Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:09, 6 September 2009

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karl Rove article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography 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 United States: Texas This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. Template:UTTalk

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Rove, Bush's top strategist, to speak here on Thursday". Helenair.com Independent Record. March 30, 2005.

"Armitage was responsible for the leak"

Reading through the Rove article, I came across:

   In late August 2006 it became known that Richard L. Armitage was responsible for the leak.

Of course that was a specific leak referring to Novak, but Rove, Libby and others were involved in leaking Plame's name to other journalists. Whether Rove or Libby were charged for any illegal acts or not in leaking her name, they leaked as well.

Please fix the wording somehow.

Number of children in famly

Karl Rove has five brothers and sisters. Please correct.

Paul Harris, “Geek gets it” The Observer, Sunday October 23, 2005 He was born in Denver, Colorado, the second of five children.

Number of Children in Rove famly

Larry Abramson and Madeleine Brand, “Karl Rove Dodges Indictment in CIA Leak Probe”. June 13, 2006 , NPR Legal Affairs

Born in Denver on Christmas Day 1950, Karl Rove was the third of five children. The family moved often during his childhood -- from Colorado to Nevada before settling in Salt Lake City.

Karl Rove joining the fox political team?

How about a section on joining the Fox News program? I will go research more information on it... --unrgsrd 21:41 Saturday 02 February 2008

Add Category:Fox News Channel

Now that Rove is working for Fox News Channel, the following category should be added: Category:Fox News Channel

References

1. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1598577,00.html
2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5481842

Dust here has settled, some thoughts

I'll be frank. The blocking of Malke 2010 came a bit late for my taste. However, he was found to be in violation of the 3 revert rule, and to again quote the policy which ironically Malke was threatening people with and was himself found to be in violation of:

" A bright line exists on edit warring, known as the three-revert rule (3RR). If an administrator has not acted already by this point, then action is very likely, especially if a report is made to the noticeboard. Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR. "

I commend Chhe for taking the actions he did. The subsequent complaints Malke made, and his promise to cease his activity in order to get unblocked a few days later, are a matter of record on his user talk page. Malke has since deleted the notifications, but they are viewable in his talk page history, and make interesting reading.

After Malke's block on August 19, 2009, I decided I needed to take a step back. For the past ten days I have busied myself with other Misplaced Pages subjects. I now return to this page. I suggest we talk a bit about what happened, and I also suggest we take a look at what happened here this month, edit by edit. It continues to seem clear to me that Malke was editing with obsession towards an agenda; his obsession got him in hot water with the admins. Soon, Misplaced Pages policy is going to change, as many here know. I'd welcome some reasonable discussion, and renewed work on the article. Jusdafax (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

On closer examination of the history pages of the main article, it appears some of Malke's biased edits, through sheer volume, are still in effect. I propose going through every edit of his, see exactly what changes of his have survived, and put back all relevant, sourced material. Once that is effected, we can pick up the chore of dealing with further improvements. Jusdafax (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Having just returned to WP from an extended absence, I am not fully familiar with what has occurred with this article, but cursory skimming of the talk page reminds me of some of the frustrations which led me to leave WP more than a year ago. I recognize Malke's concerns. Material that is added back should strictly follow WP:BLP, ie., it should be directly relevant to Rove, not defamatory, and should be sourced by reliable secondary sources. Crockspot (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Malke's concerns were one thing, his methods another. Admins blocked him not only due to his violation of the three edit rule, but because he was deleting paragraphs of properly sourced material, and as the admins noted (to quote directly from Malke's talk page history, since he has since, for obvious reasons, deleted all reference to his blocking):

You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

- *An impartial administrator just did; I don't know you from Adam, and haven't so much as looked at the contents of your edits; all that matters is that you broke WP:3RR, and received a short block for it; if you want to be unblocked, all you have to do is agree to stop edit warring, regardless of whether you think it is justified or not. --jpgordon 23:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I highly commend the admins, and urge others to support their work. These admins had not been involved here previously; they took firm, direct action on a disruptive editor, Malke, who was judged to be making "untrue" statements regarding his efforts. I again suggest we move past this period of turmoil and examine what changes were made to this article by an editor whose tactics earned him a block and who, in my view, obsessively used every tactic he could to get what he wanted. Jusdafax (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC

Starting work on repairing Malke's edits

As of today I am going to slowly, edit by edit, go over material Malke has deleted or modified. As a first effort, I've added back a description of who Jack Abramoff actually is to the article, more precisely to the section in particular "Allegedly informing Jack Abramoff about the invasion of Iraq". This gives the section more depth to a casual reader.

