This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. United States: Texas Unassessed 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. Template:UTTalk

Seems like the article has some editorializing, arguing. For instance, the "but McGovern was a B-29 pilot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.130.94 (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This skips straight from 2003 to 2005 ... I seem to recall some sort of election in 2004, that Mr. Rove may have played some sort of small role in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.123.121 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rove was just a youngster during Watergate and had nothing to do with that. The College Republicans, Watergate, and the Bushes section is a bunch of biased, thin gruel junk. Except for the assertion by John Dean (certainly not a pillar of probity), there's not even anything to write about. I intend to heavily edit that section and am announcing my intentions in advance here. Giddiana 03:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rove has been referred to as Bush's Brain. I'm not sure if that is a complement since Rove does not have a college degree. Maybe it is an offhanded reference to the Star Trek episode, Spock's Brain, where Spock's brain is stolen by an alien. Maybe Bush was abducted by the same alien and had his brain removed too. In this case, Rove, aka Bush's Brain, would refer to Rove being the hollow space inside Bush's brainless skull. --Jagz 02:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> Bush's brainless skull. Ha ha. There is a brain in there, but not a good working one. Did you see a few days ago when he compared the Iraq war to the rug in his office? Babalooo 05:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, this isn't a forum to joke around... ~ Rollo44 06:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of this article is gossip and it is very biased. I don't know what kind of clowns are doing the editing around here but this is pathetic. Might as well rename this website Wikifiction because most of the claims are unsubstantiated rumors. Some people might want to use wikipedia as a reference for factual information and that would be a huge mistake now wouldn't it.63.88.5.130 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)miles[reply]

Looks like there's a new investigation being launched into whether Karl Rove gave political presentations to federal employees in order to help Republican candidates get elected. [1] ~ Rollo44 02:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a section on this new investigation. This is big. "The 106-person Office of Special Counsel has never conducted such a broad and high-profile inquiry. One of its primary missions has been to enforce the Hatch Act, a law enacted in 1939 to preserve the integrity of the civil service." Please help make it longer. Babalooo 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles as currently tagged and please supply "full citations" to reliable verifiable sources. For related guidelines and policies concerning addition of sources, please see: Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Reliable sources; WP:Attribution. Thank you. --NYScholar 15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See the tag regarding that section. In violation of WP:BLP there are items there without any or without full citations. Some of them or the whole section need deletion? --NYScholar 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the "Stan the deacon" episode, I found that having a greenish medalion attached, scroll-delivering bats and a tendency ti be rejected by anything holy at all made Rove depicted much more like a clichèd heroic-fantasy master of Evil rather than a Palpatine-like character. I don't have any precise reference, though the Masters of the Universe series or any Conan instalment could be good starting points. 147.210.85.195 14:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On February 17, 1970, Rove was reclassified as 2-S, a deferment from the draft because of his enrollment at the University of Utah in the fall of 1969. He maintained this deferment until December 14, 1971, despite being only a part-time student in the autumn and spring quarters of 1971 (registered for between six and 12 credit hours) and dropping out of the university in June 1971. Rove was a student at the University of Maryland in College Park in the fall of 1971; as such, he would have been eligible for 2-S status, but registrar's records show that he withdrew from classes during the first half of the semester. In December 1971 he was reclassified as 1-A.

The timeline that is presented in this paragraph has two problems: (1) it makes little sense, and (2) it is not clear. Someone who knows more than me about these matters should clean this up, to make it abundantly clear what the timeline and the relevant facts are.Matthew 00:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi, I'm new to this (as if that's any kind of excuse for anything), so I apologize if this has been brought up before or anything; however, I did a quick scan of the topics on the discussion page and didn't read anything similar - only talks of the neutrality of the article and past grafitti and defacing of the article, etc.

My question is about the readability of the article (see the Subject/Headline to figure that one out..): to me it seems like this page reads more like an essay outline than an article on Karl Rove. It has more points, sub-points, and sub-points to those sub-points than any article I've seen on Wikipedia...has anyone else noticed this or thought this as well?

I don't see the reason to make special topic headlines for single sentences or paragraphs comprised of two sentences...for instance, why would there be two separate headlines for a total of 8 sentences that would fit together under a headline called "Marriages". Or perhaps the 1978-1984 years, again 6 different headlines for 7 sentences which could be summed up in something as simple as "Rove: 1978-1984" (or something better, I'd hope), or everything there could be lumped into a single topic called "Political Life". Granted, I understand that his life IS POLITICS, so that would drastically reduce the number of topic headlines to possibly 3 or 4 (ie - "Personal", "Political", "Plame Afair/Controversy", etc. etc...).

I am not trying to stir any sort of political discussions or debates or heated conversation...I just felt that when I read this, it wasn't a Wikipedia Article, but a day-by-day account of this man's life! I don't mean to imply any cutting of information, regardless of credibilty; it could all still have a place here, I simply wish there weren't so many sub-headlines!

Woele 22:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I am going to make some minor edits throughout to help a little bit with the readability and flow. Right now it doesn't read like a Wiki article should and some of the sub-points can be combined. Please leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Swimandrow (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sections Karl_Rove#Firing_of_US_Attorneys and Karl_Rove#E-Mail_scandal contain several vague temporal references. ``Last week (which I removed), ``last October (October 2006?), ``during the first week of April (2007?). Dricherby 12:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some minor reformatting of references and external links, though the latter in particular needs a lot of work. Even with the subheadings, the list of external links does not meet WP:LINKS: "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." See Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided for details. 66.167.48.235 14:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I just removed an small section on "search compilations"; I have no idea why someone thinks that would be appropriate for Wikipedia.

In general, it seems to me that the lengthy EL section reflects a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Except for huge articles (e.g., New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly), a link to a news source either should be in the references/footnote section or should be omitted altogether (if it's not needed to support information already in the article, why would a relatively small story be needed as an EL?) I suspect there is already a lot of duplication between the two, and I'd certainly support another editor (with more time than I have) removing any EL where that link is in the references section (again, with the exception of really large articles which cover a lot of Rove's life). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add the current event tag to this article, seeing as Karl Rove announced his resignation monday 8/13. 3th0s 20:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. --Adamv88 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Rowe was Karl Rowe's father. I knew him personally; he was gay. Why has all the former references to Louis and his life been deleted from the article? 02:55, 14 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yarddog (talk • contribs).

What you personally know is not relevant to Wikipedia - see the policy on "original research", which disallows posting from personal knowledge. Moreover, even if you could provide a reliable source, it's quite unclear why information about Louis Rove for the period after he left his family is relevant to the article about Karl Rove, since the two appear to have had no further interaction. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally untrue that Louis never communicated with his adopted son. Also, the fact that Louis was gay is seems very relevant to any honest biography of Karl Rove considering how Karl Rove used that as a successfully political stratagem. However the above post is right, these are all things I know personally and knowing something personally does not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines. I am disappointed that personal knowledge is viewed as untrustworthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yarddog (talk • contribs).

Might this Newsweek article (based on a Rove biography) be a reliable source: "Inside Karl Rove's Brain" (p. 2, para. 4)? FWIW, while channel surfing last night, I saw Anderson Cooper on his CNN show mention it (again, sourcing the biography) as well. As to this factoid's pertinence to this type of article, I'll leave that for others to decide (and thus won't attempt to amend the article myself). 24.136.229.74 05:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Newsweek article is a reliable source, and I have added what I think is the relevant information to the article. Similarly, if there is a good source for Louis communicating with Karl after the divorce, I'd welcome that information being posted here (or in the article itself, as a sourced addition).

As for I am disappointed that personal knowledge is viewed as untrustworthy, the problem is that while much personal knowledge IS trustworthy, much of what people say they know is in fact not true, either because people have misunderstood what happened, have mental problems, or deliberately lie. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no way to sort out what is true/trustworthy from what is not; we've chosen, therefore, to leave it all out. While that means that Wikipedia has less valid information in it than it otherwise could, it also means that the ratio of valid to invalid information is much higher. (A secondary argument is that if something hasn't been published in a reliable source, it's really not newsworthy; that leads to interesting arguments about mainstream media, but I don't think we need to go there, now.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtfulness, kindness, diligence and integrity. 24.136.229.74 16:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following: During the bitterly-contested 2000 Republican primary, allegations were made that Rove was responsible for a South Carolina push poll that used racist innuendo intended to undermine the support of Bush rival John McCain: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" ^[1] Although McCain campaign manager Richard Davis said he "had no idea who had made those calls, who paid for them, or how many were made", the authors of the 2003 book and subsequent film Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, ^[2] allege that Rove was involved. In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign". Rove has denied any such involvement. ^[3]

After the presidential elections in November 2000, Rove organized an emergency response of Republican politicians and supporters to go to Florida to assist the Bush campaign's position during the Florida recount.

The sources don't really match the material and one is an imdb.com cite and the defense cite is from a blog. Anyways, --Tom 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC) He's Gay[reply]

One is CNN, one is the Boston Globe and one is a rather notable book on IMDB ('Bush's Brain'). Those are valid, notable cites. And plenty of other other cites are available that discuss Rove's alleged involvement ==

in the 2000 smear campaign against McCain. Accordingly, I reverted your deletion and restored this valid content. Please do not blanket delete without further discussion. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much weight do we give to "allegations"? I trimmed it a bit. If you provide links/reference here, I would be happy to look at them and possible add them in. The IMDB link is not sa reliable source. Anyways, --Tom 17:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given notable allegations (as these are), we don't then report the allegations as truth, we report them as allegations... especially when (like in this case) the allegations are made by numerous sources (as CNN and The Boston Globe and others have done). Last, the IMDB link to the book 'Bush's Brain' is absolutely notable on this issue and I don't support the deletion of that link. I will edit the section accordingly. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have restored the content regarding the book and film 'Bush's Brain', which as the original text reads, states plainly that ' John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign" '. This is notable, relevant and verifiable and it belongs. The section accurately reports this as a notable allegation and provides named sourcing (John Weaver, etc.). The use of an IMDB link to represent a film is accepted WP practice and removing this section is plainly not warranted, so please don't repeat your deletion of it - especially given the nearing 3RR limit. Thanks -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the agenda pushing, just give it a rest please. --Tom 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making uncivil accusations of 'agenda pushing'. Comments made on film by John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign, and a book (Bush's Brain) that reached #15 on the New York Times bestseller list are not poorly sourced, fringe or otherwise. This is a notable and verifiable allegation, and the sources are notable (a bestselling book and a film), so the information should be included. I asked you to stop reverting and discuss this, and instead you continue to revert. Please desist... this information is verifiable, notable and informative for those seeking to understand the allegations of push polling against Rove.

