Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

archiving

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

Starting work on repairing Malke's edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Changes

• Don Siegalman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of sourced material

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

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

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

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

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

I was annoying? You call trying to remove the toxicity from this article annoying? VsevolodKrolikov you define annoying.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that being blocked for disruptive editing hasn't made you reflect on your conduct. You are accusing others of being toxic, but so far since your return you have only been highly abusive. I think a longer, self-imposed absence from wikipedia on your part might do some good.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you and Justafax seem to sound exactly the same and you also seem to edit at the same times. Hmmm. Isn't there a term for that?Malke 2010 (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility Issues

Hello Jusdafax:

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

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

I'm glad to see you two talking. I am not an admin, but I have a lot of experience with BLP cleanups. I did not see a problem with Soxwon's edits, and commented thusly on the BLP noticeboard.[1] Try not to jump to conclusions about editors and an agenda you may perceive them to have. You may find it a lot easier to work productively with someone you disagree with than you expected. You might want to review WP:AGF as well. - Crockspot (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Justafax, you are an angry individual and you need to calm down and learn to show respect for others and their opinions. Yours is not the only opinion that matters. Certainly, being new here means I've made mistakes, but what you do is negative, ugly and mean. You seem intent on hurting others, especially me lately. You malign anyone who doesn't agree with you. You come across as an emotionally incontinent person who is angry at the world. Find another outlet. Your behavior on this page is toxic.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Malke, you need to cool it, you're not helping, you're stoking the flames. Could we all just take a break from the personal attacks and swipes please? Soxwon (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I've been reading the things this guy has been writing about you and et al and I can't believe he's been allowed to get this far for this long. Unbelievable. I've been away from the page thinking he would cool down. But he's as bad as ever. I'm angry that he went to my talk page and removed materials I had deleted, which is my right to do, and then pasted it up here on the Karl Rove talk page. Why he gets away with this stuff is beyond me.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Armitage was responsible for the leak"

Reading through the Rove article, I came across:

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

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

Please fix the wording somehow.

Number of children in famly

Karl Rove has five brothers and sisters. Please correct.

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

Number of Children in Rove famly

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

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

Karl Rove joining the fox political team?

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

Add Category:Fox News Channel

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

Family name

The name Rove is a reduction of the name Roverud, a farm in the Halden area in Østfold, Norway. [2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.197.96 (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Rove's "firing" in 1980 GHWB Campaign.

Since Rove is obviously a "delicate" issue, I'm heading this off before anyone thinks something shifty is going on. I removed the reference to Rove being fired by Bush during G HW Bush's 1980 campaign because both the source it references as well as the source the source links to make it clear that it's referring to the 1992 re-election campaign of GHWB. It never should have been tied to his 1980 campaign in the first place. Gazelem67 (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done for picking up on that - and thanks for using the talk page! (It's been a bit nasty around here lately.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd archiving of this page

I don't think too highly of the manner in which this page has been archived. I see some older entries still here and the recent events gone, which is a bit odd in my book. Still, on further reflection, perhaps a fresh start is for the best. Jusdafax 10:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The old items remain as they were undated. I'll archived them now as stale. -- Banjeboi 08:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This way a first timer here doesn't get the impression that there was no newer discussion than 2008, which of course was not the case. Jusdafax 17:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush section

I removed some redundant and unsourced material at the begining of that section. Does the "dirty tricks" accusation need to be at the top of the section without a sub title? It seems that maybe that material was inserted somewhere along the line and never properly worked into that section? It seems that could be better placed or introduced? Just a thought, thanks, --Tom (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why include the Religious Controversy section?

Why include this section at all? It seems to be a small duel between Rove and the ever controversial Moyers...Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Article almost a tirade against Rove instead of objective information.

This is a long article with extreme negative bias and many petty side issues given way too much print (see the long religious controversy section). If Rove were a priest or minister, such allegations of possible agnosticism might deserve more print.

Allegations of crimes listed in the first section should be shifted to a history section when Rove was in the Bush White House.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove is a very controversial figure, it's not surprising this is reflected in the article. However, I agree that some things don't belong. Perhaps you could point out specific sections you object to and we could discuss them here? Soxwon (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. Suggest everyone review the archives, and the history of the past few months prior to avoid a repeat of that turbulent era. To sum up from my own point of view: a couple of editors wanted to rewrite the article into something more like a PR release for Mr. Rove than a NPOV article. The attempt resulted in a great deal of hot air, a couple blocks, and a chilling effect on further work here. Indeed, I have refrained from adding some of Rove's more recent statements on Fox News, regarding President Obama, in hopes of avoiding re-activating this Wikipedia 'hot-spot'.

As the author of the paragraph that is mentioned, the 'allegations of crimes', I disagree that it should be bumped out of the intro/lede. I contend that without it, the casual reader may fail to grasp that there have been, and remain to this day, noteworthy criminal accusations regarding Rove... that, again are under current investigation in Connecticut, if memory serves. As much as I am reluctant to open this wiki-can o' worms, I welcome further discussion on this page rather than a return to the edit warring of earlier this year. My experiences here last summer gave me quite an education, I must say. Jusdafax 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should hear what specific changes he wants to make before we cast judgement Jusdafax. Soxwon (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The lede.

Hi User_talk:Jusdafax why do you strongly disagree with my edit? Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Rove's political scandals in the intro/lede

I have reverted a deletion of the third and final paragraph from the lede. It was discussed at some length when it was added (by me) last summer, and the discussion from that era should be reviewed, and then talked over on this page prior to making "substantial changes" (as the message at the top of this page requests. Thanks, Jusdafax 22:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, If you are claiming a previous consensus from last summer, I am simply looking at the article as it is now and the comment that I removed from the lede does not belong there, so reading the archives is not going to change my opinion, it's an awful edit, sorry as you said you added it. I am lucky as I don't give a damn about this guy either way, looking objectively at the article, it was better when I removed the edit. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a substantial change to remove a poor opinionated one sided comment from the lede when all the details of the so called controversies are well covered in the article, it is actually tidying. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit...

Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals. These include the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, among others. To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities.

