Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Huge gap in article

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

Watergate?

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

Bush's Brain

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

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

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

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

Investigation by Office of Special Counsel (political presentations investigation)

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

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

Tagged controversial

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

Tagged section; renamed "Trivia" section; it needs close scrutiny still

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

Parody in American Dad!

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

Vietnam War and the Draft

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

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

Readability of Article

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

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

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

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

Woele 22:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Vague temporal references

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

Excessive external links

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

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

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

Current Event Tag

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

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

Louis C. Rove

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2000 smear campaign

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

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

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

Headline text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louis C. Rove - again

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

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

Source for his supporting Richard Nixon at age 9?

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

Can anyone provide one?

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

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

Footnote #31 isn't closed.

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

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

Mother's Death

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

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

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

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

Lead section is inappropriate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copy error

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

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

Minor edit to link in the Satire/Blogs section

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

Pranks, Rove and the 'goodbye' prank at the White House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E-mail scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Activities Since Resignation

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

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

Family section, what is going on??

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

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

Sam Sparks libelled?

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

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

Is this necessary, absent some evidence of malfeasance?

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

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

Mark Hanna

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

Siegelman

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

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

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

Recent Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

Dismissal of lawsuit and McClelland

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

Rove's siblings

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

NPOV Dispute Regarding Karl Rove's Involvement in Nixon's Campaign against George McGovern.

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

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

Possible error in the Fictional Portrayals Topic

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

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

What are Karl's Political Views?

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

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

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

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

University at Buffalo

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

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

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

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

The bad editing is right here:

Tells Jack Abramoff about invasion of Iraq

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

"Rovian Politics"

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

Role in 2008 Election

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

Is he religious?

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

Net worth

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

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

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

"Don Siegelman's conviction controversies" paragraph replacement

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

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

Don Siegelman's conviction controversies

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

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

Bias throughout this article

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

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

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

Vietnam section is OR

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

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

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

General Comment about the POV in the article

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

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

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

Rewriting this article for neutrality & accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements of opinion

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

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

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

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

Administrator help requested in neutralizing this article

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

Should Hitchens quote be Removed?

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

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

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

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

Questionable sources

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

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

[edit]

Include or remove Hitchens quote

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