So you have no agenda when editing this article? Very funny and very transparent. My agenda is at least clearly stated on my user page. why don't you do the same?? --Tom 13:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an agenda other than working to improve the factual content on articles that interest me. And in this particular case (again, let's keep it specific to avoid personal attacks and incivility) I find your selective and repetitive deletion of well-sourced material on this article to be unacceptable. If a Democrat or Libertarian or Whig had been the target of allegations of this nature as well sourced as these, I'd support that information remaining in the article. In any case, I ask you again to remain civil, stop making personal attacks on other users. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not reliable and should not be used as a reference. Can you please post links to the sources you want to use here on the talk page and let the community weigh in??. I do not want to edit war, OK?? I am trying to edit this article from the standpoint of a person with little background about this incident which is actually the case. anyways, --Tom 13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links are there in the section. I don't want to (nor will I) participate in an edit war with you. A link to a CNN piece, a Boston Globe piece, an IMDB link to the movie Bush's Brain (again, the MOVIE is the source, not IMDB - the existence of the movie is not in question) and specifically, the movie contains the comments by John Weaver, McCain's former campaign manager. And these are the cites that have supported the WP article content for years. If you want to go to WP:RS and discuss your concerns about the use of IMDB as a reference to a film, let me know the results. This information, describing the allegations that Rove was responsible for the McCain 'black child' smear push poll are verifiable and have been made by notable and published sources. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid seeming in any way evasive to you, here are the links listed:

• "The anatomy of a smear campaign" By Richard H. Davis Boston Globe, March 21, 2004 [2]
• "Bush's Brain" (2003) Directed by [3]
• "Rove responds to 2000 South Carolina campaign allegation" [4]

You'll notice the last title. These allegations were made against Rove after the smear push poll in the 2000 South Carolina campaign. The allegations are notable and verifiable. The sources and the content are informative, well-sourced, and verifiable. It should be left as-is, or improved, but certainly not blanked as you did. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RyanF, I'll check them out shortly, cheers! --Tom 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure - although I'm a little confused now. When you first blanked the whole section, the original edit summary was "removed material not support by cites", which was reverted and discussed here, and then you selectively blanked the references to the book and film 'Bush's Brain' on the same basis, while baselessly and rudely attacking me and accusing me of 'having an agenda' in your edit summaries ("Yeah right, Ryan, you so full of it, you have no polictical agenda here. Thats what I love about Wiki, you can see people's history and it tells all", "poorly sourced material", "Enough with the agenda pushing, geesh").

However from your last note I infer that you haven't thoroughly checked the cites you claimed were not supporting the material? I'm sorry, but I am confused by this. In any case, I would be grateful if you made an apology to me for your conduct towards me - those edit summary comments and your comments above (eg. "funny and transparent" etc.) were plainly unwarranted. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Ryan, i wasn't sure which cites you listed here, that is why i said I would check them out, and I will look at them more closely. If I have misjudge your editing intent I apologize, HOWEVER, I reserve the right to dig more into this and not apologize ;). It seems that one can "spin" allegations of wrong doing anyway they want based on their chosen sources and intent. You mainly edit articles involving politics with an emphasis on Republicans, correct? And most of those edits "slant" the article how? I am not sure and will chill for know. it just seems that there is way to much original research, commentary, poorly sourced material when it comes to contraversial persons. I would rather see less material than more, but thats just my style. Anyways, what do other folks think?? Cheers --Tom 20:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps, looking at the section in question right now, it doesn't look that bad, I just would like more imput on the quality of the citations. I know this is a minor blip in the artilce but I thought I would start small :). --Tom 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I ask you again to refrain from making attributions about what you claim to be my 'agenda' or (falsely) trying to summarize my editing patterns... you'll notice I have not done anything of the sort towards you. Such activity (when you make quick snap judgments to condemn other users rather than focusing on content) is uncivil and uncalled for, so I'll just ask you to again, please focus on the article content. We can disagree about article content - you don't need to apologize for that - but attacks on other editors like yours aren't acceptable and as I saw an apology in there, I accept your apologies for those comments.

And no, you are quite incorrect. I don't 'mainly edit articles involving politics with an emphasis on Republicans'... I edit political articles as well as non-political articles and the article topic - not the party affiliation of the article subject - is my interest. So on this uncivil claim of yours, you are flat wrong. So please stop what appears to be your ongoing effort to portray my edits as partisan spin.

And as far as 'spinning' or 'slanting' articles is concerned, accusations like that (oblique or otherwise) are more of the same uncivil and unwarranted behavior, so stop. In my edits I endeavor to be as unbiased (as much as any person can), to make my edits truthful, factual, verifiable, notable, POV balanced and I'm proud of my record in that regard... so if you have specific content-based objections, please bring them for discussion. General attributions without specifics (like yours against me) are just uncivil and unproductive. Last, the cites are the very same ones that were in place in the section you deleted from the article - did you not check them before you blanked them? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for the record --Tom 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to my edit counts. I stand by them. However, you should know that the Karl Rove article isn't the place for false generalizations and attempted (but failed) smears of other users. If you want to open a user conduct RfC, please feel free as I would welcome any chance to improve my edits. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first ref mentions Rove where in the article? The second cite is not a reliable source for reference. --Tom 15:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Globe cite verifies the fact that push polling took place against the McCain campaign, but doesn't attribute it to Rove or even the Bush campaign. The film 'Bush's Brain' contains McCain's former campaign manager stating he believed the Bush campaign to be responsible for the poll. And the CNN cite titled "Rove responds to 2000 South Carolina campaign allegation" quite obviously substantiates that the allegation was made against Rove, and that he denied it:

'White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove sharply dismissed an allegation Thursday that he was behind a 2000 rumor that Sen. John McCain was the father of an illegitimate African-American child."

Therefore, these cites verify the information in the article section that you blanked:

1. Push polling took place against the McCain campaign in South Carolina in 2000.

2. Allegations were made against Karl Rove and the Bush campaign.

3. Rove and the campaign both specifically responded to and denied the accusations.

And that's just what the article says. So, you are beating a dead horse. Exactly what do you object to as uncited? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Aha.] So you started this whole ridiculous episode by blanking out the whole section and now you only object to a few words (which, incidentally, are also well-cited)? Seriously, perhaps you should try to work out content issues rather than baselessly attacking users in order to 'STOP' those you feel have 'agendas' as per your userbox. This entire episode has been a serious and blatant violation of WP:AGF on your part. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> Crooks and liars .com? Nice site, very reliable. Your editing is whats wrong with this project. Tell everybody reading this thread how you don't focus on politics and the republicans again, thats a good one. --Tom 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC) ps, keep citing WP:AGF I need a good chuckle. --Tom 17:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serial deletions without justification and attacks on other users for assumed 'agendas' are major violations --WP:VANDALISM and WP:AGF (plus WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL) are relevant. And as Crooks and Liars merely hosts video from other news outlets (in this case, from CNN) I'd be grateful if you helped to find another online link for that video, if you object to Crooks and Liars so strongly. Also note that I've posted for help on these two issues (content and your conduct) from admins on this on the admin noticeboard: [5]. I may also enter a user conduct RfC about your conduct here (personally attacking other users with baseless attributions of agendas) and/or a content RfC about the issue of the push poll. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Threeafterthree has still provided no justification for his removal of the text 'Allegations have been made that Rove and the Bush campaign was responsible for {the push poll}'... despite the fact that the available, notable cites demonstrate exactly that. Instead of validating his edits with fact, he chose to use his edit summary to attack me yet again:

rv attack site. Can ANYBODY else please step in. Why do I have the feeling this isn't the first time Ryan has engaged in this type of edit waring and use of attack sites and agenda pushing?

As I said, not a rationale in sight for the deletion, and heaping personal attacks. That's the kind of conduct that Threeafterthree been engaged in throughout this dispute - evading issues of content by repeated personal attacks. I do hope in the future that he will focus on properly justifying his edits (and for that matter, blanking) of content, rather than more tired attacks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to get involved in what looks like a two-person dispute over one specific section of the Rove article, but I've been following this with some interest. After reading all of the edit summaries, the discussion about the "2000 smear campaign" portion of the article here on the talk page that has degenerated into a bit of smear campaign itself, and after having examined Ryan's and Tom's user pages and contributions, I am inclined to side with Ryan. Although his specific citation styles and sources may have been less-than-perfect (mine are too, more often than I'd like), I don't see why this seemingly minor disagreement has engendered as much bad feeling as it apparently has. Apparent public relationship 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Apr. Nor do I understand the vitriol aimed at me in this dispute - except to say that only one side of this dispute has been employing personal attacks and all manner of acrimony and that that side isn't me. I'm more interested in the facts at hand than in any 'smearing', and so I've tried to keep the discussion on-point. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not knowing all I should know about Wikipedia and it's rules. But I want to be very clear about something. I would never written anything here about Louie Rove that is untruthful. I have not misunderstood my relationship with him; I have no mental problems, nor have deliberately lied. I have only tried to add something to the historical record. Centuries ago women were left out of the history books. Please rewrite your entry to read: he was gay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarddog (talk • contribs) 16:14, August 15, 2007 (UTC)

The article has been changed, since a reliable source for the information was provided by another editor. I apologize if any of my comments seemed to directly impugn your veracity. Wikipedia has chosen not to be the historical record, for better or worse. That can certainly be frustrating, but the reality is that we can't be all things to all people, and being a good summary of what has been published (in reliable sources) is extremely challenging as is. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I think this point is interesting and historically significant, I would have preferred seeing some sort of a citation for this information.

Can anyone provide one?

--75.68.2.56 04:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was cited originally, then edited away, in the process removing a refname for a second cite. I went back through the history found the cite, added it to this statement, which also fixed the missing refname a few sentences later. Sbowers3 23:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rove has five brothers and sisters. Please correct.

Paul Harris, “Geek gets it” ^[4] The Observer, Sunday October 23, 2005 He was born in Denver, Colorado, the second of five children.

Larry Abramson and Madeleine Brand, “Karl Rove Dodges Indictment in CIA Leak Probe”.^[5] 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.

{{editprotected}} Fred 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- RockMFR 21:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide a source that Rove's mother killed herself in Reno in 1981? a) Is she dead? b) Did she die in Nevada? c) Did she kill herself? d) When did she die? Questors 03:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rove’s mother committed suicide, in Reno, Nevada, in 1981.

Nicholas Lemann, >, “The New Yorker profile: The Controller: Karl Rove is working to get George Bush reelected, but he has bigger plans", ^[6] May 12, 2003. The New Yorker Magazine

I've added that source to the article, and fixed the bad URL in the process. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section does not follow the guidelines for a lead section:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic

The third paragraph (Office of Special Counsel investigation) is hardly one of the most important points or one of the more notable controversies. Its placement in the lede overemphasizes its importance to the topic.

