Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:26, 5 December 2009

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

What Do We Need, And When Do We Need It?

Do we really need to mention that the family has had fights with its neighbors? This is an online encyclopedia, not a tabloid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.134.5 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To quote Benjamin Franklin: We need this article like we need a hole in our head.

In my opinion the mention of fights with neighbors is inappropriate. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a fact, I don't see why you should go around defending these people. You do much worse regularly.67.241.138.25 (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Kings College?

The article states, backed by one inline citation, that Michaele attended "Kings College", which links to a list of at least half a dozen schools by the name. To clarify this, does anyone know which "Kings College" she attended? Dmarquard (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that if you asked her that, she would try to change the subject. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is very questionable. It seems very dishonest that she does not clarify which King's College nor does she say if she graduated. There is a similar lexical ambiguity with graduates of Cornell, but at least one is a university and the other is a college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.94.202 (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC) It was the College in Wilkes-Barre PA where her parents retired. Fixed. scooteristi (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Vogue

I cannot find a trace of this lady being "featured" in Vogue. Reference, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.152.48 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If I were a model and I had had a feature or an advertisement or even just an out and about where my photo was shown in Vogue, I would simply say I had appeared in Vogue. That said there is extreme doubt that Michaele Holt/Salahi had ever been shown in the pages of any magazine or catalog prior to the short-lived D.C. Style in 2006-2007 (I'm waiting for more refutations). Hey I had a full-page pic of myself shown in Business Week. I guess that makes me a model. ;^) scooteristi (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fashion

I think mention should be made of the fashion she wore on the particular occasion at the White House. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

So the AFD for Michaele Salahi resulted in a keep, and it stands to reason the Tareq Salahi AFD will have to end with the same result. Now I think it's time to discuss a possibility that was brought up during both AFDs (but not addressed by the AFD itself), which is merging the two articles into a single article of Tareq and Michaele Salahi (currently a redirect to 2009 White House gatecrash incident). I personally think this is the best course of action if we are going to have a seperate article about the Salahis as individuals, as they are notable for the same exact things. And, of course, combined articles like this are not unheard of when two people are connected and notable for the same events; take for example The Coen brothers, Sacco and Vanzetti, Leopold and Loeb, etc. etc. However, I think it is very important we develop a consensus before we do such a merge, especially since it's a touchy issue. Thoughts? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it would be appropriate to merge the two articles. After reading both of the articles, I realised that the content is, for the most part, the same. In light of the gatecrash, it seems that most of their future notability will be from the result of their joint actions. Therefore, readers will most likely be more interested in the couple than the individuals, and a merged article would better serve this interest.--WhyteCypress 23:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Whytecypress (talk • contribs)

• Don't Merge. They have had vastly different media coverage, due to other separate high-profile events:
       - Tareq has the Oasis Winery sale/bankrupcy issues.
       - Tareq has polo and society horse show events.
       - Michaele has Washington Redskins refuted-cheerleader claims.
       - Michaele has Victoria Secret modeling claims.
       - Michaele has videos for TV series The Real Housewives of DC.
  Plus, other issues seem to be surfacing for each. Meanwhile, the 2009 gate-crash article can cover their last-minute refusal to testify at the 03Dec09 security hearing of the U.S. Congress. In U.S. criminal cases, most husband-wife couples are tried and sentenced separately. They've only been married since 2003, so, there is no reason to obscure the separate background events, of either, as a large combined article that will become tagged "too large, consider splitting". Plus, huge articles are difficult to control for libel/hacking, because few people have the patience to read, diff-scan and correct a huge article (as evidenced by the December-2008 massive hacking of "Mobile phone" despite 5,000 people reading the mangled text daily, for 3 weeks). There could be a 3rd combined article as "Tareq and Michaele Salahi" like "Brad and Angelina" or "Bonnie and Clyde". However, keep the bio articles as separate. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think the differences you've pointed out really constitute "vastly different" coverage. The five points you refer to are relatively minor elements of their overall notability; there would never have been an article about these people simply for those points if it weren't for the gate crash incident. (I'd also argue that the Redskins and Victoria Secret claims, which are disputed more and more each day, wouldn't be an item of discussion at all if it weren't for the gatecrashing thing, and this page gives too much attention to them,) The thing that makes them worthy of an article is their role in the gatecrashing and the subsequent fallout, for which they are best known together rather than separate. Plus, applying some WP:COMMON, just take a look at the article as it is now. The entire sections "Gatecrashing & Celebrity Run-Ins", "Other Controversies" and the majority of "Early life" are about the Salahis, not just Michaele; only "Career" focuses largely on her (and almost half of that section focuses entirely too much on the Redskins cheerleader claim). Also, even if they are tried and sentenced separately, it's for the same thing, so there's absolutely no reason to separate them on that point. Finally, if you look at other combined articles, like the ones I've cited above and others, you'll see that articles about two combined people doesn't prohibit you from going into detail about the individuals where it's merited. In other words, a Tareq and Michaele Salahi article could include a bit about Tareq's polo career and Michele's cheerleader claims, and then segue right back into the couple. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 14:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Don't merge. These people are notable, as the coverage of him and her by realiable sources clearly indicates. They have been described and discussed by every major news outlet from the BBC to the NY times, as individuals. They are two seperate people. There is no reason for them to have one article. Merging two people into one entity is unatural, and should require some overwhelmingly compelling reason for doing so. Should Michelle and Barack have a seperate article about "their couple-hood?" The Salahi's may be a couple, and they may have committed actions as a couple, but they are individuals, with seperate, unique biographies. We cannot somehow strip them of their personhood and merge them into one because it is convienient for WP editors. The actions of these two individuals are having 'international conseqences'. Both of them are extrememly noteworthy. Bryan Hopping 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hopping, please understand, I'm not questioning the notability of the Salahis, nor is this anything personal against them (I'm not trying to "strip them of their personhood"). I'm simply proposing the idea that the circumstances that make them notable (the White House gatecrash, the subsequent fallout, the potential ramifications with the federal government) are shared between them, and so it might be better to have one strong article than two redundant, weak ones. Barack and Michelle Obama strike me as a bad example for comparison. There are tons of examples of articles that combine people notable for the same things: Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, Mary and Matthew Darly, Ron & Valerie Taylor, Józef and Wiktoria Ulma, Charles and Ray Eames, Helen and Scott Nearing, to name a few... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 22:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles