Talk:Wesley Snipes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
This article is part of WikiProject Criminal Biography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Crime To-do:

Contents

[edit] Martial Arts Training

Fifth-degree Black Belt in Capoeira.

There is no degreed black belt ranking in capoeira, unless its some strange fly-by-night school that is run by an cross-the-equator mestre. He did train with Mestre Jelon Vieira, a capoeira mestre. But there are no degree-ranks in capoeira. Duskshade 13:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Florida

He graduated from a Florida high school.

No one knows where? [--Slogankid 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H]] (Talking is hot) 01:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

No, I haven't been able to find out what school he graduated from however, I plan to change the article so that it points out the fact that he did not graduate from SUNY Purchase. kc12286 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC) kc12286

[edit] Chappelle's Show

Is this lame mention even worthy of inclusion? It has nothing to do with the man himself, aside from a poor joke of which he held no involvement. --AWF

I've removed it - if anyone feels that this is unjust, then revert it. Anthropax 11:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blade: Trinity

Explanation and sources regarding his lawsuit and protest over this film are deserving of mention. --AWF

http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=12815 --AWF

This is the worst article I have ever seen. He "had relations" with a football players girlfriend, then was beaten up? Why is the relevant? Was this where he developed his interest in martial arts? Where is the proof in any of this? This article needs to be removed or rewritten. Jaileer

[edit] No Mention of Rising Sun???

Unbelieveable. His first summer blockbuster. Big time opening and very well known.

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. bd2412 T 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim or not?

The article appears to contradict itself. Wesley categorized as a former Muslim, and also as a convert to Islam. Is he a Muslim now or not? Anybody knows where can we find articles regarding Wesley Snipes&Islam? Politicallyincorrectliberal 20:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think that he is Christian now, due to some comments, however, this article does contradict its self... I was confused as well. IronCrow 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to contradict itself. There are a few cases of people who convert to Islam and after some time lose their faith. One of those allegedly is one of the Australians in Guantanamo Bay. The same could be the case for Wesley Snipes. If that is the case, he's both a convert to Islam, because he once recited the shahadah, and a former Muslim, because he stopped believing. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

here's the reference that might help: [1] - "He became a Muslim ... he left the Islamic faith in 1988 ..." --Xorkl000 11:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View?

Someone went nuts with the criticism of Snipes, including great big headlines about his alleged tax evasion, an accusation of physical abuse, etc. Someone should fix this. Dieziege 04:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

They provided references and sources from generally reasonable sources in all cases. Stating the actions of Snipes, whether Snipes' actions were good or bad, doesn't reflect on the neutrality of the person submitting the information; it reflects on what Wesley Snipes is involved in. NPOV seems fair here to me, imo. Maybe someone should add a section focusing on the charitable causes he is involved in to even things out. Kapn Korea 04:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There's no way to regard the bizarre formatting choices as NPOV, so I have corrected them.166.127.1.201 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, as I learned from Talk:Douglas Wilson (theologian), it all seems to depend on who's editing doesn't it? According to the fellow in the Doug Wilson discussion, any unbalanced criticism must be either removed or appropriately balanced. I, frankly, don't give two cr*ps about Snipes' career, but I think this is clearly a series of accusations masquerading as an article. If I can't put up a (cited) note that someone is apparently affiliated with slavery apologists, it seems inappropriate to heap shame on a B movie actor with scant factual evidence to back it up. Dieziege 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and we really can't allow people to clain "Wesley Snipes Doesn't Believe In Paying Taxes HURRR!" unless there's actuall proof of that, such as, I dunno, him saying it. Trolling reverted. 166.127.1.201 19:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Sounds fine. Thanks Santorummm 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enstoolment

I've removed Snipes' enstoolment in Nigeria from the article for now. I've searched high and low, and I couldn't find a single evidence that it has ever happened. To me, it read like a hoax. If it can be proven, it's still there to re-include in the article. But for now, it's probably better to leave it out. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it just mean, or are the 2 paragraphes in Early Life saying the same thing? Highlandlord 06:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • They indeed say the same thing. I'll look into it. Thanks for pointing this out :) Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


What on earth does enstoolment mean? Also, the source is a message board, not a credible source. I'm taking it out. If you can find a credible source, then put it back in.

-Summer_nascar, 10/17/2006

[edit] 1902

  • The page says snipes was born in 1902 - I don't think hes that old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.211.228 (talk • contribs)
It was vandalism by a notorious IP address. It has since been removed. Wesley Snipes was born in 1962. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive 19:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxes

He is being investigated--Slogankid 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The case has been filed and there is a warrant for his arrest Michaelh2001 17:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I've added some more detail and made some terminology corrections. Haven't yet had a chance to read the entire indictment.

Mr. Snipes is NOT charged with tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201}. He is charged with conspiracy, making fraudulent claims against the government, and willfully failing to file Federal income tax returns. I've added the citations to the criminal statutes involved. More to come later. Yours, Famspear 20:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, it appears the Associated Press is saying that the alleged Rosile tax schemes involved taxpayers in 32 states; the Court in the Rosile injunction case back in 2002 indicated it was a total of 34 states. I'm going with the Court record for now. Yours, Famspear 21:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the mention that Snipes has taken up residence in Africa. If you follow the citation (and the citation that that links to) it boils down to an anonymous note from someone who claims to work at an airport in an unnamed African country who saw someone who looked like Snipes. PerlKnitter 15:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: A user changed the heading on the section on tax problems in the article to read "Tax Evasion." I reverted. As noted above, Mr. Snipes is not charged with "tax evasion." We need to be very careful about being correct in what we say about a living person. And the tax charges are just that -- charges. No trial has yet occurred, and Mr. Snipes has not been convicted of any of these tax charges. Yours, Famspear 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Scapegoat rhetoric

The following material --relating to the tax charges against Wesley Snipes-- has been moved from the article to here:

This marks the second time Snipes has been used as a scapegoat in the public eye; the first was when R&B singer Christopher Williams pulled Snipes's name seemingly out of the blue when asked who had beaten Halle Berry so badly that she became deaf in one ear. (Williams and Berry had been dating for quite a while when this even took place. It is believed that Williams beat Berry, but used Snipes as a scapegoat due to his dark complexion.)

First, Wikipedia probably cannot take a position on whether Mr. Snipes is being treated as a scapegoat in connection with the tax charges against him. Second, Wikipedia probably cannot be taking a position on whether he was treated as a scapegoat in the Christopher Williams matter either. Third, this verbiage is not neutral point of view. Fourth, it is unsourced (unverifiable). Fifth, the verbiage "It is believed that ..." in the last sentence is blatant weasel wording. Who believes this? Where's the sourcing? Yours, Famspear 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: By contrast, the verbiage that "Snipes said he was a scapegoat and unfairly targeted [ . . . ]" etc., is sourced, and appears to be fine as it is in the article. This is not Wikipedia saying that Mr. Snipes IS being treated as a scapegoat or being unfairly targeted. This is simply reporting that Mr. Snipes himself is saying that. Quite a difference. Yours, Famspear 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: An anonymous reader at IP 71.124.248.83 has again re-inserted the material above with the following comment:

I don't get why my contribution keeps getting deleted. I'm simply offering more info about Mr. Snipes through a rumor that was about him. And someone really did deafen Halle

At the expense of stating what should be obvious, offering "more info" about Mr. Snipes "through a rumor that was about him" violates a basic rule of Wikipedia: Verifiability. Material removed again. Yours, Famspear 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I specifically stated that it was a rumor. The part about Christopher Williams accusing Snipes of beating Berry after being accused himself is true. Look it up if you really need a source. And I was simply stating that the rumor was out there. If there was a rumor that George Clooney is gay or something like that, it would be acceptable because it's just a rumor. But somehow this is different because the Wiki elites can't have any random users editing pages despite doing a fine job. If you can word my change to the article any better, please do so. Oh, and my old username (Felonious_Drunk) was banned because the Wiki people thought I was imitating Felonious_Monk, who I now know is a user on here. The name was actually a play on the musician Thelonious Monk, perhaps you've heard of him? So I don't know how I can attempt to impersonate a Wiki mod/admin/employee/whatever that I've never even heard of. That's like saying anyone with similar names on here are copying each other. And I realize this isn't the right place to complain about this but the admin who banned that username wouldn't respond to messages. So please try to stop being such control freaks and just accept that other people know things that you don't, and we're not out to impersonate you, especially when not many people can even name one mod on here. That is all.

--Felonious_Drunk (who is anything but a copycat) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.124.248.83 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Dear Felonious Drunk/IP 71.124.248.83: Thank you for sharing your feelings with us. Lots of things that are "true" are not properly includible in an encyclopedia article. Further, the "truth" of your material has not been established. I and the other Wikipedia editors -- who have not tried to insert this material -- do not need to "look it up." You are the one trying to insert the material. In particular, this is an article about a living person. Regardless of whether you feel the material is true or not -- and even if the material were true -- Wikipedia has certain rules about defamatory material in Wikipedia articles. I believe I previously posted a link to the Wikipedia rules on your user talk page.

Your statement that something is "acceptable because it's just a rumor" is incorrect. Further, this is not a question of anyone being "elitist"; neither is it about anyone being prevented from editing "despite doing a fine job." This is about Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. Yours, Famspear 02:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Surely a community of a couple million people can do a better picture of Wesley Snipes then the Blade DVD cover. --Ferdia O'Brien 18:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tax trial postponed

Guess I haven't been checking on this often enough. On Feb. 1, 2007, the criminal tax trial for Mr. Snipes (originally set for March 2007) was postponed until October. According to the Court Order entered on Feb. 1, 2007, the prosecution and the defense agreed to (and requested) the delay, due to the massive volume of materials that the attorneys are having to wade through, plus schedule conflicts for the defense attorneys. Article has been updated accordingly. Yours, Famspear 15:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I should clarify that the Court, in footnote 1 of its Order, noted that Mr. Snipes and co-defendant Mr. Rosile agreed to the postponement. The Court stated in its order that the parties had not been able to directly contact co-defendant Mr. Kahn (who has elected not to have a lawyer), as Mr. Kahn "is presently in the custody of the United States Marshal at the Marion County Jail [ . . . .]" The Court therefore assumed that Mr. Kahn was opposed to the postponement, but ordered the postponement anyway. Yours, Famspear 15:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Trial has now been set for 22 October 2007. Article has been updated. Famspear 00:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Porn Star!!

Wesley Snipes is believed to be very unhappy about there being a porn actor called Wesley Pipes(I kid you not!), due to his similar sounding name. At the moment Snipes has a lot of problems in his life to deal with (see article). However when these are resolved and hopefully with his liberty intacted, Snipes may persue legal action in the form of a cease and desist order, to stop this porn star using his very similar moniker! --loren3 11:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

After three years in The Can, Wesley may have other things on his mind... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proxy User (talk • contribs) 04:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Office Space

He was never in Office Space, and checking IMDB under both Office Space and Wesley Snipes, neitehr list has him or the movie together, so I'm going to delete it from Selected Filmography. JackalsIII 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Blade 4

Blade 4 is listed in the filmography for 2008. Is there a source to the production of Blade 4? AdamBlue

[edit] Negative tone of this article

The tone of this article is very negative. It diminishes Snipes acting and highlights his troubles without any attempt to provide Snipes POV or present his political motivations for his actions. There is no mention of his personal life; not even his kids. Seems odd that Snipes' legal issues warrant almost half of the space on his Wikipedia page but Matthew Broderick, who actually killed someone, does not have a section in his Wikipedia page entitled "Legal problems" or even the mention of the fact that he *killed* someone. To hide behind sourchable facts is disingenuous, since sources with more positive views on his acting abilities and his political stances abound it makes one wonder if there is another agenda in play here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.170.57 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is an agenda. The agenda of NPOV. No Point Of View. It is not wikipedia policy to present snipes side of the story. What is in the article is what we know, not idle speculation and opinions. 194.255.108.253 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all there is no such thing as truly neutral POV, and even if there was, this article is not it. Secondly this article violates Wikipedia's own definition of NPOV on several counts: 1. Violated “Undue weight” Standard which says: “the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each” which would include easily available published emails, interview etc by Snipes about the tax indictment, to use NPOV as a reason NOT to include Snipes side of the story is to fundamentally misunderstand this principle.. 2. This article violated “Good Research” principle of NPOV, especially when compared with articles about other actors in Wikipeadia, which all contain personal information, while this article does not even mention any of Snipes marriages or kids.. 3. This article violates the “Fairness of tone” principle.

Because of all of the violations I cannot see how anyone can claim Wikipeadia NPOV as a justification for the tone, content and emphasis of this article, and again I posit that there is another agenda at play here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.63.211 (talk • contribs) on 25 December 2007.

