Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2-4-8 tax blend

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a consensus that this subject doesn't pass the general notability guideline due to the lack of independence of the sources. There doesn't seem to be agreement on whether the Forbes reference should be regarded as independent or not, but in either case one source alone is not usually considered enough to prove notability. After factoring in the additional concerns about the promotional nature of the article, deletion seems to be the most appropriate course of action. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2-4-8 tax blend

[edit]
2-4-8 tax blend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a blatant attempt by the backers of this tax reform plan to promote the plan on Wikipedia. Although this plan has received some attention in the blogosphere, most if not of the actual news hits for this term arise from extensive comments left on various news sites by the plan's founder. Although extensively cited, the article appears to fall deeply into the synthesis category. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or userfy pending more sources or move to Wikibooks or Wikiversity per below. Unable to find additional reputable sources. —Cupco 03:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you read the Forbes item closely, you will note that it is a post written by the founder of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend movement, Eugene Devany. Basically, he commented on a blog post by a Forbes author, and the Forbes author liked the comment enough to allow Devany to post his manifesto on the Forbes blog site. The "5200 verbatim google hits" result largely from the fact that Devany is posting comments to just about every website he can find to talk up this plan. (Check the actual source of the "2-4-8" hit on any of the top google hits to see what I mean.) As for synthesis and original research, the entire article consists of conclusions about the effectiveness of this tax proposal that are based on the author's own research, rather than on any actual independently published facts. One egregious example:
    Elimination of the employee share of the payroll tax also results in a 7 1/2% increase in take home pay for workers. This is sufficient to increase consumer spending and to create the kind of demand for goods and services that justify adding jobs to the payroll.
While it may be true that this play will result in a 7.5% increase in take home pay for workers, it is a gross leap of faith to assume that this will increase consumer spending enough to cause a growth in jobs. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether the Forbes piece qualifies as an interview. In any case, again, I would prefer to err on the side of inclusion in this case. I agree that your example of synthesis constitutes puffery, and suggest that you mark such statements instead of removing the entire article. —Cupco 19:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since Delany wrote the Forbes piece himself, it can't be considered independent coverage. If you can find any independent coverage (i.e. actual news articles written about this proposal, rather than comments written by Delany to other news stories), I would be interested in seeing them. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although the promotional aspect of this piece also got my backhair up, I also easily found the Forbes piece and that is enough to tip the teeter-totter for me... Needs editing, which is an editing matter... Carrite (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna get out of the way on this one. It's pretty obvious we've got a Single Purpose Editor trying to use WP as a political publicity mechanism, which is something we should avoid as much as we're able. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. After failing in WikiDan61's find-more-than-one-independent-source challenge, I'm considering changing to Userfy or maybe a sister project move. What would this be? Wikiversity? Wikibooks? —Cupco 03:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Decent enough to be kept. Needs editing, so should be tagged, but not removed from the encyclopedia. --Mysterytrey 21:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A little looking around shows that Forbes piece is the only reliable source citing this plan. All other supposedly reliable sources just turn out to be Eugene Patrick Devany, the Forbes commenter, commenting on news sites in attempt to drum up support for his plan. He's really the only one talking about it. As a side note, the article itself is currently written mostly as an advertizement for the plan. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I want to make an initial response to your concerns so they might be nipped in the bud. I have numbered the issues as best I understand them.
1. Issue: Promotional Style (not appropriate for an encyclopedia)
1Q. This appears to be a blatant attempt by the backers of this tax reform plan to promote the plan on Wikipedia.
1A. The article was written to share the 2-4-8 Tax Blend with the world (why else would any article be written) but an effort was made not to write in a style that was not argumentative, promotional or sound like an advertisement. The original draft was rewritten to accommodate this concern. If you can identify any remaining language that you consider to be promotional I am reasonably sure that it can be corrected.
2. Vetting of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend (the use of responses and comments to tax articles is unorthodox)
2Q. Although this plan has received some attention in the blogosphere, most if not of the actual news hits for this term arise from extensive comments left on various news sites by the plan's founder.
2A. A search of "2-4-8 Tax Blend" in Google or Bing will confirm many hits and in 2011-2012 this is a perfectly proper way of vetting a tax plan since it has such an interdisciplinary nature (i.e. law, politics, economics, public administration, accounting, psychology, and even taxation). Indeed, the nature of the topic required an honest promotion in a wide range of publications in order to reach a broad audience and to allow public feedback and criticism. [Some critisim is contained at the official site in the Real Q. & A. page but it was deleated because the Q & A sounded a bit too promotional].
The publications have included: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Business Insider, Hawaii Reporter, Hartford Independent Examiner, The New Republic, Financial Times, The Hill, Vanity Fair, Forbes, CNN, National Journal, Las Cruces Sun News, Dallas News, Reuters, Chicago Headline Club, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg, World Magazine, The Fiscal Times, Los Angeles Times, U.S. News, In News Tribune, America, National Catholic Reporter, Politico, The Miami Herald, Slate, CNN World, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Daily Caller, NY Post, Advisor One, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, Governing, FoxNews.com, The Kansas City Star, Bangor Maine Daily News, and TownHall (to name just those articles and responses documented on the official TaxNetWealth.com website).
