Talk:Tareq Salahi/Archive 1

Untitled
This is the talk-page for article: Tareq Salahi.

Merger proposal
I propose that this article be merged with Michaele Salahi. They're notable for the same incident, they are mentioned in notable media together, and the content of both can be, in my opinion, easily merged to create a more complete article- it is likely that someone curious about Tareq will also be curious about Michaele. Liquidluck (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up moved to Michaele page.

Merge discussion at Michaele page only, please
Let's please keep the proposed merge discussion at the Michaele page only, so we can avoid splitting it off into two different conversations... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy?

 * "As of 2008, Salahi was a member of the board of directors of the American Task Force on Palestine, an organization which advocates for the creation of a Palestinian state. [2]"

How is this controversial?Aaberg (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., being overly pro-Israel or pro-Palestine would be considered "controversial" in mainstream America. It is almost as would be joining a pro-black or pro-white group. Even being anti or pro for Global warming is considered somewhat excessive, although recycling has become U.S. mainstream. However, painting your body in sports-team colors (and staining the clothes), such as for the Washington Redskins, is considered, somehow, totally non-fanatical, cute behavior, while many then condemn non-Christians as often being cult wackos. Meanwhile, in Washington DC, the high priority is politics and political power, while movie stars might rank higher in California, when wealthy people or police rank higher in most small American towns. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As the person who started the page and put the task force under "controversy", I placed it there because of the quote from Osamah Khalil criticizing the task force because their only accomplishment "was holding a polo match", which was an obvious smackdown of Tareq Salahi, but since vandals seem to love messing with that paragraph, I gave up. scooteristi (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Top 10 Wineries of the World"
I don't have access to the book in the footnote, who rated this Virginia winery as a Top 10 in the world? The other two footnotes don't clarify anything (one is a link to the winery itself, hardly an objective source; the "feud" article doesn't help either). I'm finding it very hard to believe that any East Coast USA winery would be garnered that type of rating by any qualified enological body, so I'd love to know what the criteria were. The eastern USA is just too humid to be a "classic" wine region that could produce a winery with such a vaunted title, all emotional pride and local chauvinism aside.

For the time being, that statement should be removed from the article if no one can produce something more verifiable in the way of a citation.Biturica (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it actually refers to the narrower category of domestic sparkling wine. 96.237.177.10 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't change the fact that it is a winery in the humid eastern United States, which is -- despite all marketing to contrary by ~residents~ of those areas, for obvious reasons -- NOT an optimal region for winegrowing, at least with a Eurasian species like Vitis vinifera. This is why so many of these eastern USA wineries have to supplement their income with non-wine activities, like operating bed-and-breakfast operations. If you are making one of the "Top 10 Wines In The World" -- whether you make a still wine, sparkling wine, dessert wine, fortified wine, et al -- you logically don't have to operate a yacht for charters for the business to survive. At that tier, collectors more than likely would be buying up all your wine just through your mailing list alone, because most of them rely on statistics such as ratings from the recognized wine consumer press (even though this isn't always a rational process and merely reflects the biases of the writer doing the rating, e.g., it's well known that Robert Parker only likes wines made in a fruit-forward style).


 * Perhaps some non-wine related organization rated them based on the touristy value of the property / company as a whole or something, but for an unbiased wine organization outside of Virginia to rate them top 10 in the world is extraordinarily implausible. If someone like Wine Spectator had said this, the winery undoubtedly would have included that detail, since it cites the statement proudly on its website (and based on the kind empty nonsense Mr. Salahi likes to write, as pointed out in other portions of this talk page, it's totally plausible that he would build up a statement on his website to be more than it really is). Generally when you see this kind of statements in / on winery marketing materials, if it comes from a body or organization qualified to make the statement, the body or organization is also mentioned, right in context with the statement itself.


 * If the claim does focus on "domestic" sparkling, then the suffix "in the world" makes no sense, and would basically amount to fraud in a domestic context.


 * I'd never even heard of this winery until this dinner-crashing incident. I guess the fluff tactics didn't work. So now it seems Mr. Salahi is applying his habitual fluffery to trying to spin the two recent dinner crashings. There is a pattern here.Biturica (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of this winery until I started this page either, but then I could care less about wine. However my wife who is a wine buyer (sparkling and champagne) had actually visited that winery twice, in 2006 and 2007. That said, I think any claim that Salahi has made should be treated as highly suspect and needs to be thoroughly researched. Salahi's gift for promotion is what made him perfect for the Virginia Tourism boards, didn't you know "Virginia is for Wine Lovers"? ;^) scooteristi (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Salahi's own description of himself
This is Mr. Salahi's own description of himself, appearing as Attachment VIII to Item #3 before the Loudoun County (Va.) Board of Supervisors Economic Development Committee, 01/23/07, considering that County's sponsorship via tax dollars of the 2007 'America's Cup of Polo':


 * "TAREQ SALAHI - CHAIRMAN, AMERICA'S CUP OF POLO
 * Born with a philanthropist's heart and raised on ponies and wine, it's hard to imagine anyone better suited than Tareq Salahi to serve as Chairman of the America's Cup of Polo . . ..
 * . . .. he and his wife of three years, Michaele, are devoted to the survival and growth of the Virginia wine industry, Virginia tourism and agri-tourism and the polo charity matches in which they participate. Salahi is a fierce advocate of the Journey for the Cure Foundation, which is a public charity foundation that funds cures for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and The MS Society. . ..
 * . . . .Salahi's energies will merge with each of these causes, racing like a polo poney at breakneck speed with riveting excitement, at the America's Cup of Polo, which is designed to be a fund-raising conduit for the Journey for the Cure Foundation . . ."

