Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 3

Q. Was Plame covert agent? A. Yes.

All that means is that she was not on a covert mission at the moment Robert Novak outed her. She still had a secret identity, and was still considered a covert operative, n'est pas? --kizzle 15:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

As Wilson said, "the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department." -- RyanFreisling @ 15:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Right. As we're seeing, it is apparent that no crime was committed based on the applicable laws and statements from people who would know. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That is, of course, unsubstantiated POV, and while you're welcome to your opinion, the facts and the article do not support that conclusion. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Statements from people who would know = Karl Rove said he didn't do it? Might as well call it case closed. --kizzle 15:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

And that's why we can't say in the article that Rove committed a crime. The facts and the article cannot currently support that conclusion. I'm glad we agree --Badlydrawnjeff 15:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The article does not say he committed a crime, and in fact, that has yet to be decided. However, we are indeed sure he disclosed and confirmed the identity of an unofficial cover (NOC) agent. That's not the same as committing a crime (a legal distinction), but it's still inexcusable behavior on the part of any government official. So, we agree. On everything else, we are sstatus quo. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent statements by Wilson and former CIA agents dispute the NOC claim. So, no, we are not sure. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As I already stated above, their statements do not dispute any 'NOC' claim. Her status was clear and a matter of record. The statements you mention do not cast any doubt on her status, they only clarify that she was not clandestine at the time of Novak's column, and that another CIA agent was aware of her cover and disputes its' effectiveness. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That is untrue. THose statements do not dispute the NOC claim in any way. Her NOC status was a matter of record. The statements are that she was not 'clandestine' when Novak published her identity, and that another CIA agent questions the efficiency of her cover. Different, entirely. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Right now, we have people stating that the NOC may not be a case. From a source already in the article:

Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover.

In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.

The distinction matters because a law that forbids disclosing the name of undercover operatives applies to agents that had been on overseas assignment "within the last five years."

"She was home for such a long time, she went to work every day at Langley, she was in an analytical type job, she was married to a high-profile diplomat with two kids," Mr. Rustmann said. "Most people who knew Valerie and her husband, I think, would have thought that she was an overt CIA employee."

We cannot ignore these details for the sake of what one may believe. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

We're not ignoring anything. However, the assertions made above are the words of one CIA agent, and are not evidence, nor testimony. Most importantly in response to your post, 'extremely light cover' is not an exception to the IIPA. This cannot be equivocated. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nor am I attempting to claim otherwise. I'm saying that we cannot ignore what's been stated. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC

Just a little FYI, the bolded text, " Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday." is patently false. The USA Today piece is still posted online and clearly never supports that claim. check it out. The reference turned out to be poor reporting. --68.252.247.251 03:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Here's what's been said by non-GOP "talking points" sources.

[1]

Robert Novak's original column, July 14: Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

David Corn in the Nation, July 16: ....a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material....a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm.

Newsday, July 21: Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.

....A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

Washington Post, September 29: She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

MSNBC, September 30: CIA lawyers answered a series of 11 questions "affirming that the woman's identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak."

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, September 30: I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.

Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst on NewsHour, September 30: I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades....she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised.... she's a woman of great integrity....This is a woman who is very solid, very low key and not about show boating.

CNN, October 1: Sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency in charge of spying -- and worked in the field for many years as an undercover officer. "If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said.

(An earlier version of this story quoted CNN reporter David Ensor saying, "This is a person who did run agents. This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information.")

Mel Goodman, former CIA analyst, Washington Post online Q&A, October 1: ....I've worked in Washington for the past 38 years, including 24 years at the CIA...and I know Ambassador Wilson....and I did not know that his wife was an agency employee. Let's face it....this was targetted information as part of a political vendetta....a pure act of revenge.

Jim Marcinkowski, former CIA case officer, LA Times, Ocotber 1: The exposure of Valerie Plame — who I have reason to believe operated undercover — apparently by a senior administration official, is nothing less than a despicable act for which someone should be held accountable. This case is especially upsetting to me because she was my agency classmate as well as my friend.

New York Times, October 2: Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.

That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover.

New York Daily News, October 2: Two former senior intelligence officials confirmed that Valerie Plame, 40, is an operations officer in the spy agency's directorate of operations - the clandestine service.

Plame "ran intelligence operations overseas," said Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism operations chief.

Her specialty in the agency's nonproliferation center was biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and "recruiting agents, sending them to areas where they could access information about proliferation matters, weapons of mass destruction," Cannistraro said.

I'm not at all disputing that these things were said. Again: We have new information that disputes these things, and they should be included, included accurately, and not watered down by any POV one way or the other. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Right. But the 'new information' does not dispute these things - the ex-CIA agent's stated opinion alleges only that her cover was not effective. And, as the 'Monthly put it, "Four separate ex-CIA employees are now on the record saying Plame was undercover and ran a network of informants, and a fifth who knew Wilson and had 24 years at the Agency says he didn't know Plame worked there — which means her status was hardly common knowledge.". Likewise, Wilson's statement does not contradict the above statements. So conclusions like 'doubt cast on her NOC status at the time of the leak' are erroneous and factually incorrect, based on the facts of the statements you offered, as I already detailed. I do not object to the facts, but the erroneous conclusions have no place. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious that we're reading the same things extremely differently. I have no clue how you're coming to these conclusions, but we've reached some sort of middle ground, and that's good enough for me until more info is released. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious to me also that we draw conclusions at different points along the story. I am trying not to draw any conclusions of guilt, nor ascribe any unrealistic status to sources, whether they are served up by the GOP or not. Right now, there are facts that spin cannot dissolve - and they point to egregious abuse of power and participation in disclosure and confirmation of a covert agent's identity - and thus, this story goes on. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a good audio discussion by a former covert agent who was a covert-training classmate of Ms. Plame, starting at the 17 minute mark of the 7/18 episode of More To The Point[2]. He does a pretty good job of debunking the GOP talking point that Ms. Plame was not covert CIA agent and that there's a difference between NOC and OC in this regard. --User:nil0lab

She was NOT a covert agent and the ONLY proof we have that Karl Rove mentioned "Wilson's wife" is the letters from a stand up comic married to a hard core Clintonista.

This article tilts SO FAR LEFT I had to lean sideways to read it. The first change needs to be in the first paragraph. He ALLEGEDLY (by a spouse of a Clintonista spoke of "Wilson's Wife." I know you guys hate Karl Rove and think he's behind everything from Hurrican Katrina to the Crash of the Hindenburg but hell if you're gonna POISON Wikipedia with it. As far as her being covert, no one will convince you Bush haters otherwise so let me point out that, if any law was broken, she'd have had to be on an overseas mission within the last 5 years AS A COVERT agent.

Was she???

21:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

He ALLEGEDLY (by a spouse of a Clintonista) spoke of "Wilson's Wife."

"Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue." Washington Post... who is the stand-up comic you're referring to? --kizzle 21:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Jumping to Conclusions from the testimony of a Stand Up Comic married to a Hard Core Clintonista

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.cooper.html (Scroll down to the very bottom first.)

http://www.google.com/search?hs=0CT&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=matthew+cooper+Mandy+Grunwald&btnG=Search

"Mandy Grunwald, a friend and advisor of Defendant Clinton... helped to conjure up the "right wing conspiracy" defense to all of the Clinton scandals"

Hmmm...I like their 'double secret probation' story better. Big Daddy 13:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna start beefing up the mentions of Cooper. I will, one time only, refer to him as a part-time stand up comic. I will several times remind people that his wife is Clinton confidant Mandy Grunwald, known for helping Hillary Clinton invent the 'right wing conspiracy' defense after the Monica Lewinsky story broke. Big Daddy 18:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I will remove anything you add that makes the article less informative or sends it off on an irrelevent tangent, like calling Time's Washington chief, who sidelines as a Comic a Stand Up Comic, or mentioning the wife of someone tangentially involved. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Rove e-mail - what it says

The source (AP) clearly states "I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in an e-mail obtained by The Associated Press, recounting how Cooper tried to question him about whether President Bush had been hurt by the new allegations.

The e-mail itself reads "When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this." [3]

There is no evidence that 'the bait' meant Plame's identity. That is erroneous. Amicuspublilius, I don't want to revert war - please revert or correct as you see fit. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The Dixon Campaign Prank

I re-wrote this section to make it a little less slimy:

"According to an article entitled 'Bush's Hit Man', Rove's first foray into politics involved Alan Dixon--a candidate for state treasurer in Illinois in 1970 whom Rove opposed. Rove apparently used the letterhead from Dixon's campaign stationery to print and distribute a bogus invitation to Dixon's campaign headquarters, promising "free beer, free food, girls, and a good time." "I was nineteen and I got involved in a political prank," is the way Rove characterized the incident. (The Nation)"

Al Franked did the same thing only worse. 1) He was more like 49 not 19. 2) He used the letterhead at HARVARD. 3) He made up lies and wrote them, using official Harvard stationery, to high ranking US officials including the attornye general of the United States! Yet, we don't call that incident a 'HEIST.' That's a loaded POV term for using letterhead to create a bogus flyer. Big Daddy 12:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone, probably kizzle cause it's consistent with his unconscionable, behavior, reverted yet another of my edits without discussion. Needless to say he's been reported.

I'm gonna take out the reference to this 'Watergate' guy unless you can DOCUMENT (and not from ihatebush.com) his DIRECT involvement in this prank. It's either a smear on him or (what you intended) a smear on Rove to link him with Watergage...or likely both.

I'm also researching this entire incident so we can present it from Rove's viewpoint. All we have now are allegations from bush-haters. Even the 'confession' was not properly sourced, only that a bush hater SAYS he confessed to the Dallas Morning News in 1999. I'd like to see the article to know exactly what prank he was 'confessing' to. As I've said, you don't have to break in and steal someone's letterhead to prank flyer them. All you need is a copy of ANYTHING that has the letterhead and a Kinko's (Oops! Sorry to bring up Kinko's for all you Dan Rather-lovers.) I think we need to prove whether this incident even went down the way it's written here or if this is just more liberal mythology that snook it's way into an encyclopedia. All I want is the truth and I'm happy that the story stays as written (minus the Watergate smear) as long as it checks out.

Again, provide DOCUMENTATION for all the horrible things you collect about Rove or they're coming out. Plus, I will match, one for one, every cheap shot incident you scrape up on Rove with something praiseworthy that he's accomplished. After all, we're nPOV at Wikipedia. Big Daddy 13:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, with all the charges floating around that I've somehow been uncivil, I wonder how 'civil' it is to revert back to a slime piece an edit I made that was much better, less POV and more accurate?

That, it seems to me is the ultimate act of incivility and is being practiced by my enemies here in this article.

I corrected this piece for the THIRD TIME now:

Here's how it starts: "According to an article entitled 'Bush's Hit Man'..."

DON'T DELETE THIS. That's where this BS slime story came from (it'll soon be totally taken out once I find published reports of Rove's version) and give it a rest on the Watergate smear.

Ps I've enlisted the help of a WHOLE LOT of conservatives to watch and observe what goes on in here and to report it across the blogosphere. There were informed just how treacherous and mean spirited (not to mention 'incivil' lol!) the liberal editors have been to Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson etc etc (the list goes on forever.) I want you liberal POV editors to know that your sliming, defaming and distorting of the truth will no longer be tolerated in Wikipedia. In the future, I'd kindly suggest going to democraticunderground and howl at the moon. I've been informed that all this DISinformation you've been putting out there is TOTALLY against the spirit and intent of Wik and it's founder Jimmy Wales vision.Big Daddy 22:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Your threats are irrelevant, as is your edit to introduce ambiguity into what is a matter of public record. And the conservative blogosphere is equally as irrelevant to this encyclopedia as is the liberal blogosphere. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've REMOVED this whole piece. In case you hadn't heard, Wikipedia's FOUNDER, Jimmy Wales has gone on record saying that every fact in every article must be attributed to recognized, impartial sources.

Sorry, an homage to political garbage collecting posing as journalism called 'Bush's Hit Man', doesn't meet that test. Keep your liberal talking points out of Wikipedia.

Of course, I'm sure some will think Jimmy Wales edicts are 'irrelevant' as well. lol!!!

Ps I will be going through this article, in accordance with Jimmy Wale's mandate, and REMOVING all information not sourced by "recognized, IMPARTIAL sources." Big Daddy 14:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone replaced this unverifialbe and irrelevant POV piece. Before we go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration I'm giving whoever anonymously and in BAD FAITH without any notification on this discussion page (in start contrast to me who DOCUMENTS every change I make) re-inserted this hit piece, one last chance.

Remove this piece as it violates the transcendent Wik rule of nPOV by using information from very...VERY partial sources. Big Daddy 22:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Your hypertensive protestations are irrelevant. This episode is a FACT, it has been widely reported in dozens of mainstream media pieces, and Rove's 'version' does not trump fact. Once again, you cry wolf (in this case, cry POV) far too much for Wikipedia's good. Leave it be. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hypertensive protestations??? That sounds like a personal attack to me. God forbid. And what about assuming good faith? Better read up on the Wik manual. If it's been so "widely reported" in dozens of "mainstream media pieces" why use Bush's HIT MAN? It's coming out until you find some legit IMPARTIAL sources. Sorry, when it comes to left wing versions vs Karl Rove's version, you're gonna lose every time. It's coming out and don't touch it. You've been warned. Big Daddy 12:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

{deleted an entire run of personal attacks by BD777 [4]} -- RyanFreisling @ 02:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

{deleted a whole bunch of vicious personal attacks and other violations of procedures and protocol (POV, nAGF, etc) by RyanFreisling) [5]} -- Big Daddy 04:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. The episode in question was verified by Karl Rove himself in the Dalls Morning News - "I was nineteen and I got involved in a political prank." In the Washington Post - "It was a youthful prank at the age of 19 and I regret it." Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi. There's NOTHING in the Washington Post article (the only impartial source anyone has provided a link for thus far), that connects this PARTICULAR incident to that convicted Watergate guy. Thus the reference to him has been excised.Big Daddy`

Swift Boat

Best I can tell, there is no mention either in the entry or in the discussion about the allegations Rove was behind the Swift Boat attack on John Kerry, and before that the 2000 primary attacks on John McCain. Several people have made such claims in print. They may or may not be true, as far as I know no one knows for sure either way, but they should be mentioned for two reasons: 1. the allegations are part of Rove's public persona and history, true or not, and 2. these allegations directly influence the level of receptiveness people have to the allegations in the Plame case, which is still unfolding and could potentially have serious legal implications.

As long as its not "some people think...". Why don't you post links to the talk page here of notable opinions on this and we'll discuss? --kizzle 05:46, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, good point. Here are a couple of relevant links:

From the NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50914FE3D5A0C738EDDA10894DC404482, full article here: http://www.stopgwbush.us/sbvftdebunked.html -- I know this last site is clearly biased, but in this case what they are doing is giving the full text verbatim, so I include it, since NYT doesn't give free access to full archived articles.

Also:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/28/moore_rove_swift_boat/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5843033/site/newsweek/ http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200411/green http://mediamatters.org/items/200409010009

There are more out there, but that's a start.

Just a thought here - there is a story about Cheney's no. 2 man telling reporters too that they didn't give her name, so who did? Maybe a closer look and Rove and his wife. . .

Uh, everybody's saying they didn't reveal *her name*. Turns out they referred to her as "Joe Wilson's wife". Hey, word parsing! Just like Clinton!24.143.132.148 00:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh what is it with you WackiWiki Liberals???

You put that unsubtantiated BULL about Karl relaying answers to Bush during the debate in an encyclopedia???

Are you out of your minds? I'm taking it out. I don't care how 'cutely' you think you framed it to give you cover. It doesn't cover anything, but it UNcovers just how radical left and what Bush haters most of the people in Wik appear to be...

Ps I also took out the 'misleading' in front of the words 'Swift Boat Veterans..." no POV there...none at all! lol! (Also, I know you guys are sore that John Kerry lost the election (but all of us libs know he really didn't lose, right? wink-wink) but those were Kerry's words back in his little GI Joe outfit in 1971 and they, more than anything, took the sail out of his campaign. So, I removed the left wing spin and re-wrote that section to HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY tell the reader what he said and who he was quoting. But that was him up there in front of Congress playing dummy to some other disgruntled veterans ventriliquist...

Big Daddy 21:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, unless you tone down the hostility in editing on Wikipedia, you are going to be subject to dispute resolution. I, along with several others, have pleaded for you to calm down and discuss changes without personally attacking or assuming bad faith on the part of your co-editors. Please for the love of all that is good and holy ASSUME GOOD FAITH and STOP PERSONALLY ATTACKING PEOPLE!! --kizzle 22:08, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Don't lecture me Kizzle.And FO SHO don't THREATEN me. I've already reported you about this. I speak with Passion. Sorry that you distort that into 'hostility.' If it is hostility. It is hostility...to lies. Like the ones THAT PERMEATE almost every article I've read about conservatives in Wik. How could that be? What sort of culture creates an encyclopedia that LIES AND SLANDERS conservatives at every turn? Hmmm... And I AM VERY PASSIONATE about Wik being the very best encyclopedia ever therefore I'm not gonna sit by idly and let a bunch of delusional partisans HIJACK IT!

I don't attack anybody. Just ideas and poorly composed thoughts. YOU on the other hand SLANDERED me the first time you saw my posts. Funny how ONCE AGAIN, you ignore all the snide remarks made TO conservatives and only have the time to see something you don't like in my comments.

So, just deal with the SUBSTANTIVE part of my posts. If you can PROVE anything that I've edited out by Karl Rove, then do so. But 'it is suspected' is not up to Wikipedia's standards. But quit addressing me personally. I am not the issue. I'm putting you on warning here. I've already put you in your place on another article. I have no intention of doing it again. Quit stalking me and quit defending a totally POV piece in Wikipedia. Instead, work to get all the bias out. That's what will truly make me happy. Big Daddy 22:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not how it works. There are rules and guidelines here. You don't get to deride other people and their work and force the rest of us to wade through your posts consisting of 15% reason and 85% polemics... Assume good faith, No Personal Attacks, and until you adhere to these guidelines, you are the issue. I sound like a broken record at this point: Don't use other people's bad behavior to excuse yours. It's time you learned to be civil and discuss your arguments rather than encourage hostilities around here. You still have not defended your actions but have merely responded that I am picking on you. Nobody should make these attacks, be it liberal or conservative (and you are' making these attacks, I have previously documented it), but every word that comes out of your mouth seems to be deriding someone or assumg bad faith on the rest of us. Stop now. --kizzle 23:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Put me in my place? :) What article was that? You may have not hit the save button on that edit. --kizzle 23:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

There are LOTS of rules and guidelines here. CHIEF amongst them, if we are to have any long lasting credibility, is the doctrine of nPOV. But, as a deflection, you want to make ME the issue. You have just admitted it above when you said " you are the issue." It can't get much plainer than that. And your obsession with me comes at the expense of good editing. Why not lay down that burden of hate you carry for karl rove and me and just focus on making this a great encyclopedia? I don't deride anyone. I DO deride a TOTALY slime piece on Karl Rove which this is and, one must assume, you defend.

