Talk:Cristina Schultz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on August 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
The original article had details unavailable on any website, and smacked of autobiography. I've cleaned it up a bit. -- 69.143.115.175 13:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but now it's writing about the articles, not about the subject. (That is, it's all "This article says" and "that article says"; that's a survey paper, not a Wikipedia article format.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- A bit better now. So, which "national publicity" was this, and what makes her encyclopedia material? The text of the government's allegations (which, of course, are just that -- allegations) don't belong in the article (we don't include details like that; we cite them.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have never seen an article like this. I was just trying to shift the discussion about Schultz from the Warthen page when I created the article. The whole thing seems unworthy of the Wikipedia, however, as it is just laundering old allegations and keeping two year old "human interest stories" and an apparently dead investigation alive in public view - and for how long? When does she get to move on with her life without being cyber-stalked in this way? And, no, I am not Cristina Schultz. ManAtWork 01:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)ManAtWork
- "Move on with her life"? Has she really repaid the hundreds of thousands of dollars she stole from taxpayers? Last I saw, she was spending tens of thousands of her husband's money to avoid having to repay a small fraction of that. I didn't even know about the "public court documents" until you pointed it out. It'll stop being newsworthy when she pays her debt to society; until then, it's more than a "human interest" story for those of us who honestly pay taxes off of honest work rather than live it up on a southern California estate laughing at the poor suckers who play by the rules. Wikipedia has lots of "true crime" entries, and this is another one. -- 69.143.115.175 02:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- "True crimes"? No charges have been pressed! Further, the government has never even discussed settling with Schultz; apparently when Schultz's attorney approached the IRS about discussing a financial settlement to make this all go away he was rebuffed. They just declared that they would keep the money seized and started making very public allegations to the press without filing any criminal charges. I guess that is our tax dollars at work. Furthermore, where do you get the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" number? They seized $61,000, or something like that. (Warthen, on the other hand, has paid millions in taxes and no one has ever accused him of any wrong doing.) No, you are clearly pursuing a personal agenda here on the wikipedia pages. I appeal to Mr. Gordon to simply delete both articles (David Warthen and Cristina Schultz), simply so that you do not continue to subvert and abuse them to persue this cyber-vendetta of yours. ManAtWork 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)ManAtWork
-
- Stop giving me authority I don't have. These articles don't, as far as I can tell, meet our criteria for speedy deletion. We don't delete articles simply because editors are having trouble agreeing about their contents. We improve them. We talk about them here on the discussion pages. Then we edit the articles. Sheesh. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, thought you were a wikipedia super-editor with super-powers. I'm relatively new to this. Anyway, this whole story appears to be a case of the wikipedia being used to push someone's personal agenda against the Warthens. A $60,000 civil case that has been continued indefinitely while the government decides whether or not to pursue the criminal case (what is the statue of limiations, 7 years?) against Schultz is not wiki-worthy. The court filing and the salacious articles are all from 2004, are only allegations, and should not be perpetuated here indefinitely, any more than who was suing who for palimony or what star was busted for posession.
- Stop giving me authority I don't have. These articles don't, as far as I can tell, meet our criteria for speedy deletion. We don't delete articles simply because editors are having trouble agreeing about their contents. We improve them. We talk about them here on the discussion pages. Then we edit the articles. Sheesh. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Schultz repaid $300,000 in loans, had a $50,000+ car, $60,000 in cash, and hundreds of thousands of other expenses, but reported $30,000 in income over six years. At a 45% or so tax rate (she was in California, after all, plus the self-employment tax), that's hundreds of thousands of dollars. And she's still advertising for clients. Why do you say no charges have been pressed? The government pressed civil charges. The government's allegations are hardly made up out of whole cloth: they're all based on Schultz's own webpages, neither Warthen nor Schultz has denied them under oath, and Warthen's challenge to the civil forfeiture complaint is fishy--if the money was a gift from Warthen to Schultz, why didn't Schultz file a claim? As for your argument of wiki-worthy, you lose: Eddie Murphy's nine-year old solicitation, Paul McCartney's arrest for possession, Lee Marvin's palimony suit, all on wikipedia.
- All allegations and assumptions! First off, none of these people are public figures like Eddie Murphy or Lee Marvin, and Lee Marvin's case was precedent setting - this is not. So, you loose by your own examplse. But more than this, you cite these allegations as though they are fact. Schultz (who I know) did not have material law school loans, but apparently her fiance of the time (an extremely wealthy man) paid her law school tuition. The "$50,000+ car" was leased, and Warthen apparently provided her with $60,000 to plan their marriage, honeymoon, etc. less than 30 days before the IRS raided her appartment and stole the money. This does not add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes - indeed it appears to be less than that in pre-tax income. But, regardless of the amount, a tax dispute on ill gotten gains does not warrant a wikipedia article, or their would be many thousands of such articles. Schultz and Warthen barely rate anything on the celbrity or fame factor. So why all the persistent attention? It seems to come down to the subversion of the wikipedia to further your malicious agenda.
- Schultz's own words on call-girl message boards is that she paid off $300,000 in law school loans herself. Warthen claims to have given Schultz only $160,000 or so--your assertion to the contrary contradicts his sworn testimony. The only agenda here is yours. I found this page looking for information on the case, and found that someone was systematically trying to hide the truth.
