Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-08 Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Mediator(s)	Qst
Comment	Closing case

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request details

Some editors are suppressing link to 1913 Saturday Evening Post article, http://www.restoreliberty.com/incometax.htm, hosted by a site advocating abolishing income taxes on wage earners.

Who are the involved parties?

MPublius Arthur Rubin Isotope23 Morphh Famspear

What's going on?

Some editors want to require Wikipedia readers to purchase for $25 a 1913 article in the Saturday Evening Post, even though it is available on the web. The article was written by Benton McMillin, the author of the 1894 income tax law struck down by the Supreme Court. McMillin continued working to pass an income tax and 19 years later, a constitutional amendment was passed allowing an income tax, and the article contains important information pertaining to the legislative history of the income tax. More details at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#RFC_on_Saturday_Evening_Post_source

What would you like to change about that?

Put the link back in the article.

Mediator notes

Greetings. So, it seems this request is rather simple. Some editors wish for the article to contain a link to a website which requires you to pay $25 to view the text/information, however other editors know there is a link when paying is not required? Am I correct in this matter? Qst 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from Wikipedia:Citation templates; The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. This means, there is no valid policy or guideline which states that a reference in an article must change to {{cite journal}}. Could the parties involved please comment about what their preference over the reference format is. Qst 20:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also my understanding, per the comments below that the information which apparently costs $25 could be found on Google Books, if there is a preview available, a party involved may wish to check. Thanks, Qst 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen no comments left on the article talk page about agreement (under my sextion header), leading me to believe this case has been settled between the parties involved privately. If no comments are left here or on the article talk page after a week, this case will be closed. Regards, Qst 15:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Qst's comment above, I'll close this case, unless of course there any objections. Addhoc (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

Dear Mediator: Thank you for helping with this case.

I think that Mpublius wants to link to the restoreliberty website, which is not a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia.

If I recall correctly, there is unfortunately no other website with the Saturday Evening Post article. Another editor had pointed out to Mpublius that the mere fact that there only one online source does not make that source acceptable for purposes of Wikipedia.

The "$25 concept" came in because an editor pointed out to Mpublius that he could order a copy of the Saturday Evening Post article for about $25.

Actually, I believe you could just go down to a large public library or university library and find the article.

Restoreliberty, as a web site, appears pretty unreliable. It does not even seem to have a disclosed "author."

My position was: leave the statement in the Wikipedia article, with a citation tag (not a link to restoreliberty). Eventually we might locate a copy of the actual Saturday Evening Post article, and then verify whether the citation is accurate -- without having to "link" to anything at all.

In my view, the understandable desire to link to other web sites on the internet (to make it easy to view materials) should not override basic Wikipedia rules about reliable sources, etc. Yours, Famspear 16:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is no ther website which provides the same information as the wesbite which requires a fee? Qst 16:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreting the above. What I would like to see in the article is a correct {{cite journal}} tag properly pointing to the Saturday Evening Post article. Using a "URL" tag in the template would be wrong without adding format = disputed reprint. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mediator: I believe that the $25 was not a reference to web site at all. Editor Morphh, on or about 22 October 2007, in the talk page for the article, was saying that you could buy a back issue of the Saturday Evening Post to verify the citation. Maybe Morphh was talking about buying an actual paper copy.

Anyway, we don't even need to spend the $25. All we have to do is go to a major library and find the Saturday Evening Post issue, and then we can verify that we have the correct citation.

It would be nice to be able to "link" to a website, but it's not necessary, or even appropriate where the website (in this case, restoreliberty) is unreliable.

Compare this situation to the one where we are citing court decisions. In law-related articles (like this one), if you were to try to find the vast majority of the court decisions that are cited, you would have to subscribe to an expensive online service like Westlaw, Lexis, CCH, or Thomson RIA -- or you would have to subscribe to PACER (the government website, which also is not free), in order to actually view the documents. There's nothing unusual about not having an online internet link for each and every citation. (Note: Fortunately, the texts of most U.S. Supreme Court decisions are available for free on the internet, but that's an exception.)

