User:Paul Klenk/Sandbox

Please do not edit this page.
Okay, go ahead and edit it. But don't complain when I revert it.

An experiment in interlanguage collaboration
Jimbo,

I'm writing to let you know of an experiment of mine in interlanguage collaboration.

On Saturday, I created 15 user pages, all with the same username, at the 15 largest non-English Wikipedias. On each page, I left the same simple paragraphs in English, with a few words about my goals, plus an invitation to translate the page into the language of that site. I did it with a desire to collaborate, and to maintain and protect one identity across Wikipedia.

In two days, all pages had been translated; the German page was done by a brand new user 23 minutes after I finished it. His work on my page were his 2nd and 3rd edits, and he still does not have a user page of his own. Users left messages on my English page to let me know the translations had been completed.

Although I am fluent only in English, I have since corresponded with these users. I have helped proofread English, collaborated on an article about Dutch grammar, helped create a new template at es:wiki, and have seen an article I wrote translated into Hungarian (New York's Village Halloween Felvonulás).

The goodwill and enthusiasm of my translators, and other users and admins, has been impressive. It really says something about Wikpedians world-wide, and the project in general. I was not quite sure what would come of this, and frankly thought it might be viewed with skepticism. It is a surprise to hear the ideas and requests of interlanguage users after five days, and believe there is no telling what may come of this in a year or two. (When I began this, I did not know about Interlingua WP; I intend to explore that resource as well.)

I leave this message with the hope that others will realize that the potential of the Wikipedia project, as well as individual Wikipedians, is beyond our imagining. We are not really restricted by language. Moreover, by exploring beyond our mother tongues, we have many opportunities to pick up new language skills. We have a lot of freedom at WP, and can invent our own ways of working together.

To "tour" these pages, you can use the menu below. Follow the arrow from link to link. The menu appears on each page. Have fun. Of course I welcome your thoughts, advice, and questions.

Regards,

paul klenk talk 03:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Stuff
BigDaddy's contrib list
 * Kļenk
 * Kĺenk
 * Kľenk
 * Kłenk

Language Pages for Paul Klenk
translator talk / disc next


 * + To "tour" my pages, click on the next live link in the row.
 * + To "tour" my pages, click on the next live link in the row.

Time to Translate
12:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * en:User:Paul Klenk English
 * de:User:Paul Klenk German - now translated!
 * Time created: 7:18, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 7:41, 1 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 23 m!
 * Name of translator: Chadmull, de:wiki
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * fr:User:Paul Klenk French - now translated!
 * Time created: 7:19, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 2:36, 2 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 19 h, 17 m
 * Name of translator: ADM, fr:wiki
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * ja:User:Paul Klenk Japanese - now translated!
 * Time created: 5:26, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 7:05, 3 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 2 d, 1 h, 29 m
 * Name of translator: Maris stella, en:wiki
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * pl:User:Paul Klenk Polish - now translated!
 * Time created: 7:59, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 20:50, 2 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 1 d, 12 h, 51 m
 * Name of translator: MG, pl:wiki
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * it:User:Paul Klenk Italian - now translated!
 * Time created: 8:27, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 21:12, 1 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 12 h, 45 m
 * Name of translator: Auro, it:wiki
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * sv:User:Paul Klenk Swedish - now translated!
 * Time created: 8:37, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 20:41, 2 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 1 d, 12 h, 4 m
 * Name of translator: Thuresson
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * nl:User:Paul Klenk Dutch - now translated!
 * Time created: 8:43, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 9:07, 1 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 24 m!
 * Name of translator: Aleichem, nl:wiki
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * pt:User:Paul Klenk Portugese - now translated!
 * Time created: 6:54, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 19:02, 1 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 12 h, 8 m
 * Name of translator: Daniduc, pt:wiki
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * es:User:Temporary Username Spanish ("Paul Klenk" is an impostor account)
 * Time created:
 * Time translated:
 * Period between creation and translation:
 * Name of translator:
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * zh:User:Paul Klenk Chinese
 * Time created:
 * Time translated:
 * Period between creation and translation:
 * Name of translator:
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * nn:User:Paul Klenk Norwegian (Nynorsk) - now translated!
 * Time created: 9:09, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 0:43, 2 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 12 h, 34 m
 * Name of translator: Bjarte Sorensen, nn:wiki
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * no:User:Paul Klenk Norwegian (Bokmål) - now translated!
 * Time created: 9:15, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 15:34, 1 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 6 h, 19 m
 * Name of translator: OPus, no:wiki
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * fi:User:Paul Klenk Finnish - now translated!
 * Time created: 9:52, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 22:35, 1 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 12 h, 43 m
 * Name of translator: Zeal, fi:wiki
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * ru:User:Paul Klenk Russian
 * Time created:
 * Time translated:
 * Period between creation and translation:
 * Name of translator:
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS
 * da:User:Paul Klenk Danish - now translated!
 * Time created: 12:02, 1 Oct.
 * Time translated: 11:57, 2 Oct.
 * Period between creation and translation: 23 h, 55 m
 * Name of translator: Sir48/Thyge da:wiki
 * Type of award: Generic BS / Babel BS

Origins, Funding

 * Programmer/analyst; 1988: purchased software (on perc basis) take over client base.
 * Took two programmers, formed a company. in several years, grossing a couple of million.
 * Initial public offering; raised 3 MM for NASDAQ; roll out delayed; big financial trouble.
 * Wife has stroke; his MS develops. couldn't travel, climb stairs;
 * asked to step down as chairmain and CEO; let go at end of contract
 * 1995 Looking for a product-- acquired an ISP. brand new, 200 paying customers. doubled or more in size every month. Saved their bacon, attracted private capital 6 MM.


 * 1996 forced into retirement. $40k in stock. wife paralyzed, unable to get around; house mtg.
 * Continued as consultant. Oct. 96, back got bad. stand or walk no more. disk surgery, never able to walk again.
 * 1996 Created the FR website
 * Michael Rivero's Web site on Foster.
 * Missy Kelly Prodigy regular, sent him info on Riady's, Lippo, Rose Law Firm, Clinton's crooked financing from 80s through election.
 * Info on phony drug war, gov't involvement with big drug running through Arkansas. "I set it all up on a series of web pages and just knew that if Clinton's corruption was exposed to the general public, no way would he be reelected. Hah!"
 * After reelection, determined to get him impeached. Wrote forum software, launched the Forum in 1997. Only poster for a few months. Sent URL to search engines, trolled the news groups by reposting articles for the forum, picked up a few readers; Some got courage to post.
 * Summer/Fall 1997, picked up more readers and hits. Traffic started impacting his ISP.   ISP was his old company, hits were dragging down their system; asked for $700 per month or leave.
 * Poster The Duke suggested a provider for $300/month. He suggested Jim ask readers if they wanted it enough to pay for it; Ran a thread; donations rolled in, they bought a server.
 * Forum kept growing. EOrchard suffered; posters sent in more money so he could work on it full time and avoid bankruptcy; donors sent money asked him to use it as he needed.

Buckhead
Original FR thread, titled "Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard," started by Howlin, posted to by Buckhead (post 47):
 * 

Original Power Line blog:

NYU Journalism mention:
 * journalism.nyu : "And now, thanks to LA Times, it looks like, yes indeed, Rather was either punked by a freeper lawyer who goes my the moniker Buckhead or this guy knows who is the punker ( Blogger Who Faulted CBS Documents Is Conservative Activist )."

This is the blog that got the national story. It credits Buckhead:
 * powerlineblog : "It started on the morning of September 9th. We're a group blog; there are three of us who do Powerline. My partner, Scott Johnson, got up early in the morning, and one of the first things he did was to check all the e-mails that readers had sent to us overnight looking for something interesting to follow up on. And one of those e-mails quoted from and linked to a post which somebody called BuckHead had done on a message thread at the Free Republic site, which is basically a message board.

This is another blog agreeing and laying out the timeline:
 * greatestjeneration blog: "These days, CBS News anchor Dan Rather and his colleagues at the network's magazine program "60 Minutes II" are enduring an unusual wave of second-guessing by some of the public and fellow journalists. For that, they can thank "Buckhead." [Buckhead is the Freeper whose "hints" about what was wrong with the "60 Minutes" memos put web detectives on the road to discovery.--Jen"   "But Buckhead is vehement about one thing: He acted alone when he posted, to the conservative website FreeRepublic.com, what was widely believed to be the first allegation that the CBS report relied on documents that could have been forged."   "Intrigued, Johnson, whose online ID is "The Big Trunk," put a link on his site, PowerLine Blog.com, to Buckhead's post. Then the floodgates opened.

WP
 * Rathergate: "Buckhead," who gained Internet notoriety, would later be identified as Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta attorney."

Powerlineblog:
 * : "Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten meticulously reconstructs the events of this past Thursday following the CBS 60 Minutes broadcast Wednesday evening that have led to the exposure of the "new" documents featured in the Air National Guard story as forgeries: "No disputing it: Blogs are major players." Wallsten prominently credits our role in the development of the story: Early Thursday morning, Minneapolis lawyer Scott Johnson was in his basement home office, preparing to link some morning news reports to the site he co-authors, when a reader sent an e-mail about Buckhead.  Intrigued, Johnson, whose online ID is "The Big Trunk," put a link on his site, PowerLine Blog.com, to Buckhead's post.  Then the floodgates opened."

Enterstageright.com
 * : ""Buckhead" vs. Dan Rather: Internet David slays media Goliath": "Buckhead" and Post #47" -- As soon as CBS put the "documents," or rather photocopies of them on its Web site, a FReeper (denizen of the conservative/Republican Web site, Buckhead argued, "Howlin [another FReeper's username], every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.   That was the first blow, from which all the others followed. Several FReepers in the "Pajama Posse" researched the matter further on a series of threads that night, to be joined by a number of bloggers, among them Ratherbiased.com, PowerLineBlog.com, LittleGreenFootballs.com and Instapundit.com.

Politicalties.typehead.com
 * :

Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this archive is to document RyanFreisling's behavior so other Wikipedias can:
 * 1) Review it for themselves and decide its validity.
 * 2) Use it in the future if an RfC is ever brought against her.
 * 3) Refute any false statements or misrepresentations she makes in the future.
 * 4) Coach and mentor Ryan into recognizing, owning and changing her behavior.
 * 5) Anticipate her tactics in advance, so unwary users are not baited into a war, falsely accused, or bullied into silence.
 * 6) Hold her to a reasonable standard of behavior.
 * 7) Protect myself (Paul Klenk) against future actions by Ryan, including misrepresentations, false charges, incivility, ignoring me, complaining to others before she complains to me, etc.

