Talk:Wesley Snipes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

Tenth-degree Black Belt in Shotokan.

It is very unlikely (read: impossible) for somebody as young as him to ever have earned such a rank. Only a handful of people, well past their 60's have attained it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.143.176 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

1902

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)

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)



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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "bbctax" :
    • [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7366211.stm '' Snipes sentenced to three years''] [[BBC News]] retrieved [[April 24]] [[2008]]
    • [http://http://www.joneshigh.ocps.net/

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That dopey cult thing

There seems to be a litany of references saying stuff about Snipes being a Nuwaubian. I get that we're not allowed to go "He gave money to them ergo he's one of them" but could we just mention connections under personal life too? People should probably know if he's a nutter or not. --79.66.3.195 (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


He has a son called Jelani Snipes, who attends Oglethorpe university. He is above the rest of the school due to paid tuition. He is looking into owning his own buisness in cookie making and a cheif. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.192.136 (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

I thought Wesley Snipes and Wesley Pipes were one and the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.1.88 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2009 (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)

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


so, was he born in florida or elsewhere?

and does article mean to say he went to Johns Hopkins University? If so, why not say it?

this article is poorly written and seemingly aimless, imho. don't have time to copy edit, sorry. Actio (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fan site

I took out the link to his fan site because it doesn't look official. I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be included because of Wikipedia's policy on external links. 72.152.140.6 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

For the record. Snipes isn't a B movie actor. Dumaka (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Is his appearance in 'Critical Condition' really a cameo?

Would it be better to refer to his role as a small role? Did Wesley have the star cache at this stage of his career to warrant a cameo appearance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianbrian321 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Snipes loses his appeal

Earlier today, Friday, July 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the convictions of Wesley Snipes. His options now include a possible petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals. Theoretically, he could go to the United States Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court would probably decline to hear the case and would thereby let the convictions stand. Absent some further action, at some point Snipes will be notified of a date when he must report to a given facility of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. His inmate number (43355-018) has already been assigned by the Bureau of Prisons. Famspear (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Because of the federal guidelines, it's possible Snipes might have to serve only about two and half years of his three year sentence. I will see if I can find any reliable third party published sources on this. At some point, the Federal Bureau of Prisons will publish the projected date that he would be released from prison (apparently he is not yet in custody). Famspear (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal Problems

I don't understand why every little bad thing this man has done in his life has to be mentioned in this article. Dumaka (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree this should probably be restricted to the main infringements. The problem is in defining those? However given that he is a high profile public figure it is important not to portray him as without fault. --Uxejn (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

Picture of Snipes' fake South African Passport. Not a valid linkJimmyreno (talk)jimmyreno —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

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)

Several news reports on Snipes continue to refer to his conviction as being for "tax evasion." There's nothing we can do about that -- but this is an article about a living person, so we need to be accurate. Snipes was neither charged with nor convicted of tax evasion (a felony). He was convicted only of three counts of willful failure to file federal tax returns (misdemeanor) -- which is pretty serious in and of itself. I have corrected the article accordingly. Famspear (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wesley Snipes article

He is being sent to the Federal facility in Lewisburg, PA. There is no such facility in the city/town in PA stated in the article. My sources are two fold the final interview on CNN with Larry King and my being a PA native and being aware of these facts. A.M. Stanley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.38.150 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the news report said "Lewis Run" Pennsylvania. Also, Wikipedia does have an article for a place called "Lewis Run" in McKean County, Pennsylvania. A google search shows lots of hits for a place called "Lewis Run" in Pennsylvania. I'll see what we can find to clarify this. Famspear (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Update: Snipes has reported to the prison. The update story, from different source, also lists the prison as being located at "Lewis Run." Famspear (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's another source -- showing a place called "Lewis Run" in exactly the area of Pennsylvania where the prison is reported to be. See: [www.city-data.com/city/Lewis-Run-Pennsylvania.html]. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There is also a Facebook page for Lewis Run, Pennsylvania, at: [1]. It says the population is only about 577. Famspear (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
When I google "Lewis Run, Pennsylvania", I get about 196,000 google hits. Famspear (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

And, from the Associated Press today, Thursday, December 9, 2010:

Snipes, 48, arrived shortly before noon at the Federal Correctional Institution McKean in the tiny northwestern Pennsylvania town of Lewis Run, federal prisons spokesman Ed Ross said.