—70.253.80.92 (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2009

External links?
I removed links to the YouTube wedding video, Twitter entry, and Facebook profile per WP:ELNO. My edits have been undone. Per WP:BRD, I raise for discussion: Are each of these links appropriate or inappropriate? My 5 cents is: The wedding video itself is borderline relevant to this article, and I look forward to a vigorous discussion of it. The Twitter and Facebook entries for Ms Salahi are not relevant to an article on Mr Salahi. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning here is good. I undid your revision because you made the same edit on both pages which smacked of "f--- you" emotionalism rather than sound judgment or "Good Faith". Go ahead and make the Twitter & Facebook edits here (they stay on her page). As for the wedding video, Tareq was there and with 1800 guests his financial stupidity is on full display. It is highly relevant. scooteristi (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Beware POV issues: Palestinian or debts
05-Dec-09: Now that this article has survived the December-2009 AfD, it must be guarded against POV-pushing, such as claims of American vintner Tareq Salahi as "a Palestinian", plus exaggerating his debts while omitting reports of repayments. On December 4, 2009, edits had included:
 * Claiming "Palestinian vintner" - That phrase was removed, but I added born "1968, Washington, DC" and "American vintner". Just as the word "Jew" has been repeatedly removed from many Wikipedia articles for years, beware the word "Palestinian" being added too much in negative contexts. This is one of the major wiki-slants to beware since 2006.

The claim "He is of Palestinian descent from his father's side" cannot be confirmed. There are articles that state his father's family is from Pakistan, although he was born in Jerusalem. This would not make him "Palestinian". I even found an old article that said Tareq has a brother, who is a doctor. Since most of the public information about the Salahis is based on what they told their interviewers, it would be best to leave out all facts that cannot be confirmed by an independent source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.152.48 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

From the 2009 AfD discussion (which ended "Keep" not delete), it is obvious that many wiki-editors have had a very low opinion of Tareq Salahi, so there might be limited interest in removing POV-slants against him. Volunteers mainly edit what they want, rather than "what they should". Hence, beware POV-slants left in the article, due to editor apathy. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming bad debts or "bounced checks" - Actual reports of Salahi's ongoing debts often include amounts that have been repaid, and those credits should be stated when reporting debts. Otherwise, repeating the debts, without the offset credits, gives the POV-slant that Salahi incurs debts with no attempt at repayment. The actual evidence suggests Salahi has made numerous repayments during past years.


 * All well and good, but if he was in fact a member of the board of directors of an organization, adding that fact to the article does not violate neutral POV rules. Why was reference to his appointment to the board of directors of the American Task Force on Palestine deleted, since it appears to be well documented and has not been refuted?  189.217.12.254 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked into the "bounced checks" claim yet but as for "He is of Palestinian descent from his father's side", we have "His father, Dirgham Salahi, is a Jerusalem-born Palestinian."Washington post--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is "Beisabeth Frater" located?????
Zexcetlsh (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ChicagoNow's Pointy Reference(s) to the Salahis
This is serious; I'd like to get some other editors' opinions on this. Apparenly ChicagoNow's "Reality Zen With Jenn" (maybe a WP:NEWSBLOG?) column has taken to calling Mr. Salahi "Tork the Dork" and his wife "Shelley Salami." They even use mocking/sarcastic "TM" (trademark) superscripts next to them. Now, both of these terms are provocative for an encyclopedia article, of course, and might constitute a "feedback loop." (See WP:BLP.) However, their media exposure is part of, if not the overwhelming majority of, what makes the Salahis notable. (See WP:NOTABILITY.) Given that, could references such as these "weasel words" be included? In a footnote? Anywhere? Here's where I found it: Again -- not trying to attack. Looking for ideas. I would welcome comments on this, especially before these terms enter into the mainstream lexicon more than they already are. Saebvn (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6911750-rhodc-salahis-file-bankruptcy-auction-infamous-red-sari
 * See: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/reality-zen-with-jenn/2010/09/rhodc-newsavert-your-eyes-michaele-salahi-to-pose-for-playboy.html
 * See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=shelley+salami&aq=f&aqi=g-sx1g1g-sx1g1g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
 * See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tork+the+dork&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=