The official site is also the work product of an Attorney Tax Advocate and it is devoted to the 2-4-8 Tax Blend and does not in any way promote attorney services. Thus the website falls into the catagory of an expert website on a particular issue.
3. Synthesis Category
3Q.Although extensively cited, the article appears to fall deeply into the synthesis category.
3A. Wikipeadia has articles on other tax plans and it is not clear how they differ from a “synthesis” perspective. An example or elaboration could be very helpful.
4. Constitutional
4Q. I am not at all convinced a wealth tax doesn't require a constitutional amendment
4A. I happen to be an attorney (with A’s in Con Law) and only the Supreme Court can resolve this issue for sure. There are no cases on point. To say that something might be leaglly uncertain does not seem to be appropriate to the 2-4-8 Tav Blend article. The issue came up in the Wealth Tax talk pages and I supplied outside legal opinion on the subject. Indeed, it came up in a post I made to the NY Times just today. See http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/mitt-romney-carried-interest-and-capital-gains/?comments#permid=37
5. Rewrite DONE
5Q. Puffery: Elimination of the employee share of the payroll tax also results in a 7 1/2% increase in take home pay for workers. This is sufficient to increase consumer spending and to create the kind of demand for goods and services that justify adding jobs to the payroll
5A. The above sentence was changed and opposing references have been added.
Please disregard any error in Wiki protocol. Thank you, 248TaxBlend (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author claims that the article was written to "share the 2-4-8 Tax Blend plan with the world", going on to note "why else would any article be written". The author should acquaint himself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Most Wikipedia articles are written not to share one's great ideas with the world, but to report on ideas that have already been proven great (well, at least notable). Using Wikipedia to share one's own great idea is the exact practice that Wikipeida's original research policy is intended to prevent. The author is confused about what part of this article constitutes original research. I will answer that in one sentence: the part where the author asserts that this tax plan is a good answer to the current economic woes. Since the tax plan has not been reviewed in any major economics journal or text, we have only the author's own word for this conclusion -- this is the very definition of original research. The author goes on to claim that posting comments on many different news sites is a perfectly legitimate means of "vetting" his tax plan. That may well be. But it still constitutes a primary source. Wikipedia is not a place for this user to vet his tax plan, or to get the word out. Wikipedia is a place to report on issues that have already been vetted and whose word is already out. I am not at all concerned with whether the plan is constitutional or not -- that is an issue for legal scholars, not Wikipedians. The issue here is whether the plan is a notable event in the financial history of this country, or one man's manifesto that has been well publicized by that one man. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I first wish to thank WikiDan61 and Cupco for the comments about Job Creation and the Payroll Tax. I believe the rewording of the last sentence and the addition of two new references have eliminated any potential “puffery” , made the conclusion more factual and neutral, and referenced a difference of opinion on the subject. Judging from the comments immediately above it no longer appears to be an issue and, most importantly, the article has been improved.
At the suggestion above I have also reread the Wiki Conflict of Interest guidelines and I am certain that there is no conflict of interest with my participation in writing the article. I have no financial, autobiographical, campaigning or legal interest. The section about citing oneself notes, “Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies, particularly WP:SELFPUB. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. : My name as author is used only twice in regard to the original 2005 submission to the President’s Tax Panel and again in the Forbes article that challenged me to make a case for a wealth tax in the U.S. This certainly falls within the policy guidelines particularly since the Forbes article was referenced but not quoted. The “make a case” style of the Forbes article is not appropriate to the writing style of Wikipedia even if the facts in the article could be presented in a neutral style.
On the issue of the Notability requirement the Wiki guide notes, “Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines …:” In this regard notability needs to be viewed in the context of tax reform and wealth taxation and tax blends. As far as I can tell Wikepedia has a reference to 12 tax reforms including the 2-4-8 Tax Blend. The first 7 have historical interest and only the last five are plans occasional in the news or discussed in the blogosphere.
• Automated payment transaction tax
• Efficient Taxation of Income
• Hall–Rabushka flat tax
• Kemp Commission
• Taxpayer Choice Act
• USA Tax
• 9–9–9
• 2-4-8 tax blend
• Competitive Tax Plan
• FairTax
• Flat tax
• Value Added Tax
The elimination of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend would leave a great void in what many consider as the most important issue of our generation. It is the only viable plan that includes a wealth tax. While this aspect goes to the merits and public acceptance of the plan but not to whether the article is a notable contribution. Indeed the Wiki editors (apparently from the taxation project) rated the article as involving a subject of more than minor importance and good quality. It is clear that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend is the most notable tax plan to include a net wealth tax and that feature makes it very unpopular in certain circles. During the Republican convention Grover Norquist attended an affair where he said “I’m not French. I’m not bragging. I’m just telling the truth.” The “joke” came after I had written several pieces indicating that Mr. Romney lived in France, was familiar with a tax blend and his closest supporters had urged the adoption of a VAT and wealth tax. I had also previously written dozens of comments indicating that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend does not violate the no-tax pledge. This political discussion is well beyond the scope of a Wiki article but is highlights why some people have a bias and why the plan is very controversial to some.
