Talk:Future Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Hey all

This is my first article. Still a work in progress. I'll work on getting cites for all the info and filling in the gaps.

Uttaddmb 06:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good work. Congratulations. David McCabe 01:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tax Issues

I fail to see the relevancy of mentioning Roy's tax issues and ask that it be removed. There's nothing on the Robin Williams page about his cocaine abuse and he is much more famous than Roy. Mention of the tax thing does nothing to enhance the public's knowledge of this incredible musician.

• I have to disagree with you. Including the tax information certainly enhances the public's knowledge of him; if it was not here, people probably wouldn't know about it, as it is not common knowledge. Wikipedia articles are not fan pages. Deleting facts to put a positive light on Mr. Wooten would be poor form. Regarding Robin Williams, I had no idea he used cocaine, so I can't comment on that article; however, looking at other articles (Paul McCartney and Jimi Hendrix, for example), there is mention of their drug use. Basically, throughout Wikipedia there is a strong precedent for a neutral point of view -- the good with the bad. --Uttaddmb 06:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm just wondering where the "at one point made the bold claim that because he was from the future," comment comes from. It is not from the reference link (Routh & Company PC site). I don't believe this statement to be true and would like to see proof.--Danielfranciscook 17:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have made some minor edits and have added another link to a source (another Roth tax page) regarding Mr. Wooten's tax problems, and this article needs further sourcing as well (eg, the "from the future" comment). I agree that including the information on Mr. Wooten's tax problems is relevant and appropriate in a Wikipedia article on him. Yours, Famspear 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: I went ahead and added a citation tag on the verbiage in the article to the effect that Mr. Wooten claimed he was "from the future," per comments by editor Danielfranciscook. Yours, Famspear 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think the tax evasion stuff is not relevant, but I defer to the majority. I do however have a problem with the claim that he said he was from the future and not subject to taxation. I went to the Roth link and it does not make that claim, only that he offered up some odd theories on his defense.

Having known Futch for more than 30 years, I will agree he is a bit eccentric, but he is not an alien to reality. We talk about old times and school days now and then so I know he doesn't truly believe he is from the future. That's all part of his professional persona. Other than playing out the rest of his probation, he has put this chapter of his life behind him and to make a claim that he made such an outlandish statement without a valid cite is bullcookies.

I also think that the front end of this article needs to be re-written as an encyclopedic article as opposed to simply pulling stuff from his online bio verbatim. For example, the mention that "people became curious" just hangs out there without any clarification of why they became curious. - Mike August206.246.237.197 16:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)