If Ryan is reading this page, and objects in any way to its content, I ask that she 1] first come to me and try to work it out; or 2] make a sincere admission that my assertions are true and valid, making this page unnecessary.

Type of behavior Ryan has exhibited

 * 5RR violation (after a friendly warning by Klenk), followed by false claims of exoneration, and false claims about the result of the incident report.
 * Vandalism after the violation
 * Blanking Klenks comments on her talk page when he identified himself as the person who filed the 5RR report
 * Blanking Klenk's comments on her talk page since, and refusing to resolve the dispute.
 * Complaining to others before complaining to Klenk.
 * Calling his motives into question, then denying it, saying she is calling his actions into question.
 * Initiating a discussion in which she disputes the veracity of a charge; then, when Klenk responds, calls the matter closed and states her intentions not to discuss it. She used the talk page to refute the charge, then said she would not bring non-content-related issues ontot he page, but declared her refusal to discuss them anywhere else.

In all her discussion about the 5RR and her vandalism which followed, Ryan has never taken the time to carefully address, point by point, and edit by edit, why she believes she is correct and Klenk is mistaken. She has not even indicated or given evidence that she has actually reviewed the edits in question. This itself is particularly disturbing. Klenk has repeatedly invited her to do so, but instead of doing so, she repeats her mantra that the issue is closed. When Klenk has time, he will review other periods in the history of Rove and its talk page, to watch other patterns of reverts by Ryan and other users, and the comments they made in their edit summaries, and to fellow editors in the talk page.

Klenk has stated:
 * He stands behind his charges; he is willing to discuss the matter, listen to a refutation of his claims, and agree with or rebut those claims.
 * He does not intend punishment for anyone, and never did.
 * He is willing to leave the issue alone, but will respond if Ryan makes a denial or a mischaracterization

However, Klenk is no longer willing let the issue alone, because the veracity of his claims are germaine to Ryan's continual denials, and because she refuses to engage in dispute resolution.
 * She continually brings up the matter, makes a denial, states it is closed; mischaracterizes what happened, then repeatedly declares her intentions not to discuss it or reply to Klenk.
 * Ignores/blanks comments from Klenk on her page,
 * She is unwilling to exhibit a rule of Wikiquette that we need to admit we are wrong, but she is willing to tell others they are wrong.
 * Klenk's reputation at Wikipedia has now been brought into question; it is not clear that it has been damaged, but he is not willing to let it go that far. Claims by Ryan that he has "attacked" her are now "out there," and such claims tend to gain credence if not challenged or put to rest immediately.

Klenk asks for the following:
 * No punishment for Ryan
 * An analysis into the veracity of his claims
 * A statement by Ryan in which she either finally admits the claims are valid and true (even if she did not intend them), or if not, specifically why not, point by point, in her own words (not others'); and declares that the claims were reasonable, and she does not dispute Klenk's bringing them, or the independent findings of their veracity.
 * An allocution of what she did.
 * An apology for accusing Klenk of bringing false charges, and an apology for bringing his motives into question (an accusation of bad faith).


 * Holding others to a standard she herself does not meet; in fact, she seems to have broken almost every WP Rule which she has accused another newbie of. This newbie, BigDaddy777, is very aggressive in combating what he perceives to be a strong bias in certain WP articles on politically conservative people, for example Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, etc.  He has used a too-combative style, but this has been confined almost exclusively to the talk pages of articles.  I have observed fights between him and Ryan on this page, and she has broken almost every rule that she has accused BigDaddy777, sometimes truthfully, sometimes not, of breaking.  A clue to recognizing her behavior: See what she is accusing others of.  Most of the time, in my opinion, she is doing the exact same thing herself.  This results in a misdirection or deflection of the attention on her behavior, and places it on another user.
 * Using false accusations in edit summaries to ward off edits she does not like -- a tactic of "going on the offensive" which is intimidation and bullying. These include charges of "POV," "vandalism" (which she has now confessed to), "
 * Using the term "attack" to falsely characterize others'
 * 3RR violation (5RR in under 19 hours), reported and documented. She was not blocked because the edit war she was participating in resulted in the page being blocked.
 * Other edit wars besides the 5RR above.
 * Demanding that editors clear their edits with her, or justify them to her satisfaction, before making the edits. She does this even when editors have clearly explained their intentions in advance on an article's talk page.
 * Claiming consensus that does not exist.
 * Ignoring civil attempts at communication by blanking her page; instead, she brings the dispute to an admin page.

Ignoring User:Paul Klenk / Blanking his comments on her page
Three times, Paul Klenk has attempted to communicate with Ryan via her talk page. Each time she has blanked the page. She has never, as of 04:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC), attempted to communicate with Paul Klenk on his talk page. She has, however, complained about his comments to other users, and on other pages, without first trying to resolve the dispute with Klenk.

Description of Klenk's three messages:

1st blanking/ignoring:
 * Klenk informs Ryan of his 5RR report; she blanks the remark, calling them "complete bullshit" in her edit summary.

2nd blanking/ignoring:
 * Klenk objects to the blanking of his comments, and explains his 5RR report: "I didn't do it to hurt you. I did it because I thought it was right". Ryan removes them with and types "still awaiting a simple apology" in the edit summary.

3rd blanking/ignoring:
 * Klenk informs Ryan that he has written a response to Ryan's accusation against him, which she had made on Kate's page. He restates his objection to her blanking his comments, asks her to act more civilly, and invites her to his talk page, which she has never used to communicate to him. Ryan removes them with the words "rm comment" in her edit summary.

