Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Editing for Neutrality---Administrative Help Requested

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)

Misleading/Empty References and Attributions in this Article

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mention of numerous scandals missing in the intro

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit]

Removal of easily verifiable noncited info

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. 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. 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.Chhe (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

Phony Citations #38 and #39 under heading, George W. Bush Administration

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)

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)

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)

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)

If a news type source is preferred here is one [1]. 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)

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)

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)

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

[2], [3], [4], and [5].Chhe (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Request for admin intervention

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Small Problems

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, I'm kinda surprised nobody quoted this source yet [6]. 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)

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)

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

This is Wikipedia, Not Wikifiction

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Structure of Article/Improvements to Clarify, Neutralize, Add Credibility

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

File:Plush Toys.JPG

Newcomers' ears can be particularly sensitive.

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

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)

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)

Cuts

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.

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. 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.

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". 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".

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Don Siegelman Conviction Controversy

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)

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)

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)

Put all Controversy under one section

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

Plume Affair Condensed

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)

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)

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

2006 Congressional races section

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)

Edits

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)

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)

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)

Malke just so you know I placed you on [7]. 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)

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)

Dust here has settled, some thoughts

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

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

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

After Malke's block on August 19, 2009, I decided I needed to take a step back. For the past ten days I have busied myself with other 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)

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

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

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

{{unblock reviewed|1=I followed Wikipedia policy and removed unsourced material from the Karl Rove biography in accordance with WP rules. Each time I do this, and discuss it on the talk pages, it is removed without discussion by Chhe and others. This is simply piling on, and I'd like an impartial administrator to review this. Thank you.|decline=Actually, you removed several sourced sections, so that isn't true. The thing you seem to be confused about is the idea that declaring your intention on a talk page does not give you carte-blanche to enforce your preferred version of an article. Discussion is to happen in lieu of editing when your changes are contested. Jayron32 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)}}

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

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

Rove and the terrorist alerts

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

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

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

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

No messages on my personal page, please

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

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