 * I am not clear on what you are asking here. I think there is absolutely no question that these terms have no business in this article.  Why on earth should they be included?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, Jimbo is commenting here! Sorry to be unclear, Jimbo.  (May I call you Jimbo?)  I am asking for opinions on whether these terms, these articles, and other articles like them, indicative and exemplary of the Salahis' treatment in and by the press, are deserving of inclusion (or even citation)?  Your opinion is that these words and articles are too inflammatory.  I don't know if I have reached the same conclusion; I don't know if I've yet reached any conclusion of my own.  However, I am trying to make the point that Mr. & Mrs. Salahi are notable, in my mind, for two reasons.  First because of the White House Gate Crashers incident and second because of how they were covered in the press.  Their recent book explains in detail about how they felt victimized by a "savage media vortex" that "jumped on them" and "ruined their lives."  They describe the experience as a "metastatic brand of scrutiny that no mortal could survive."  What the press says about them is important and relevant to their notability.  Many articles from the Washington Post gossip/society columnists are cited, and a quote from the NYT is inset, as is material from Politico and references from late-night talk shows.  I think popular culture commentators sometimes fit into the term "press" as used here.  The Huffington Post is cited in the article, as are local papers such as the Warren County Report.  Also cited is the website "TV Squad."  Are these sources (especially "TV Squad") of sufficient "qualty" to comply with WP:BLP?  Now, let me be clear.  I am not advocating that we just add this information into the article without consideration, especially in the form it's presented in the tabloid press.  However, I am saying that what the press says about the Salahis and how the press covers the Salahis is relevant information for inclusion, and it should be considered, always consistent with WP:BLP.  WP:BLP says that "Wikipedia is not a tabloid."  I'm somewhat new here, especially compared to Jimbo.  (Did do some IP editing before creating an account, so the policies are not totally foreign to me.)  Does WP:BLP require the exclusion of all "tabloid-type" media?  Where is that line?  I'm just looking for opinions of other editors, and Jimbo, I'm very happy to have yours.  Thank you.  Saebvn (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see on other parts of the talk page I have advocated including things that were reported in the Washington Post that were less than complimentary of the Salahis, but I think what you're missing in the sources that you're using is that they are BLOGS, not articles from sources with a reputation for accuracy. Having a web page with text does not constitute a quality source.  I think something like HuffPost is in my grey area depending on situation and writer, blogs like you're citing are definitely not quality sources, and WaPo is pretty unassailable (as long as a literate person is doing the editing and doesn't write "Tareq stole from the Oasis Winery" when the WaPo article said "Tareq's parents filed a lawsuit that said Tareq stole from the Oasis Winery"). One big problem I have these days is that the level of editing on Yahoo News stories makes it entirely untrusworthy.  This is one of the news sites that gets the most eyeballs (they get 12,000 comments on articles), but the writing is crap and often demonstrably inaccurate. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Major Issues
The Oasis Winery section (at least) has some major issues, including borderline plagiarism. In fact it's only borderline because although repeating the sentence word for word, out of context from the source it simply misrepresents text from plantiff court documents as fact. I'm going to start the cleanup but I'm request help from anyone who cares to pitch in. The Washington Post article is the source at issue. The other problems are things like stating the WaPo quotes from Salahi's parent's court filings as fact. Ugh... 96.247.118.213 (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted you for BLP reasons in part. First what you say here is not true to the source. Second, though the Washington post is a reliable source, it's not good for the claims you are making again Tariq about what his parents say.  You need a much better territary source for claims like you are making.  I personally do not feel your edits are an improvement to the article.  Is anyone else watching this, more opinions would be nice at this point.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat indifferent on these, in my opinion, relatively minor changes. We could soften up the "allegations" slightly, perhaps through the use of the word "alleged," "allegedly" or some other conditional modifier to denote factual averments made by a single party in a court filing.  However, generally speaking, I endorse ChronieGal's reversion back to the previous version.  Agree with CrohnieGal's statement that the edits made by the IP editor were "not an improvement."  Agree with CrohnieGal that additional, more reliable, tertiary sources needed to make the change that the IP editor proposes.  Generally, defer to CrohnieGal.  Again, sorry to waffle, but I think my reaction to the changes made by the IP editor was, to be frank, "meh," and it's hard for me to capture that on this Talk page.  If perhaps the IP could propose a paragraph here, with references, we could comment on something tangible.  That might be better.  Saebvn (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Crohnie, the IP has reverted your reversion. Would endorse a reversion plus discussion here.  The IP needs to come here to discuss.  Saebvn (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I reverted again and so far the IP hasn't reverted me again. I put in my subject line my concerns about blp and that until this discussion was completed I felt it was best to revert to the original comments in the article.  Hopefully I won't be reverted again until this discussion comes to some kind of conclusion.  Thanks for letting me know, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you got it at 18:24. Looks like your revision at 18:24 is holding.  Agree with your subject line concerns on BLP.  Agree the IP is taking it out of context.  I went to the IP's talk page and asked him/her/them to come here and discuss proposals prior to wholesale reversions of you.  Hopefully, you won't be reverted again absent discussion here.  IP needs to make a proposal here to get some consensus from us and, potentially, others.  Saebvn (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that more discussion is needed. I am pretty sure more of my talk page lurkers will be here soon.  One I know who lurks is in CA. so she will probably be along shortly, the same thing for another one.  He comes to the site usually when I am leaving for the day.   I don't know how many watch my page but last I heard it was like at 70 or something, anyways, it's a lot. :)  Hopefully some of them will be by to help us out.  If I get reverted, I will not revert again since I have a rule not to revert more than twice on any article.  It's does good for me to keep the reverting limited.  I suggest this for anyone.  Even though we are allowed to revert three times, it's too easy to lose count plus it then can become an edit war.  I don't like to do either of those. :)  Thanks for your help.  I noticed you have worked on this article before so keep up the good work.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A great personal rule; very fair. I usually try to keep to a 1RR personally absent something particularly egregious.  Let's see what others have to say, and thanks for your help.  For some reason, I find this pair of people very interesting...  Saebvn (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1R is good but when concerned with BLP well you know, it's best to make the reverts and remove the problems. I don't like the title of this section but I didn't make it so I guess we're stuck with it.  Oh well, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with you on BLP, so I do have exceptions and have not made a formal committment to 1RR for myself, just an informal guideline. WP:BLP is much more important, and I do have some legal experience, so I'm aware of the risk profile being so very different for BLPs versus other types of articles.  Will reply separately to your post at my Talk page, Crohnie...  19:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the edits I made were entirely true to the WaPo source. You reverted to something that had the major problems I'm talking about.  Let's stick to one example to make things easy.  The WP article now says "In the following years, Tareq started calling "himself 'president' of the Company and 'owner' of the winery, although he never held more than a 5% minority interest."  The WaPo article says "In the following years, he started calling "himself 'president' of the Company and 'owner' of the winery, although he never held more than a 5 % minority interest," according to his parents' lawsuit."  I hope the difference is clear, and it was fixed in my revision.  We don't KNOW that he started calling himself those things, we know that his parents ALLEGED that.  This is the main problem with the section.  Aside from the blatant plagiarism, that is. 96.247.118.213 (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues in current second paragraph of “Oasis Winery”

Issue 1: Word for word plagiarism. WaPo: In the following years, he started calling "himself 'president' of the Company and 'owner' of the winery, although he never held more than a 5 % minority interest," WikiP: In the following years, Tareq started calling "himself 'president' of the Company and 'owner' of the winery, although he never held more than a 5% minority interest.

Issue 2: Reporting of points as fact when in WaPo they are clearly stated not as facts, but statements from a court filing. In a stunning feat, the wiki article manages to plagiarize without even saying the same thing, by dropping “According to his parents’ lawsuit” from the end of the above quote.

Issue 3. Near Word. for. Word. Plagiarism. WaPo: Tareq also began operating a new business out of the vineyard, Oasis Enterprises, which included a limo operation, wine country tours and an events-and-catering business. Around 1999, according to his parents' lawsuit, he "diverted" a "substantial amount" of the vineyard's wine to Oasis Enterprises and had not paid the vineyard back. WikiP: Tareq also began operating a new business out of the vineyard, Oasis Enterprises, which was developed to raise ancillary income as a venue for polo events and other functions such as weddings. Oasis Enterprises included a limo operation, wine country tours, and an events-and-catering business. Around 1999 Tareq "diverted" a "substantial amount" of the vineyard's wine to Oasis Enterprises and had not paid the vineyard back

Issue 4: Reporting of points as fact when in WaPo they are clearly stated not as facts, but statements from a court filing. The difference in #3 is that WikiP does not use “according to his parents’ lawsuit” 96.247.118.213 (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at my original edits and can see some of the objections you may have had. But I think they can be cleared up by simply stating "The Salahi family filed court documents claiming ... " in the right spots.  And that wording would clearly be supported by the source in WaPo per the above.  96.247.118.213 (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm on hold here, but do note that the edits made by Crohnie (essentially a revert of two edits by me) replaced two statements into the paragraph that are potentially libellous, and per my comments above re-introduced plagiarism into the article. On this basis, barring further comment soon I will delete the whole paragraph until we can get a consensus version.  Crohnie, in the spirit of your allegiance to BLP, if I have to do that I beg your understanding up front but BLP clearly states that contentious material should be removed immediately.  There is no source that verifies that Tareq diverted wine, only that a court filing by his parents says he did.  As such the article as is cannot be allowed to stand. 96.247.118.213 (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * - Note - this issue has also been reported to the BLP noticeboard here. I have also reverted user Crohnie's addition of the disputed content as it can easily be replaced in consensus supports it. As for the article, it is bloated and attacking in nature imo. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The admin reverted to my version per above. I have made edits that I hope address Crohnie's issues.  If not, please edit the current version rather than revert to anything with unsupportable statements or plagiarism.  96.247.118.213 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Question for Off2riorob. You reverted me saying there is a consensus for the edits would you expand on this because I see two editors and one IP talking about this and so far one editors agrees with my reason to revert the edits made by the IP.  I self reverted myself but I have to say that I am not at all please that you did a drive by revert of my edit to only come here to say that the IP brought this discussion to the BLP notice board, which I missed when I reverted the edit.  The IP took this conversation also to my talk page yet no dif was given for the BLPN post.  What is going on here?  The edits made are against BLP and it's also not using a strong enough source which is the Washington Post.  When reverted, it's up to the editor reverted to find a stronger source.  I don't find the edits to be true to the WA post either, it's more like sythesis or making your POV fit.  The edit is bad, period, full stop.  Please explain why you reverted and your edit summary with that revert.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment on BLP Noticeboard, the current article doesn't say he lied about things. It says his family filed a lawsuit alleging he did, which is very different.  The article previously stated that he stole things from the winery, when even the referenced source here didn't say that.  Essentially, we're in agreement: we shouldn't have unsourced negative statements in the article.  I think what is being missed is that my original edits meant to address that exact issue. The original text said, for example: "Around 1999 Tareq "diverted" a "substantial amount" of the vineyard's wine to Oasis Enterprises and had not paid the vineyard back".  This was not supported by ANY source. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Further note that I kind of agree with you on Off2riorob. That said, we're sitting here talking about revert rules when we could be editing the content using a much better tool than reverts: the wiki.  Do you agree with the current version?  Your revert was from a version that doesn't exist anymore, I didn't re-insert it, let's just assume I proposed a new set of edits.  If you don't agree what changes would you make - using edits, not revert? See my comment above, do you think the original content was supported given what I just wrote? 74.7.121.69 (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to make this quick because I am leaving my computer to cook. Please see page 4 which verifies the statements you say were not in the source at all. The rest will have to wait for another time.  I don't agree with your edits, I think another source is needed to support what you keep saying is in the this lawsuit.  Adding lawsuit doesn't make the edits any better, sorry, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the things in the article, along with the supporting material from the source. I remind you this was the same source as the previously existing paragraph, I did not add this source.

WikiP:Tareq eventually gained a 5% minority interest in the vineyard. WaPo:In 1998, Tareq wrote in court papers, he gained a 5 percent interest in Oasis Vineyard. In the following years, he started calling "himself 'president' of the Company and 'owner' of the winery, although he never held more than a 5 % minority interest," according to his parents' lawsuit.

WikiP:According to court papers, Tareq also began operating a new business out of the vineyard, Oasis Enterprises, which was developed to raise ancillary income as a venue for polo events and other functions such as weddings. Oasis Enterprises included a limo operation, wine country tours, and an events-and-catering business. WaPo:Tareq also began operating a new business out of the vineyard, Oasis Enterprises, which included a limo operation, wine country tours and an events-and-catering business.

WikiP:A dispute arose amongst the Salahi family regarding business matters between Oasis Vineyard and Oasis Enterprises, and the winery started losing money. WaPo: This requires the current reference [12] to also be incorporated. I'll do that.