--"Actor Snipes begins serving sentence at Pa. prison," Associated Press, Dec. 9, 2010, at[ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101209/ap_on_en_mo/us_wesley_snipes_prison] ((bolding added).

Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a Muslim

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: [2] - "He became a Muslim ... he left the Islamic faith in 1988 ..." --Xorkl000 11:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Who removed the info on his apostasy? The cited reference for his conversion also confirms he left Islam in 1988. I have added an online link to the cited article, so wikipedians can read it for themselves.
The page now reads "Snipes, who was raised a Christian, converted to Islam in 1978, and later left Islam in 1988." Please do not change it back. --Malsi123 (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference 5

Why is reference 5 a link to some high school? It's supposed to be a reference for the claim that the prosecutors wanted to make an example of him because of his fame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.160.202 (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

National Wesley Snipes Day?

Under the "Imprisonment" section, it is mentioned that "April 15th is National Wesley Snipes Day", I don't think there is such a thing, its not cited and turns up no results at all on Google, plus it had been only recently added by an unregistered user. I will remove this line unless anyone else thinks otherwise. --Modi mode (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wesley Snipes in Blade 4 also a Blade and Underworld crossover movie

Wesley Snipes stated that he will be doing a Blade 4 and also looking at doing a Blade/Underworld crossover movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.132.82 (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Inactive?

An anon editor has twice tagged Mr. Snipes as inactive, as he is not filming now, only being considered/discussing roles and future. By this argument, we should tag each actor, artist, etc. who is not currently filming/painting/recording/etc. as inactive until they are. This is a specious argument. He is not dead and has not retired. Remains active.User talk:Unfriend12 23:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I reversed your changes. He is in jail now and has no access to be active as an actor. As such he cannot be active in something that he cannot physically do since he is locked up. You can post to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard but I do not think anyone could honestly back up the claim he is an active actor while jailed. --Sonic2030 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh and even Snipes admits he is "away" from acting and that is already posted on his page under "Given the length of time that they are suggesting that I be away from my family, away from my profession...". So even he admits he will not be active while in jail. --Sonic2030 (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Please review the infobox. He is active... his career is not over. Specious arguments, unsourced change. see wp:BLP Rather than leave a misleading piece of information in the article, I will remove that bit.User talk:Unfriend12 20:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Again he is not active, he is in jail; even he says so. I have returne3d the well sourced information. Just because you do not like it does not mean you can edit your own POV. If you remove it again I will report for edit warring/3rr as you have now moved to editing in bad faith. --Sonic2030 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Removal of this information in keeping with wp:BLP is not edit warring. I will remove it continuously. You may wish to join the discussion at wp:BLPN. Again, read wp:BLP, seek guidance from a more experienced editor, or whatever, but do not add this information again.User talk:Unfriend12 22:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes you are edit warring when you keep removing valid information that has support and Cits. Simnce you are at least 4rr on this I am forced to report you. You have also not said what in wp:BLPN should keep this off. Just posting the same thing over and over does not make it true. --Sonic2030 (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The issue is W.Snipes was sent to jail in 2010. I believe that he should be listed as inactive starting in 2010 as he was put in jail and even he admitted he would be "away from my profession" when asked. He is not active so not sure how it could be said he is active right now and delating it is removing valid and backed up information. --Sonic2030 (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian responding to a request for a third opinion made at the Third Opinion project. I do not believe the active parameter to be appropriate since it is entirely possible that Snipes will return to acting once he is free. The active parameter, as is implied in the template instructions, is to provide the reader with a retroactive perspective of a persons career once it is over. Many celebrities have suffered periods of incarceration then returned to their profession. Until it is clear that his career is over, its use is premature. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

as a 4th opinion, I concur with Transporterman. While he may currently be "inactive", there is no evidence to support any claim that he has left the industry for good. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree he probably has not left acting for good but it should state when he was active and then another one once he returns. Right now it should be 1986-2010 and then 2013-present when/if he takes acting up again once he comes back. I have seen others with such breaks(don't think it was from jail just they left and then came back). --Sonic2030 (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
how do you know he is not going to be active in the next three years? he could easily keep writing etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
and there are many people in the industry who have "done nothing" for periods of three years or more without any reason to mark those periods of dormancy in their infobox. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Even he has admitted he is away, and is inactive right now not only due to his inaction but being locked up. Its not he is doing nothing because he wants to, he is in jail and unable to act. Jail kinda does that to some. ;) --Sonic2030 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
While one editor is attempting to mark him inactive based on his/her/its personal opinion, another is attempting to insert rumors of the ongoing activity.User talk:Unfriend12 16:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to your claims, and name calling, I am basing his active status on facts and even his own words. Do you have any Cits showing he has been active at all since 2010? --Sonic2030 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
No name-calling on my part, though I have been and will continue to be unfriendly. Warnings are not name-calling, though of course they are annoying and often offensive. And yes, you are "basing" your change on your opinion on words on his blog. And the other editor(s?) attempting to insert ongoing activity are "basing" their changes on their opinion of the reliability of celebrity gossip sites. Neither meet wp:BLP. So far, 3 editors have joined the discussion and explained. wp:BLP violation removal is not edit warring. If you are not swayed by the opinions of 3 editors so far, and the lack of support for inclusion from wp:BLPN, an wp:RFC seems unlikely to help. Comparatively few editors are willing to risk getting into disputed articles, even to defend a BLP. But that would be a good next step, if you are simply not willing to accept 3 opinions against the change.User talk:Unfriend12 17:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You were already told by a Mod "Unfriend's assertion that their reverts are exempt pursuant to BLP policy is incorrect". Again you keep throwing the BLP tag around but have been told you are incorrect. And I am using his words, which you seem to ignore. He said he would be away and has been in jail since 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Unfriend12_reported_by_User:Sonic2030_.28Result:_Declined.3B_Unfriend12_warned.29 --Sonic2030 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

wp:BLPN - If this issue of whether BLP applies is important to you, you might expand your argument there. The other editor who agrees with you has not commented there to voice that opinion. Nor has anyone else other than you and I, either way. "admin" - the admin tag means that besides being able to voice an opinion, that editor might proceed to block our ability to edit, had we continued to revert one another. Being "told" by an admin what their opinion of an edit is is of exactly as much interest to me as I would have based on their edit history if they were not an admin. Being an admin means that that editor faces more restrictions than you and I, so that they can be entrusted by the community to perform important administration tasks. This is indeed a wp:BLP issue, as tagging his infobox "inactive" marks his career as over, which could be financially damaging to him, his movie shop, his family, his heirs.User talk:Unfriend12 17:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the article covers his jail term quite thoroughly. I and 2 other editors, however, have given the opinion that his incarceration does not mean that his career is "inactive" in the sense of the infobox.User talk:Unfriend12 17:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
"And I am using his words, which you seem to ignore." - I cannot speak for the other editors, but I assure you that I am not ignoring your interpretation of his words, nor his words. However, you are not attempting to introduce into the article the text to the effect that he is away... incarcerated. That is already covered in the texgt. You are attempting to mark his retrospective "years active" as ending in 2010. I understand that you don't agree with our interpretation of what "active" means in the infobox. But the wp:consensus so far is against you.User talk:Unfriend12 18:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wesley_Snipes wp:consensus seems to be saying he is Inactive. --Sonic2030 (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking above:
- for setting the "Years active" to end at 2010: I see you.
- against: me, Transporterman, The red pen of doom.
I do see an editor at BLPN saying it would be appropriate to say something to the effect that he is innactive in that he is in prison, and I agree, and support the text in the body of the article.User talk:Unfriend12 20:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Undue focus on tax charges

The section on misdemeanor tax charges is large and contains more details than his entire movie career is going into gratuitous WP:UNDUE detail and needs to be trimmed back substantially, or his other works need to be filled in more completely. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with trimming, and argue it needs a sharp trim even if the rest of the article were expanded. I fear my focus has been on keeping the article from getting worse, rather than on making it better.User talk:Unfriend12 22:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Federal taxes are much more interesting that some silly ol' movie acting career. It's federal taxes that everyone wants to know about, right?
Oh, wait a minute; I forgot: I'm a tax geek. I just got to get out more.....
OK, OK, I'll take a look at the "tax" section of the article as well. Famspear (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I have removed what I guess could be considered the most "tangential" material from the section on his tax problems. The big story, basically, on the Snipes tax thing is that (A) he was charged with some pretty serious felonious activity related to preposterous, frivolous "tax protester" nonsense, (B) he was (whew!) acquitted on the felony charges, (C) he was convicted of the misdemeanor tax charges, and (D) he is in the process of serving some substantial federal prison time. Hopefully the material that remains in the article pretty much illuminates those points, without so much detail as was present before. Famspear (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
While it is still long, I think the story is important, and I see no way to make it shorter and still tell the story. For example, the co-defendant convictions on the felony hits seems important to include, though peripheral, since it emphasizes that he came "that close" to the felony charge: that is, the court found there was conspiracy to defraud, but that the state did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that he was part of it, even though he was at the center of it.User talk:Unfriend12 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the speedy action. The four points sound like the major points I was seeing as well.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point, and it illustrates why I left the material regarding the Snipes association with the Eddie Ray Kahn and Douglas Rosile, uhhm... "group" of "characters" in the article. In the federal criminal tax world (i.e., my world), Eddie Kahn is a significant figure (with his own Wikipedia article as well). The fact that Snipes got involved with such a known felon who at the time already had a prior federal prison record -- and that Snipes let Kahn handle any of his business -- is notable. Famspear (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Time to remove the Undue template?

