Taxation NA‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles NA This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Any reason why Religious Society of Friends is not under "Organizations"? Also, perhaps a separate category for specific places/events? bd2412 T 13:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd intended the "Organizations" section to be specifically for those organizations whose main focus is tax resistance. There is a lot of history of tax resistance within the Quakers, but the Society of Friends has a much larger agenda of which tax resistance is only a small part. As for making specific place/events their own category, that seems sensible. I've recently branched a page (Tax resistance in history) from the main Tax resistance page for a similar reason. -Moorlock 14:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you think of the "Campaigns" subsection? -Moorlock 14:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works for me - well done! bd2412 T 14:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image used expresses a position on the issue of taxation. It should be changed to something that doesn't put Wikipedia in the position of advocacy.—Perceval 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image is evocative of the subject matter: that is, of tax resistance. It doesn't put Wikipedia in the position of advocacy, so much as in the position of description, which is its mission. -08:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the TR_icon_s.gif picture. Didn't seem relevant to the page.--Nitin 10:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not certain, but doesn't it belong in this template? Huw Powell 01:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I was surprised it wasn't included. SCRA5071 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Morphh ^(talk) 2:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I'm popping by after the fact, but I agree that it should be in. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user:Moorlock: the fine distinction between Tax Protest and Tax Resistance eludes me especially as the template for the latter appears in the article for the former. Finished watching the Film in question after placing it (the link your template) and can now see why although it fits squarely in the place I put it you would want to distance it from your squatted content as it is a sadly confused work. Among the plethora of distortions and half truths he completely failed to understand the truth embodied in the operative and last sentence of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#background of which I am the author. It is however true that no amendment has been passed cancelling the 5th Amendment or requiring individuals to file income tax returns (as opposed to actually paying legislated taxes) and that filing is entirely voluntary. Russo died within the last month and in spite of his intellectual shortcomings I think we have to recognize him as a patriot. Lycurgus 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone make this template collapsible? It's way too long for some articles, and that way it could be collapsed rather than entirely deleted from the article when it takes up too much space. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 19:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have updated and reworked the template. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose converting this sidebar to a nav box as per Template:Simple living. See Template talk:Simple living. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - nav boxes seem to work better than sidebars, especially on small screens and most WikiProjects have slowly been converting them. - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Nirvana2013 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice job - it looks good! Are you going to relocate the box on each article page? - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Handsome. Nice job. —Moorlock (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went though all the articles on the template and ensured all have the template in them. - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No reason why we can't have both. See ((Conservatism)), ((Conservatism footer)). – Lionel ^(talk) 07:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess (and hope) you are just using conservatism as an example of the two styles of template, rather than proposing adding them to tax resistance! Assuming the former, I believe the sidebar is going out of fashion on Wikipedia as they are intrusive. Hence the conversion. A sidebar also tends to get in the way of the lead article photo. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]