I'm sorry, whine all you want, but you're just gonna have to play past my colorful conversation in the Talk pages. What's really important is the information we put in the articles. I have a proven track record of getting along and working with liberals in here so long as they are reasonable and don't insist we tow the party line. Believe it or not, there are plenty working for Wik. But, I'm sorry, just because you approve of this HIT PIECE on Karl Rove, it doesn't mean it comports with what Wik has asked of us. Big Daddy 23:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I do find it unfortunate that the focus is upon you, believe me. But until you learn to conform to civility guidelines, you are the issue. I'm not trying to tow the party line at all, I'm merely trying to get you to be civil. It's really not that complicated of an issue, your co-editors shouldn't have to wade through your polemics to get to the point. Just be civil. Period. In all the mountains of text you have leveled against me, you haven't once defended your own actions but whined about me picking on you or that there are "LOTS" of rules and guidelines. Yes there are lots. It's about time you started following them. --kizzle 23:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wow! look at what mr. 'rules and procedures' wrote on this VERY Talk page - "These are the same Republicans who blasted Clinton for his usage of "Well it depends on the word, is...." and his nuanced language? I'm thinking of a word that starts with an 'h' and ends with 'ypocrite'. --kizzle 02:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)"

Hmmm..what can I say? Physician, heal thyself? LOL! You have about as much credibility calling me out for personal attacks and not assuming good faith in here as Kanye West would have as a spokesperson for the KKK! Big Daddy 13:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

BOTTOM LINE: You've been exposed as a hypocritical party hack who tries to use 'rules and regulations' to disarm your political opponents yet abuses them yourself (remember calling me a 'troll') at every turn.

In other words, you've disqualified yourself from having your points deemed worthy of future consideration.

Your pal,

BIG DADDY

(from email just received by BigDaddy)

For the 5th time, don't use other people's behavior, including mine, to justify your own personal attacks. I told you I've done them before, but the frequency in which you use them is intolerable. And don't email me again, just talk to me on here. --kizzle 18:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle writes: "don't use other people's behavior, including mine, to justify your own personal attacks." LOL!

Oh...Ok...just do whatever you want. No one will ever be able to criticize ANYTHING Kizzle does, because then it would just be used to 'justify our own personal attacks.' Does anybody take this kind of rhetoric seriously? And, you gotta love this line "I've done them before, but the frequency in which you use them is intolerable" so now all of a sudden... it's not about quality...it's about Quantity!

LOL!!! I swear I can hardly type this for laughing so hard.

Big Daddy 04:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

egad man, calm down a second! Yikes. --kizzle 04:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am quite calm. To suggest otherwise is a violation of wik's 'Assume Good Faith' policy. Please stop or you'll be reported. Big Daddy. Ps You're the one who started this petty game. Don't hate me cause I'm a playing it better than you are...Big Daddy 12:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

umm, I think whatever game you're talking about, you're playing by yourself. I'm just trying (and failing) to get you to learn one iota of civility. On a side note, it might help if you view your purpose here as to make Wikipedia a better place rather than play games. --kizzle 17:35, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Watergate

It would be interesting to add info about Rove & the Watergate era. For a teaser, see this John Dean interview: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/31/dean/index1.html

"He (Rove) is way beyond anything Nixon had at his disposal. He is closer to a behind-the-scenes Nixon operator named Murray Chotiner, who could cut off an opponent at the knees so quickly the person did not immediately realize he had been crippled. As I note in the book, the first time I heard the name Karl Rove was when I was asked if I knew anything about him by one of the Watergate special prosecutors who was investigating campaign dirty tricks. I didn't have any knowledge. But I recalled that question when working on this book, and located a memorandum in the files of the Watergate prosecutor's office that indicates they were asking others as well about Rove. Based on my review of the files, it appears the Watergate prosecutors were interested in Rove's activities in 1972, but because they had bigger fish to fry they did not aggressively investigate him." Jebba 02:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Looked like the latter part works. What do you think? 24.143.132.148 01:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed the preface to the quote from long time Republican SLIMER, John Dean to this:

"Watergate veteran and longtime Republican critic John Dean"

This is JUST THE BEGINNING of a MAJOR OVERHAUL this article needs. First, we'll ID all the slimers, critics and bashers as such, then we'll add DESPERATELY needed balance by quoting SUPPORTERS of Karl Rove.

And to whoever has VANDALIZED my edit of that Prank Rove has been accused of, quit it or you'll be banned.

I know it's liberal 'folklore' to call it a heist, but sorry. Heists are for jewels. Photocopying someone's masthead and printing up a bogus flyer with it is a prank...especially when the culprit is 19 years old.

'Heist' is POV and should not be used. Big Daddy 17:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! You rove-smearers are quick. No sooner than I DELETED the Dean reference, and before I could explain why, it was put back in.

Though there are far more egregious problems with this article, I will fight to excise Dean because this excerpt violates my own personal 3 strike rule:

1) Source: It's from Salon. A well written rag, but a decidedly left wing one (don't believe me?just ask Joan Walsh.) That alone doesn't disqualify it though. I put salon in the same category as NewsMax and worldnet daily.

2) Pontificator: It's quoting John Dean. Now, for those of you who don't remember, John Dean was David Brock before David Brock...was David Brock. lol! In other words a turncoat republican who now trashes them at every turn. Kind of like a left wing version of Dick Morris.

3) Relevance: The information Dean 'provides' is useless. Sure Dean is QUALIFIED as much as anybody on the planet to SPEAK about Watergate, but he doesn't really give us anything in this quote. Just his guess as to why Rove wasn't pursued. And, when combined with the other issues I've raised, this piece just plain strikes out.

Sorry, I wouldn't propose we use a Dick Morris quote about Hillary Clinton's cattle trades pulled out of a WorldNetDaily article.

And neither should we use this...

Big Daddy 22:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Some Rove-hater took out a balancing paragraph from a RESPECTED journal (The Washington Post) on this article but COWARDLY refused to acknowledge who they are. For this incident alone, they should be smoked out and suspended. Anyway...I put it back in and will again and again...It provides much needed balance from IMPARTIAL sources not a Village Voice hatchet job that starts out "From the time he was 10 years old, Karl Rove... has made a specialty of dirty tricks." (And sorry but calling a peacenik a 'peacenik' is not a 'dirty trick'! lol!)

Here's the piece being re-inserted pper Big Daddy:

"The Republican National Committee, investigated and exonerated Rove, who blames political opponents from his chairmanship race for spreading false allegations." [6]

Big Daddy 03:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment from anon user

An answer (plus my person views on the article). Forgive me if some have already been answered, as i skimmed the criticism/discussion page.

There has been some dispute over the intention of Wilson's comment, "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." This either means that: a) she was not, at that time, an undercover agent; or b) she was not an undercover agent THAT DAY (and forward), BECAUSE Novak blew her identity. I have been unable to find any clarification from Wilson, so please correct me if this has been setled.

As for the question as to whether or not noting that Karl Rove was a "dropout" constitutes bias, no it does not. It is relevent information about his past. For example, noting that there has been dispute over Geroge Bush's National Guard record (or John Kerry's war record) does not constitute bias, insofar as it is presented in a factual, objective manner.

The "turd blossom" moniker, however utterly stupid, does not constitute an non-objective note, as the nickname itself is actually quite endearing. [incorrectly posted to the "todo" list by User:65.29.10.60, 18:09, 17 July 2005. - dcljr ]

If someone could post a link to an audio clip of Wilson's comment, I think it should be obvious from his tone of voice which interpretation is the correct one. - dcljr (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is video of Wilson making the comment. It is obvious that his words are deliberaly being misconstrued by his political opponents, who are earning a real repuation for dishonesty!

Joseph Wilson video -asx- 05:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. It's not quite as "obvious" as I thought it might be, but there's definitely a difference in the way he says "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day Bob Novak blew her identity" (his emphasis on the words shown) and the way he says "She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that, uh, that article in Vanity Fair appeared" (his voice rises on the word "appeared" as if he is going to continue on to make another point, but the clip ends there). His slight emphasis on the word "day" in the first remark (not to mention the word "blew"!) would seem to indicate that he meant exactly what he soon after said he meant: namely, that Novak's column made her no longer clandestine. It is funny, though, how Wolf's statement, "having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA," seems almost to imply that she was "a clandestine officer" at the time of the VF photo shoot. This, of course, would mean that she was also clandestine when Novak's column appeared! But it seems to be precisely the former implication — that she was clandestine at the time of the VF photo shoot — that Wilson is responding to with both of his comments. - dcljr (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, since all the excerpts from the Wolf Blitzer interview have been 1 to 3 lines long, here's a more complete version from Media Matters (the link -asx- provided above). I've removed the editor's note "[in the January 2004 Vanity Fair magazine]" right after the words "photo shoot with your wife":

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that. What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you?

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department. She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a long discussion as two other users have already done above, so I'll take my leave on this issue... - dcljr (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If he wanted to say what the Wilson defenders are claiming, he would have said, "My wife was not a clandestine officer after Bob Novak published his column.'

That's not what he said. So it's INTERPRETATION, iow POV to suggest you KNOW what he meant by that.

A reasonable person could take that to mean she was also not undercover the DAY before! And since Wilson PUNTED on that point saying : That's not anything that I can talk about". We have to frame the issue in ambiguity at the very minimum and certainty not present it in a way that puts OUR words in HIS mouth.

Big Daddy 23:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Formatting improvments

Some opinions & explanations

I made some improvements to the formatting of this article, as follows:

1—Removed (current) template It is unecessary to include the {current} template on this page. By default, any figure in the Administration is involved in current news. It's a given that news about Karl Rove is current. The current template is redundant to what everyone knows, and distracts the user from the meat of the page, the actual content, which is what they came for.

2—Floated the Table of Contents to Right The TOC is large and has a width of only 50% of the page. Using the default alignment (left) leaves a vast gap of unattractive and poorly utilized white space at the top of the page, a major violation of aesthetics and good design.

3—Moved portrait to the left side of the page Since the menu is on the right, the portrait goes on the left. Unlike the menu, text flows around the photo, giving the page a more professionally laid out appearance and improving the look of Wikipedia to the rest of the world coming to read about this front-page story.

The page is now more pleasing to the eye.

-asx- 03:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the formatting again. I believe the {{current}} tag does serve a purpose, warning readers of the volatility of the content; and besides, it places the article in the corresponding category. By a similar "everyone knows" argument you could justify removing the tag from almost every article it's on. The picture looks a little strange on the left, since Rove is turned slightly to the left in the photo. And it looks doubly strange placed below the first section header. I've made a kind of "compromise" layout in which the pic is still floated to the right at the top, but the TOC is placed immediately to the right of the first section. Compare: original layout, version by -asx- and my compromise. - dcljr (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. My responses to your responses:

1—Okay, that's a good point about putting it in the corresponding category. I didn't realize that. I agree it should be put back.

2—Well, you have a point about it looking "a little" strange because he's facing left, slightly. It would be ideal if we could just ask him to turn his chin slightly. ;) But given a choice between the original and the new version with portrait on the left, I prefer the latter.

3—Thanks for trying the compromise. I don't like the compromise either, just because the top of the TOC butts up against the line of text above it, which doesn't look too good.

I've given my input, you make some good points. I'll leave it in your hands, whatever you decide is appropriate will have my support. -asx- 04:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

To the aforementioned three versions (see my previous comment above), I add this possibility, in which the pic is on the left at the top and the TOC is floated to the right of the first section (notice in the wikicode that margins can be set "manually" in a <div> to prevent the TOC from abutting text). Note that almost any layout will have some problems when viewed at certain resolutions and font sizes, but there should be a "best" choice. I'll leave it to others to comment on these different layouts and which ones they prefer. (Try to ignore the presence/absence of the "current event" box.) - dcljr (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Option 4 Very nicely done. It looks great! I think it's the best of the four. Nice coding, too! This has my vote. -asx- 05:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I did briefly try the same general idea using a <span>, but that didn't work and I assumed a <div> would not work either. Glad you pointed it out. -asx- 05:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Dropout?

I have to say, the use of the phrase "dropped out" and especially the link to "dropout" is highly POV! Personally, I could not dislike Karl Rove more. I would love to see him frogmarched out of the White House and into Federal Prison. But I also support and strongly believe in the concept and practice of objectivity and neutrality in reporting. And highlighting a personal failure in the first paragraph and then linking it to a disparaging term (dropout) is definitely POV. As soon as many people see that (and where it links), they will judge Wikipedia as pushing a left-wing POV. -asx- 05:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the article dropout is just a little too negative. I don't really have a problem having it in this article (he did drop out, that doesn't make him bad or stupid). The article on dropout doesn't really explain that there are very valid reasons for dropping out. And the list on dropout could be seen as slightly slanted, but if you think so then fix it. What do you suggest? Would you like to totally delete the fact that he dropped out? Some people who like Karl Rove may see it as a sign of greatness, that someone could overcome the lack of formal education to be in a position of power as Rove has done. Oh well... --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I know that when I think dropout, it conjures up visions of the high school type who couldn't cut it. The Bill Gates article prefers dropout, and there's nothing in the talk page to indicate it ever being controversial. I can see asx's issue, especially in an article that already has some serious POV issues, and perhaps "left school" could be replaced without harming any sort of integrity, but I don't really see dropout as having major issues to begin with. Just my two cents... --Badlydrawnjeff 15:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any term more appropriate to describe 'left voluntarily without a degree' than 'dropped out'. As to the reasons why Rove in particular dropped out, if they're relevant I don't see why we can't explain his dropping out with a few tightly-edited facts, but we should be careful not to motivate our edits on a desire to 'mitigate' his dropping out so as not to be overly 'critical' of Rove. That motivation, in and of itself, is POV. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with saying "drop out," but linking to the Wikipedia article is unnecessary and could be interpreted wrongly. When clicking on it, I originally believed it would take me to an article with more information on why Rove dropped out at all. Instead, it was just a definition - something I already knew. My point is that the arguments for keeping it as a link are not as good as removing it - not only for a NPOV thing, but because it's a fairly useless link anyways. Ryan 20:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Last night I attended a screening of the Elia Kazan movie, "A Face in the Crowd" at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. The lead role resembled Mr. Rove so much I just couldn't let the fact pass without comment. The name was even similair- "Lonesome" Larry Rhodes. Anyway, this doesn't mean anything, but I just thought I'd mention it.

The Leak - Rove's wife

Just a thought here - there is a story about Cheney's no. 2 man telling reporters too that they didn't give her name, so who did? Me thinks a closer look at Rove's wife. . .

Please sign your comments, thanks Calicocat 02:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

and 'methinks' it was OJ Simpson. But unless 'youthinks' and 'methinks' has facts to back it up...

...it doesn't belong in here.

Ps I beefed up Rove's previously STARK family background entry as follows:

"====Adoption, divorce, and suicide==== Rove learned at age nineteen, during his parents' divorce, that the man who raised him, a mineral geologist, was not his biological father. Rove has expressed great love and admiration for his adoptive father and for "how selfless" his love had been. Rove's mother committed suicide in Reno, Nevada, in 1981 (New Yorker profile [7]). "

Big Daddy 11:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

****gate?

What ****gate is the Karl Rove scandal being referred to?

Rovegate, Plamegate, ....?

This scandal is so big, it remains (so far) ungated. (Who let the dogs out? as the saying goes, and I don't think it will be just Rove who goes barking.) Let's not use Wikipedia to coin a phrase to sum the whole question up. The Wikipedia entry was the first use of the descriptive phrase "Valerie Plame Scandal", and that seems to be sticking. Let's stay with that for now. 68.227.184.37 22:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have heard some progressive talkers refer to it as "Rovegate", but I'm not willing to put that into the article until it becomes common usage. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

John Tierney officially put into writing what the right-wing blogosphere has been calling it for about a week now - Nadagate. I think that, if we ever get to the point where we call this by a gated name, that it's explicitly mentioned as opposed to included with the link, but it's hardly worth the POV interest to put it anywhere else at this point, IMO. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. No need for any mention of a named scandal. Perhaps if anything ever actually happens, then it might deserve a mention. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The left-wing blogosphere is referring to it as 'Rovegate' or 'Treasongate'. In Rep. John Conyers and Sen. Barney Frank's latest set of letters, they refer to the scandal as 'Rovegate'. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

So things only become "gates" when media (like super-POV Fox News) call them "gates"?

I'm using Plame affair, no "gates" here. Calicocat 05:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"Peak Oil" issue and NPOV concerns

While I certainly think this theory deserves a link from the bottom of the Wikipedia page, after having read the source (and about its author), I am not sure this paragraph quite merits inclusion in the article. However, I do think it should be assigned reading for the close followers of the scandal and the various theories behind it. It seems to me that the question of what damage the leak actually did is something that the press, in particular, should pay more attention to... But I'm not sure the following passes the smell test:

=== Actual damage caused ===

While the breaking of Valerie Plame's cover as a NOC operative of the CIA may be regarded as serious in and of itself, there has been some speculation that the damage caused by the leak may extend in very specific directions related to Plame's work with her cover company, Brewster Jennings & Associates. While the majority of commentators felt that her husband was the target for the smear, a body of evidence points to another motive for the leak. The leak may have been instigated as a move to end Plame's work spying on the Saudi royal family, and more specifically the question of whether the Saudi oilfields had passed their peak of productiviy (see peak oil). In this view (found for example in Michael Ruppert's From The Wilderness news service, [8]) the leak was an attempt to silence and/or discredit Plame's findings on the state of the world's oil supply, thereby impairing the functioning of the CIA's ability to inform the administation, in turn reducing its ability to act usefully.

We live in a world of forgeries and innuendo. Let's not make Wikipedia a vector for them. The medium is far more powerful when it is accurate. 68.227.184.37 22:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

As there is no evidence to contradict what is said in this entry, it seems entirely unreasonably to label it "inaccurate speculation". (I will address my misgiving about that term in a moment). Nobody has formed any challenge to this description of the operations of Brewster Jennings & Associates; nor any challenge to the substance of the original article.

The note is also representative on a widespread interpretation of the facts. On a point of language, speculation would not be speculation if it were possible to say that it were accurate, it would be merely a fact. The term "inaccurate speculation" is meaningless, and therefore can hardly be cited as a reason to censor this contribution. I will now instate the portion that you deleted, though with a slight sub-edit to make one sentence clearer. 83.70.46.11711:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I may have lost that edit war, but I think the section would be stronger (at the least) for some reinforcements and interpretations from the mainstream media, not from the website currently cited. Anyone who might be able to bolster the passage from findings published in the mainstream media is welcome to try their hand. I still think the passage is dubious. I will do my best, for now, with some new information from The Economist of July 18, 2005,[9] which does add insight about Plame's role in the CIA and the damage from outing her. Also, information should be added to the Wikipedia entry on Rove derived from Cooper's most recent Time interview, in which he spoke about what he told the grand jury.

