Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 5

Screw this.

It's clear that none of the editors here is actually interested in working on the content of this article, given that you've all had a great deal of time to find passages that need changing and propose changes, but all you could figure out what to do is pollute the attempted useful section with meta talk and a huge passage that was already settled. Kate, this page should be protected in perpetuity, or at least untill the other editors on this page can stop talking about politics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip, I understand your frustration, but I'm not comfortable with your comment above, your section heading, nor your "corraling" of discussions into "new" and "old" sections, with broad generalizations about which passages have been "settled" without actually naming which passages you're referring to.

Further, you really can't mean it when you say, "It's clear that none of the editors here is actually interested in working on the content of this article." Please give this comment a second thought -- it is demoralizing to fellow editors. My work on this talk page has mostly been focused on content; I have tried to work on the Plame affair and poll people about moving it to another article and writing a summary. I've made progress. I have made actual changes to the article that are still there. I have even invited Wales to this page to clear up misunderstandings about partiality of content sources -- without trying to influence which side he should take. Pleae give me credit for this work before lumping me in with your "screw this" group. Don't get me wrong; it you're upset, go ahead and be upset. Just give us some credit as well.

I brought Jimmy's comments into your "new" section because they are very recent, and deal specifically with content. After he made his comments, we haven't had a lot of time as a team to talk about how his views may inform our choices of sources. I would appreciate it if you would please move them back where I placed them, please and thank you.

Please also note that an editor might easily miscontrue your moving his comments into an "old" section. It sort of looks like you get to decide what we're going to talk about, what we no longer can or should, and which of our discussions are valid in the first place. I want to talk about content. I don't want to spend time moving passages around or justifying my choice of discussions. paul klenk 12:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Then do so. If community consensus decides that we have to have political talk and metadiscussions throughout the talk page, then I'll listen to it. Untill then, I'm going to continue moving meta discussions and political discussions above the fold. Those of us who want to fix the article can go ahead and do so below the fold, while the POV warriors can talk about the role of the media in the blah blah blah blah blah above the fold. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I am. It is clear that I am; you don't have to tell me to do so. I am among "those of us who want to fix," not the blah blah blah blah blah-ers, whoever you think they may be. paul klenk 12:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Good. Get to work. See format below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite, if you're soliciting opinions from the community, here's mine: The talk page is supposed to be about the article, not about the subject of the article or related topics. Nevertheless, editors are human. Discussions wander sometimes. Live with it. I think that all this re-arranging of other people's comments is counterproductive. The tone of some of your comments, such as the one immediately above, is also likely to provoke overreactions from some people, further impeding the attempt to work out the wording of the article. I suggest that, instead, you resign yourself to the typical messiness of a Wikipedia talk page. JamesMLane 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Do what you want with this talk page. I'll participate in the discussions that are actually of real value. I support page unprotection given that there will be no forward progress made without the ability for POV warriors to war on the article itself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Push Poll Part 3

Passage:

According to the campaign manager of John McCain's 2000 presidential bid, a push poll was conducted during the 2000 South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". [1]. Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement. The authors of the book Bush's Brain (also made into a movie)allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush. In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign." No proof of his direct involvement has ever surfaced.

---

Discussion:

There's no reason not to include the quotes - first whoever said they had no idea, and then the person who said it came from on high, and whatever other quotes we can dredge up. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Given the context for the second quote, I no longer consider it relevent. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, please rewrite "Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement," - I suggest("McCain was campaigning with his adopted dark-skinned Bangladeshi daughter at the time. According to (source), the push poll duped some voters into believing... ") or source it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Several problems with this passage: Writing: The line "image quickly gathered around that statement" is poorly written. Sequence: Instead of first quoting the low level Weaver, the first declarative statement should come from the campaign manager who speaking, with far more authority, says 'he doesn't know who did it.' Sourcing: Any reference to the hit piece 'Bush's Brain' should include this verbatim quote from the author in the movie "I have come to truly believe that the policies...of Karl Rove are dangerous to the Republic.' to establish that this book comes from that tiny disgruntled segment of society who are bitter to the point of irrationality at the fact that Karl Rove helped engineer two successful Presidential campaigns on the half of George W. Bush. Innuendo: This line is pure slime - "No proof of his direct involvement has ever surfaced." In other words, like the dead body submerged in the water, it's out there somewhere... it just hasn't surfaced yet. What a crock. Bottom line, the fact that even low level Weaver doesn't even mention Rove coupled with the fact that no proof of any connection has been established means this piece has no place in any legitimate encyclopedia entry on Karl Rove. Big Daddy (on the road thru tomorrow)

This section is for concrete changes to specific passages. Suggest specific changes to specific passages. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I think specifically calling for a rearranging of specific sources and specifically suggesting explicit sentences be added to specific passages would fall into the category of 'specific changes.' Big Daddy

No, what you did was put in a bunch of demands for other to rewrite the sentence and insisted on coniditional requirements. What you see above your comment is a suggestion of a specific change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot - you also tried to talk about politics instead of about the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder. Cool it on the combativeness. I'm sure I'm way off base bere, but itseems like you have an axe to grind with me. Big Daddy 21:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You are way off base. There is no combativeness - I continue to attempt to get you to adhere to the norms of the community you are participating in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

In light of Jimmy Wale's comments, the only change that must be made is the elimination of this slanderous attack completely. And to suggest we would include the quote from Bush's Brain without qualifying it with a statement indicating how biased that source is, shows complete contempt for Jimmy Wale's edict. But it's sort of irrelevant because this bogus story, along with the one of Rove and Katrina etc simply have no place in this article. Big Daddy 16:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not put comments in the proposed change section. Since we will not reach consensus on removing the entire paragraph, can you source someone reputable saying that the source is biased? Why don't you try proposing a change below the existing proposed change?Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope we can reach a consensus that this and any other unprovable allegation are eliminated from this (and every other article) on Wik. For example, if no legit source is even willing to say that Teddy Kennedy was at Chappaquiddick (sp?) then I would exclude that from his article too. Of course, there's the little matter of a police report etc :) But with so many of the charges regarding Karl Rove, there's NO proof. Just whispers. I don't think we need to form a consensus as to whether or not we allow this kind of noneselse. Simply follow Jimmy Wale's edict. We just have to submit to it. But, as a matter of good faith and against my better judgment, if you were to include ANYTHING from Bush's Brain (and I don't think we can) then you don't need a "reputable source saying that the source is biased" just the author's own hysterical words.... Big Daddy 17:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I will not consent to remove this paragraph from the article on the charge that it uses quotes from a movie. You can see my dispute as to your interpretation of Jimbo's comment elsewhere. Suffice it to say that it was not an edict, and even if it were, you have misinerpreted it. Given that, and paying specific attention to WP:NOR, please suggest a rewrite to the paragraph in the proposed change section below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Proposed Change:

According to the campaign manager of John McCain's 2000 presidential bid, a push poll was conducted during the 2000 South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". [2]. McCain was campaigning with his adopted dark-skinned Bangladeshi daughter at the time. According to Richard H. Davis, McCain's 2000 campaign manager, this poll was designed to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. The authors of the book Bush's Brain (also made into a movie)allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush. In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign." No proof of Rove's direct involvement has ever surfaced.

---

I Just Re-Watched Bush's Brain:

I went ahead and watched Bush's Brain again. And I paid careful attention to the section where some have claimed John Weaver said that it was his belief that the rumor of McCain having a black child was spread from "the top of the [Bush] campaign."

But, that is simply not the case.

You see, the movie uses chopped up edits from a single sit down with Weaver interspersed throughout. Just prior to him making the statement in question, he was talking about a NUMBER of charges made against McCain. He was speaking NOT ONLY about the Black child rumor, but about Cindys' drug history, McCain's supposed mental illness and a host of other accusations he claims were peddled by McCain opponents. So, he not only does NOT mention Karl Rove it's IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW what specific charges he was implying 'came from the top.'

Let me repeat - Because of either sloppy or dishonest editing, IT CANNOT BE DISCERNED from the movie what decision this statement "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign" was referring to.

Even more revealing is that Ryan (or whoever tried to use 'Bush's Brain' as a souce) 'forgot' to tell us about the rest of Weaver's statement. You see, Weaver backtracked after that quote and said something to the effect that "Even if they DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH the attacks, they still could have stopped them and did not." Therefore acknowledging himself that he just didn't know.

And that is PRECISELY what I've been trying to get through to everyone from the beginning.

So here we have a HIGHLY PARTIAL "movie" (it was marketed on DVD less than two months after its initial release on ONLY four screens!), using a former friend turned enemy of Karl Rove with an axe to grind as a source. Yet, this source has no CREDIBLE information from inside the Bush campaign other than his 'spidey sense', doesn't mention Rove in connection with the incident, and the film is so ambiguous/dishonest in it's editing, it CANNOT legitimately be used to support ANY connection between the McCain black child rumor and Karl Rove.

And there are editors in here DEFENDING it's inclusion as a source???

Remember the words of Jimmy Wale, the FOUNDER of Wikipedia (and not 'just another editor' as some have insultingly suggested)- Sources have to be handled with care, and citing extremely biased sources without qualification is a very bad thing.

That's why this piece HAS NO PLACE in this article. Unlock it now, so we can begin correcting these dishonest and inaccurate attacks. Big Daddy 08:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten this piece for accuracy. It now says:

According to the campaign manager of John McCain's 2000 presidential bid, a telephone push poll was conducted during the 2000 South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". [3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8] Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted dark-skinned Bangladeshi daughter, some people assumed she was the rumored 'black child'. The authors of the book Bush's Brain, which begins with the author claiming that Karl Rove is a danger to the republic, (also made into a movie) imply that Rove was involved in this push poll due. McCain's campagin manager says the calls were made "anonymously" and that the McCain campaign has "no idea" who made them. Rove has denied any such involvement.

I also we eliminated all but the Boston.com source. I did so because the passage starts out 'According to McCain's campaign manager' the the Globe article definitively supports that. Finally, note that in accordance with Jimmy Wale's edict, I qualified the dubious source Bush's Brain. I know some of you don't like what he had to say and some incredulously have implied that your interpretations have equal value with his, but he is the founder and thus we have to comport with his sensibilities to wit: Neutral point of view with very careful use of biased sources if at all.Big Daddy 01:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are the sources I excised. If anyone thinks they should be re-inserted because they serve as legitimate source material for this particular incident, rather than merely a recitation of hearsay culled from a smorgasbord of left wing venues, please explain.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_12_67/ai_111736424 http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Push_poll http://www.dailycal.org/particle.php?id=16653 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0509/S00138.htm http://baltimorechronicle.com/080504EricSmith.html

I for one would like someone to explain to us why an editorial in a left wing newspaper endorsing John Kerry or a book review of Al Franken's lastest (I'm not making this up!) are used as supporting evidence. Big Daddy 00:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I've had to put this in a second time. Someone reverted it without comment in here. That's not right, is it? Ps Per a wise person's suggestion, I'm working on an entire rewrite of this article at a mirror. It seems clear to me that the Karl Rove article, very much like the city of New Orleans, is probably best rebuilt from the ground up. Big Daddy 15:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

If an individual or single group is making unsubstantiated allegations against a person, that may not be encyclopedic, but the sheer number of almost identical allegations from people throughout Rove's life who had no knowledge of each other until after the fact is significant. --Zephram Stark 02:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Zephram - I tend to agree with your conclusion but have to question your premise. From my research, the only common thread that binds at least the really paranoid Rove-haters is that they supported a losing candidate beaten by the Rove-backed candidate. I could prove that to you but don't have to since Bush's Brain (hardly a Valentine to Karl Rove), makes the point for me. From Max Clelland's supporters, to Ann Richards' to that guy that got caught bugging Rove's office, they are the ones who start the whispering campaigns against. And I wonder if you care to back up this statement "but the sheer number of almost identical allegations from people throughout Rove's life who had no knowledge of each other until after the fact" with specific examples of people making idential allegations without having any prior knowledge. Thanks. Big Daddy 05:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I corrected this passage again. It was slightly improved but still somewhat problematic. I cleaned up some of the grammar and deleted this line: " In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign."

I deleted this because I have seen Bush's brain and it is not true that Weaver made this claim specifically about the push poll. The sloppy (dishonest?) editing in the movie makes it impossible to know. I also qualified Bush's Brain with the author's comments about Karl Rove so readers will know how HIGHLY partial this source is. This addition is made in direct response to Jimmy Wales edict, that if we use impartial sources (and I don't think we should even be using Bush's Brain) that we qualify them. To remove that qualification, which is a direct quote from the author, is to disrespect this edict. So, whoever's doing it (Paul, can you find out?) please quit disrespecting Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Thank you. Big Daddy 05:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like someone reverted my effort for the third timewithout so much as commenting in here. I remember there was a user who got caught by Paul Klenk reverting something in here like 5 times or someting. This is a similar type phenomena. No comments, just page reversion. Can anyone figure out who is doing this? Thanks. Ps I will be correcting this piece until it's comports with Wikipedia standards. Big Daddy 07:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the correction: According to Richard H. Davis, the campaign manager of John McCain's 2000 presidential bid, a telephone push poll was conducted during the 2000 South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". [9]. McCain was campaigning with his adopted dark-skinned Bangladeshi daughter at the time. This poll, according to the McCain campaign, was designed to suggest that McCain's adopted daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. Davis wrote in a 2004 editorial that the calls were made by "anonymous opponents", that he "never did find out who perpetrated these smears", and that the McCain campaign "had no idea who made the phone calls." The authors of the book Bush's Brain (also made into a movie which begins with the author claiming the Karl Rove is a "danger to the republic") allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his role as campaign advisor to Bush. Rove has denied any such involvement.

KEY POINTS.

1)Per Jimmy Wales directive, the HIGHLY biased source Bush's Brain is qualified.

2)The quote suggesting that in Bush's Brain, Rove-enemy John Weaver specifically and explicitly said that the 'black child incident' came from the top of the Bush campaign is not accurate and thus was removed.

3) Some of the redundant and awkward language was removed.

As I've indicated numerous times, this is merely a temporary stopgap. Since the strongest evidence those who want to link Rove with the push poll to date is the Weaver quote and since this has now been debunked, there's really no legitimate reason to keep anything related to this incident in the Karl Rove article, except to perhaps distort his record.Big Daddy 22:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It was reverted again. I'm careful not to throw around the expression 'page vandalism', but if someone keeps reverting a section written specifically to comport with wikipedia regulations, and does so without expressing their reasoning in the talk page, isn't that kind of an appropros accusation? Perhaps someone more knowledgable in Wik standards can shed some light here. Big Daddy 22:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Fax Interception

Passage:

---

Discussion:

In September of 2005 a fax intended for Karl Rove was intercepted inwhich Lamar Smith states "Immigration needs to be considered in the context of: (1). Media Bias, (2). Animosity toward the president and (3) the feelings of the Republican base," Smith is a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims as well as the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity. No issues regarding the legislative jurisdiction of these committees are mentioned. Smith also suggests that "Liberals can easily and accurately be painted as opposing enforcement." [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 September 2005

This is a premature addition. Wait for story to play out, and if important or relevent, add. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it this fax could be a fake. I also suspect Rove may have ordered that it be mistakenly faxed to a Democrat. I agree lets see where this story goes. signed CD

doesn't seem particularly interesting even if true ... what am i missing? Derex 00:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Resolution: Consensus has been reached that no change in the article is required at this time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're speaking of the entire article, no one asked me. I say MUCHO changes are necessary in the Karl Rove article. Big Daddy 16:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Daddy, I think what is meant is consensus with respect to this fax issue only, not the entire article. To focus discussion, Hip has sectioned this fax topic into a space so we can get consensus on small passages, one at a time, instead of broadly disputing the whole article. This is a good method because it clears disputed topics off the laundry list one at a time. Hip, I hope I'm stating this correctly. paul klenk ^talk 16:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Impartiality of Sources

A major dispute about the content of the Karl Rove article is the partiality or impartiality of its sources. A lengthy debate took place on this, and has been corraled into the above section labeled "old discussions." The discussion is not settled, but to keep this page short, I have left it above; you can read there or in future archives.

Because Jimbo Wales' name came up in the discussion, along with disputes about what he said, I mentioned it to him in IRC chat, giving him the name of this page. JImmy invited me to send him a link to the page, but he immediately visited this page and left the remarks below, making it unnecessary for me to contact him.

Jimmy's humility about his views notwithstanding, I think they provide an excellent starting point for future discussions, a sort of "clean slate," as Karl Rove editors try to come to a consensus about what sources are impartial, and which are not:

I don't know anything about CNN in this context, but there was a Reuters article which misquoted me badly, and another Reuters article which was pretty good. My opinions about this matter are not particularly complicated: sources have to be handled with care, and citing extremely biased sources without qualification is a very bad thing. (I should not that in order to maintain my own impartiality in this little discussion, I've chosen not to even look at what sources are being disputed here.) I will give an example that might be pertinent: citing Indymedia (or similar) for anything factual having to do with Karl Rove would be quite a bad idea for the twin reasons that Indymedia is not a reliable news source and they would tend to have a strong bias against Rove. Citing a reputable news source like the Guardian would be fine, even though they would also tend to have a strong bias against Rove, because while the Guardian has a certain 'spin', it is also a reliable source for basic facts. If there actually is a legitimate controversy about the facts, it should be easy enough to find multiple reputable sources on different sides of the issue.