The use of the phrases, “share one's great ideas with the world” and “one man's manifesto” suggest a strong bias on the part of the editor. The strengths and weaknesses of the tax plan stand on their own and it does not matter who had the rather simple idea (or how many additional years it took to realize that the plan might be more useful than originally thought). The word manifesto (used by the editor) means a written public declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer ... and there is nothing in the 2-4-8 Tax Blend article which indicates anything other than the plan may be a better way to tax and help the economy. It is not about the personal motives or politics of the author [which are not disclosed]. It is also difficult to understand the claim that the article contains a, “part where the author asserts that this tax plan is a good answer to the current economic woes”. I have reread the article and no where does the author vouch for the plan. Indeed, the simple 2-4-8 elements are outlined, the economic issues are discussed with independent references and the reader is left to consider the reasonableness of the facts presented.
I need to also add that the heading “Goals” was added by another editor and the submitted article had this paragraph merely as a continuation of the earlier table. The paragraph introduced economic issues that would be affected: investment, jobs, fairness/deferral/tax avoidance and wealth distribution. The original author did not say that changing these issues was a “goal” of the plan. The use of the heading Goal makes it sound as if the author had a political or social agenda and set out to design a tax plan to accomplish it. This is false. Indeed the enormous wealth distribution and the trillions in tax deferrals (at least at the corporate level) did not exist when the plan was proposed. The plan was also proposed years before there was a housing bubble, a recession or high rates of unemployment. Thus the items listed really could not have been a foreseeable “goals” of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend. It is more fair to consider that the plan was initially proposed for reasons of general fairness and efficiency and that the subsequent economic crisis has created or aggravated issues which the plan would directly affect – perhaps in positive ways.
248TaxBlend (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm all for assuming good faith but this is really a bit silly. Beyond the obvious conflict of interest editing (which the user in question should note is always strongly discouraged), a good number of the sources are clearly self-published by the editor in question, who created both the subject tax plan and the article. Given the cross referencing between the two, one can only conclude that a significant portion of the material in the article is a blatant combination of original research and self-promotion by an WP:SPA. The suggestion that TaxNetWealth.com "falls into the catagory (sic) of an expert website on a particular issue" and so should be considered an independent reliable source is patently false. It is owned and copyrighted by the person who wrote the article in question. It is certainly not independent of the subject. Of the "news" coverage sources some are broken links and others don't mention 2-4-8 tax blend in any way at all. The final suggestion - that depriving WP of an article about his tax plan would "leave a great void" because it is the "the only viable plan" - says it all really. Almost a contender for Speedy Delete. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Editors should be aware of context and understand that context can often make the difference between notable and not-notable. Simply citing a rigid policy for the purposes of ending an argument doesn't feel like a particularly fulfilling way of making your point and there's a reason - it's not. All things have context and without context, value is diminished." is from User:Stalwart111/Notability in context by Stalwart111 above. He has a healthy interest is in the middle age church (and looking for help) and perhaps on how many angels can fit on the head of a pin (a “notable” philosophical interest of the time).
This is mentioned to acknowledge how difficult it is not just to apply the wiki “dogma” but also to formulate it as one comes across a palpably notable subject that is on the fringe of interdisciplinary fields and has evolved in an unorthodox manner.  :248TaxBlend (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? Are you actually suggesting that because I have an interest in 17th century Church history that all my comments relating to (entirely unrelated) Wikipedia content should be viewed in that context? As insults go, that's not a very clever one. In fact, it has to be one of the silliest things I've read for a very long time. That essay (which is a user essay - an opinion) was almost entirely about geographic context eg. the fact that there are fewer newspapers in Africa should not make all subjects in Africa automatically less notable because there is generally less "coverage". The concerns in the second half of the essay have since been recognised by the wider Wikipedia community and new (more contextual) guidelines for association football are now in place to differentiate between different "professional" leagues in different countries. Suggesting either of those concepts apply here and quoting it out of context is laughably ironic. You have still done nothing to demonstrate the notability of this subject beyond giving your opinion (again) that it should be afforded some special treatment because you have personally deemed it to be special and worthy of special treatment. Wikipedia's guidelines have been established over a very long period of time and have been tested many times over in relation to theories "on the fringe" and concepts ahead of their time. They can be changed, and there are processes in place to allow them to change. You are free to join any of the myriad conversations about whether they should change and how. But this conversation is about this article and whether or not it currently meets current guidelines. Feel free to present evidence (rather than more personal opinion or half-baked insults). Stalwart111 (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not anticipate that anyone, including Stalwart111, would take my words as an "insult". The style may have been overly cute by playing off the 17th Century Church and wiki "dogma". I think I spent too many years in the minor seminary and that is "laughably ironic". I apologise and wish to indicate that the sentence quoted makes sense to me because "context can often make the difference between notable and not-notable". This thought certainly has application beyond the 17th century and beyond Aftican geography or sports. I also agree that my humble opinion on notability, standing alone, would not be sufficient 248TaxBlend (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It is difficult to have these conversations between very uninvolved editors (who may not have ever come in contact with detailed tax theory generally, let alone this particular one) and very involved editors, especially where a conflict of interest is involved. An assertion of policy from one side can often be viewed as a personal insult by the other because the topic is "near and dear" to them. I understand it must be hard to believe in something passionately only to have a community of people (who might quite rightly be described as as "less knowledgeable" of the topic) tell you your idea is "not notable". Please understand they do not mean you are less worthwhile or your ideas are less valid than others. They are part of a community that has developed very detailed (and perhaps strict) rules to ensure an encyclopaedic resource does not become bogged down with every thought anyone ever had. For that we have Twitter and Facebook. To differentiate between mere tweets and a Wikipedia entry, the community have put in place certain standards and your article is being judged against those. I actually think your work might be a case of WP:TOOSOON and approaching it on that basis might be worthwhile. Do some work away from Wikipedia to get your ideas noticed, continue to talk to papers, continue to promote your theory and build coverage of it. A few well-written articles by serious journalists or academics would probably push this article over the line. Then come back (perhaps get someone to do the actually writing to avoid further conflict of interest accusations) and give it another crack. At the moment the subject is at the point where people can argue about the article's merits, so they will. Do some work offline and put it beyond doubt. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your idea - it's the place to record its encyclopaedic merit once is had found its place in history. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I believe that to apply any test fairly you must first separate the message from the messenger, or in this case, the author of the article from the content. The 2-4-8 Tax Blend was essentially described in one sentence in 2005 but the Panel’s decision to limit the scope of potential tax reform rendered it inapplicable to the panel’s narrowed purposes. Now imagine that a Great recession follows and prolonged unemployment and a Mr. Jones, Esq. realizes that the tax blend first described by a Mrs. Smith in 2005 has potential utility. Mr. Jones proceeds to solicit feedback in the blogosphere until the top publication for tax reform, Forbes, (through an attorney-CPA columnist) invites Mr. Jones to explain why and how a wealth tax could be feasible in the U.S. (and implemented in a revenue neutral manner). Keep in mind that Steve Forbes wrote the seminal “The Flat Tax Revolution: Using a Postcard to Abolish the IRS” (2005) and that Forbes Magazine is renowned for focusing on wealth and the tax strategies of the wealthy. After Mr. Jones publishes the article, “Creating New Wealth by Taxing Net Wealth” comment come in but to the great surprise of the Forbes editors (and Mr. Jones) none of the comments identify a legal, logical or economic reason why the significant claims in the article would not work. The idea has been vetted in an appropriate publication of record with an expected audience of interest in the particular subject matter. Moreover the introduction to the article challenged the reader to consider the feasibility of the plan (-“you be the judge”). The editors at Forbes are reputable in the subject of tax reform and some deference should be given to their obvious judgment about what is notable.
Getting back to the fact that Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones did not write anything compels a fair look at the actual words of the article and not on who wrote it or why. If there is no bias in the words the article should stand. Indeed, the greatness of Wiki comes from the ability of editors to change and improve articles even to the point where the language of any editor, including the original, is left on the cutting room floor.
248TaxBlend (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The comment section of a blog (even a reputable blog published by Forbes) does not constitute "vetting in an appropriate publication of record". If the author of this tax proposal wishes to vet the idea in an appropriate publication of record, he should submit it to one of the variously peer-reviewed economics journals. Or even manage to get the idea published in the actual print edition of one of the major financial publications (as an actual article, not as a letter to the editor). The problem with this article isn't that the ideas is invalid (heck, it sounds like a great idea to me), but that the idea is original research, and Wikipedia doesn't allow that. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article could probably written on the subject, but this is too promotional to be acceptable. It would be too difficult to rescue, because the promotional parts are interwoven throughout the description. the only way to do this would be to start over. Even the defense of the article above is promotional: "Moreover the introduction to the article challenged the reader to consider the feasibility of the plan". Challenging the reader to consider a plan is not encyclopedic writing, but advocacy. "The elimination of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend would leave a great void in what many consider as the most important issue of our generation." This is a defense of the importance of the advocacy, which is a plain admission that it is advocacy. The claim is made that the comments in Forbes prove not just the notability , but the merit of the plan, & that this is a reason to accept the article. It may be a reason to accept the plan, but it is a reason to reject the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have reread the Wikipedia:No original research guidelines which indicate that while primary sources are to be generally avoided, “primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.” In the case of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend the original 2005 submission to the President’s Panel on Tax Reform is a reliable publication within the meaning of the primary source rule. The rest of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend article relies only upon facts and opinions from secondary sources which are well referenced. It is significant that even the Forbes article is listed as a generak reference (primarily for the notoriety requirement) and not cited in or relied upon in the body of the wiki article. The introduction to the Forbes article by Mr. Reilly also serves as a secondary source in regard to the recognition of the 2-4-8 Tax blend as a potential feasible use of a wealth tax blend in the U.S. The Forbes introduction reads, “Mr. Devany told me about his 2-4-8 plan in a comment on another post. I challenged him to make a case that a wealth tax … is actually feasible.” It is significant that Mr. Reilly knew about the details of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend, invited the submission of a article in Forbes (cf. not a "letter to the editor") with a specific sub-topic regarding the potential use of a wealth tax in the U.S. and upon reading the draft Mr. Reily wrote an introduction relating the wealth tax issue to Mr. Buffet and Forbes obviously determined that the article was appropriate to publish. The suggestion in the comment above that a print version of the magazine or only and economics journal with a peer review would meet the wiki notoriety standard reflects a misconception of how tax reform plans originate and what they mean. [For example, the “x-tax plan” was drafted by an attorney and first published in a magazine not significantly different from the Forbes publication here. Those that analyzed and wrote about it relied upon the article used for general publication]. It is also important to keep in mind that the original research rule is intended to prohibit argument not based upon secondary sources and not to discourage new and noteworthy topics. A primary source is not misused when all of the points and arguments that comprise the article are from reliable secondary sources and the topics covered are standard for the basic subject in issue.