It would be reasonable to have a paragraph saying that Rove has been targeted for numerous controversies but there is no good reason to highlight this one investigation in the lede. Sbowers3 23:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. There is no reason that paragraph should be there, up front. In addition, I have added an item to the Miscellaneous comments about and by Rove in the media section (below) and changed a sentence to explain exactly why Rove made the (in)famous claim about animal head-rip-offing at a Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner in Washington ("Rove also made fun of the claim that he is the epitome of evil, stating that his hobbies, besides stamp collecting, included ripping off the heads of animals"). Without the explanation, the ripping-off comment hardly makes sense (unless, of course, you are among the number that is convinced that Rove has no sense of humor, is blatantly unaware of his reputation, and is nothing but a complete moron).

The new item is: • "You know," Rove told Debra Saunders in an August 2007 telephone interview after he announced his resignation, "you'd be shocked and surprised to learn how much the president reached out to Democrats." Asteriks 00:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the references section one reference is cited as Wahsington Post, but I am fairly new at this and couldn't find how to edit a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beyonddoubt (talk • contribs) 14:29:45, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Although references/footnotes display in the Reference section, when reading an article, the text for them is actually in the body of the article. So you need to find the section where the footnote text was entered. If a footnote is linked to three places in an article, you'll have to go into edit mode and check each of the three to find the one place where the text is. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the "President Bush Will Lose His Brain" blog article currently takes you to the comments section of that blog post and not the article itself. I'm just going to correct that so it takes you to the article. (This may not even merit a comment here, but with the current craziness, I thought I'd err on the safe side.) --JenR 03:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the reverting and let's talk. Csloat is correct that this incident is both notable and verifiable, but I thik Aquillon is right that it's not really contextually relevant or informative to the article in its current presentation. Let's explore compromise. Here's the text:

After he announced his resignation, members of the White House staff wrapped his car in plastic wrap and added stuffed bald eagles and an "I love Barack Obama" bumper sticker to it as a prank.^[7] [6]

Rove was pretty well known for pranks in his early days, and as a thought, perhaps this prank has some informative value in that light. Discuss! :) -- User:RyanFreisling

Sorry, one of the reverts (if there was more than one) was my doing. As I recall (and memory could easily be faulty), either the account of the prank was unsourced or poorly sourced. I don't know if it's really notable enough for inclusion in the article or not, but having erred once on this, I am pacticing a hands-off approach on whatever consensus emerges here. First draft of history 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC) @ 19:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely took place and has been covered by a number of media outlets, but it's definitely fringe content for the article when placed without informative context. And thanks for giving your view - no worries! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay in but Ryan is right that it needs some context. Rove was known for pranks and this is part of that background; it also tells us something about what has been going on recently in the white house with regard to rove. It can be put in a trivia section or something like that, or perhaps in a paragraph about Rove and pranks. csloat 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the prank had been done, say, for a secretary who had worked for 30 years in the White House, would it be in Wikipedia? As for "Rove was known for pranks", that certainly wasn't his public persona (at least that's not my sense of his public persona). I think this is minor trivia, and I suggest not including it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically had the 1970 anti-Dixon campaign prank/dirty trick in mind [7] vis-a-vis Rove. The modern Rove is not known for pranks so much as for his 'dirty tricks' (or 'political brilliance', depending on your political viewpoint). Again, it's really tangential stuff and that's why I thought discussion, rather than reversion, was in order. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph about Wonkette.com being hoaxed by a photoshopped photo of Rove in the E-Mail Scandal section. I was an issue for a few hours on some websit, but doesn't seem to meet the standards of WP:Weight. The fact that some website fell for a prank has nothing to do with the larger e-mail issue as discussed (especially considering that it's just a paragraph summarizing what is in the Bush White House e-mail controversy article.

Comments?--Loonymonkey 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about notability, not weight (which isn't an issue in this article anyway). National and local news covered the story (right or wrong) which lasted over a few weeks. Qmax 13:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing the E-Mail Scandal (which is noteworthy and was national news) with the photoshop hoax which was not. It lasted a few hours, not a few weeks and was ONLY reported on blogs. The links are from the local newspaper in Chattanooga where the company is based (hardly national news) and are reporting on the blog controversy. It's probably worthy of inclusion in the seperate article as an amusing piece of trivia, but it certainly doesn't warrant taking up half of the summary of the issue in the main article. The E-Mail scandal was never about a photograph. --Loonymonkey 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, links from your own blog and company website indicate that you are the president of Coptix! The situation is pretty clear now. Your company has no connection to the E-Mail scandal other than the hoax which you yourself created and you are attempting to keep that hoax alive through wikipedia. Your agenda in promoting your own company by perpetuating this hoax is clear and understandable, but is completely inappropriate on this page. (http://chattablogs.com/quintus/contact.html and http://coptix.com/contributors.php) --Loonymonkey 17:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my user page, I'm very upfront about who I am. No mystery there. The scandal was reported in a number of other newspapers and news sources, including the Washington Times & Fox Evening News (and it did last a couple of weeks+). You can see it all here: http://coptix.com/rove I can understand if the wikipedia community feels that the content isn't appropriate for this article, I do think it is notable though. As always, I defer to the greater editing community. Qmax 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone seen anything about Rove's activities since the resignation? Except for this (which is questionable in its tone), everything in Google News is about his legacy or just using him as a framework in an editorial/opinion piece.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way its currently written I can't figure out whats going on with his "father" vs his biological vs adoptive vs who knows what. Can that whole thing be clean up so people with no knoweldge of this guy, like me can make sense of it? Thanks, --Tom 15:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is confusion with some because his step-father (or adoptive father) is often referred to as his father in media accounts (ie. "Karl Rove's father is openly gay.") All accounts of Rove's "father" are generally referring to Louis Claude Rove Jr., his step-father. The elder Rove raised Karl ("Rove" has his name, obviously, not his biological father's) and Karl Rove did not even learn of the existence of his biological father until adulthood. Rove never actually knew his biological father (although he famously met him once when he was in his forties and the two argued). Little is known about his biological father and there is little to say about him in this article. Your edits were correct, although the same problem will inevitably pop up again the next time someone reads an article about Karl Rove's "father" and decides to make changes here.--Loonymonkey (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rove & Company's successful lawsuit against Dick Thornburgh is described in each man's Wikipedia article. Each description mentions that the judge, Sam Sparks, was an appointee of George H. W. Bush in a way that hints at impropriety. Alas, Times v Sullivan may have vitiated the judge's remedies under libel law.

The facts in the account may be, strictly speaking, true. But the facts are arranged in a way to imply wrongdoing. Even though neither article explicitly charges any wrongdoing, don't they, in effect, make an unsubstantiated charge of misbehavior against a living person?

Is this necessary, absent some evidence of malfeasance?

Mr Rove seems to be especially unpopular, but doesn't this language represent an unwarranted slur against Judge Sparks?

Cheers, --AndersW (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am looking for a firm citation for the claim that Rove admired and modeled himself on Mark Hanna. If anyone comes across a good cite (as opposed to, for instance, The Nation' claiming this without citation, I would like to know about it. Please leave me a message on my talk page if you find something. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There are rumors that the U. S. Department of Justice and Rove, as chief GOP political strategist, manipulated the court and the prosecution of Siegelman to destroy him politically."

From what I've read, these charges were from a clearly deranged woman, and Siegelman himself has denied the allegation. Looking for the source now.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this paragraph is no good, but I'm no expert. Wikipedia won't let me edit:

"Rove has admitted that he is a war criminal and a mass murderer. A number of people who know Rove say he is quite possibly one of the meanest, most acrimonious, most callous person they have ever encountered."

Could somebody please fix this? It's a tad misleading...

Sandyarmstrong (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That edit was made by a persistent vandal who has now been permanently blocked. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it sound like Plame's lawsuit was successful when it was dismissed and McClelland's book is treated as fact. I have changed this adding the correct sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadel (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The description of Rove's family life is very confusing. He is described as the second of five children and in the next sentence two siblings are named. A few sentences later it mentions two other siblings, but it isn't clarified if these are full/half/adopted siblings. Does anyone have a source for this? Swimandrow (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "in spite of McGovern's World War II stint piloting a B-24." implies an opinion and is therefore not neutral. It insinuates that that during his run for the presidency George McGovern was characterized unjustly for his views on the war and on social issues. Robert Novak, not Karl Rove, first published the article concerning the allegations of McGovern being a “peacenik.” I am not questioning McGovern's service. I am however, questioning the implied implication of the quote from the Village Voice. If one examines the front page of the Village Voice, it is obvious this is not a very reputable source. It is more of an adult entertainment news and event online magazine than an official news source. I would hope that Wikipedia would hold its standards a little higher.

Other readers have also expressed their concern for this. See the talking point on April 26, 2008. A request for feedback is necessary before I change. PrinceJason (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the fictional Portrayals Topic and in the part that says that he appears in an episode of family guy, I have reason to belive that there seems to be a confusion because in the episode of Family Guy "E Peterbus Unum" there is no reference to Karl Rove in the Wikipedia article about the episode. I do belive the confusion is with the American Dad episode "Deacon Stan, Jesus Man" where indeed Karl Rove appears in a costume based on the Emperor Palpatine Characther from Star Wars. If the page editors should verify this and if there is a confusion between the episode they should correct it, if not at least they should add the reference to the American Dad episode "Deacon Stan, Jesus Man" to the Fictional Portraits Topic.

Odnan (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Fernando FonsecaOdnan (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a man who has had such influence on American politics, the article appears to be long on gossip and short on discussion of his political views. I can read about his religious views, but not his political. Surely amongst the multiple books writtten on this man, someone has analyzed his politics.

Is Karl a realist, a neocon or something else altogether?

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 15:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mr Rove always wanted to be more than the designer of a couple of election triumphs. He wanted to build a permanent political realignment—to do for the Republicans what Franklin Roosevelt did for the Democrats. He wanted to use the culture wars to turn socially conservative blacks and Latinos into Republicans, and use Social Security reform to entice young people into the Republican fold. And he wanted to use the Medicare prescription bill to buy support among the growing crowds of the elderly." Rove redux; The Economist; May 18th 2006 print edition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.20.3.179 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} Rove agreed to debate one-time presidential candidate and former Senator John Edwards on September 26, 2008 at the University of Buffalo.[101] However Edwards later dropped out and was replaced with General Wesley Clark.[102]

Correction: The school is called University at Buffalo, not of Buffalo

 Done, thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone notice that someone edited the name Arafat, and rewrote it as Arabfat???