Please explain the value of this to me? Rove's name has comeup? what does that imply? Come up? What, was it mentioned? how? by who? Why? ... also..among others? This implies there are more controversies which are too numerous to mention here..but you can imagine, can't you.. Also... To date no charges have been filed??? this implies guilt and that charges will or might be forthcoming in the future... and then.. at the end..one of the best weasely words...any of his alleged illegal activities...so there are no charges only allegations and they all need to be reverted and inserted in the lede?? Really? This is pure speculation and should not be in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you think is "opinionated" or is "pure speculation" about it. It's all fact, and designed to be taken as such. Allow me to again urge you to contemplate the material in the archives that documents the difficult process that led to it becoming an established part of the current intro/lede. Thanks, Jusdafax 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on the edit word for word, there is little use in me reading last summers consensus for this edit as it will not change my position as it is awful. If you have a link to the consensus I will have a look but as I say it will not alter my position. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets look at it word by word...to date no charges have been brought....to date is not needed...are you expecting charges? If charges are brought they can be added then.....Leaving a simple clear statement...no charges have been brought. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you object to the removal of the opinionated words to date ? Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. This summer a federal prosecutor was named to look into the firings of the U.S. Attorneys, one of the scandals mentioned in the lede. Here's the link to the New York Times archives: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/d/nora_dannehy/index.html

Last I heard, Nora Dannehy is still looking into the matter. Roves's name is cited in the matter by the Times which is a WP:RS. This all justifies "to date".

Again, this is all in the archives, old chap. With all due respect, you seem in a tearing hurry for someone who starts by stating "I don't give a damn about this guy either way"... what exactly is your interest in parsing well-trodden turf word by word? Why not just look at the archives? Perhaps you will change your mind about them not changing your "position." Jusdafax 23:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I will look but the edit is awful and opinionated, I can't believe you are objecting to the removal of to date don't you see, it is opinionated and suggestive that charges are to follow, sorry but take a step back. Also please don;t refer to me as old chap. Off2riorob or rob. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, these links are not to any previous consensus, could you dig a link out to the previous discussion and ill have a look, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

None of that supports the to date pov at all. to date..awful .Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not in a tearing hurry at all, I looked at the article and removed in good faith a very poor edit from the lede in a foolish attempt at improving this article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also IMO, the edit is full of weasel words and very opinionated and requires removal. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Requires?" An interesting word. Again, on Aug. 13, the New York Tmes says this: "Congress must continue its investigation into the firing of top prosecutors and call Karl Rove and others to testify so the American people can hear how the justice system was hijacked." Try googling 'Nora Dannehy' and any combination of 'Rove' or 'attorneys firing' for more information on an ongoing investigation. It's my view that 'To date' stands, by Wikipedia standards. Jusdafax 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is still not required to be in the lede. I am not going to google anything, all I care about is the weasel pov opinionated edit in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would I be correct in saying that you support this edit and don't want to change a word of it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I wrote the paragraph you object to. Frankly, I see it as a compromise between those who would word it much more strongly, and those who don't want mention of Mr. Rove's ongoing legal issues at all (however, remember, he had to testify before the U.S. Congress earlier this year.) I'm open to discussion within reason, but I think by any reasonable standard, you fail to make a case.

To recap: Rove is being investigated at the current time by a U.S. Prosecutor, Nora Dannehy. Now I know you say you won't google anything, so how about clicking on her link? It shows who she is, and what she's investigating. Now click on this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13thu2.html which mentions Rove as a player in the investigations, based on his testimony before Congress.

The day Rove is either cleared, or charged with a crime, is the day we can remove this moderate paragraph. At least, that's how I see it. Jusdafax 01:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why stop there? You could mention he hasn't been convicted of murder yet while you're at it. Holding that line simply b/c there is an investigation in which he was mentioned in an off-hand manner is rather ridiculous. And besides the point it's incredibly vague. Your "evidence" implies that the sentence should read that he has yet to be arrested for his role in the attorney firings, which doesn't qualify as important enough for the lede. I think the last line really should go. Soxwon (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet, you saw fit to leave it in after the events of this summer. Why speak up now? What exactly has changed? Jusdafax 05:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Because quite frankly the body was in pretty bad shape and I missed it. I'm human. Soxwon (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The summer, well we missed that in the UK totally, usually do...Come on..get the poor edit out of the lede..if Soxwon suggests removing the last line I support that...leaving....

Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals. These include the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, among others.

Yes? Comments? Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why one would remove the phrase "to date" if there weren't any currently ongoing investigations involving Rove in these matters. But thats not the case. There still seems to be an investigation going on and sporadic legislative attention. And so I don't see how these two words are weasely. All they seem to do is tell the reader that the matter is still ongoing...which it is. Nothing wrong about that. PS. I think the sentence should be changed to read "To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of these alleged illegal activities.". I think changing "his" to "these" makes the sentence sound more understandable.Chhe (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Take this to WP:BLP/N if you want more opinions. I'd be surprised if the phrase 'to date' would survive the scrutiny of the editors there. The phrase sounds ominous while having little specific content. I support the wording of the sentence as proposed by Off2riorob in bold above: "Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals.." EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Soxwon (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added my two cents there as well. The paragraph and sentence in question have been a part of this article for several months, remaining when the dust began to settle from a fairly serious edit war. There is more material on my talk page regarding this, and students of the history here will find the end of Archive 7 and much of Archive 8 to be of interest. Please note that I am not interested in a rehash of the era but considerable time and effort have been expended on this issue, and newcomers who wish to participate should be informed of the recent past history for background. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames?

It seems that some of his critics refer to him as 'Hot Karl' does this nickname merit inclusion in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.186.168 (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nearly two weeks later...

...and the above issue has seemingly gone stale at BLP, with no final resolution. It should be noted that this is the same sequence of events that happened last summer with editors who have had (to be brief) a history of blocks or warnings over issues with the Karl Rove page. I now return the discussion to this discussion page prior to restoring the disputed sentence to the lead. In my view the sentence has been sourced correctly (see BLP discussion), and I will add those refs to the lede. NOTE: Again, please see the above BLP link to the discussion there, as there is no point to having the same conversation again here. If need be I will copy and paste to this page. Jusdafax 05:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

...That's complete nonsense Jusdafax. I addressed concerns that others concurred with this past summer and the current issue was not even brought up. I have two warnings, one from Malke2020 who I believe was topic-banned and one from Viriditas. You received a civility warning for repeated personal attacks. Please do not try to dismiss this as just a couple of POV pushers, but rather focus on the substance of the item itself. Since no outside editor has commented consensus is still techniqually to remove the statement. Soxwon (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's clarify the record. To be brief, Viriditas indeed placed a warning - for your Karl Rove page edit-warring - on your discussion page. I have never had a warning of that type, much less (ahem) an admin block of any kind. As for the WQA you initiated against me the case was officially unresolved, though some individuals sided with you, including the (possibly) topic-banned individual you mention. (I must say I learned quite a bit from the experience.) Given the easy-to-check material on our respective talk pages, I think our records speak for themselves. Jusdafax 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not afraid of my past, I do however feel that I should not be dismissed out of hand b/c A) I have had a run-in or two with 3RR or B) b/c I'm open with how I stand politically. Soxwon (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fairly stated. I must again note that I feel I have learned a lot from our exchanges. Jusdafax 18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary of editors' opinions

Jusdafax wants 'To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities.'

Off2riorob wants to stay with 'Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals.'

At 21:27 on 1 November Lindisfarnelibrary argued that 'Allegations of crimes listed in the first section should be shifted to a history section,' which suggests that he, too, must not want possible charges of crimes by Rove to be highlighted in the lead.

At 05:37 on 2 November Soxwon implied that he didn't want the lack of filing of criminal charges to be mentioned in the lead.

At 17:01 on 4 November, Chhe supported 'To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of these alleged illegal activities.'

I (myself) oppose the 'To date..' sentence (EdJohnston).

So here on the article Talk, we have Jusdafax and Chhe favoring it, and Lindisfarnelibrary, Off2riorob, Soxwon and EdJohnston against it.

Over at BLPN, we have Ipromise, at 06:50 on 5 November, seeming to favor 'To date, no charges..'

Crotalus says we should include the 'To date..' sentence only if those words can be quoted out of the mouth of a reliable source. Others point out that nobody since Fitzgerald in June, 2006 can be found saying anything like that, which might suggest that Crotalus would *not* favor the 'To date..' sentence at the present time. (Anyone is welcome to ask Crotalus if that's his bottom line).

So, on these interpretations the grand total is:

• IN FAVOR of 'To date, no charges..' are Jusdafax, Chhe and Ipromise. (3 people)
• OPPOSED to 'To date, no charges..' are Off2riorob, Lindisfarnelibrary, Soxwon, EdJohnston and Crotalus. (5 people)

Anyone who doesn't like these results is welcome to open an WP:RFC and get it advertised. EdJohnston (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I will continue to stand by for now. Jusdafax 15:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is not an open ended discussion that will be here until you think you have support for your edit, this discussion is over, you need to stop this WP:POINTY standpoint and move on. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually everything is open-ended. However, I think consensus is clear on this one for now. We can re-evaluate if positions change. Soxwon (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Soxwon. Yeah, I'm letting this settle a bit, which the more I study the ways of Wikipedia, the more it seems to be the way to be a Wikipedian. Let me propose a startling thought... An article on Mr. Rove that made it to GA! I contend that it would be a victory for Wikipedia as a whole. As for my sentence, it is indisputible that Rove is being investigated as we speak, and I'll fly the refs in from the WP:BLP page in a bit so we can have a chat about how to come up with a replacement sentence that will make us all happy, or at least most of us. Best, Jusdafax 20:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think that a statement about an open investigation would be good for the body perhaps? Soxwon (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, appreciate the thought. I'm contemplating your suggestion. Jusdafax 21:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The word investigation appears in the body of the article eight times already, correct me if I am wrong, but there have been no charges at all, asserting that there is a supposed open investigation is rubbish, it is nothing more that political posturing, oh yes...he is under investigation..really..what for? ..his alleged illegal activities ..really..when will you let us know if he has done anything wrong...well....we are investigating,,,what are you investigating? ... his alleged illegal activity... OK, when will the investigation about these alleged illegal activities be finalized?...Oh, its open! Really? we'll keep away from this person as if he is under open ended investigation he is clearly a dodgy geezer. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an open investigation but it exists to see if there were any criminal behaviors that lead to the dismissal of the attorneys. If anybody ends up getting charged, it may well be David Igelasis for failure to do his duty as a sworn U.S. Attorney for political gain. There are no 'alleged illegal activities' for Karl Rove because there is no charging document as in, "Karl Rove is here charged with violating federal statute XX.22.XYZ." Therefore, as I asserted way back in the summer, you cannot say, "To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for his alleged illegal activities," since there are no alleged illegal activities. No one in the federal prosecutors office is claiming Karl Rove has done anything illegal. They were just angry that he defied coming in to answer questions which is his legal right to do. He wasn't being charged with anything, therefore he did not have to speak with anybody. Then the prosecutor told the judge she was looking into possible criminal activity. That changes the rules and now she is allowed to compel anybody in the Bush administration to come to answer questions. Which she did and Rove showed up on time and answered every question. Therefore, removing the weasel phrase that includes, "so far no criminal charges have been filed against his alleged illegal activities," is correct. You cannot say he has 'alleged illegal activities' unless he's been formally charged with a crime. The investigation will die a quiet death because it was politically motivated to begin with and the prosecutor has figured out by now that she won't be getting a seven figure book deal or promoted to AG.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rove vis-a-vis Scandals

I question the need for mention of the scandals in the lede at all since Rove was never the focus of any investigation. He wasn't the source of the leak in the Valerie Plume affair, he didn't fire any U.S. Attorneys, etc. It would be better if all the scandal sections were reduced, especially all the Matthew Cooper stuff wherein Cooper contradicts himself, i.e., "No Rove didn't tell me her name, but maybe I figured out her name from what Rove told me on double super secret background," etc. This really isn't relevant to anything about Rove. Somebody else leaked Plume's name. Not Rove. The End.

Also, the article is one long scandal sheet. It does not highlight Rove's accomplishments in getting Bush elected and reelected Texas governor, a two term Texas governor is something that had not been done in a very long while. It doesn't mention that he turned Texas from Democrat to Republican, which he did. It doesn't mention his stated goal in life to make the Republican party the dominant party in America, etc. It's just filled with line after line of weasel sentences with weasel references that purport to show Rove in the most negative light possible.

The scandals need to be compressed into one succinct section. The U.S. attorney section is excessive especially with the misleading graphic. Karl Rove did not resign as a result of the attorney dismissals. The graphic should be deleted entirely as it has been lifted from the article on the U.S. attorney dismissals.

Had Rove been the focus of investigation, the major player, the guy pulling the trigger, like say Alberto Gonzales, and/or if he had criminal charges pending, etc., that would merit inclusion, of course. But rumor mills, "Mark of Rove" hysteria, left-wing op-ed pieces, and negative POV on the editor's part, do not justify this much ink, especially when the claims are backed by weasel references. And nota bena, secondary sources must refer back to a fact-checked valid primary article, and I don't mean an op-ed piece in Mother Jones. Op-ed pieces are opinions, not facts. This is the biography of a living person, and not a shooting gallery. Extra care must be taken to ensure that it is accurate.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

split article- Karl Rove in the George W. Bush administration

So this article is a bit long, how bout having a separate article to highlight these details?--Levineps (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2009(UTC)

I'd say no, at least not right now, for all kinds of reasons. Jusdafax 20:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ec, It is clearly overly long and splitting is a good idea. This section "Religious Beliefs controversy" is looking like and tagged as copy vio and there is only a little bit cited which is actually contradictory to itself, that section could go right now, I had to stop myself deleting it, it adds nothing of any real value. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the religious beliefs section is ridiculous and should be deleted entirely. I wrote it after getting tired of the Christopher Hitchens quotes dominated. . .It's a stupid argument and doesn't belong. . .Absolutely this article must be reduced. . .Good callMalke 2010 (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Religous beliefs controversy. . .gone! Yay!Malke 2010 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree with Off2riorob. I think the length was inappropriate, but with proper sourcing I think it might be worth mentioning. Soxwon (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has already been established to keep the material after extensive discussion on the matter and having to block Malke 2010 to keep him from removing it further. The paragraphs are all sourced and if more sourcing is desired they can easily be found and added. As far as removing material because its believed to be too long this isn't in keeping with Wikipedia standards. Information isn't censured because it can be characterized as too long only if the information has already been told to the reader before. This section should therefore be kept.Chhe (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is perhaps renewed, there is support here for splitting the article and removing the copy vio section, have you replaced the copy vio? Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Chhe. Malke2010 and Off2riorob are jumping the gun, and previous blocks and warnings should be considered carefully. Seems to be a return to last summer, with a rush to delete whole sections with little or no discussion. Splitting the article was done with next to no notice. Suggest rollback and measured discussion. Jusdafax 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Justafax please assume good faith, the past is history, if you don't want to split then simply say that. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There are four people here that consider splitting a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The uncited copy vio that has been replaced by Chhe should be removed as soon as possible, what is the reason to keep it here? Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Don Siegelman

This section is completely weasel. It should not be here at all. The Scott Horton claim is totally without evidence/merit and the hearsay that Jill said she heard so and so say, etc., violates BLP policy. Here is a rebuttal link that Karl Rove wrote to Dan Abrams regarding Abrams sensational reporting on MSNBC. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmY4YTBmMDg3NDljYWY0NTViNmMxNzgwOGUzZTk1NGI= Malke 2010 (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Don Siegelman's conviction was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. His lawyer did not make any claim that the prosecution had been directed, influenced, or in any way controlled by Karl Rove. Karl Rove's name did not come up. However, Siegelman's crimes did come up and the Court upheld the conviction. This is reported by a liberal news site: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/3/6/162825/9568 In reading over the Court's decision and the court documents from Siegelman's first conviction, there is absolutely no reference to Karl Rove. I can't find any documents that implicate Karl Rove in any way, shape or form. Siegelman was convicted by a jury, he had a fair trial, and his defense never mentioned Karl Rove or made any claim that his prosecution was unfair, either at the first trial or on appeal, which is exactly where a defense lawyer would argue the prosecution committed misconduct in order to win a new trial. Not one word about that. It does, however, mention that Siegelman committed the crimes.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This is something that should definitely be addressed. It does seem that this is totally excessive as regards Rowe's involvement. Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted a reference to Don Siegelman in the "Activities since leaving the White House" section. Apparently someone thought they could slip in his name along with the U.S. attorney firings being investigated by the House Judiciary Committee, as if the committee was also looking into Don Siegelman's conviction, which it is not. The 11th Circuit has already weighed in on that.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

When I moved over the Karl Rove in the George W. Bush Administration to its own article, I deleted the Siegelman section. It is libellous and violates BLP/Wikipedia policy.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on. Wait for other editors. I agree that the section could be removed, but don't see the hurry to do it. Let's wait for everyone to figure out that it's happened. There is nothing "libelous" about it and remember there's no deadline. Soxwon (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Siegleman section most definitely had unsubstantiated and libellous claims that violate Wikipedia policy. Moving the George W. Bush administration section to it's own page is necessary because the article is too big and unwieldy to properly edit and manage. Splitting articles is done all the time.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also support taking a little time and allowing other involved editors the chance to comment. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The new page has a discussion page.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll look over there. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon is the voice of reason here. My view is that the rapid changes are way out of line. Jusdafax 19:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop being so dramatic. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal remarks. I'm going to restore somethings today so discussion can actually occur. Soxwon (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The uncited section marked as a copy vio

The has been replaced today, why has it been replaced when it is clearly a copy paste and is almost totally uncited? The section either need working on or removing? Is anyone working on it to improve it, there are no recent edits to the section, if anyone objects to the removal of this content please let me know. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the religion thing? I just saw that, too. If you want to know who did it, just go into the edit history.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Chhe is adding citations, which is good, do we know if it is copy vio ? Also if someone is going to work on it then there is no desperate hurry. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The House Judiciary Committee was not looking into the Siegleman conviction. Please stop reverting.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove Religion

It's okay to leave it for now. It can get modified later. It's way too long, so if somebody wants to compress it, it would be welcome.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama Justice Department Argues against Siegelman Supremes Appeal

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gzelSNkbXegnf1Gw1ndrAW2GfQmQD9C0TBSO0

No mention of Karl Rove.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don and Religious beliefs section