It is not very helpful to comment that an article is “too promotional to be acceptable” and fail to identify even a single line that reads in a promotional style and to further proceed to opine that the article is “too difficult to rescue”. Perhaps DGG never actually read the wiki article because he writes,

“the article above is promotional: "Moreover the introduction to the article challenged the reader to consider the feasibility of the plan". Challenging the reader to consider a plan is not encyclopedic writing, but advocacy.”

The "claimed objectionable” introduction was to the Forbes article and not to the Wiki article at all. I implore DGG to read the wiki article and to reconsider his opinion if it has been made in error (or at least to point out what is promotional). I know DGG has a, “dislike for deciding matters by technicalities rather than by merits … not hidebound, definitions of ‘sources’ and ‘notability’ appropriate to the way people communicate in the 21st century” See DGG, Biases section.
248TaxBlend (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with quoting that part of that guideline is that the very next sentence is, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". So yes, you can cite your primary sources, but your interpretation of them is still original research. Someone else (a reliable, independent source) must have interpreted them that way, and the combination can then be used as a reference.
Anything that makes any claim (promotional or derogatory) must be referenced. Any portion that makes a claim about the benefit of the idea must be sourced. There are whole tracts (7 paragraphs in a row when I counted) which talk of the benefits of the idea without providing a source. That is all promotional because it is your opinion of the benefits of the idea which have not been backed-up by others. If it does not have a source then it is original research. That is the benefit of having independent media provide coverage of the idea - once they have made the same claims, we can cite that material and repeat the claim in the article. If I were to remove all of the unreferenced material from that article now, there would be almost nothing left. That's the problem. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that while it is not always the case, it is often the case that articles created by those with a very clear conflict of interest fail to meet WP:GNG. The argument goes that if the subject was notable enough (per Wikipedia guidelines), one of the many regular Wikipedia contributors would have taken the subject to WP:AFC or would have created it of their own volition. If it appears regularly in the news, in scholarly articles or is regularly referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia (caveat: WP:WINARS), it should (in theory) come to the attention of contributors and an article will be created for it. If there is so little coverage of a subject that it takes someone very close to it to create an article, it is likely too soon for that article, or the subject simply doesn't meet guidelines to the extent that it should have an article. It is one of the reasons why COI editing is strongly discouraged. There are always exceptions, but I don't think this is one of them. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI hope you guys and gals are enjoying this. I [name should be changed from 248TaxBlend to EugenePatrickDevany] wish to thank Stalwart111 for his further comments above because they have opened my eyes to the way two or more people can look at the same words and perceive entirely different things. The comment states, “There are whole tracts (7 paragraphs in a row when I counted) which talk of the benefits of the idea without providing a source.” I do not know if this is a statement of fact or opinion, or if it was influenced by the title “Goals” which is a false and inaccurate title added by another editor (see second comment under name 248TaxB;end, last paragraph). The four issues discussed are standard items one would consider of any tax reform plan but they are not “benefits” - unless the reader has a predisposition to a desired effect or outcome that the tax plan should produce.

  1. The first WP issue relates to behavioral economics and how the tax change alters incentives and creates what the author describes as a “carrot and stick” effect from the interplay between the wealth tax, the lower income tax rate and the elimination of the capital gains tax. If the reader is predisposed to accept government’s use of negative reinforces (the threat of punishment by the government, the nanny state, etc.) the reader may judge the combined incentives to be beneficial. If the reader is predisposed to think that the government should avoid using non-essential penalties in the tax code (as some believe about the new health care requirement) than the combined incentives will not be viewed as “benefits” to the reader. The reader will judge the added coercion of the tax code as not being beneficial. The discussion presents the facts but leaves the issue of if or how beneficial the new incentives would be to the reader.
  2. The second WP issue relates to job creation and one might expect all readers to find job creation as beneficial. However the analysis flows from the proposed elimination of all payroll taxes and the number of new jobs that can be expected is not certain. More importantly, those who like the current Social Security funding system and its 80 years of history will not find a new tax base to be beneficial. Those who feel that workers should pay more in taxes will not find this beneficial. The facts are presented to the reader without going off on a tangent speculating about which reader may support the payroll tax system. Indeed, there are no doubt some who would oppose any reduction in business tax rates under any circumstances. The point of the issue is that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend would encourage "some" job creation and not that it is beneficial to do so in this particular manner.
  3. The third WP issue relates to tax deferral and tax avoidance, and elaborates how the 2-4-8 Tax Plan would put an end to this. It does this primarily by replacing the capital gains tax with a net wealth tax that is the equivalent of taxing imputed income from the investment of all types of assets (whether or not they have been invested). To say that this is a “benefit” clearly reflects little more than the judgment of the reader. Congress, in its wisdom, has crafted a tax code that contains deferrals (and reduced rates) for capital gains which have been justified by any number of public policy reasons (well beyond the scope of the article). It is sufficient that the article explains the rules of how the tax deferrals would end and leave it to the reader to decide if this is beneficial.
  4. The last WP issue is wealth redistribution (and here again it is important to note that some other editor added the word “Alleviate” to the original title of “Wealth Redistribution”). This title change gives an impression that the author of the WP article has an agenda apart from explaining how wealth has been redistributed by the current tax code and how the 2-4-8 Tax Blend will alter that effect. The block quote from the 2005 Final Report makes it clear that the distributional effects of the tax code are a matter for Congress to determine and by implication that good people from both sides of the political spectrum, may in good conscience, let it stand. The WP article indicates that the 2-4-8 Tax Blend would change the distribution of income and wealth but does not conclude that the change would be more or less beneficial than that which Congress has put in place. The facts presented include a table which speaks for itself and a short discussion of the uncertain relation between the income and wealth gap and recession (or depression as Mr. Krugman likes to call it). The reader may examine the facts and come to his or her own conclusion about whether the kind of redistribution of wealth than can be expected from the 2-4-8 Tax Blend is or is not beneficial across the range of taxpayers.

I believe the subjective views of some editors could be unintentionally (and maybe unconsciously) clouding their judgment on not only the promotion issue (via subjective interpretation of what is a “benefit” vs. simply an “effect” of the plan) but also on the original research issue (via the assumption that data has been “interpreted” as opposed to simply being “expressed” and “presented”). It is important to understand that a tax plan may have simple components such as 2-4-8 and more complex effects on one or more economic issues. While there is no fixed limit to how data might be mathematically modeled, analyzed and projected it is also possible to present the components and use firmly established (static) data from standard tables, etc. and explanatory articles on the particular subject matter. An explanation of basic economic issues through secondary sources is not an “interpretation”.

  1. To say the Supreme Court now recognizes that a penalty in the tax code may be used to coerce desired behavior is not an “interpretation” it is a fact. To say that a net wealth tax operates in a similar way is simply using a well known example to explain how the net wealth tax component works, and is not an “interpretation” or elaboration in the sense of A plus B will lead to C. It is a simply fact that tax provisions A and B share negative reinforcement characteristics. No “interpretation” is involved. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.
  2. To say that lower taxes on business and more take home pay will effect job creation is not an “interpretation” it is simply an explanation that there is some effect between payroll tax elimination (reduction) and job creation. One reference gives an estimate of payroll tax rate changes and numbers of new jobs and other (footnote) references indicate that there is uncertainty and disagreement by experts as to the number of jobs that might be expected. There is no attempt to “interpret” the opinions to say one opinion is more reliable than the other or “interpret” the data to project something ridiculous like, “12,000,000 jobs will likely be created within two weeks of the election”. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.
  3. To say that tax deferral will end as a result of replacing the capital gains tax with a wealth tax is a simple fact. A footnote also discusses corporate tax deferral. To describe the importance of this change to the investment community with an illustration of the well known (and well referenced) finances of Warren Buffet is not an “interpretation” of anything. It is simply using a very good example to explain and contrast the issue in the context of the current tax code. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.
  4. To say that the income and wealth redistribution from the current tax code would end is also a simple logical fact. The use of table data to accurately show how the wealth distribution has changed since 1995 is a fact needed to quantify the issue in the context of the current tax code and is not an “interpretation”. The use of secondary sources to show that there “may” be a causal relation between recession and the income/wealth gap is not an “interpretation” and simply presents the opinion of others to convey the potential importance of the issue. This explanation is not original research, it is original expression required of all WP editors.
  • One editor’s “promotion” is another’s “clear explanation and expression”.
  • One editor’s “notable” is another’s “so what” (until it becomes a "Well, whaddya know?")
  • One editor’s “benefit” is another’s “I didn’t, or don’t, think of it that way because … .”
  • One editor’s “original research” is another’s “What research? I didn’t do any research! I just know the basics that have been discussed for years in the literature (and the news).”
  • One editor’s “interpretation” is another’s “He is just a smarty pants because I never would have thought of that.”

EugenePatrickDevany 18:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)

Mate, I think you have completely missed the point. It doesn't matter if you refer to them as benefits, effects, outcomes or results - the claims your make in the article need to be verified by sources and the claims in this article are not. Not just a little bit unsourced but a whole lot unsourced. It doesn't matter if the claims are positive (like claiming a "plan" will save all citizens thousands of dollars) or negative (like claiming a "plan" will ruin 4 of the 5 largest cities in the US) or completely neutral (like claiming the plan was first published on a particular date) - all claims must be verified. Your self-determined comparisons between "one editor's... is another editor's..." are way off the mark. As far as Wikipedia is concerned none of those personal opinions are relevant and in all cases there are very clear guidelines to determine what is and isn't appropriate. All you are doing is disregarding guidelines, spamming this AfD with yet more of your personal opinion and hoping people will get so bored reading your pages and pages of WP:OR opinionated drivel and that they'll just give in. Rather than just posting more and more of your nonsensical essays on how you would interpret guidelines if you had the chance or how you would amend guidelines to give your essays special consideration, how about you spend some time away from this AfD seeing if you can find even ONE piece of in-depth coverage from an independent reliable source? I think I've tried to be as nice as humanly possible - far nicer than most would be in the face of such ridiculous nonsense. But this is just getting silly. To begin with, and without posting another 5000 bytes of useless, opinionated cruft to go along with it, please post links to three independent, reliable sources that mention this subject ("2-4-8 tax blend") specifically and give it significant coverage. If you can then I'll shut up and leave this AfD alone. Go... (Stalwart111 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
1. (paste link here)
2. (Paste link here)
3. (Paste link here)


  • Comment - I am pleased this “Mate” is making progress by apparently moving away from the article content objections (none of which are valid) and focusing his continued objection on his personal opinion that “three independent, reliable sources“ are required by WP; and that an invitation to write a highly specialized tax reform article for Forbes (and the submission to the President’s Panel, and the hundreds of comments vetting the plan in the blogosphere and the official website [with thousands of hits]) does not meet the WP “notoriety” pre-condition. EugenePatrickDevany 14:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I am displeased that Mr Devaney refuses to understand the Wikipedia policies involved here, and is somehow deluded into thinking that his own blog posting on Forbes constitutes an independent source, or that his own comments on every forum or news site that he can find constitute "notoriety" (his word, not mine), or that posting a comment at an open forum of the US government (at which any person could post any comment) constitutes a "submission to the President's Panel". Mr. Devaney, the notability of your plan is not in any way bolstered by your practice of spamming every site you can find with this proposal. It can only be indicated by other, independent writers choosing to look at your plan and write their own articles about it. Since not one single independent article can be found about this plan, it appears not to be notable. Whether or not the plan is viable, or reasonable, or legal is not the issue here. There are lots of Wikipedia articles about pie-in-the-sky ideas that never went anywhere, but they were well-covered in independent media. This plan has not been well-covered, and so deserves no place at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WikiDan may be “displeased” because his application to nominate the article for deletion does not meet his particular understanding for a “well-covered” requirement as part of the notability pre-condition. His use of words and phrases like, “refuses to understand”, “deluded”, “spamming” and “pie-in-the-sky” reveal his personal opinions about the article content and its author. The language and argument does not really advance the notability issue debate or how it was (or was not) met by the interaction with the editorial staff of Forbes and their invitation to write and decision to publish. It may be worth considering that Forbes is the premiere publication of its type and an article on the subject of comprehensive tax reform is quite rare (because of its legal complexity an potential to make the publishers look foolish for printing it, if there is a legal or logical flaw). Few publishers are willing to take the risk. EugenePatrickDevany 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)
  • Seriously? It's a nomination, not an application, and you can nominate anything you like and the community then has a chance to reach a consensus about whether the article should remain on Wikipedia or not. There are very clear guidelines for what should and shouldn't be included. Often, there is conjecture about how many sources an article needs or whether or not the sources in question are appropriate or whether they meet guidelines. In this case, you have offered up no independent, reliable sources to verify notability. Instead you have offered us more and more and more of your personal opinion and original research. We have given you the opportunity to list the sources on which you built your article (another purpose of the AfD process) and you have refused. You need to understand (and it is at the bottom of every article editing window, just to make sure) that there is a burden of proof with which all editors are expected to comply. By rights, any of the editors who came across your "article" could have simply removed the vast majority of the content and almost every single claimed "source" on the basis it completely failed the burden of proof and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The article would have been nominated for speedy deletion and wouldn't exist. Instead, WikiDan61 brought it here to give you (and others) the chance to demonstrate how it meets guidelines and to build a community consensus one way or the other. Rather than read the relevant policies, undertake additional research and make a reasoned contribution to this discussion, you have simply determined that anyone who doesn't agree with your OR theories is wrong and should be drowned out with pages and pages of nonsensical drivel. In the interests of good faith (but against my better judgement) I'm going to give you a chance to provide sources for your article. If you can't, or you refuse, or you refuse to focus on content, I will start removing un-sourced claims from the article in question (as is my responsibility as an editor here), as well as the unreliable "sources" themselves, on the basis that the author who put them there completely failed in their burden of proof. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will be happy to identify or add a source for each "specific content claim" you identify as being "un-sourced". Simply copy the phrase(s) or sentence(s) and let me know. Thank you. EugenePatrickDevany 03:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)
Great! How about the very first sentence in the very first paragraph about what the 2-4-8 tax blend is? Given that a source created and maintained by the creator of the subject is obviously not an independent reliable source (IRS) for that subject, let's have an IRS for that - someone who has summarised what the plan does, other than you. Just the basics, nothing complicated. An independent source giving an introduction of what the plan does.