To someone editing with a pronounced pro-Rove agenda, convicted felon Abramoff is not a good character for Mr. Rove to be sitting with, so Malke pulled the description, in my view to sanitize his hero's reputation. I'm not entirely happy with the reference however, which is 'Salon', a lefty blog, though of longstanding duration and, to some, solid reputation. To others, this may be grounds for challenging the reference and the description of Mr. Abramoff. IMPORTANT: The ref need not come from 'Salon', there are many sources for this information. I use this as a test case. It is on grounds such as these that Malke made his cuts, which however ended up in his being blocked by the admins.

Again, since the reference merely describes Abramoff in a somewhat awkward way (I've trimmed it for brevity; we don't need to know exactly where Mr. Abramoff is serving his federal sentence, for example) a different reference could easily be found that is more 'mainstream'. My question: is this going to be an ongoing issue?

Again, I do not propose to restore every word Malke has cut. (He has also added material, this also needs review.) I suggest instead that the article be tightened and improved. Rove is an important and highly controversial figure in recent US history, and is highly polarizing. For the sake of Misplaced Pages, let's get this article straightened out.

I await input from concerned parties. This is a cutting-edge issue: Let's talk this over and establish some ground rules and a consensus that will set precedent from which we can further operate. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I see that the Jack Abramoff article has a section on this topic very nearly identical to the section in the Rove article. One could make a case for a referal to the Abramoff article. Or not. Jusdafax (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: So that is your reply, VsevolodKrolikov, to just delete with no discussion? I'm calling for a consensus; your edit is not a promising start, given what has been going on here for the past month. I disagree with both the edit and your approach. Jusdafax (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing wrong with the way I edited. There's a principle of 1RR, which means that you object to an edit without any drama and we talk here. Your phrase your edit is not a promising start makes you sound like some stern octogenarian schoolmaster in a bad 1950s Ealing studios film, and certainly not someone interested in consensus. Let's not mirror Malke's false civility, and get back to AGF editing.

Second, to business. In my opinion, the extended details about Jack Abramoff in that paragraph stuck out like a sore thumb, and could be seen as a means to smear Rove by association. Abramoff associated with lots of people in the Bush administration and elsewhere, however. Rove was nothing special in this. Of course, Abramoff's convictions are important, which is why I left a small reference to them in. However, this is an article about Rove, and he was not implicated in any of Abramoff's actions. What are your reasons for including such extra detail?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, the detail that the parenthetical text exhibited was far more than necessary. Soxwon (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Boy for someone supposed to be against drama, you hurl insults freely. We have had some serious issues on this page, and I wanted to talk over the edit. You want to edit then talk. OK, fine. Jusdafax (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

C'mon ppl, let's comment on content, not each other. I thought the information given was much too detailed for what was needed. Perhaps "fraudster" isn't encyclopedic, but a succinct more encyclopedic term can be found. Soxwon (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Further Changes

• Don Siegalman

This seems a tangential item at best and is related to Rove mostly through wishful thinking from the looks of it. Soxwon (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Slightly unrelated to Siegalman, but I added back in the the paragraph about the subpeona stuff since I found two other references that address it. Wasn't too difficult. I also clarified the end of the last sentence a bit. I forgot to put in an edit summary so I'm posting here.Chhe (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this paragraph is important. Good work restoring it. Not to mention Rove's refusal to testify to the U.S. Congress is distorting real history. I've been looking at Soxwon's user page. He is an unabashed political partisan, and will have to be looked at as such. Jusdafax (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh plz, I've worked with ppl from both sides of the spectrum w/o any problems. I removed the information b/c it was linked to a copyvio youtube video per wikipedia policy. Anyways, getting back to the topic at hand, why is Siegelman's conviction so important to Rove? It's brought up by a single magazine editor and in an extremely offhand manner in a NYT editorial. It's rather dubious to make so much of something when really it has nothing to do with the man. Soxwon (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed rehashing of Siegelman case and trimmed section, though I still feel the hearsay should not be in the article. Soxwon (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's be fair, it's not mere hearsay, it's investigative journalism. It's perfectly acceptable in wikipedia if it is published by a reliable source, so long as its status ("claim", "allegation", "rumour" etc.) is made clear. I think there should be more information about the circumstances of the case (the election) so that readers can understand the nature of the accusation (i.e. that it was to win an election). The problem was that the previous version was poorly structured and came across as flabby.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Vsevold, though I find it amusing that now he wants to discuss after throwing insults about my own attempts to discuss. Jusdafax (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Here we go with Soxwon. He's throwing picked up Malke's position and is back at it, removing sourced material, or pulling stuff because he doesn't like the source and doesn't care to do the work to establish a source that is more 'mainstream'. Look at his user page, look at his edits, and tell me this is anything other than agenda-driven. Need backup or we just go round and round with the same old. Jusdafax (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith. Please strive to maintain civility and focus on the article not on personalities. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok Jusdafax that's out of line. The edits I made were legit, so instead of just assuming how about you discuss them? I rmved an unsourced claim that basically said he abused his power and disregarded national security regularly, and was as contentious as it comes. The other bit was rmved, not only b/c it went into undue detail when it could be summarized quite easily but b/c it is sourced to an op-ed piece that is so far from neutral or scholarly that I would question its inclusion at all. Soxwon (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to let the dust settle before I go into this further, except to say that the record shows, clearly, that after Malke was blocked and ten days went by, that I called for a discussion on what had happened and if we could reach a consensus on editing policy. My request was ignored. Jusdafax (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If by reaching consensus, you mean discuss every single edit before editing, then I would oppose, because it's (a) unwieldy and (b) against the spirit of wikipedia to have a couple of editors telling others they can't edit according to normal wikipedia practice. 1RR works fine for everyone else; preliminary discussion of edits should only be reserved for big changes or ones where editors would like the advice of others first. Malke was annoying as hell; that doesn't mean you need to remain annoyed long after.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rove and the terrorist alerts