WikiP:A lawsuit arose, in which the Salahi family alleged, according to court filings, that assets were misdirected to Oasis Enterprises from the winery and that Tareq was misrepresenting himself as the President of the winery. WaPo:In the following years, he started calling "himself 'president' of the Company and 'owner' of the winery, although he never held more than a 5 % minority interest," according to his parents' lawsuit.74.7.121.69 (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So the "dispute arose" is now covered by the new citation; the losing money is covered in the original: "In 2003, the Oasis winery started losing money. That year, according to the lawsuit, it posted a loss of $187,949 on revenue of $806,641; in 2004, it lost $271,661 on revenue of $726,115; in 2005, it lost $277,498 on $833,525 in revenue." 74.7.121.69 (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the suitability of the Washington Post as a source: Are you arguing that the WaPo is not a suitable source or that we shouldn't be putting such allegations into a BLP even if they appear in a major newspaper story? I could be convinced of the latter perhaps.  However, note if you are making that argument: the original article said worse things about said LP, that weren't even noted as "according to court filings".  So revert to the original is not an option.  I added the "lawsuit" part today since saying that he and his family got into a dispute and a lawsuit is valuable even if we choose to delete the specific allegations. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Continued Removal of Content
I (again) respectfully request that editors wishing to remove content, including the Oasis Winery content, please seek consensus here before removing whole paragraphs and sentences from the article. Thank you. Saebvn (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do me a favor and check the references. this, [Feud Ends: McLean Realtor Buys Oasis Vineyard this] and [About Oasis". Oasis Winery ref 9, sorry my computer is jammed up now].  The whole section is almost taken word for word now, it may have been before but now it's even worse.  This whole section needs to be removed in my opinion.  And to answer the question above, usually Washington Post is a good source but sometimes, esp. for BLP's newspapers aren't the best sources to be used as is in this case.  More maybe tomorrow.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  23:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have not checked the ref/link yet. Will do so tomorrow when/if schedule permits.  Looks like the latest revision from the IP is o.k. and holding, though I would have appreciated discussion here from the IP first.  Will check the ref tomorrow and come back here to say more.  Saebvn (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Saebvn, I think the problem here is that this entry is a BLP nightmare. Most of it should be removed, not just a bit here and there, but most of it.  It's a hatchet job.  It's a long diatribe against this man, who is himself a BLP1E or nearly so.  None of the Oasis Winery stuff is in any way encyclopedic, without the gate crashing incident that brought them into public consciousness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What brought people into "public consciousness" is not our concern: what is our concern is that they are, and that there are sources about them. If you have problems with article's POV, this means that material has to be rewritten, not removed. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. There is very very often good reason to remove well-sourced trivial nonsense from an article, and it very much does matter to us why and how someone came to the public eye.  I suggest you go read up on BLP policy, in particular reviewing BLP1E and related.  It is often not possible to "rewrite" salacious material added for no encyclopedic purpose.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know BLP policy, and BLP1E clearly doesn't apply here -this argument has been soundly rebuked at AfD and it is self-evident from the article that it doesn't apply. At most we can talk of WP:UNDUE. That said, unless something changed very recently, I don't remember a policy asking us to consider why and how someone came to the public eye. This is also because 1)it would fly in the face of NPOV 2)all what we need is that subjects are notable and material is reliably sourced. That's "encyclopedic purpose". We don't go cherry-pick what is encyclopedic and what is not according to our personal biases. I personally couldn't care less of knowing about the Salahis (I follow this page because of the old AfD) but my own preferences in article reading shouldn't impair other people's ability to know. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooo, this is relevant to my interests. First things first - Oasis Winery stuff clearly sheds a lot of light on the subject and why the gate crashing incident even happened - this gent was well known in his community as the scion of a wealthy winery owning family (with the attendant good name and connections to talk his way into the dinner), yet was enough of a troublemaker to even be sued by his own family.  So it's relevant even in a BLP1E sense.  However, that just leads to the more interesting subject IMHO - what are the limits of inclusion of information from even a strong source reporting details of a court filing for a lawsuit - which is inherently one-sided?  For the record, I clearly draw a line in what should be in a BLP - compare the version of the article as I found it (horrible, just horrible) and as I edited it here.  The article started with libellous claims that he stole from the winery, when the source didn't even say that.  It clearly said only that he was alleged to have stolen in the lawsuit by his parents.  I think the current paragraph is certainly verifiable - one of the nation's top newspapers reported on this story multiple times, well before the 1E even - and more neutral than the previous version.  But, should we go further and remove or limit details of what was alleged - or perhaps just put in some balance, perhaps from his statements or by noting that the lawsuit was settled out of court? 74.7.121.69 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Vocabulary" Trivia Section
Just in case this becomes an issue... Off2RioRob has just removed the "Vocabulary" trivia section from the article, with a good edit summary. I endorse this action. Saebvn (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks for commenting, I should have commented but was bold and waiting to see if anyone supported the content and replaced it, which they haven't so .. I did have a discussion with another involved User:Crohnie on her talkpage here and she also supported some removal of some trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally endorse that which Crohnie endorses, too... Saebvn (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record here, I endorse gutting this article. There is too much gossip, trivia and sections need to be checked for copyright infringements that have become loaded into this article.  This article used to be a good article.  I'm not sure when it got trashed like it is now but I do support what Rob has done and I hope he has the time to continue the cleanup since I don't have the time to do so myself.  Thank you very much for doing what you are doing Rob.  The help is appreciated by me and I'm sure others will also see what is needed to clean up this article.  Got go, thanks again, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  23:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, I will put it up towards the top of my to look at list, best . Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
Is there a consensus to redirect this BLP of a person that is only really notable for one event to that event? This one 2009_U.S._state_dinner_security_breaches