- All allegations and assumptions! First off, none of these people are public figures like Eddie Murphy or Lee Marvin, and Lee Marvin's case was precedent setting - this is not. So, you loose by your own examplse. But more than this, you cite these allegations as though they are fact. Schultz (who I know) did not have material law school loans, but apparently her fiance of the time (an extremely wealthy man) paid her law school tuition. The "$50,000+ car" was leased, and Warthen apparently provided her with $60,000 to plan their marriage, honeymoon, etc. less than 30 days before the IRS raided her appartment and stole the money. This does not add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes - indeed it appears to be less than that in pre-tax income. But, regardless of the amount, a tax dispute on ill gotten gains does not warrant a wikipedia article, or their would be many thousands of such articles. Schultz and Warthen barely rate anything on the celbrity or fame factor. So why all the persistent attention? It seems to come down to the subversion of the wikipedia to further your malicious agenda.
- Schultz repaid $300,000 in loans, had a $50,000+ car, $60,000 in cash, and hundreds of thousands of other expenses, but reported $30,000 in income over six years. At a 45% or so tax rate (she was in California, after all, plus the self-employment tax), that's hundreds of thousands of dollars. And she's still advertising for clients. Why do you say no charges have been pressed? The government pressed civil charges. The government's allegations are hardly made up out of whole cloth: they're all based on Schultz's own webpages, neither Warthen nor Schultz has denied them under oath, and Warthen's challenge to the civil forfeiture complaint is fishy--if the money was a gift from Warthen to Schultz, why didn't Schultz file a claim? As for your argument of wiki-worthy, you lose: Eddie Murphy's nine-year old solicitation, Paul McCartney's arrest for possession, Lee Marvin's palimony suit, all on wikipedia.
-
-
- Some palimony suits are quite wikiworthy; salacious details about people who are famous for being salacious are wikiworthy; famous sad steamy stories about Frank Sinatra are wikiworthy. So there's no clear bright line we're drawing here. As the article is now, it's the bare minimum, expandable if the story gets interesting, removable if it doesn't -- the anon editor could add links to the East Bay Express and San Jose Mercury News stories to give some body to the thing, I guess. Not much more is really warranted. David Warthen is not Eddie Murphy. Or Paul McCartney. Again, you continue to utterly confuse the scale and relative importance of the subjects. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not even this much discussion is warranted. IMHO, Wikipedia is being abused here further someone's malicious agenda. Is it reasonable, considering that these are not highly public figures AND considering that it is based on two-year-old "allegations"? ManAtWork 09:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- And you're attempting to sanitize. That doesn't solve anything either. As far as the allegations are concerned, is the anon incorrect? Is the case still not in the courts or wherever the Federal asset thieves (oops, I'm biased) commit their allegedly constitutional forfeitures? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you make a valid point. I am attempting to counteract what I see as a manipulation of wikipedia to propagate a personal attack on people I know, so I too have a bias. The civil case is in the courts and will be indefinitely as (a) there was a filing deadline or the money was gone forever, and, as I heard the story, (b) the government's attorney (weirdly, the "defendant" is the money), Stephanie Hinds, declined to take Warthen's deposition and instigated continuing the case until the investigation against Schultz is resolved. Again, any discussion of settlement or compromise was rebuffed by the government. As the government's investigation against Schultz appears to be dormant, it will likely sit there for years (statute of limitations) - another government catch 22. But the real point is the one you made earlier - that this little case about these non-celebrity folks has no place in Wikipedia, and I would add taht there are many thousands of such cases out there against all sorts of alleged call girls, dealers, etc. and these are not wiki-covered making this article unusual, non-encyclopedic, and out-of-line.
- I don't disagree. (It is funny as hell that the forfeiture cases are against the assets themselves.) What you need to do if you think the article doesn't belong is start the "article for deletion" process. You might be surprised by the the results. (Pleasantly or unpleasantly, I can't predict.) I need to stay non-committal on it because I have just enough of a personal connection to the subject to cross my own line. (In other words, I didn't much like Mr Warthen 25 years ago -- but I'm not completely confident in my ability to remove that old and now useless emotion from my analysis, and might be overcompensating.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you make a valid point. I am attempting to counteract what I see as a manipulation of wikipedia to propagate a personal attack on people I know, so I too have a bias. The civil case is in the courts and will be indefinitely as (a) there was a filing deadline or the money was gone forever, and, as I heard the story, (b) the government's attorney (weirdly, the "defendant" is the money), Stephanie Hinds, declined to take Warthen's deposition and instigated continuing the case until the investigation against Schultz is resolved. Again, any discussion of settlement or compromise was rebuffed by the government. As the government's investigation against Schultz appears to be dormant, it will likely sit there for years (statute of limitations) - another government catch 22. But the real point is the one you made earlier - that this little case about these non-celebrity folks has no place in Wikipedia, and I would add taht there are many thousands of such cases out there against all sorts of alleged call girls, dealers, etc. and these are not wiki-covered making this article unusual, non-encyclopedic, and out-of-line.
- And you're attempting to sanitize. That doesn't solve anything either. As far as the allegations are concerned, is the anon incorrect? Is the case still not in the courts or wherever the Federal asset thieves (oops, I'm biased) commit their allegedly constitutional forfeitures? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not even this much discussion is warranted. IMHO, Wikipedia is being abused here further someone's malicious agenda. Is it reasonable, considering that these are not highly public figures AND considering that it is based on two-year-old "allegations"? ManAtWork 09:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