Use of loaded words
Ryan has already admitted to misapplying the word "vandalism" to characterize edits with which she disagrees, as an excuse to revert them. She has discontinued this use, and admitted her error. Please be aware of this when reviewing examples of her use of the word vandalism below. Ryan continues to misapply other words, however. When misapplied, these words are a slur on the editor to which they are directed, and they damage the editor's reputation. They are an excuse not to address the substance of what the editor has said, and to deflect attention away from herself.

The following are examples


 * Vandalism


 * Attack


 * Retribution


 * Impugning character

Ryan edits a section heading on the talk page of Karl Rove
Klenk informed other editors of Karl Rove that Ryan made 5RRs. His section read "5RR by RyanFreisling". Ryan edited Klenk's words to read, "No 5RR."

5RR
Welcome! Help yourself to some pita!

This section documents a 5RR violation by Ryan:

Circumstances & Timeline

 * Before the incident:
 * She was involved in a separate 3RR report filed against BigDaddy777.
 * She was warned to watch her reverts by Paul KLenk, after the 2nd of the 5 reverts in question.


 * During the incident:
 * She was engaged in another content dispute with user BigDaddy777
 * She was warned by Paul Klenk to count her reverts, and asked by him to report back to him her count so they could compare notes.


 * '''After the incident:]]]
 * She claimed Paul Klenk filed a false report
 * She edited Klenk's statement on the talk page, negating its meaning, a clear violation of vandalism policy (this violation will be discussed in another section). Later, when Klenk changed it back, stating his reasons but specifically not mentioning Ryan's name, she made an immediate response to "refute" the charge, then, when invited by Klenk to discuss it on his page, refused, stating the issue was closed.
 * She claimed victory and exoneration, a misrepresentation for which she was warned by Katefan0
 * She as admonished by admin Dmcdevit for her reverts.
 * She called Paul Klenk's motives into question (calling it "retribution"), then denied alling his motives into question, stating that she was disputing his actions. But then she refused to discuss her dispute, calling the matter "closed."
 * She mischaracterizes the intention of the incident report by stating it was "inconclusive" when she has been told repeatedly that the report's purpose is to stop an edit war, not draw conclusions on whether the 3RR policy was violated.
 * She continues to initiate mentioning the incident, stating that it is disputd, but when Klenk responds, she states "it is closed" and declares her intention to refuse to discuss it.


 * The page: Karl Rove
 * The time period: 15 Sept., 22:06 through 16 Sept., 16:25.
 * The length of the period: 18 hours, 41 minutes
 * The editor: User:RyanFreisling

Links and Explanations of the Five Reverts
The five reverts in question (note to self -- pick up more pita at the store):
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Following is a description of a] the intial action of the editor, and b] Ryan's edit which effectively undid that action:
 * 1) 1RR a] In this edit, BigDaddy777 added text at 17:45, and Kizzle supplemented his sentence with an introductory clause at 18:05.  (Other edits appear between these edits and Ryan's "undoing" of them.)  b] Ryan undid these edits by completely removing the text they had added, charging "plagiarism" and lecturing the editor(s) to "exercise some skill."  Ryan overlooked the fact that immediately following BigDaddy's text was a link -- not the actions of a plagiarist; further Ryan could just as easily have fixed the perceived problem by adding quotation marks.  (Note that in the immediate future, when the situation was reversed and BigDaddy777 removed text, Ryan accused him of "vandalism.")
 * 2) 2RR a] In this edit, Paul Klenk changed the word "part" to the word "footnote".  (He also removed a comma.) b] Ryan undid this edit six minutes later by reverting the word "footnote" to the word "part" and then accused Klenk of inserting POV.  12 minutes later, Klenk asked Ryan to count her recent reverts, and compare notes with him, in order to help her avoid breaking 3RR.  She responded but did not indicate she had performed a count; instead, she denied she had ever broken 3RR.
 * 3) 3RR a] In this edit, BigDaddy777 removed two sentences, added by an anonymous user with about 10 edits, none of them to this disputed page.  BigDaddy did not provide reasons in the edit summary, but the sentences were characteristic of the glut of negative material which BigDaddy has often objected to on the talk page.  His reasons were very clear to Klenk.  b] Ryan undid this edit by adding the sentences he had removed, and adding additional material.  She charged that "removing content you don't like is POV".
 * 4) 4RR a] In this edit, BidDaddy777 re-instated his previous edit, by again removing the two sentences.  b] Ryan undid this edit by adding the sentences again, with the following charge and admonition, "BigDaddy's latest vandalism. There is no valid reason to delete this sourced episode. Please reconsider your behavior."
 * 5) 5RR a] In this edit, BigDaddy777 removed one sentence added by Kizzle 14 minutes before.  b]  Ryan undit this edit, calling Kizzle's quote "valid" and claiming it "should not be vandalised," incorrectly implying -- again -- that BigDaddy's removal of the quote was vandalism.

Tactics to cover-up, misdirect and justify
Ryan's tactics
 * 1) False accusations of vandalism (she
 * 2) Justify her reverts by characterizing the edits as POV,
 * 3) Bringing up past
 * 4) Bullying/intimidation
 * 5) Claming the editor didn't "explain" his changes
 * 6) Making bad faith accusations of "plagiarism," when some quotation marks

Evaluations of the 5RR on the Incident Report page
As of (04:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)), no official determination was issued stating whether or not Ryan broke the 5RR. Further, because the edit war on the disputed page resulted in the page being protected, Ryan was not blocked for her 5RR. She tried to use the "I was not blocked" excuse to claim exoneration, but Katefan0, an admin, twice admonished her for this, saying she was misreprenting what happened, and telling her to stop making that claim.

