This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
numismatics and
currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
The citations given cover the whole paragraph to which they are appended. So I am wondering what needs to be improved. Is there are problem with the reliability of the current sources or do you think that more sources are needed?
Yworo (
talk)
11:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)reply
I've marked the
England section as contradictory, in regards to the factuality of Elizabethan beard law. Both claims are cited, however, the contradiction is at best only "explained" by a phrase which should not be used in an encyclopedic article, as it is essentially an editor comment:
In 1535, King Henry VIII of England, who wore a beard himself, introduced a tax on beards. The tax was a graduated tax, varying with the wearer's social position. His daughter, Elizabeth I of England, reintroduced the beard tax, taxing every beard of more than two weeks' growth.
While quotations about this exist on the internet, in the absence of a primary source citation, this should not be taken as fact.The sumptuary law published in Elizabeth's reign makes no mention of beards.
Well, we don't use primary sources, and we certainly can't use them to "prove" a negative: that's
original research. The offending passage (second paragraph) has been removed. We'd need a secondary source that states that there was no beard tax, not OR based on primary sources.
Yworo (
talk)
04:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Good point, I didn't realize until you mentioned it that the source cited in the second orange-marked text was a primary source. Thanks!
djr13 (
talk)
02:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Claims online that a beard tax was introduced by Henry VIII in 1535, and again later by his daughter Elizabeth I, do not seem to be backed up by contemporary documents, beard historian Dr Alun Withey says.
If he did it would have to be in arbitrary circumstances without Parliamentary consent or the tax being put into law through Act of Parliament. The Statute Book would have provided evidence for the tax's existence had he gone that route. (It was in the 17th century after the Ship Money issue that the ability of the monarch to levy taxes without consent of Parliament was ended.)
Cloptonson (
talk)
09:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Beard tax. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I'm still trying to figure out if this was satire or an actual proposal, so in the meantime, I'm of mind to preserve this only on the Talk page
Carter (
talk)
21:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)reply
In 1907,
New Jersey state senatorJohnston Cornish introduced a measure to tax beards at varying rates based upon length, style, and hair color. The measure, designed to reduce state debt and to secure employment for barbers, did not pass.[1][2]
References
^Inglis, William; Groesbeck, Dan Sayre (1907-04-27).
"The Revolt Against the Whisker". Harper's Weekly. Vol. LI, no. 2627. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers. pp. 612–613. Retrieved 2016-12-27.
Drmies, It's not silly, it's accurate. The England one is clearly marked in the text as disputed. That said, your rewrite of the lede just say Russia (while leaving the England bit in) struck me as making the lede misrepresentative of the full article content. If "most well documented" is what bothers you, be bold and replace it with something like "the only documented beard tax," although I don't think that's completely accurate in that there are questions around the England and the New Jersey one (which seems likely to be satire, but I haven't found anything definitive on that). As for the stub banner, the article is long enough and documented enough to rate as a start in my mind. If you disagree, go ahead and reassess it. --
Carter (
talk)
14:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Tcr25, if the only "documented" beard tax is in Russia, then how can you write a lead that claims it's a general thing, worldwide, when there is absolutely no evidence for it?
Drmies (
talk)
14:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Drmies, That's why I went with "most well documented." The evidence around the English one is disputed at best, but it has mentions in
WP:RS, unclear though they may be. I'd rather lean towards including the ambiguity where it exists than state something in wikivoice that feels too definitive to me. As I put it, the lede gives a simple definition of "beard tax" in the first sentence and sets up the bulk of the article (PeterI's 18th century beard tax) in the second. --
Carter (
talk)
14:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
But our article now suggests there were beard taxes all over the place, and "most well documented" (or "best documented"...) is really deceitful: it's the only example.
Drmies (
talk)
16:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't take that understanding ("suggests there were beard taxes all over the place") at all from the lede as written. There's no deceit; both the lede and the full article make it clear that this was a limited concept. Beyond that "beard tax" as an article title would seem to me to properly be about the idea of taxing beards with examples of where that was done, which this is; if the article were moved to "Russian beard tax of 1698" or something similar, then your point would be completely valid. You may regard the English one as a "cock and bull story," but it is in
WP:RS and even the source used here to support the lack of mention of it in the National Archives states "Whether Henry VIII did consider a beard tax may remain a mystery ..." —
Carter (
talk)
16:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
If the English tax existed, it was merely a typical "sumptuary law" to raise revenue. By contrast, the Russian tax was enacted as part of Peter the Great's reforms to drag Russia into Western European style modernity, so it had a serious purpose.
AnonMoos (
talk)
22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
AnonMoos, likely, but Akelev (2020) argues that the original 1698 decree may have had a modernization intent, but the tax levied starting in 1705 was intended to help offset Russia's mounting costs from the
Great Northern War. Beyond that, the German version of this article,
de:Bartsteuer, includes mentions of additional beard taxes in ancient Lycia, China in the 1300s and France in the 1500s.
This article includes mention of a new (in 1936) tax on clean-shaven men in Yemen, so reverse beard tax of sorts. More recently, in 2016 there was a rather
tongue-in-cheek proposal in the U.K. to tax beards. Regardless of the intent in England, Russia, and elsewhere these are all beard taxes. Any article on beard taxes is likely to be 85–95% about PeterI's efforts, and there's room to improve this article, but I think the lede should still cover the general case. I don't think there's enough here to support a
WP:SPLIT into articles on the general concept and the specific Russian case. —
Carter (
talk)
13:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)reply
The Taliban in Afghanistan forbade "beard trimming", but I don't think there was a taxation element -- just punishment if you disobeyed. The fact remains that the non-Russian beard taxes are a scattershot miscellany of little overall importance ("sumptuary laws" were some of the most often violated and least enforced laws in medieval and renaissance Europe), and sometimes hard to document, while the Russian beard tax was part of a major reform effort...
AnonMoos (
talk)
16:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Yeah, there are other instances, like the Taliban one you mentioned, of punishment for wearing/not wearing beards. It seems that was also PeterI's initial approach. As I stated early, if this article were titled "Russian beard tax of 1705" or something similar, focusing just on Russia would make sense. Since it is just "beard tax," including mention of other beard taxes with
WP:RS support makes sense. It benefits the reader to provide as much detail as reasonable about the Russian beard tax, as well as mention of other beard taxes. Do you see something around this that's missing or overstated in the article? —
Carter (
talk)
16:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)reply