Snipes is about to go to jail - for several years - because of these "legal problems". Granted, more could be said about his approach to acting and career trajectory, but no one is preventing that information from being added. bd2412 T 05:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy

"Snipes was acquitted on the felony count of conspiracy to defraud the government" - does that make the government a conspiracy theorist? If so, should the article on the government reflect the fact?--Striver - talk 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Striver: Rosile and Kahn were convicted on the felony count of conspiracy to defraud the government. So, does that make "the government" a "conspiracy theorist"?
Or, does it make the government NOT a "conspiracy theorist?"
And what would it mean to say that "the government" is a "conspiracy theorist." It seems like an odd statement; why would we want to say that in an encyclopedia article? What would such a statement even mean?
What does the fact that someone is either convicted or acquitted on a criminal conspiracy charge have to do with the need, if any, to state that "the government" is a "conspiracy theorist"? In almost any conspiracy case, isn't the defendant either acquitted or convicted? In such cases, do we then take it upon ourselves, as Wikipedia editors, to label "the government" as a "conspiracy theorist" or "not a conspiracy theorist"? Why would we take it upon ourselves to label "the government" as anything at all?
The prosecutors proved to the jury that Rosile and Kahn engaged in a criminal conspiracy (18 USC 371) -- in this case, what legal scholars call a Klein conspiracy, with respect to Mr. Snipes' Federal income taxes. Mr. Snipes himself was acquitted by the same jury on that particular charge. That means: (1) the jury found that the government proved that a Klein conspiracy existed, (2) the jury found that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Rosile and Kahn were guilty on that charge, (3) the jury found that the government did NOT prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Snipes himself was guilty on that charge.
When Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, "the government" alleged that there was a conspiracy among various defendants, several of whom were later convicted and hanged. In an article on Lincoln, would that mean that Wikipedia editors should take it upon themselves to label "the government" as a "conspiracy theorist"? If one of the defendants in the Lincoln case were acquitted while others were convicted, should Wikipedia label "the government" as a "conspiracy theorist" in the Lincoln case?
What about every other Wikipedia article about someone who was charged with a criminal conspiracy, and was either acquitted or convicted?
I could go on with this, as the question you raised only leads to more questions, all of which are, in my view, tangential and immaterial to this article on Wesley Snipes. Under the rules of Wikipedia, it is not for Wikipedia itself, in an article on Wesley Snipes, to label "the government" as a "conspiracy theorist" -- regardless of how we personally feel. Instead, we as Wikipedia editors need to look to what reliable, previously published third party sources have said about Mr. Snipes, his successes, and his tribulations, etc. Wikipedia articles are not the proper place to be inserting personal viewpoints of Wikipedia editors. Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Famspear (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Whys the tag up? Looks fine as far as I see, thing about the religious cult and his security might need some work but its neutral, anything that might be considered non-neutral is sourced to something apparently respectable which means our NPOV is maintained, we don't have to be responsible for other peoples neutrality last I checked, furthermore we shouldn't have to listen to some guy who comes in and says its not neutral because we don't have any quotes from Wesley saying how innocent he is. I'm getting rid of the tag, if you disagree, BE BOLD, fix the lack of neutrality in some way following the rules of Wikipedia and stop whining. Also to the above, a consipracy is when someone breaks the law secretly, so they don't get caught. Usually secretly just means its not obviously the guilty person who did that thing. Robbing a bank for instance, is a consipracy to steal money from a financial institution. The law enforcement trying to find out who the skimask wearing individuals (or whatever) are not conspiracy theorists. I do believe a conspiracy theorist is someone who finds states a conspiracy (that may or may not be real) using reasoning and emotions rather than proof and logic. Of course theres some gray area in there and law enforcement agencies that represent governments may find that the conspiracies were made by their government, or members of. That is not the case though with Mr. Snipes', they found proof that his should be acquitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

This article currently devotes more space to Snipes' legal problems than to his acting career and personal life combined. Surely this is a violation of WP:NPOV? If we want to have a properly neutral biography here, it shouldn't give undue weight to recent events, but present a fair and balanced picture of the man's life. Terraxos (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Snipes was not convicted of "tax evasion"

"Tax evasion" label removed. Contrary to the terminology used in some news media articles, Snipes was neither charged with nor convicted of tax evasion. Please do not add references to the article to the contrary.

Tax evasion is 26 U.S.C. § 7201. That's a felony. Five years in prison if you are convicted.

Snipes was convicted of willful failure to timely file U.S. federal income tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7203. That's a misdemeanor. Maximum one year in prison if convicted. Snipes was convicted on three counts (failure to file for three years). He received the maximum sentence for that: Three years.

