Jump to content

Talk:2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches

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

[1]

[2]

  1. ^ AFD was to keep but a DRV was to merge
  2. ^ AFD was to keep but a DRV was to merge

Complete Revamp

[edit]

Holy fucking shit the 2009 State Dinner/Salahi page was an absolute disaster! As such, I restructured the article so that the primary focus is on the incident and the secondary focus is on the perpetrators. However, I have removed very, very little content! I invite others to take on this tasking...there's way, way too much information in the article and way too much redundancy.

[edit]

This article's external links may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.

I organized the external links and removed some duplicates as well as some that seemed marginal. Are there still strong feelings about them one way or the other? In my opinion the Facebook links should remain, since Michaele's posting of photos from the state dinner to Facebook is central to the uncovering of the entire incident, even though Facebook links are generally not considered appropriate for Wikipedia. Making both of the Oasis Winery websites available also seems logical since ownership is in dispute. Opinions? 189.216.48.193 (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post's series of articles in the past few days (Dec 21-23) has a remarkably comprehensive collection of material, summarizing much of the info that's been patched together here on Wikipedia. Perhaps most of the current linkspam cites could be crunched down and redirected to the WashPo summary articles? --Wombat1138 (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could dispense with the "Other"-category links as their material is pretty well covered in the refs. I think it is worth keeping links to some of the original source material, however, since in another 60 days or so the WaPo articles will be archived and available only via pay-per-view. 189.216.48.193 (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "Other"-category links, the Twitter feed, and two of the three Facebook pages not directly associated with the gatecrash. If anybody strongly disagrees, please feel free to revert, but I think this takes care of the concern that the "External Links" include items not suitable for this article. 189.216.48.193 (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view dispute

[edit]

The article has been nominated for review for neutral point of view. Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.88.136 (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I *think* the article has been fairly good about presenting information from cited sources, though some of those may have their own non-neutral POVs. IIRC the precursor biography articles had some occasional blatant violations such as editorially characterizing the aethetics of the Salahi wedding, but those were quashed fairly quickly. The main question that actually comes to mind are whether some of the cites (esp. those passing on info from anonymous sources) should be considered unreliable. However, I would think that as long as the article accurately represents information provided by specific people, those sources' original POVs are themselves part of the official record, rather than a bias introduced by Wikipedia. --Wombat1138 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also *think* the article has been good about finding whatever is available about the Salahis, positive and negative, including some bona fide public service as well as payment of debts where that has occurred. The article does seem to be a bit of a magnet for vandalism, but that is not a POV issue. The article gives credit to Tareq for graduating from university, as he claims, but not to Michaele; it gives Tareq credit for being good at promotion per a former Virginia governor's statements, as well as having claimed ignorance that a counterfeit gift watch was not genuine. The Salahis' refutations and counterarguments are given full voice wherever they are available. 189.217.88.136 (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WRT the Salahis' respective university claims, iirc cites have been provided from each school-- UC Davis confirms Tareq as a graduate, while King's College in Wilkes-Barre has no record of Michaele Holt as one (Sheena Delazio's article, currently indexed as cite #24). I don't definitely know whether the latter also checked for the original name spelling as "Michelle Holt", though. --Wombat1138 (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes items from the left wing of the political spectrum (extensive Washington Post reporting plus New York Times) to the right wing (Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post), plus two wire services (AP and UPI) as well as the Times of India for the Indian perspective, plus Warren County Report and other local media (print and broadcast). It includes info from the Wolf Trap website, both Oasis Winery websites, and others. The Salahis are quoted or cited where quotes and citations are appropriate and available. Refs now number in excess of 150, which is a very large number for Wikipedia. I think this issue can safely be laid to rest. 189.210.187.180 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs now number 250, a very large number, and include many original quotes from the Salahis. This article is about as neutral as neutral can be. 189.216.124.83 (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename discussion

[edit]

Other articles have been discussed. In short, if there are repeated White House gatecrashing incidents, then the 2009 description is required. Since this is the first one in living memory, then it must be renamed "White House gatecrash incident".