Ok, Off2riorob and Malke, can we PLEASE stop edit-warring and actually discuss your proposed changes? You're making it hard to do anything with the edit-warring. I have requested full-protection for the page so we can discuss this and come to a firm conclusion. Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job, Soxwon, thanks. Jusdafax 03:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

reliable citations

Is this journal blog a reliable source. Isn't it that to use these comments we would have to find them at a reliable third party citation? Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also this one is from the same guy? Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from those primary sources there is only this last one only mentions Rove in these few words.....Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn’t shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.” . Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

that sounds like the old Christopher Hitchens quote which is not a reliable source. He's just claiming Rove said that; also Hitchens also said the same thing about somebody else. The whole piece is just taken from the Bill Moyers blog. I know, I'm the one who wrote it up. It's funny now that Chhe is trying to save it since he was the one who was so undone when I added it. The point of having it in there is to discredit Rove. The way it's worded now, at least it has Rove's quotes on the matter.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, asked me to input my opinion with regards to using this blog on my talk page so here goes. In general I agree that using blogs can be prone to problems since the writer may be completely absentminded of standard journalistic practices, but since Michael Getler is himself an active professional journalist and an ombudsman no less I think this indicates that this blog entry of his is just as good as an article published in a newspaper. He also walks you through some of his methods of attempting to gain information which can be checked. And so I think this is a legit citation. Its not like the guy is a noname. He used to be an editor for the Washington Post and currently works for PBS.Chhe (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to add that if you want to go strictly by wiki policy it clearly is a reliable source under wp:reliable sources in the section that reads:

"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 this is the case of a well known journalists writing a news article as a blog entry on a well known news organization's website, namely PBS's The Bill Moyers Journal.Chhe (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, these are primary reports, do you have a citation from Rove declaring himself his religious position or do you have only this, if this is all you have it is very very poor, to put someone in a group like atheist you need a self declaration and not as this is pure speculation, this section is worse than I thought, I had not really looked at it, I suggest deleting the whole thing if stronger citations can not be found. Off2riorob (talk)

Are you reading what Malke 2010 is saying here about the section? Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Chhe there is a notice regarding you here: [4]Malke 2010 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read Malke 2010's comments in detail and since I'm rather tired right now I'll simply direct you to this talk pages' archives since they were all answered there in detail by me. And so I'll simply say this. The section doesn't put Rove into "a group like atheist" it simply tells the reader about the controversy that erupted with regards to his religious beliefs. To give a completely analogous situation, look at the controversy that emerged from the accusations that Obama is muslim. Although its probably not true and completely baseless, the controversy itself that came about from these accusations are themselves very noteworthy. And therefore should be included else you would restrict the reader from knowing about important information about his election. Its completely noteworthy and important what other people think about him. The same is also true for Rove. I agree that its very probably untrue that he is an atheist, but this is irrelevant, whats relevant is that there was this blogosphere and tv news rumors/accusations that became quite heated to the point that Rove had to go on TV to try to dispel them. These series of historical events are very important to tell the reader about. To do otherwise is nothing more than censorship.Chhe (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your claims of censorship are laughable. I disagree with you completely, if as you say that is the case then why are these details not widely reported, that suggests the opposite that you are claiming. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

the controversy is all in your head, Chhe. Karl Rove's religious beliefs are not an historical event. Bill Moyers and Christopher Hitchens are just two old brain dead men who don't matter anymore, if they ever did.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is my view that the past 24 hours of editing on this article need oversight. We have reached the point of diminishing returns with comments like the above by Malke2010, in my view. Jusdafax 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is my issue, detract from it if you like but this is what I have an issue with, please read my issues with the citations and all my comments, If you dispute my comments here I will move my issues to the relative noticeboards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you are ignoring Soxwon's warning to you and Malke 2010 to cool down. I think any reasonable editor would find it hard to comment under your disruptive threats to take a talk page disagreement straight to "relative noticeboards". Jusdafax 20:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have clear issues and want them addressing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Off2riorob, you can go to the noticeboards, but the admins know all about Jusdafax, et al. Off2riorob, please take my advice. These old boys are arguing with you so that you waste your time defending your position instead of editing the page! It's a distraction game. If they make you look at the noticeboards, then you aren't editing the Rove page. Editors do not need to get permission from Jusdafax/Chhe/Soxwon/editor du jour to make changes to the page. Wikipedia is for everyone. We don't genuflect to anybody here. If you have something you want changed, Off2riorob, then go ahead and change it. You are wasting your precious time trying to obtain consensus from people who are determined never to give it to you. It's a game they play. Go round in circles until the new editor gives up and leaves. Well, I for one am not going anywhere and I hope you won't go anywhere either. If they revert your entries, report them for edit warring. Just don't take the bait. Make a statement on the talk page about what you plan to change, and then change it. Wikipedia is fun, it's for everyone. Edit away!Malke 2010 (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of edit warring on this page against Chhe by Malke 2010 found baseless

Well, administrator Prodego has ruled "no action" in Malke 2010's complaint against Chhe to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Chhe and I wrote in defense of Chhe; there were no other statements. The two were told to return to this talk page.

What is unfortunate about this type of baseless action by Malke is that it further poisons the atmosphere between editors on this page. As noted, Soxwon states he has requested full protection for the Rove page; as I say, I also agree. However, given the current level of hostile POV rhetoric (as exemplified above by Malke 2010 against famed, award-winning journalist Bill Moyers), I retain deep concerns. Jusdafax 06:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Rove Testimony to House Judiciary Committee

To clarify once and for all, The House Judiciary Committee has never investigated any allegations arising from the legal conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Karl Rove was not questioned by House Judiciary Committee regarding Siegelman. Rove was asked to answer questions about the firing of the seven U.S. Attorneys. Here is a link to Rove's testimony:http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_Rove2.html. Anyone interested can read the transcripts and see the truth for themselves.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Now your just outright lying. The transcripts you posted clearly show the opposite of what you claim. It shows that he was in fact questioned quite a bit about the Siegelman matter. On the July 7th, 2009 transcript it first comes up on page 290 when Mr. Minceberg states:

Mr. Mincberg. Mr. Rove, I am happy to state that before 5:30, despite some of our dialogues that we had -- not with you and me, but with counsel -- we have completed as far as we wanted to get today.

Just so we are clear for the record, my understanding is we will resume at 9:00 a.m. on the 30th of July. I will check for sure about whether it will be this room or one of the other rooms in the committee.