It is because I feel the article is otherwise strongly written, quite accurate, and responsibly footnoted, that I have a problem with this particular passage above. In any case, the article will be improved by the incorporation of several new facts reported over the weekend in The New York Times.[10][11][12], including Bush's revised statements about firing a staff member who had "committed a crime."

I'll do my best with this. I don't have a Wikipedia handle. I sign and stand by all my comments with my IP address. 68.227.184.37 06:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I do hope it is not a war, but quite the opposite, a debate in which the winner is the end user of the wikipedia. That sounds twee, but im rather taken with the possibilities of this enterprise. I can't see any reason for the removal of the Economist article reference post. Anyone? 83.70.46.11711:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I deleted that Ruppert paragraph again. I like the footnote, and I do think the report is required reading. But I have seen too many reports about Rove and the Vice President's office which suggest the leak was a spontaneous spinning reflex at work, not a conspiracy to undermine the CIA or to put a White House spin on the peak oil controversy. In the context of an otherwise sober entry, I don't think this diversion is encyclopedia material just yet. Sorry. 68.227.184.37 15:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added a version of that para again. In the piece it is made clear that "a majority of commentators felt that her husband was the target for the smear," but it is missing out a part of the narrative not to mention that there is a body of writing which offers other intepretation of the significance of these events. I don't think that it does anything but improve the piece to have those dissenting opinions find some space alongside the majority. 83.70.46.11722:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Mind if I have a nip-and-tuck at it? I think it can be shorter in any case. And as I've said, I think the more immediate knee-jerk response from the White House in terms of attacking Wilson is more believable than a big conspiracy behind all this... I might pose that knee-jerk thesis beside this one, since it has been aired in the media in the last few days. 68.227.184.37 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Poll

I corrected the Poll (under 'White House') language, but I think it's heavyhanded, rife with POV interpretations and should be deleted. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

User:214.13.4.151: please stop placing erroneous conclusions in the poll. Let the numbers stand as they are, and don't try to mitigate them with 'majority/minority' groupings. They are incorrect in each instance you've used them - please move on and let this stand without POV. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Exposure not "outing"

I'm suggesting that the word "exposure" (or similar) and not outing be used, the latter being a slang term in this context. Calicocat 17:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree; "exposure" or something equivalent would be more professional. --Bletch 02:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Plame idenity marked as secret

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, July 21, 2005; Page A01

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials. [13] Calicocat 12:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

214.13.4.151

This user has wholesale deleted information not meeting his/her standard for truth. The edit here [14] (among his 4 reverts) is completely unfounded. The information is there, it's a historical fact, and your outright deletion is not editing in good faith. This is almost a half-dozen times in one day that you have picked facts (yes, FACTS) that you don't like and deleted them without explanation here. Your behavior is verging on vandalism, when you do not discuss your edits first. Please correct your sense of good faith, before correcting the article further. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

User:214.13.4.151's edit comment: 'Read the link - 1. it is not factual, it is an opinion 2. his contract was reduced, he was not "fired".' You misunderstand completely. The contract was reduced - for this he was not fired. He was fired for leaking the information to Novak. You are convinceing me you are not interested in good faith editing. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please post a quote from the source article thatbacks up what you are claiming to be "fact". The gossip at link 3 [15] (in the same section) is pure gossip (its gossipy unsourced chatter by 3 or 4 liberal commentators who don't like the Bush administration) and I am going to remove that, too. Link 3 also tends to contradict the timing of what you are saying - unless there is a 3rd incident involving a leak to Novak. People who don't like Rove can say whatever they want, but wikipedia ought not print rumors. Facts, please. This is not a blog for gossip about Rove. 214.13.4.151 14:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Facts:

• Rove was fired in '92.

Allegation:

• Rove was fired for ALLEGEDLY leaking Mosbacher's firing to Novak.

One thing you may be missing, in your blatant POV wrestling... this is not about pro/anti Rove, or pro/anti Liberals. It's about fact. The section as you deleted it, was factual and informative. And your deleting it was not based on fact, as you cannot articulate a reason (other than it's 'gossipy') to delete it. Come up with facts that counter those in the listed sources, and inform, and you can amend it - but outright deletion of facts based on your own personal filter is bad faith.

I will remind you also that that section is sourced to Karl and Bob: a leaky history," Houston Chronicle, Nov. 7, 2003, ; "Genius," Texas Monthly, March 2003, p. 82; "Why Are These Men Laughing," Esquire, January 2003)

These are not gossipy sources, they are three national news sources. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

214.13.4.151 has continually inserted POV statments and removed valid information. This user has not acted in good faith nor worked to build consensus at all. This same user, 214.13.4.151, has already been RfCed due to editing on another article and it seems is bent on earning another one based on his actions with this article. The current "block" is due to this user's actions and not anything you've done. All I observe is you sticking to the facts and reverting edits that are pushing POV and really tantamount to a form of vandalism of this article. Also, 214.13.4.151's comments are in many instances, very rude and sarcastic. See RfC on this Anon - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/214.13.4.151

Calicocat 17:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverted again

I see you didn't even bother to read my response before deleting this content (for at least the 5th time). You are not acting in good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

YOU claim it is fact, but since this important artice eis not online we have to take your word for it. Sorry, Charlie. Please be so kind as to post the content of the article that puts it all in context(ad if you can't do so, then we can't trust the valdidity of the source or whether the context supports the conclusions you draw), and then explain why the NPR banter show by the certified liberals who hate Rove EITHER contradicts your non-linked source OR indicates a 3rd Rove leak to Novak. (I am sure you would enjoy proving there was a third leak. Right now the sources we have do not make it clear what happened, and this section needs to be cleaned up before it can remain posted in the article. 214.13.4.151 14:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Your qualifications of the evidence are incorrect, your standards are not wiki standards, and lies are not fact. Moreover, there is no '3rd leak' alleged here. I apologize if there is a misunderstanding, and I hope we can discuss this constructively when your 24-hour block expires. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Added NPOV notice

I just added the notice, seeing as how there's an edit war going on between User:214.13.4.151 and User:RyanFreisling.--Kross 15:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Good call.

IMHO edits by 214.13.4.151 have largely been (a) without supporting references or (b) mere deletions of factual items that disagree with his/her/its point of view, but [WP:3RR], RyanFreisling should probably have left it up to others to revertor to re-word. User:nil0lab

I hope no one else was disturbed by my desire not to permit 214's extensive content vandalism, and to point out 214's violation of the 3RR. I'm also hopeful we can undo some of the extensive non-vandalism edits that 214. has introduced that are, as you mention, unsupported and/or spurious. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you did the correct thing in dealing with 214's violations of 3RR and of his or her introduction of spurious information and pushing his POV. Calicocat 02:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User 214.13.4.151 has engaged in this type of conduct before- he/she was engaged in an edit war in the article on Abortion. Just thought I'd bring it up, give a bit of context regarding this user's regared for Wikipedia guidelines. --69.112.163.191 22:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Given the lack of comments supporting 214s' POV claims, isn't it time to remvoe the POV tag? User:dittoman

Given no dissent following dittoman [02:28 29 July] comment, doing so. --Arnoldlover 03:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hell no!!! nPOV my ass. This reads like it was written by the copy boy at Daily Kos. I corrected this total POV section on 'was a crime committed' as follows:

"Many critics consider this to be an expansion of the criteria, i.e., that Mr. Bush now reserves the right to fire only in the event of an actual conviction, which clearly requires a higher standard of proof and would in any case take much longer. But most realize this position is absolutely consistent with the position President Bush has taken from the very beginning."

This is the FIRST of many significant re-writes this article must undergo to come even close to being nPOV. Big Daddy 21:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon editor 214.13.4.151 = DOD

Well, surprise surprise.
Concerning the IP 214.13.4.151....it's Department of Defense:
route: 214.0.0.0/8
descr: DOD Network Information Center
7990 Science Applications Court
MS CV-50
Vienna, VA 22183-7000
Attempting to do a little Psy-Ops on your spare time, hmm?

Why am I not surprised... although it doesn't disqualify the author, it explains the lightspeed talking points, lack of explanation/collaboration and relentlessness.

Glad I have prepared my lengthy edits in advance... this could get dicey.

Oh - by the way - the next talking point barfed up will be 'not TOP secret, just 'secret' (a lot like Novak's 'the FBI didn't ask 'strongly' enough' excuse). -- RyanFreisling @ 00:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

More on our 214 friend:
07/21/05 22:39:39 dig 214.13.4.151 @ 4.2.2.4
Dig 151.4.13.214.in-addr.arpa@4.2.2.4 ...
Non-authoritative answer
Recursive queries supported by this server
Query for 151.4.13.214.in-addr.arpa type=255 class=1
4.13.214.in-addr.arpa SOA (Zone of Authority)
Primary NS: ns01.army.mil
Responsible person: DOMAIN-REQUEST@AIMS7.army.mil
serial:10000
refresh:600s (10 minutes)
retry:1s
expire:600s (10 minutes)
minimum-ttl:3600s (60 minutes)
Seems to be army.mil specifically. Calicocat 02:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

See RfC on this Anon - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/214.13.4.151

Well, I would hope that military intelligence officers from Psychological Operations groups would be smart enough to mask their IP addresses while conducting domestic missions. So 214, which is it? Are you from the 2nd (Cleveland), 4th (Fort Bragg) or 7th (Mountain View, CA) PsyOps group? Just curious why we're paying taxes to have you conduct disinformation campaigns against the very people you swore to protect. Is that what you call "serving" your country? You dishonor all that served before you.

Protected for disputes - possible WP:3RR case

Ryan and some Anon seem to be in a revert war, [16] and protection seems to be a good idea FTM. -SV|t 17:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The Anon user is continually inserting language taken almost directly from the GOP talking points on Rove. Calicocat 19:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Rove's POV: Rove has testified that Novak was his source

The Washington Post has reported (July 21, 2005)[17] that Rove testified Novak was his source for Plame's CIA identity, not the other way around. From other sources, we know this Rove/Novak conversation took place on July 8, 2003, two days after Wilson's Op-Ed piece appeared in the New York Times. (It is perhaps notable that an unnamed White House official's conversation with Judith Miller also took place on July 8, 2003.)

The Washington Post also reports the contents of the intelligence memo, issued June 10, 2003, which was circulating among senior White House figures (notably Colin Powell) on July 7, 2003, the day after Wilson's editorial was published. Many questions were asked early in the Independent Counsel's investigation about who saw or had access or discussed this intelligence memo, which marked Valerie Plame's CIA identity secret, and which noted her marriage to Wilson. Plame's role is mentioned in two of seven sentences in the second paragraph of the memo. Her involvement or relationship to her husband's mission (or merely her opinion upon it...she was, after all, a highly-regarded and experienced WMD authority within the CIA) was apparently reported by one person who attended the CIA debriefing on February 21, 2002, following Wilson's trip to Niger.[18]

The page needs to be updated in light of these new facts.

I realize it's difficult when a page has been frozen, and there are (obviously) some ideologically-charged points which need to be settled. But history is marching on, and the timeline of the entry needs to be updated. We now know the beginnings of Rove's defense. Since July 7 and July 8 2003 seem to be important dates in this story, we see the knot closing tighter on a particularly crucial period and the particularly crucial eyewitness accounts of Powell, Fleischer, Libby, Matalin, et al.[19] Fleischer's communication from Novak on July 7, 2003, just before Fleischer left on the trip to Africa with the President, Rove, and Powell, should be noted.

There is an apparent discrepancy between the account offered by Rove of having heard Plame's status from Novak, or from a reporter he could not recall (I've seen both reported), and Novak's reported testimony (according to some accounts) that Rove only confirmed to Novak something he had heard from another unnamed source. "I heard that, too," Rove was reported to have told Novak.[20] In this account, Novak heard the news from an as-yet-unidentified government official on July 7, 2003. So the obvious question is, how can Novak be telling Rove something he's never heard before on July 8, 2003 if he says, "I heard that, too"? Unless Rove is blaming Judith Miller for telling him about Wilson's wife? The Wikipedia entry needs to fairly — and factually — report the obvious contradictions and the obvious conjectures to be drawn from what we know.

I'll endeavor to suggest new (neutral) prose to handle the disputes around the second paragraph of the lead section. Wikipedians, let us all behave ourselves. And remember that although the facts need to be aired — and there are many important facts which must be included in this entry — Karl Rove is also entitled to a fair defense and a presumption of innocence. It seems to me there is a lot of spin and leaking coming from "sources familiar with the investigation" and that sort of thing. And yes, things look pretty serious for Karl Rove, after all the revelations that came of Cooper. But we won't really know the answers to many of the most important questions until charges are (possibly) filed. 68.1.168.96 22:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Amen. Hopefully, some of the noxious POV inserted into the article before it was protected can be returned to it's factual origins. I've got my edits and explanations ready.

Also, this 'talking point' of Rove claiming to have learned Plame's identity has been out there a while (and I thought, had made it into the article. Although Cooper testified his conversation with Rove, in which Rove identified Plame as an agency operative, was said to have occured July 11th (3 days prior to Novak's column). It's an important element of the story to be sure. As you suggest, though, let's be moderate and realistic and not call it a 'vindication', as a number of GOP talking points regurgitated here have been labeled.

-- RyanFreisling @ 23:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

11 former CIA Agents send open statement to Congress

... this week concluding that the coordinated strategy to discredit Ms. Wilson "reveals an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover." pdf

Important point indeed, and the letter makes for good reading. Four of the ex-operatives who participated in the drafting of the statement are participating in tomorrow's hearing with Rep. Henry Waxman. pdf -- RyanFreisling @ 23:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Important recent edits requiring resolution on 'talk'

In the past few days, User:214.13.4.151 has conducted a series of edits, some of which espouse extreme POV, some of which delete outright fact. There was some mutual reverting earlier today, which ended in User:214.13.4.151 being given a 24hr 3RR block, and prompted a protection to be applied to the page.

This talk entry is an attempt to summarize a smattering of User:214.13.4.151's edits that have not otherwise been modified or reverted - the edits at the heart of a number of revert wars' are not included here. These are edits where the end result is/was missing information or damage to existing information, and/or where the end result espouses an ideology or belief, instead of relying on fact and neutral analysis. Here there is little justification for the change, and any actual reasoning behind the edit appears to be absent or faulty.

This is not meant to ascribe any negative motive to User:214.13.4.151, but is solely aimed at helping the community understand some of the edits performed, and decide on the best course of (re)action - whether to leave them as is, correct, or revert them.

So, here's the list. As I am able (I'm currently on via dialup), I'll provide diffs (others are welcome to help) and more to come as I better understand the page history.

Excessive POV, in the name of 'balance'

For the next few years, Rove worked in various Republican circles and assisted George H. W. Bush's 1980 vice-presidential campaign. He was subsequently fired from the campaign for leaking information to journalist Robert Novak. Rove introduced Bush to Lee Atwater. A signature tactic of Rove was to attack an opponent on the opponent's strongest issue.

Became

There is unproven speculation that he was subsequently fired from the campaign for leaking information[21] to journalist Robert Novak. Rove introduced Bush to Lee Atwater. A signature tactic of Rove was to attack an opponent on the opponent's strongest issue - a tactic also used by Democrat political advisers.

My objection: The first modifier (that the '92 firing of Rove is somehow untrue) is unfounded, and could have been resolved on 'talk', with some good faith discussion. And, there is no need for the latter modifier - the point is valid that Rove is well-known for this specific tactic.

Excessive POV, in the name of 'balance'

It was later claimed that Rove had bugged his own phone to garner media coverage. [22]

Became

Karl Rove announced that his office had been bugged by the Democrats, but no proof was provided. [23] Critics speculate that it was a publicity stunt, however they provide no proof for this allegation.

My objection: There is no need for these modifiers, it could have been modified better by editing it to read something similar to:

It was later claimed by critics that Rove had bugged his own phone to garner media coverage. [24]

Thus is the point made without shifting POV blatantly and poorly.

Sorry, but an article found in the discredited radical left wing rag 'Counterpunch' entitled "Exposing Karl Rove" and beginning with the opening line "He's America's Joseph Goebbels..." is NOT an Impartial source!

This whole section must be removed unless someone can back it up with a legit impartial source. It's probably gonna go anyway since it appears to be yet another in this endless litany of UNPROVEN, unsubstantiated allegations by Rove's enemies that mysteriously find their way here. I know...I know... the urban legend of Rove bugging his own office is high mythology amongst the Rove critics, but this is Wikipedia not snopes.com.

Remember, it's VERIFIABLE we're looking for. Not 'I want it to be so." Big Daddy 14:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Excessive POV

John Ashcroft's campaign paid Karl Rove & Co. over $300,000 to aid his (eventually successful) Senate race. In 1999, the George W. Bush campaign effort paid Karl Rove & Co. $2.5 million for July through December. According to Rove, "About 30 percent of that is postage."

Became

In 1993, according to the New York Times, Karl Rove & Co. earned $300,000 in consulting fees from John Ashcroft's successful senate campaign. In 1999, Karl Rove & Co. earned $2.5 million in fees from the successful George W. Bush campaign. According to Rove, "About 30 percent of that is postage."

My objection: There is no need to qualify Rove's receipt of the money as 'earning'. 'Paid' is NPOV, in that it assigns no value judgment. 'Earned' is more POV, and doesn't educate the reader better here - it's an attempt at a pro-Rove character 'massage'.

I took out this POV POS -

"In 2000, it is suspected that Rove masterminded a push poll during the 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?". Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement."

It is suspected? It is SUSPECTED??????

And you liberals are busy trouncing some conservative guy for his POV? Have you no shame. This is by far the most one sided left wing slime hit piece I've found in Wik...even topping Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson's (and believe me, that's hard to do.)

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF for ANY of these PARANOID LEFT WING DELUSIONAL FANTASIES of yours???

I heard on the radio today that 'It is suspected' Karl Rove Drove a Helicopter up into Katrina and, using a specially made top secret machine from Haliburton, SEEDED the clouds so that Katrina would only come down and destroy BLACK people's houses. Want to put THAT in this article too???

Sheesh...more work...much more work for Big Daddy 22:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Added source from Boston Globe as per your request and reinstated the passage. --kizzle 22:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, for the second time, QUIT stalking me.

Secondly, the 'source' is a DISGRUNTLED McCain campaign manager. Hardly an objective source.

Third and MOST DAMNING...The Globe hit piece DOES NOT EVEN MENTION Karl Rove. It ascribes this poll to 'anonymous opponents'

Now, I HAVE to report this. Because this is a case where in your apparent zeal to slime Karl Rove irrespective of the truth you, within minutes of my edit, reverted back to a slime which provided NO PROOF that Karl Rove was connected. Boy you sure were in a hurry to TRASH Karl Rove, huh? Wonder why??

This puts the final nail in the coffin of any pretense on your part that you're capable of writing a nPOV article on Karl Rove. Please find some other subject you can be more neutral about.. Thank you Big Daddy 23:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You know, it just might be possible that you are editing on pages that happen to be on my watchlist. I just checked your contribs, how come I haven't touched Pat Robertson? Feel free to file an RfC if you like. All I did was add a source to the accusation, I agree it doesn't have Karl Rove's name mentioned. But we do know it happened and that many people suspect Karl Rove, seeing as he was Bush's closest advisor. --kizzle 23:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Man, someone REALLY MUST WANT to slime Karl Rove real bad, huh??

Anyway, I edited this slime piece - Trust me it ultimately WILL NOT stand the scrutiny of nPOV since NO ONE has offered any proof. but here it it is. Enjoy it before it gets removed-

According to the campaign manager of John McCain's failed 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?". [25] Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement. Critics of Rove, such as the authors of a book called Bush's Brain (also made into a movie), suspect that he was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush. But no proof of this assertion has ever been proffered."

If this HIT PIECE is left in then the NEW Wik standard must be that we can ACCUSE ANYONE OF ANYTHING as long as we find some hating kook on the other side of the political spectrum to suggest it. NO PROOF IS NEEDED. Then we can leave it in his encyclopedia entry as long as we say there is no proof. This is just nuts. You've got 24 hours to either PROVE IT OR DELETE IT. No specualations, suggestions or inneundo. This is a FREAKING encyclopedia. Not David Brock's personal weblog. Big Daddy 23:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Passage almost sounds good to me, tweaked it a bit. --kizzle 00:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

It does look a little better, I must admit. But it HAS to be deleted. Why? Within the hit piece itself, is contained the SEED of it's own demise: Here it is:

"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?". [26] Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement. The book and movie Bush's Brain, allege that he was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush, though no proof of Rove's direct involvement ever surfaced."

Read that last line again - "Though no proof of Rove's direct involvement ever surfaced." IOW, it's NOT verifiable. IOW it's not fit for Wik. Any questions??? Big Daddy 16:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is verifiable. The book and movie do, in fact, allege that he was involved in this push poll. If you want to argue that this is irrelevent material, I might entertain such, but it's certainly all verifiable. As an additional note, I have removed all of your excess line breaks, and properly indented your comment. It would be helpful if you could do this on your own. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That paragraph has been removed in it's entirety. It fails the most basic test established by Wikipedia's FOUNDER Jimmy Wales. He says every FACT in every article must be attributed to recognized, IMPARTIAL sources. There are no FACTS linking Rove to this supposed incident. Only an ALLEGATION. And, Bush's Brain is NOT an impartial source.

Not even close...Big Daddy 14:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you quote where it says impartial sources must be used? If that were true, it would seem that entire articles such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Fahrenheit 9/11 would be removed. Only notable sources must be used, and I think a book that was also made into a movie meets the notability requirements. --kizzle 16:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh,like I've said when I first was introduced to your work, you have NO BUSINESS editing in Wikipedia. Here's the quote:

"Wales, a former options trader, said he considered an academic peer-reviewed site before founding Wikipedia four years ago.

Instead, he bet on the wisdom of amateurs, depending on simple ethics like "anyone can edit any page," "a neutral point of view," and "no original research" -- in other words, every fact must be attributed to recognized, ****IMPARTIAL*** sources. "

and here's the link -http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/technology/wikipedia.reut/]

:::-> Not just 'notable' but recognized and IMPARTIAL. Got it? Good. 

Big Daddy 04:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

That is not Wikipedia policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone put this piece in 'sourced' by a bunch of footnotes, all of which either don't mention Rove or are far from impartial.

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?". [27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32] Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement. It has been widely suggested that he was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush.

There were 6 sources provided:

The most authoritative was from the former campaign manager of John McCain. And he has an obvious axe to grind. But even he, axe in hand, specifically ascribed the incident in question to 'anonymous sources.' So if someone is biased, but at least in a position to know, says it's anonymous then how does someone determine it's Karl Rove? The second source was from a review..a REVIEW mind you... of Al Franken's book. No more needs to be said here other than, as ridiculous as a source as that is, there was NO mention of Karl Rove. The third source was from the Cal Berkley school paper and didn't come up. The last three were from totally PARTIAL far left wing sites or just hatchet pieces like the baltimore chronicle's op-ed piece ENDORSING John Kerry over George Bush.

Someone apparently thought throwing the kitchen sink at this would make it stick. And there's something inherently dishonest in operating that way. If this UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION is reverted again, I will ask a supervisor to find out and tag you with the 3rr rule but to be fair at least whoever did this 'tried' to beef up their still untenable argument. Bottom line: Those closest say it was 'anonymous.' You're just going to have to let it go... Big Daddy 17:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You are being needlessly combative. I will not address your substantive concerns untill you stop threatening people groundlessly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"You are being needlessly combative" is a personal attack and does not assume good faith. I will remind everyone what the McCain campaign chairman said: " We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made."

Big Daddy 18:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not a personal attack - "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. What you should not do is act like their mistake was deliberate." You are being needless combattive. I will not address your substantive concerns untill you stop threatening people groundlessly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Excessive POV

. Families of September 11, a nonprofit organization founded in October 2001 by families of those who died in the September 11 terrorist attacks, issued a statement requesting Rove "resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others."[33][34]

Became

An activist group of victims calling themselves "Families of September 11" issued a statement requesting Rove "stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others." This statement itself is considered by some as likewise political in nature. [35]

My objection: There is no need to describe this group in this way, except to attempt to 'marginalize' the group with language. Calling a group 'activists' rather than a 'non-profit' educates less, and the last sentence added is blatant POV, with the repulsive 'considered by some' used as an excuse to minimize a factual point as 'political'. In an open encyclopedia, every point does not require a corresponding talking point from the government.

My objection to your objection, if calling a group 'activist' is marginalizing them and 'considered by some' is repulsive, then you ought to go to the Ann Coulter site and lecture them! lol! The fact is this so called 'families of 911' is a group with MANY well known left wing activists on it's board. That WILL be included. Sorry, but your every point does not require a corresponding talking point from michael moore.

Big Daddy 09:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote this piece having found several liberal activists on the board of this group.

Here's what I've got so far:

Families Of September 11, an organization founded in October, 2001 by families of those who died in the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, and whose board consists of numerous left wing activists,[36], issued a statement requesting Rove "stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others."[http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/news.aspx?s=5#1352. The non-partisan 911 Families for America saw no political motive in Rove's observations.[ http://www.911familiesforamerica.org]

The White House stood behind Rove[37][38], stating that Rove's comments were "very accurate" and that it was "somewhat puzzling" that Democrats and many other Americans felt he ought to apologize, since Rove was "simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism." For example, the liberal organization Moveon.org put out a petition in the days after 9-11 that advocated not using any military force in responding to 9-11.[39]

It provides balance by giving a SPECIFIC example of how left wingers responded to 911 in a way consistent with Rove's characterization which was missing in the early account (which was mostly filled with hyped up emotionally laden counter-attacks to Rove with little factual substance.) I also sourced a 'another' 911 family organization who supported Roves' comments.Big Daddy 10:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone took out this line which I put back in:

" The non-partisan 911 Families for America saw no political motive in Rove's observations.[ http://www.911familiesforamerica.org]"

On what basis was it removed? Is it because only LIBERAL 911 family organizations are allowed to discuss Karl Rove? Big Daddy 04:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Try as you might. Triple revert as you might, you guys are NOT gonna keep this thing a left wing hatchet/hate piece against Karl Rove for much longer.

I added this piece aoubt Rove supporters: (There will be a WHOLE lot more coming from Rove supporters to this piece. At least as many as there are from Rove detractors which currently PREDOMINATES this article. Hmmm...wonder why?)

"Other Rove supporters backed up his statements. They pointed out that the left wing group, MoveOn.org, circulated petitions in the days following the 911 attack advocating that no military action be taken against Afghanistan."

The above piece is RELEVANT,nPOV and verifiable. So, I guess that means it will be removed by some liberal Karl Rove hater in the next 30 minutes, right? Remember...assume good faith. Don't just remove, edit for clarity if you wish, add a footnote. But LEAVE IT IN. Big Daddy 04:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well...someone took it out (with no comment which is a violaton of Wik etiquette.) But, guess what? I put it back in. And, if you take it out again...the same. And not only for this section but for EVERY BIASED section in the Karl Rove article. And not only for the Karl Rove article, but for EVERY article that reflects a pernicious left wing bias. And not only will I be doing this, but tons of other editors who I've invited on-board to help Jimmy Wales fulfill his vision of an IMPARTIALLY sourced encyclopedia become the best thing the web ever created.

Bummer, huh? Big Daddy 13:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I eagerly welcome all editors who want to work constructavely with the community to improve the encyclopedia. I think you've come close to an insertion that would work - but each time there was a fatal flaw. The first time, you called group A "liberal," and group B "non-partisan." In this case, the correct comment would have been "non-partisan" and "non-partisan," as neither group is allied with a political party. In the most recent iteration, you used "left-leaning," which I would shortly demand a source for but not contest, and "Other 911 family groups have been supportive of Rove." You need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability - this is exactly the statement addressed in the "When adding information" section. I believe the first removal was with the comment "NPOV", which is more than enough comment when "liberal" is contrasted with "non-partisan." I would also caution you against placing too much stock in demanding source impartiality - specifically, the old article that it comes from is not wikipedia policy cannon. Policy cannon is currently Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Excessive POV

NEW:

Others saw it as masterful baiting, with the Democrats falling into Rove's trap.[40]

My objection: Aside from the 'masterful baiting' wordplay, this commentary using weak language to describe the source as 'others', is POV. Little exists in the article that describes the 'trap', Rove's motives for such a 'trap', nor makes a similar swipe at the Democrats, and this sentence should be radically improved if included.

IMHO, the monolithic clumping of all Democrats or all liberals or all critics into one position is POV and this reference provides a good example from an influential voice that differs. But the "masterful baiting" wordplay should certainly have been quoted. --Arnoldlover 02:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I took it out. First, it came from the Huffington post which recently headlined accusations blaming Bush for black people forced to eat corpses because of Katrina. Secondly, it is a cheap shot. MASTERfulBATING?? Please. Finally, it is common practice on BOTH SIDES to engage in 'monolithic clumping' as you so artfully put it. It's therefore not POV unless you only allow liberals/democrats (sorry for the clump) to do it.Big Daddy 10:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Excessive POV

NEW:

Up front, it can be noted that Mike McCurry, White House press secretary to President Clinton, recently described Rove's role in the entire affair as "a two-minute call such as the one now reported is basically to get the signals straight -- green, yellow, red." McCurry continues, "Rove seems to have been telling Cooper that the yellowcake story was a flashing yellow and [Cooper] needed to be cautious." [41] Coming from McCurry, a staunch democratic partisan, such an analysis undercuts the premise of allegations made by Rove's detractors.

My objection: While the reference is fascinating and worthy of inclusion, it's inappropriate to provide political commentary on Wikipedia. The latter part of this edit is political POV.

Excessive POV

NEW:

In fact great pains have been taken to remind people that Mr. Rove identified her by marriage, not by name, and that he did not have clearance to know the identity and so cannot be punished for disclosing it.[42]

Wikipedia is not a lawyer, and this point is at the center of debate. Placing this conclusion in the article is unwarranted factually, and blatant POV.

Excessive POV

NEW:

"Rove has been a frequent target of critics of the Bush administration, and is presently embroiled in controversy concerning his alleged involvement in alleged leaking of the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, allegedly in retaliation for her husband's criticisms of the administration."

My objection: This is just crappy writing. No sentence deserves three 'allegedlys'.

Excessive POV

NEW:

'Political opponents allege' was added to a number of article headings, without justification. This change was successfully reverted prior to the application of page protection.[43]

My objection: before you plaster every negative point in an article with POV qualifiers, have proof, and discuss your concerns on 'talk'. This kind of thing easily goes unnoticed.

To sum up - this kind of dialogue should be taking place between the edits, not after the fact in response to one user's edits. It's important to Be bold, but it's equally important to Assume good faith.

Equally, it's important that edits be factual and informative - POV couched in 'some say' and 'some have maintained', etc. is not acceptable or informative. Noteworthy allegations will have noteworthy sources.

I am hopeful that upon the lifting of the page's protection, and upon the return of User:214.13.4.151, these and other edits can be constructively discussed before the article is again subject to this kind of concerted destructive editing.

Thanks, RyanFreisling @ 03:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I think all these observations are spot on target and furthermore I think that this user, who is apparently useing DoD equipment to carry this out, should be brought to the attention of administrators. There is, as you know, one RfC on User:214.13.4.151 and I think there might need to be another one based on this user's "editing" on this article. Calicocat 17:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Now that the page is unprot, I've made the above edits and a few more. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

C-SPAN to cover hearing

At 10:00am EDT 22 July, there will be a hearing entiled 'Public Hearing: Public Disclosure of Covert Agents, Senate Democratic Policy Committee' schedule

-- RyanFreisling @ 13:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Bloomberg Article: Rove/Libby May Be Subject to Perjury

Important news to enter, once the page protection is lifted.

July 22 (Bloomberg) — Two top White House aides have given accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to persons familiar with the case.

Lewis “Scooter'’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn’t tell Libby of Plame’s identity.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who was first to report Plame’s name and connection to Wilson. Novak, according to a source familiar with the matter, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor.

These discrepancies may be important because one issue Fitzgerald is investigating is whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation.

Bloomberg link to come. [44]

Here you go:

Rove, Libby Accounts in CIA Case Differ With Those of Reporters, Bloomberg, 7/22/2005.

Oh, and who are you? Please sign your comments. Thanks. --NightMonkey 09:16, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm Ryan. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

NYTimes article - "For Two Aides in Leak Case, 2nd Issue Arises"... possible conspiracy?

A just-released NYTimes article [45] reports 'previously unreported' information that Rove/Libby were working on the administration response to the Niger controversy at the exact time Plame's identity was leaked, opening the possibility for conspiracy charges.

At the same time in July 2003 that a C.I.A. operative's identity was exposed, two key White House officials who talked to journalists about the officer were also working closely together on a related underlying issue: whether President Bush was correct in suggesting earlier that year that Iraq had been trying to acquire nuclear materials from Africa.

They had exchanged e-mail correspondence and drafts of a proposed statement by George Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, to explain how the disputed wording had gotten into the address. Mr. Rove, the president's political strategist, and Mr. Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, coordinated their efforts with Stephen Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, who was in turn consulting with Mr. Tenet. At the same time, they were grappling with the fallout from an Op-Ed article on July 6, 2003, in The New York Times by Mr. Wilson, a former diplomat, in which he criticized the way the administration had used intelligence to support the claim in Mr. Bush's speech.

The effort was particularly striking because to an unusual degree, the circle of administration officials involved included those from the White House's political and national security operations, which are often separately run. Both arms were drawn into the effort to defend the administration during the period.

-- RyanFreisling @ 13:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Karl.jpg

This image (Image:Karl.jpg) is definitely a mockery. It's not meant to be serious, and thus has no place in Wikipedia. Must be deleted! --Mb1000 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I think the image is kind of lighthearted, shows that the guy is not all-business all the time. Not saying it belongs in the article necessarily (that would depend on the context), but "no place in Wikipedia" may be a bit strong. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with BD2412; what's wrong with it? It reveals a lot more about the man's personality than a stiff portrait. -asx- 03:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The image has nothing whatsoever to do with Rove's early life and is a potential source of POV disputes, so I've removed it. Perhaps there's room for it in another section where it can be seen with some relevant context, but it certainly does not belong where it was placed. Images are considered finishing touches to an article. Calicocat 17:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Newsmax & FoxNews

In reading thru the article, I came across the paragraph (emphasis mine):

Newsmax and Fox News counter by picking only quotes that seem to imply that conviction for violation of the law was the criterion all along, such as a statement was that he would "take care of" any person "who has violated [the] law," [88] and a Q&A session in which Mr Bush was asked "And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?" to which Bush responded, "Yes." [89]

On it's face, it would seem that this is POV, since it's implying that Newsmax and Fox News Channel (and not other media outlets) cherry-picked facts and quotes to support an editorial POV. I don't think this paragraph is appropriate since the article is not about alleged media biases, but about Karl Rove -- his biographical particulars, and his career up to and including the current allegations against him. Debating the ideological leanings of a news organization is not appropriate within a Wikipedia article itself.

Edit: Forgot my signature... --Hex 16 20:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, thanks Calicocat 02:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! My bad. Newbie error. --Hex 16 20:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• It's probably true, and it's probably wrong to call them "news organizations", but you are right that the statement without support clearly violates NPOV. --Arnoldlover 18:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

White House/Republican Reaction

I noticed where several editors have praised the use of quotes from promenent Americans regarding Karl Rove's involvement. Here are some more I included in this section. I think it's important, if we are to have a nPOV piece, that both sides be heard. (Or do we just want to know what Karl Rove's enemies think?)

Other Republicans have been more public on what they consider an unfair smearing of Karl Rove. “My Democratic Friends Would Be Doing The Nation A Great Service If They Spent Half As Much Time Getting Legislation Passed That Will Benefit The Country As They Do In Attacking Karl Rove.” (Sen. Norm Coleman, Press Release, 7/13/05)

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO): “I Think We See Too Many Efforts Now Where People Quickly Rush To Judgment, Rush To Call For The Most Bizarre Solutions To Problems That Are Problems That Are Often Just Created In Their Own Minds.” (Rep. Roy Blunt, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 7/13/05)

NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds: “Democrats Are Bitter About Losing In 2004. And They Will Stop At Nothing To Accomplish Through Character Assassination What They Could Not Accomplish At The Ballot Box.” (National Republican Congressional Committee, Statement On Karl Rove, Democrat Partisan Attacks,” Press Release, 7/13/05) Big Daddy 10:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution and article timeliness

OK, I understand the NPOV dispute is raging, but, as a consequence, this artcle's timeliness is being trashed. There are (at times hourly) news reports and ongoing hearings that need inclusion and appropriate coverage, but we are prevented from doing this because of an edit war. I know the big question is how to resolve the disputes, but another important question is how can we keep this article current? The article's contents are becoming stale. --NightMonkey 23:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Very stale, since there is nothing in it about Rove's testimony, etc. In fact, the article really isn't telling the whole story any more. Unlock the page, please, before Wikipedia is deemed irrelevant! (And read this from today's Washington Post.[46]

--68.1.168.96 23:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thirded. I yearn for good faith edits on the unprotected article, since I see it's current form as not only stale, but rife with recently-sprinkled POV. I have literally over a dozen things (most are described above) to add/edit/suggest/discuss/resolve, and all it takes is good faith of all those involved, without blanking and revert warring, and contribution of fact regardless of ideology. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

While I would be loath to see edit disputes erupt over two pages, be aware that Plame affair (to which traffic from Valerie Plame scandal is also redirected) is open and is largely treating the same subject material, working on from the same base text as originated on Karl Rove. For now, I think Karl Rove should have a comprehensive summary of the events relating to the larger scandal, but over time, a separate entry will be better suited for taking on the fuller set of characters, their testimonies, etc. --68.1.168.96 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Can the admin who locked the page chime in on this, please? Is there any neat-o Wikipedia (or MediaWiki) feature that allows for more granular locking? Say, only allow registered users to edit, while locking out anonymous users? Or some method for reviewing potential edits and adding approved changes? I know, probably not, but sure would be Nice To Have (tm) ;) . I mean, how can we resolve all of the NPOV violation allegations and not have the article locked for days or (shudder) months? (p.s. I added a colon to the comments above for readability and threading. NO content was changed. Apologies in advance for any ruffled feathers. :) ) --NightMonkey 00:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Created /temp article to help editing continue while disputes are resolved, see: Karl Rove/temp, also editors might give some attention to Plame affair, a developing article that extends beyond just Rove. Calicocat 03:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article, after I happened to spot the request on user:Steverigo's talk page. For future reference, if you want a page protected or unprotected then list it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP). To answer the questions above, unfortunately page protection is only all or nothing - it is either protected or it isn't. Thryduulf 15:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Several sections archived (Archive2)

The following were moved to Talk:Karl_Rove/Archive2 on 02:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Plame Affair As Separate Article
2. How the heck did the contents of this talk page get dupe-edited?
3. Fixed
4. Article development, todo list
5. Liberal lies.
6. Talk archiving
7. From "Think Progress" (Claims Vs. Fact)
8. rove blames it on reporters

Calicocat 02:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Created temp article to help dispute resolution

I've created a /temp version of the article so editing may continue and not go stale while disputes to main article Karl Rove can be resolved via discussion here. The temp article is atKarl_Rove/temp. Calicocat 03:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Error: Quote is Tom Delay not Karl Rove

Unless Karl Rove said it also, the quote below is Tom Delay. (Delay was quite drunk at the time and sounded like he was doing an old Foster Brooks routine.)

Allegations of the use of 9/11 tragedy for political gain June 23, 2005, marked another controversial statement from Rove, when he said "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State

Actually, you're wrong. Here's Rove's speech at the New York Conservative Party on June 22, 2005. [47] -- RyanFreisling @ 14:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It's quite common to hear the same G.O.P. talking point coming out from several directions nearly simultaneously. User talk:dittoman

Eight Days in May

Anyone following the Karl Rove scandal may enjoy this great piece in today's NYT by Frank Rich:

• Eight Days in July

This is a good summary of the 8 days in May, 2003 when the White House outted Valerie Wilson.

Wilsongate

There should be more focus on the lies and misrepresentation of Mr. Wilson, and less hearsay and speculation on Mr. Rove. We know Wilson is not credible, has been caught in lies, and never actually sent by the CIA itself. There is a plethora of stories on Wilsongate on the internet, even if the mainstream press chooses to report from a perch of partisanship and not good journalism. See:

[48] Joseph Wilson's Amazing Left-Wing Dreamland

[49] Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?

[50] Lawyer: Cooper “Burned” Karl Rove MSTCrow 02:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted anonymous edits made to this remark that changed its meaning. This is a discussion page and comments should not be edited except by the author. Also it is important that these charges be addressed. If as MSTCrow claims, Wilson was "never actually sent by the CIA itself" why didn't the CIA disavow him at the time, or at least now? The Director of Central Intelligence at the time, George Tenet was a loyal member of the administration, the current Director, Porter J. Goss is a former Republican congressman appointed by Bush. If Wilson's original report was not credible why hasn't it been declassified and released to the press so we can all see what a liar he is? If Plame wasn't covert, why is the special prosecutor still investigating? If Karl Rove was simple a "whistle blower", why did he hide behind "deep background"? Why not stand up like a man and take credit for his actions? Why did he let Scott McClellan repeatedly deny he had anything to do with the leaks? And what did he tell his good friend the President? Has he been lying to Bush for the past 2 years? If so, why does Bush still trust him? And if he told Bush of his involvement earlier, doesn't that mean Bush has been less than honest with the American people? --agr 17:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the CIA has disavowed Wilson at this point. I don't know why anyone is investigating the Plamegate affair, but I have a hunch it's combination of partisanship and the Bush Administration wanting to be as transparent as possible on the issue. Rove wasn't a whistleblower in any sense of the word, as not only is there no evidence that he leaked Plame's name, but she had left covert ops years before and her name was well-known in Washington. Why this all isn't out in the open, I think is both the fault of the mainstream media, which is neither accurate or objective, and the Bush Administration, as with most Administrations, is pretty bumbling when it comes to getting their message out. MSTCrow 02:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, I doubt the Bush administration's efforts to be 'as transparent as possible' on this issue are particularly influential, nor even extant. Here's a factual review from a POV different than yours, that might indicate why some people are investigating this, and why your conclusions regarding her cover status are just possibly wrong.

Top Aides Reportedly Set Sights on Wilson - Rove and Cheney chief of staff were intent on discrediting CIA agent's husband, prosecutors have been told.

WASHINGTON — Top aides to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were intensely focused on discrediting former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV in the days after he wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times suggesting the administration manipulated intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq, federal investigators have been told.

Prosecutors investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were especially intent on undercutting Wilson's credibility, according to people familiar with the inquiry. LATimes

And

Some Republicans have minimized the significance of the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity, noting not only her working at C.I.A. headquarters but also the fact that she did not have an in-depth cover story: her purported employer, a shell company created by the agency, was little more than a Boston post office box. They have also questioned whether the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act applied to her, because the law applies only to officers who have served overseas under cover in the previous five years.

But agency officials apparently believe that the law does apply to Ms. Wilson, possibly because she took overseas business trips in the five years before 2003. The C.I.A. sought an investigation, and the Justice Department and Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, concurred in choosing to pursue the case.

A number of Ms. Wilson's former colleagues have spoken out in recent days, saying the exposure of her cover was a serious offense. NYTimes

How important it is to 26 Senators:

CALL FOR CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON PLAME LEAK For Immediate Release: Today, Senator John Kerry; Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; and 24 other Senators formally requested that Congress investigate the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity — a leak a senior administration official described at the time as “meant purely and simply for revenge.” “Americans deserve a Congress that holds Washington accountable for the truth about our national security. Can anyone argue with a straight face that Congress has time to look at steroid use in baseball but doesn’t have the will to provide congressional oversight of the leak of a CIA agent’s name? It’s long past time to stop putting politics ahead of the public good, get to the bottom of a national security breach and restore credibility to Washington,” said John Kerry, who authored the letter. [51]

And, for the impact of Plame's exposure:

As I finished reading the column, Joe ventured out onto his deck and offered a neighborly hello. I held up the paper and yelled over, "I had no idea about Valerie!" Joe looked stricken and gestured to me to keep my voice down. I immediately realized the "outing" of Valerie as a covert CIA operative had had a devastating effect on the Wilson family. In the weeks to follow, I came to understand just how harrowing the disclosure was. Obviously, the identification of Valerie meant an end to her decades-long career. It also meant the country had lost an essential part of the services provided by someone who was an expert on weapons of mass destruction.

Much more than that, it meant -- along with the danger faced by Valerie's secret sources because of her exposure -- the Wilson family was in danger. There is no shortage of crazies in the world who blame the CIA for their problems. What a tragedy that the Wilson kids cannot play in their yard without their parents having some degree of worry because of this episode.

Two years following the Wilson op-ed and the Novak column, we know that Joe was right -- there was no basis for the administration's claims regarding Iraq's nuclear plans. After Joe's op-ed appeared, White House officials admitted they were wrong to include the claim in the president's State of the Union. The White House has never retracted that retraction. We know that but for Joe's whistle-blowing, the administration would not have admitted that it was wrong to use the nuclear scare as a ground for war.

And we also now know that the only reason Valerie Wilson was mentioned was because, as Time magazine put it, the administration had declared "war on Wilson" for his whistle-blowing. The outing of Valerie seemed intended to send a not-so-subtle message to other potential critics, "Mess with us, and we'll mess with your family."

The purported justification for the "double super secret" leak by the White House was to allege that Valerie was responsible for Joe's trip. Even if true, and it is not true, the allegation makes no sense. There would have been nothing untoward about a CIA expert on WMD arranging an unpaid trip for her husband, an expert on Iraq and Niger, to examine whether there was an Iraq-Niger uranium connection.

The more important point is that the CIA has denied that Valerie was responsible for the trip, a fact Novak has acknowledged. As recently reported in The New York Times, Valerie wanted to set the record straight about how Joe's trip came about and her peripheral role in the arrangements, but the agency will not permit any public comment from her. What a shame that in addition to the personal harm she has suffered, Valerie cannot address the bum rap again being circulated by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and his allies now doing the bidding for the no-comment-mode White House. USAToday

And what a former GOP-registered CIA officer says the Bush administration should be doing:

Ex-CIA officer says Bush must act on leak - On radio, former intelligence analyst says national security hampered

WASHINGTON - President Bush is jeopardizing national security by not disciplining Karl Rove for his role in leaking the name of a CIA officer, and has hampered efforts to recruit informants in the war on terror, former U.S. intelligence officers say.

Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson used the Democratic Party’s weekly radio address Saturday to reiterate comments he made Friday to a panel of House and Senate Democrats.

{...} Johnson, who said he was a registered Republican, said Bush has gone back on his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak. MSNBC GOP/Weekly Standard's 'hit piece' Johnson's Response

It's actually a common tactic to express doubt, which consumes one's opponent's time rebutting point by point. Looks like MSTCrow got you. It's actually incumbent upon him/her, to rebut the statements on the page, given that the statements were listed with evidenciary links. MSTCrow: I challenge you to provide evidence of your opinion beyond mere FUD. User:dittoman

Good questions all. To your last question, I would add, if the President was aware of Rove's involvement, it may well become the basis for impeachment. One clarification: Wilson never submitted a written report. He was debreifed in person and gave is report verbally, so there is no report to declassify and release. -asx- 17:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

MSTCrow, you say, "as not only is there no evidence that he leaked Plame's name." Would you not consider Matthew Cooper's statement that he first learned that Plame worked for the CIA as "evidence that he leaked Plame's name"?

Or are you being Clintonian in your parsing of the language, where you literally mean, "her name," when Rove only referred to "Wilson's wife"? -asx- 04:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sir, what you have is a collection of speculative qoutes from the Times syndicate, namely the LA and NY Times. I do not have to go into any great detail of the credibility of both papers. Suffice to say they both have been known to report false information when it suits their agenda. As for Bush going back on his word, if you go back to the source, you wil see only that President Bush stated he would "deal with" the leaker, if such a leaker had existed. Note the lack of any word such as "firing, termination, etc." So you'd have to read your own bias into that statement to reach any such conclusion. I also entreat you to make your arguments in the future sans personal attacks and insinuation.

MSTCrow 05:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I am, frankly, shocked that you would so easily dismiss the New York Times. I've heard a good deal of criticism of the NYT from both sides (and this would indicate to me that they fall somewhere in the middle). It seems that a lot of people get upset with the paper when it reports something that they don't like. I dare say that it takes great gall to relegate the New York Times to the level of a propaganda publication.

Re: the "deal with" statement, it's been pointed out numerous times that, on September 29, 2003, Scott McClellan explicitly stated that anybody involved with the leak would "no longer be in this administration." I'm pretty sure that's mentioned in the Plame affair article and the Joseph C. Wilson article, but I haven't looked through this article in great detail yet so I'm not sure if it's here. The great deal of information on this subject and the resulting potential for inconsistency is a strong argument for merging the articles.

As for your suggestion that "there should be more focus on the lies and misrepresentation of Mr. Wilson, and less hearsay and speculation on Mr. Rove," let me first point out what a blatantly biased statement that is. Secondly, and more to the point, I'll note that this article is titled "Karl Rove." Any information on Wilson not directly relevant to Rove should probably go somewhere else. Three guesses where, and the first two don't count. Aerion//talk 00:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sir, you are very much out of bounds and are not performing your proper function as a Wikipedian. This is for discussion and for bringing new evidence into light, not flaming and trolling.

MSTCrow 05:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

So what happened?

I wonder could somebody from wiki (pref) explain the process by which the karl Rove piece got frozen and unfrozen, what the steps on the way and the nature of any investigation might have been. Such an explanation of the process could be very instructive for future conflict resolution.

[83.70.46.117] 17:16, 25 July, 2005

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection Calicocat 17:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Deputy AG appointed Fitzgerald

In various Plame affair related articles I've seen much confusion as to who appointed Fitzgerald. Please get the facts straight and stick to the facts. In one article someone wrote that the special prosecutor was appointed by the president (that one gave me a good laugh), however, several other articles still say that Ashcroft appointed him -- impossible!, Ashcorft had recused himself from the case.

• Reference:

Ashcroft recused from leak investigation

Published 12/30/2003 2:24 PM

WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 (UPI) -- U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from a probe into the leak of a CIA officer's name, the Justice Department said Tuesday.

James Comey, deputy attorney general, said at a Washington news conference that he would now be the "acting attorney general for this case."

Comey said Ashcroft had suggested the appointment of a special counsel for the case. To fill that position, Comey choose U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald. (emphasis added).

Article can be found here.

Please correct this in any other Plame affair related articles you find. Calicocat 18:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Massive Criminal Enterprise

This White House appears to be little more than a massive, ongoing criminal enterprise. I sure hope Mr. Fitzgerald has a'plenty'o indictments to hand out come October.

Here's the latest wrinkle for the Gangsters on Pennsylvania Avenue:

• Gonzales Raises Questions for Andy Card to Answer

---asx- 05:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is Ridiculous

The Plame affair information needs to be culled of 90% of the information there. We do not need every little quote, allegation, accusation here (or probably anywhere). A detailed description of this belongs in Plame Affair, not here. Rove is one actor in it and this is not the place for the entire story to be hashed over. I think one could even reduce it to "Karl Rove currently finds himself embroiled in a controversey concerning the potentially illegal disclosure of a CIA operative Valerie Plame, details of which can be found in the Wikipedia article Plame Affair." That's it, end of story. One could add some more, but what's the point of re-iterating every small detail here? If someone needs more information they can get it there, complete, in context (although certainly just as volatile).--Gangster Octopus 17:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Gangster Octopus, do you really think we don't need quotes, allegations, accusations here "or probably anywhere?" Do you really believe this whole matter of Rove can be reduced to a single sentence ("that's it, end of story")? I simply couldn't disagree more. The White House claimed emphatically for two years that Rove had nothing to do with this, and we now know that to be false.

Perhaps what offends you is that this Wikipedia entry is remarkably well-footnoted and documented, and nearly all of what's here is carefully referenced to multiple mainstream media sources — and, yes, while I think a bit of extraneous information remains, on the order of 10% of the entry, most of what I read relates directly to Rove's actions and involvement in the wider scandal as it has unfolded. I agree the Plame affair entry should be more comprehensive than this (and include reporting on Robert Novak, Ari Fleischer, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, etc), but by the same token, the Karl Rove entry should be a stand-alone account of what we now know of Rove's specific involvement. Why should Rove be any different from any other public figure involved in a national news story or scandal? As for "accusations" and "allegations", again, read the sources. If you have a problem with the accuracy of anything here, complain to the outlets that originally reported it. To my mind, Wikipedia has done and continues to do a good job of synthesizing a very complex story. 24.154.115.52 18:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I really don't have any problem with the content, I just don't think it belongs here to such a ridiculous degree of detail. Maybe not a sentence, but in my mind ideally, since this story is constantly changing there is one place for the detailed analysis and changing facts, and that is Plame Affair. Sure a lot of it involves Rove, I still don't think it needs to be here. I think the whole story in detail needs to be in a unified place, and that place is not here. For example look at how Richard Nixon and Watergate are handled, or Ronald Reagan and Iran-Contra.--Gangster Octopus 18:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ideally, most of the Plame Affair information from Karl Rove, Valerie Plame, and Plame Affair should be centralized in one location. As it stands now, it looks like 3 articles are being developed on the same topic concurrently. --kizzle 18:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

This same observation was made at Joseph Wilson. It can be a lot of work to document all the angles of this story on multiple pages. In my opinion, better to consolidate it in one place. I agree that there is merit to talking about the Rove-specific crimes here on the Rove page, but the entire scandal should be reserved for Plame affair. 24.231.182.83 21:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Gary Trudeau, howzit going?

don't you get the feeling that gary is looking over these pages... 83.70.46.117 00:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this a Nixon/Haldeman/Ehrlichman reference? :) -asx- 02:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This whole scandal is increasingly a Nixon/Haldeman/Ehrlichman reference - but I think the poster was referring to Trudeau's recent Roveathon in 'Doonesbury'. CNN -- RyanFreisling @ 13:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I gotcha. I haven't seen the strip in a while, but know Trudeau raised republican ire by cartooning about the Watergate scandal 30 years ago. It should tell us something that so many members of the current criminal enterprise are former members of the Nixon Crime Family. -asx- 00:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

'New Yorker Profile'

This link in the references: New Yorker magazine profile - there doesn't appear to be any reference to a release from the New Yorker to allow republishing of this article. I'm not sure about Wikipedia's policy on linking to copyright-infringed articles, but this looks suspicious to me. I want to delete it, pending some resolution between the hosting site and the New Yorker. I'm not against linking to the article, per se, but against linking to a copy of the article that is unauthorized. If no one substantively objects, I'll delete this in 24 hours. Comments? --NightMonkey July 3, 2005 02:52 (UTC)

Please don't delete the link. Linking to dubious material seems to be standard operating procedure, as all the Wikipedia links to Brian Deer and Quackwatch are largely left alone. In any case, providing content for non-commercial purposes is generally tolerable, especially by libertarian standards. If this sort of link is unilaterally deleted, without more tangible justification, what kind of precedent would that set? Ombudsman 4 July 2005 05:09 (UTC)

The precedent of honoring copyrights. And that's a tangible justification, I should think. But, I'll do a bit more digging into Wikipedia policies covering such matters before I move. --NightMonkey July 4, 2005 09:40 (UTC)

Found it [52]. Deleting link. Not against linking to an authorized copy. Sorry. --NightMonkey July 5, 2005 01:06 (UTC)

Doh! Looks like someone else already deleted it. Thanks. --NightMonkey July 5, 2005 01:11 (UTC)

OK, the link has returned, so I've brought back this comment thread from the Talk archive #1. I'm deleting it for reasons discussed above. --NightMonkey 02:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

A simple Google search found the article on the New Yorker site, so I have restored the link. The Google search took 5 seconds; your retrieval of the policy and the old discussion from the archive must have taken much longer. Why didn't you try finding a legal version online before going to all that trouble to remove the other link? -asx- 02:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Boss. Previous searches had failed me. In any case, thanks for finding that. That's just what was needed. --NightMonkey 06:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

New Walter Pincus article

In this article in the Washington Post, former CIA spokesman (who testified before the grand jury) confirms Plame was undercover operative, and Pincus describes a very unusual person who gave testimony to the grand jury - a friend of Wilson who approached Novak on the street six days prior to his now-infamous column and to whom Novak, not aware of the man's friendship with Wilson, apparently leaked Plame's identity. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

{Bill} Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified information.

In a strange twist in the investigation, the grand jury -- acting on a tip from Wilson -- has questioned a person who approached Novak on Pennsylvania Avenue on July 8, 2003, six days before his column appeared in The Post and other publications, Wilson said in an interview. The person, whom Wilson declined to identify to The Post, asked Novak about the "yellow cake" uranium matter and then about Wilson, Wilson said. He first revealed that conversation in a book he wrote last year. In the book, he said he tried to reach Novak on July 8, and they finally connected on July 10. In that conversation, Wilson said he did not confirm his wife worked for the CIA but that Novak told him he had obtained the information from a "CIA source."

Novak told the person that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as a specialist in weapons of mass destruction and had arranged her husband's trip to Niger, Wilson said. Unknown to Novak, the person was a friend of Wilson and reported the conversation to him, Wilson said.

Interesting. Thanks for posting this. In other news, Atrios raised this horrifying possibility earlier:

Ollie Rove North

Susie provides an additional motive for Roberts' congressional hearings about Rove - an opportunity to provide immunity to all parties involved.

The Sentelle/Silberman precedent may return...

...short version, during Iran-Contra hearings Congress granted limited immunity to North and others. A 3 judge panel, including right wing hacks Sentelle and Silberman, determined that such limited immunity was enough to throw out North's felony convictions. Neiwert provides additional context.

-Atrios 10:18 PM

My opinion is that Cheney, the Chimp, and Rove will survive this scandal intact. The left simply has no power of any kind that it can bring to bear on this administration. The media is cowed, the electoral system is rigged, and they control all branches of government.

At least we can rack up the evidence that this is the most corrupt administration in American history, for posterity's sake. -asx- 04:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ha Ha Ha! That is one of the funniest things I have heard in awhile. I wonder if you liberals know how unbelievably ridiculus you sound. You just can't accept defeat and understand that you are not in the mainstream anymore. Mister Man 16:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Mister Mainstream Man: Anything to add besides name-calling? Or is that the mainstream's idea of a discussion? -- RyanFreisling @ 17:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Name-calling!? What bad name did I use praytell? Liberal? Are you saying being liberal is a bad thing? I don't know what other name to use to describe the POV expressed in user asx's comment. Calling George W. Bush "the Chimp" certainly isn't name-calling is it? I mean come on. It is a name that appropriately describes him. Mister Man 17:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Do you actually have anything constructive to say or are you here just to spout childish nonsense? --kizzle 17:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Spouting childish nonsense is what I do best, but I guess it is wrong for me to do it and not for User asx. Mister Man 17:56, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The difference is, he wasn't attacking anyone ("I wonder if you liberals know how unbelievably ridiculus you sound. You just can't accept defeat and understand that you are not in the mainstream anymore.") Try and make a case without committing the most basic logic fallacy there is.--kizzle 18:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's illogical to assume that anyone espousing an anti-Administration POV is a Liberal. That's what I was saying. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know a lot of conservatives who hate Bush too. Mister Man 18:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Me too. Like those who value balanced budgets, for example. And those who value exit strategies. And those who value individual reproductive rights. These POV's are not 'liberal' or 'conservative'. They, like the American way, are for each individual to believe and act on as they choose, without having to wear a Blue or Red armband. That's America. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and then there's this guy.

George Bush has his left flank nicely covered. It's on the right that he's weak. {Mike Savage} has sparked a war between the members of his "Savage Nation" (slogan: "Borders, language, culture") and the so-called "Bushbots," that sizable number of gullible Americans who can be convinced that whatever policy Bush adopts is a conservative policy. [53]

User asx specifically mentioned "the left," which, if I am not mistaken, usually refers to Democrats. Mister Man 20:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Please pay attention to indents - your original post indicated you were responding to the article I posted, not -asx- (you should indent your post below -asx-'s if that's what you intended to reply to. In any case, your personal attack labeling -asx- a 'liberal' is out of line. A simple apology will do nicely (not for your beliefs, but for your personal attack). Your call. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, Ryan, for the indentation error and the resulting misunderstanding it created. I am very new to wikipedia. I also apologize for offending you. Although, not everyone sees being a liberal as a bad thing. I had a teacher once who was not afraid to admit she was a liberal, and I got along with her just fine.

Concerning -asx-, I was offended by his comment and responded in a negative fashion. I apologize to you -asx- for the personal attack, and I sincerely hope you do not harbor any ill feelings. Mister Man 21:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Your apology is well-accepted - and thanks. And 'liberal' really just means 'tolerant'. Everything else is a matter of interpretation... and hopefully, as our nation evolves and struggles, we'll all become more tolerant and better neighbors, whatever our political stripe. Thanks again, and welcome to Wikipedia. If I can be of assistance as you get settled, send me a 'talk'. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thank you for the welcome. Webster's dictionary defines liberal as 1) characterized by generosity or lavishness in giving 2) abundant 3) ample 4) inclining toward opinions or policies that favor progress or reform, such as religion or politics. I agree that the first 3 are good for our nation, but the last one depends on what you are trying to reform. Mister Man 21:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad this has reached an amenable conclusion; no hard feelings at all. Please permit me a chance to comment upon one of the statements above. Mister Man said, "You just can't accept defeat." I can confirm that for you. You are correct. I cannot and never will accept defeat. America and what it stands for are far too important to permit Bush and his criminal gang from destroying it unopposed. For the record, I am a liberal, and am proud of it. I know conservatives enjoy saying things like "HA! HA! HA!," laughing in the faces of their defeated opponents. It's consistent with the bullying mindset of Republicanism. Just remember, the brownshirts and Nazi's had a couple of decades to laugh in the faces of their defeated opponents, too, but they got theirs in the end. Funny thing is truth and righteousness have a way of prevailing in the end, despite the Murdochs, DeLays, and Roves of the world. It may be a hundred years before the damage done to this country is fixed, but it will be fixed. Freedom and democracy can be smothered for a while, but never killed. One final comment, I am a newbie here, too. I don't know much, but if there is anything I can do to help out, just drop me a line. We obviously don't agree about Bush, et al., but I believe we can get along and mutually commit ourselves to maintaining a POV-free encyclopedia. -asx- 00:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Always nice to see a return to civility. Just be careful not to engage in foolish logical fallacies yourself. Especially beware Godwin. Aerion//talk 13:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Damn! You beat me to the reference to Godwin's law. :) btw, somebody should get a copy of Godwin's law faxed to the media, in the last week I've heard 3 different comparisons already.--kizzle 15:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful note. I am aware of Godwin's Law. First of all, Godwin's Law is not a logical fallacy. Second, my point was not to compare Rove/Bush/etc. to Nazis, but to point out that there have been historical precedents when disempowered groups feel the odds are hopelessly stacked against them, that there is no hope for the future. Liberals in America may feel that way now, but there is no better example of a group legitimately feeling hopeless than Jews in Germany during the reign of Nazism. I could have just as easily cited the courageous example of Susan B. Anthony, who fought for womens' right to vote for 50 years, but still didn't live long enough to see her goal realized. Or slaves, who endured centuries of oppression in America before they were finally freed. My point, then, is that no matter how bad the odds may seem right now, no matter how entrenched Rove/Bush/etc are today, we will continue to fight for a better, fairer society. As Martin Luther King said, "The arc of history bends towards justice." (Am I allowed to mention MLK? Or is that a "logical fallacy," too?) Anyway, be sure to let me know if I use any other words, phrases, or complete sentences you disapprove of. -asx- 17:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Two things. One, I share many of your ideals and feel as strongly about many of these issues as you do. You sound like you have a passion and will to enact change for the better, and no matter what anyone says, especially here on the equivalent of an online discussion board, don't let anyone take that verve away from you.

Just don't compare things to Nazis :) As Bill Maher says, "No one these days are the Nazis. Not even Neo-Nazis are the Nazis." Any capital of utility the analogy previously held has dried up over the years, so just use a different comparison. --kizzle 18:29, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you're free to use the analogy again should they build concentration camps, arrest indefinitely without due process, invade other nations without U.N. support, commit unspeakable crimes against humanity, enforce racialist and anti-scientific policies, deify their leader, plunder and squander the wealth of ages for their own personal gain, or ruthlessly exploit, sacrifice and ultimately abandon the nation's young military. Hmmmm. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, you sneaky like ninja! --kizzle 18:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Well said, Ryan. It's how they deify their leader (GW) that creeps me out the most. And how Bush encourages it. -asx- 03:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Violation of Godwin's law (actually, to be really technical, one of its corollaries) isn't a logical fallacy, per se. But at this day in age, it amounts to one. As has been pointed out by others, any analogy involving Nazis no longer holds credibility because the comparison has been abused so frequently. In most cases it comes off as a veiled ad hominem attack. Heck, Dick Durbin did a pretty good job of avoiding the ad hominem several weeks ago and still got burned for his Nazi reference. I'm not trying to tell you what to say or not say. I'm just saying that you should be careful about it, especially when responding to someone who is stirring up the pot. Aerion//talk 21:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're right: I should have just ignored the bully. -asx- 03:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dittoman / FOS11

Hey there - you said 'link had no relevance to the group in question, but the link points to the group's home page. I don't understand. And, excellent reference re: Pelosi! -- RyanFreisling @ 02:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Rove Hemorrhoid Surgery

If Rove has had seven hemorrhoid surgeries over the past six months, is this noteworthy? Should it be included? 68.97.208.123 20:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. Preparing for a 'Hemorrhoids and politics conspiracy theory' article. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 20:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

i dont think i've been inflicted with such a gruesome mental image since regan had his polyp...--83.70.215.137 01:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

it would certainly explain Bush's Turd Blossom epithet, as well as explaining Rove's personality.

Bias in White House Reaction Section

I believe there is some blatant POV in the White House Reaction section concerning Bush's comments. From the way the article is written, it assumes that Bush added a qualifier to his previous statements about the grounds on which he would fire someone instead of approaching it with a NPOV. "Some have suggested that, while it was unstated in that instance, Bush may have presumed the inclusion of a qualifying statement he had made on September 30, 2003, that "if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."" This sentence suggests that Bush added a qualifer in another instance. Also the sentence, "However, Mr. Bush and his supporters have more recently suggested that he meant that only those convicted of a crime would be fired, despite not having stated that qualification in either of the prior instances." claims he made a qualification. Then the article attempts to be NPOV by stating this is the claim of "many" and the "critics" when it makes this claim itself. Does anyone else see this as being POV? Mister Man 20:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is POV, though I'm not sure which side it supports since it is so lame. I also think it's misleading. AFIK, neither the President nor the White House has made this claim explicitly and "suggested" is speculation. If some prominant Republican or the RNC, say, have made this claim, it should be referenced. Otherwise I think it's blog fumes from one side or the other and should go. --agr 09:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That sentence needs to be completely re-written. --kizzle 16:58, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Basically, it's what the left wing calls the 'moving the goalposts' issue, and what the right wing dismisses as non-existent - the belief by some that the statements made by the White House have gone from 'anyone involved in leaking' to 'anyone who leaked' to 'anyone who committed a crime'. Narrative to that effect, cited, with careful NPOV would suffice... -- RyanFreisling @ 17:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

We should have some sort of chronology of specific quotes taken from McClellan or Bush himself to document this 'moving the goalposts' issue. --kizzle 20:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the summary.

September 29-30, 2003 [54]

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

Bush: If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated [the] law, the person will be taken care of. {...} "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

October 7, 2003 [55]

McClellan: "Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants." and "If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business."

June 10, 2004 [56]:

Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.

July 18, 2005 [57]

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Mr. Bush said in response to a question, after declaring, "I don't know all the facts; I want to know all the facts."

And here's the FReePer point of view [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1445700/posts] refuting that they ever moved in the first place. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

In June 2004, Bush replied "yes" when asked if he stood by his previous pledge. The reporter who asked the question was trying to 'move the goalposts' and not Bush. You should know that Ryan. -- Mister Man 21:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

And there's the right wing perspective. Incidentally, Mister Man - I ascribe no motive to a reporter (scurrilous or otherwise), nor to Bush - I just look at the record. And what's on the record is above. Everything else (including your attribution of motive to the reporter) is pure POV. I know only what I know, not what I should or should not know. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to quote more fully what the White House said at its Sept 29, 2003 briefing [58]:

Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove ...

MR. McCLELLAN: ... The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

I find it hard to imagine a president setting a standard much lower than "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration?" --agr 23:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, and here is what I know and what is on the record. This is what the reporter and Bush actually said:

REPORTER: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent's name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts. [59]

Bush said yes to stand by the pledge he made several months ago. He did not say yes to fire anyone who leaked the name of an agent. That's the truth and not the right-wing perspective. To be fair, either the reporter is ignorant of what Bush said and unintentionally misquoted him, or the reporter had a motive behind the question. It is up to you to decide which. --Mister Man 16:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Republican version of the definition of 'is'? Your interpretation is yours, as mine is mine, but fo rthe life of me I can't find anything about 'do you stand by your pledge to fire' and 'yes' that's ambiguous.

And honestly, I have more respect for the office of the Presidency than to suggest Bush could be misled by a reporter. Leave that to the real experts, like Chalabi. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not interpret anything. I just read what was said. What was Bush's pledge? He never made a pledge to fire anyone who leaked the the agent's name. He made a pledge to fire anyone who had "violated the law." --Mister Man 20:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

As you know, the quote from Bush reads "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated [the] law, the person will be taken care of. {...} "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.", and the quote from McClellan reads "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration." I think it's clear who's doing the manipulation here, and it wasn't the reporter. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

These are the same Republicans who blasted Clinton for his usage of "Well it depends on the word, is...." and his nuanced language? I'm thinking of a word that starts with an 'h' and ends with 'ypocrite'. --kizzle 02:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well...well I thought you were all about good faith?? Hmmm..duly noted. Big Daddy 10:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Man, you are so Clintonian in your parsing. I'm impressed!

Just like your man Bush!

Inter attack Note: I wonder why Kizzle didn't take Ryan to task for 'personal attacks'? Could it be that the one attacked was a Republican?? Big Daddy 10:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's examine this question of whether the reporter is moving the goal posts. He was trying to pin the president down. The president has a habit of talking tough -- that appeals to Mom & Pop Ignoramous -- but he chooses deliberately vague language. He says, "I'll deal with" or "I'll take appropriate action."

Surely both you and the reporter are smart enough to recognize that that gives Mr. Bush a lot of wiggle room. Right? Maybe Mr. Bush's idea of "appropriate action" is to give Rove the Medal of Freedom! Or start a scholarship fund in Rove's name to fund the next generation of criminal masterminds. But you and the President hope the rest of us are fooled by his stern manner and tough talkin' cowboy routine. We're not that dumb. The reporter's not that dumb. So the reporter was pinning him down, trying to force him to use non-evasive language.

That's not moving the goal posts by any definiton. What's really important is to ask what impression was Bush trying to give with his Clintonian answers. You know as well as I do that he wanted to project an appearance that he would deal appropriately with a traitor if he found a traitor. But everyone knows that Bush will do no such thing. He will reward the traitor.

The thing that really gets me, Mr. Man, is that you know all this already. But for some reason you think you can fool the rest of us! -asx- 04:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm trying to help you write a NPOV article. Bush made himself clear the first time when he said he would fire anyone who "violated law." That's not vague or evasive language. What gets me is that you guys editing this article think you can write a NPOV article when you all have the same anti-Bush POV. Name me one pro-Bush editor that has made substantial, lasting contributions to this article. Just one. I'm just going to sit back and watch you all fool yourselves into thinking you can write a NPOV article. Peace out! --Mister Man 21:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wow! FIFTEEN liberals all working on a Karl Rove article and NOT ONE of them think it's biased! This must be the very first time this happened in Wikipedia, huh?

Big Daddy 22:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC) Ps Don't worry Mr.Man...it's been happening to me ever since I arrived.

I edited this out of the section on White House reaction cause it didn't seem to fit, but I'd like to see it put in somewhere else -

"Which apparently turned the normally passive White House Press Corps into a near mob.[60] [61]

any ideas? Big Daddy 10:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me stipulate that indeed, as they are wont to do, the hostile-to-bush-that-ultimately-overflowed-into-frenzy Washington Press Corps DID INDEED maliciously 'move the goalposts' in asking President Bush if he intended on keeping a pledge he never made in the first place. That is just a fact. If you can find one instance where PRESIDENT BUSH said he'd fire anyone just for leaking, I'll back off. But no one can, so this matter is done.

As for the last paragraphy in this section, it reads redundantly and I propose it be changed.

Here's how it reads now:

"After ignoring reporters' questions for more than a week, on 18 July 2005 Mr. Bush said "[i]f someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."[113][114]

Critics of Bush consider this to be an expansion of the criteria, i.e., that Mr. Bush now reserves the right to fire only in the event of an actual conviction, which clearly requires a higher standard of proof and would in any case take much longer. Supporters believe that this is consistent with the position President Bush has taken from the very beginning.

Others counter this view by relying on Bush's one previous mention of illegality, his September 30, 2003 remarks, to suggest that Bush has never meant anything other than that only a criminal conviction would prevent someone from working in the White House, though it seems exceedingly unlikely that any presidential administration would continue to employ someone while they were in prison"

Here's what I propose:

On 18 July 2005, President Bush reiterated his earlier statement "[i]f someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."[113][114]

"Critics charged that insisting on criminality and not just being a leaker as the basis for dismissal was 'moving the goalposts', that President Bush has changed his position to require a higher standard of proof. Supporters believe this is consistent with the position President Bush has taken from the very beginning." --- This version says the same thing, cutting tons of unnecessary words and omitting the 'duh' cheap shot at the end about serving in the white house while from prison which insults EVERYONE'S intelligence. It also eliminated the minor cheap shot at the beginning "after ignoring reporters questions for more than a week..." please, this isn't a blog, and replaces a lot of 'Mr.Bush's' with "President Bush's." Both terms are acceptable yet it seems previous editors favored 'Mr.' over President. I can't figure out why...

Comments, before I change this??? Big Daddy 13:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Karl Rove's Call Log

From The Washington Monthly Blog

KARL ROVE'S CALL LOG....Mark Kleiman suggests that last Friday's testimony by two of Karl Rove's aides contained a buried smoking gun. It turns out that not only did Karl Rove speak to Time reporter Matt Cooper about Valerie Plame back in 2003, but he mysteriously didn't log the call. Says Mark:

Obviously, call logs aren't of any value unless all calls are logged: the whole point is to allow someone to say, months later, "No, I know I didn't talk to X on that date; I've checked my call logs." This reads to me like strong evidence that Rove and his crew knew at the time they were doing something they didn't want to get caught doing.

In prosecutorese, that's called "evidence of consciousness of guilt," and it's extremely helpful in proving intent. We already know that Rove disclosed classified information to Cooper. The only remaining legally relevant question is whether he did so with the requisite criminal intent. The omission of the call from the log — if the "transferred call" explanation can be shown to be false — would be a powerful help to a prosecutor.

Mark may have a point. After all, we know that in his initial testimony Rove lied and said he hadn't spoken to Cooper at all. We know that when he later recanted that testimony, he continued to lie by claiming the call was actually about welfare reform and that Plame only came up incidentally. And now we know that he failed to log his call with Cooper. Since call logging is standard procedure, this could only happen if Rove specifically asked one of his aides not to log the call.

"Evidence of consciousness of guilt"? Sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.

—Kevin Drum

We need to document as much of this corruption as we can before the Senate or House grant Rove et al., immunity from prosecution for their crimes in Plamegate. Remember that Senate Republicans used their power to grant immunity to immuniize the Reagan Administration from the Iran Contra scandal in the 1980s. That was the template for all that will follow. They will certainly do the same to kill the Plame scandal, or any other scandal that surfaces. In effect, they have found the key to decriminalize their own corruption.

If Americans haven't figured it out, this mutual protection of the Executive with the power of the pardon, and the Legislative branch with its power to grant immunity from prosecution, will allow Republicans to literally get away with anything. So far, they have proven themselves fully willing and capable of doing anything, including the deliberate murder of tens of thousands of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan, to further their own narrow, selfish agenda. So don't be surprised by whatever they come up with next. Be ready for it. -asx- 03:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"The deliberate murder of tens of thousands of people?" Please tell me you're kidding about this. You mean to tell me your hatred for Dubya is so blinding that you think that civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are deliberate? To what end? And don't you think that more people would have denounced us by now if that were truly the case? Where is your proof that this is true? Furthermore, you're dishonoring Coalition soliders by accusing them of complicity in this "deliberate murder." It's one thing to oppose the war. That's your right as an American. But you've libelled the President, and -- more importantly -- those who have sacrificed themselves in this war in an attempt (whether you think it'll work or not) to protect the American people from terrorism in the long run, and free Iraq and Afghanistan. --Hex 16 00:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-reading Karl Rove

On re-reading the current Karl Rove entry, it seems that heavy editing has now given an imbalance to the piece in favour of seeing Rove's activities in the Valerie Plame affair as entirely honourable. Suggestions as to the effects of, and the motivations behind this leak (which surely must be part of the entry on Rove's life and career) have been taken into the Plame Affair section. More postive (from Rove's point of view) interpretation, however, have tended to remain in the original article. I do not know if POV editing has caused this or not, but it seems valid to correct in any case.

Moving this type of information into the Plame Affair section is not, of course, the same as removing it althogether, but it does have the effect of lowering its apparent significance for casual readers who come to the Wikipedia for information on Rove. If the info is not considered as worthy of inclusion in the Karl Rove entry, a reasonable person might assume that it is less central to his activities. This would, on the whole, be a false impression.

It seems that in the interest of balance, some of that material relating to the motivations and effects of the leak need to be moved back into the main Rove section. I will do this presently. --83.70.215.137 18:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo Suggestion

On http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/07/20/rovenovakPicture.html there's a picture of Rove together with Novak. Rove has a button attached to his suit that says "I am a source, not a target!". Not a photoshopped image! 80.217.225.208 01:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Rove Atwater Mentor or Protégé?

The Atwater article cites Rove as Atwater's protege, but this article has the reverse. Which is it? Rove is 1 yr older than Atwater, but I have read in other sources that Atwater was the political mentor of Rove. Hence I made the change to this article.67.124.118.246

Thanks for making that change to "mentor", which I think is probably right — though I can't quite completely make up my mind, and I confess to having NPOV concerns about it. Something about the early days of Rove's political biography seem weedy and murky to me in this Wikipedia article. Given the lack of concrete detail about Rove's early political life, I think we need absolutely to avoid any unnecessary innuendo.

How to put it? I think that the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove relationship needs either more — or less — light shed on it. Talking about this "mentor" and "protégé" relationship with Atwater, and using those two words in particular, sounds like a potential smear against Rove, a smear-by-association, given that Atwater came out late in life against his own political practices and was relatively candid and contrite about them, so we know more about them (Atwater was famed for smearing Dukakis in 1988 with the Willie Horton ad).

So what's our source about Rove and Atwater in all this? If the two really were friends — and I'm not convinced of that, or at least of our right to characterize their relationship as intimate — should we allow, to be fair to the older Rove, that he gave Atwater some life lessons in return? Both men were autodidacts. So who exactly was the "mentor", and who the "protégé" here? Does it matter, given the obvious brilliance of both men? Without overdramatizing their relationship, wouldn't it be easier to simply refer to these two men as "early" or "young contemporaries," "political contemporaries," and leave it as that? Without any documentary evidence, is it fair to even posit that the two were close or co-strategists in any political context? The mentor-protégé language is loaded, perhaps hopelessly so.

Innuendo and wishful facts should never be permitted in the main Wikipedia page. If we can't find a reliable source on any of this Atwater stuff, it smells too much like a smear. And that would be a shame, because everything else in the Rove entry is so very carefully documented and footnoted. Shariputra 19:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I dropped "mentor" for "contemporary". Read above for my rationale. Shariputra 01:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

White House Iraq Group

According to Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, August 10 2003, Karl Rove was part of the White House Iraq Group, formed in August 2002, which one of its participants described as a task force assigned to "educate the public" about the threat from Saddam Hussein, to guide the public's perception of the upcoming war at different stages, and to coordinate different parts of the government in disseminating a single message.[62] The White House Iraq Group included Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, James R. Wilkinson, Nicholas E. Calio, Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, and I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby.

This is not tinfoil hat crazy stuff — WHIG was real. I'm surprised it's not already a part of the Rove article, since Rove was presumably such an important part of all that pre-war message-crafting business, all the relentless attempts to link Iraq to 9/11, Cheney with his bomb talk and Rice with the invocation of the "mushroom cloud", etc. From other sources online, it's very clear that Judith Miller was leaked material about Saddam's purchase of aluminum tubes from someone in WHIG.

I suggest someone please read the Post article and figure out how Rove's article should briefly accomodate WHIG, in a line or two. 24.130.115.172 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Further reading

Is the entry "Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda by Leonard W. Doob" under Further reading NPOV? I don't believe it is. Normally I would just remove it, but do to the nature of this article, I thought I would post here to see if there is any objection. — Linnwood 08:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree — it's a slur and mars the article. I took it out. Discobolus 16:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Archive Talk, please please please

Whoah, nelly. This Talk page is just huge, and filled with lots of left-right crony bashing. Can someone better at the archive process than me archive this page, please? And perhaps place the "Talk page tips" front and center at the top of the newly cleaned page? As it is, this is barely readable in places, and contributors have made it very difficult (through improper formatting) to actually discuss anything very well. Thanks in advance. --NightMonkey 10:27, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

For those interested, an RfC has been filed against User:BigDaddy777 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777. Your comments would be appreciated. --kizzle 19:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Disputed Article" notice added

Seeing the edit war here, it is clear that some editors of this article are disputing its neutrality. While this dispute continues, the "disputed article" notice is clearly warranted, so I have added it. Please respect this, so that readers are drawn to this page.

The notice need not be viewed as a negative. It is what it is -- a note that editors do not agree, and that this page will give more information about the dispute. paul klenk 03:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Question: Where are BigDaddy's comments?

I have noticed no commments from BigDaddy on this page. Can someone explain why? Thank you. paul klenk 04:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I see plenty - I removed one [63], consisting of blatant personal attacks and little else - and for doing so, he has begun deleting mine... but I see plenty more of his attacks above - don't you? -- RyanFreisling @ 04:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Now I see -- I was searching his handle -- BigDaddy. His signature splits it into two words, so it didn't come up on a search. paul klenk 04:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

RyanFreisling has committed a 7RR violation

Right on this page. She also appears to be reverting sections of the article without discussion.

However, I will not risk presenting the appearance of a violation by continuing to undo his vandalism although I have a feeling Ryan is somewhat of a copycat in this regard. Big Daddy 04:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy777 has committed a 5RR violation

I will not risk presenting the appearance of a violation by continuing to undo his vandalism. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

4RR on this page or the article page? paul klenk 04:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Removing or rewording other peoples' comments that are not truly personal attacks is punishable as vandalism. Reverting an article more than three times in a 24 hour period is also a blockable offense (and more than two times is frowned upon). BigDaddy777, you've violated both on this article, and you're both guilty of edit warring. I'd also remind everyone here that you all must be civil to one another. This goes for both of you; you have both made some intemperate comments. BigDaddy777 appears to have begun removing Ryan's comments as retaliation for Ryan removing one of his. The comments of BigDaddy777's that Ryan removed came much closer to being personal attacks than the ones of Ryans that BigDaddy777 removed four times. My first and last warning: If either of you remove others' comments again on this talk page, I will block you for vandalism.

Let's everybody play nice and get back to discussing content, please. And maybe take a break from editing so you can cool down. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to - I have other articles I'd rather be working on - but alas, my comments remain deleted. Thanks for your involvement, Katefan0. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am all about content and have made several SIGNIFICANT improvements to this article that was WOEFULLY biased when I first encountered it And before I make ANY chane, I always come in here and explain what it is I propose and why I do so. Yet others (I don't know who, but you can probably guess) just go to the article and DELETED what I included. (Hmmm...let's see now, who has a history of deleting my comments?) For example I indicated I would include this HIGHLY RELEVANT, impartially sourced sentence about Karl Rove and his supposed 'watergate connection.

"The Republican National Committee, investigated and exonerated Rove, who blames political opponents from his chairmanship race for spreading false allegations. [5]"

I put it in and, less than a few hours later...POOF! It was removed...no comments, no nothing!

To me these actions (and it's happened to me at least a HALF A DOZEN times since I've been here which is all of ten days) is FAR MORE an egregious violation of EVERYTHING Wik stands for then some little tit for tat discussion on the Talk pages. But no one does anything. No one is warned...no one is threatened. But, let me defend myself from an attack where someone comes in and simply DELETES my comments because they didn't agree with them and I'm warned that I'm 'perilously' close to being banned. Doesn't seem fair, does it?Big Daddy 05:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't post that - you posted the exact word-for-word excerpt from the Washington Post - an act of plagiarism, as was described in the edit comment when it was deleted. And you are perilously close to being banned for deleting my comments 5 times on this page, a clear 3RR violation. The rest of your post is ironic, to say the least. If you concentrated on content, you wouldn't have an RfC for your attacks on others. And you may notice I haven't reverted my post (which contained no personal attacks) - that's because I respect the 3RR. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Marriage dates inconsistent

I am trying to add data to the marriage/family section of the article. Perhaps someone else has noticed this, but the Internet contains many conflicting dates about the beginning and end of his marriage. If you have something authoritative on this (complete dates would be nice), I would appreciate it. paul klenk 04:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Avoid edit conflicts -- edit "sections", not the whole page

If you don't know how to do this, look for the tiny "edit" links on the right margin, next to the section headings. People are talking past each other on this page.... time to slow down. paul klenk 04:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Two problems with this article that are easy to fix

1. Leading the article with the Plame controversy in paragraph 2 could easily be misconstrued as weighting the article to the negative. Bad idea.
2. A goal of any good opening section: it could easily stand alone as a small but comprehensive encyclopedia article, giving the reader most of what they need to know. Right now, this is clearly not the case.

I will try to work on point two of this at the moment. I would appreciate cooperation from everyone editing the piece. paul klenk 04:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Section on "Notable political campaigns" is slanted -- to the negative

This section, which deals with the meat of Rove's career, is slanted in the following ways:

1. Three out of four subsections lead with negative stories about the campaigns.
2. None of the sections state whether his efforts lead to the successful election of the candidate(s) in question.

Please, everyone, start focusing on correcting what is wrong with this article from a neutral perspective, with the goal of no longer being a disputed article. Focus on cold hard data, not rummaging up every negative or positive item you can find. Every editor of this article can share some blame for this. paul klenk 05:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of collaboration and cooperation, you may want to give folks a chance to respond before you make substantial changes to the article now that you have labeled it 'disputed'. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, thank you for adding your signature. If comments are called for, please provide them. Do you dispute my assertion that this section is slanted, and, if so, how would you fix it? Here's the chance you've asked for. paul klenk 05:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't comment because this is old ground, and I assume comments are not mandatory, but only when people have something to say. The article was marked 'disputed' a number of times before, and the content has been NPOV edited extensively. I ask you to point to specific content that could be edited in a more neutral way, and provide alternatives. Other editors have already done this work over and over, and the content has remained relatively consistent for the past weeks and months - despite the recent revert warring by BigDaddy and your own decision to return the 'disputed' tag to the page. Although no article is perfect, the folks who participated in the process to bring the content to the current state are likely to see these issues as resolved already... -- RyanFreisling @ 05:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm personally DELIGHTED that it's been labeled as DISPUTED because that way people researching this article will know right away that, in it's current state, it can't be trusted, which it can't.

Now, no one wants to get it back to nPOV than I do.

The quickest way, in my view, to eliminate the bias is to FIRST construct some sort of metric by which we can all agree to judge it's neutrality. Sure, there are always going to be disputes over phrasing, 'loaded' words etc, but if we can just agree as to what constitutes an unbiased piece, we can begin making macro changes.

For example, I've noticed that in the articles on Conservative folks (Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Karl Rove, etc) there is a DISPROPORTIONATE amount of negative pieces versus positive ones. I suggest we match them up one for one.

Secondly, I noticed, again ONLY when the conservative is the subject of the article, that even when there is a postive and negative side presented, the final sentence will invariably be a stab in the back.

This has got to be eradicated. I urge anyone to go to the Bill O'Reilly article and see how frequently it follows this format. " Bill says A, but the truth is really B and therefore Bill is (an ass, a fool or just plain wrong...you fill in the blank. lol!)

I don't know how these articles got in this horrific shape and I certainly can't see how the editors preceeding me could be 'OK' with them in said state, but I think some major changes are due stat.

Focusing on Karl Rove, as I mentioned in my earlier comments, I think the fact that Matthew Cooper is married to a hard core Clintonista is relevant and ought to be included. After all, the whole 'proof' that Karl Rove mentioned 'Wilson's wife' comes from an unchallenged release by Matthew Cooper. The fact that he's a stand up comic is probably less important though I have no doubt that if he were accusing a democrat of malfeasance, he would be introduced as Matthew Cooper, stand up comic! lol!

I also want to clean up this bit about the NY Times David Brooks supposedly having lied about Joe Wilson when he said Wilson said Cheney sent him. I think that whole issue can be debated. My take is that Wilson clearly implied and most importantly, let it be assumed that the VP's office was requesting his assistance. This in fact can be proved by our stand up comic friend who, in his notes, showed that Rove was wont to show that it was Wilson's Wife and not Cheney who spearheaded Wilson's trip. So obviously very important people thought Wilson was implying a Cheney initiation, Karl Rove amongst them. Thus, this portion of the article needs to be re-worked to suggest less that Wilson was being smeared and more that there was a sense amongst Republicans that Wilson was implying things they felt not to be true.Big Daddy 06:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I have already stated my two reasons why I think it is slanted; it should be fairly easy to ascertain how it can be fixed without my having to state it bluntly. But I will anyway: 1] Do not lead each section with a negative story, and 2] state whether the campaigns were successful or not. Their success or failure is surely much more notable than one or two scraps of anecdotes about the usual belly-aching that each side normally engages in. By the way, nothing negative is said about the campaigns of the other side.

Past editors may have put this to rest, but now you have a new editor -- me. I have already stated some concerns about this article -- in advance. If you have comments about whether they are valid, please address these issues squarely. If not, that is your choice. paul klenk 06:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am addressing all the issues squarely. And welcome to the article. Adding the tag, as your first major contribution, is a questionable step, but you're entitled. Now - for the square details - a rule like 'do not lead each section with a negative story' is POV. If you want to rearrange sections for readability's sake, or add new content, by all means do so. But to 'balance' a negative against a positive is not always in the interest of NPOV. Sometimes the facts ARE negative, and when that is the case, as is true with some of the aspects of Rove's public persona, assembling a 'pro' for every 'con' is, in fact, disinformative. As far as the outcome of the campaigns, feel free... but bear in mind, this article is not about 'the other side's campaigns', it's about Rove. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Either you think the POV tag is warranted or you think it isn't. Which would you say? What makes my adding it questionable? I stated my reasons for doing so on the talk page. Do you dispute those reasons?

A POV tag is, in my opinion, inappropriate. It was here when the article was younger (and before I was an editor) and the current state of the article is the result of a long process of editing and negotiation to have it removed. I question your adding it, and it is thus questionable. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I don't state as a rule that you should not lead sections with negatives. The purpose of bringing it up is not to dispute that it happened, but that it is the most notable feature of the campaign, which is the only reason to lead with it. I say, the success -- or failure, a possible negative -- of a campaign is more notable. But the success or failure is not even mentioned, let alone a major feature. paul klenk 06:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is a more informative, useful set of information (including the outcome) to include regarding Rove's noteworthy campaign activities, please feel free... it'll be obvious to the reader if it's an improvement, or not. No one owns this content (least of all, me). -- RyanFreisling @ 06:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

In the Cindy Sheehan article, there's a section called 'Critiquing the Critics' and though I question it's suitability there I think it's completely appropos here. For example, do you remember that Walter Cronkite (of all people) actually said that Karl Rove was behind the Osama Bin Laden tape released a few days before the election??? I think this whole template of 'Rove as bogey man' where he is allegedly behind everything from Bush's debate transmitter to the Swift Boat Ads to creating Hurricane Katrina is so much part of his narrative, that it has to be included. I also thinks it serves the greater purpose of providing much needed CONTEXT to all these attacks. True, some may argue that 'sometimes the facts are negative'. Well, I can drum up just as many positive facts to match the negative ones. In fact this article is sorely in need of said positive stories. It is WITHOUT QUESTION POV to suggest that negative facts should predominate when discussing someone who many feel has served this country in as fine and distinguished way as has Karl Rove.Big Daddy 06:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

And thus you express your POV - as is your right here on talk - but one's 'fine and distinguished service' does not entitle one to a 'pass' whether the predominant facts are indeed negative or not. If one's record is spotless, one's article will be... I'm not saying that is, or is not, the case with Rove - as I'd rather concentrate on the particular facts and not engage in character debates, but I hope you understand my point without taking it as an attack - it's not meant as one. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

All right! Another day...Another 30 or so edits to make Wikipedia the best, most nPOV encyclopedia ever!

I'd like to address this issue of IMPARTIAL sources raised by Wik founder Jimmy Wales, an options trader like myself, and which I think is generally disregarded. Well, at least it has been in this article. I think we need to go through this article and root out all pieces that are SOLELY sourced by hit pieces. That is, whether it be a book, a movie or a magazine article, we eliminate anything propped up by information if it comes from a source who's obvious purpose is to slam Karl Rove with no respect for impartiality. I don't begrudge people creating these works. They just aren't suitable as sources for encyclopedia's. Bush's Brain was made into a documentary film, but so were the Clinton Chroncicles. As credible sources, both should be treated the same way. This is also true of articles like 'Bush's Hit Man' as well as most of Media Matters contributions. In general though, the publication itself does not NECESSARILY disqualify it's use. Salon is left wing. NewsMax right. But neither source should be disqaulified prima facie on that basis alone. Big Daddy 12:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If one's record is spotless, one's article will be... Sorry, Ryan -- in politics, where both sides heap upon each other negatively, this is clearly not the case. Allegations upon allegations, criticisms upon criticism, do not necessarily add up to anything at all. paul klenk 06:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly the point I was making. This article contains no allegations or criticisms - it contains facts. It's correct that which facts are in, and which are out, is a delicate editorial issue - but the inclusion of allegations and criticisms without backing in noteworthy, reputable fact is POV, and should be rooted out (and has been, to a great degree). I think we're saying the same thing from different perspectives. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"This article contains no allegations..." Oh really??

What about this piece which I just removed AGAIN (cause someone, without comment keeps putting it back in)?

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?". [64] Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement. The book and movie Bush's Brain, allege that he was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush, though no proof of Rove's direct involvement ever surfaced.

If there's no proof it's an allegation. There has to be FACTUAL EVIDENCE FROM IMPARTIAL SOURCES THAT ROVE WAS BEHIND THIS. Otherwise, It has no business being here yet SOMEONE mysteriously keeps putting it back in. This is just one tiny example of how riddled with nPOV this article still is. Big Daddy 13:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy777, I think we have hit upon a spot where you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way NPOV policies at Wikipedia work. We aren't here to prove or disprove anything. We aren't here to decide, ourselves, what what side in debate A is right, wrong, or better. Similarly, we don't take it upon ourselves to prove or disprove information that is asserted in a reputable printed source. We just summarize what that reputable, printed source has said. Please take a look again at WP:NPOV and WP:Wikiquette. A pertinent excerpt: Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgements about which of those views are right or wrong or better. The proper way to deal with the sourced information you keep trying to remove, BigDaddy, is to find another pertinent, reliable, published source that refutes those charges, not to scrub them from the article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Revert by Ryan

Ryan, I noticed your revert of my recent edit. May I please ask, how many reverts have you made to this article in the past 24 hours? I will do an independent count; would you also do one of your own, and report back here? Thanks. paul klenk 06:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to count, and if I have violated 3RR (which I have not, nor have I ever), PLEASE feel free to warn me, inform me or report me - my conduct will only improve as a result. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Please weigh in on this survey

Using Microsoft Word, I have performed a rough word count of the body of this article. I deleted the table of contents and the end notes, but included the section headings that appear within the body.

By my rough count:

• 8344 words comprise the full article
• 5839 words comprise the Plame affair
• 2505 words comprise the rest of Rove's life and career

In other words, Wikipedia editors have devoted approx. seventy percent of Karl Rove's article to the Plame affair.

I am asking past editors to please weigh in on this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, answering the questions I have posed.

Thank you. paul klenk 08:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Tone down accusations, please

Ryan, Big Daddy has given a thoroughly thought-out rationale for removing the paragraph he has removed. He had several options, but the one he chose is perfectly allowable. Cuts are valid editorial decisions.

Please stop accusing him of vandalism for making such choices. Disputes over content are not vandalism. Assume good faith, as many are fond of telling Big Daddy. Such accusations are shrill.

If your idea of creating a NPOV article is loading it up with every single negative story or controversy you can find, with the excuse that you found a "source," you have a unusual method of writing history. That method is blatantly biased. What an editor chooses to focus on betrays a POV.

Editors of this page are their time on tangential, politically-motivated controversies, rather than Rove's substantive work as a political advisor.

I look forward to your thoughts on my survey. paul klenk 18:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

He does have a well thought-out rationale - that the sources provided are not "impartial." This rationale is not, however, grounded in the policies of this encyclopedia. If you want to argue that things should be removed because they are not relevent, I welcome that argument. In fact, I said I welcomed that argument in a coment I made on 16:32, 12 September 2005 - specifically "If you want to argue that this is irrelevent material, I might entertain such, but it's certainly all verifiable." Like I said, if someone wants to discuss something being irrelevent, let's have that discussion. But let's not have a discussion about something being badly sourced when that's really just them trying to NPOV the article - it's not acting transparently to motive, and that really IS bad faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, respectfully, BigDaddy777 did not give a well thought out rationale for removing the information he's been removing. He said he removed it because Ryan hasn't proven that it's more than an allegation. Unfortunately that's beyond the scope of our purpose here. Obviously we wouldn't quote a high schooler's blog saying that Karl Rove is a hermaphrodite, but it's perfectly acceptable -- in general -- to summarize allegations made by a reputable source in a reputable publication. The proper response is not to scrub that information because it's "an unproven allegation," it's to cite another reputable source in a reputable publication that refutes that allegation. Now, that doesn't mean that every allegation should be aired. There is a mandate on fairness and balance that must be satisfied. But "you can't prove this allegation" is not a reason to delete something that's properly sourced, alone. The discussion should be about whether including that allegation (and/or the amount of space it receives) is fair and balanced or not. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! All kinds of personal attacks. Gang up on me if you wish. I have the facts on my side. And it's interesting that Hippocrite just came out and accused me of having bad faith when that's a CLEAR violation of the rules she's been lecturing me on.

The problem is you don't have the facts on your side. The 'sources' are not impartial. Some don't even mention Karl Rove. How do you defend that?

To accuse me of having a POV when I'm trying to remove POV is interesting. Some might call it combative.

The best source says it was done anonymously. That's the end of this discussion. No one knows who did the calls and to smear Karl Rove with it is unconscionable and illegitimate in an encyclopedic entry. And even worse is defending it's inclusion after I rightfully took it out. Big Daddy 19:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks but yours in this entire section. I was refering to a hypothetical person that picks sourced things they think are irrelevent and they also POV disagree with, and then attacks the sourcing to try to get them removed, as opposed to attacking the relevence. Is that what your doing? If so, you are acting in bad faith. If not, you are just not aware of the sourcing policies of Wikipedia. You have been asked to read them numerous times, but I'll assume you haven't yet. Please read them. They are what govern this project, not an ancient quote from "just another user." Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"I was refering to a hypothetical person that picks sourced things they think are irrelevent and they also POV disagree with, and then attacks the sourcing to try to get them removed, as opposed to attacking the relevence. Is that what your doing?"

No.Big Daddy 19:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what source would you consider impartial? If you feel a source is partisan, find another source that rebuts it. Perfectly acceptable. Deleting sourced information simply because you personally disbelieve it, however, is not acceptable. I've now twice encouraged you to add a source refuting the claim. Whatever this source is you have that says it was done anonymously seems like a logical place to start. Would you like some help? I'll be glad to help you insert a rebuttal if you'll show me a link to the source you're referencing. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

" Whatever this source is you have that says it was done anonymously seems like a logical place to start. Would you like some help? I'll be glad to help you insert a rebuttal if you'll show me a link to the source you're referencing." - Katefan

That's a fair offer. I've already thought this through backwards and forwards and it is not tenable. The reason is that NONE of the sources alleging his ties have any PROOF that he was involved. NO PROOF. So, it doesn't make sense to REBUT something that's not SUSTAINABLE in the first place.

The LOGICAL conclusion, once you realize there IS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER is not to rebut it, but to delete it.

You know I could easily add something to President Bush's article that says in actuality he is 'a smirking chimp' or 'Hitler.' And I could 'source' it just as comprehensively as this slam piece has been. (And my sources would even include Bush's name!) According to the logic I see here, that would be acceptable. But it is not. I'm sorry, the left wing rumor mill is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia articles. Neither are Al Franken book reviews (generally speaking :)I've been working on this piece for several days now and it all comes down to this. There is NO proof. And yes, the sources must be IMPARTIAL. That's straight from Jimmy Wales who trumps anyone of us here.

"The discussion should be about whether including that allegation (and/or the amount of space it receives) is fair and balanced or not."

Now were getting somewhere. Since the MOST authortative voice speaking on the issue says HE HAS NO IDEA who did it and who was involved with it, then it DOES NOT BELONG in Karl Rove's article.

I will remind everyone that some of these 'so called' sources DON'T EVEN MENTION Karl Rove. One is a review of an Al Franken book, another an editorial endorsing Kerry for the presidency! And this is being defended? I will also remind you that wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says the sources must be IMPARTIAL. NONE of those sources are impartial. And I must question why, if one thinks relevancy is an important factor, why they don't use it as a criteria for removal instead of forcing this piece back in ad infinitum? Why is the onus on me to prove there's no proof? Everyone should see this. And yes, it is perilously close to a blogger writing that Rove is transgendered. Actually, it's worse, it's like a blogger wrote 'someone is transgendered' and then an editor decides they must be talking about Karl Rove and puts it in his Wikipedia article...Big Daddy 19:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a clear distinction between a blogger saying Karl Rove is transgendered than McCain's campaign manager saying that Karl Rove was responsible for a push poll that slimed his candidate. --kizzle 19:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Find that and the piece stays. Find otherwise and the piece goes...Big Daddy 19:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh? --kizzle 19:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to know the facts of this case, as best we know them, the campaign manager for the McCain camp said this about the 'black child' incident:

"ANONYMOUS opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child.... We had NO IDEA who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made."

Now if I understand Kizzle, Katefan and Hippocrite right, they still think it's appropriate to SMEAR Karl Rove with being involved in this, but (to be fair and balanced) counter it with the above statement. But, don't you see, the above statement makes it PAINFULLY obvious the rumor has no business being in here in the first place. THEY DON'T KNOW WHO DID IT.Big Daddy 19:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The source used to connect Rove to the action in question is not McCain's campaign manager, but rather "The authors of the book Bush's Brain (also made into a movie)." It is imperitive that you read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Unlike a quote from the founder of the project in some magazine, these policies are binding on you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find this quote you keep referencing. Will you please either produce a link to this source or tell us what the publication is so we can see for ourselves? · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"McCain's campaign manager (said) that Karl Rove was responsible for a push poll that slimed his candidate." - Kizzle about 15 minutes ago.

"The source used to connect Rove to the action in question is not McCain's campaign manager" Hippocrite about 4 minutes ago.

Hmmm...Better get your stories straight. We now know that, despite Kizzle's claims, McCain's manager said NO SUCH THING. And we also know that 'Bush's Brain' is not an IMPARTIAL source. In fact, a review of Bush's Brain, sourced in this VERY Karl Rove article (that's where I found it) admits that "The main point the filmmakers are trying to make is what a bad guy Rove is because of the dirty tricks he is alleged to have used."

Bush's Brain is a slam hit piece and the creators are NOT in a better position to know about this incident than McCain's campaign manager. The Clinton Chronicles was made into a movie too. That alone does not make it a legit news source.

And finally, the quotes of the founder of Wikipedia should be binding on EVERYBODY. He says they must be IMPARTIAL. I will get a ruling on this from a supervisor. Ps If it turns out that sources don't need to be impartial and you can just slime away at people, then everybody must question what they are working for.Big Daddy 20:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't actually sure about McCain's campaign manager specifically (though his political director did appear in a movie about Karl Rove saying it came from the top of the campaign), I was just pointing out the differences in notability between the two examples. --kizzle 20:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll ask again: BigDaddy777, can you please provide the source you're referencing? Either a link, or a publication name. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to clear something up. Richard H. Davis was John McCain's Campaign Manager for his Presidential Run[65]. Richard H. Davis Wrote this article [66][67] which is used as a source for the push poll incident. So BigDaddy's assertion that: "McCain's manager said NO SUCH THING" is blatantly false. 69.121.133.154 20:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving Plame

Kizzle has offered the following:

"There has been several discussions to merge all the plame material in here and on Valerie Plame to a separate plame affair article with the exception of a summary on each page, and in most of these discussions, everyone agreed that it had to be done, just no one wanted to. Its not even a question of bias or POV, but of improper weight given to something that should be a daughter article. So I think you're going to find a lot of support here to offload most of the plame info to a daughter article with the exception of a short summary." (from the survey page)

I'm going to give the survey a few days, then make a specific proposal for an offload of the Plame data. I will now start preparing a couple of solid summary paragraphs, as fair as I can be, that can be left on the Rove page. If the survey results are a surprise -- and most people feel the weight given is appriopriate -- we can discuss it at that time.

Kizzle, thanks for your thoughts and your willingness to work with a team spirit. Always a pleasure. paul klenk 18:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No prob, buddy. Keep us updated. --kizzle 19:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Clement and 'the bug

I took out this last line of the piece about Karl Rove's office being bugged:

"Critics alleged that Rove had bugged his own office to garner sympathy votes in the close governor's race."[68]

It was removed for the violating the same pattern of unsubstantiated rumor mongering found in the McCain push poll incident.

There is no proof and the sources are NOT impartial.

Again, if you have IMPARTIAL sources saying they saw Karl plant the bug or Karl admitted to planting the bug or whatever, that's another story. But not rumor mill talking points.

In fact, if you look at the sources that prop up this piece (they're still up there, check them out for yourself), you'll find one is from a film REVIEW of Bush's Brain that, in it's review says: "The main point the filmmakers are trying to make is what a bad guy Rove is because of the dirty tricks he is alleged to have used." LOL!!

This is SO wrong on so many levels...

Big Daddy 20:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I will revert your changes. You need to read the relevent content policies on Wikipedia. Sources do not need to be impartial. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well at least you're now fessing up. That's progress, I suppose. ?But, just out of curiosity, when you say "Sources do not need to be impartial." are you then subscribing the founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales a liar?

Here's the link: http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/technology/wikipedia.reut/

Here's the quote: "Wales... bet on the wisdom of amateurs, depending on simple ethics ...every fact must be attributed to recognized, IMPARTIAL sources"

Now, to my knowledge, Wales has not contacted CNN to correct this misstatement. So, was he trying to pull the wool over the general public's eyes by saying the sources must be IMPARTIAL when he (and the rest of us editors) secretly knows they don't have to be? Would he be so blatantly dishonest like that? I think this should be settled once and for all. Otherwise, those guys that want to use The Protocols of Zion to advance their point of view just got some REAL good news...Big Daddy 20:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Like above, your rationale for removal of this section is unfactual, and was reverted. Again, removing content because you don't like it is not valid. The issue of Rove's involvement in the bugging case is noteworthy, a matter of public record, and a reader of this article is better informed as to the nature of the incident by it's inclusion. Once again, your vandalism of material you don't agree with, without basis in fact, is unacceptable. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A few points for you to consider - CNN does not set Wikipedia policy. Sources do not have to be impartial, or quoting the Bush campaign, etc., would be similarly excluded. If a source is demonstrably partial, that is relevant and should be mentioned - but only using 'impartial' sources is an untenable suggestion for nearly any political article. It bears mention, however, that Wikipedia does rely on notable sources - and so, a blogger's posts (even a well-known blogger) are likely not to 'make the cut'. Despite your protestations, the instances you are focusing on, and revert warring on, ARE valid, and should remain as they did before you arrived on the scene. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BD777, you need to read the wikipedia policies that detail sourcing. Untill you do so, I will not continue to engage in this discussion with you. I will, however, revert all of your changes based on a misunderstanding of our sourcing policies to the main article. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette, verify that you will adhere to them, and we can continue. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy, you need to read the article you posted again. Wales doesn't say it, the writer does. I think we can trust explicitly stated Wikipedia policies over the interpretations of someone who does not edit on Wikipedia. Even if info comes from www.bushissatan.com, if it's accompanied by verifiable info, copies of paper trails, court documents, etc., it shouldn't be excluded simply because of its partisan focus. --kizzle 20:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry girls...we'll get to the bottom of this. Let the record show that those fighting me over this point are:

A) Supporting the use of BIASED AND PARTIAL sources to slam their political enemies.

B) Calling Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales a liar at worst or incompetent at best for not contacting CNN and forcing them to retract that mischaracterization of Wikipedia's policies.

This issue of Impartiality is a very important one. We've been discussing it all day. It's important that Wik be seen as impartial. All of my opponents in here are advocating FOR BIAS AND PARTIALITY. Jimmy Wales is on record for saying he wants IMPARTIALITY.

I think we need to get to the truth in this matter, don't you?Big Daddy 20:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy, you need to read the article you posted again. Wales doesn't say it, the writer does. I think we can trust explicitly stated Wikipedia policies over the interpretations of someone who does not edit on Wikipedia.--kizzle 21:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, gang up as you will, I maintain this piece about the bug is unsubstantiated rumor. I have contacted someone who will clarify this. In the meantime, silly as it is being in this article, I edited the black child piece to comport more with the facts:

"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?". [69],[70],[71],[72],[73],[74] McCain was campaigning with his adopted dark-skinned Bangladeshi daughter at the time. The authors of the book Bush's Brain (also made into a movie)which, according to some reviews was a film created to demonstrate "What a bad guy Rove is" [75]allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush. McCain's campagain manager has said "We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made." Big Daddy Paul Klenk,

Ryan has been previously warned about the false and malicious personal attack of accusing me of vandalism when he doesn't like my edits. Yet she continues to ignore this warning and continue with personal attacks. For example, she JUST wrote:

"Your VANDALISM of material you don't agree with, without basis in fact, is unacceptable. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|

Please take appropriate action. Big Daddy 20:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Your revisionism does not work. And again, I made no personal attack. Your behavior, as Kate and others have told you repeatedly, is vandalism when it is unsupported deletion of content. You have succeeded in driving this article single-handedly into an 'NPOV' tag and now, page protection - in short, you are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point... another no-no. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)