Klenk never asked Ryan to be blocked or punished for her 5RRs.

A discussion took place on the 3RR noticeboard, but few comments directly addressed specific edits. The ones that were are listed below, followed by Klenk's rebuttals.

In the discussion at the noticeboard, Klenk showed indignation at the fact that no admin was trying to evaluate whether or not his 5RR was justified. His indignation was confused for incivility, for which he apologized.

Klenk asserts that the rebuttals or disagreements of his charges are extremely weak, cursory, and rife with elementary misunderstandings about what a revert is. He also asserts that very little substantive evaluation of the 5RR took place.

In his initial report -- his first 3RR report -- Klenk made some editing errors, mistakenly using the term "deletion" when in fact the reversion as not a deletion, but a replacement of text removed by another editor. Klenk has since rewritten his summary and description of the 5RRs.

Statements disagreeing with or otherwise not supporting Klenk's charge:
 * 69.121.133.154: claims BD's intentions were not clear; claims content deleted was "valid;" misrepresents vandalism; calls BD's deletes "large chunks" of the article.
 * Derex: says additional material was added when Ryan "undid" BigDaddy's deletion.
 * Dmcdevit: no evaluation made
 * Katefan0: no evaluation made
 * BigDaddy777: stands up for himself against a false claim of vandalism
 * RyanFreisling: no evaluation of the claims. Falsely claim that her "peers" made a "decision" that "I did not violate 5RR," for which she was chastised by Katefan0.
 * Paul Klenk: full evaluation and rebuttals of each disagreeing
 * kizzle: no evaluation issued
 * Friday: no evaluation issued (left a remark at Ryan's page)

Draft of remarks intended for Ryan; later reworked for my 5RR report
Ryan, you have made five reverts to Karl Rove in just over 18 hours. At one point, I became concerned with one of your lightning speed reverts, and asked you politely to count your edits and let me know what you found; you responded to my message, but you never gave a count -- you just denied that you have ever broken 3RR. It appears you can no longer say that.

This is your pattern: You try to disguise your reverts by going on the offense, making unfounded accusations of vandalism, POV, plagiarism, bad faith, and lack of exercise in writing skill. I believe each of your accusations, in themselves, assume bad faith. Accusations aside, you still broke the rule. Personally, I suspect that you use bullying to scare off editors you disagree with.

Let me remind you: a revert is undoing the actions of another editor. This is what you have clearly done in each of the five instances. It is true that undoing vandalism does not count towards a revert, but BigDaddy's edit of 13:41 was clearly a content dispute, not "vandalism," as you accused him. When I addressed you on that point and defended him against your accusation of vandalism, you ignored me.

Original 5RR Report

 * 15 Sept. 22:06: Undid the combined actions of Kizzle and BigDaddy777 with a deletion, then made an accusation of plagiarism (an assumption of bad faith) and lectured them to "exercise some skill." You could have easily added quotes to indicate that it was a quote, or reworded it.  Instead, you undid their actions.
 * 16 Sept. 2:05: Undid the actions of Paul Klenk with a deletion, accusing him of POV.
 * 16 Sept. 10:43: Undid the actions of BigDaddy777 with a deletion, accusing him of POV, and characterizing his edits as "removing content you don't like."
 * 16 Sept. 13:41 Undid the actions of BigDaddy777 with a deletion, then accused him of his "latest vandalism."
 * 16 Sept. 16:25 Undid the actions of BigDaddy777 with a deletion; your accusation? he "deleted without cause."

You spend a lot of time lecturing BigDaddy777. I have been trying to mentor him. Sometimes I have given him harsh criticisms. But he is new, and he is improving quickly. Please start looking at yourself and questioning your motives.

You have told BigDaddy777, "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." I would say, with your five reverts, you are fueled the edit war and are yourself one of the causes of the page protection.

Repeating the word "vandalism" over and over does not make it true. Several users have complained that the article is glutted with negative material that needs to be trimmed. This is not vandalism. It is editing.

I am bringing these 5RR to the attention of an admin. paul klenk 03:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan's knowledge of this page
Ryan has communicated to Klenk that she is aware of the existence of this page. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that she has added it to her watchlist, and/or that she is aware of its contents. She therefore cannot later assert that these charges have come out of a clear blue sky, or that she has not had ample opportunity to prepare a rebuttal. She is invited to discuss the contents at any time, in private chat, if necessary; Klenk prefers a discussion on a WP page designated for a resolution of this dispute. Klenk's Yahoo! ID is "groups_office" and he uses Yahoo! Messenger. Klenk has established a protocol to verify Ryan's identity. If she can verify her identify according to this protocol, Klenk will engage in a private chat. This protocol will be made known to Ryan when she agrees to the chat; as soon as she receives the protocol, she must follow its steps with 15 minutes. The chat will be archived; if Ryan discusses Klenk's charges in good faith, keeps on point, and directly addresses the two main charges of 5RR and vandalism (the foundation for the ensuing dispute), he will keep the contents of that chat private. This offer is

Klenk will now create a new page for the purpose of dispute resolution, called User:Paul Klenk/Old Sandbox. This page will include a lot of unrelated material at the top of the page, to misdirect users who inadvertantly stumble across the page. The section related to this dispute will be named after two pet words for Klenk and BD which only Ryan knows she has used. This hidden page is an attempt to help Ryan save face in the community. If Ryan completes the dispute resolution to Klenk's satisfaction, he will ask a WP admin to delete the page and its history afterwards.

