Talk:Gordon Kahl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Racist?[edit]

I saw a movie about this and the movie indicated that Gordon Kahl was a racist big time. I noticed the article failed to mention it. Has his racism been documented or claimed by those knew him or knew of him. The ending of this movie, however, has Kahl dying inside the house he was holed up in while it burned.

author of first comment[edit]

That be me.Jlujan69 05:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. it appears an earlier version of the article did address this but it was taken out in March '06. I agree it should be put back in but rather than tagging a label in the article, "anti-Semite", it would be best to find some specific quotes from Kahl expressing these beliefs and quote them in the article. 70.108.97.172 13:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?[edit]

This article deserves a neutrality flag. A term like "radical right-wing" is imprecise and prejudicial.

Be WP:BOLD! Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I'm going to go ahead and take the term out now. 70.108.97.172 13:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tax protester label[edit]

This man appears to be a violent opponent of the government. A tax protester is someone who pays his taxes under protest without violence and attempts to recover the disputed payment non-violently using the courts, so I removed the erronious "tax protester" label. Mpublius 13:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the term "tax protester" as used in this context specifically means someone who makes bizarre, legally frivolous arguments about the validity of the U.S. Federal income tax. As already noted in another Wikipedia article, for Federal income tax there is no requirement that you pay the tax under "protest" (i.e., to preserve your right to later claim a refund) when you pay the tax. There is a statement in the article that Kahl appeared on a Texas television program stating that the income tax was illegal, but it's not clear what Kahl's rationale for that statement was. Therefore, the deletion of the term "tax protester" -- at least until Kahl's status can be clarified -- seems reasonable. Yours, Famspear 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Texas television program is unsourced and there is no claim that Kahl paid taxes, so "protester" is inappropriate. Mpublius 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legal requirement that a person have "paid taxes" in order for that person to be designated as a "tax protester" by a Federal court. Many tax protesters have not paid the Federal income taxes for the years for which they are designated as tax protesters. Indeed, a key point that many (but not all) tax protesters raise is that they are refusing to pay the taxes, not that they are "paying" the taxes "under protest." So Mpublius and I disagree on the rationale behind the removal of the term "tax protester" from this particular article, but we agree that the term can be removed, at least for now. Yours, Famspear 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the offensiveness of his dangerous beliefs, Kahl was clearly a tax protester. This is from pages 185-187 of The White Separatist Movement in the United States, by sociologists Betty A. Dobratz and Stephanie L. Shanks-Meile:
Gordon Kahl was a tax protester who had belonged to some movement-related groups....Kahl, at one time a Congregationalist, Mormon and John Birch Society member, joined the Constitutionalist Party that wanted to abolish federal income tax and viewed the Federal Reserve System as a “private corporation controlled by Jewish owners of eight international banks” who wanted to “destroy Christianity and establish a one-world government run by communists and socialists” (Corcoran 1990:51). In 1967, Kahl wrote to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) refusing to “pay tithes to the Synagogue of Satan” (Corcoran 1990:51-52). By 1973, Kahl was attracted to the Posse Comitatus, which blended Christian Identity beliefs with planks of the Constitutional Party; he became Texas coordinator for the Posse in 1974. Kahl gained considerable visibility in 1976 when he and five other Posse members appeared on television urging people to stop paying income taxes. After this, Kahl was charged with failure to pay income taxes in 1973 and 1974. His lawyer argued that he was being tried because of the television appearance in 1974 rather than for simple tax evasion, since Kahl had quit paying taxes in 1969. This IRS did not deny that accusation.
Note that the Wikipedia article on the Posse says, "members believe that there is no legitimate form of government above that of the county level and no higher law authority than the county sheriff." 12.36.115.67 (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Keithq[reply]