Let's also have a source for Section 1 - Tax Changes - at the moment it has a link back to your website and some original research notes, but no sources. Let's have an IRS for that - someone independent, of authority, who has given a detailed account of the changes that will result from the implementation of the plan.
Let's maybe have a source for any of the claims in Section 2 - Anticipated Economic Changes From the 2-4-8 Tax Blend that actually give coverage of these concepts in relation to the subject - this particular plan. Some of the generic claims are "sourced" but their relationship to this particular plan is entirely unfounded and un-sourced. The whole section is a list of unrelated claims (some sourced) which have been SYNTH'd together to make it look like the sources support the claims relating to this subject. They do not, and except for your self-published material, none of the sources make a link between those concepts and your idea. Let's have an IRS for that - someone independent, of authority, who can link your specific idea to any of the broader tax ideas in that paragraph.
Lets have a source for any of the suggestions in Section 3 - Administration, valuation and digital filing. At the moment there is one "source" for 7 whole paragraphs of original research and that "source" is your own website. That is not a reliable, independent source for this subject. Let's have one for each of those that actually relates to 2-4-8 specifically, from someone independent.
Let's start with those. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
In response to the unwarranted editorial intention of the editor who said, “I will start removing un-sourced claims from the article in question (as is my responsibility as an editor here), as well as the unreliable "sources" themselves, on the basis that the author who put them there completely failed in their burden of proof.” I invite consideration of the following:
Response 1: The introduction contains seven references and describes what the plan is and not what it does. Only the sponsors, as reported in the official website, can define what the components of the plan is. The Scoring Outline is referenced as the definitive guide to the proposed tax reform elements. A primary and unique aspect of the plan comes from its blend of three tax bases which is consistent with the definition of income and permitted measures of taxation described by tax law professors: Shakow, David and Shuldiner, Reed, “Symposium on Wealth Taxes Part II, New York University School of Law Tax Law Review, 53 Tax L. Rev. 499, Summer, 2000. There is no bias or inaccuracy in the introduction and no other “independent source giving an introduction of what the plan” is has been identified.
Response 2 This paragraph is a transition from the specific individual and corporate tax law changes and revenue estimates above to the four economic issues discussed below. There is no claim that other economic issues are not affected. The issues selected for discussion are fundamental and basic to tax reform and each is supported by independent sources as is discussed more fully below.
Response 3: The suggestion that, “the generic claims are ‘sourced’ but their relationship to this particular plan is entirely unfounded” is not sufficiently specific to formulate a response. In good faith a request had been made to copy the phrase or sentence that contains a claim that is un-sourced but this editor has declined to do so. The generic claim that, “none of the sources make a link between those concepts and your idea” is more likely do to the reader’s lack of familiarity with tax law and tax philosophy than with the specific content or expression. This tax reform article is not intended as a primer in the complex subject of U.S. Tax Law although numerous links to WP pages are provided for that purpose.
Response 4: See Response 3.
Response 5: See Response 3.
Response 6: This entire section relates to the administrative details of the 2-4-8 Tax Plan as taken directly from the official site. It relates to secondary issues of interest to tax reform advocates rather than to the broader economic issues discussed above. The topic is separated to avoid further complicating the main issues. The section contains no interpretation or analysis and, by its nature, has no source apart from the official website.
EugenePatrickDevany 15:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)
(I removed the sections of your response which were just cut-and-paste repeats of my comments - other editors can see what you are responding to above.)
So in summary - "No" - not one single source that gives significant coverage to the subject specifically that could be considered independent or reliable. Exactly as I suggested and exactly as I expected. Your claim, "Only the sponsors, as reported in the official website, can define what the components of the plan is" makes my point for me and is, in effect, an admission the article does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. You've pretty much said all that needs to be said. I'm done. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2-4-8_tax_blend&oldid=1137512460"