If another reader is to be believed, it may have to be renamed again to "White House gatecrash criminal investigation". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "2009" is not required. Even if there were similar incidents in the past, they were not known as the "White House gatecrash incident", making the 2009 superfluous in this case. --PinkBull 23:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any opposition. Just move the article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends a lot on your definition of gatecrash(er) vs intruder. A gatecrasher is an intruder, but an intruder is not necessarily a gatecrasher. There have been other 'White House intruders' this year, but as far as we know, no other gatecrashers. If someone crashed the Obamas' Chrissy party for example, then the name will have to be re-considered, if it hasn't already been change/merged with other articles. Anyway this discussion has gone far beyond this at the proper DELETE/merge discussions.
P.S. I am, under a different IP address, at least partly responsible for the name "2009 White House gatecrash incident". But the title doesn't really matter so long as our 'adoring public' can find the information they want. The FDR incident mentioned above is interesting, shows that some things stay the same!
  • HOWEVER you can NOT just unilaterally MOVE the article. Well you can but not without getting 'offside' with all the editors who are discussing this on the appropriate pages HERE for the last week. See this too, Guide to deletion(Moving too)
Suomi Finland 2009s point on "White House gatecrash criminal investigation" is a good one, the incident (like the Watergate break-in) may be minor, but the fall-out from it (Nixon lying about his involvement, as I remember) can have huge political ramifications. Of course it may well come to zilch.--203.63.130.37 (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to User:Hunter Kahn's point above: If another incident takes place that may confuse readers, we can then add "2009" to the beginning of the article name to clarify. But a potential future incident should not be a reason to add clarifications to an article name, as far as I understand. Sincerely, --PinkBull 19:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it is not renamed "Gatecrashgate"... 189.216.209.88 (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising the press hasn't picked up on that idea. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Biographical Info

[edit]
  • Please Remove All But Most Basic Biographical Info: the biographies of the Salahis are covered quite well on their own pages. This page should focus squarely on the incident and the fallout from the incident as it affects the White House (and staff or soon-to-be-former staff), Congress (and members holding hearings and any laws passed), and if it occurs the criminal cases that may be pressed. scooteristi (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bio page for Tareq Salahi appears to be gone -- it is redirected here. What happened to all the bio data (80+ refs)? 189.216.209.88 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge means just that, merge, not expunge. After spending a chunk of last weekend editing the Tareq Salahi article and adding about 30 references, I found today that it had disappeared -- not been merged, merely disappeared. I have added the old text to this article and perhaps some of us can edit it back to some semblance of order. 189.216.209.88 (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions for the "Michaele" and "Tareq" articles rather gave me the impression that, to the extent that any consensus had been reached, it had been to merge those two bios together but keep the resulting joint biography separate from this incident article. Yes? No? --Wombat1138 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so you know where I was coming from in the Michaele redirect: It was clear there was a consensus for some sort of merge, and whether it was Tareq and Michaele together, or merging them both here, it didn't matter to me. However, the result of Tareq's DRV seemed to result in a merge here, and suddenly that page was redirecting to the gatecrash incident. Obviously, if there was no Tareq page anymore and that one was merged to the gatecrash article, it only made sense to do the same for Michaele. I did the redirect because I figured it would preserve the history and anybody could take whatever data they want and bring it back here. However, I probably should have made it more clear that this option was available to people, so I apologize for that. — Hunter Kahn (c) 13:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no coordination of what to do so the result is the article is the event and biographical data must be put here. If the Salahis do more, such as a TV show (actors of a TV show often have their own articles), then eventually each of the Salahis might have their own article and this article trimmed of some bio info. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same as Wombat1138. After spending a big chunk of last weekend adding to and editing the Tareq_Salahi article, I found that Hunter Kahn redirected it to this article. I have merged most of the bio data from the Tareq_Salahi article into this one, as well as some items from the Michaele_Salahi article, corrected a couple of broken refs, but now we have a job ahead of us editing this article to remove duplicate information and to merge duplicate refs. I respectfully ask that this amount of work not be reverted unless somebody has a really, really good reason. 189.216.209.88 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest moving the "incident" section up to the top with a thumbnail description of the Salahis, and placing the more detailed bio sections after that? The "popular culture" subsections should probably move to the "aftermath" bit, though. --Wombat1138 (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Most of that makes sense, but after a few hours of editing and merging redundant text I'm done in for tonight -- if you are up to it, have at it, otherwise it will have to wait till I have (or someone else has) time to take a crack at it. I do think the popular culture info deserves its own section, though. 189.216.209.88 (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reorganized the article quite a bit, but now I'm done in for tonight too. On reflection, all of the bio stuff should probably be combined to pop those (sub)categories one level down, making the main outline "1: the incident; 2: the Salahis; 3: the aftermath", but at the moment I can't face wrangling "="s all over the place. --Wombat1138 (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a shot at your suggestion of putting the bio data under one category ('the alleged gatecrashers') so please take a look. You are right, it looks better and helps the flow of the table of contents. I also reverted somebody's decision to delete much of the bio data as "unnecessary" -- I think we should debate rigorously what is "unnecessary" after people have exerted themselves to annotate entries with exhaustive footnotes (now numbering 124, after I merged a few duplicates tonight). 189.217.88.136 (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another gate crashing event