The bad editing is right here:

Tells Jack Abramoff about invasion of Iraq

On March 18, 2002, lobbyist Jack Abramoff told a friend, that "I was sitting with Karl Rove, Bush's top advisor, at the NCAA basketball game, discussing Israel when [your] email came in. I showed it to him. It seems that the President was very sad to have to come out negatively regarding Israel but that they needed to mollify the Arabs for the upcoming war on Iraq. That did not seem to work anyway. Bush seems to love Sharon and Israel, and thinks ***Arabfat*** [sic] is nothing but a liar. I thought I'd pass that on."[40] The White House Iraq Group, which is mentioned below, was formed in August of that year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.252.64 (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Rovian" redirects to this article, however the word is never used. I would like to point out that there has been significant use of the phrase in news media and that a definition or at least a reference to it's use might have a place in this (or it's own) article. I'm worried that a definition might be viewed as original research or that it's an inherently biased phrase itself. Does anybody have any thoughts as to how this could be incorporated into the article? Does it deserve it's own article? Are the pitfalls avoidable at all? 209.197.144.123 (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Karl Rove's lack of official status with the Republican National Committee or the John McCain campaign for President of the United States, he was given a regular column in the Wall Street Journal for the duration of the campaign, featuring opinions favorable to McCain and the Republican Party, all the while negative to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.70.130.41.94 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian is his middle name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.196.19 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Rove's net worth listed in the important facts about him in the box on the right top of the article? I am looking, and most politicians net worth's are not listed in their article, even when it is avaiable. Why is this there?--Jlamro (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one seems to care or cannot say why Rove's net worth is germane, I suggest it be deleted.--Jlamro (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only rationale I can find for what is included and not included in this article is to paint as negative a picture of this man as possible. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see revised paragraph below to address need for citations in seond sentence. Thank you. {{editsemiprotected}}

 Done fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 09:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Siegelman's conviction controversies

Former Democratic Governor of Alabama Don Siegelman^[8] was convicted in 2006 of bribery, conspiracy and mail fraud. However, Harper's Magazine's Scott Horton, among others, has presented evidence that Seigelman was a victim of a politically-directed trial led by Karl Rove.^[9][10] Siegelman, who very narrowly lost re-election in 2002 to Republican Representative Bob Riley, was considered by Republicans as the most serious opponent for Riley in the 2006 election, because of his popularity and record as Governor (Siegelman was defeated in the Democratic primary by Lieutenant Governor Lucy Baxley, who went on to lose to Riley by a wide margin in November). Siegelman was convicted of accepting $500,000 from Richard M. Scrushy, then the chief executive of the HealthSouth Corporation, in return for appointing Scrushy to the state hospital licensing board. Siegelman is currently serving a seven-year sentence in a federal penitentiary. Hbreneman (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest "criminal indictment" rather than "trial". Also, should be be "led by" or "involving"? And the last two sentences seems to me to be excessive; it's about Siegeleman, not Rove or Rove's motivations. Readers interested in the details of the indictment and conviction of Siegelman can follow the wikilink to the article about him. Finally, the chronology is unclear because dates are missing or too general: when (month and year) was Siegelman indicted? Convicted? When month was the 2006 primary in which he lost to Baxley? That's important because if (say) the indictment was after the primary, it would be difficult to show relevance. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not only poorly organized and poorly written, but it violates Wikipedia policy by clearly being slanted against this man. It skips whole segments of his life and blends them in an edited fashion to make him look like he was a Watergate conspirator. He was a kid at the time. Hardly part of the Watergate crowd.

There is no mention of the 2000 debate prep tape stolen by a Democrat activist working in Rove's offices. There's nothing about how he crafted George Bush's successful runs, etc. All these things have interest.

How do we get a flag put up on this page so that people coming to it understand that this article is woefully in need of work by somebody who is more interested in fact than slanting things?Malke 2010 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of the details of his various classifications as a candidate for the draft? If it is to show that he dodged the draft, it is original research, in particular a weaselly attempt to draw conclusion without a reliable source to draw that conclusion for us. Wikipedia is not a place for us to put forth our own opinions.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and I deleted the draft status because it does not have a reference. It did seem to be floating out there for no other purpose than to denigrate the man.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the middle of all this chaos, I'm going to remove the insinuations of draft-dodging, as there appears to be no reliable source coverage of it. I'll replace it with a brief comment about how he, like many others at the time, avoided the draft through college enrolment.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest. As a real-life individual, I detest Karl Rove with a deep-running passion only to match that of my loathing towards Margaret Thatcher and the toadies who supported her. As a wikipedia editor however, it's clear to me that this article has serious bias problems against Rove. There are too many unsourced accusations and weaselly words against him. I would ask those interested in making this better to put all personal feelings aside and edit to make it a decent article. There are other places on the internet to let your own bile pile forth. On wikipedia we put forth a balanced representation of verifiable facts and notable opinions.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with you. Wikipedia must be neutral to maintain integrity. There are plenty of places on the internet for people to vent their opinions. They can even put up their own websites. Wikipedia is meant to be a wonderful resource for children and adults to find accurate information fast.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted details about Rove's draft status because there was no reference. I am attempting to organize the article so it tells the story of the man's background/life/accomplishments/controversies, etc., the usual things one would expect to find in a biographical article. Anybody with suggestions, references, please let's communicate here and get this article up to Wikipedia standards. Thanks, Malke 2010 (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting a rewrite of this article to remove the obvious bias and to make the article an accurate portrait of the man and his background, education, accomplishments, etc. This article as it now stands is not readable. I only came to the page because I was curious about Rove's education. It took forever for me to figure out that he didn't finish college. A Wikipedia article should have a coherent format. It should flow from early years to current status. The reader shouldn't have to wade through minute details.

Anybody with suggestions and references, ideas, please communicate in this space. Also, if anybody knows how to archive the older discussions, please do so. Thanks Malke 2010 (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolled back your edits, as you are just cutting and slashing. You need to look at each section and see if the sources are there (look yourself) before you just cut. You are also not using the talkpage to discuss any of your cuts. I had no idea, when advising you here [8] that you intended to cut the whole thing in half. That's not what I meant by being bold.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just cutting and slashing. I'm trying to get this page to a manageable state for editing. Some of the entries are inane, and lack real references. The article should have a structure first and foremost and not ramble on about minor congressional races that have no significance. Nor is it important to know what Rove was paid, especially when there is no reference to verify the figures. Please don't just roll back edits. Be patient. This rewrite is going to take several weeks. Making an article neutral is hard work. Rolling back thoughtful, time-consuming edits is not helping. Also, please add a reply button to your page. ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC

If you want to spend a long time re-writing the whole article in such a way, then I suggest you sandbox it. Open the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malke_2010/Karl_Rove, and use that to prepare your material. At the moment you've been removing a lot of stuff that is verifiable, and the nature of what you've been removing suggests POV. It also prevents other editors from trying to improve the material. (Another editor might reasonably have labelled you a POV vandal for effectively blanking half the article.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I didn't know about the sandbox. I am not trying to impose a POV. The article as written reeks of bias. After I finish in the sandbox, how do I get it on the page without everybody thinking I'm a POV vandal? It seems people revert things without even checking first.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the third person to revert your edits. I did so because you made two nonconstructive edits without first discussing it in this talk page. The edit of changing the title to childhood, is problematic in my opinion since the section also covers life experiences outside his childhood.Chhe (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs structure. The sections are over stuffed with information. There is no coherent structure. The article should flow. It seems as if the writer couldn't wait to get to the 'dirt' on Rove so he/she lumped everything together. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. And seriously, hearsay should be forbidden. For example, Christopher Hitchens comments about Rove's religious beliefs. That's just personal opinion not verifiable fact. Let's have quotes from Rove about what he believes.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can include opinions by notable figures, and Hitchens is notable. I'll repeat what I said earlier - if you want to make dramatic changes to the whole of the article, take it to your sandbox, and then see if other editors agree that your new version is an improvement. Right now with several editors protesting your editing manner, you're on very thin ice.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how any of the changes you made improve the structure. Please clarify with specifics. As to the Hitchens quote in the religion section I don't see how that could be construed as dirt. Hitchens himself is an atheist and thinks quite highly of atheism. As to the hearsay claim, I have to say I have heard Hitchens claim this on several different occasions on CSPAN and other times. Its not terribly implausible that he would have insider information on this sort of thing considering his conservative background. I think it should be up to the reader to determine if Hitchens claim is trustworthy or not.Chhe (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is neutral. It relies on verifiable facts. Hitchens is not a source for Karl Rove's belief system. Karl Rove is. I'm looking for a direct quote from Karl Rove that will clarify his beliefs. Speaking of Hitchens, I became a big fan of his after I read his most excellent Vanity Fair article on the Bushes after G.W.'s first election in 2000. Both 41 and 43 should be in jail but we can't say that on Wikipedia.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know how to archive the earlier entries on this talk page?Malke 2010 (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I agree. There are many articles on wikipedia of deceased people whose religious views can't be tested by asking them and for whom they were mum on the question throughout their lives, but whom others had attested their beliefs. It may not be very credible, but surely the reader of the article could deduce that for themselves upon reading the article. As to the claim that wikipedia relies on verifiable facts your definitely correct. However, its a verifiable fact that Hitchens claimed he thinks Rove is an atheist. The article doesn't claim that it is a verifiable fact that Rove is an atheist. In fact it even states that he said himself that "I'm an Episcopalian ... God's chosen frozen". It should be up to the reader to determine if either of their claims are true or not. The editor shouldn't choose the truth for the reader when its by no means clear whats his religious preference is. I should also mention that I found a couple other sources quoting Rove as having said “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.“. If you want these sources just ask and I'll post them. PS. to see earlier entries hit the history tab at the top of the article.Chhe (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have to say, we must not be reading the same Wikipedia philosophy/rules: "It may not be very credible but surely the reader of the article could deduce that for themselves upon reading the article?" That is clearly not Wikipedia philosophy.

And if there is a direct, credible quote from Rove about his beliefs, then that quote should be in the article. Any opinions Christopher Hitchens has should be included in the article on Christopher Hitchens.

Also, clearly as the article stands now, the point of the article is to demonize Rove so ending with the section on his beliefs, with him saying he doesn't believe, seems like the reader should take that as proof that Rove is the devil and that's the rationale behind all his behavior. That actually sounds like a right wing-nut POV.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. If you're not a believer, that doesn't make you the devil. I read Hitchens as saying Rove is not a believer, wishes he was, but does not talk about his religious views very much. It's not a horrible thing to say about someone that they are agnostic or atheist.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that. You are taking an exception where there is none. The bias in the Rove article clearly demonizes him and ends by claiming he is an atheist as if to prove a point. In the context of right-wing conservative flatland, being an atheist is not something people would admire.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether it follows wikipedia rules, I think it falls under statement of opinion.Chhe (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).

Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully.

