no doubt, my comment here will soon be deleted as well, surely because it does not fit wikipedia's "guidelines." Before the liberal censorship authorities get here, however, hopefully a few people will see this. If wikipedia hopes to be as anti-censorship as liberals claim, this article, and my comment here should be allowed to stay, permanently, although I guess that is probably more than I should expect from American liberals. However, the very existence of this article is a step in the right direction of combating liberal censorship and and liberals' destruction of free speech. Enter appropriate counter arguments here about how this comment and or this whole article isn't relevant, and should be deleted and or rolled into the minor portion of another article. That seems to be a favorite trick of liberals on wikipedia. CaptainNicodemus (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly one person has ever suggested deleting this article, and they were overwhelmed by a community consensus involving users of all political persuasions. 'Nuff said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually not "'Nuff said" as a quick kill is not usually how the Wikipedia bias process works. Articles get proposed for merger, name changed into innocuous shadows of what they should be or subject drifted into something else. Later on they peter out and die. We had 1 attempt to kill the article outright but the article did get merged in to a larger topic for a time and there's a continuing back and forth over the scope of what constitutes the scandal. Significant chunks of people are rating this as worse than Watergate because they believe the climate that these activities created materially affected the 2012 election. That dynamic is undoubtedly playing out here. Helping get more information into the article while making sure that the proposals conform to the normal rules is what we need to raise the quality of this article and coincidentally the reputation of the project. TMLutas (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's a continuing back-and-forth. That's part of the article editing process, not an expression of bias.

The article editing process, especially in contentious political subjects, usually has significant effort devoted to identifying and eliminating bias. I haven't seen a contentious issue yet that didn't feature lots of bias in the back and forth. That goes double for developing scandals like this one. TMLutas (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Significant chunks of people are rating this as worse than Watergate" - NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I misremembered. It was Benghazi, not the IRS scandal that was covered by this PPP poll. Look down into the crosstabs if it interests you. TMLutas (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible AP Involvement in scandal

Lois Lerner was at ABA Committee meeting. She was asked the planted question afterwards. Then in the afternoon she spoke to press for 50 minutes by phone.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/10/im-not-good-at-math-the-irss-public-relations-disaster/ At 6:14 PM, the AP put out a story with author and 3 contributors. Two from DC and one from Boston.http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups How did the AP have this detailed article ready so soon. Why did AP say IRS said (Friday) instead of today. Obviously, this article was ready to be put out and picked by mass media for Saturday and Sunday publication. Now it turns out it was the Treasury and White House deciding on the timing and manner of the announcement and not her.http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/white-house-irs-timeline-91681.html?hp=t2_3

That sounds interesting. We don't have any sourcing yet so it needs to stay out for now. Do you have any reliable sources that would let this legitimately into the article in a way that will be defensible so that it stays in the article? You're alleging something of a bombshell here so pushback is fairly predictable. Let's cut to the chase and get good sourcing first. It's going to be tough because of the separate AP scandal is dominating the search engine results. TMLutas (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I was possibly targeted by IRS

Note: new info suggests probably not IRS targeting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

I see myself as a nonpartisan Wikipedian who supports Fair Tax, a nonpartisan but somewhat right-leaning approach calling to reform the IRS. While IRS incompetence was probably the bigger factor, it is possible I was singled out by the IRS which delayed processing my kids' tax returns, hampering their chances for financial aid from colleges they were accepted at. My kids filed their taxes on March 5 2013, electronically, via accountant, (I have documentation that the IRS received the filing) paid amount due, and the IRS held up processing their taxes for ten (10) weeks until May 19 2013. (again I have documentation). It normally takes less than 3 weeks to process new returns, according to FAFSA. College financial aid departments needed this information to award financial aid, but my kids missed out on much of this. This stuff really sucks. I suppose it is impossible to sue the IRS, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Not necessarily impossible to sue but you really ought to be talking to a lawyer with relevant experience. I believe that a class action lawsuit is currently being contemplated so perhaps the ACLJ would be another point of contact. As an involved party you should, however, be cautious about making edits to the article. They're highly likely to be challenged and you have bigger fish to fry . Good luck. TMLutas (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, thanks. I am unlikely to be adding anything more to this one. Most likely I'll be working on cicadas when they appear -- saw two already!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC) I know that there were some filing issues this year because of last minute changes to the tax code, this may have caused some of your delay. As for suing the IRS, well that is pretty difficult. I don't think you could sue for a delay in your filings. Arzel (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, filing changes may have been the reason. Yes, I agree suing the IRS would be very difficult; no illusions about that. The IRS finally got around to processing my kids returns after 10 weeks, so hopefully there will be some financial aid left; I will know in a few more weeks what the status is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Dear Tomwsulcer: For what it's worth, the processing of federal income tax returns has nothing to do with the TEGE unit in Cincinnati that is the subject of the article. Even if your children's tax returns had been filed manually, the IRS employees who process the returns would have no way of looking at those returns and knowing that you are in favor of the Fair Tax. The IRS would have no way to "tie" your children's tax returns to your support for the Fair Tax, and would have no motivation to target your children. The fact that you favor the Fair Tax would almost certainly be of no interest to the IRS. And as far as I know, filing a return electronically would make it even harder for the IRS to delay the processing -- even if the IRS wanted to do so. Not only that, but your support for the Fair Tax has nothing to do with processing of paperwork in connection with 501(c)(4) determinations (the work done by the TEGE people in Cincinnati that is the subject of this article). I've been dealing with the IRS offices and Centers all over the United States (e.g., Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Brookhaven/Holtsville, Memphis, Ogden, Fresno, Tampa, Houston, Austin, etc.) for over 22 years. The IRS just does not have the kind of capability that you're thinking about. Famspear (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC) PS: Correction regarding my post, above. Because part of the Fair Tax proposal would involve eliminating the IRS, I think that IRS employees who would thereby lose their jobs actually could have a motivation to be against the Fair Tax! However, on the facts you described as I noted, it would be extremely unlikely for IRS employees to delay processing your children's tax returns based on your support of the Fair Tax. Just my two cents worth! Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, overall, I am inclined to think you are right. Thank you for your view. Most likely IRS incompetence rather than targeting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC) It's a little optimistic to state that the TEGE unit in Cincinnati is the focus of the article. As the title states, this is the 2013 IRS scandal. It has not been established how far this goes while it has already been established that Congress asked for increased scrutiny and there is clear evidence that other offices beyond Cincinnati were involved. This probably isn't relevant to Tomwsulcer but few outside the conservative movement thought it was this big even a month ago. We need to see where the evidence is going to lead, neither making the page too big nor too small. TMLutas (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo

This is the photo that was removed. It is myself, tom sulcer, a nonpartisan FairTax activist, and a Tea Partyer protesting at the IRS office in Mountainside, New Jersey on May 21 2013.

Tomwsulcer, I removed your photo again. There is simply no way to verify in the least that it is what you claim it to be. And if the picture is of you personally protesting, then it fails WP:COI. I have heard reports of IRS protesting, and do not have a problem with a photo which has some background imagery which could reasonably be viewed as verifying the incident. As for your personal issues I suggest you contact your congressman or senator. Arzel (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, removing a photo of protesters (myself and one other person) at the IRS site smacks of a POV-pushing. I would not make this stuff up; in the days of photo-editing, any photo could be manufactured, so you claiming that the photo fails verifiability is borderline ridiculous. Assuming duplicity fails good faith. I have added another photo showing more people, not including myself, taken by another person; if this one is deleted trust me I will bring you up before administrators on the noticeboard.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And your suggestion for me to contact my congressman (you mean congressperson?) or senator about the IRS processing delay -- ludicrous.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Arzel I am interested in the detail of the conflict of interest you accuse Tomwsulcer of having. What exactly is it because I can't figure that out. It's a picture. It is, I presume, released as far as IP rights so a legitimate potential photograph. How does Tomwsulcer benefit in ways incompatible with the aims of Wikipedia? TMLutas (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

TMLutas, I got a better photo of the protest, with more people, which I assume is in the article now. For both photos, mine (shown) and Jim Bennett's, there was not a prominent "IRS" sign on the building exterior. That was the reality. And perhaps this was the complaint, that others wanted to see the letters "IRS" in the photo somewhere. Both groups gathered near Route 22 to be more visible to cars. Btw, I do not benefit economically for the cause of protesting against the IRS (unless, of course, the IRS is disbanded and everybody's taxes become more sensible -- highly unlikely to happen!) but I favor Fair Tax which is a well-studied plan in Congress to do away with the IRS and replace it with a simpler, fairer, economy-boosting approach.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's best to stay on topic and use this talk page to discuss the article, rather than as a WP:soapbox or (especially) looking for legal advice. Regarding an image, the general question is if the image has WP:PERTINENCE. I don't think the article mentions protests against the IRS targeting, and I don't think I've seen coverage of such protests in the news media. To me, this indicates that the image is probably not pertinent. It isn't serving to illustrate anything in the article's content, but seems kind of like an illustration of a point of view instead.

On the contrary, I think the image is entirely pertinent. The IRS targets partisan groups; the partisan groups protest. Highly relevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The protests have been covered by the NY Times, and South Jersey Times.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. While I understood what you meant, I think it's kind of funny that you stated you are non-partisan while, in the same sentence, stating that you are a member of a (tea) party. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 16:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I see myself as nonpartisan. I support a nonpartisan tax reform proposal called Fair Tax. I am not a member of a Tea Party.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably the biggest problem I have is that Tom is in the picture and he uploaded the picture. It is a conflict of interest for him to promote a picture of himself within this article. The minor problem with the other picture is that it is a fellow fairtax friend of his that took the picture and sent it to Tom. Photo's in the article should be devoid of any personal influence or bias. Ironically, the IRS is accused of bias against the TPM, it does not serve the movement to have strong TPM bias in this article. I think Tom has some valid issues regarding the IRS, he just needs to be careful about letting these valid issues make it impossible to edit from a neutral point of view. Arzel (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How I obtained a photo is of no relevance here. What matters is: is the photo relevant to the article. It is. Case closed. Deleting it will push me to bring this up on administrator noticeboards.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Truth be told. When considering what visually defines this scandal, I'm seeing the current hearings in the House. A few random people under a tree just doesn't do it for me. †TE†Talk 19:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the relevant verbiage from Wikipedia's [use policy]:

Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images.

User-created images are ideal for Wikipedia, because there is no possibility of copyright infringement. But...

Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace;

The community has deemed that a photo featuring the user him- or herself is inappropriate. Not to worry, I have a solution. Federales (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record. When I first uploaded the image of myself and another protester, I did not indicate in the caption that it was me, or promote my name, or do anything to distract from the topic, somebody had to research it to see that it had been me; I only indicated it in this discussion to be upfront about all of this. It was not like I was promoting myself as some kind of protester. Us protesters do not make any money from this. I agree the other photo is better, plus since it has more people.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

I understand there is a way to add a timeline to wiki-articles. Someone with knowledge with how to do them could use this Washington Post timeline as a guideline. Or, at the very least, the timeline could be used as a guide for expanding the article regarding areas that may be neglected and perhaps ought to be included:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/irs-investigation-timeline-who-knew-when/

Stylteralmaldo (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Media Trackers/Greenhouse Solutions

In the article referenced, it is mentioned that Greenhouse Solutions was a pre-existing organization while Media Trackers was not, and that this could be the reason for the difference. -Phinumu (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Are pro-lifers automatic conservatives?

Some of the activity in this scandal is not against tea partiers but pro-lifers. I've met a number of these people who bristle at the idea that pro-life = conservative. So why do we seem to make this assumption here? I'm going to add the term pro-life as separate from conservative in the opening. TMLutas (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the source that any exclusively pro-life groups were targeted? Not saying it's not true, but I don't see any such groups mentioned in the article currently. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2013

Change investigation to "audit." The IG did not perform an investigation. In the terminology of IGs, these are two very different activities and they are done very differently. Anyone familiar with the work of federal IGs will understand the difference. An audit is done to determine how well a program functions. An investigations looks into misconduct as a general matter. The Treasury IG for Tax Administration only performed an audit. 96.26.95.255 (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've confirmed that the TIGTA report does indeed refer to an "audit," and that the word "investigation" apparently does not appear in the report. I've changed the terminology in the article accordingly. In a later section, the article talks about a new TIGTA "investigation." I have not changed that terminology. We may want to do a little further checking on that. Famspear (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Attribution of quotes

We need to be careful about how we attribute quotes. I changed some material in the article that seemed to imply that the Treasury Inspector General's report had included a statement which, in fact, is found nowhere in the report. The statement is actually a quote from the secondary source -- the Washington Post. The text of the quote is the Post's own interpretation of the report, not a "quote" from the text of the report. We don't want to give the false impression that the report itself contains this language when it does not. I changed the article to make it clear that the quote is from the Post article. Famspear (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

NYT investigation

Regarding the following paragraph:

An investigation by the New York Times revealed that several conservative organizations targeted for scrutiny by the IRS engaged in political activities raising legitimate questions about their tax-exempt status. For example, the Ohio Liberty Coalition, which complained to the IRS about its application being delayed, sent out regular e-mails in support of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and organized members to canvass neighborhoods to promote Romney - activities the Times said the IRS generally considers to be partisan. Ohio State University law professor Donald Tobin said "While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”

What bugs me here is that the NYT investigation ignores the heart of the scandal. The NYT found that the conservative organizations are involved in political activity. Well, duh.

But Media Matters has 501(c)(3) status. They are obviously a partisan organization. And although there is a petition to revoke their tax exempt status, the IRS does not appear to have been asking them all these intrusive questions the way it has been with the tea party. The same can be said of other liberal organizations -- MoveOn.org, etc.

The scandal is that the rules have been applied one way to one side and another way to the other. Surely the people at the NYT are smart enough to know that.

So, rather than having any bearing on the actual scandal, the NYT article simply proves that the NYT is itself sufficiently partisan that it is willing to carry out an "investigation" that ignores the actual issue at the heart of the scandal.

I am tempted to remove the paragraph NYT investigation because it's not relevant to the actual scandal. However, rather than start an edit war, I'm raising the issue here.William Jockusch (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

the IRS does not appear to have been asking them [Media Matters, etc] all these intrusive questions the way it has been with the tea party

Source? — goethean 21:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)