[edit]

It's now in the news. The people knew they were not supposed to be there but didn't say anything until after the Salahi incident. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a little controversy on the internet because it looks to some like the White House is just giving an excuse that he was known not to be on the guest list but was allowed since he was a veteran. Another plausible excuse not used was that they did not know he was a veteran but just wanted to fill up chairs. Yet another plausible excuse is that nobody is running the show. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be scholarly, consider not even siding with one of the explanations and not having any excuses in the article. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But regardless of whether it's the "real" reason, the White House spokesman has made a public statement that the Dardens were allowed to stay because Mr. Darden was a veteran. I thought the existing cite had that info, but apparently not-- I'll add another one that does, and also reword a bit. --Wombat1138 (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Dardens had been vetted and so were known quantities to the Secret Service, already cleared for entry into the White House but on a different date, and that was a factor in the decision. The Salahis had not been vetted and so were not known quantities, and were never cleared for entry. The Dardens were not let in solely because he is a Navy veteran, although that appears to have been a factor. 189.216.209.88 (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are reports that the Salahis were vetted but that they were not checked against the guest list. There are reports that criminal background checks are made for all visitors. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...okay, then add the cites for those reports? --Wombat1138 (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns

[edit]

The Salahis say they didn't gate crash. Gate crashing has a very negative connotation. We must be mindful of BLP. So consider alleged gate crashing, uninvited guest, or other ways to say it. As long as all of us are aware of BLP guidelines and try to observe them, we'll be fine and might not even need a discussion. Just don't try to push it to the limit or see what can get rammed through. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Salahis say they didn't crash the gate, but the Secret Service and White House say they did. Should we call them "accused gatecrashers"? 189.216.209.88 (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much about the Salahis?

[edit]

This article is titled '2009 White House gatecrash incident, not 'Michaele and Tareq Salahi'. We don't need to list every aspect of their lives and every controversy they've previously been involved in; that material, while interesting, doesn't belong in an article about the gatecrashing incident. At the moment, this article looks a bit like a WP:COATRACK: it pretends to be about the gatecrashing incident, but it's really all about the Salahis (e.g., the whole of the 'other controversies' section).

Perhaps a separate article should be created for the Salahis, and that information moved there; but it doesn't belong in this article. Robofish (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an AFD which resulted in keeping separate articles but some people went to DRV to get it overturned and merged. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a growing consensus that we need a separate article on Tareq_and_Michaele_Salahi and that the bio data on them should be moved to it? I don't want to go to the effort of doing that just to have somebody revert it because we didn't discuss it. 189.217.88.136 (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Absolutely.scooteristi (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent, the Salahis' personal backgrounds are relevant wrt establishing their general sense of decorum and ethics to place the gatecrash in context-- but yeah, I do think that most of their biographical info should be popped back out to a unified "Tareq and Michaele" article... speaking of which, is Michaele listed first because of clerical criteria such as birthdate or alphabetical order, or because she was the one who brought the pair to notice frmo her Facebook page, or because it was essentially a random coinflip decision whether to put her before or after Tareq? --Wombat1138 (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put Michaele in front of Tareq, and did it because M comes before T in the alphabet -- no ulterior motive. I agree that they should have a separate article, but was apparently outvoted, and so merged all available information into this one as it is, in my opinion, highly relevant to the story as well as instructive. If there is consensus that a separate "Michaele and Tareq Salahi" article should be created, you will hear no objections from this quarter. By the way, Wombat1138, that was a nice job of editing -- kudos and many thanks for continuing after I ran out of gas last night. 189.216.209.88 (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One article is more than enough for these two characters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but in any case the occasion of an allegedly real-life "Great Gatsby" or "Bonfire of the Vanities" should not be swept under the rug. 189.216.209.88 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) though I would assume that the Salahis themselves truly are real-life and not just allegedly so... modifier placement, tee hee. On a somewhat more serious note, the aftermath of the incident does include the sudden widespread inquiry into things like Michaele's "modeling career" and the financial status of the Oasis Winery; otherwise, those claims probably would've remained unquestioned indefinitely. --Wombat1138 (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the modifier placement in this case is that the adverb (allegedly) must precede the adjective it is modifying, and in this case the adjective (real-life) does not modify the Salahis, but rather the literary works. Yes, the Salahis are real-life, but are only allegedly 21st century versions of Jay Gatsby. 189.217.88.136 (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Reference - new word

[edit]

I reverted somebody's deletion of the reference to "salahi" as a new verb in the English language so that it is back in the article. Let's please discuss this before deciding whether it does or does not belong in the article. I believe it does belong, as it is too early to know whether the word is transitory. "Ponzi scheme" remains in common use several decades later; we cannot yet predict what fate "salahi" will enjoy or suffer. 189.217.88.136 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Person

[edit]

I think the development of the "third gatecrasher" story means we need to add a new section (versus the current subsection) to this article related to the role of alleged crasher Carlos Allen. Please see the WashPost article from today plus Sally Quinn's op-ed piece. 189.216.204.177 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Today show interview

[edit]

I have corrected references to NBC's Today show interview by Matt Lauer to reflect a date of December 1, 2009, as that is the date on the YouTube clip posted by TPM at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwqBm-puhCc. There are also some references in other media to the interview having taken place December 1, not December 2. 189.216.225.235 (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page Moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 White House gatecrash incident → 2009 White House state dinner incidents — Hopefully someone will come up with a less awkward title. At any rate, there are now several 2009 White House gatecrashes- the Dardens, the Salahis, and a man possibly named Carlos Allen. I propose we rename this article to deal with only the state dinner crashes and move the Salahi biographies to Tareq and Michaele Salahi. - Relisting  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liqudluck✽talk 21:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the bio data should be in a separate article but that viewpoint was overruled / outvoted in a previous debate on the subject (note from the discussions above that Hunter Kahn redirected the then-extant articles on the Salahis to this one). If there is a new consensus to create a separate Tareq and Michaele Salahi article, that would be fine with me but let's please make a decision one way or the other this time and stick to it. At the same time we would need to create a separate Carlos Allen article to retain balance in coverage of this event (the Dardens, on the other hand, do not really need an article as their "breach" was from all appearances an honest mistake, unlike the still-not-fully-explained circumstances surrounding the Salahi and Allen cases). Perhaps the article on the event could be renamed 2009 State Dinner Security Breaches since it is now clear that security protocols were not followed and three persons not on the invitation list nevertheless gained access. 189.217.167.186 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the name 2009 state dinner security breaches much better- although it may need something to signify that it is the U.S.'s 2009 state dinner. I participated in the AFD discussions, but at that time there was little in the articles that established notability outside the gatecrash. The article now lists several issues beyond the gatecrash which merit them a joint article. On the otherhand, I don't see Carlos Allen getting an article, since he's apparently only involved in this issue. Liqudluck✽talk 17:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just dropped in to see if this was ready for move - obviously it is not, as you have not really agreed on a new name, so I have relisted it. Going on your discussions it looks as though you want something like either 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches or 2009 White House state dinner security breaches or may I even be bold to suggest - why limit to 2009, just have a 2009 section in say White House state dinner security breaches?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go with 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches; I don't know if there are any other state dinner breaches. Although this does inspire me to improve White House intruders to include descriptions of breaches. Liquidluck✽talk 22:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

they wanted fame now they have it. this is what it looks like.

[edit]

Calls for neutral viewpoints, removal of personal biographical information, and requests for renaming amd moving the wiki entry are rediculous. The Salahis have gotten exactly what they deserve. For years the Salahis have been refusing to pay what they owe, promising much but providing little, and posturing as worthwhile charity related celebreties. It would not be a stretch to suggest that the citizens of Virginia who have been left emptyhanded, ignored, insulted and even damaged by the Salahis are pleased to see them get their just desserts. Fame is what they sought at all costs; this is what fame looks like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.178.220.183 (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent Wikipedia article and example of the power of the Internet. This story is a well-documented and well-annotated compilation of reports assembled by literally hundreds of everyday contributors. A story like this is usually beyond the depth of any one reporter or newspaper. It continues to be updated and, when put together, reveals a pattern of the couple's behavior and activities. Yes, this couple got much more than they expected. The modern Internet age will simply not allow their retreat into obscurity. Their wrong-doings have stained them forever. I believe they are chronic fraudsters and should be criminally punished for their crimes of Criminal Trespass, Lying to a Public Servant and Endangering the Welfare of our President. The Secret Service should be punished, too. There is no excuse for this. The couple's failure to cooperate with an official Congressional investigation should result in the same consequences that Martha Stewart received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.35.81 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split Article

[edit]

This has got to be the worst page ever. Has anyone actually tried to read this page? Wow it made my head hurt. There is so much stuff here that is utterly unrelated to the incidents at hand. Please let's move Tareq and Michaela back to their own pages and keep this page focused on the appropriate topic.scooteristi (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't Salahi's each get their own article? This page is awfully long especially for such a minor scandal.--Levineps (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I actually proposed this earlier when I proposed the name change, but never got around to doing it. There were no objections then, and two more !votes in favor from you and the previous section since then. liquidluck✽talk 17:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started both of the Salahi's pages and was very annoyed that some actually well researched biographies were merge to create this absolute mess of a page in order to suit the petty, emotional desires of people rather than any rational discourse. I was just waiting for the Salahis to do something else newsworthy (like the actual airing of Real Housewives of D.C.), so I could split the pages back without starting another flame war.scooteristi (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be combined or separate page(s)? liquidluck✽talk 23:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be split, as one who has been methodically working on this article for the past few months, and have previously advocated and voted in favor of separate articles (see above), but please remember we were outvoted -- and HunterKahn then redirected the Salahis' articles to this one, forcing me to merge them so the bio data would not be lost. What is to prevent him from reverting our changes if we split out the Salahis' bio information back into one or two separate articles? 189.216.124.83 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack

[edit]

There's pretty convincing evidence on this very talk page that much of the biographical information about the Salahis is here as a WP:COATRACK. "Calls for neutral viewpoints, removal of personal biographical information, and requests for renaming amd moving the wiki entry are rediculous. The Salahis have gotten exactly what they deserve" says one ip number.

I'm in a relaxed mood this evening, doing some light editing, so I'm not going to personally go in and take a chainsaw to this article. But I think it fairly clear that someone could, productively, get rid of a ton of cruft.

The article is, ostensibly, about a particular gate crashing incident. Outside of a fairly silly media frenzy around it, the incident itself seems to me to be not particularly important or interesting. It was here today and gone tomorrow "news lite". I don't object to the existence of this article, per se, although the world would not lose anything of substance if we didn't cover this at all. If it is of any interest at all, it is of interest because of what it might say about the President's security, etc.

But the article is transparently not about the gate crashing incident. It's about these two people for the most part. (The third "crasher" gets off easier.) So we end up, in an article about a gate crash incident, reading "In 2000, Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore appointed Tareq Salahi to a three-year term on the Virginia Wine Board. At the conclusion of that term, Virginia Governor Mark Warner nominated Tareq as chairman of the Virginia Wine Tourism Office." And dozens and dozens of similar factoids of dubious provenance. It's a mess.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me this article is another fine example of WP:Recentism. Stylistically though, I like the use of the H1 top-level headings in the section structure; it's a bit different, and it goes against the MoS, but it was implemented quite well here I thought. -- Ϫ 22:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a first step, and since there has been no objection here, I've simply removed the entire biographical section. I think that this is really just a start - the section on "Repercussions for the Salahis" is also entirely too long. And it is possible that a handful of facts that I've removed should be reincorporated. But that reincorporation should not be in the form of creating a hatchet job against them as was here before.
I invite others to assist me over the coming days in trying to make this article better, if we can.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack II

[edit]

This article is still a coatrack, with many sections having absolutely nothing to do with the 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches and simply serving to demonize the Salahis. Virtually all of the section "Repercussions for the Salahis" needs to be removed as having nothing to do with the event in question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There having been no objections for more than 3 days, I will now proceed to remove most or all of that section. Before adding anything back there, please note that it needs to be directly tied to this idea of "Repercussions" of this event. General negative information about the Salahis doesn't belong in this article. If you disagree, let's please have a thoughtful discussion here before adding things back.
I understand that some people hate the Salahis. That's not a reason for putting every negative tidbit about them into this article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I have so far left in more than I'm comfortable with, because I'd like to get more eyes on this one before I proceed. The problem with the article is that it remains a WP:COATRACK - nominally about this gatecrash incident, it is actually about the Salahis. Even the "Repercussions for the Salahis" section is questionable in my view, although it could be made a reasonable part of a good article on this incident.
Even after my changes, though, a reasonable summary of this article could be "There was a gatecrash incident at the Whitehouse and BLAH BLAH BLAH what horrible people were involved BLAH BLAH BLAH (for many paragraphs) BLAH BLAH BLAH." It's not a great article by any stretch of the imagination.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_U.S._state_dinner_security_breaches&oldid=1196551442"