Comparative Analysis Two Users
I am not making accusations of sockpuppeting. I am undergoing an analysis of two users, both of which post from anonymous IPs.


 * Edits to WH page; arguments with same user
 * Scouring of material to glut a page
 * Coming to the aid of a friend on an incident
 * Misapplication of the word dualism
 * Misapplication of the word attraction
 * Charges of tit-for-tat
 * Practice of blanking one's user page
 * Practice of ignoring comments by Klenk on talk page
 * Periods of editing

User One vs. User Two
 * 10 Sept.
 * 16:01 - 21:22 vs. one edit at 19:15 to SHvAQ
 * 11 Sept. Look for mention of other's name
 * 15:02 - 2:37 in the morning, 12 Sept. vs. "lone 09:40", then 15:49 - 01:56
 * 12 Sept.
 * 15:30 - 00:13 on 13 Sept. vs. 19:08 - 00:31
 * 13 Sept.
 * 15:37 - 2:50 on 14 Sept. vs. "lone 19:31"
 * 14 Sept.
 * 17:55 - 20:53 vs. 23:30 - 23:33
 * 15 Sept. ABSENT vs. 11:59 - 02:57 Sept. 16
 * 16 Sept.
 * 16:42 - 2:49 AM 17 Sept. vs. 10:53 - 20:08
 * 17 Sept. ABSENT vs. VERY LONG DAY 05:14 - 05:31; 09:35 - VERY BUSY - 00:51 next day
 * 18 Sept.
 * 01:45 AM to 2:52 AM vs. 14:20 - early 19th
 * 15:59 to 16:58

Happy Family

 * Name of Jim
 * Sports enthusiast
 * Loves bowling
 * Siberian Husky, Shadow, calendar contest, bought with Crystale
 * Same handle elsewhere
 * Occupation driver
 * Age 27-ish
 * j-dawg AT msn
 * Florida
 * Canada connection
 * IGN Insider
 * 15 Apr 1975
 * cisco, beer voted YES, 12 of 14 people think [he] is an idiot, he is close to getting banned
 * "Sheesh, and I thought only Left wing kooks were jealous of success!!!" "...The Best Prognosticator to EVER Post on the Internet"

Plame Summary
Rove has been embroiled in a controversy involving Valerie Plame,. The incident is discussed at length in a companion article, "Plame affair." Following is a summary of the main points in that article:

I am trying to identify the many components of the complex Plame affair. Below, broken into bullet points, are my best efforts to do so.

Would you please me help by adding any missing components, commenting, etc.?

One day I would like to use these components to write a dense and thoughtful summary of this affair. Don't mistake theses points for the summary itself -- they are simply raw, hard "bits." The question is, are there other bits?

The Rove/Plame controversy has several complex and hotly disputed components. Allegations are plentiful and hard evidence is not easy to come by. Many of these components seem to hinge on each other, and lead to greater underlying controversies, all the way up to Bush's stated reasons for going to war in Iraq:
 * It is alleged that Karl Rove illegally leaked the name of a C.I.A. operative, which resulted in breaking the identity of her cover company, said to employ other C.I.A. operatives.
 * Rove's alleged motive for the leak: to discredit Wilson in the Yellowcake report.
 * Wilson's motive in the yellowcake affair -- alleged to be to discredit it as one of Bush's stated reasons for going to war in Iraq.
 * The alleged leak spread throughout the media, creating another set of controversies between reporters, their employers, and their sources.
 * The allegations resulted in a current DOJ investigating whether Rove broke the law.
 * The affair has been fueled denial by Rove and the White House, and an apparent "backing-off" of that denial by the White House.
 * The media have moved from the role of observer to the role of a player in this affair:
 * 1) The jailing of Judith Miller and Nokak's alleged deal with the prosecutor;
 * 2) The greater media takes an unusual move of filing "friend of the court."

Players: C.I.A., White House, Media, DOJ.

Veracity of the evidence offered by both sides of the Plame affair is hotly disputed.

Joseph C. Wilson IV former Ambassador to Gabon, alleged that Karl Rove illegally leaked the identify of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a C.I.A. operative.

Wilson had reported about Yellowcake. Robert Novak wrote about it dismissively, and in his article, made the first public mention about the identity of Wilson's wife. A year later, Senate said Plame had put Wilson up for the trip.

The story about Plame's identity began to spread throughout the Press, under the idea that the alleged leak was an act of retaliation

Novak

Plame Affair
Main article Plame affair covers Karl Rove's role as the reported source of published information as to the identity of Valerie Plame, wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, as a CIA NOC agent to Robert Novak after Wilson contradicted the George W. Bush administration's statements regarding the Yellowcake forgery.

Origins
On 29 August 2003, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a career diplomat who had worked under Democratic and Republican administrations, alleged that Rove leaked the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative (timeline). The leak is a potential violation of federal law.