 * Support tarc's bold move to redirect this article to the actual noteworthy event. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If you and Tarc want this to become a redirect (and being therefore essentially deleted), open an AfD and seek consensus. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussing a redirect is essentially an editorial decision, not a deletion one. These sorts of things can go thru XfD, but they do not need to. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In this case, redirecting the article means to destroy a substantial amount of information that is not found in the redirect target. It would practically be deletion, and deletion has to be discussed at AfD. I can open the AfD myself if needed. There is no need to fear seeking consensus. If you feel that the subject is not worth an article, the intellectually honest decision is to bring it at AfD. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement is not something I'm terribly concerned with, honestly. AfDs don't need to be the host for a discussion where the option to actually delete outright is not on the table. Tarc (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, in practice. I'm going to open the AfD myself. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Predictably, the ARS firemen run to the rescue here. So, let's have a discussion about what exactly this person has done to warrant an encyclopedia...we all do remember that this is an encyclopedia, right?  Not a arm or a subsidiary of HuffPo, TMZ, or other hysteric 24/7 news cycle conglomerates, right?...article.  Founding a winery?  An award from the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society?  He likes polo?  He gives to charity?    The question to ask here is, absent the gate-crashing incident, would we even be here at Tareq Salahi ?  IMNSHO (an IMO without the humbleness), no. Tarc (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, let's have a discussion about what exactly this person has done to warrant an encyclopedia: Sure. He is covered for multiple facts/events in reliable sources. He would be even without the crashing incident, but that's entirely irrelevant. The point is that sources talk about him -and do it for different facts, invalidating BLP1E. Myself, individually and personally, couldn't care less about knowing the details of the winery of Mr.Salahi, but I don't want an encyclopedia that contains only what I care personally about; I want a source of information that collects, summarizes and structures what is reported by reliable sources regardless of my personal idea of what I like and I don't like (And I am not an "ARS fireman", even if I sympathize with them). -- Cycl o pia talk  19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was created the day after the gate crashing incident, the AFD, looking at it, could easily been closed as merge, I would myself have closed it as merge. The article now is rubbish, badly written fluff about this and that minor issue constantly supporting crap is filling the encyclopedia up with it. I have trimmed a third out of it and if it sits here much longer I will look to trim another third out of it, revealing that all he is really notable for is the gate crashing incident. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is dangerous nonsense. Deleting stuff from an article to make it look like a BLP1E when it is not a BLP1E is disingenous and pointy. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not disingenuous at all to clean up trivial puffery. Somewhere in our vast wiki-alphabet there's an essay/guideline along the lines of squeezing blood from a stone, i.e. efforts to inflate a subject's notability beyond what the sources can really support, but the WP:XYZ name escapes me at the moment. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As per Tarc, exactly. "Dangerous nonsense" is a bit of a dramatic way to describe article clean up. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per one event. There was a previous merger discussion I believe but I don't remember if it's in the archives or the afd that was started long ago.  I don't have time to hunt for it though to tell you how it turned out.  I think it would be a good move to redirect this article is a serious target for BLP vios also.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the last AFD was closed as keep but with a comment that merge discussion should continue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the simple principle that there exists a Dirgham Salahi page. Any discussion for AfD should start there.  If that page can stand on its own merits, this one clearly can.  If that page can't, then consider a merge here.  74.7.121.69 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow that article is awful, just looks like a coatrack to slag of this living subject, duplicated content, the talkpage is a redlink, created by User:Racepacket, that one should be deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that article out, Mr. 74...; AfD'ed on 100% WP:NOTINHERITED grounds. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominated at AfD. Please let's discuss deletion there. -- Cycl o pia talk  21:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have got a bit carried away with yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly. Looking deeper into this, the version restored on 1 Sept 2010 is really no different from what's here now.  This should be a simple decision to adhere to the past consensus which created the redirect in the first place back this February. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Reiterating Opposition (same vote as above, do not double count), in the context of dozens upon dozens of forgettable MTV Real World cast member pages. Salahi seems to have three levels of notoriety to me.  (1) Minor and non-WP pageworthy status as a local person of interest, covered in Washington Post for the Polo and Winery stuff.  This alone would not merit page status.  (2) Central character on well-known reality TV show, in fact, one of two major centers of attention on said show.  This alone might merit page status, q.v. David Rainey.  Go delete the non-remembered Real Worlders before bothering me about Salahi (3) the infamous event.  Hardly a 1E in my estimate, more like a 2.5E, with plenty of 0.5E people sitting out there to spend time worrying about deleting first.  I think those in support simply mistake the sheer magnitude of the major event for it being the only reason for notoriety, but you're eating poisonous fruit from the tree...   74.7.121.69 (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Vehemently Oppose: If y'all want to say someone from the D.C. area is not notable, then start with the linebackers coach or the guy who spent two weeks as a safety on the practice squad of the Washington Redskins before you start ripping into well-sourced biographies. If y'all want to delete biographies of people you don't like then start with the most monstrously evil men (1, 2, 3, 4) who have ever lived. Yes, Tareq Salahi was brought to international attention by the one event at the White House. However, were Salahi known just for his time as a political appointee in Virginia this article would stand on it own, and none of you would find it sexy enough to want to delete, this goes double for you Jimbo, and your negative obsession with this man. Due extensive coverage of the winery's woes and the Polo Cup in the Washington Post (a paper of record, I might note) and other local papers he was notable in two other areas before this one event, go scrub the minor coaches and crappy players from the professional sports leagues or the daughter of the world's 5th richest man first. Because of the notoriety brought on by the TV show and his various legal escapades Salahi would still be notable sans the White House event (just like the dozens of bios of people who spent 5 minutes on Survivor or the Real World or any other crappy reality show). scooteristi (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid argument, which is pretty much the entire gist of your "oppose". If you feel those articles have notability concerns, then go there to address them. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When it's a policy it will not be a valid argument. As it's an essay it's simply something that is suggested to not be very convincing, especially when presented with a nice dose of vinegar. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And in the context of Tareq Salahi, I would say the argument being made by Scooteristi is not Other Stuff Exists, but rather "the votes to merge/delete seem to stem from distaste because Tareq Salahi is a tabloid figure, his page is attracting unmerited special attention" 74.7.121.69 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ding! Ding! Ding! all of the negative comments on this page (stemming back to the day I created it in Nov 2009) all seem to stem from distaste, worse distaste couched in a selective reading of WP policy. I don't like Salahi. And I don't like Hitler, Pol Pot, Bin Laden, or Stalin either. But I would never consider doing a delete or backdoor delete (such as a redirect or merge) on any of them just to suit my own personal dislike of the subject. The fact that 560,000 people and counting (and that is more visits than my other 23 biographies combined) have visited this page for information proves that it has been a valuable resource for people. So please lets end the destructive criticism and focus on the stuff that can improve this page.scooteristi (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - The bad-faith AfD has been closed, so now hopefully we can return to having the redirect discussion here. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Cyclopedia's point was that the content was at risk from a merge, or that it was unclear what the proposal was. Can we see a bit of an explanation of what is proposed, under a new section with a title that relates to the topic? 74.7.121.69 (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Old business - could somebody go kill off the Dirgham Salahi page, I haven't see an vote in favor of that one on AfD. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I see some saying to merge, I did too, and others saying they are opposed but not giving any policy reasons to keep this other than other articles exist and similar comments. I am open to reasons why this article should be kept if anyone is interested in giving some policy reasons.  I've had this article watched since it was first built.  I've seen a lot of changes to this article and many cleanups like Rob was doing.  I stopped watching it for a little while because the vandalism was just so nasty and I wanted to use my time doing other things than guarding one article.  If you have something to say about why this article shouldn't be merged, please by all means lets here what you have to say.  If other article need work, take it to their talk pages, but for now we are talking about this article, so please discuss.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As laid out above, most of the Oppose votes say he's >1E. The policy reason for merge/delete has been 1E, those opposed don't agree with that, noting that for starters he is on a well known television show.  As an anecdote, the reason I'm in this discussion right now is that I came to look up some info on the Tareq Salahi page related to Real Housewives, not related to the WH Dinner event.  Since users will continue to seek information specifically about Tareq Salahi because of his ongoing activities including the show, they should not be directed to a page related to one event in his life, IMHO, even if all the content from his current page is kept.  They will come, because many of his other activities have received continuous coverage.  "When an individual is covered for a single event, and the spotlight follows that individual into his or her new endeavors, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E have not been held by the Wikipedia community to be compelling reasons for deletion."  And in this case the spotlight is related, but not even following, as the show would have happened with or without the state dinner. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * this is the encyclopedic notability of the reality show ..Tareq is frequently seen alongside his wife in episodes of Bravo's The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C.. - close to zilch and gives his one event little addition. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right we need to expand that as part of article cleanup, should be more like the length of other notable reality participants' pages like David Rainey. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No we don't I was going to add to my previous message (please don't take this comment as a need to enlarge the comment as another excuse to refute one event notability) - the comment is as is totally correct. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We can agree to disagree and let it just come down to the vote. I prefer Wikipedia to be useful to people searching for information.  The page I link to above talks about someone whose original reality series was in 1994; his page has been accessed hundereds of times daily in 2010.  I would defend him due to his original notability, even though there are clearly no extensive well regarded tertiary sources on that guy.  I would vote against others from the same show having their own page.  If the majority prefers to give up on utility in subservience to a highbrow sensibility such as weighting against anyone associated with celebrity culture, so be it.  As the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I'd like it to serve the needs of everyman. And as I mentioned, I came to Tareq Salahi's page in search of the very information that others seem to want to delete, so my vote is solid. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also pls don't confuse my defense of the page w/ defense of the current content. It stinks but let's fix it not throw it out. 74.7.121.69 (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, no worries, that is actually my position, it presently exists so we should try and improve it. If it is redirected after more discussion at least we removed or improved the worst aspects of it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be no more discussion of merging, redirecting, or otherwise backdoor deleting this page. Let's just stop that destructive notion now in its tracks. If you have an issue with POV, encyclopedic tone, or other constructive improvements (like the Major Issues section) then I'd be delighted to hear them. scooteristi (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The picture


I am considering removing the picture, it shows Obama and his wife more than it does him, the pic is ok for the gatecrasher article bur not for his BLP infobox, thoughts? I have also cropped thew pic to the subject but the pic of him is reallty not good enough for his BLP infobox either, anyone seen any possible free replacement pics? Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rob, I think we should go without an image as this image is horrible. I don't know of any other pictures so I think we either stick with the other one or go totally without an image.  Just my thoughts on this, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crohnie, I removed it as when cropped to the actual person whose BLP this is it becomes quite clear that as such the pic is a very poor likeness of the subject, and this is not Obahma or his wifes Bio, so.... thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)