Soxwon, I don't agree with the removal of the material on the alerts, but I agree it needs to be sourced. Suspicion about alert timings have been aired in several notable places; as far as I remember NYT and the Washington Post at least in the US have alluded to it, and I'm pretty sure there are a few books as well. That is, real world notable people and institutions have alleged that he abused his power and disregarded national security regularly. Exactly where such material should go is another matter; the paragraph is set up to discuss Rove's closeness to Bush, rather than Rove's strategic contribution to Bush's campaign.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but a claim of that nature needs to be sourced before it goes in. The current source doesn't even mention Rove. Soxwon (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-added, not entirely satisfied, but at least the citations mention Rove by name now. Soxwon (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your efforts and co-operative editing. Actually, I'll have to be honest and say I'm finding it hard to find anything reliable about Rove and the alerts beyond Howard Dean's accusations (which is RS in terms of being an opinion with due weight). Tom Ridge, who admits the timing of alerts were often politically motivated, mentions Rumsfeld putting pressure on him, but no mention of Rove. Personally I find it perfectly plausible that Rumsfeld could have been behind it, as it's in keeping with the accounts of his behaviour that have come out since he left office. Does anyone else have better sources on Rove's possible involvement?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No messages on my personal page, please

If you want to talk to me regarding editing, and now, civility issues, please talk about them here openly and not on my personal page. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, actually this talkpage should be about this article. Whereas civility and some editing issues should be addressed at the user's talkpage. If things are heating up it's likely best to step back a bit before posting, and that's directed to all editors, i haven't read anything here as of yet. -- Banjeboi 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

archiving

I've boldly added auto-archiving here as this talkpage is full of stale threads, it should kick in within a day or so. -- Banjeboi 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Justafax Civility Issues

Hello Jusdafax:

Before you prejudge me, perhaps you should bother to contact me. I've left several messages on the Karl Rove talk page indicating where I have found problems with the article which is obviously slanted against Rove. You claim I must be pro-Rove, but that just tells me you're not interested in neutrality. This article attempts to only wrap this man in scandal and thus it diminishes the spirit of Misplaced Pages which is neutrality. I see lots of criticism and I see my work being randomly reverted, but I don't see anyone else attempting to neutralize this article. So please let's all know where you and the others stand on this. Is the agenda to smear Rove or is it to give the article neutrality. Please keep in mind the people who will come to Misplaced Pages to research this and any other topic. The first reaction is negative and for anyone who is only mildly well read, it will be obvious that the slant is against Rove.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize that it was THAT bad... I'd be willing to put my edits back and hold off on anything else until an admin looks at this if it will make life easier. Soxwon (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you two talking. I am not an admin, but I have a lot of experience with BLP cleanups. I did not see a problem with Soxwon's edits, and commented thusly on the BLP noticeboard. Try not to jump to conclusions about editors and an agenda you may perceive them to have. You may find it a lot easier to work productively with someone you disagree with than you expected. You might want to review WP:AGF as well. - Crockspot (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me being up front with how I stand then discuss it with me, don't go following me about trying to frame me as some sort of right-wing demagogue. You have concerns about the environment and San Fran on your userpage, yet you don't see me going around calling you a hippie Californian Green peace nutjob now do you? Soxwon (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jusdafax, you need to calm down, as a few people have told you. You appear to be looking for fights. Soxwon has done nothing untoward on Karl Rove, and has been entirely co-operative in his/her dealings. Where people have disagreed with his edits, s/he has listened, and tried to reach consensus. Repeatedly trying to bring disputes from other pages onto that one is simply not appropriate.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malke 2010 (talk • contribs)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Texas articles
• Unknown-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• Texas articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists