Talk:David Warthen

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

Untitled[edit]

67.120.120.185 has attempted three times to delete a paragraph from this article without explanation in violation of WP:3RR. These are the only edits this user has ever made.

  • well, first of all, you need to understand 3RR better. This can't be a violation of 3RR, for two reasons: 3RR prohibits more than three reverts, not three or more; and it prohibits them within 24 hours, not three months apart. What's more, the earlier change wasn't a revert; it was a plain ordinary edit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Fact remains that anonymous users continue to vandalize the article, and this article only, with no explanation for the edit.

vandalizing ?[edit]

Seems that JPGordon who used to work with Mr. Warthen would rather turn the definition into a scandal sheet, much like a supermarket checkout rag sheet. Since any legal issues have not come to trial as of yet for Mr. Warthen, an assumption of innocence should be maintained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardhartman (talk • contribs) 17:40, March 17, 2006 (UTC)

  • Beg pardon? I've not made any edits other than reverting blanking. I'm glad you're here to discuss this, though -- blanking sections of articles while neither leaving edit summaries not talk page comments is universally considered vandalism, regardless of its intent. That being said: what parts of the repeatedly deleted paragraph are contrafactual or assume guilt? (And, yes, I used to work with Mr. Warthen; that's the only reason I've noticed this article at all.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction. The first edit I made on this article was to not to revert blanking, but was to revert a combination of puffery ("Mr. Warthen says, 'I love my wife'") and blanking (someone had deleted an earlier, very neutral version of the same material). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No accusation was made against Warthen. The paragraph recounted the most recent incident of him making the news, by recounting his own words about his role in a nationally-covered story that was in mainstream newspapers such as the Mercury-News (and not in the Weekly World News). By Hartman's argument, there should be no mention of the Brown/Goldman murders in the OJ Simpson entry because of the "assumption of innocence," but that's not what WP:NPOV means. I vote the paragraph belongs back. I can see an argument for deleting the salacious link to the pornsite. Hartman's ad hominem attack against Gordon is uncalled for.

OJ and Brown Goldman? You forgot Elvis sightings too. No charges have been filed against Mr. Warthen or his wife, whereas OJ went to trial. I think a business bio should be just that, and not a "salacious argument". Stick to the facts and leave the muckraking to someone else. There is no "ad hominem" attack against Mr. Gordon, just a request to leave this issue alone until there are actual charges brought against the parties and it is sorted out in court

The paragraph did stick to the facts. The feds moved to confiscate funds that they said were derived from illegal activity, and Warthen submitted an affidavit claiming the funds were his, and marrying the woman who was alleged to be running an illegal call-girl ring. I'm restoring, with some modifications.
  • Could both of you please sign your postings here, by appending ~~~~ (that's four tildes) to them? Thanks. (I do suggest that the paragraph should be reverted back to the short, concise version.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Camera Cafe nor does the website work. Slight edits made to reflect verifiable information. Updated warthens bio.<anglebracket>Anglebracket 07:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)</anglebracket>[reply]

  • ...so - could someone explain to me how this salacious little asset forfeiture case is encyclopedic? It's pretty ugly -- the government apparently has not accused of her of any crime, but rather is assuming she committed one because she has more cash than she should. Having made less than clever (or emotionally driven) investments in my own pleasure in my time, I could easily see how that relatively small amount of money (for a gentleman recently made rather wealthy due to his success with Jeeves) could have been presented to the unquestionably attractive and brilliant woman, with no criminal activities involved at all. At any rate, the wikipedia-worthiness of the allegations is questionable; it's gossip-column stuff -- probably the worst the Feds could prove against either of them is unreported gift-giving. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The characterization of the forfeiture case is incorrect. The government has accused Schultz of a crime (and has substantial evidence of criminal activity), they just haven't filed criminal charges. To the extent Warthen is wikipedia-worthy at all, it is because of his association in this notorious case, which is his only appearance in the news in the last six years. To omit the detail about Schultz is like writing a Wikipedia article about Robert Blake or OJ Simpson without noting their murder cases. The use of multiple sockpuppets to censor it is objectionable. If you, jpgordon, delete it, I'm not going to edit it, but there's suspicious autobiography going on here in this entry and in the Schultz entry. -- 69.143.115.175 00:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr. Gordon's characterization of the case seems quite reasonable. The comparison of this with OJ Simpson or Robert Blake is rediculous. The government hasn't pressed any charges in OVER TWO YEARS, and it does not rate as a "notorious case" but rather is a tabloid-style article that you are making persist far beyond any reasonable life for such stories. What is more, it is not even about Warthen, but about his wife's allegedly wild life from before they were married. This is neither encyclopedic nor wikipedia-worthy, but rather appears to be hijacking Wikipedia to grind some personal axe. I think that it may be a good idea if Mr. Gordon did indeed delete this article if you - whoever you are - are going to persist in propogating this crap. ManAtWork 01:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)ManAtWork[reply]
      • Huh? I'm not going to delete this article - why should I? Warthen's the co-founder of ask.com, which is in itself is notable. The sockpuppet accusations are peculiar; who is supposed to be a sock of whom? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many "co-founders" of ask.com, including ones more prominent than the relatively minor $170,000/year Warthen, who don't have Wikipedia entries. I find it curious that "ManAtWork", "Richardhartman", and "Anglebracket" have been making identical edits and arguments on the Warthen and Schultz articles (and no other edits anywhere inside Wikipedia). It's also curious that these identities only appeared after jpgordon complained about unexplained anonymous deletions. My only axe is that someone has been trying to push a cleaned-up version of Warthen's and Schultz's biography on Wikipedia since January. Like I said, I don't particularly care about the entry; if jpgordon or someone with a Wikipedia history edits it accurately, I'm not going to complain.
ManAtWork is incorrect that the government hasn't pressed any charges. They've pressed civil forfeiture charges, they've conducted discovery, they moved for summary judgment, and the case is pending, including a hearing scheduled for May. The judge has been slow, but that's not the government's fault.-- 69.143.115.175 01:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So civil charges against someone's wife from before they were married rate a paragraph in the wikipedia? The only thing of note in Mr. Warthen's bio is his founding of Ask Jeeves (with the single other co-founder Garrett Gruener). The rest is just standard resume-type biographical info. Laundering the allegations agianst his wife seem to be unique in the wikipedia, as far as I can tell. What is the expiration date of this salacious bit of gossip? In the pre-internet days it would have long since blown over, but you appear to think it is worthy of perpetuating indefinitely? It is not. ManAtWork 02:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)ManAtWork[reply]
What is this "blown over"? It's a pending case that's in court now. Bill Frist has a whole wikipedia entry devoted to experiments he performed when he was in medical school thirty years ago. Margie Schrodinger's schizophrenic allegations against George Bush are in Wikipedia. Warthen didn't have to intervene in a court case, and it's noteworthy that he did--especially to taxpayers who are affected because a multimillionaire is spending tens of thousands of dollars to recover $60,000 in ill-gotten money. --69.143.115.175 02:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it noteworthy? That's what puzzles me. It's an odd little case, certainly. It could be a matter of principle; I never knew Warthen well enough to know what matters of principle he would stand on, and besides, that was decades ago. Or it could be something else, I have no idea. Why do you keep comparing this less-than-the-cost-of-a-Mercedes blip in the radar with nationally vital figures like Bill Frist or even spurious accusations against presidents? Something is out of balance here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument, jpgordon -- are you saying that Warthen's court cases, which merited press coverage, don't belong in Warthen's entry because he's not important, but even less significant trivia (which got no press coverage) about George Bush does belong, because he's nationally vital? How about the entire section in John Lott's entry devoted to his Usenet posts or Kiwi Camara's law school notes?
What about them? I'm not the one arguing for adding this sort of unimportant trivia to articles. The solution to bad articles is not writing more bad articles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the solution to bad articles is not writing more bad articles. But I'd never get away with deleting the Camara or Lott or Bush or Frist material; they'd be restored within 24 hours if not sooner. I'm just holding Warthen to the same standard. Several other users thought the Schultz incident noteworthy enough to add, and I'm arguing for protecting it against a self-interested campaign of someone to write a lionizing entry.
No, you're going to the opposite extreme and wishing to make the impact of the article negative. That's not good either. Here's how it was back in December, and we should have kept it as such: In April 2004, he married Cristina Schultz, a Stanford Law School graduate, against whom the IRS filed an asset forfeiture complaint in January 2004. Warthen has fought the forfeiture complaint. The Express article will provide the details if anyone cares to follow; that should suffice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are details of wife's legal problems on this page?[edit]

I reverted a recent (unsourced) addition about Schultz. WLRoss has put back a good version of the material, but why is it on this page? There is an article on Cristina Schultz which mentions the new material. This page is about David Warthen, and naturally it should say who is his wife, but it's hardly encyclopedia style to put details about the wife on the wife's page and on this page. Is there a reason for keeping this material here? I'm inclined to remove it. --Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. If anyone would like to add back details of Schultz on this page, please explain here. --Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Warthen&oldid=1200310477"