It looks like the person who added the Undue template was TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom (nice name BTW). Did Famspear's expeditious edits answer all of your concerns? It looks like they did, but frankly I'm too sleepy to decide by my own brain alone if that's the case and if the template can be removed.
Side note and in case someone wants to know: There is a section-level Undue-weight template that you could have used, as well as an inline version. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Templates for even more related templates!
Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Tag drop

I tentatively dropped the tag. I don't feel strongly about this so if anyone thinks it still is needed, please restore it and give a note here.User talk:Unfriend12 15:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Undiscussed rollback?

An anon editor made what appeared to me to be a very large rollback, removing many edits by many editors, corrections, well-discussed changes. I reverted the anon rollback.User talk:Unfriend12 05:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

While it is time for Snipes to be released, more or less...

"TMZ.COM DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE MATERIAL, INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, FACILITIES, SERVICES OR OTHER CONTENT IN TMZ.COM OR ANY SITES LINKED TO TMZ.COM IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE." - is pretty clear. TMZ is not a wp:RS and absolutely fails the test for wp:BLP. They are a gossip site, and break a lot of stories... but they are a gossip site.Unfriend13 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I see Fox quoting TMZ. I see several sites quoting TMZ. But TMZ is no good for us. People quoting TMZ are no good for us.Unfriend13 (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
At last, a real source! [3] - someone already found it and put it in. Unfriend13 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Release date and circumstances

Neither source says even that he was released in April... only that he was released. Is there a source for the date? Is there a source for the house arrest?Unfriend13 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And please... not someone quoting TMZ. TMZ is not a source for WP. People quoting TMZ are ... TMZ.Unfriend13 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The CNN article published April 5 states that the release "occurred Tuesday" (i.e. the preceding Tuesday, which was April 2), and cites as its source, "the Federal Bureau of Prisons". bd2412 T 00:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
"The release to a supervised residential location in New York occurred Tuesday, the Federal Bureau of Prisons told CNN." - Yep, it does.Unfriend13 (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Always worth double-checking, particularly with celebrities. bd2412 T 00:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox puzzle

Here's a line in the current infobox: | conviction_status = Incarcerated

I think Snipes is out now. The entire line doesn't show up in the infobox but it may show up in dbpedia or other related projects. Probably a BLP violation but I'm not sure whether the status should be changed or the whole line removed. TMLutas (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the line. bd2412 T 01:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Assault accusation

I assume it was added in good faith but I'm not sure that accusations of assault meet the strict requirements of WP:BLP so I have reverted the change.[4] I think it needs further discussion and better sourcing before it can be included. -- 109.77.197.226 (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Halle Berry Controversy

Editors may want to add a section with the above title, referencing Snipes' romantic relationship with Halle Berry, and may use the following text and sources:

In 2004, Halle Berry's former boyfriend Christopher Williams accused Snipes of being responsible for a beating that punctured Berry's eardrum, saying, "I'm so tired of people thinking I'm the guy [who did it]. Wesley Snipes busted her eardrum, not me".[1] According to Berry, a beating from a former abusive boyfriend who was "well known in Hollywood" punctured her eardrum in 1991 and caused her to lose 80% of her hearing in her left ear.[2] Mrmalabi (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Berry Beaten by Snipes?". E! Online. January 15, 2004. Retrieved January 6, 2020.
  2. ^ Schneider, Karen S. (May 13, 1996). "Hurts So Bad". People. Retrieved February 28, 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wesley_Snipes/Archive_1&oldid=1166983490"