I have one area of questioning to go relating predominantly to the Siegelman issue. Mr. Schiff has one area after that. And then we will turn it over to Mr. Forbes and Mr. Flores.

The questioning then adjourns for the day and reconvenes on the the 30th. In the July 30th transcript he is asked the following on page 66:

BY MR. MINCBERG:

Q Mr. Rove, I want to ask you some questions about the

case involving the former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama.

Can you describe to us just briefly your background in Alabama politics?

A In 1994, I was involved in races for the -- three races

for the Supreme Court, one of which resulted in the victory of

candidate for chief justice. In 1996, I was involved in the

single campaign that was on the ballot that year for the Supreme

Court. 1998, I was involved in several campaigns for the Supreme

Court there. And in 2000, my firm was involved in, I took less of

an active role because I was otherwise occupied, but my firm was

involved with the race for the Supreme Court.

Q In 98 -- were you also involved in Bill Pryor's campaign as AG?

A He is a personal friend, I'm not sure he was

professionally involved but he's been a long friend of mine.

Q So you were involved informally at least?

A Informally, yes.

The questioning continues from here. Siegelman's name comes up next on page 74 as copied below:

Q Did the issue of Governor Siegelman ever come up?

A Not that I recall.

Then once more on page 78:

Q Now, it is public knowledge, of course, Mr. Rove, that

Don Siegelman was elected Governor of Alabama in 1998 and that he

lost his bid for reelection to Bob Riley in November of 2002. In

the period of time between his election in '98 and the end of

2002, did you ever communicate about a possible criminal

investigation or illegal acts by Governor Siegelman with anyone

working inside the White House, the RNC or the RGA?

A No.

Then Siegelman comes up again on page 80:

Q All right. Let's go back if we could, then, to the line we had just started relating to contacts -- relating to Governor Siegelman through the end of 2002. In the period of time, again,between Governor Siegelman's election and the end of 2002, did you ever communicate about Governor Siegelman with anyone working at the Department of Justice?

A No.

Q To the best of your knowledge, did anyone at OPA or the

RNC or the RGA communicate with Governor Siegelman or with anyone

working at the Department of Justice during that time period?

A No, not to the best of my knowledge.

The questioning about Siegelman continues on for several pages from there. I won't paste them all here for you so you can read them yourselves. However here is some more Siegelman stuff found on page 98 to 99:

Q And the e-mail reads, quote: Just spoke with Toby and

word is that Former Governor Siegelman, paren, 10 counts, closed

paren, and Richard Scrushy, paren, every account, closed paren,

were just convicted. Details to follow.

Is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Toby, again, would be Toby in Governor Riley's office?

A I assume that is Toby Roth, yes.

Q Do you recall getting this e-mail?

A I don't. But I'm sure I did. And I'm sure I looked at

it. It is 5:52 p.m. is the sent time. So I could have

conceivably seen it sometime that evening, at which time I may

have seen it on the evening news as well.

Q But this would suggest that regardless of whether or not

you saw it on the evening news, you also got an e-mail from Sara

Taylor forwarding something that came from Governor Riley's chief

of staff, saying that Governor Siegelman had been convicted,

correct?

A Right. Sent at 4:54 from Jason Huntsberry to Sara. I

assume that the guilty verdict was sometime that day.

Q Other than this instance, did you ever otherwise,

directly or indirectly, receive any other information about the

Siegelman prosecution from Mr. Roth or anyone else outside of

published news reports?

A Not that I recall. And this may be a published report.

This may be reacting to the local news. I don't want to leave the

impression that this -- I assume that Mr. Roth got this after it

became public.

Q Right. But you didn't see -- you presumably would not

have seen the local Alabama report yourself, directly; you would

have gotten this from -- as we have indicated, from Ms. Taylor and

going back to Toby Roth?

A Well, I could have conceivably gotten it off the evening

news or gotten it in the morning clips the next morning.

The last question about Siegelman seems to come up on page 121-122 at which time the discussion goes off the record. All of this demonstrates that the the house judiciary committee's questioning of Rove about the Siegelman matter is an unquestionable fact. It did occur. The first day of questioning, July 7th, seems to be mostly geared to the attorney firings, while the second day of questioning seems to be geared towards Siegelman. The fact that Malke 2010 is questioning the validity of this and presenting evidence that completely contradicts what he is claiming is waisting everybodies time. I suggest that Malke 2010 be banned from making further edits on the Karl Rove page.Chhe (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Malke 2010 has previously shown serious problems as an editor on this page, leading to his being blocked, and has returned with the same tactics, as seen in the past few days. This is a bad faith editor, through and through. Jusdafax 15:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where it's a waste of time to clarify something, Chhe. That's what this page is for. And I wasn't lying about anything. I believed that the Committee had not interviewed Rove about Siegleman based on the published excerpts I had read in the New York Times and on MSNBC website last summer. Certainly these outlets are not fans of Rove and if they didn't choose to emphasize Siegleman, then it becomes an easy assumption to make that it wasn't asked. Especially since, Siegleman's name never crossed my mind at all last summer. So as I remembered back to what I'd read, I knew I hadn't heard any reference to Siegleman. Honest mistake. I am, afterall, the one who provided the information, which shows good faith on my part, especially since I am the one who took the trouble to find the definitive evidence. I think it's a good example of the talk page working, and editors working together.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Activities Since Leaving White House

I just updated this section to include the House Judiciary testimony and included the bit about Siegleman with appropriate references.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

External links section

I have never seen an external links section like this one, it clearly is wrong wrong, can we look at finding agreement to trim trim the section? Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah, go for it. If it's wrong, you can fix it.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion Redux

So, for all the deleting, reverting, deleting, run to noticeboard, etc., etc., does anybody have a constructive idea about what to do with this section? I propose everyone stop deleting, reverting. As General Patton said at Sicily, "Never pay for the same ground twice." I propose that the whole thing be summarized as follows: 1) that Christopher Hitchens made a remark (he did, setting off everything) 2) and that when Rove announced he was leaving the WH, Bill Moyers took the occasion to make that comment about the Hail Mary pass, and then Rove came back with, "Drive by slander." 3) As regards the references, there will need to be the one to the Chris Wallace program where Rove made his comments and then the one to the blog/Bill Moyers thing, etc. We also need to include that Rove made a formal complaint, etc. I think maybe two short paragraphs tops. Thoughts? In this way, there can be no copyright violation, and the dogs of war can go chew on another bone.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Two paragraphs in a guy's bio to be devoted to a catfight between him and a journalist??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So are you for or against two paragraphs? Because there are those who are for no paragraphs. I say mention it, I love the quotes, but maybe not give it its own section, but we must take baby steps. Love the baseball bugs name, which team?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the quotes, it just seems excessive to devote two paragraphs to a catfight with a specific curmudgeonly reporter. If the quotes are good and typical, and not too POV-pushy, they might be OK as quotes. But not as two paragraphs of normal text, or proportionally you'd have to have a book to cover everyone who's had a disagreement with Rove or vice versa. The team? Well, in Baseball Bugs, the bunny defeated the Gashouse Gorillas single-handedly, taking the place of the Teetotallers. In real life? Da Cubs. Pathetic, ain't it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Cubs! But this year I was rooting like crazy for the Phillies and Ryan Howard. I agree that this section is overdone. I can see where one paragraph in his personal section would do it. Just the back and forth. The quotes are priceless, and I think they sum up the POV of the actual players, Rove and Moyers. What really needs to be here is his work on the George W. Bush campaigns, there's nothing here about that.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I supported the Phillies, although I was fairly certain the Yankees were the team of destiny this year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem BB, is that the two paras are constantly rmved and deleted so fast that we don't have time to debate. Soxwon (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That isn't happening anymore. Now we're talking about how best to fix the item. Thoughts?Malke 2010 (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If it's that volatile, maybe it should just be dropped, as it may not be worth the aggravation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It can be resolved if we stay focused on the solution, in the present. One paragraph seems like a good start and I agree with you about the proportion. If every item/issue got a lot of copy, it would be the size of a book, etc. One paragraph sounds good.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And why did those Yankees prevail? I thought the Phillies would pull it off again this year. I think the Philly newspaper jinxed them with the premature ad. That's what made me think the Yanks would take it, too.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Bugs' instincts are sound regarding further changes to this article at this time. Note the stern warning on edit warring from administrator Prodego in the last edit summary in the articles history tab. A welcome change of pace is now in store for this article. I urge no further changes pending a period of measured discussion on what has happened over the past few days. Jusdafax 04:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You can do that in another section if you like, but this section is to discuss the changes to the religious controversy so it can be dealt with and the article can be improved and everybody can move on. This is the present. The past is over. The administrator said for the edit warring to stop. She didn't say to stop editing. The item needs to be cleaned up for the copyright issue. If you choose not to contribute, that's okay too.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, and I will quote the admin: yes you do need consensus if someone is disagreeing with you and I hereby disagree with you. I suggest a period of reasoned overall discussion on editing here, including the headlong pace at which changes are being made. Editor behavior needs to be reviewed, in my opinion. Jusdafax 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We can look at your behavior in another section, but this section is for rewriting the religious controversy section. I think everybody is agreed that the item should remain. You can disagree, but that doesn't stop editing of the page. If you want to have a say, you need to contribute. What would you keep and what would you delete? We can't keep the whole item as it is right now. Doing nothing is not a choice.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We can use my sandbox to edit the text as necessary, I'll make some changes and see what you all think. Soxwon (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We can keep the changes right here on the talk page where the discussion belongs. Everybody gets to contribute that way. You can post your ideas here for everybody to see.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for the opening line:

On August 16, 2007, Bill Moyers, in response to Rove’s press conference of the same day where he announced his resignation from the White House, called into question Rove’s belief in God when he stated that Rove was a secular skeptic and agnostic who had manipulated the Christian right for partisian purposes and made the comment that “. . .on his last play of the game all Karl Rove had to offer them (the Christian right) was a Hail Mary pass, while telling himself there’s no one there to catch it." Malke 2010 (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for concluding part: "The next day, Rove made a previously scheduled appearance on Fox with Chris Wallace and when asked about Moyer’s comments, Rove said Moyers had relied on a blogger at the San Antonio Express for his source, and said, “And (the blogger) took a comment where I acknowledged my shortcomings in living up to the beliefs of my faith and contrasted it with how these extraordinary people have made their faith a part of their fiber. And somehow or another (Moyers) goes from taking it from me being an Episcopalian wishing I was a better Christian to somehow making me into a agnostic. You know, Mr. Moyers ought to do a little bit better research before he does another drive-by slander.” Malke 2010 (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the change to the opening paragraph suggested by Malke 2010, its not that bad, but it does suffer from two problems as I see it. For one, I think its very important to tell the reader where Moyer's made the claim namely on his PBS show Bill Moyer's Journal. The original paragraph does that already. The second problem I see with the suggested change is that the proposed section of the quote doesn't get to the heart of what Moyer was trying to say. His main claim with regards to Rove was that he claimed he confidentially told friends that he was an agnostic and that he wondered how the christian right would think of him if they new this about him. The last sentence of the paragraph namely "On his last play of the game all Karl Rove had to offer them (the Christian right) was a Hail Mary pass, while telling himself there’s no one there to catch it." doesn't tell that to the reader. The sentence seems unnecessary to me. And so I think either that sentence should be removed or we should simply remove the whole quote out and simply tell the reader straight what he claimed. Below are two proposed changes that would do this:

Proposal 1

On August 16, 2007, Bill Moyers, in response to Rove’s press conference of the same day where he announced his resignation from the White House, said on his PBS show Bill Moyer’s Journal, that, “...At his press conference this week Rove asked God to bless the President and the country, even as reports were circulating that he himself had confessed to friends his own agnosticism. He wished he could believe, but he cannot. That kind of intellectual honesty is to be admired, but you have to wonder how all those folks on the Christian right must feel discovering they were used for partisan reasons by a secular skeptic, a manipulator."[56]

Proposal 2

On August 16, 2007, Bill Moyers, in response to Rove’s press conference of the same day where he announced his resignation from the White House, claimed on his PBS show Bill Moyer's Journal that Rove had confided in friends that he was an agnostic and that he wondered what the Christian right would think if they knew this about him.[56]

Also, both proposals probably shouldn't be a separate paragraph, but simply added to the second.Chhe (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

:::These are all good suggestions, Chhe. I agree we can put in Moyer's quote directly without the summation. Nice clarification there. I think the quote about the Hail Mary pass is a great summation of what Moyers was expressing. It's a very clever play on words and it invokes a wonderful image, which is the mark of good writing. This line is priceless. I think, too, adding the Moyers line where he says Rove told friends he was an agnostic certainly helps clarify Rove's point that Moyers took his comments and turned them into something else, ergo the line from Rove about the 'drive by slander,' which I think is also priceless.

In addition, as a concession to those who don't want any mention in the article, this should not have it's own section. It's a personal matter and as Baseball Bugs so succinctly said, it's a catfight between Moyers and Rove. It did not rise to the level of national significance, no New York Times op-ed pieces generated, etc., no national debate. Just a clever observation by Moyers that turned out, as the PBS Ombudsman discovered, not to be what Rove said at all. I think Rove's drive by comment, however, takes care of that. Letting the subject of the biography say what he believes makes sense. And so I think we should place it in the personal life section and add a mention that Rove was raised an Episcopalian and continues to practice as one.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

One other point, is that we don't want this to be too long. It needs to be proportional, and that is why I made the first paragraph as a summation with the Hail Mary pass quote which invokes the image that sums up Moyer's point. So we can't use Moyer's entire quote. Some of it needs to be summation.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

so the first paragraph could read:

"On August 16, 2007, Bill Moyers, in response to Rove’s press conference of the same day where he announced his resignation from the White House, said on his PBS show Bill Moyer’s Journal, that, “...At his press conference this week Rove asked God to bless the President and the country. . .but you have to wonder how all those folks on the Christian right must feel discovering they were used for partisan reasons by a secular skeptic, a manipulator. . .on his last play of the game all Karl Rove had to offer them, was a Hail Mary pass, while telling himself there’s no one there to catch it." [56]Malke 2010 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

and the second part could read:

"The next day, Rove made a previously scheduled appearance on Fox with Chris Wallace and when asked about Moyer’s comments, Rove said Moyers had relied on a blogger at the San Antonio Express for his source, and said, “And (the blogger) took a comment where I acknowledged my shortcomings in living up to the beliefs of my faith. . .and somehow or another (Moyers) goes from taking it from me being an Episcopalian wishing I was a better Christian to somehow making me into a agnostic. You know, Mr. Moyers ought to do a little bit better research before he does another drive-by slander.”

So talking points are: Chhe and Malke's suggestions, and, placing item in personal section. Thoughts?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, for anyone not familiar with the term "Hail Mary Pass," it's an American football term, almost every American knows what it means, very common, but for those who don't understand the metaphor here it is in Wikipedia: [5] We can add it to the quote like this, ". . .was a Hail Mary pass,[6] while telling himself there’s no one there to catch it."Malke 2010 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is how the new entry will appear unless someone comes up with something better:

On August 16, 2007, Bill Moyers, in response to Rove’s press conference of the same day where he announced his resignation from the White House, said on his PBS show Bill Moyer’s Journal, that, “...At his press conference this week Rove asked God to bless the President and the country. . .but you have to wonder how all those folks on the Christian right must feel discovering they were used for partisan reasons by a secular skeptic, a manipulator. . .on his last play of the game all Karl Rove had to offer them, was a Hail Mary pass,[7], while telling himself there’s no one there to catch it." [56] The next day, Rove made a previously scheduled appearance on Fox with Chris Wallace and when asked about Moyer’s comments, Rove said Moyers had relied on a blogger at the San Antonio Express for his source, and said, “And he (the blogger) took a comment where I acknowledged my shortcomings in living up to the beliefs of my faith. . .and somehow or another (Moyers) goes from taking it from me being an Episcopalian wishing I was a better Christian to somehow making me into an agnostic. You know, Mr. Moyers ought to do a little bit better research before he does another drive-by slander.” Malke 2010 (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Or another solution is to place it under the mention of Rove's resignation from the White House. If it stays in the same place, it probably should not be called a controversy. As Baseball Bugs said, it's really just a cat fight. Moyers comes across as a guy looking for some attention. The Omsbudsman easily found Moyers' source to be bogus as surely Moyers knew it was. The whole thing makes Moyers look like a bad guy who knew he could attack Rove on a very personal level and get away with it. And since Rove is not an office holder, he was a consultant/strategist helping his clients win elections, Rove's personal belief system doesn't factor into anything about what the Christian right does or doesn't believe. Rove's client's beliefs could reasonably be called into question, but not his own. For example, Rep. Patrick Kennedy from Rhode Island is Catholic but supports abortion rights. This goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church. So questioning his beliefs would be reasonable. The views of his strategist are not relevant. It would appear the respected news outlets recognized what a personal attack this was and knew it was inappropriate and this is probably why it was ignored.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion is to reduce further and include reference to Ombudsman which helps clarify further.

On August 16, 2007, in response to Rove’s resignation announcement, Bill Moyers claimed Rove had told his friends he was an agnostic. Moyers said, in part. . ."you have to wonder how all those folks on the Christian right must feel discovering they were used for partisan reasons by a secular skeptic, a manipulator. . .on his last play of the game all Karl Rove had to offer them, was a Hail Mary pass, while telling himself there’s no one there to catch it." [56] Rove complained to the PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler who found no basis in fact for Moyer's claim, noting Moyers had sourced his assertion on a blogger's comments at the San Antonio Express. The next day, Rove made a previously scheduled appearance on Fox with Chris Wallace and when asked about Moyer’s comments, Rove said Moyers ". . .took a comment where I acknowledged my shortcomings in living up to the beliefs of my faith. . .to somehow making me into an agnostic.You know, Mr. Moyers ought to do a little bit better research before he does another drive-by slander.”Malke 2010 (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that during the 2004 election, Bill Moyers asserted that if the Republicans didn't win, they would stage a coup. This and the Rove comments does call in to question Moyer's mental clarity. It might be better all around to delete the thing entirely. It doesn't add to Rove's bio and Rove was not the candidate. If no one makes any further contributions, I will insert the above paragraph at the bottom of the Geo. W. Bush admin section.(At the bottom of the section that is on this page, not the Karl Rove in the the Geo. W. Bush Admin page. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)