Wilson, who in February 2002 investigated claims of attempted 1990s uranium ore purchases by Iraq from Niger, wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times, published 6 July 2003, suggesting that the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence findings to justify war against Iraq. Wilson said that his African diplomatic experience led to his selection for the mission: He is the former ambassador to Gabon, another uranium-producing African nation, and was once posted in the 1970s to Niamey, Niger's capital. Wilson, who was open about the CIA's sponsorship of his trip (which he called "discreet but not secret"), wrote that he had been "informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report" relating to the sale of uranium yellowcake from Niger (see also Yellowcake Forgery). Of his trip to Niger Wilson wrote, "I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction [purchase of uranium ore] had ever taken place." Wilson also noted that U.S. Ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick "knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington."

Wilson's Op-Ed piece appeared three and a half months after the US-led 2003 Invasion of Iraq, at a time when search teams in occupied Iraq were raising questions about whether weapons of mass destruction would ever be found. On 11 July 2003, five days following the publication of Wilson's Op-Ed piece, the CIA issued a statement discrediting what he called "highly dubious" accounts of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger. In the press release, CIA Director George Tenet said it should "never" have permitted the "16 words" relating to alleged Iraqi uranium purchases to be used in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, and called it a "mistake" that the CIA allowed such a reference in the speech Bush used to take the United States to war.

Publication of the leak
Eight days after publication of Wilson's article, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote an article dismissing the importance of Wilson's trip to Niger. Novak wrote that the choice to use Wilson "was made routinely at a low level without [CIA] Director George Tenet's knowledge." Novak went on to identify Plame as Wilson's wife: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him." Although Wilson wrote that he was certain his findings were circulated within the CIA and conveyed (at least orally) to the office of the Vice President, and George Tenet himself had written not only of his familiarity with the report but that it "was given a normal and wide distribution" in intelligence circles, Novak questioned the accuracy of Wilson's report and added that "it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it."

Although the Novak article called her a CIA "operative," it did not necessarily identify Valerie Plame as an "undercover" (or NOC agent). However, the publication of her name and a brief account of her duties was enough to abruptly end her "undercover" status, as well as that of her cover firm and other agents using its cover (as well as their contacts).

Nearly a year after Wilson's editorial was published (12 July 2004), the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's Report on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments on Iraq stated that Plame "offered up [Wilson's] name" for the trip. Several high ranking CIA officials disputed this claim, however, and indicated that the person who made the claim was not present at the meeting where Wilson was chosen. "In an interview with Time, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. 'That is bullshit. That is absolutely not the case,' Wilson told Time. 'I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job.'"

Spreading the leak
Walter Pincus, a Washington Post columnist, has written that he was told in confidence by an (unnamed) Bush administration official on 12 July 2003, two days before Novak's column appeared, that "the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction." Because he did not believe it to be true, Pincus did not report the story.

Days after Novak's initial column appeared, several other journalists, notably Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, published Plame's name citing "some" unnamed government officials as sources. In his article, titled "A War on Wilson?", Cooper, with no proof, speculated that the White House had "declared war" on Wilson for speaking out against the Bush Administration.

In the October 13 Newsweek, Wilson is reported to have received a call from Chris Matthews, of MSNBC's "Hardball," who told him, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game."

NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell also has been mentioned in the press as having early knowledge of the Plame leak, although her and Matthews' conversations may have taken place after Novak's article was published. Tim Russert, the Washington bureau chief of NBC News, and Glenn Kessler, a diplomatic reporter for the Washington Post, have both offered testimony in an ongoing investigation.

Two Newsday reporters who also confirmed and expanded upon Novak's account, Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce, were mentioned in October 2003 in connection to an ongoing judicial inquiry.

CIA seeks special prosecutor from Department of Justice
Wilson and both current and former CIA officials claimed the leak not only damaged his wife's career, but arguably endangered and ruined the ability to operate of many other CIA agents who worked abroad like Plame under nonofficial cover (as "NOCs"), passing as private citizens. Plame, who worked undercover for the CIA for nearly 20 years, was identified as an NOC and confirmed as a "specialist in nonconventional weapons" by New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller on 5 October 2003.

In an unsuccessful attempt to dim the controversy, Robert Novak wrote a second column on 1 October 2003, minimizing the importance of the leak, and further suggesting that Plame's relationship to Wilson could be assumed by reading his entry in Who's Who In America. The following day on CNN, Novak announced that Plame's nominal employer was Brewster Jennings & Associates. "There is no such firm, I'm convinced," Novak said, noting that "Ms. Valerie E. Wilson" had donated $1,000 to the Gore campaign in 1999 and had listed Brewster Jennings & Associates as her employer. "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery." In fact, Brewster Jennings & Associates did exist, and proved to be an elaborately crafted CIA enterprise likely to have provided cover not only to Plame/Wilson but to other covert CIA operatives and contacts working abroad: subsequent articles in many publications suggest that BJA, nominally an oil exploration firm, was in fact a CIA front company (now defunct) spying on Saudi and other interests across the Middle East.

Under certain circumstances, disclosure of the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, though the language of the statute raises the issue of whether Rove is within the class of persons to whom the statute applies.

In September 2003, the CIA requested that the Justice Department investigate the matter. Rove was identified by the New York Times in connection to the Plame leak on 2 October 2003, in an article that both highlighted Attorney General John Ashcroft's employment of Rove in three previous political campaigns and which pointed to Ashcroft's potential conflict of interest in investigating Rove. In recusing himself from the case two months later, Ashcroft named Deputy Attorney General James Comey, to be "acting attorney general" for the case; on 30 December 2003, Comey named Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, (Comey appoints Fitzgerald) to pursue an investigation into the leak, working initially from White House telephone records turned over to the FBI in October 2003.