This is an article about a living person. Let's keep it accurate. Famspear (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Another nutter. Tax Evasion is a synonym of willful failure to timely file U.S. federal income tax returns. Use your head and stop playing ridiculous word games. The man used used a bunch of fantastic (as in fantasy) subterfuges as excuses not to pay his taxes. That's what's popularly known as "tax evasion". Go ahead and keep fooling yourself, but those of us that live in the Real World know what was going on here. Proxy User (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Proxy User: No, I am not a "nutter." Please refrain from engaging in personal attacks against Wikipedia editors.
And, no, tax evasion is not properly used as a synonym of willful failure to timely file U.S. federal income tax returns. Go back and re-read my post. I am not playing word games, and I am not fooling myself. There is a very important difference between a "7201" and a "7203." And if you don't know what I mean by a "7201" and a "7203", then you need to ask yourself why you are pontificating about this.
You are correct -- and you are simply agreeing with what I have already written -- when you say that failure to file is popularly "known" as "tax evasion." In fact, some members of the news media (and, by the way, in addition to being a tax lawyer and a certified public accountant, I am a former broadcast news director, and reporter, myself) do use the term that way, and have used the term that way in relation to Wesley Snipes. That "popular" usage, is however, incorrect, as I have already pointed out.
Proxy User, those of us who live in the real world know exactly what was going on with Wesley Snipes. I have been following the Snipes case very closely for a long time. You are absolutely correct when you say that Snipes used used a bunch of fantastic, fantasy subterfuges as excuses not to pay his taxes. I have studied tax protesters like Snipes for many years, and their behavior is disgusting. In my personal opinion he should have gotten a longer sentence than three years -- but that is the maximum for the crimes for which he was convicted.
Tax evasion, 26 USC 7201, includes an important element that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that is NOT an element of a 7203 "willful failure to file" offense. Snipes was never charged with tax evasion. Snipes was never convicted of tax evasion. I am not going to go into that -- at least not at this time. I am reiterating that the term tax evasion is a legal term. It does not mean just whatever you or I want it to mean.
Now, a word about "word games." A person who tries to equate tax evasion with willful failure to file when he or she knows the difference is playing word games. Assuming good faith, I will assume that you, Proxy User, do not know the difference, so I assume that you were not deliberately trying to play word games.
Since you falsely characterized me as a "nutter," it appears that you might be unaware of the Wikipedia articles on tax protesters to which I have been contributed and monitoring daily for over two years. Here are a few of them:
I do not normally cite my credentials on article talk pages. However, this time I did mention that I am an attorney, a CPA, and a former news reporter -- in response to your misguided attack on me as a "nutter." Please take a deep breath, settle down, and observe the Wikipedia rules, including No Personal Attacks and Assume Good Faith. Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I find it ironic that while I have been repeatedly attacked verbally by tax protesters for over two years on these Wikipedia talk pages, that I have been accused by tax protesters of being an IRS or DOJ employee (oh, how terrible) or a shill for "the government" (when in fact I have never worked for the government and when in fact I represent taxpayers in their dealings with the IRS), I am also attacked as a "nutter" because I correctly pointed out, in relation to a tax protester named Wesley Snipes, that "tax evasion" and "willful failure to file" are two separate crimes. Famspear (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think this is just a misunderstanding. I can vouch for Famspear - he is no "nutter", but an excellent guardian against tax protester nonsense. He is also a tax lawyer, and knows what he is talking about. bd2412 T 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies to Famspear for jumping the gun. I should have paid more attention to your inputs here. The mindset and train-of-thought of "Tax Protesters" make my head hurt when I try to figure out how they come to their conclusions. And even if one “buys into” that line of thinking, it’s hard to get around the reality that it’s never going to be a winnable argument in court. I'll pay more attention next time I comment. Proxy User (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Proxy User: Thanks, apology accepted. Fortunately, the Wikipedia community has been steadfast in defending Wikipedia from chronic attacks by tax protesters. Ironically, a big part of the reason that there are so many articles on U.S. tax protesters' arguments, etc., is that they do try to post their nonsense in Wikipedia under the guise of trying to spread what they claim is the "truth." Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

I've semi-protected this article for a week - the edit warring and, indeed, some of the material that has been added, is not acceptable in regards to WP:BLP. I do hope that this will spark more discussion and debate on this talk page so that we can include the new tax conviction information in an encyclopedic and, above all, accurate manner. Cheers, CP 02:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)