I think in Wikipedia the practice is not to link to (or to cite) unreliable web sites. Restoreliberty in my view does not even come close to being reliable. Yours, Famspear 18:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of the subject of the dispute: The ~~perpetrator~~, ummm, petitioner, has been including a link to the restoreliberty site calling it the "Saturday Evening Post". This is a clear misattribution. What I would like to see is in my previous comment: A proper {{cite}} template pointing to the actual article, possibly with "url=http: //www.restoreliberity.com/...|format = disputed reprint" among the citation tags. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my misinterpretation, although it was not commented above about switching references to a {{cite journal}} template, hence I had no knowledge that this was part of the dispute. I shall commented under Mediator notes in a minute. Qst 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to check the talk page. What the ~~perpetrator~~, ummm, petitioner inserted was:

<ref>Saturday Evening Post, May 17, 1913[http://www.restoreliberty.com/incometax.htm]</ref>

What I would like to see is

<ref>{{cite journal |last=McMillan |first=Benton |date=[[1913-05-17]] |title=The Income Tax |journal=The Saturday Evening Post |volume=185 |issue=46 |pages=6-7 | }}</ref>

or

<ref>{{cite journal |last=McMillan |first=Benton |date=[[1913-05-17]] |title=The Income Tax |journal=The Saturday Evening Post |volume=185 |issue=46 |pages=6-7 | url=http://www.restoreliberty.com/incometax.htm| format=disputed reprint }}</ref>

Seems simple enough. (The numbers may not be correct; they're taken from a discussion on the talk page.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree - this does seem simpler, I will make a section on the talk page in order to build consensus, if consensus is in favour of your proposed method, it will be performed and this mediation request will be closed, if its against it - we will find out another way to resolve this dispute. Qst 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved comment: If the Saturday Evening Post is the publication being used as the citation, it seems only appropriate that the citation should point to them. While free/available resources anybody can check with ease are frequently preferred, there's no policy requirement to such effect, because any requirement of that nature would effectively lock us out of countless (and frequently quite respected) sources. Arthur Rubin's proposal strikes me as being a good direction to move in. This website holds something which purports to be the original article (and, providing it's not a copyvio, linking in the cite or talk page seems fine to me)... but in the event of discrepancies or disputes, it seems to me that the authoritative publication of that article would be the original copy/publisher. Hopefully that makes sense. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just reading this.. I wasn't notified of the Mediation and happen to catch it on the 16th talk. When I was mentioning the $25, I was speaking to the policy on verifiability. The article is verifiable as you can purchase a reprint. I have to say (to put it politely), this is the oddest (insert mumble and eyeroll here) mediation request I've seen. The statement is not really disputed, the main reference is not disputed, the dispute is with using the website as the reference. We've given the journal citation format on the talk. The dispute is over using this website link as the source, not the particular format. I don't even understand why the website is needed.. it is not necessary for the cite. The website itself is not acceptable as a reliable source. If the website is included, I can accept Arthur Rubin's suggestion that it require the format specification of "reprint" - although I question if the site is violating copyright by doing so (perhaps that is not our concern). I had recommended using the link to purchase the article http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/resources/magazine/archives.shtml as the URL but it seems Mpublius is much more interested in including a link to http://www.restoreliberty.com then actually citing the material. Either way.. I'm not going to get too wound up about it. Morphh ^(talk) 14:10, 09 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anything published before 1923 in the United States is in the public domain. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Morphh ^(talk) 14:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would I be correct in saying that the main dispute here is whether or not a reference to the webpage which asks you to pay $25 should be used? Qst 14:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... Mpublius wanted to use restoreliberty as the cite. We said that was not a reliable source but he could reference the article itself in the Saturday Evening Post, to including showing him the formated reference as presented above. I guess this was not good enough, he still wants to link to the restore liberty website. So I guess the main question now is if http://www.restoreliberty.com should be used as the URL rather than the Saturday Evening Post archive. Again, the issue is not with the statement, Saturday Evening Post reference, or even with the formating, it is just with regard to using Restore Liberty as a reliable source for the cite. Using Restore Liberty is unnecessary for the reference but it gives the user a place to read it without having to pay $25 for the reprint. At the time, I don't think anyone was aware of the ability to add the "reprint" statement to the format tag in the cite template. So this might provide a compromise point. Morphh ^(talk) 1:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) In my opinion a reference which requires oneto pay is a no-no--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved BD2412 (talk · contribs) The dispute here has nothing at all to do with paying for a reference. It has to do with linking to a biased and unreliable website which happens to be hosting a copy of that reference. We don't actually need a link at all - if, as Famspear suggests, someone could look up that copy of the Saturday Evening Post in a library and confirm that is says what is claimed, we can cite it like any other book. The real problem is that the website, "restoreliberty.com" is simply not a website to which Wikipedia should be linking without a stern disclaimer that the "legal advice" given there is utterly bogus and will land you in jail. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this fact can be verified by a book from a local library or bookshop, please use the {{cite book}} template (see acutal template page for syntax). There should be a link to an ISBN of the book in it, so editors may be able to check it on Google Books. Whether or not this is available via a book, links to websites which require users to pay seem unacceptable (I'm positive there is a policy/guideline saying this). Wikipedia is an open project encyclopedia, so I propose the link be removed as Wikipedia is an open content encyclopeda (free encyclopedia, for that matter). However, Mediators have no power over situations so this will have to be discussed among the parties involved. Qst 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? - We link to books, newspapers, and magazines that have a cost all the time. I would say that most of the books or magazines we link to have a cost. Wikipedia is free but it doesn't have to use references to free content. Our verifiability policy only states that it must be verifiable from a reliable source. The information is verifiable. You can get the magazine at the library, or if you prefer you can order an archive copy from the Saturday Evening Post. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia except to say, this is where the content can be verified. The {{cite journal}} citation without any link is enough to verify the content per Wikipedia policy. No more is needed. If you're going to add a link, then you have the Saturday Evening Post where the magazine can be verified if needed or what is argued for by Mpublius is to link to the restoreliberty web site, which many have argued to be unacceptable as a reliable source for Wikipedia. The issue here is using that website as a reference. Again, no link is required at all to satisfy Wikipedia references policy - cite journal using the Saturday Evening Post is perfectly fine without it. So the mediation here is on including the link to restoreliberty or leaving it out. Is using "reprint" acceptable useage with regard to the policy on reliable sources? The site itself is not acceptable as a reference, but we're getting into a gray area if you use an unacceptable source as a reprint link of the original reference. Morphh ^(talk) 18:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have stated here that they believe the restoreliberty web site is unreliable because it gives bad tax advice. I take no position on whether this is the case because it is not relevant. The URL is verifiable because someone could look up the actual article. But, to omit the URL would deny someone living 100 miles away from a major city without a large library the opportunity to read the article. In addition, it would deny someone living in a large city the opportunity to read the article without experiencing a traffic jam during the commute to the large library. Unfortunately, the article is not available on googlebooks. In short, I believe it is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to steer readers away from tax advice web sites. Mpublius 05:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editors: I am curious about the Mpublius statement that "[s]everal editors have stated here that they believe the restoreliberty web site is unreliable because it gives bad tax advice" (italics added). It's possible that I missed something in all the editors' commentaries on this issue, but I am not aware that any editors at all have argued that the reason the "restoreliberty" website is unreliable is because of some "tax advice" the site might have given. Granted, any tax advice given at the "restoreliberty" probably is unreliable -- but that would be just another illustration of how UNreliable the site is. I am also curious about the Mpublius argument that Wikipedia should not be steering readers "away from tax advice web sites." I may have missed something.

As far as I know, the issue is whether "restoreliberty" is a reliable source. Unless I missed something, we don't even know who the author of the web site is. I am still waiting for a cogent argument that a website by an anonymous author can somehow be considered "reliable." How can such a web site have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? How can we know what the reputation of the web site author is when we don't even know who he or she is?

Here are some of the rules:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

[ . . . ]

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

[ . . . ]

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

--from [1], with italics added by Famspear.