As I say, though, I don't think my views are particularly complicated, nor are they particularly unique or interesting. This is just ordinary good writing practice.--Jimbo Wales 11:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimmy, for visiting to make your views known. paul klenk 11:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - thanks Jimmy! Those looking for more on this particular content issue go here [11].

Wow! Big Daddy has been vindicated by none other than Wikipedia founderJimmy Wales. I mean, if Indymedia, as he put it, is NOT a reliable source, then certainly Bush's Brain which BEGINS with a quote from the author "I have truly come to believe that the policies...of Karl Rove is a threat to our republic" is not either.

Unless, of course, one's irrational hatred of Karl Rove procludes them from acknowldging that. If that happens to be the case (for any contributing edior) then, as a friendly suggestion, I'd strongly suggest recusing yourself from this and every other article where dispassionate objectivity is a problem.

Ps I will also point out that Mr. Wales said "sources have to be handled with care, and citing extremely biased sources without qualification is a very bad thing." Therefore the litany of irrelevant and lopsided 'sources' defending the Rove 'McCain push poll' incident (al franken book reviews, John Kerry for President editorials etc) has officially been rejected. In the past, not only was my counsel that we handle sources with care rejected, but I believe my efforts to make sure we at least 'qualify' these biaseds sources with caveats was also reversed. Those days, thanks to this clarifiying edict from Jimmy Wales, are over. But, I want to urge those on the other side not to lose hope. You can always go to democratic undergound or daily kos and spew your anti-Rove paranoid hatred.

Just not Wikipedia. Big Daddy (coming home today)

To be clear, again, I welcome an objective explanation of what "Bush's Brain" is. Right now, it's a book made into a movie. If you can provide a reputable impeachment of the source (Is the quote in the movie? Does the quotee dispute it?) then we can include that. As a final note, you must stop personally attacking other editors. NOW. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip, I will try to find info about Bush's Brain. If there's something specific you'd like to know about it, I can try to find that out. However, your comment seems to indicate you don't know what Bush's Brain is, except that it is a book and movie; is that what you're saying? Question: Which path should we take: a] Letting anything in, unless a consensus can be established that it is not impartial, or b] Not allowing anything in, unless a consensus is established that it is impartial?

Last, I agree that Daddy should stop attacking editors, and also stop ranting about liberals; please let me know the next time he does so, and I will join you in asking him to stop, and back you up in resolving the attack, getting an apology, or reporting it to an admin. paul klenk ^talk 15:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutly NO IDEA what Bush's Brain is. What I do know is what's in the article -

The authors of the book Bush's Brain (also made into a movie)allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush. In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign." No proof of Rove's direct involvement has ever surfaced.

The authors DO alledge such. The statement IS in the movie. The book/move is not used as a source for the statement "Rove is a psycopath." It's not used to determine his birtdate. It's used as the source for the statement about what it's authors believe, and what John Weaver said. For these purposes, it is reliable. The two key lines that you are both appear to have missed are "citing Indymedia (or similar) for anything factual...Indymedia is not a reliable news source." Unreliable news sources should not be cited for anything factual. On an additional note, the no proof line needs sourcing. It is currently orig. research. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hippocrite, you're wrong on all counts. Bush's Brain, which I've seen (as much as I could before realizing it was just a Rove hit piece) starts with the editor making hysterically paranoid comments about Karl Rove. That puts it in the category of not acceptable sources. You can try and split hairs oon Jimmy Wale's comments all you want, it is not Wikipedia-acceptable. And Bush's Brain is the only source you have that even comes close to alleging anything and they don't mention Karl Rov personally. Why anyone would fight me on this is curious. There is no need of a consensus anymore. We have the words of the founder, unless you think you have more authority than him, you're just going to have to submit to his ruling. Bush's Brain does not even come close to being an acceptable source for this allegation. And the allegation does not mention Karl Rove. Now, someone please unlock this article so I can begin eliminating useless smear passages like this (and a host of others) in accordance with founder Wales clear and ambiguous edict. Big Daddy 16:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that you carefully read over what I said. Please do so. Bush's Brain, in this case, is used as an accuser, not as a source. There is always need for consensus. As has been said before, unless Jimbo puts his developer hat on (he did not do so here), he is nothing more than another editor. This is all irrelevent, however, as he did not address using unreliable news sources not as fact sources, but as allegation sources. I am happy to put this issue up for RFC - why don't you and I brainstorm what the exact wording you would like to submit is? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hippocrite, that's a good idea. But, why don't we first get clarification on that point. Since you are saying he meant we must exclude unreliable sources only for facts and but we CAN use them for allegations (a position I find untenable) then let's find out exactly what he meant. After all, if I'm right, it will eliminate Bush's Brain that's for sure. And then we can eliminate all the other nefarious sources too. I think it will make our jobs much easier. Big Daddy 17:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as you do not intend to use my agreement to your summary of my comments as a gotchya, then I believe you have accurately summarized my comments. The statement "According to Unreliable Source, X is Y. Other Source, on the other hand, says X is Z" is perfectly valid. "In Unreliable Source, Person said X is Y" is also valid, as long as the person actually said such a thing. I will repeat, of course, once more that Jimbo is nothing more than another editor, unless he specifically says he's being more than another editor. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip wrote: "According to Unreliable Source, X is Y. Other Source, on the other hand, says X is Z" is perfectly valid."

Setting aside my disagreement with you on the validity of this line of reasoning, it's moot anyway. If you read above, you'll find I re-watched Bush's Brain. And, to use your phraseology, the unreliable source DID NOT say X is Y to begin with. Big Daddy 08:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Despite BD's claim, there is always a need for concensus. Please read over Wales's comments, they do in fact reflect Wikipedia policy (no surprise). Clearly, extremely partisan sites should generally be ignored because there is a high correlation of unreliability to such extremist sources of information. But partisanship is not the main concern. Reliability, verifiability, and notability are expressly given in Wikipedia policy. Read Wales's comment: "Citing a reputable news source like the Guardian would be fine, even though they would also tend to have a strong bias against Rove, because while the Guardian has a certain 'spin', it is also a reliable source for basic facts." In this example given by Wales, the reliability of the source trumps its partisanship, thus it is reliability over partisanship. Thus, we are not going to dismiss sources simply because of their partisanship. --kizzle 22:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Spin as you might, when Jimmy Wales says the sky is blue and the grass is green, it does NOT mean the sky is green and the grass is blue. Jimmy's Bottom line: You have to be very careful with sources no more impartial than the Guardian (which is just a little to the left of the NY Times) therefore you absolutely can't use hit pieces like Bush's Brain. (Not that you could anyway. See above.) Big Daddy 08:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Another interesting development [12]

Not about the McCain rumor it's not. Please try and organize your Rove slams in a more cohesive fashion. Thanks! Big Daddy 08:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Your help requested IN RE Plame

I am trying to identify the various and distinct components of the complex Plame affair. Many of these components seem to hinge on each other, and lead to greater underlying controversies, all the way up to Bush's stated reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Below, broken into bullet points, are my best efforts to identify them. Would you please me help by adding any missing components, commenting, pointing out where I am wrong, etc.?

My goal is to use these components to write a dense and thoughtful summary of this affair. Remember, these points are not the summary itself -- they are simply raw, hard "bits." My question is, are there other bits?

• It is alleged that Karl Rove illegally leaked the name of a C.I.A. operative, which resulted in breaking the identity of her cover company, said to employ other C.I.A. operatives.
• Rove's alleged motive for the leak: to discredit Wilson's Yellowcake report.
• Wilson's motive for the yellowcake report is alleged to be to discredit it as one of Bush's stated reasons for going to war in Iraq.
• Rove's alleged leak spread throughout the media, creating another set of controversies between reporters, their employers, and their sources.
• The allegations resulted in a current DOJ investigating whether Rove broke the law.
• The affair has been fueled with a denial by Rove and the White House, followed by an apparent "backing-off" of that denial by the White House.
• The media have moved from the role of observer to the role of a player in this affair:

1. The jailing of Judith Miller and Nokak's alleged deal with the prosecutor;
2. The media files a "friend of the court" brief.

paul klenk 00:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

1. At this point, 'alleged leak' is incorrect - It is now a confirmed fact that Rove leaked Plame's name to Cooper, confirmed by Cooper and the Time Magazine internal emails. Whether that was a crime or not is still one of the points under investigation.
2. imho, the language you use, 'the media moving, etc.' is not accurate - while reporters are involved in the scandal, and an amicus brief filed by a number of very prominent media networks, I'd avoid such easily misinterpreted phrases. And it is important to bear in mind that it was filed before the release of the Time emails and internal notes confirming Cooper's testimony/public statement that Rove told him of Plame's identity. I'll have research look into the changes in the positioning of the group since Time's information became public.

Thanks! -- RyanFreisling @ 00:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It most certainly is not a confirmed factalthough I personally think it's likely to be verified down the road. But my, personal opinions nor those of any other editors should be the high watermark for truth. It has been only affirmed by ONE person with no secondary corroboration. That one person is a stand up comic and reporter who is married to a hard core Clintonista. We need MUCH more than that. Like I said, we'll probably get confirmation but this ridiculous rush to judgement has no business in this article. Be patient out there.

The media is very much a player in this story. They rudely and disrespectfully verbally assaulted The President of the United States chief spokesperson. Anyone remember that press conference? :) The media's patently obvious desire to get Bush/Rove at all costs needs to be addressed. It may turn out that the media is vindicated. Perhaps not. But to suggest that strong anti-Bush sentiment in the mainstream media is not coloring the way this story is presented is laughable.

Tough questions are what press corps do. 'Verbal Assault'? Please. That's patent hyperbole on your part. Yes, I remember it well - Did you count how many times McClellan said he was 'not going to comment' on his former comments about an active investigation? I think it was seventeen. That's what tough press corps are supposed to do. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You may not realize this, BigDaddy777, but the White House spokesman is supposed to work for the press corps as much as he works for the president. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't, though, as this rarely works out to be the case in practice. As for "rudely and disrespectfully verbally assault"ing Scott McClellan, please. He's a big boy. The press has a mandate to ask difficult questions in the stead of the 350 million other Americans who don't get to be in that room. If those questions seem harsh sometimes, well, so be it. I, for one, sleep well at night knowing that I might have hurt a spokesman's feelings by demanding answers to questions the 90-year-old grannies of the country can't ask. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your comments and understand your sentiment, but I maintain it was a thuggish display. (And one I note that has not been repeated so apparently even the press corps knows they overplayed their hand.) I'm not sure why you and Ryan are making a big deal about my characterization, but if you feel that it somehow counters my suggestion that the mainstream media has unfairly gone after Rove in this instance (and others) and that the media's behavior is not a noteworthy part of the Karl Rove story, I disagree. Big Daddy (on the road.)

I haven't "made a big deal" about your comments. I have, however, refuted them. What else can you possibly expect when you start making such inflammatory statements? If you don't want to engage in a tangential discussion, then don't make tangential comments that only serve to inflame people. I'm not sure that I agree that there's anything to say in the article about the media's "behavior" (so generalized -- does this include my behavior too?), but of course there should be some mention of Miller and Cooper's involvement. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. If you want to justify an unfair attack on my comments because they were supposedly 'inflammatory' and tangential, that's your business, but they were not. They were supporting the notion that the media is after Karl Rove. To minimize that disrespectful attack on McCllelan as merely 'tough questioning' is disingenous. I know my history. No one...no one parsed words more than Clinton's press secretary Mike Mike McCurry during the height of the Lewinsky scandal. Yet, the press corps never even came close to the level of attack that they did that fateful day on McClellan. Big Daddy (on the road)

For a transcript of the 'tough questioning', see my transcript at User:RyanFreisling/McClellanPressConference.

BTW,Does anyone know what Ryan's statement "I'll have research look into the changes..." mean? Does she mean Wik has a research department at our disposal? If so, how do we contact them? :) Thanks!(Big Daddy on the road)

Other points about the Plame affair

In response to question by paul klenk that started this thread, here are some additional "bits":

• White House stonewalling of the investigation. This deserves mention in this article because of Rove's influence at the White House.
• Ashcroft's conflict of interest. Ashcroft, a friend of Rove's who had hired him in the past for much political work, continued to oversee the matter for some time after being told that Rove was a subject (he eventually recused himself). This is more about Ashcroft than about Rove, but it's part of explaining why many people will be dubious about any official exoneration of Rove. I'm undecided about whether this should go in.
• Congressional Republicans' blocking of inquiries. The Republicans have killed all attempts to hold Congressional investigations as long as the special prosecutor is investigating. Many of these are the same Republicans who wasted no time holding well-publicized inquiries into several allegations against the Clinton administration that were simultaneously the subject of Department of Justice investigations. Rove certainly has some influence with Congressional Republicans, but I think this point is distant enough from Rove himself that it should be omitted from this article.

These matters are discussed here. JamesMLane 05:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, James. These are very helpful for my purpose.  :-) paul klenk 05:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Bugging his OWN Office??

This following section is in need of a major re-write. It follows the Michael Moore/Bush's Brain model of being dishonest both in tone and conclusion.

In 1986, just before a crucial debate in the election for governor of Texas, Karl Rove claimed that his office had been bugged by the Democrats. [9]. The police and FBI investigated and discovered that bug's battery was so small that it needed to be changed every few hours, and the investigation was dropped[10]. Critics alleged that Rove had bugged his own office to garner sympathy votes in the close governor's race.[11]

The facts are that information from Rove's campaign was somehow instantly getting to the opponent who bugged his office which PROVES that something suspicious was going on. The FBI did NOT discover the battery had to be changed every few hours (that's just a flat out lie) but the FBI DID think the charges were serious enough to investigate. The public took a look at this and believed that Rove's claims WERE accurate and that's why Rove's opponent got slaughtered. Everything else is just poor loser sour grapes which, rather than 'the mark of Rove' is the real mark in all these cases. Be it John McCain, John Kerry, or this guy in Texas, the list goes on and on. It's always some LOSER candidate's supporters who wants to BLAME Rove for their loss instead of just looking in the mirror. And Wikipedia is NOT intended to be used as a dumping ground for their vindictive retaliation. (Not against Karl Rove and not against me either :) Big Daddy 16:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A couple of things. First of all, please stop using all CAPITALS. It's condescending and not necessary. Secondly (and I've had this discussion in several articles on Wikipedia), criticism is ok on Wikipedia if it is labeled as such. Whether or not the criticism is accurate is actually immaterial for our purposes. You would probably agree with me that Karl Rove is controversial. Again, whether or not the controversy is warranted is immaterial here. The point of Wikipedia is to be neutral, to have a neutral point of view. Presenting an article on Karl Rove without criticism would be contrary to what our purpose is here. And there is no bias involved here. Other controversial figures such as Jesse Jackson have criticisms woven into either their main articles or subarticles. If this article is a dumping ground for vindictive retaliation by "loser candidate supporters", then aren't all political articles by Wikipedia that have criticisms included that are levied by people on the other side of the political spectrum than the subject of the article? There is nothing unusual about the tone of this article in comparison with articles on other controversial figures.

I will quote from the NPOV policy...

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness).

Did Rove bug his own office? Well, even if there is evidence that he didn't, its still a fact that his critics say he did. Mentioning his critics statements does not endorse their view, nor does it say that their view is necessarily correct. The whole point of NPOV is to present multiple views that are held by a great many people. This particular criticism of Rove is held by some of his vocal opponents so it should be mentioned. If we do not mention criticism (even if it might be factually incorrect) then we are failing to be neutral. Not mentioning criticism of a controversial figure is basically stating that there is no criticism. --Woohookitty 09:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Woohoo, I understand your thinking. Leaving out such criticism may not leave a complete record, and we can't just ignore it. However, there are some things we need to be aware of, and work into our writing and editing:

1. Glutting an article with every negative criticism or rumor available does nothing to help a reader made any sense of the subject. We have an obligation to take this material, if we decide to use it, and put it into context, not leave the reader to do their own research to make sense of it.
2. The media, by its nature, does two things: 1] focuses on sensationalism, which grabs eyes and advertising dollars, and 2] creates "disposable" history, stories meant for today's newscycle and tomorrow's trash heap.
3. Further to this, parties on either side with axes to grind use the media for their own advantage.
4. We as writers of history have no obligation to use all material the media produces. We need a heavier burden, and need to take one step away, looking at it as history. We do not want to write something disposable. This is tricky, it isn't always easy, we're not always going to get it right. We can't follow the media's lead, or their model. We must find one of our own.
5. When you read an article on anyone, regardless of who they are, do you want that article glutted with every negative thing that anyone ever said, regardless of how weighty it is, and whether it is ultimately true?
6. Further, we are dealing with U.S. politics, a very heated and disputed area. It is very, very easy to WP'ians to show their disdain for a figure by "piling on." Are you willing to follow the same standard for both sides of the political spectrum? How low of a standard do you want here? Or, should I ask, how high? paul klenk ^talk 09:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I think you are missing the point here. I did not say "let's use all criticism". The general rule is that widespread criticisms are what we are going for. I never said let's use all criticisms. That would be pointless and that is not done on Wikipedia. Whether or not the criticism is correct, it has been made and it's a widely held criticism. And frankly, where the rumor came from is also immaterial. Many liberals have grabbed onto the criticism that Rove bugged his own office. Did it start with the media? Yes. But it doesn't make it incorrect or invalid. I've heard many critics of Rove state the opinion. It's just like if a critic of Clinton used something taken from reporting on the Starr Report to create a hypothesis that criticizes Clinton. If that criticism became widespread, it should be here because it's a popularly held criticism. It doesn't matter that it started from a report. That's a slippery slope that I don't think we want to ski onto.

Again, I think you are missing the point. Something you and BigDaddy don't seem to understand is that criticism does not need to be factually checked. The fact that it is a widely held criticism is good enough to include it in the article. And if you don't believe that, then I don't think either of you quite understand Wikipedia. Look at the Jesse Jackson article. It includes the line "Critics of Jackson claim that he has exploited poverty stricken black Americans in order to make money and gain political power." It doesn't say whether or not it's factually correct, but if you turn on the television and you see a critic of Jackson speaking (especially if the critic is African-American), you will hear that line. It's a widely held belief. So it should be included here.

If you want to qualify the criticism in the article and say where it originally came from, that's perfectly alright. But just omitting it is irresponsible given that it's a widely held belief. --Woohookitty 10:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please do not lump my arguments with BigDaddy's -- LOL!!. I make my own arguments. Second, I do challenge the so-called belief that criticisms don't have to be checked. It makes articles dumping grounds for anything and everything. Just because it is a widespread practive here, doesn't mean its right. We do things by consensus, fine; if I can influence that consensus with a well-wrought argument, fine. "Criticism does not need to be factually checked" is a seriously laughable concept for a historian; it's one of those ideas that makes these articles just plain terribly written. Garbage in, garbage out. It does nothing to help a reader. And statements like "I don't think either of you quite understand Wikipedia" only serve to marginalize one person's voice and push your own view -- valid as it might be. We don't have to do things as they've always been done. We can question what we do. paul klenk ^talk

One more thing: "Many liberals have grabbed onto the criticism that Rove bugged his own office." That line doesn't make sense. It is a factual issue. It is an allegation, not a criticism. paul klenk ^talk 10:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine Paul. Then create a vote on here in regards to making your views a policy. Until that happens, criticism does not need to be checked. I am not sure why BD, you and others on here decide that they are going to try to enforce their own rules. Stay within the format. If you don't want to do that, try to change it through a consensus vote. Until then, try to stay within established policies even if you do not agree with them. Questioning the policy is perfectly alright. But you know what? Take it to where it belongs. Yes we do things by consensus on Wikipedia. And that means that we do things according to what the consensus is. Right now, the consensus is that criticisms do not need to be checked.

And by the way, I am not a historian. We cannot sit here and write about what we think history is going to say about Karl Rove. It doesn't work that way. We can only say what the views are about Rove right now. If they change...if the criticism that he bugged his own office goes out of fashion, then we can change it later. That's the whole point of having a non-paper encyclopedia. Nothing we say here is set in stone.

And by the way Paul, I'm not pushing my view. Including criticisms is part of official policy. "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias." is the very first line on that page. It's generally accepted Wikipedia policy. And I think that disputing putting the criticism in about Rove bugging his own office goes to show that either BD or you (if you believe it should not be included either) do not understand the policy. It's not my personal view. Do I think he bugged his own office? No. If I was saying that, then I would be pushing my personal view. But I am not. I am pushing NPOV, which is the official policy of Wikipedia. And now I am taking a Wikibreak on all controversial issues because I'm tired of butting heads with people who do not understand the concept of NPOV. NPOV involves including the "garbage" as you put it, Paul.

And by the way, Paul...critics have said that he bugged his own office. Therefore, it is a criticism. You can call it an allegation, but it is still...a criticism. --Woohookitty 11:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo, again, I would beg you not to lump me in the the BD crowd. I do not push anything; I try to work with others to make an article better.

Again, your quote is mistaking facts for criticism: "If they change...if the criticism that he bugged his own office goes out of fashion, then we can change it later." Whether he bugged his office is a factual matter. Critisizing him is not -- it is subjective. We can include criticisms, but we also must address the evidence supporting or denying that he did any bugging in the first place. Mushing them together, we cannot do.

I do appreciate your taking the time to respond to me. Also, I think you and I share more views on this than you might think. I truly believe in WP policy. I also take issue with your implication that I don't understand NPOV. I do. I also understand the accusations of "POV" are thrown around sometimes when it is not applicable.

Criticism per se, I have absolutely no problem with. But I think criticism needs to be well-integrated into an article with good writing, in a way that helps the reader put it in context and makes sense of it. That's all. Just dumping anything into an article without integrating it -- that includes praise, criticism, controversy, facts, whatever -- is bad writing. And if a criticism is based on an unsubstantiated rumor, than we need to say that.

I do wish that the people dumping the criticism into the article would make some effort to do the above work in the first place, so others would not have to. If they did that, I would have no problem with its inclusion.

Thanks. paul klenk ^talk 12:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it almost incredible how myopic people are regarding the pervasive and systemic bias in this article. I didn't make create this mess. I just turned on the light bulb in a dusty attic and everyone wants to blame me for dirtying the place up! And God forbid, I should provide some context to explain why and how this article has become so disgracefully partisan. Why then, I'm accused of bringing in 'politics' and 'poisoning' the discussion. Look - The poison is in the article. I'm just trying to get it out. And laughable claims that I'm introducing 'partisanship' by providing this context don't deter me and certainly won't intimidate me. I read the Rove-haters propaganda sites all day long. Huffington, Media Matters, DailyKos (well Ok, that one makes me puke), you name it. And, I'm sorry, when an encyclopedia piece starts to sound like it was directly lifted from one of those sites, we have a problem. And it's important that people understand why this is being done. That way we can clean it up. Isn't it interesting that the worst personal attacks I get from fellow editors are when I merely point out what is so glaringly obvious to the most casual users of Wikipedia? And yes, you can lump my views in with Big Daddy 16:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

When is Big Daddy going to respond to his RFC page? Eleemosynary 05:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I find it worrisome that anyone expressing opinions in as volatile a way as Big Daddy would be editing any part of Wikipedia. I come here hoping for measured writing on the issues addressed. I hope that the facts are represented and supported with evidence. I would like to know, for instance, that Galileo had detractors, even if those detractors were later proven wrong.

However, it seems to me that Big Daddy has expressed his opinions here in an unmeasured and vitriolic way. I know that he claims the Karl Rove entry is pervasively biased. Yet he himself is so clearly biased in the other direction. How can we trust him on the issue of Karl Rove? (I also don't believe he is trying to purge this entry of bias, which seems to me to be the correct thing to do. He seems to be trying to erase unflattering criticism of Rove from the site. However, Bush's Brain does exist, it criticizes Rove, and it should be documented for that criticism. This is not to say that it is supported or condoned by Wikipedia. As with Galileo's detractors in the Catholic Church. They existed, and are well documented under his entry, including their opinions and the reasons for their opposition. Should we not follow the same logic with Bush's Brain?) Farwest.

Unprotected

A week should be enough. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Katrina Redux

I've introduced the 'Rove assigned to administration team managing Hurricane Katrina' content. Please see the prior discussion here. Thanks! -- RyanFreisling @ 20:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in here as it is an obvious example of Recentism, and of course, yet another way to blame Karl Rove for something he had absolutely nothing to do with. Big Daddy 00:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope, it belongs here. It is not "Recentism." And it does not blame Rove for the hurricane; it indicates he was assigned to manage Hurricane Katrina rebuilding. How odd not to want that mentioned. --Eleemosynary 08:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is recentism. In fact it's futurism. The Katrina rebuilding program hasn't even started in earnest. The Rove-haters SOP is to creatively invent a narrative where somehow, some way, Rove is linked to or responsible for every sordid event in recent American history from Watergate to 911. Katrina is just the latest tragedy they want to smear him with. Too bad this kind of demagoguery doesn't fly here. Newsflash: Wikipedia is not a rat's nest for purely partisan attacks no matter how hard some may try to make it so.Big Daddy 16:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The only partisan attacks I see being made here are yours. You turn everything into a "me vs everybody else, who is plainly a liberal attack dog!" mentality and it just doesn't have to be that way. It's really poisonous and is much better if you just try to contain your comments to those that are related strictly to content. And I don't mean saying things like "Your recent edit means that you are a Rove-hating liberal bedwetter!" That does nothing but anger people. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I take the above statement from administrator Katefan as a personal attack. Straight up...Big Daddy 16:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please focus on the article's content... please? -- RyanFreisling @ 16:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Adminstrators are merely editors with three extra buttons, one of which does nothing special, while the other two have serious rules and regulations regarding their use. I would note that Kate won her mop by a vote of 66/2. You might also want to note the number of people who said she was very good with troublesome users. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, irrespective of who or what you say administrators are, I take the above statement from Katefan as a personal attack. And I take your superfluous comments as unnecessary meddling. Big Daddy

Hey, BD... exactly when are you going to comment on your RFC page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.252.18 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 September 2005.

Comparing Clinton and Jackson's article with Roves

Someone wrote - "controversial figures such as Jesse Jackson have criticisms woven in" and went on to suggest that using Bush's Brain to slime Rove was the same as using the Independent Counsel's Report on William Jefferson Clinton to report on bill's white house activities. (I know...wow!)

First of all, I agree that Jackson may be unfairly smeared. I will go into this article and remove any unsubstantiated slams as they have no place in Wikipedia anymore than all the slime in this article does and I'm an equal opportunity bias eradicator. Secondly, to compare the one or two shots across the bow at Jackson in his, by comparison, tiny article with this unending, incessant, persistent-to-the-point-of-paranoia litany of charges against Rove is like comparing a thundershower with Hurricane Katrina. And, I'm sorry the Independent Counsel's report has a little more credibility than a hit piece put together by a bunch of rove-hating democratic journalists from Austin. You might not like the findings of the honorable Judge Starr's report, but it is an official government document and as such enjoys Wikipedian good housekeeping seal of approval. A better comparison to Bush's Brain would be the Clinton Chronicles. Wikipedia is a better place without sourcing either. Big Daddy 00:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Great! Please post when you remove any unsubstantiated claims from the Jesse Jackson article. That's a great, impartial idea. Can't wait to see the great job you'll do! --Eleemosynary 08:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Great! I'm greatly excited that you are greatly happy for the great job I'm gonna do!! I can't wait to get to Jesse's article and will begin doing so just as soon as my edits to the Rove article quit getting reverted. Currently I'm all tied up here fighting off partisans who insist on smearing Rove with unsubstantiated and unsupported attacks. Won't you join me in my efforts to keep this Rove piece free from POV so I can be liberated to work on Jackson's article? By your own admission, in helping me keep the Rove article free of smears, you'll be part of the process of creating a great impartial Wikipedia! Big Daddy 15:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The tit for tat negotiation and the snide suggestion above are prime examples of bad-faith, by both parties. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, based on some of your past posts, you shouldn't be lecturing anyone on this topic, but, for the record, if someone tits, I reserve the right to tat...Big Daddy

Well, I think Hipocrite has every right to advise on this topic. As for you, "Big Daddy," when are you going to respond to your RFC page? Eleemosynary 05:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I second the above poster: when is "Big Daddy" going to respond to his RFC page? 69.64.213.146 02:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate the poster (69.64.213.146) on the above message. I have a question for him/her: Are you the same person who left the comment "Deleted right-wing idiotic whining. Nice try, moron" in an edit summary, or is that someone using your IP? ("Your" talk page has a very interesting history of its own, by the way.) paul klenk ^talk 06:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy's only response so far to Eleemosynary's and multiple other users asking him to respond to his RfC page was to make a remark on Eleemosynary's talk page saying under his title "Harassing BigDaddy": "End it now. You've been warned." [13]. Hipocrite, this has gone on long enough, file the RfAr already. There's more than enough consensus under Kizzle's suggestion: [14]. 69.121.133.154 06:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, User:69.121.133.154, for keeping this page content-driven. And thanks for trolling from page to page, user to user, telling everyone about BD's RfC. And, further, thank you for finding lots of out-of-context quotes to "load up" his RfC with as many watered down complaints as you can possibly find -- and for bringing them to this page. And don't let me forget to thank you, dear anonymous user, for singularly dedicating yourself to this task since you came on board about the same time BD's RfC was filed. (I apologize for not responding on your talk page, but I'm sure you would just mischaracterize my comments as an "attack" and then blank the page.) What was your point, again, about Clinton and Jackson's articles? Oh, sorry, I wouldn't want to "feed the trolls." paul klenk ^talk 06:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my last comment. I was wrong when I said you had a talk page. Wrong. You don't. You have to register to have a talk page of your own. paul klenk ^talk 06:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Anything to contribute about the article content, anyone? -- RyanFreisling @ 16:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

http://www.famoustexans.com/karlrove.htm

http://www.famoustexans.com/karlrove.htm

So we've got ourselves another edit war...

...and it's the usual players. Lightning speed reverts. How charming. Reverting is such a great substitute for collaboration, for compromise, for... thinking. Nice job, everyone. paul klenk ^talk 22:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

And, of course, we've got ourselves another protected page, which no one can edit until disputes are resolved, which they won't be, because it's just easier to revert edits. paul klenk ^talk 22:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, funny how it was protected after my piece was reverted. Big Daddy 22:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The Wrong Version!

If we are interested in helping Wikipedia neither sarcasm nor blaming editors so flippantly does the trick. I'd ask that everyone earnestly avoid judgments and focus on the facts if we are to make real progress.

In this case the two versions at issue are:

1. McCain was campaigning with his adopted dark-skinned Bangladeshi daughter at the time. This poll, according to the McCain campaign, was designed to suggest that McCain's adopted daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. Davis wrote in a 2004 editorial that the calls were made by "anonymous opponents", that he "never did find out who perpetrated these smears", and that the McCain campaign "had no idea who made the phone calls." The authors of the book Bush's Brain (also made into a movie which begins with the author claiming the Karl Rove is a "danger to the republic") allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his role as campaign advisor to Bush. Rove has denied any such involvement.

2. McCain was campaigning with his adopted dark-skinned Bangladeshi daughter at the time. According to Richard H. Davis, McCain's 2000 campaign manager, this poll was designed to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In 2004, regarding about the push poll, Davis wrote that he "never did find out who perpetrated these smears." The authors of the book Bush's Brain (also made into a movie) allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush. In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign." Rove has denied any such involvement.

Read them both. If you honestly feel the first version is either technically or informationally superior to the former, then basic writing requirements must have been firmly thrown out the window.

I didn't mind the inclusion of Davis' name, nor the minor tweaks in the first paragraph - but the whole structure was sloppified to bend over backwards to discredit and/or illustrate a supposed POV for the source. That's just plain bad writing. I'm ready to start again, if BD will leave the content more intact and provide it in chunks that improve the article. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

So, that was YOU who, without comment removed my edit. How shocking. You've never done anything like this before on Wikipedia....have you? Big Daddy 02:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Great, as long as he leaves it alone, or "improves" it -- to your satisfaction, I'm guessing -- you're willing to start again. Thanks, RRyan. paul klenk ^talk 22:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I ask that you not parse my words. It is not just my satisfaction. It's the community's. These are basics. The whole point is that all work should move in that direction... Improvement. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my parsing, and thank you for your thoughts on behalf of the community, and for the lesson in the basics. paul klenk ^talk 23:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

All I have done since arriving at Wik is improve articles by removing bias that others have tried to sneak in. That's why I am here.Big Daddy 02:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Resources

All -- it seems to me that discussions on this page as it regards Bush's Brain/push polling/etc. are suffering from a lack of sourcing, since one of the primary sources has been called into question. I just did a Nexis search for "mccain rove push poll" and copied the results into a file in my userspace. You can access it here. I haven't looked through the articles -- some may be related, some may not; I just scooped them up and didn't really look carefully. But I present them for anyone who cares to look through them and see if comments, observations, editorials etc. may help clarify these issues. Good luck and play nice. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate, your comments are not really an accurate reflection of what has happened. I HAVE SEEN Bush's Brain and was able to debunk the line ascribed to John Weaver as being about the push poll (as well as establish other fishy elements of that whole part of the movie.)

No one has ever suggested the BOOK makes includes this quote from Weaver. Only the movie and I've corrected that misstatement after viewing it. Secondly, Bush's Brain is not 'one of the primary sources' it's the ONLY primary source that had attempted to link Rove to the push poll. All the other 'sources' fall into the category of 'Yep, it sure sounds like something Karl Rove would do!' Thirdly, no one has challenged my assertion about the film (probably because it would be like arguing that Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump never says 'life is like a box of chocolates.') Finally, I am curious about your generic admonition that everyone 'play nice' in light of the fact that I've been anonymously and MULTIPLY reverted after giving documented and reasoned explanations for my contribution. And the page was protected only AFTER I was reverted again. There's only ONE side not playing nice here. To imply or suggest otherwise is disappointing.Big Daddy 22:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Go read m:The wrong version already, and quit casting aspersions on other people's motives. - jredmond 22:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're getting at, BD777. Did you really take offense at me telling everybody to play nice? I'm not sure what more I can add here. I was trying to help you -- and everyone -- find some sourcing for the push poll information that you would feel more comfortable with. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate, I take it you got permission from Lexis-Nexis and from the copyright holders of the articles you posted to Wikipedia here to reproduce and distribute those articles? --Dickius 22:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. I only made them available for personal use temporarily as a licenseholder myself. They'll be removed once folks have had a chance to peruse them and choose to either paraphrase them inside an article or not as they wish. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

KateFan wrote - "I just did a Nexis search for "mccain rove push poll." Well actually the cites you came up with look more like they came from a Nexis search for 'Why Karl Rove is demon-possessed" but, be that as it may, I've searched EVERY cite (almost ALL critical of Rove) and there's nothing here that supports a linkage between Rove and the incident other than the same rumormongers. Case closed. It has no place in this article.Big Daddy 22:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That remark, which avoids any personal attack, but focuses on the content, not the author, and which is colorful, humorous (rather than humorless), and right on point, perfectly illustrates why you are needed here and why your presence infuriates so many. I hope I won't be accused of making an effort to... stop your efforts of... bad behav... (how did that go?) paul klenk ^talk 23:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Paul; I have to disagree. "The cites you came up with" is a slight attack on the author, implying that he/she manipulated the search to present an unfavorable image of Rove. Then comes the usual hyperbole: "I've searched EVERY cite," and the assertion without proof: "case closed." It's not as abusive as the rhetoric BD has spewed in the past, but it's hardly "right on point." It's just muffled ranting. 69.64.213.146 07:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone's got a crush on BigDaddy ;) RandomJoe 02:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I take it the question is not whether there were negative push-polls (which is quite well documented in these cites). Rather, it is whether Rove was personally associated with them. Here are some relevant quotes from the cites provided:

• "Rove's famous push polls are the way to spread evocative rumors-for instance, scenarios involving George Bush and Catholic girls and possible pregnancies. (In South Carolina, Rove was accused of using push polls that helped defeat John McCain with premises that included a black child and a drug-addled wife.)" Vanity Fair; MICHAEL WOLFF; The Power Of Rove; No. 539; Pg. 60

• "In South Carolina, Rove was accused of using push polls that helped defeat John McCain with premises that included a black child and a drug-addled wife." ibid

• "Rather than 'nailing Jell-O to the wall' by trying to establish whether Bush or Karl Rove was actually behind the Swift Boat ads (or behind the South Carolina push-polling), turn the question around: Would any of these things have happened if the candidate and the consultant didn't want them to? Would people allied to them, who shared the goal of getting their candidate elected, have acted as they did if the message was somehow relayed to them that their efforts would damage rather than help that candidate?" Conde Nast; THE ELECTION; The Trashing of John McCain; No. 531; Pg. 193

I have no idea how, short of subpoena, one could actually prove who within a campaign authorized push polls. So, I think it's not right to state as fact that Rove did. However, it is undeniable and citable that Rove is quite widely suspected of being behind it. That is what should be reported; it's a very important part of his public image. Derex 23:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Great news! I think I found a happy medium. Like the Supreme Court, I always like to look for a precedent. It helps to establish what is 'settled law' sort to speak. In this case, we do have a very valid precedent in Wikipedia. No, it's not identical in every way. Few things are except snowflakes. But it shows the proper way that controversial attacks emanating from one's political enemies are to be handled.

Here's the example, I copied it verbatim from another Wikipedia article:

Clinton was viewed with intense personal dislike of his policies and character by some on the far right. Several unsubstantiated accusations were leveled by conservative talk radio. Among these were rumors of involvement with drug traffickers and personal cocaine use. Some talk show personalities even fomented conspiracy theories about Clinton's involvement in the death of long-time friend and aide Vince Foster, which was later ruled a suicide in an extensive investigation by Kenneth Starr. The deadly Branch Davidian standoff near Waco, Texas in 1993 fomented further far right hostility to the Clinton administration.

So, in light of this tried and true precedent, I propose we re-write the attacks on Karl Rove in a similar fashion. Here's a rough draft:

Rove has been viewed with intense personal dislike for his policies and character by some on the far left as well as supporters of candidates defeated by Rove's clients. Several unsubstantiated accusations were leveled by liberal web sites and other highly partisan sources. Among these were rumors of sabatoging Senator John McCain's campaign with unsavory rumors about an alleged illegitimate black child and bugging his own office during a local Texas Congressional race. Some journalists even fomented conspiracy theories about Rove's involvement with Osama Bin Laden and the Rathergate false documents scandal. The deadly Hurricane Katrina tragedy which befell Mississippi and Lousisiana in 2005 fomented further far left hostility to the Bush administration and it's surrogate Karl Rove.Big Daddy 04:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Besides the fact that we don't templatize the writing here as you suggest by adopting the actual structure of the Clinton excerpt, I find every equivalence that the proposed edit draws to be misinformative. The issues regarding Rove's office, the Push Poll, Katrina, etc. are not slams. They are matters of public record. Clinton's purported involvement in the Foster suicide rose nowhere near the burden of proof that has already been met by each of the citations in Rove's case... he IS in charge of Katrina political resuscitation, he WAS widely alleged to be behind the push poll and the self-bugging allegation, etc. Why not carefully read the article's actual text and the assertions of fact, and ask yourself whether you are acting out of your disagreement with the facts and the construction / composition of the supporting text or rather, reacting to an internal disagreement with the fact that these facts appear to smear what you see as Rove's good name... if so, that's a deep kind of POV. Sincerely, -- RyanFreisling @ 04:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

None of the charges I'll be removing and replacing with the 'Clinton Model' come close to meeting ANY burden of proof other than as unsubstantiated allegations. Just as in the case of Rove, Clinton WAS ultimately in charge of the Waco debacle, he WAS widely alleged to be involved in the Vince Foster suicide and cocaine-use allegations swirled around him for years. It all ultimately comes down to which end of the political extreme you wish to dredge. The people writing the Clinton article, in their wisdom, decided that the best way to handle unsubstantiated claims from political extremists was as I've highlighted. They've also had the benefit of time and reflection to give us some signposts to help us along the way. Signposts I think we'd be quite foolish to ignore. All the arguments you've made, with very few exceptions, could have been made by those defending an expansion of these nefarious charges against Clinton. No need for us to re-invent the wheel. Therefore I would implore you to carefully read the article's actual text and the assertions of fact, and ask yourself whether you are agreeing with with the facts and the construction / composition of the supporting text or rather, reacting to an internal agreement that these facts appear to enlighten us about Karl Rove which you see as important since he's part of an administration you apparently feel (based on your writings in Wikipedia [15]) a great degree of antipathy for ... if so, that's a particularly disturbing kind of POV... Big Daddy 07:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, BD there is no such thing as 'settled law' or 'precedent' here. It's up to the editors of this article to decide how to handle this issue. The Clinton treatment isn't 'settled law' either; if you don't like it, just go change it. Derex 05:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I'm quite shocked that instead of rejoicing with me over this discovery that can and will end this revert war quickly and decisively, it seems to have set some into a panic. Sorry, but the Clinton is example is relevant. Wik does not exist in a vaccuum and the similarities overwhelm whatever dissimilarities one may find. I like the Clinton precedent and think it's appropros for all manners of mudslinging, especially in the case of Karl Rove. If you want the Clinton article to reflect the way Karl Rove has been treated, just go change it. But personally, I think that's walking backwards. Let's stand on the shoulders of the giants of our Wikipedian heritage. If it's not broke, don't fix it. The Clinton model is not broke. No need to fix it. The advantage as this great discovery is that serves to eliminate all this back and forth editing and reverting that has paralyzed this article. We already have an example of something that has withstood the test of time. I say we use it and get back to editing the rest of this very important article... Big Daddy 07:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, give it a rest BD. You can propose whatever edits you like. And you can toot your horn all you like about the 'Clinton model'. But, the fact is, nobody's going to pay a bit of attention because that's just not how wikipedia works. If you want something like the 'Clinton model', just defend it on its merits. No one here is the least bit impressed by bogus appeals to nonexistent authority; except apparently you. Derex 08:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ouch! A personal attack. (From Wolfman, no less) You know, I was warned that certain people would begin personally attacking me in here when it was clear they couldn't win the conversation based on the merits of their arugments. But I didn't believe it...until now. Big Daddy 09:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Tiresome. That is no personal attack. I correctly characterized your argument as a bogus appeal to non-existent authority. I further presumed that your own argument impressed you. If it didn't, then I apologize for implying that it did. But, then I wonder why you made it. So, can we move on to an actual discussion about an actual paragraph based on its actual merits?

I object to the following elements of your suggestion.

• First sentence: the important thought here is that Rove is widely believed to be unscrupulous and ruthless; whether he is "liked" or not isn't the issue.
• This opinion is not just among the far left & defeated candidates.
• "unsubstantiated" connotes untrue & unfounded & likely even disproven; we don't know that; it's just an "accusation"
• leveled by "liberal web sites", "highly partisan sources"; true but also leveled more widely; your phrasing suggests that it's just far-left ranting.
• "involvement" with bin laden, of what sort? what journalist "fomented" it (loaded word)?
• lumping rathergate parallel with bin laden derides the suggestion by association; my guess is rathergate has been suggested by serious people, but not bin laden. could you provide sources, or link back to previous discussion for newcomers to the debate?
• accepted use here is killian memos, not rathergate, that's a conservative blog meme not in widespread public use elsewhere.
• last sentence: again "fomented" is a loaded word
• "far left hostility"; "far left" hostility, while true, suggests that the anger is limited to them. i know from personal experience with hardcore red-staters it's much broader (personal experience, as in my hometown got hit by katrina). but the important part is that the polls and the press (especially in affected areas) reflect that.
• i imagine there are other concerns others have, but that's a start.

Also, my name is Derex; please address me that way. I hung up the Wolfman suit after I went away for half a year, and for a good reason. (btw, I've been quite open about my old name, as evidenced by you knowing it.) Derex 15:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

OK Derex. I take your apology at face value. I generally believe in calling a man what he asks so, whether you were Wolfman, Dracula or Frankenstein in the past, as far as I'm concerned....you're Derex. (Until you change it again.)

As for you're post - You're wrong on style and you're wrong on substance. You say Rathergate is a "conservative blog meme" to justify not using it. But whenever it was suggested the entire tone of the article on Karl Rove and other Republicans was essentially liberal blog memes, that was pooh poohed for fostering an 'us v them' mentality. In fact, your declarative statement that the 'accepted use is killian memos' for fake documents that Killian did NOT produce, suggests you think Wikipedia is a left wing blog which I assure you it is not.

As for the factual errors in your post, they are numerous but this one sticks out like an old 1972 Selectric - "my guess is rathergate has been suggested by serious people, but not bin laden. could you provide sources, or link back to previous discussion for newcomers to the debate?" Walter Cronkite on Larry King suggested Karl Rove was behind the release of a Bin Laden video tape.

But all of this is besides the point. The days of going back and forth on these slurs and rumors are over. We have the 'Clinton Model.' If it has stood the test of time as being a fair way to handle unsubstantiated charges against a democratic politico then it's the perfect model for a Republican. Some attacks on Rove don't fall into this category. But quite a few do. I will be replacing all references to the push poll, bugging incident, Katrina etc with a paragraph instructed by the Clinton Model.Big Daddy 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Before you do something of that nature, I would urge you to read don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This is really starting to become interesting. It is now suggested that my proposal that we comport this article with Wikipedia precedent means that I'm disrupting Wikipedia. With that kind of tortured logic, I suppose suggesting it follow Jimmy Wales guidelines would be flat out vandalism. lol! Big Daddy 16:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I will revert any whitewash of this article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What does 'whitewash' mean? Big Daddy 16:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Whitewash Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, hippocrite. You should be thrilled to know, I'm about to revert the Whitewash that's existed in here for you. You know - all those derogatory attacks on Karl Rove because he doesn't embrace the 'correct' culture. Thanks again for that definition link. Wouldn't have quite understood whitewash in those terms without it!Big Daddy 16:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, see there you go. From reading it, I inferred the 'conspiracy' was that Rove was in cahoots about 9/11, clearly ridiculous. So, let's get specific and say that Walter Cronkite suggested whatever it was about a videotape (what was it exactly?).

i used the phrase 'killian memos' because that's what the wikipedia article is called, after long and considered debate. call it something else if you like, but 'rathergate' is no more neutral than 'awolgate'.

do you agree with my other objections?

The 'test of time' thing is just silly. The whole point of wikipedia is that it gets edited & improved over time. I could (but don't) equally take the view that this article had stood the test of time before you showed up, so why are you trying to change it? If you're interested in the Clinton article, go edit it. People here are trying to work on Rove. Derex 16:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, I've been editing in Wikipedia for just about a month now. And in the past 30 days, I've had quite the education. I don't think it's helpful for either side to be barrelling recriminations at the other. Sure, my hands aren't clean. I plead self-defense. But going forward, it seems to me, despite our disagreements, that we can at least agree to be civil. And not only civil to each other but civil to the subjects of these articles we are editing. The way the editors of the Bill Clinton article handled the slime hurled at him was careful and sensible. In short, it was exemplary. And going forward, it's dispositive that Karl Rove be treated no less fairly than Bill Clinton. Big Daddy

That would be a nice change. Will it apply to you? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I see you've changed the above paragraph. Are you saying that other people attacking you are the reasons for all of your personal attacks in the past? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Who wants to be incivil? I'd be perfectly happy with your paragraph if you'd correct my objections. Nowhere in my objections do I want to inject any incivility. All I want to do is accurately portray how Rove is widely perceived, and not just by far-left cranks. As James pointed out below, that is exactly what Jimbo set out as policy. How is it incivil to report that lots of people think he's done certain things or has a ruthless style? Rove even promotes his image as a boogieman: "You're not such a scary guy," joked his guide. "Yes, I am ...." [16]. But, by all means, add some info about how Rove's boyscout tactics are perceived by his supporters. That belongs as well Derex 17:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC.

Ok, this is what I have so far. I think it's nearly perfect in that it eliminates the impression that us editors have an axe to grind with Rove. Again, I'm indebted to the hard work those working on the Bill Clinton article put in to establish this model. Couldn't have done it without you guys.

"Rove has been viewed with intense personal dislike for his policies and character by some on the far left as well as supporters of candidates defeated by Rove's clients. Several unsubstantiated accusations were leveled primarily by liberal web sites and other highly partisan sources. Among these were rumors of sabatoging Senator John McCain's campaign with unsavory rumors about an illegitimate black child and bugging his own office during a local Texas Congressional race. Some journalists even fomented conspiracy theories about Rove's involvement with Osama Bin Laden and the 60 Minutes false National Guard documents scandal. The deadly Hurricane Katrina tragedy which befell Mississippi and Lousisiana in 2005 fomented further far left hostility to the Bush administration and it's surrogate Karl Rove."

I think this is a fair compromise in that, at least for now, it doesn't touch the questionable WHIG accusation and Plame argument (although that's coming up soon on my editing agenda.)I propose my edit replace in it's entirety the Katrina, Bugging and Push Poll sections for starters.Big Daddy 20:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No. There is more POV in that paragraph than any other in the entire article. On top of that, it's filled with weasel words, and it generally subtracts information. Just one example - you remove all of the work that was done with respect to the push poll. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

'POV?' 'Weasel Words?' Why these bold accusations both surprise and amaze me as I used the phraseology found in the Bill Clinton article as a model. Perhaps you should consult with them regarding these expressions. And contrary to your assertion, this edit I'm about to make is the first step in REVERSING the endemic POV that's tainted this article from the moment I happened across it. Big Daddy 20:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Do not make this article worse because you don't like another article. POV does not equal "bias." It is the encyclopedia taking a side in a dispute - in this case, you have us taking a side in calling things "unsubstantiated," when notable parties believe they are substantiated. You violateWP:NOR in writing "journalists even fomented." It's a weak edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying now. I think your problem is with the Clinton article. I recommend getting over there stat and changing it. Otherwise, this edit will go in as presented. If it violatesWP:NOR to write "journalists even fomented" here than it's POV there. Sorry, can't have it both ways. And to suggest that what happens in Clinton has no bearing here is a real use of 'weasel words.' Big Daddy 20:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I use my time the way I chose. If you make this article worse, I will revert your changes, regardless of how bad other articles are or are not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Same to you, pal. But, rather than act rashly, what I will do is solicit the advice of users like Paul Klenk and Gator1. Is there anyone else out there who agrees with my assertion that the way unsubstantiated rumors were handled in the Bill Clinton article should be consistent with the way they are handled in the articles of conservatives?Big Daddy 21:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I miss rex. --kizzle 05:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope not. This constant bickering and posturing is getting awfully old. By the way, there is no such policy or guideline on "precedent" here. This isn't a court of law. Also, if there is a problem in one article, that's a problem for that article's editors, not anyone else. Pitting one article against another is a meaningless and useless exercise, unless you only wish to create animosity where there is none. --NightMonkey 05:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your thoughts, but I can assure you I reject that line of reasoning out of hand as somewhere between specious and patently absurd. To suggest that this article exists in a vaccum belies the obvious which is that Wikipedia editors are a community endeavoring to present a consistent sense of neutrality throughout the encyclopedia. The only animosity here is coming from people who refuse to acknowledge that democrats/liberals are treated far more charitably than their conservative counterparts. This is a problem that's not going away until we deal with it head on. And I, for one, think that applying the tried and true Clinton Model is a good first step. But, as I said, I'm not quite ready to go it alone since I think it would be helpful to find other editors who agree with me. After all, the credibility of our entire body of work is at stake. Surely someone else is willing to join me in my fight to defend it.Big Daddy 05:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are two theories of how editors should ascertain the policy that's applicable to a particular dispute:

1. The Wikipedia method - Policies are suggested, discussed, modified, and established to be of general applicability. It's a community process in which many editors participate. (As an example, see the discussion and vote about how to deal with revert wars.) These policies are found in pages such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and other pages that are expressly designated as "policies". Editors then consult these general policies for guidance in writing particular articles.
2. The Big Daddy method - An editor finds one other article, out of more than 700,000, in which the current text handles a particular issue the way the editor likes. The editor then declares that this one example suffices to "establish" that treatment as a "model" (or even capitalizes it, as in "the Clinton Model"), which is binding throughout Wikipedia just as if it had gone through the lengthy process of formulating a policy.

Well, obviously, the first one is how we actually do things. The second one is not. It's not the case that the Rove article should conform to the Clinton article; rather, the Rove article and the Clinton article should both conform to Wikipedia policies. If you think the Clinton article doesn't do so, then I agree with the other editors who've said you should raise your concerns on Talk:Bill Clinton. Alternatively, if you don't like the portion of the NPOV policy that calls for the reporting of notable opinions, even partisan ones, then you should go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and propose a change. You are also mistaken in implying that no one is allowed to try to conform the Rove article to Wikipedia policies unless he or she can demonstrate a simultaneous effort to correct all similar violations of policy in all other articles. JamesMLane 10:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

James, Thanks for taking the time to write, but I think you may have missed the memo about Option number three

3. The Business as Usual method - A whole bunch of Left-leaning Editors get together and, drawing from dubious sources and histrionic partisan windbags, string together a laundry list of unsubstantiated allegations, unfounded rumors and outright fabrications, and post it within the body of articles on conservative public figures they wish to marginalize under the category of 'Controversy' or 'Criticism.' Should someone suggest even the most modest of changes in order to bring the tiniest hint of balance, they fight them tooth and nail on...every...single...point before filing an RfC against them for being too uppity (sometimes they say 'too combative' but it's the same thing.) Finally, when confronted with the treachery of their actions, and exposed to the appropriate way to deal with rumor and innuendos in Wikipedia articles (usually found where the subject is a Democrat) they put their fingers in their ears and start shouting "Na, Na, Na...I can't hear you! Or else they simply demagogue the issue, distort the rules and spirit of Wikipedia to defend the perpetual and endemic on-line character assassinations of conservatives, and applaud one another for their wisdom. Kind of like what just happened here.

Believe it or not, this very article on Karl Rove is a textbook example of the Business as Usual method.

But not for long... --Big Daddy Big Daddy 13:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You wrote earlier that "we can at least agree to be civil." I asked if that would apply to your conduct. Apparently it did not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel my defending myself (which this is) is uncivil. To suggest that my selection of the Clinton article and thus 'Clinton Model' is akin to closing my eyes and picking a number between 1 and 700,000 is not only insulting to everyone's intelligence. It's flat out dishonest. And so is your counterproductive and harrassing pattern of making personal attacks against me because you disagree with my politics...Big Daddy

Anyone care to discuss the article content? -- RyanFreisling @ 14:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh...I think that's what we're doing.Note: It's funny, when someone else tries to break down the method by which we derive how we make the sausage sort to speak, it's fine. But when I respond, Oh my God! It's a 5 alarm fire. We're 'not disscussing content' and 'we're being incivil. And I hope you aren't under the impression that I'm the only one who sees through this transparent gamesmanship.Big Daddy 18:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

3. The Business as Usual method - A whole bunch of Left-leaning Editors get together and, drawing from dubious sources and histrionic partisan windbags, string together a laundry list of unsubstantiated allegations, unfounded rumors and outright fabrications, and post it within the body of articles on conservative public figures they wish to marginalize under the category of 'Controversy' or 'Criticism.' Should someone suggest even the most modest of changes in order to bring the tiniest hint of balance, they fight them tooth and nail on...every...single...point before filing an RfC against them for being too uppity (sometimes they say 'too combative' but it's the same thing.) Finally, when confronted with the treachery of their actions, and exposed to the appropriate way to deal with rumor and innuendos in Wikipedia articles (usually found where the subject is a Democrat) they put their fingers in their ears and start shouting "Na, Na, Na...I can't hear you! Or else they simply demagogue the issue, distort the rules and spirit of Wikipedia to defend the perpetual and endemic on-line character assassinations of conservatives, and applaud one another for their wisdom. Kind of like what just happened here.

There's not a word about Karl-Rovian content in the whole sordid paragraph - and thus, nothing for me to respond to. Take it to User Talk or someplace else. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would anyone call my thoughtful way of explaining a better way to arrive at consensus thru the use of a contrary example sordid? It feels like a personal attack and is quite offensive as is that superior attitude that suggests you can just order people around in here. I would never have expected it from someone who heretofore has been so charming, respectful and impartial as you ...Big Daddy 18:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

1. It's far from a 'better way', 2. Once again you ignore the entire topic, personalize your comments, and accuse. Rove. Rove. Rove Rove Rove Rove Rove. That's what this space is here for. Rove Rove Rove Rove. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well much, much better. That's the gentle Ryan I remember. To explain what is happening in succinct terms. I'm suggesting that we remove some of the unsubstantiated rumors about Rove and replace them with a single paragraph about Rove. I found this paragraph not in the Rove article but in the Clinton article but felt it was appropos because both Clinton and Rove have their fair share of mudslinging political enemies. Rove has democratic enemies and Clinton republican. So in fact, this discussion is all about Rove. How Rove should be treated and whether or not the standard that applied to Clinton applies to Rove. Ultimately, what were wrestling with is what's the fairest way to treat Rove. Does Rove deserve to be subject to this litany of scurrilous charges or should Rove be treated like the Dems. I think Rove would argue in favor of the latter, but why ask me. Just ask Rove. Big Daddy 19:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you feel there's an issue with general POV across political articles across Wikipedia, don't disrupt this article to prove a point. For your own improvement as a collaborator and editor, I suggest you focus on the real nature of your tangent from the 'RESOURCES' topic - your need to wrestle with 'the fairest way to treat' your fellow editors. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Whew! More lectures, insults and attacks. What has gotten into you lately? No need for me to respond in kind however. The most important thing is that we treat Karl Rove civilly (and fairly.) That's why I'm excited about the impending implementation of the 'Clinton Model.' And not just for Rove's article, but across the board whereever anyone (be they democrat or republican) is unfairly slimed by a litany of unsubstantiated charges as has been done for far too long (but not too much longer) to Karl Rove...Big Daddy 20:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize such a drastic change was "impending". Rather than unilaterally bring such drastic changes to an article, why don't you seek concensus or take a poll on whether we should use your proposed 'Clinton model'? --kizzle 20:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle writes: "I didn't realize such a drastic change was "impending." Yes, it truly is an exciting time to work at Wikipedia. I realize you may not be aware of all that's been going on with the Rove article lately, what with you having to fend off unwarranted attacks about your previous misdeeds from others with, what some might say splotchy records themselves, so I'll catch you up. I am still working on a consensus which is why none of these exciting changes have yet been made. As far as the poll goes, that's pretty much been done given the time tested imprimatur provided by the 'Clinton Model.' The reason I'm enthusiastic about the direction this article is going is that I think the adoption of the Clinton Model is a huge first step towards eliminating the POV bias from this article. And what fair-minded Wikipedian wouldn't be delighted with that? Big Daddy 23:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"having to fend off unwarranted attacks about your previous misdeeds form others with, what some might say splotchy records themselves"... in all seriousness, are you referring to yourself? Eliminating POV bias is definetely something to be delighted about, I just think your co-editors think this can be accomplished using better ways than the 'Clinton Model'. --kizzle 04:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy, might I trouble you to refer me to the Wikipedia policy that says articles can't include reports of "unsubstantiated allegations"? You invoke that phrase and its equivalents over and over, as if the purpose of a Wikipedia article were to pronounce final judgment on every contested point. As long as you persist in trying to rid Wikipedia of any reference to opinions with which you disagree, you'll be banging your head against a stone wall. JamesMLane 18:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

James, we've already been through this debate. It was solved with the discovery of the 'Clinton Model.' That's a macro way of resolving a whole lot of micro issues. I thought people would rejoice that I found something that could help us move on. I provided a reasoned explanation and patiently waited to build a consensus which I'll continue to do. But instead, the personal attacks escalated against me. I'm falsely accused of not 'discussing content' or being 'incivil' because I'm defending an editorial position birthed right here in Wikipedia. Call me crazy, but I'm getting the impression that for many, discovering a reasonable working model developed undoubtedly over countless hours by Wikipedans well versed in Wikipedia Policy, and that very much parallels what we're doing here, is not good news. But bad news. Isn't that weird? Big Daddy 18:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Big Daddy, the debate has not been "solved" by your "discovery". In my post of 10:37 UTC, I trained to explain to you why your assertion is incorrect. Evidently I've failed to get through to you. At this point I feel that I've done all that I can to help you. If I fail to respond to some future post of yours, you should not infer agreement from my silence. JamesMLane 19:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Same in kind. Thanks for your input. Don't think your points have not gotten through. They have and are duly noted. In fact, they've helped sharpen my thinking and clarify my resolve in this matter. And I hope I've helped you to see the light. You're absolutely right. The problem has not been universally solved. It has been solved as far as I'm concerned and that is very exciting. But I understand not everyone shares my joy. I've suggested that, in general, some do not wish to acknowledge that dirty little secret I uncovered. That democrats are deliberately and brazenly treated more accomodatingly in Wikipedia than Republicans/conservatives. Or, at least in this glaring Clinton v Rove example. Yes, I too was shocked when I discovered this. Although, I think deep down in our hearts, all of us may have feared something as horrific as this was going on. And I understand how unsettling it is to face such an ugly truth. But I'm certainly not blaming any particular individual, for fostering this clear and pervasive problem. Least of all, you. Take care...Big Daddy 19:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Big Daddy" has made a decision to ignore his RFC page, on which many Wikipedia editors enumerate his extreme POV, personal attacks, etc. It's his right to ignore the page. It's also the right of others to ignore him on this and other Talk pages (with the exception of reverting any of his POV edits in the articles). That will save a lot of time, and make Wikipedia a more pleasant place to work. Eleemosynary 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, in case you hadn't noticed, threats, be they veiled or not, don't work on me. Now, if you chose to violate the spirit of wikipedia's community and collaborative effort in a fruitless effort to punishme because I don't kowtow to stalkers, that's your choice. But I will continue to edit and have my edits protected from POV warriors whose only interest is to marginalize people with whom they disagree. Ps In fact, I have a pretty substantial edit in this very article coming up in what may be a few minutes or so. I've been talking about it quite a bit and am satisfied I've made a reasoned logical argument for these changes.

Basically, I'll be removing the lengthy discussions of any & all unsubstantiated rumors about Karl Rove in their entirety, and replacing them all with one short & sweet paragraph patterned after what I call the 'Clinton Model.' I was waiting to build a consensus and a consensus has finally been established that those most loudly opposing these changes have lost their ability to fairly judge these matters due to their intense and deeply seated hostilities that, in my dispassionately objective evaluation, borders on the irrational. I would refer you to the talk page of the gentle Paul Klenk [17]for further details. I hate to bring this kind of thing up on this page, but it is relevant inasmuch as this new information changes the dynamic. So....Stick around for a few...I think you're going to love the new, improved and virtually POV-free Wikipedia Karl Rove article... Big Daddy 02:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I have an idea, BD. Why don't you start your own blog? You can rant all day there. Please, PLEASE, stop crusading against and vilifying other users on the Talk pages. A month of this crap is enough. --NightMonkey 03:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

(moved from NightMonkey's user page by NightMonkey)

I've got a better idea, NMonkey. Why don't you desist from making mean-spirited, hateful personal attacks on the Karl Rove page? According to Wikipedia regulations, it's purpose is to discuss the merits/demerits of the article. in fact, dishonest cheap shots like yours above have no place in this encyclopedia. Thanks for your consideration and welcome to Wikipedia!:) (from Big Daddy)

Seeing as you don't have a shred of concensus to use this 'Clinton Model' , we'll see what happens. --kizzle 04:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, a consensus has been reached. It was reached during the development of the peer-reviewed Bill Clinton article and it very much applies here. I suggest you do further research into what it means for an article to be peer-reviewed on Wikipedia. It is pertinent to this discussion and provides a solid unshakable basis for my imminent changes. There's also a consensus that many of those opposing the introduction of fairness to this article have abdicated objectivity in the name of acrimonious personal attacks and partisan entrenchment and thus have self-disqualified. And I'm happy to go it alone in any case, since I'm never alone so long as I operate under founder Jimmy Wales mandate that Wikipedia be, a nPOV source of information. I proclaim that Wikipedia will be just that.Big Daddy 13:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A concensus on Bill Clinton does not mean concensus here on Karl Rove. Do your own research. Like I said before, we'll see what happens, but your attempt to unilaterally refactor the Rove page based upon your lame 'Clinton Model' has absolutely no shred of concensus. --kizzle 17:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A Visual

Bestseller, Bush's Brain, documented Rove's role in Bush's rise to power.

Pictures are generally encouraged to liven up articles visually. I thought this might go nicely in the section where the book is mentioned. Comments anyone? Derex 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm down, but I'm sure someone will have a problem with it. --kizzle 02:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That such a book even exists is a good illustration of Rove's prominence, unusual for someone in his position. JamesMLane 14:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

K, put it in. --kizzle 05:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I want to unprotect this article

I can't see the sense in protecting this article. Quite a lot of material has changed in the past couple of days since I unprotected, and there were only eight edits all day before it was protected. if someone is in a squabble, there are enough editors around to decide consensus, and meanwhile the article content is developing.

What good reason exists for keeping this article protected? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Because the editors are just as happy to revert and discuss it later than the other way around. Serves the article right; a thoughtful reader of Wikipedia will visit this page and see what the disputes are about. paul klenk ^talk 22:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I protected the article the first time because of an edit war. I didn't think it should be unprotected when you lifted it, Tony, but because you're vastly more experienced than I, I deferred to your decision. I still think it should be protected. There are some edits being made, but they aren't quality edits. And each one is being squabbled about on the talk page -- not in terms of content, but in terms of personal stuff. The reverting and then complaining about subsequent reverting is detracting from talking about real content issues. (Then again, there wasn't much agreement made when it was protected). I still think protection, for now, helps people focus on the talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate wrote: "There are some edits being made, but they aren't quality edits. And each one is being squabbled about on the talk page -- not in terms of content, but in terms of personal stuff." Well, if you're talking about my edits, this characterization is not only inaccurate, it's dishonest. But I want to agf. So, for the record, how would you characterize my correction on the 'push poll' section? Thanks (It's kind of important.)Big Daddy 23:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize them as anything, because that's not my role here. There were edits. There were reversions. There was squabbling on the talk page (witness Paul's entreaty above). That's all I needed to see -- more attention diverted from consensus-building. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It's funny, because the reason why I asked is that before I went to the talk page I looked at the article history between my unprotection and User:Jredmond's protection, just two days later.

The following changes have been made:

• typos fixed
• wording in intro tightened, weaseling removed
• Maurice Hinchey's speculation on the Killian documents.
• tightening the McCain smear allegations
• Hurricane Katrina

That latter entry is reason in itself to keep this article open for editing. Rove is playing a front-facing role now. Moreover as a fund raiser he has visited ND and KY to rebuild the GOP's coffers. This is a subject we really can't afford to sit around whining about on talk pages, it's something that Wikipedia has proven extremely good at in recent months, and I think we should just let Wikipedia get on with it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Tony has a good point. Guettarda 23:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that protecting a lightning rod figure like Rove is problematic but sometimes necessary. A balance needs to be struck. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The decision to protect or unprotect an article are far above my pay grade, so I'm content to patiently wait for that matter to be resolved. Rest assured, as soon as this article gets unprotected, I'll be working around the clock to address all the areas of concern I've raised in here previously. Big Daddy 03:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You might usefully spend the time familiarizing yourself with the NPOV policy. Again and again and again, you refer to some opinion that's critical of Rove, you express your disagreement with the opinion on the basis that it's not adequately supported by undisputed facts, and then you pronounce that opinion to be unworthy of inclusion in the article. The rest of us are focusing on the distinction between reporting an opinion and adopting it. An example of the latter would be, "Rove was behind the South Carolina push poll." That approach would be improper as to that specific issue and as to most of the similar charges against Rove, because they're disputed. (The Dixon incident is an exception because, AFAIK, it's not disputed.) What is proper, however, is the reporting approach: "Rove was widely accused of being behind the South Carolina push poll." Reporting of that sort belongs in the article, even if you think that the opinions being so reported are partisan, unsubstantiated, deliberate falsehoods, or whatever other denunciations seem right to you.

A good place to start would be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#The original formulation of NPOV. Note at the top of the page that it's an official Wikipedia policy. The section I've linked to includes this statement from Jimmy Wales:

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

Note that we report opinions, even those that are wrong, because we don't restrict the article to "what is so" -- except, of course, that we have to get our facts right about what people believe. (I haven't gotten involved in the specifics of the push-poll passage. We shouldn't attribute a particular quotation to a book unless it's actually in that book.)

The repeated response on this page has been that, if we don't screen opinions according to whether they're well substantiated, then there will be an "anything goes" situation in which every charge that anyone makes against Rove must be included. That, of course, isn't Wikipedia policy, either. Read what kizzle and I wrote in this thread. The general rule is explained in another section of the official Wikipedia NPOV policy: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not . . . ." In the case of the push poll, the references gathered by Katefan show that this opinion can't be dismissed as that of an extremely small minority.

The point about impartial sources arises when we're stating something as fact. It doesn't mean that we can't refer to a partisan opinion, as long as we're merely reporting it rather than adopting it. In fact, not only is such reporting permitted; it is, in the case of a notable opinion, required. JamesMLane 05:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! Well explained. Derex 15:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't fall on deaf ears. --kizzle 17:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and unprotect. I was trying to keep a revert war from escalating beyond control, but most of the major players seem to have cooled down. (seem to. haha.) Still watching this article, though, and if things get out of hand then I'll protect or block as appropriate.

While I have the soapbox, I want to suggest that we work on rephrasing instead of reverting, and on removing our own biases before screaming about everybody else's. (That applies to several people in this particular instance, but AFAIC is good advice in any edit war.) - jredmond 03:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

1980 George H. W. Bush presidential campaign

I'm curious as to why this section is listed under "1980 George H. W. Bush presidential campaign". The section has only marginal relationship to the heading title. The complete text of the section:

"For the next few years, Rove worked in various Republican circles and assisted George H. W. Bush's 1980 vice-presidential campaign. Rove is credited for introducing Bush to Lee Atwater, who would go on to play a critical role in Bush's 1988 presidential campaign. Like Atwater, Rove is well known for his effective campaign tactics, employing push polls and frequently attacking an opponent on the opponent's strongest issue.

In 1981, Rove founded direct mail consulting firm, Karl Rove + Company, based out of Austin, Texas. This firm's first clients included Republican Governor Bill Clements and Democratic Congressman Phil Gramm, who later became a Republican Congressman and United States Senator. In 1993, Rove began advising George W. Bush's gubernatorial campaign. He continued, however, to operate his consulting business until 1999, when he sold the firm to focus his efforts on Bush's bid for the presidency."

While this section does have peripheral connection to Rove's involvement in the 1980 Bush Presidential Campaign, it is more a discussion of Rove/Atwater campaign tactics and Rove's ownership of his consulting firm, which is a little silly seeing as how there is a section on the Consulting Business later in the article.

My apologies if this is the wrong forum or format for this particular point, or if I am repeating a point that had been made previously.

This is absolutly the right place, and I do not believe it has been made before. Do you have a suggested edit, or should I give it a go? WP:JETFA Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

POV insertions

An anon just posted the following to the article. Please discuss here, and if a consensus exists, we can reintroduce it. On it's face, it appears blatantly POV pushing, and unencyclopedic. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

But without any facts, proof, or evidence, liberals press on with the unsubstantiated charges regarding 2000. Rove's mere involvement in the national campaign makes him responsible, it seems, for any rogue e-mail floated during the 2000 South Carolina primary. Al Franken, noted comedian and amateur political activist, recently accused Bush and Rove outright of being behind the alleged calls. Rove inspires anger in liberals, probably a sign of his effectiveness. The fact Democratic advisers Jim Carville and Paul Begala are not as vilified betrays the liberal bias in both the press and the body politic. It proves effective Republican campaign operatives must be smeared at all costs — truth be darned. In the past, even Rove's Virginia residence has been targeted by angry liberal protesters.

I actually was just getting ready to roll it back as obvious vandalism. Beat me to it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering, I didn't do this. lol! But it raises some very good points. And what it really does is reveal who is trying to protect the liberal bias in this article most assisduously. Thanks for tipping me off. I had no idea liberals had vandalized Karl's home. That certainly must find a place in this article. I, in an effort to rid Wikipedia of systemic bias (did you know there was a HUGE movement among Wikipedians to do exactly that?) was comparing Rove's article with Clinton's. But this segment points out another interesting angle. Comparing how Rove is treated with Begala and Carville. Hmmmm.

Well, I have enough proof of systemic liberal bias by comparing it with Clinton so at this point it would just be piling on, but good job anonymous poster. Welcome to the Karl Rove page. I hope you'll stay and help me build consensus. The irony is that some who work on this page almost seem more upset about what they erroneously call page vandalism than the actual vandalism of Karl Rove's house. I know, crazy, huh?

So don't be deterred by the hateful mean spirited comments you're sure to get for merely attempting to bring balance. See here [18]and especially here [19]

If you learned anything today, it's how quickly material thought to be POV in favor of Rove is removed.... and how slow-as-molasses is the process to remove POV thought to be against him. In fact some people apparently don't feel that latter bias in this article even exists! That in itself shows we've still got a lot of work to do... Big Daddy 18:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, BD777, this particular IP is a persistent vandal. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments like you just posted make me doubt that you want this to be a neutral encyclopedia. It seems like your solution to the perceived systemic liberal bias is to make this a conservative encyclopedia. Clearly the passage attempting to be inserted was heavily slanted towards a conservative POV, and yet you congratulate the poster? I have said before that I agree that there is a general liberal bias on Wikipedia simply due to the demographics of the people who come here, but the answer to correct this is definetely not anywhere close to what the anon attempted to insert. --kizzle 19:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I want what Jimmy Wales wants.[20] Big Daddy 19:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

No need to engage this vandal, nor any of his anonymous sockpuppets. Any POV edits of his will be reverted. Eleemosynary 20:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Two more false and personal attacks duly noted.Big Daddy 23:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Wales, together with philosopher Larry Stanger, started Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), a community-edited encyclopedia, in January 2001. Here, thousands of volunteers write articles, edit those written by others and otherwise add to an ever-growing body of knowledge. In a little over two years, the site has racked up over 132,000 articles on everything from Japanese rock bands to weapons of mass destruction, and tens of thousands more on its foreign language sites.

Is this another case of you confusing an article that has Wales' name in it to be the same as every single word in it attributed to him? --kizzle 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Protest at Karl Rove's residence

The passage added by the anon, without supporting citation, said that "Rove's Virginia residence has been targeted by angry liberal protesters." Big Daddy jumps to conclude that "liberals had vandalized Karl's home" and vows to include that in the article. Assuming for the moment that the anon's statement is correct, I'd interpret "protesters" as meaning "people carrying banners and picket signs and standing around on public property near Rove's house, denouncing him for something or other". If anyone's ever broken into Rove's house, it was probably just a run-of-the-mill burglar. JamesMLane 00:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Vow might be too strong of a word :) Also, I stand corrected that the word 'targeted' was used and not 'vandalized.' My bad. However, I disagree with your final assertion since it's just a guess. It's moot anyway until someone can document this with a notable source. Not that it's not possibly important, it's just that I'm too busy working on my mirror Rove page to perfect the 'Clinton Model' to spend much time investigating this. Big Daddy 01:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That's going to be a shame when you get reverted because you didn't have concensus. --kizzle 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The Clinton Model Modified

I have been informed by a respected Wikipedian that the use of terms like 'far right' and 'far right winger' is considered unacceptable usage. I presume that to mean those terms will be soon removed from the Bill Clinton article as well as all other articles where such violations currently exist. Therefore, I am modifying the 'Clinton Model' for the Karl Rove article to exclude similar expressions. With that correction, this section is good to go and now finally ready to be added. Halleljuah! Big Daddy 09:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Who? You can't be secretive about this. --Woohookitty 05:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Big Daddy 12:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Because this is an open, public forum. Frankly, I've never heard that those things are unacceptable. I want to know where you are getting this piece of information from. --Woohookitty 20:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

While a Consensus builds..

...I edited this section to comport more with the truth. Weaver's quote was not about the black child incident (or, if it was, it's unclear) and the quote leaves out what he continued to say. In short the use of this quote is A DISHONEST attempt to find some support for an unsubstantiated allegation. Sorry, I've seen the flick. It's just not there.

Secondly, Founder Jimmy Wales, whose edict published in these very talk pages has been treated contemptuously, said that highly biased sources must be qualified. I have qualified Bush's Brain with the hyperbolic cum paranoid verbatim quote from the author. Why anyone who honestly respects what Jimmmy Wales has instructed us would want to take this out is a question I hope someone can find the answer to. Here's how the section looks now:

According to Richard H. Davis (the campaign manager of John McCain's 2000 presidential bid), a telephone push poll was conducted during the 2000 South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" [21]. McCain was campaigning with his adopted, dark-skinned Bangladeshi daughter at the time. According to Davis, the push poll was designed to suggest that the girl had been fathered illegitimately by McCain. In a 2004 editorial Davis called the push poll "effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign" and that he "had no idea who had made those calls, who paid for them, or how many were made". The authors of the 2003 book Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential (also made into a movie which began with the book's authors claiming that Karl Rove was a danger to the republic) allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his role as campaign advisor to Bush. Big Daddy 04:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I call for an ending of the constant mentions of Jimmy Wales. It's a little like constantly mentioning God as a reference. I have a feeling that if we sat Jimmy down and had him read your posts, he'd probably gag. As I've said a few times, NPOV isn't a whole lot of liberalism and a whole lot of conservatism in articles. It is meant to be neutral language not favoring either side. What you propose usually isn't neutral. So please stop pretending like Jimmy would be on your side or something. Please. It's gaming the system. It's all it is. So please stop. --Woohookitty 05:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Woohookitty. But it's an attempt to game the system, and it's not working. It's odious brown-nosing, not even rising to the level of a 2nd grader begging the teacher to let him clean the blackboards. It's sad, silly, and typical. Eleemosynary 07:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I can certainly understand why you would want to call for a moratorium on the mention of Jimmy Wales. But it's not gonna happen. FYI, the inmates are no longer running the asylum. The attempts by POV warriors to game the system so that, in their world, the rules mean whatever they want them to be, is belied by the fact that Jimmy Wales came onto these very talk pages and spelled out how we should treat impartial sources. BTW, I'm impressed you think you can channel Jimmy Wales, but I have to tell you that this statement "I have a feeling that if we sat Jimmy down and had him read your posts, he'd probably gag." and the ENTIREY of Eleemosynary's statement are DEEPLY insulting personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, WP:AFF etc etc. But, on the bright side, they do make my point about your inability to work with people with whom you disagree without viciously attacking them personally more clearly than I ever could. For that, I give you much love. Big Daddy 12:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

So do you mean that you've read all 10,000+ of my edits and also every time I've tried to make an article NPOV? I didn't become an admin by accident. I had one dissenting vote out of apprx. 40 votes to become an admin. You know nothing about me and how I usually deal with users on here. You've mentioned my line of saying that "now you are going to call me a pinko commie liberal". I didn't get that out of thin air. I got that from reading your posts. You deal with all editors who contradict you the exact same way. So what I say here is not typical of how I deal with users on here in the least. I judged you based on your record. You are judging me based on posts on here and on your talk page, which involved responding to someone who has exhibited a pattern of calling anyone that contradicts him "a liberal" or "a godless liberal". You calling me uncivil and telling me that I do not deal with users without attacking them is the best example of the pot calling the kettle black that I've ever run into on here or anywhere else. --Woohookitty 19:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Allegations of the use of 9/11 tragedy for political gain

This section really needs some balance. The 'families' group mentioned is a virtual front for left wing activities. There are other 911 victims groups that support Rove's characterization. Plus, and I put this in awhile ago only to SHOCKINGLY find it removed, Rove was right in that MoveOn issued a petition right after 911 calling for 'patience and understanding' towards Afganistan and called for the US to not fight the Taliban there. Let's put that in. What do you say?Big Daddy 04:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If MoveOn called for patience and understanding towards Afghanistan, and Rove cited MoveOn's statement as proof of his claim that liberals had called for patience and understanding for our attackers, then the MoveOn petition and Rove's invocation of it should be reported. (If the wording is as stated here, the juxtaposition is a pretty telling example of Rove's shameless willingness to distort the facts.) If Rove didn't point to the MoveOn statement, then it doesn't deserve mention here. In fact, including it would be unfair to Rove, because it would convey an impression that he was distorting the facts. As for the families group, they're a legitimate source of criticism of Rove, but we can't separately identify everyone who's criticized (or supported) Rove on every issue. Here, the opposing points of view are represented by the criticism from Democrats and the support from the administration. Those are reasonably representative and notable viewpoints, so I think that's adequate. JamesMLane 08:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree less. What you're suggesting is that only ONE 911 family group be allowed to comment on Rove. The liberal one. (Shocked!) And in fact, Rove need not specifically outline every single liberal group that fits his description before it's allowed in an encyclopedia. That's the same kind of tortured logic that insists that Ann Coulter must PROCLAIM 'Hey, I was only joking! otherwise we MUST conclude she was totally serious. I don't know anyone else who is being held to such a high standard. Our presentation of this information is not limited ot just the words the person in question uttered. Why do you suggest imposing this unattainable standard on Karl Rove? This whole section is a cheap smear job anyway. It reflects a distincly LIBERAL pov mostly provoked by the false selective outrage of democratic opportunists after Rove uttered the statements. In my opinion, it should be removed or more likely corralled into the 'cheap shot ghetto' along with all the other items that fit the bill. But, so long as this section stays, I affirm that it should be presented fairly and balanced. Who could argue against that? Big Daddy 12:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy, you're so eager to fight the good fight against the sinister left-wing cabal that you charge into the field, guns blazing, even when a card-carrying cabal member like me agrees with you about something. How did you get the idea that I'm suggesting that only one family group's comment be quoted? I said that quoting Democratic politicians on one side and the Bush administration on the other would be adequate. I don't think we need to quote any 9/11 families or family groups (or Michael Moore or Ann Coulter or anyone else). There are statements for and against Rove that aren't exactly congruent with the ones I've mentioned (including that from Families Of September 11), but that's why I said that we can't quote every supporter and opponent. Which brings us to MoveOn -- apparently your idea is that, having quoted Rove's controversial remark, we must then present all the evidence we can find that would tend to support his statement. Then, of course, to have a balanced presentation, we'd have to present all the evidence the other way. In other words, every time we quote Rove or refer to one of his statements, we have to interrupt his biography to go off on a side excursion, an article-within-an-article that discusses the subject he addressed. Furthermore, if we were to do that for Rove, we'd presumably have to do it for other controversial figures. The articles on people like Moore and Coulter would quickly grow to book length if we did so. The better alternative is just to note the opinions of Democrats and of the administration, and then drop it, unless Rove himself later elaborated on or backtracked from his statement. JamesMLane 15:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

et tu JamesMLane?? I was always told you were the persuasive one because of your cool calm reasoned responses and up until now I had no reason to doubt this and have always accorded you the respect of analyzing your arguments and either agreeing or disagreeing.

But you both shock and surprise me with a personal attack in your very fist sentence. To suggest that I'm some knee-jerk reactionary spoling for a fight with the left wing cabal is to caricature me in a grossly distorted way.

I'm here to remove POV. Period.

Now, it is acknowledged by you and others that there are currently a preponderance of liberals in here doing the editing, although no one until you would be willing to admit that there was a left-wing cabal and a sinister one at that! (Remember, you can't say you were 'just joking' because, as we've learned from the liberal editors of the Ann Coulter piece, unless you SPECIFICALLY say 'I was joking' when you make your statement, it means you're as serious as AIDS- so I thank you for that illuminating revelation. It is duly noted.)

Anyway, it stands to reason that most of the POV I will encounter is going to be coming from the left. Do you dispute that or do you think this Karl Rove article is filled with right wing hyperbole?

As for your argument - "we have to interrupt his biography to go off on a side excursion, an article-within-an-article that discusses the subject he addressed..." I can only say McCain...Black Baby Rumor...see above. lol!

I find it hard to believe you can type that argument with a straight stroke. It is PRECISELY what one editor accurately called 'tit for tat meandering' that is the HALLMARK of Ann Coulter and Karl Rove articles.

I wish you'd use your persuasive powers to denounce this approach in the McCain-push-poll-incident & the Ann Coulters-loves-terrorists-section instead of cherry-pick applying it in a realm where Rove might actually be vindicated by it's use.

So, I reject your argumentation as you propose to apply it. In fact, I've understood that Move-On's petition may have been specifically what Rove was referring to. Therefore to omit this information would be a deliberate attempt to leave that quote hanging out there and thus tantamount to POV by default.

And I think one 911 family group comments deserves another. Or, if you like, we can just use the conservative 911 family group's statements. Since we don't want to make this article 'book-length' do we?

Here's my bottom line: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And what I've seen here since day 1 is one form of argumentation used to defend an article if it's good for the goose (democrat/liberal) and that EXACT SAME ARGUMENTATION trashed if it looks good for the gander (republican/conservative.) I hope you don't think I'm the only one who sees this. (Oh btw, when I post these trenchant observations, I'm almost always getting rebuked for 'getting away from content' or 'talking politics.' Funny, how your comments of the exact same nature never get that same rebuke. Must be 'cabal club' privileges, huh? :) Take care Big Daddy. Ps I do like your style though. I appreciate the sober analysis that generally exudes from your posts. Even if I don't agree, I respect the approach you take. Big Daddy 19:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Shhhh James, he's onto us! --kizzle 01:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy, I appreciate your compliment for my approach, but, frankly, I can't see that it's done much good. For example, I explained to you about the process for making Wikipedia policy. Your response above assumes that policy binding on all participants can be made by a few editors' comments on one article talk page. Your post is inaccurate concerning my views and other subjects, but I don't see any point in cluttering the talk page with yet another attempt to explain things to you.

Oh, and, kizzle, next week's cabal meeting has been postponed because of Yom Kippur. JamesMLane 09:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bring my secret decoder ring. --kizzle 19:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Remove redundant material?

A good fourth of this article duplicates material found (and more properly belonging) at the Plame Affair article. Does anyone object to all of the Plame affair stuff being cut down to a simple statement of Rove's involvement and link to the main article? I'd go through and see if there is anything here which isn't included there, but at first glance it doesn't seem like it. --CBDunkerson 00:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't. In fact, it has been on the Karl Rove To Do for quite some time (see top of this page). Go for it! :) --NightMonkey 00:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Pending the outcome of the ongoing investigation (which is very much a current event, and apparently set to end in just two weeks), it is highly inappropriate to delete all the carefully-footnoted text and information relevant to Role's particular role in the scandal. To bury it (lose it) in the highly partisan Plame affair article is wrong: whether or not Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent by his wife is NOT relevant to the guilt or innocence of Karl Rove. And just because Plame affair borrowed a lot from Karl Rove doesn't mean it tells Karl Rove's story.

This has been discussed, folks. I've restored the copy. Keep as is. Shariputra 05:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed. It is still being discussed. I believe that the unecessary redundancy is well solved by placing the information into a more appropriate, more specific article. The current quality state of that other article does not matter, as long as the information that was taken from here is present there. If the Plame affair article is "partisan" or has problems vis a vis NPOV, that's a problem for that article's editors (which you could be one of). I am restoring the move. --NightMonkey 06:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will also add that probably the only information that should be added into this article's "Plame affair" section are very specific noteable media events where Karl Rove is specifically involved. All else should be in other applicable articles. --NightMonkey 06:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and this task has been on this Talk page's To-Do for months. --NightMonkey 06:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes to your last point only. As you know, the Plame affair merger has been discussed at great length in September Survey. As you are well aware, opinions are strongly divided, and the consensus is to leave this as is until the clarifications from (forthcoming) indictments or the end of Fitzgerald's inquiry. We all acknowledge that the Plame material in Karl Rove is lengthy. But even those of us who agree it should (in time) be reduced to a summary do not advocate total removal, as you apparently do.

Because this page is the top hit on the Internet for "Karl Rove," it is highly inappropriate for Mr. Rove or his proxies to censor or bury the record of his involvement. Many objections were made to the sort of vandalism and censorship you are now practicing, and they are well expressed on that page.

NightMonkey, I am sure I speak for many other Wikipedia editors in asking: please don't revert this a third time. Shariputra 17:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

ShariPutra, can you please back off of some of these accusations? I seriously doubt that NightMonkey is one of Rove's "proxies," and what he did is neither censorship nor vandalism. Capriciously calling an edit you disagree with that was made in good faith vandalism borders on a personal attack. I hope I don't seem glib or flip, but I think you should probably only speak for yourself. If other Wikipedia editors disagree, I'm sure they will speak up. Personally I think it's a good idea to move a lot of the content out to a fork article; it's too much detail for this one and serves to unbalance the article in favor of Wikipedia:Recentism. However, there should still be a significant summary devoted to the issue here in the Rove article, just not this level of detail. So far I count three people on this page in favor of this tack, and you against. That's a fair rough consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, I measure my words. Like CBDunkerson, NightMonkey ignored the long discussions in the September Survey (please read it, if you haven't already). He deleted more than half the article and everything related to the CIA leak -- on a day when Rove is on the front page of every major newspaper in this country, specifically for his involvement in the Plame scandal. NightMonkey removed the entire legal discussion, removed the entire White House reaction (including specific and categorical denials of Rove's involvement), and removed everything concerning the actual evidence we have so far of Rove's involvement and how we came to have it. This is a huge disservice to Wikipedia users, and it insults all of us who have worked to clarify and contextualize Rove's role.

As the coming weeks bring us new information, I suggest an evolving revision of the Rove article, built on what we have here. I imagine (for example) that the legal section will diminish in size, as various legal theories are discarded as irrelevant. In any case, pleae keep in mind that the Plame Affair article is NOT a high Wikipedia hit and is in any case NOT organized around Rove's particular role, which needs to be understood an elaborated on separately as we find out more about it. A thoughtless and wholesale deletion of the well-documented and footnoted material contributed by hundreds of Wikipedists is unwarranted and, to my mind, suspicious. Particularly now. Shariputra 18:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't delete anything. CBDunkerson moved information to a more appropriate article - it is all still here and still searchable. I merely reverted your undoing of his/her work on this article. The link to that same article is still present in this article. Heck, I added the references to the new Rove call for testimony here and in several other appropriate articles - now I'm a WikiStooge for Karl? I'd think if I was a stooge for Karl I'd at least own a house, but so far I'm renting. ;) --NightMonkey 18:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My sincere apologies if I confused your edits. Maybe I was trigger-happy, because I've seen some seriously suspicious shilling on this page before. My point is that this is no time to offload a lot of highly relevant information to Plame affair. Let's revise Karl Rove as events and developments dictate. Shariputra 18:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

NightMonkey, I obviously I did not confuse your edits. I see you have now reversed the article once again. It is particularly offensive that you would delete all the statements from the White House denying Rove's specific involvement in the leak. I ask in good faith: have you even read my objections? Are you aware of what you are doing here, and why this wholesale deletion goes counter to the many views raised in the September Survey? You give yourself credt for mentioning (BURYING!) Rove's fourth grand jury appearance, and then "disappear" all the substantiating facts that are pertinent to Rove's particular involvement.

What you write on this Talk page and what you are doing in reality is quite another. You are -- quite simply -- trying to keep Wikipedia users from easily accessing the facts. Katefan0, will you look into this?

So I ask, if I reverse this again, will I be in violation of the 3RR? For upholding the consensus developed by the September Survey? Shariputra 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hehe. 'Rove proxie'. ROFLOL. I'm DYING here. C'MON! Take two seconds looking at my edits. Suffice it to say... way off base here. As to the move... what's the problem with clicking on an extra link? That's what we're really talking about here. Someone hits the 'top Google result' for Karl Rove, finds this page, sees the link to the Plame Affair article... and has access to even MORE information about Karl's involvement than was included here. It doesn't make sense to try to duplicate everything in this article... any more than the entire Watergate article should appear within Richard Nixon. I went through the plame info in the Rove article line by line... almost all of it was IDENTICAL to text already in the Plame Affair article. Where there was an extra sentence, link, or even couple of words I added them to the Plame Affair article. As to 'ignoring' the September survey... I'd never even HEARD of it. I'd made several edits on this topic, but nobody told me about the survey. Looking at it now... there was nearly a 3:1 majority in favor of cleaning it up! Clearly that is going to have to be done eventually in any case. It makes no sense to be editing this all here, on Plame Affair, Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson, et cetera. All of the others had already been merged into Plame Affair with only brief summaries on the pages of each involved party. I'd been reading that it was about to hit the fan and wanted to clean things up on this page before it got hot again. (I made the change the day BEFORE Rove was in the headlines... not after as you'd said.) Also, it should be noted... there are several paragraphs of stuff in here about the Plame Affair which have nothing to do with Rove. It just doesn't make sense to recreate an entire other article within this one. --CBDunkerson 19:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, Sandover re-undid CBDunkerson's work that I had restored. For every edit, there are at least two editors ready to revert you, fair or not. CBDunkerson did not delete anything. He/she moved it to a more appropriate location. Noteable information relevant to this article was still present here with their edits. There's really no concept of "burying the lead" here - this is not WikiNews. So, this article just continues to grow without bounds. --NightMonkey 19:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Karl Rove (once again) as Current Event

Shariputra, NightMonkey, CBDunkerson all have valid concerns. I have read the September Survey as well, and you are right, Shariputra, to reference it. While all of us feel the Plame section is too long, it does contain very important information and is best cut down in stages, as the story evolves. Much of what's here will drop away naturally, I think. While I am sure Plame affair will take over as a point of primary reference in time, for now, Karl Rove is still the page that most people on the Internet using a google search turn to immediately, and they need the background. (It's an excellent and comprehensive summary as it stands, and is particularly useful for foreign readers.)

CBDunkerson, 'cleaning it up' does mean deleting highly relevant material. NightMonkey, it is 'burying the lead' if you offload to another Wikipedia entry the fact that the White House has specifically denied Rove's involvement. It is 'buring the lead' to delete documented evidence of Rove's role.

I will help with this winnowing-down process over the coming days and weeks, but I ask you all to calm your nerves and not engage in more reversals. Sandover 19:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedia article writing guided by Google search return popularity? --NightMonkey 19:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't DELETE anything. I just moved it to the appropriate article. If you agree that it needs to be winnowed down... isn't that what I did? You think I winnowed too much? Fine... then ADD a few additional sentences or paragraphs. Why take "days and weeks" to recreate what I spent eight HOURS doing? Having three pages of IDENTICAL information, and I do mean WORD for WORD, on two different articles makes no sense whatsoever. As to the 'September survey'... it was something like 14 to 5 in favor of cutting the Plame section down to just a summary. To me that sounds like a consensus... for what I did. Which is also listed as a 'to do' at the top of this page. --CBDunkerson 19:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm done reverting. And, I think I'm done with this article for a while. This well is so poisoned that no one really reads other editors' comnments, or bothers to really see the extent of others' work. Have fun. --NightMonkey 20:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Karl Rove is a current event. People coming to his Wikipedia page expect to know more than an highly truncated summary of his role in the scandal. The reason the page is popular is because it is comprehensive, and many other sites point to this page because it is valued for being so comprehensive on the scandal. Is it too comprehensive? Yes, to the point that it's rather bloated, I agree. But nevertheless it's still a very important reference document, having survived a thousand-and-one fact-thrashing POV battles. It is very well researched and written. The page will evolve, and I for one will work to winnow it down over the coming days and weeks.

By the way, since when have Plame affair and Karl Rove been perceived to be in competition? There is plenty of duplicated text throughout Wikipedia. Most of what's in Plame affair began on Karl Rove, and I expect that in time it will only be in the Plame affair article. Sandover 20:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

CBDunkerson... Why have you deleted all references to the White House's denial of Rove's involvement? Answer that one question, please, and stop lecturing us on how fair and balanced you are.

The consensus was only to cut the Plame section down but not eliminate it. And that's what I'm doing. If you want to add my vote, it's 14 to a very solid 6 against. And it's 19 to 1 (or at least 18 to 2) against censoring altogether any description of Rove's involvement, as you've done. Sandover 20:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will chime in and say I found the 'massive text delete' to be counterproductive. Surely we can 'edit', not 'blank', this content in a more measured (but still significant) way. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sandover, if you want to add in the opinions expressed in this discussion then it's 17 to 6 in favor of reducing to a summary. Your accusation of "censoring altogether any description of Rove's involvement" is absurd... there were six paragraphs and dozens of links about Rove's involvement in the Plame affair AFTER it was cut down. As to, why I "deleted all references to the White House's denial of Rove's involvement"? I already answered that. I DIDN'T delete them... I just moved them to the correct page. Oh, and since you seem to be assuming POV... if you checked the history you would find that I WROTE several of those passages about the WH denials in the first place. [22] --CBDunkerson 21:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

CBDunkerson, by my count, you reduced the entire Plame section to just six sentences, not counting the acknowledgment in the lead section that Rove leaked to Cooper. However, you deleted from Karl Rove all mention of the context of the leak, the initial White House denial of Rove's involvement in the leak, the documentary evidence of Rove's involvement in the link which emerged in July 2005 (including incriminating e-mail), the White House's current "no comment" stance on the leak, etc. What is a reader to do? People come to this page for just that information.

So thank you for putting back in most of what I feel is absolutely essential. And please tell me if am I wrong to question, with my very active Rovian imagination, whether there is a coincidence here: Why did this happen today, of all days? Why is it that the evening before (and morning of) the day that Karl Rove testified for the fourth time before the grand jury, a day on which Rove appeared on the cover of every major newspaper in this country, a day after which Rove publicly denied any involvement whatsoever in the leak, you and NightMonkey blanked nearly the entire history of the Plame scandal? On the Internet's most prominent Google hit for "Karl Rove"? This is suspicious just on the surface of it.

I will reiterate that I simply do not understand why Plame affair and Karl Rove are in any way in opposition to each other. They are obviously closely related subjects. 'Karl Rove' will always have to have its own context distinct from the main CIA leak scandal article.

Obviously, a little more contextual material should be restored to 'Karl Rove'. I will now begin to do so. Because I like a good read as much as anyone, I promise to be sparing. Sandover 04:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have already ansered ALL of these questions.

• 'What is a reader to do?' - Click on the link to the APPROPRIATE Plame Affair article which has all of that information.
• 'Why did this happen today, of all days?' - It didn't. I made the changes the day BEFORE Rove was in the headlines.
• 'Blah blah suspicious behaviour?' - Look at my edit history. If I have a POV bias it is patently obvious that it is AGAINST Rove and conservatives in general.

Now, I've got some questions of my own: Why do you keep asking the same questions? Are you not reading my responses? Why do you continue to assume BAD faith on my part, making false statements about the timing of the change I made, and otherwise violate wikipolicies on civility? Why do you feel that it makes sense to have pages and pages of identical material in two articles? Should the Nixon article contain the entirety of the Watergate article? Who ever said anything about 'Plame Affair' and 'Karl Rove' being "in opposition to each other"? Can you not understand the concept of keeping information on the proper page? Do you really think it better to have the edits 'thrashed out' on two pages rather than one? Did you like it better when the same material was duplicated on Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson as well? Any ideas why nobody objected when I cleaned up those two pages the same way I did Rove? Is it fun to create twice the work to keep both articles up to date? What is the purpose of adding material to an article which virtually everyone agrees will eventually need to be removed? --CBDunkerson 13:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Same question here: are you reading my responses? This article is "one stop shopping" for people wanting to know about Rove's specific involvement in the leak. Why ask someone to read half-way down, find another link, and launch off into a whole new article? If they want to know about Rove's role, why demand that they to start over in a new article that you call the "proper page"? Sure, some readers can (and should) do that, but it doesn't make sense to require that everyone do so.

So how many times does it have to be said? People come to this page to read about Karl Rove. Like it or not, Karl Rove became a household name (and a current event) because of the CIA leak scandal. Like it or not, much of the copy on Plame affair was born out of Karl Rove. The mere fact that you have had to restore so much material speaks to Rove's central and ongoing role in this evolving drama. While I appreciate your desire to put everything under one umbrella, and to minimize duplicate editing tasks, that's simply premature. If news is breaking specifically about Rove relating to the Plame scandal, no one wants to go hunt it down in some reference buried halfway through Plame affair.

For me, and for a lot of people, it is more straightforward and honest to approach the Plame scandal as individual acts by individual people. It is still easier to understand this as "Rove did this, Rove did that" and "the President promised to fire anyone involved" than to take on the whole Niger-Wilson-uranium melodrama. While this scandal certainly has outward similarities to Watergate (more than 30 years ago), at the beginning we had to come to terms with that scandal person by person, judging their specific roles. It took time to digest the full scope and interrelationship of events. We are naive to think we know the "big picture."

Why not err on the side of (possibly) having too much information here, and some duplicate information, than on burying Rove's role in a complex and necessarily incomplete narrative which already involves a cast of dozens? So much good copy was born on this page. If, as time passes, you find even more passages on Karl Rove that are suitable for use in Plame affair, you are welcome to lift them. (By the way, no one has asked that Rove material be removed from Plame affair for exclusive use here.) I look forward to editing more with you Sandover 17:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting the McCain Push Poll Right This time

I've made an edit in this section. It comports with what founder Jimbo Wales has asked of us in sourcing documents. Irrespective of what you may think Wikipedia's rules and regulations say. And irrespective of how you interpret Wikipedia's rules and regulations, they are TRUMPED by the specific words of Jimbo Wales especially when he was asked to address the controversy in sourcing this very article and graciously obliged us on this very talk page.

Here's what he said: My opinions about this matter are not particularly complicated:

1. 1 Sources have to be handled with care, and citing extremely biased sources without qualification is a very bad thing.

1. 2 Citing Indymedia (or similar) for anything factual having to do with Karl Rove would be quite a bad idea for the twin reasons that Indymedia is not a reliable news source and they would tend to have a strong bias against Rove.

So, in light of those 'not particularly complicated' instructions I have qualified the movie Bush's Brain (a source which actually could be compeletely excluded based on rule #2.)

The passage on the McCain push poll now reads:

According to Richard H. Davis (the campaign manager of John McCain's 2000 presidential bid), a telephone push poll was conducted during the 2000 South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" [23]. McCain was campaigning with his adopted, dark-skinned Bangladeshi daughter at the time. According to Davis, the push poll was designed to suggest that the girl had been fathered illegitimately by McCain. In a 2004 editorial Davis called the push poll "effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign" and that he "had no idea who had made those calls, who paid for them, or how many were made". The authors of the 2003 book Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential (also made into a movie which begins with the one of the book's authors saying that the policies of Karl Rove were " a danger to the Republic') allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his role as campaign advisor to Bush. Rove has denied any such involvement.

The (Jimbo Wales requested) qualification of Bush's Brain (Jimbo rule#1) gives the reader a sense of how highly biased Bush's Brain is. The elimination of the quote from John Weaver (which I've excised several times before) was done because I've seen Bush's Brain and it is unclear (due to either sloppy, choppy or more likely dishonest editing) what precisely that quote I took out (that has been the primary support in this article for linking this to Rove)was actually referring to.

This is a fair edit based on research (my actually viewing the source material used) and a well-reasoned, clear explanation. Nonetheless, this edit has previously been reverted multiple times by, as far as I have been able to tell, anonymous sources with no legit defense. Let's see what happens now that I've invited the 'whole world' to watch...Big Daddy 13:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that, other than the profile photo up top, there are no images in this article other than the cover of the 'indymedia' type hit piece Bush's Brain. I propose that either this book cover be removed or that it be bookended with a cover of a book highly complimentary to Rove. That would be the Wikipedia way to do things - Neutrality of view. Big Daddy 13:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

First, why do you characterize Bush's Brain as indymedia?

Derex - Because I've seen it and it's basically one long conspiratorial hit piece. I'm not the only person who has expressed this view. In fact, ironically, one of the 'supporting sources' footnotes previously used to prop up this charge was a review of the movie from someone favorably disposed towards their view of Rove. And even they said it was just trying to make Rove look bad. But, why take my word for it? See it yourself and tell me what you think. Big Daddy 14:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't make it "indymedia". If you think it's a hit piece, and want that noted, cite someone else saying it. To live up to your own standards, that should be someone clearly impartial.

Second, having no "other" images is irrelevant as to whether that image belongs.

I disagree. Especially in a wordy encyclopedia entry where not a lot of photos are used. I think what images we use and how many images we use are definitely important. Not as important as the text but you know what they say about pictures and ten cubed words...Big Daddy 14:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to encourage visuals. We should have more not fewer. The rationale for that picture is laid out in the Talk above, continue discussion there.

Third, it was a New York Times best-seller whatever you think of it, the only book of such prominence about Rove, and thus forms a very important part of his public perception ... what book would you not call "indymedia"?

I'll have to research how legit that claim is. As well as your claim it's "the only book of such prominence" about Rove. I don't know that Bush's Brian forms an important part of his public perception but certainly it's sentiments do. I don't have a proposal to counter it, but merely am stipulating that if we do choose to use a photo of this highly critical book (which I'm not necessarily opposing) then we find something else to use a photo of so as to not suggest we're just going after him. BTW, Bush' Brain - the movie, though insufferably boring at times and pretty clearly a POV hit piece, is not that bad. You should rent it or something. Big Daddy 14:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Being a best-seller clearly means you are having an impact. Again, go find another photo instead of whining about how this one should come out. I'll go buy some popcorn, would love to see the movie.

Fourth, you should post your objection to the picture in the Talk section devoted to that picture. Fifth, Jimbo never requested a qualification of "Bush's Brain" per se, it was a general comment.

It was a general comment referring to a specific type of source. "Highly biased." It can't get much plainer than that unless, even though you apparently haven't read it, you're prepared to argue that Bush's Brain is NOT highly biased. I welcome that discussion :) Big Daddy 14:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You are utterly missing the point. This is not an issue for debate. It is not up to us. Our opinions matter not a bit. Even if you had me 100% convinced that it's a biased hit piece, that would not make me agree to your approach. If you want to question the credibility, cite it out! Find a notable person who says it's a smear job. Even find a quote from Karl about it. Find some evidence beyond your opinion or that of the freepsheep, and present it. Your opinion does not matter, neither does mine. So persuading me is entirely beside the point. Derex @ 21:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How would one establish that the authors are biased against Republicans other than that you don't like a passage in it? Go find someone notable who has called these journalists biased ... quote them briefly to satsify Jimbo's point. Your attempt borders on original research and establishes not a whit that the authors have any bias. They may have reasonable opinions based on their work on the book ... but in that case everyone is biased. Derex @ 14:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I gladly defend my characterization. And there's no better way to make the point than to use the author's own words. Fortunately for you and me, they wanted it to be clear just how biased they are. That's probably why they included that hugely inflammatory quote right at the beginning of the movie. Who knows, maybe they had us in mind! :) Big Daddy 14:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

But see, your characerization doesn't matter a bit here. It's entirely irrelevant how you view it. The only reason you put that particular phrase there was to suggest the book is an irrelevant smear job. Now, you might think that's completely neutral, since it's a quote, but you put it in a specific context to spin the article. Again, if you want to follow Jimbo's dictum, find a notable source who says it's a hit piece, and if you want to follow your own dictum find an "impartial" one. Derex @ 17:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well now we know WHO has been blindly reverting my edits without commenting or defending their reasoning with anything legit. It's the user:Guetarrda (at least in this case.) I believe it was Guetarrda who was also involved in some controversial editing at the Ann Coulter page. I will be corrected this R. And if he does it 3 times, I will be reporting it.Big Daddy 17:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you take your own advice and observe the 3RR. Your insistence on this edit is illfounded and has no consensus. Please do not revert war. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have offered sound reasoning based on SOLID research for my edit. Just calling it 'illfounded' is not enough to justify a revert. And a consensus is UNNECESSARY when logic, reason and factual analysis back it up. In other words, hypothetically speaking, if there were more liberals in here than conservatives, it doesn't mean liberals get to vote down every intelligent edit. I have no started a revert war. I have made a reasonable edit and unless someone FACTUALLY defends a change I will continue to use it. Ps It seems fair to me to say that user: Guetarrda has FOREFEITED that right by his blind revert. But others are welcome to explain their position. I made a clean, responsible edit. If there's a war, it wasn't me who started it. Big Daddy 17:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone reverted this clearly explained

• Anything that takes more than a screen, with bold text and capitals is most definitely not "clearly explains"

and well-reasoned edit.

• Reason being BD seems unable to understand the difference between his own POV and reality. As for "I saw the movie..." - his past utterances leave me no reason to trust him. So "because I say so" does not a well-reasoned edit make, his willful misinterpretation of Jimbo's words do not a well-reasoned edit make. One cannot take Jimbo's words out of context to justify breaking NPOV. "NPOV is non-negotiable". Jimbo's words.

blindly reverting my edits without commenting or defending their reasoning with anything legit.; and Guetarrda has FOREFEITED that right by his blind revert.

• I used edit summaries; someone who is so contemptuous of the community that he chose to ignore an RFC has not earned to right to be answered. If anyone has forfeited any rights in this community it is the individual who treats his fellow editors with contempt.

Guettarda 17:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"No reason to trust him"

"Willful misinterpretation of Jimbo's words"

"Someone who is so contemptuous of the community that he chose to ignore an RFC has not earned to right to be answered." - user: Guettarda

In case anyone is curious as to exactly HOW these things escalate into wars and personal attacks, it's all spelled out right here in this person's post. But I declared a truce and will not respond in kind. I simply will make sure that this article is as factual and nPOV as possible. My edit meets the test. No one has presented any evidence to the contrary. The edit stays. Ps. 'I don't trust him doesn't qualify as intelligent discourse. Although I appreciate you affirming the attitude that both Kizzle and elemonsynnary have spouted which is I don't deserve the right make ANY edits in Wikipedia. That is duly noted and recorded.

If you want to see the movie and challenge what I saw with my own eyes, fine. But, you'll find it's PRECISELY as I meticulously represented it. Big Daddy 18:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"I declared a truce" - hmmm...good for you. Good for you. Utterly irrelevant, of course, because I am waging no war with you, but you continue to attack me. Your declaration of a truce does not mean that I have to abandon NPOV or the idea of quality articles. As I said before, I have no reason to trust you - the fact that you have not lived up to your self-declared truce is all the more reason not to trust a work you say. Your words have no credibility. You are free to change that, you are free to earn the trust of the community - but you are not free to declare "truce" and pretend that you can start over on par with people who have proven themselves as members of this community. AGF is not a suicide pact. Guettarda 21:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Revisiting Rove's 911 savagery comments

JamesMLane and I came to a mild but easily surmountable impasse over this earlier. I think we can forge ahead with an agreement despite the normally cool JamesMLane's increasingly intemperate remarks including his last to me on that subject where he either suggested that the liberal cabal was made up of all Jews or (and far more likely) insinuated that I was suggesting there was a liberal cabal made up of primarily Jews and thus had to be cancelled for Kol Nidre or whatever, a despicable comment (but not an unfamiliar form of Jew-baiting I've seen from the left) and an insidious personal attack made all the more deplorable by the fact that I am 100% ethnically Jewish. But, per my truce, as shocking as it was to be personally slimed by JamesMLane of all people, I will not return fire but rather focus on the issues. (Although I think everybody should agree a sincerely repentant apology is in order.)

I think this '911' passage is problematic for several reasons.

1) It offers no substantive defense for why he said what he said. Sure it provides the White House retort, but this administration has been particularly non-committal when delving into the fray of political controversy. Case in point: During the Swift Boat charges, they merely repeated ad nauseum 'The White House says John Kerry served his country honorably.' So, the White House is generally a POOR source for defending attacks against republicans. Even ones at the top of the food chain like Karl Rove.

2) There is a quote from a left 911 families organization without a complelmentary quote from a conservative one. I'm OK with James suggestion that we eliminate both but then the subject head will have to go unless you find someone else to quote who claims the comments were made for 'political purposes.'

3) Tied to above, there are two paragraphs critical of the Rove comments and only one (and what I allege is not a particularly strong argument) supporting him. There should be an even number to maintain neutrality.

4) I propose offering some substantive examples of what Rove was talking about. The best would be evidence that Move-on was accused of circulating a petition IMMEDIATELY after 911 (in NYC I believe)asking for 'understanding' and requesting no military retaliation against anyone.

Another idea is to conflate this incident with Rove's other comments about Democrats and terrorism in general. He's been brutal in this regard. Here's a section on Rove's comments regarding Dick Durbin's now repented for statement on Gitmo.

"Mr. Rove also said American armed forces overseas were in more jeopardy as a result of remarks last week by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, who compared American mistreatment of detainees to the acts of "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others."

Rove - "Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?...Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

That is sweet and tangy. Got to get that in. Any suggestions? Big Daddy 17:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How about, "Rove continued the shameless practice of trying to cast any criticism of the Bush administration as an unpatriotic attack on America."

Now, for the benefit of any humor-impaired readers who might happen to misinterpret the foregoing passage, let me clarify: I do not seriously recommend that it be added to the article. Furthermore, no scheduled meeting of the Liberal Wikipedians' Cabal conflicted with Yom Kippur; indeed, there was no scheduled meeting of that organization at all; indeed, there is no such organization. I'll even go out on a limb and opine that kizzle doesn't really own a secret decoder ring. HTH. JamesMLane 18:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I, in turn, apologize to any ring enthusiasts here who I might have offended, I have never owned a secret decoder ring (though I wish I did) or any ring-like devices or anything that decodes secretly for that matter. I hope no one was offended. --kizzle 20:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No one was offended. BD777 is gaming the system. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh hippocrite. If it only it were that easy to erase a vicious anti-semetic Jew-baiting remark that had NOTHING to do with the topic. I have no idea how that's gaming the system but I think if I asked, I'd find you were impuning my motives which, sorry, must be classified as yet another personal attack.

So to review, I was attacked with a religiously-bigoted slur by JamesMLane, then insulted and mocked for pointing it out by Kizzle and JameMLane (again) and now I'm insulted by Hippocrite who tells NO ONE is offended by an anti-Semetic slur( which really is an insult to EVERYONE's intelligence.) Note, I've not responded back in kind even one time. But, at this point who's keeping track? (Actually, a lot of people are.....:) Big Daddy 23:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Notice, in their non-apology for what was tantamount to a vicious religiously-motivated personal attack, they continue to try at least to mock and insult me even more? JamesMLane 'joked' that a Jewish liberal cabal ran Wikipedia. Funny guy. Or, even worse, he was suggesting that conservatives were insinuating it was a 'bunch of liberal Jews' running things in here.(Remember, it was JamesMLane who first brought in a Jewish reference.) But, when busted, JamesMLane insulted those that didn't appreciate his hilarious joke even more, calling them 'humor-impaired.' Duly noted.Big Daddy 22:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

1) You don't think the White House should be quoted in this matter because they are "particularly non-committal when delving into the fray of political controversy"? Unless one can find a quote directly from Rove defending his actions, which I agree would be preferential, I think this is as close as we're going to get.

2) I'm perfectly fine with including a quote from a conservative group.

3) Add the conservative group's quote and we'll be fine.

4) First of all, MoveOn != Liberals. Clearly there is a difference between a partisan organization and the actual liberal senators who voted heavily in favor for the war. If he was referring to MoveOn, he should have said MoveOn, or more importantly for the construction of this article, you need to find a quote from him specifically referring to this evidence you present. If this exists, I would be fine with its inclusion, as long as it is also mentioned that the democrats in congress, as in the ones who actually are a part of the government and not some advocacy group, voted overwhelmingly for war. --kizzle 20:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy, in the phrase "a vicious religiously motivated personal attack", there should not be a hyphen after "religiously". See the article Hyphen for elaboration. There are other errors in your comment, but that’s the only one where a response from me might reasonably be expected to do some good. JamesMLane 23:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Charges of violation of the 3 revert rule

From the policy page: "Using sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the policy specifically does not apply to groups. Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct."

So accusing a "group" of violating the 3RR is incorrect. The violation wasn't claimed here but it was claimed in edit summaries today. --Woohookitty 20:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

While edit warring is never good, generally when a "group" is involved in reverting one person's edits, even when together they comprise more than three reverts, that's usually called enforcing consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How would they know if this was a consensus opionion or not? Anybody take a vote? You don't know if you have a consensus until you take a vote. Their actions preceeded any such vote. No one was even given a chance to vote. Perhaps others, who had heretofore not commented, would care to voice an opinion. Care to explain why you suggest they were 'enforcing a consensus' before any of this happened? Big Daddy 22:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

A vote isn't necessary for there to be a consensus about something. Apparently that's what's happened, as so far the only person pushing for your version is you, while there seem to be multiple others who disagree. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

But without a vote, how do you determine if it's a consensus? Is it just a gut feeling? Doesn't sound like anyone can actually know if there's a consensus since no one else was even asked to vote. (This of course is all besides the fact since you DON'T need a consensus when common sense, reasonableness and factual analysis are used to explain the edit as I have in this instance Big Daddy 23:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a quite novel interpretation. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How much you want to bet that's not novel?Big Daddy 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, I did find this argument on another page where a liberal was telling a conservative that, even if there was consensus, it wouldn't matter because he had the 'truth' on his side. And, as I've come to discover for myself, this is the way the left operates in Wikipedia circa October 2005:

If you've got more liberals on your side, you argue consensus.

If you don't, you argue "factual analysis".

And if you have neither, you just make Jew-baiting anti-Semetic slurs... Big Daddy 23:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but you do need a concensus when everyone claims their version is based upon common sense, reasonableness, and factual analysis. --kizzle 23:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but their claim is a little bit different. To paraphrase: I'm dishonest and should be ignored. lol! Big Daddy 23:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)