Clearly, Mr. Hitchen's comments do not belong in the article. There is no verifiable quote directly from Karl Rove where he identifies himself as Hitchen's claims. The quote is eligible to be removed.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrators who sincerely believe in keeping Wikipedia neutral, please set up an editing site where this page can be totally rehabilitated.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just placed a request for comment on the top of this section in this talk page due to the recently reverted edits by Malke 2010, the subsequent discussion regarding removing the Hitchens quote in the section Rewriting this article for neutrality & accuracy above, and Malke 2010's request for administrator assistance for changing the page.Chhe (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted anything. I'm trying to get this article neutral. You seem to be determined to keep the bias---and bring some drama!!! Learn to tell the truth.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malke 2010, I wasn't attempting to be confrontational and if I came off that way I sincerely apologize. I placed the request for comment on this talk page mainly because I read the recently added section above where you asked for administrators to help you "...set up an editing site where this page can be totally rehabilitated." and I was trying to help you. Asking for administrative assistance on this talk page isn't likely to be a very successful way of achieving it since very very few people including wikipedia administrators and editors even view these talk pages (only 62 in the month of July 09). If you want to get peoples attention then you have to advertise this request to many more people than who commonly view this talk page. Placing a request for comment is one way of attempting to achieve this. It places a message on the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, and this page is very commonly viewed by administrators and editors (1895 in July 09). Once its been placed and they respond on this talk page you would have an audience of people for whom you could get assistance from in improving the neutrality of this article and whom you could convince of your point of view. There are other venues available for gaining assistance as well, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard etc. I hope this response was helpful.Chhe (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules on Questionable Sources, as the Christopher Hitchens quote plainly is, are as follows:

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated earlier, any quote by Christopher Hitchens is appropriate only in an article ABOUT Christopher Hitchens. It is not appropriate in an article about Karl Rove.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Include or remove Hitchens quote

• Include The Hitchens quote is germane and sourced. I see no problem with it. ► RATEL ◄ 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrators interested in keeping Wikipedia neutral and accurate are requested to help edit the Karl Rove article. Thanks,Malke 2010 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on the resignation from the white house, there is no reason to include a quote from John Edwards saying "good riddance." That's just a policially charged cheap shot. If that is our standard, think of all the snide comments that could be made on other pages, such as those for Bill or Hillary Clinton. I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.90 (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section, George Bush Administration, most of the paragraph is not only irrelevant, it has absolutely no references, no citations. Just "citation needed" three times. At the end of the paragraph is a reference to a USA article on changes to the White House staff. This article does not speak to the paragraph.

Many of the references do not make direct attributions as they are supposed to according to Wikipedia rules. In addition, this entire article relies heavily on the work of Wayne Slater, an avowed Rove hater and extreme left winger who himself has littered his writings on Rove with nebulous and non-existent citations.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another entry under the College Republicans states that Nixon asked the FBI to investigate Karl Rove. It references the Frontline documentary on Rove. I watched this documentary and there is no such reference. This is completely false. This whole section refers to the Washington Post's stories about GOP dirty tricks during the 1972 presidential campaign. It has nothing to do with Karl Rove.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)A[reply]

This following entry is entirely false. This entry attempts to link Timothy Griffin's placement as a direct result of a comment by Karl Rove. This is an egregious lie posted here on Wikipedia and should have been removed long ago.

Timothy Griffin a former Rove aide, was the proposed replacement for fired attorney Henry Cummins.[73] Specifically, Sampson sent an email that stated "[T]he vast majority of U.S. attorneys, 80-85 percent I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc." Later in the e-mail, Sampson wrote that home-state senators may resist replacing prosecutors "[t]hey recommended. That said, if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."[74]

In fact, Kyle Sampson's email, dated January 9, 2005, is about whether or not to keep the attorneys. The specific section of the email the above entry is attempting to link Rove to, is in actuality a comment by Sampson that U.S. senators will likely resist having the U.S. attorneys in their states replaced especially if it is one the Senators recommended. It then ends by saying, "That said, if Karl thinks there would be a political will to do it, (i.e. if the Senator would have a political will) than so do I." It has nothing to do with Timmy Griffins. Therefore, it should be removed.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an egregious lie, it was just badly ordered. Griffin is mentioned in emails regarding this topic directly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly an egregious lie when the specific email quote is coupled with the Griffin entry. If Rove specifically mentioned Griffin for the job in an email, then the email must be found and cited. You can't just take any email. That's not a citation. That's politics.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste from my talk page:

According to Newsweek, Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, developed the list of eight prosecutors to be fired last October, with input from the White House.[72] Sampson sent an email that stated "[T]he vast majority of U.S. attorneys, 80-85 percent I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc." Later in the e-mail, Sampson wrote that home-state senators may resist replacing prosecutors "[t]hey recommended. That said, if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."[73]. It emerged from other emails that Timothy Griffin, a former Rove aide, was the proposed replacement for fired attorney Henry Cummins.[74]

You have made it very unclear what the Sampson email was about. In addition, at the time of the email, Kyle Sampson was John Ashcroft's Chief of Staff. Alberto Gonzales was still White House Counsel. Your politics is showing. I think we need a higher level of oversight in editing in the Rove article.

You don't have any right to deliberately muddy the water. My edit was perfectly fine and should have remained.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my edit, it addressed directly your comment that In fact, Kyle Sampson's email, dated January 9, 2005, is about whether or not to keep the attorneys. I simply made it clear that Griffin was mentioned in a different e-mail. How is that muddying the waters?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The attempt to link Rove to Segretti is based on an opinion piece by James Ridgeway, an avowed extreme left winger. This piece in the Village Voice does not cite any references and is only an opinion piece. There are no links to Segretti anywhere that I can find and in fact, at the time of the 1972 Nixon campaign, Rove was working in his capacity as the executive director of the College Republicans. He was interviewed by CBS/Dan Rather on a piece about young people voting in the 1972 election, the first year Baby Boomers were becoming eligible to vote. This reference is another example of phony/misleading citations to justify a political POV.Malke 2010 (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem with this entry is that it folds in Rove working on Nixon's 1972 campaign and makes claims about how Rove portrayed Nixon's opponent, George McGovern. This entire entry relies on one citation, the James Ridgeway piece in The Village Voice. This is not a valid reference.Malke 2010 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look very hard - there are other references available showing that Rove and Segretti worked together on the Nixon campaign. The problem with the paragraph is that it is not clear on the relationship between Segretti and Rove, and on the authorship of the McGovern = peacenik line. (By the way, describing James Ridgeway as an "avowed extreme" left winger perhaps perhaps says more about your politics than his. I looked for references of him stating that was his position, and couldn't find any. Not surprising when there's certainly no evidence of his being extreme.) I think what we can say is that Rove worked under Segretti, and Rove thought of the McGovern peacenik line. That the two foremost dirty tricksters of the modern era worked together is perfectly notable.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I've done extensive research on this and there is nothing out there. If you have a legitimate citation, then lets have it. Put it in the paragraph for everybody to see. Rove and Segretti did not work together. And James Ridgeway is an extreme left winger. He's at Mother Jones now and you can't get further left than that. And it doesn't speak to my politics. You don't know what my politics are. What I care about is that Wikipedia maintain its integrity as an honest, accurate source for information. The Rove article is rife with references that go no where or they are from poorly researched left wing sources. James Moore and Wayne Slater's book being the obvious. The books they've written are very poorly sourced.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that a former Wall street journalist who writes for The Economist is considered "as far left as you can go". He has a long track record of publishing factual information in respectable sources. In any case, being left wing makes you no more incapable of reporting facts accurately than being right wing. Anyway, here are two of the many references stating baldly that they worked together. Two large publishing houses, the second a university imprint.

• Brokaw, Tom (2007) Boom!: voices of the sixties : personal reflections on the '60s and today‎, Random House. Page 371: "In Richard Nixon's 1972 reelection campaign Rove worked with Donald Segretti, the young California lawyer who was later convicted as a Watergate conspirator."
• Blumenthal, Sidney (2006) How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime, Princeton University Press. p. 204: "Karl Rove, Bush's senior political aide, began his career as an agent of Nixon's dirty trickster Donald Segretti - one of the ratfuckers, as Segretti called his boys."

If you do not like the sourcing, it does not mean that the facts are wrong. It means at the very least a cursory look (I found the two above in 10 minutes) at what other sources are out there. However, the original sourcing is being challenged because it was an opinion piece. Even in opinion pieces the facts need to be correct if the opinion piece is in a respectable source.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Entry E-mail scandal it states: . . .Over 500 of Rove's emails were mistakenly sent to a parody website, who forwarded them to an investigative reporter.[82]

The citation is not properly listed and when you click on it, it leads to the web site, Ten Zen Monkeys. The emails it lists are not from Karl Rove. They are from a George Bush campaign site. And seriously, Ten Zen Monkeys is hardly a legitimate source.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Zen Monkeys is as loony a site as anything the birthers have put up.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you had bothered to check, the GOP actually confirmed the e-mails. GeorgeWBush.org is not a campaign site, it is the dummy site set up by an award-winnning BBC journalist which ended up being sent the emails by mistake (a mistake he had clearly been hoping would happen. The journalist (Greg Palast) details the issue in his book Armed Madhouse (Penguin 2007). And before you cry "foul!" Palast may be anti-Bush, but he wouldn't be touched by Penguin or the BBC if he didn't have a good reputation for factual accuracy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Headings with Email Scandals, Office of Special Counsel, U.S. Attorney dismissals, Plume affair, Resignation, all of these entries rely on citations that lead to no where. The separation of the entries seems designed to make it appear that Rove was just one scandal laden puppy, when in truth, all of these are one and the same. The Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, found NO WRONG DOING by Rove. There is nothing linking Rove's resignation with the email scandal or Valerie Plume or the U.S. Attorney dismissals. These sections appear crafted to make it seem like Rove was some mastermind behind all of these when in fact none of the citations back that up. They are citations to no where. And linking John Edwards comments demanding Rove resign, and then immediately following that with Rove resigning and Edwards commenting, "Good riddance," is patently misleading. It never happened that way. Rove resigned in August of 2007 for other reasons that are clearly listed in another section of this article. Edwards comments, by the way, are both from his website and do not cite any legitimate references. They're just his political opinions. And seriously, John Edwards? Does anybody think that loser has a shred of credibility left?Malke 2010 (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the interview by CBS/Dan Rather on a piece about young people voting. What did Rove say in that interview? Have you been able to track it down?Chhe (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, are you unaware that Fitzgerald did not state that Karl Rove had done nothing wrong and was at one point pursuing perjury charges against him? Given Rove's initial non-compliance, and the non-recovery of key electronic documents, we cannot use the Fitzgerald inquiry as proof of innocence.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the reasons for Rove's resignation: there are notable news sources that establish that the view that Rove resigned because of the investigations around him was far from uncommon. It was stated by the head of the senate Judiciary Committee, confirmed by the BBC and CNN (who thought it worthy to report Rove's response to such views). So the solution is to report that Rove denied suggestions that he was leaving because of the investigations. Not to mention them at all is POV. I agree that the Edwards quote shouldn't be there, as he only speaks for himself, and the quotation doesn't illustrate anything.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the head of the Judiciary Committee thinks Rove resigned because of the controversy doesn't make it so. It's an opinion and it doesn't matter how many news agencies confirm that it's this guys opinion. It's still any opinion.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that today the New York Times and other news outlets have a major story on Mr. Rove, and doings of his that are in question. The link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/politics/12firings.html?hp

I believe that mention of this, as well other notable acts of Mr. Rove's in the same vein, deserve to mentioned in the introduction. Regardless of one's views of Rove's character, it cannot be denied that this is a controversial and highly publicized aspect of Rove's life, and not to mention it on the first screen hardly gives an accurate overview. Jusdafax (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree that the lead ought to summarize the article contents per WP:LEAD. It is only a B class article, but this is something the GA review process would insist upon. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Susan. It seems like an obvious move to me, but a box at the top of this page asks that we talk over changes here first. I'm proposing an additional paragraph of several sentences, to be added today. Jusdafax (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added the new paragraph for the intro. It could be expanded a bit, but establishes, as you say, material found the the body of the article. I also think today's breaking news will have to be mentioned in the 'Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys' section here, to bring it up to date. Jusdafax (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a new editor, Malke 2010, with no track record and what appears to be a pro-Rove agenda, is making numerous edits and is being warned. I'm reverting all his or her edits. I will do this once. If they are re-reverted, I go to an admin and we get this straightened out.

What I suggest, instead, is that we let the dust settle, and then we go over each and every edit, talk it over, and come to a consensus, instead of being steam-rollered by a brand-new editor who feels a bit odd, at least to me. Jusdafax (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another link (MSNBC) to Mr. Rove's doings that is in the news today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32377973/ns/politics-more_politics Jusdafax (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the L.A. Times has their own take: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove12-2009aug12,0,6512321.story ...another headline story. Jusdafax (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with this course of action. While Malke has been helpful in bringing to more people's attention sourcing issues in this article, his approach has been highly inappropriate. A calm reappraisal of each section is necessary. A lot of badly sourced information is, it seems, easily better sourced. On the other hand, there are places where the article clearly insinuates things that cannot be justified, or represents beliefs about Rove as fact, not as beliefs. I believe there are enough of us here to work to a healthy and manageable consensus.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vsevolvod. In working on other Wikipedia articles with high controversy, I've become a bit suspicious when what appears to be a brand new editor appears and begins quoting Wikipedia's guidelines like they are a long-time Wikipedian, as Malke is doing below and elsewhere. Here by the way is another article on Mr. Rove in today's Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081102104.html?hpid=topnews

I continue to feel we let this topic cool down a bit before rushing edits in. And I prefer to discuss it right here, and not get messages from Malke on my talk page. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies---Lead paragaphs: Per Wikipedia

Main article: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves.

Well-publicized recent events affecting an article subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each. When an article subject dies, the lead does not need to be radically reworked. Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing it is usually sufficient.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Malke, you removed this recent paragraph due to the citation needed tags. This is not a sufficient reason for removing as had been explained to you previously. When a citation needed tag is seen its a warning to other editors and readers that the info has to be verified. Removal of the info is only warranted if the statements are untrue and a source doesn't exist and hence can't be found. I was able however to find sources for all this information within a matter of minutes with a simple google search let alone having to go to the library. As such this change is vandalism. Please don't do it again.

George W. Bush was first inaugurated in January 2001, and Rove accepted a position in the Bush administration as Senior Advisor to the President. Bush's confidence in Rove was so strong that during a meeting with South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun on May 14, 2003, he brought only Rove and then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice^{[citation needed]}. Rove has played a significant role in shaping policy at the White House. One oft-cited example is that terror warnings were regularly made at times when John Kerry's ratings rose during the 2004 presidential election^{[citation needed]}. Another is the 2006 announcement that planned terrorist attacks had been thwarted, which was made soon after the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program was discovered.^{[citation needed]}Chhe (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Malke you bolded the main section 'George W. Bush Administration'. Main sections aren't really bolded...see the page lion as an example.Chhe (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009

Chhe please don't call what I do vandalism. You have repeatedly interfered when I am attempting to make changes. I believe you are the vandal. If you feel so passionately with your POV against Rove, then you should make the effort to find legitimate citations for the things that are being put in this article. I can't see where you've been doing that. Just vandalizing what I'm doing. This is edit warring and you are in violation of Wikipedia policy.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above section, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ R McDermott, PG Zimbardo - Psychology of Terrorism, 2007, The Psychological Consequences of Terrorist Alerts

This citation is being used by Chhe as if it speaks to the content of the paragraph under the heading, George W. Bush Administration. It is entirely inappropriate as the paragraph, in the middle of what should be a news article reference, then claims that terrorist alerts were raised whenever John Kerry's standing in the polls rose. Even if this has a reference to threat levels and alerts, it is a secondary and not primary source. This is an example of the bias and fake citations repeatedly used in this article.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the citations added by Chhe speak to any role by Karl Rove in what was alleged.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of your terminology here. Secondary sources are preferred on wikipedia to primary sources, as the use of primary sources too often leads to OR. Wikipedia is not a forum to determine what people think; it should reflect what reliable sources say, including a representation of the dominant opinions held.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources should be valid, that link to the primary source. That is what a source is. Not, "Wing-Nut said he thinks this might be true, so we can put it up on Wikipedia. Please, read the rules, read the MLA guidelines.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a news type source is preferred here is one [9]. Its an interview with Dean in which he seems to suspect that Rove is behind the terror alerts due to a memo of his. If more sources are still wanted I'll try to find more. With regards to Karl's role in this I would agree that the wording of the sentence makes it slightly unclear and so I propose that the wording of the sentence "One oft-cited example is that terror warnings were regularly made at times when John Kerry's ratings rose during the 2004 presidential election" be changed to read "One often claimed example is that terror warnings were regularly made at times when John Kerry's ratings rose during the 2004 presidential election".Chhe (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone 'thinks' it might be true doesn't make it true. You don't have any sources the prove anything. You don't have any source that goes directly to Rove. Anecdotal claims are not references. This is a biography of a living person and Wikipedia rules are very specific. Filling Rove's article with unfounded claims and rumors is libel. And please, no more phony references.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a real work published by Oxford University Press. But it doesn't support the text as far as I can see. So I commented it out twice and replaced with "citation needed". Anything claimed in this first paragraph must be so well known that it shouldn't be hard to find. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the source I already posted, here's a few more that talk about it

[10], [11], [12], and [13].Chhe (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a blog. You must adhere to the rules. Go back and re-read the rules for biographies of living persons. Please keep your prejudices away from this page.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have had quite a long discussion on an analogous issue above and this particular issue is completely similar to that and in accordance with statement of opinion section too. A statement of opinion, in this particular case was made by Dean and others that Rove was involved in terror alerts and is certainly wikipedia worthy since it was a topic of considerable attention and conversation during the Kerry/Bush elections in the news-media. I would agree that it would be wrong for wikipedia to state that it was a fact that Rove was the mastermind behind the terror alerts or to make it unclear that these were nothing more than educated guesses and claims. However, it would be equally wrong to censure from the reader that at the time there were these accusations made against Rove. If this were to happen the reader would be prevented from forming their own opinion with regards to the matter. That was why I proposed above that the sentence:

• One oft-cited example is that terror warnings were regularly made at times when John Kerry's ratings rose during the 2004 presidential election.

be change to:

• One often claimed example is that terror warnings were regularly made at times when John Kerry's ratings rose during the 2004 presidential election.

That way the readers would know that this isn't a statement of fact. As to the accusation that this inclusion would violate wikipedia:BLP I can't say I see what you mean. I have been unable to find a specific way in which this could violate it. If you can cite a specific passage from wikipedia:BLP and provide an explanation for why it violates it I'd be interested in seeing and discussing it. Like I said above until now it seems to be allowable under statement of opinion. In the mean time, please don't remove or change these proposed changes until everyone has time to weigh in and consensus has been reached.Chhe (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough. When I see Malke use the word 'libel', it's time to ask for cooler heads to prevail. Fair Warning: I have asked admin intervention at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Jusdafax (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to have been a wise move. I will start to keep an eye out here. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, while a lid appears to have been kept on the introduction of unsusbstantiated material, the recent changes to the 'religious beliefs' section appear to have slipped through and are POV, lack references, and, above all, the whole thing looks non-notable to me. Can i suggest a compromise of sorts which is to delete the entire thing? It just strikes me as of no great consequence either way. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All these people have religious views sections, Andy Warhol, Isaac Newton, Noah Webster, Albert Einstein, A. A. Milne, Dave Barry etc. It seems perfectly in keeping with wikipedia convention to have a religious views section whenever a little bit of information concerning it is at hand.Chhe (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The length and detail is clearly WP:UNDUE. The material should be added as a sentence or two to what was there before - i.e. there is debate about what he has said at different stages on the strengths of his beliefs, with proper weight given to what Rove actually says he is, and that he has threatened legal action over the matter.VsevolodKrolikov ([[User

talk:VsevolodKrolikov|talk]]) 02:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the length of detail in the scandals and the nonsense about his property which was never any type of "scandal" and the droning on about Valerie Plume and the other "scandals" where he was never charged with anything, is most certainly WP:UNDUE. And the incoherent section on the College Republicans. It is poorly written, lacks focus. It doesn't even tell everything he did or get the point across at all that Rove, from day one, had an agenda to turn America republican. The biggest point of what he wanted and how he did it is entirely missing. Perspective is a good tool. It helps to focus and at the end of the day, you might just get what you want. An article that shows the man for who he really is and what he really stands for. Except that it would be truthful. You might find you achieve your goals much more completely when you remove the blinders.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which blinders are these? Which perspective? I and others are taking the perspective of using reliable sources. You seem to be taking a very emotional attitude to facts and events that are documented. We are trying to document Karl Rove's techniques for "turning America Republican" as you term his work in electoral politics. If you object to the fact that some of his techniques have been underhanded (a fact that is reliably documented, and he admits at least one of them himself), take it up with Karl Rove, not with Wikipedia. Repeatedly deleting reliably sourced information, particularly accompanied by complaints by other users, is vandalism, pure and simple.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTA BENE: VSEVOLODKROLIKOV: Your words speak for themselves: HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID: "I'll be honest. As a real-life individual, I detest Karl Rove with a deep-running passion only to match that of my loathing towards Margaret Thatcher and the toadies who supported her. As a wikipedia editor however, it's clear to me that this article has serious bias problems against Rove. There are too many unsourced accusations and weaselly words against him. I would ask those interested in making this better to put all personal feelings aside and edit to make it a decent article. There are other places on the internet to let your own bile pile forth. On wikipedia we put forth a balanced representation of verifiable facts and notable opinions."VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Added by Malke for the Illumination of AllMalke 2010 (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's nota bene, not noto bene. Sic transit gloria mundi etc. etc. Second, yes, my words speak for themselves. I don't let my dislike of Rove get in the way of my editing. Editing neutrally in spite of one's own beliefs is part of the zen-like fun of wikipedia. I remove stuff that is unsourceable, I find sources for what is sourceable, I take out or reduce that which is given undue weight. The game's up, Malke. You've consistently edited in a tendentious manner, misleading other people in the pursuit of your goals. Part of me wonders if there is COI here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully with Vsevolod and feel that, again, enough is enough. At this point I feel the record shows Malke will do anything and say anything to get what he wants, which is to 'whitewash' Mr. Rove's past and current activities. They are a matter of public record, and well documented. I say we get back to work on improving this article, revert obvious attempts to 'sanitize' the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. Jusdafax (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree Malke is not helping, I do think the article could use a facelift. For instance, the Siegel section is supported by two articles in a single magazine. Hardly noteworthy. I would be willing to help if needed. Soxwon (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about Malke and that article needs work. The Siegelman section, for example, stated he was still in jail until I fixed that just a few minutes ago... the truth is he's been released for nearly six months now on appeal. I have added a paragraph based on a 'New York Times' editorial, with a reference. Perhaps I should have talked it over on this discussion page first, but I'm hoping for a ruling by the admins soon on the current semi-disfunctional state the discussion page is in regarding use of the word 'libel', etc.

Welcome any further thoughts you have for improving the section and article as a whole. Jusdafax (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think there's enough to warrant inclusion. An op-ed piece in the NYT might (might) make it if he was the focus. But he's mentioned in a sorta of passing manner. His involvement doesn't seem to have a whole lot of notability to it. I also think that the "Soft on terrorism" section is overblown (heck did he do anything but do scandalous things during the bush years?) and Allegations of conflict of interest (0), Abramoff e-mail (1) need more sourcing. That's all for now, I'll continue looking. Soxwon (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can we take out some of the quotes in the Plame section? It seems unecessary and makes it harder to follow at times. Soxwon (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. "Passing manner" or not, Rove is in there, and if I understand you correctly, you advocate removal of the section on Siegelman completely. Uttely disagree with that.

Here's what former Gov. Siegelman has to say about the situation at present (website link produced as a reference possibility, I am NOT advocating for or against Siegelman): http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5180/t/3541/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2904 This raises some interesting points. Note the line Siegelman says about Rove, that Bill Canary is Rove's best friend. To quote it: "They infused the Justice Department with hundreds of Rove-anointed, Bush-appointed officials who put politics ahead of the law -- including many of the 93 U.S. Attorneys like Leura Canary, the wife of Karl Rove's best friend and business partner who said he got Rove to get the DOJ to come after me."

This is a former state governor (Siegelman) we are talking about here. And this is what he is currently saying about Karl Rove! Notable in an article about Rove? I say yes. There is a lot more on this case out there, with plenty of sourcing from all parts of the political spectrum.

I haven't started the Plame or terrorism sections yet. I would ask that you please hold off deleting material for at least a day or so, thanks. And I'm still hoping for an admin ruling very soon on Malke to head off contention here. Jusdafax (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, the deletion was a bit harsh, reduction would be better. As for Plame, I blockquoted it for easier reading until it's decided if they should stay or not. Soxwon (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soxwon, I just read this: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Permanent_Republican_Majority_1125.html

Now, the source will be called "leftist", so I don't proposed it be used unless a reasonable consensus is reached. I provide it for background, as I believe it to be of interest. Note the mentions of Mr. Rove. Looking for more. Jusdafax (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and please supply "full citations" to reliable verifiable sources. For related guidelines and policies concerning addition of sources, please see: Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Reliable sources; WP:Attribution. Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm kinda surprised nobody quoted this source yet [14]. The article is pretty interesting since it mentions that "the U.S. House Judiciary Committee released documents and testimony yesterday showing that Rove did keep up with Alabama politics". The article quotes from some of these documents, but I think it would be pertinent to this section if anyone could figure out where we could get the complete documents. I'm assuming that since the House Judiciary committee now has them that they are now public records.Chhe (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rawstory.com article won an award it seems, at least according to its wiki page. If so, there should be other more RS material around following up. I've no time at the moment to check (sorry). I agree we should be careful of UNDUE; this is an article about Rove, not about corrupt practices in general.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? An interview with one of the fired prosecutors... that notable and good enough of a citation? "Fmr. New Mexico US Attorney David Iglesias on New Evidence Linking Bush Admin to Firings Documents released by Congress this week offer powerful new evidence that Karl Rove and other senior Bush administration figures took the lead in the firing of nine US attorneys in 2006." http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/13/all_roads_lead_to_rove_fmr

Please refrain from using as your sources gossip and supposition. Just because you've put up a source next to a claim you're making does not mean it is a source as recognized by Wikipedia. Please remember the talk page is not a blog for your personal opinions and/or personal attacks against other editors. Please see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and please supply "full citations" to reliable verifiable sources. For related guidelines and policies concerning addition of sources, please see: Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Reliable sources; WP:Attribution. Thank you.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here again, Malke, you try to use the tactics of intimidation. Your comments have only a specious plausibility, and in my view your intent is to discourage truthful additions to this article. You have previously used terms like 'libel' to further this aim; despite your being a Wikipedian just over a week you come off like a wikilawyer, pompous and overbearing citing this and that. I urge all to ignore your blather. Jusdafax (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from your continued argumentum ad hominem. The topic is not me, the topic is Karl Rove and bringing the article on him up to Wikipedia standards. To that end, there needs to be reasoned, honest discussion. Please turn down the volume so you might hear better.FYI: I've been a Wikipedian for several years now.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime you use the word libel, it becomes about you. I hope the admins rule soon. Jusdafax ([[User

Hold on Malke - FYI: I've been a Wikipedian for several years now. You told people you were new. Of course, your user name certainly is. Would you care to explain what you mean? Did you "lose" a previous identity?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to have been a long term editor before you begin editing. True I am new in terms of editing. But I've been editing since July, not just a week ago. Please, no more disinformation. And as you probably already know, a user doesn't have to sign up for an account in order to follow Wikipedia. It's quite a fascinating social phenomenon having an online encyclopedia edited by users. You certainly don't have to have editing privileges to use Wikipedia which I've done for years.

But I ask once again, please refrain from making me the subject of the debate. It comes across as a transparent attempt to avoid dealing with the true issue which is the mean-spirited, obvious bias in the Karl Rove article which,VsevolodKrolikov (talk) you have acknowledged in our recent exchanges. For the last time, I ask that you refrain from argumentum ad hominem and focus on changing the article for the better. This is not a blog. To that end, from now on, I will only address how to best reach a consensus in bringing this article up to Wikipedia standards.

For this time only, I do address Jusdafax and VsevolodKrolikov directly: I do believe that all people are basically good and I still have faith that you are both capable of seeing the value in reaching a happy consensus. As a matter of good faith, I have not attempted to edit anything since this heated debate began. I have no bias against either of you, and I hope that, in a moment of calm reflection, you can let go of your bias against me. I harbor no ill will to anyone, nor do I particularly favor Karl Rove. I do however believe he should be treated fairly.

I'm sure that at the end of the day, we can still come together and make this a stellar article. As I research Karl Rove's background more and more, I continue to find fascinating things about this man that are not in this article and I would like the full story told. If you step back for a moment, I think you will see, this article as it stands now is silly and is obviously biased. I'm sure you've thought about this and you know yourselves how you can improve this without rancor. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Malke 2010 (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I mention that below in his latest blast. I also want to know just what's up here. Malke claimed he was new, now this. This is beyond smelling funny... it stinks of deceit. Jusdafax (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The single sections with the campaigns that Rove worked on seem like something from a 5th grade composition. There is nothing pertinent in these sections, just single sentences. Therefore, they should be deleted and the campaigns combined into one paragraph. Phil Gramm's Senate race hardly needs a whole section, etc. Also, the most famous campaigns, that of George Bush's gubernatorial campaigns, and the presidential campaigns, should be given prominence as these are clearly Rove's major life accomplishments and the reason he is known as "The Architect."

Also, his agenda is completely missing. Is one to infer his agenda based on paragraph after paragraph of supposed crimes for which he was never accused let alone charged? Not to mention the poor writing. It really speaks of second rate hit and run editing.

In addition, the scandals that ramble on could also be combined into one paragraph, though they must clearly state what Rove, using reliable sources such as NYTimes, Washington Post, claim his actual role was. Please no 'sources' from a blog. Rove was never charged with any crimes, and the recent testimony he gave to Congress will not lead to any charges. The Special Counsel has already said Rove wouldn't be charged with anything. Unless there is a charging document from the DOJ, you cannot use the term "alleged crimes," since he's never been formally charged with crimes. An investigation is not an accusation. To that end, the third paragraph of the lead needs to have that comment about his "alleged illegal activities," deleted. Rove's role in the so-called Plume Affair and the Attorney dismissals, is tangential at best and this is why Special Counsel Fitzgerald could not find any reason to bring charges against Rove. Bottom line: without a charging document, you cannot say 'alleged illegal activities,' nor can you say 'alleged crimes.' Since no crimes, no illegal activities were ever legally identified. Therefore, nothing exists that can be alleged.

It is already reading as a mean-spirited article and certainly this is not policy at Wikipedia. There is so much about Rove that is being left out of this article. The more I read from legitimate sources on both sides of the fence, I am convinced that a stellar article with both views presenting is not only possible, but begs to be written. If one truly loves intrigue, this man's whole business is filled with that. And certainly articles from respected publications like The Nation, where we could have balanced opinions based on fact-checked reporting, would make this article superb. I think that is the entire problem. There is no perspective from legitimate sources. Instead of The Nation, and the NYTimes, and The Washington Post, and other respected fact-checked publications, we have 10 Zen Monkeys. This certainly adds to the clear impression of 'hit and run' editing.

And the section on his residences, which is just silly. His back-taxes were simply a result of taking a homestead claim, and as it turns out, he was hardly the only person doing that. It affected everyone who owned property in D.C. and took the claim, including Bill and Hillary Clinton. Is there anyone in America who hasn't had a back-tax bill? It was simply a standard deduction the IRS eliminated. Such changes in the tax code legitimately take time to filter down to every tax accountant's software. It was a beign mistake made by everyone. So I think this could be eliminated because it's clearly WP:UNDUE.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are a bit of a joke here at this point, at least to me in any case. Bottom line, you want to whitewash this article. No doubt the article can be improved, but based on your record in this article to date, I'd trust you as far as I can throw you. Bottom line, you don't play nice, and while you accuse others of having an agenda, it seems obvious you are the one with that problem.

And tell us your other identity, since this one is not the one (as you admit above) that you have been a Wikipedian "for years" as. Why did you change your Wikipedia name? Given your use of the word 'libel', an indirect legal threats if not WP:LEGAL, I'd be interested in your past edits. Let's get real. As was said above to you byVsevolodKrolikov, "The game is up", Malke. Jusdafax (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please address the editing issues and not me personally. You were never threatened with any legal action, as a review of the entries made by me will bear out. As a reminder: Civility is part of Wikipedia's code-of-conduct, one of Wikipedia's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct, setting out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment. This policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians. Malke 2010 (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to Malke, I think you're overplaying the legal threat somewhat, jusdafax. Certainly, Malke has been editing in a POV manner, and not only on this article. However, I think the supposed legal threat is actually just part of his overblown phrasing and, as another editor has termed his manner WP:MPOV, and I don't think was meant seriously.

As for Malke, three things: if you have information on Rove's beliefs, why don't you put a section up, instead of berating others? Secondly, yes, the campaigns section is oddly formatted, but please do not follow your usual tactic of using a real problem as an excuse to delete entirely due and well-sourced material. Thirdly, by now you should have realised that not a single editor on the articles you've edited appears to trust you very much. That might give you pause for thought as to the way you edit and talk to people from now on.

Right, I'm off on holiday. Be good while I'm away, children.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DONTBITEMalke 2010 (talkMalke 2010 (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malke 2010 (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Campaigns Section This section should lead with the Bush Campaigns beginning with the Texas Governors race, the reelection, and then move on to the Presidential Election. This section should mention the Florida recount which is completely missing. I find it hard to believe that Karl Rove sat that out. Then go into the reelection campaign. All these campaigns should mention the methodology, the strategies, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To: VsevolodKrolikov As for editing right now, I think it's best to hold off. As regards your comment about other editors on other pages, as far as I'm aware, I've not had a negative experience with anyone. I've had nearly an entirely positive experience as an editor on Wikipedia so far other than this Rove issue. That Wikipedia is functioning even with its attendant problems seems something of a miracle to me.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, before anything develops, I'm posting the sections I cut here:

From 2004 campaign:

A few months after the election, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) publicly alleged that Rove engineered the Killian documents controversy during the 2004 campaign, by planting fake anti-Bush documents with CBS News to deflect attention from Bush's service record during the Vietnam War. Other than Rove's supposed motive. Rove denied any involvement and Hinchey admitted he had no evidence to support this claim.^[1][2]

Conflict of interest section

In March 2001, Rove met with executives from Intel and successfully advocated a merger between a Dutch company and an Intel company supplier. Rove owned $100,000 in Intel stock at the time but had been advised by Fred Fielding, the White House's transition counsel, to defer selling the stock in January to obtain ethics panel approval. Rove offered no advice on the merger which needed to be approved by a joint Pentagon-Treasury Department panel since it would give a foreign company access to sensitive military technology.^[3] In June 2001, Rove met with two pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. At the time, Rove held almost $250,000 in drug industry stocks. On June 30, 2001, Rove divested his stocks in 23 companies, which included more than $100,000 in each of Enron, Boeing, General Electric, and Pfizer. The same day, the White House confirmed reports that Rove had been involved in administration energy policy meetings while at the same time holding stock in energy companies, including Enron.

9/11

At a fund-raiser in New York City for the Conservative Party of New York State in June 2005, Rove said, "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Democrats demanded Rove's resignation or an apology, and pointed out that every Democrat in the Senate voted for military force against Al-Qaeda in retaliation for the September 11 attacks. Rove offered no apology and retained his position.^[4][5]

Families of September 11, an organization founded in October 2001 by families of some of those who died in the terrorist attack, requested that Rove "stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others".^[6] In contrast, the Bush administration characterized Rove's comments as "very accurate" and stated that the calls for an apology were "somewhat puzzling", since he was "simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the War on Terrorism".^[7][8]

I cut them because they don't really seem to be worthy of a bio about a man who has been in the business for more than half of his life and 30+ years. Is there any reason to suggest they got widespread MSM coverage that would warrant putting them back? Soxwon (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start, but it doesn't relieve the negativity of the article. You could help make the page load faster by deleting the whole section on the real estate. It's a pointless section. And there's no reason each of the congressional races should have their own section. Each one has only one or two sentences, which just makes the writer who did this look like a 5th grader building an essay one 3 x 5 card at a time. And do we really need a graphic on the U.S. attorney dismissals? Rove didn't resign over it, and it's hardly a central feature of his career. Big deal, attorneys appointed by the president got bounced by the president for political reasons. Um, they got appointed for political reasons, didn't carry the water, got bounced. Next. Personally, I think the Bush administration was wagging the dog. Go back and look at what was not reported. What might have been happening at Gitmo or in Iraq the Bushies didn't want the reporters paying attention to. You could write a book on what didn't get reported thanks to Valerie Plume. On the left hand, there's the Valerie Plume smokescreen, and parked behind the right hand is the Carrier Battle Group parked very close to Iran. But you're not looking at the right hand, now are you? And no, Karl Rove didn't do it. The DOD did it.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was hoping to get feedback on what I've already done (which I fear may be too much) before I advance... Soxwon (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good start. The essence of good writing is brevity. Keep up the effort to improve the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "From 2004 campaign" and "Conflict of interest section" should be kept. I don't know why you removed them. They're both easily verifiable and an important source of information for the reader. As for the "9/11" I can see why one might want to remove that. Many people have demanded that Rove resign from his job and so I don't see why there should be a special section for this particular demand as opposed to others unless this particular demand was somehow distinguishable from the rest that I'm not aware of. I can see however how it could be included in a general section regarding demands for resignation, but this last point is kinda debatable in my opinion.Chhe (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why a congressman charging, being rebuffed, then admitting he has no proof is notable. That's basically what it comes down to. The conflict of interest section needs more sources. Plus, are either really important to his more than 30 years in politics? The first definitely not. The second possibly, depends on how far it went. All I've found is a small cluster in the months of June, July, and August 8 years ago, hardly notable. Soxwon (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "conflict of interest" section needs more sources. I'll try to find some more for it and post it here.Chhe (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Soxwon. The congressman is not notable. And the article should focus on what the man has done in his career. The article is about him, not all this excessive detail about who said what and who didn't do their job and got fired, and all the rest of it. Petty stuff. Well done Soxwon. Hack away.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nooo, I'm not going to "hack away," I'm going to try and improve the article... Soxwon (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're going to have to do a major rewrite. Just cutting here and there isn't going to relieve the negativity.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section would be better placed in an article about Don Siegelman. And if Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine had evidence showing Karl Rove engineered Siegelman's conviction, then maybe Horton should have presented it to Siegelman's attorney and the prosecutor.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Editorial from NY Times seems WP:UNDUE. If Jill Simpson had insider information to clear Siegelman, then she should have taken it forward when Siegeleman was getting convicted for fraud and bribery, etc. An editorial in the NYTimes doesn't really indict Karl Rove. He was not even in the building when Siegelman was committing his criminal acts.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to implicate Rove in this, then be specific and show, with real references and not a blog analysis, exactly what he did and also include why nobody called him on it during the trial. Also, show that the prosecutor was also corrupt. Name names with legitimate references.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that all the controversy be edited down to fact and put under one section with no more than 3 or 4 short paragraphs and given real references like fact-checked sources like the NYTimes or the Washington Post, and not blogs or webpages, or books that don't even mention the man, etc. And whatever is not honestly germaine to Karl Rove, i.e., all the lengthy quotations that are not his and offer no rebuttal from him, then cut it out.

I've read on other talk pages that controversy sections are not allowed on biographies of living persons but Karl Rove's is loaded with them so gathering the storm into one section would help lower the negativity by several degrees while appeasing those who loath him.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The approach you suggest is not preferred, and marginalises the controversial aspects of his career - which appear to be significant. i suggest it remain maintained in the text as a whole. I support the removal of blog-based sources. Whether "books that don't even mention the man" are relevant depends on the fact they are being used to support. If they substantiate the fact, then they should stay. We should stay focussed on whether the source is a reliable source - other criteria are distracting in this context.

As a general comment - we should have no interest in making the article more positive than it is, nor in "appeasing those who loath him": the focus is on fully reflecting what reliable sources have said about him, while using judgement in ensuring no point is given undue weight. If a person was really nice, with lots of fine achievements, but all that the reliable sources talked about was one scandal for which he became notable, then that scandal would have to dominate the WP article about that person. We must stick to the sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would value your critique of the sections I proposed removing above Hamiltonstone if you would be so kind. Soxwon (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, Hamilton Stone, write something that is fair and balanced and reflects the man and is neither praise nor attack on the man. Have at it. Less talk, more editing is what is needed. Malke 2010 (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You made a proposal, and I'm giving feedback on it, consistent with WP policy, that's all. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if WP policy were followed, this article would not read as poorly as it does.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my view that Malke is intractable and can't be worked with. Jusdafax (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it down because it rambled on and didn't come to any point. It's over, the Special Prosecutor found no wrong doing on Rove's part, so that ends it. If anyone wants to go on at length about the sophomoric Matthew Cooper, please move it to the Matthew Cooper page where it would be relevant. I say this on super double secret background.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the graphic on the U.S. attorneys dismissal. It has nothing to do with Karl Rove and it incorrectly lists him as having resigned as a result of the dismissals. It's overdone. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats Plame, Malke. I won't argue with you. You are way out of line. Jusdafax (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted. So he didn't call it. So what? Where's the story here? How is this relevant to the man's life? It isn't. He probably didn't get the winning lotto numbers that week, either.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to everyone that Malke is back at it with regards to removing entire sections. For people just reading this talk page for the first time we have already had a lengthy discussion with him about this and there are already administrative requests for help as shown above.Chhe (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "back at" anything. I've made the article better. I don't see you complaining about Soxwon's cuts.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair warning, 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.You are edit warring and I've reported you on the biographies of living persons noticeboard.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malke just so you know I placed you on [15]. I have to go to work now so I'll look at biographies of living persons noticeboard later.Chhe (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Chhe, "back at it" is exactly right. Malke continues to be obsessed with cutting and whitewashing this article, dispite a consensus against him. Jusdafax (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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):

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

By all means speak to Justafax about his civility issues. He's like civility cancer.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Justahack, stop throwing my name around. You are a sick individual with an ax to grind against Karl Rove. And stay off my talk page. Scum like you are not welcome.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]