Kahl was convicted for refusing to file an income tax return. He was not convicted of failing to pay income tax. It is probable that his income was so low he did not owe any income tax if he had filed. According to his nephew, Victor Wilson, Kahl's stand was taken to get the constitutionality of the federal income tax before the supreme court. At the time Kahl was on parole for his tax conviction, the marshal Bud Warren tried to persuade him that he should stop advising people to not file tax returns. Warren regarded the case as a misdemeanor and Kahl as an old crank who would soon die of old age anyway. Ken Muir was the new marshal in town and decided to make a point of arresting Kahl at a road block with disastrous results. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's highly unlikely that Kahl's income was less than the applicable amount for each year for which he was convicted. Generally, the prosecutor would have to show that the defendant's gross income exeeds the applicable amount for the tax year in question to get a conviction -- unless the defendant had a terrible lawyer. Indeed, the Justice Department probably would not accept a case for prosecution unless the Department could satisfy itself that the individual's gross income for the year in question exceeds the applicable amount. The Department is highly "picky" about which cases it chooses to prosecute. And of course, editor Naaman Brown is correct in that Kahl could be guilty of willful failure to timely file a return even if he owed no tax. Also, willful failure to file a federal income tax return is indeed a misdemeanor. Famspear (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said "probable" owed no tax when "possible" might have been a better word (one should always preview and edit before save). It was described as a misdemeanor. It does appear that Kahl went beyond failing to timely file: he willfully refused to file (whether he owed or not) and preached openly against the income tax. Naaman Brown (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tone down the rhetoric[edit]

I toned down some of the rhetoric. For example, the article had listed Scott Faul himself in a footnote as the "source" for the assertion about felony v. non-felony, while the main text was trying to imply that what Scott Faul was asserting was somehow "revealed" (as though his assertion was an established, irrefutable fact). Sorry, but sworn testimony by Scott Faul is not generally going to be considered a reliable source as to why the United States Marshals Service personnel were there. Scott Faul is one of the people convicted as a result of the incident.

And, if that kind of assertion is going to be re-inserted in the article, we should make clear that it's Scott Faul's assertion, and not falsely imply that it is something that Wikipedia has determined was "revealed". Wikipedia cannot take the position that this or that assertion was "revealed," especially when the person doing the "revealing" was part of the incident itself. In short, use of the term "revealed" in this context is not a neutral presentation. Famspear (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point I agree too. DontClickMeName talkcontributions 05:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kahl and USMS[edit]

DUSM Bud Warren met often with Kahl face-to-face; the new marshal Ken Muir proposed arresting Kahl for publicly speaking, in violation of his parole, about his view of the unconstitutionality of the income tax. Warren declined to accompany Muir to the roadblock: Warren thought a showdown was unnecessary. If Muir had not pushed a showdown, in all probability, Kahl would have died an obscure crank, there would be no WP article on Gordon Kahl, and Muir and Cheshire would have peaceably retired. Not every protruding nail deserves a sledgehammer. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amen[edit]

Or tanks with battering rams or shooting mothers holding babies. Talk about your over kill. It's usually a bad day when the men/women in black with acronyms come breaking down the door. Be it the right door or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwalt44 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justified?[edit]

Officers were acting under letter of marque? 70.108.97.172 13:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.20.151 (talk)

Please Remove Error in Article[edit]

"A tip was received by authorities from the youngest daughter of a property owner, whose land Leonard Ginter and his wife Norma Ginter lived on."

I, Eileen Wade Walton, am the youngest daughter of the owner of the property the Ginters lived on and I did NOT tip off authorities. At the time, I was a 19 year old college student and wasn't aware that Kahl or any other fugitive was on the property. I was babysitting my nephew the night of the shootout and was surprised and frightened by the news of a shooting nearby. --173.218.126.81 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yori Kahl serving life sentence?[edit]

This article claims that Yorivon Kahl is due for release from prison in 2023, but when I entered his number in the Federal Bureau of Prisons website (which is footnoted in the aforementioned claim), it said "Release Date: LIFE". So is Yori actually serving a life sentence then? Chillowack (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, corrected, thanks... Famspear (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gordon Kahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gordon Kahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Confrontation and shootout near Medina, North Dakota" Needs Rewritten[edit]

The details of the arrest are very confusing. I get the idea that the first paragraph is a summation, and the rest of the section gives more detail, but it seems to start the events twice, which is not obvious to the reader. It's as if they were stopped by the FBI twice, and not once. Or maybe they were stopped twice. Either way the writing is confusing. I get the idea it's been "cut & pasted" from various articles. Perhaps someone could rework the section so that the events and details are arranged in their correct sequence.2605:6000:6947:AB00:49D2:79EC:1362:5C96 (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial Board of Inquiry section[edit]

The section about the "American Citizens and Lawmen Association" does nothing to inform the reader that this is a right-wing political group arguably promoting a baseless conspiracy theory. Mmzx84mn (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, however I don't feel the section should have been deleted in it's entirety as the discrepancies in Gordon's death were significant.

I've re-added reference to the discrepancies without reference to the Unofficial Board of Inquiry; the film Death & Taxes as well as aspects of Schnabel and Graf's book reference enough imagery and findings relating to the scene at the Ginter home outside of the Unofficial Board of Inquiry (ie, photos, film, testimony, etc.) to justify their use as sources.

I've also added reference of Malak's involvement as his history is important in understanding these discrepancies.

Lastly, because of the discrepancies I've added (allegedly) in reference to Gordon's murder of Matthews in his infobox, given it logically seems unlikely Kahl was his killer given the ballistic facts of the case, and I am unaware of any posthumous trial of Kahl in relation to the killing that would give it any official, rather than alleged, value. UncleBourbon (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would require actual reliable sources, as it falls directly under the purview of the WP:FRINGE policies. If no reliable sources discuss it in context, then it cannot be included. We stick with what reliable sources say, and movies like Death and Taxes are not reliable sources. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the source given for the information on Malak (LA times, the only RS source provided in the edit) does not mention Kahl, so including it here is a violation of the policies on Original Research and Synthesis. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Enlighten me on how photographs, video footage and blueprints of the Ginter home/crime scene, as well as eyewitness testimony of the events themselves, constitute unreliable sources. I would be all ears to hear your explanation, but until you do, your outlook is the one that constitutes fringe. It honestly appears to me as though you haven't watched or read either of the referenced sources, otherwise you would be aware of the aforementioned material provided within them, and thus I can only assume are violating WP:NPOV with your edits of which only serve to remove easily verifiable information and context for the article, that you personally dislike. Again, if there are any other reasons for your edits, I would be interested to hear.
Your edit summary of Death and Taxes being unreliable due to the bias of the filmmaker in positive reviews does not discredit the film's reliability in reference to the content I've previously outlined and that is featured within it. You make vague reference to "recent reliable sources" contradicting the findings of the film, but do not provide these sources. It also does not explain how It's All About Power is unreliable.
The source given for information on Malak is only the second source listed for that paragraph; Death and Taxes shows Malak was the medical examiner and features an interview with him, while the LA times details his history of medical malpractice. If you had actually watched the documentary, you would be aware of Malak's presence in it. User:UncleBourbon (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is immaterial. That source doesn't mention Kahl, so it can't be used on this page. Death and Taxes is an unreliable source for multiple reasons, I never said "due to the bias of the filmmaker in positive reviews" (though the fact that the only "positive" review also mentions the substantial bias should be a red flag), it falls in pretty much the same category as an Alex Jones documentary. It doesn't matter whether you feel it is accurate, you need reliable sources to say that. If reliable sources don't cover it, neither does Wikipedia. We don't present WP:FRINGE material on its own, and this is certainly fringe material. Even if Death and Taxes were a reliable source (it isn't), the emphasis your edits give it would still be WP:UNDUE weight, and it would still need to be attributed to the documentary and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Remember too that WP:ONUS clearly states that it is your responsibility to achieve consensus for disputed material before re-adding it. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Also note that disputing an official narrative like this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim (Specifically this falls under "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources", and "Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest"), and policy states "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". NonReproBlue (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp page?[edit]

The entire page seems to me missing details on certain subjects and is somewhat incomplete/one sided. I've done several months of research on GK and the events herein and would be happy to add info about the alternative version of what happened at Medina, ND, as well as info about the trial for Yorie and Scott, which had many irregularities/issues (none of which is mentioned here). I thought it would make sense to add this so the reader can make an inference themselves as to which viewpoint they believe. Any objections to doing this? Tine Crine (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gordon_Kahl&oldid=1207890932"