Both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, although neither under oath. Colleagues of Rove who have testified before the grand jury (quietly convened in Washington, D.C. by January 2004) include current White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, Deputy Press Secretary Claire Buchan, former White House communications aide Adam Levine, former advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. On 13 May 2005, citing "close followers of the case," The Washington Post reported that the length of the investigation, and the particular importance paid to the testimony of reporters, suggested that the counsel's role had expanded to include investigation of perjury charges against witnesses. Other observers have suggested that the testimony of journalists was needed to show a pattern of intent by the leaker or leakers.

Supreme Court decision, testimony of journalists
New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller, who (according to a subpoena) met with an unnamed White House official on July 8 2003, two days after Wilson's editorial was published, never wrote or reported a story on the Wilson/Plame matter, but nevertheless refused (with Cooper) to answer questions before a grand jury in 2004 pertaining to sources. Both reporters were held in contempt of court. On 27 June 2005, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule on the reporters' request for appeal, Time magazine said it would surrender to Fitzgerald e-mail records and notes taken by Cooper. Miller and Cooper faced potential jail terms for failure to cooperate with the independent counsel's investigations. Columnist Robert Novak, who later admitted that the CIA attempted to dissuade him from revealing Plame's name in print, "appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor" (according to Newsweek).

Miller was jailed on 7 July 2005, and is expected to remain there until October 2005. She is being held in Alexandria, VA in the same facility as Zacarias Moussaoui.

Allegations of illegal activities
On 1 July 2005 Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, on the McLaughlin Group stated: "And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time Magazine's going to do with the grand jury." The document dump has since occurred.

On 2 July 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said that his client spoke to Time reporter Matt Cooper "three or four days" before Plame's identity was first revealed in print by commentator Robert Novak. (Cooper's article in Time, citing unnamed and anonymous "government officials," confirmed Plame to be a "CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Cooper's article appeared three days after Novak's column was published.) Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." This second statement has since been called into question by an e-mail, written three days before Novak's column, in which Cooper indicated that Rove had told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. If Rove were aware that this was classified information at the time then both disclaimers by his lawyer would be untrue. Furthermore, Luskin said that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" (three times, according to the Los Angeles Times of 3 July 2005 in addition to two interviews by the FBI) and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. Luskin stated that Rove "has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else." Rove's lawyer declined to share with Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff the nature or contents of his client's conversations with Cooper.   

On 6 July 2005, Cooper agreed to testify, thus avoiding being held in contempt of court and sent to jail. Cooper said "I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions for not testifying," but told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance at court he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" an indication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep his source's identity secret. For some observers this called into question the allegations against Rove, who had signed a waiver months before permitting reporters to testify about their conversations with him (see above paragraph). 

Cooper, however, stated in court that he did not previously accept a general waiver to journalists signed by his source (whom he did not identify by name), because he had made a personal pledge of confidentiality to his source. The 'dramatic change' which allowed Cooper to testify was later revealed to be a phone conversation between lawyers for Cooper and his source confirming that the waiver signed two years earlier included conversations with Cooper. Citing a "person who has been officially briefed on the case," The New York Times identified Rove as the individual in question, a fact later confirmed by Rove's own lawyer. According to one of Cooper's lawyers, Cooper has previously testified in August 2004 before the grand jury regarding conversations with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, after having received Libby's specific permission to testify.

Attorney and Watergate whistleblower John W. Dean observed that even if Rove didn't technically break the specific law barring the exposure of a covert agent, the administration has almost certainly run afoul of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641.

Rove's White House security clearance, governed by Executive Order 12958, apparently required both a criminal background check as well as training in the protection of classified information. To receive security clearance, Rove agreed, in writing (SF-312 Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement), not to divulge or confirm classified information to individuals (including reporters) not authorized to have it. According to Rove's attorney's public statements, Rove has admitted to violating SF-312 agreement.

Rove's role as Time leaker revealed
On September 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, regarding any suggested involvement of Rove with the leak, that "[t]he President knows" that it was not true.
 * And I said it is simply not true [that Rove was involved]. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove ... He [President Bush]'s aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.

During the 2004 Republican National Convention, Rove told CNN:
 * I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name. This is at the Justice Department. I'm confident that the U.S. Attorney, the prosecutor who's involved in looking at this is going to do a very thorough job of doing a very substantial and conclusive investigation.

On 10 July 2005, Newsweek posted a story from its forthcoming July 18 print edition which quoted one of the e-mails written by Time reporter Matt Cooper in the days following the publication of Wilson's Op-Ed piece. Writing to Time bureau chief Michael Duffy on 11 July 2003, three days before Novak's column was published, Cooper recounted a two-minute conversation with Karl Rove "on double super secret background" in which Rove said that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee: "it was, KR [Karl Rove] said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." In a Time article released 17 July 2005, Cooper says Rove ended his conversation by saying "I've already said too much." If true, this could indicate that Rove identified Wilson's wife as a CIA employee prior to Novak's column being published. Some believe that statements by Rove claiming he did not reveal her name would still be strictly accurate if he mentioned her only as 'Wilson's wife', although this distinction would likely have no bearing on the alleged illegality of the disclosure. The White House repeatedly denied that Rove had any involvement in the leaks. Whether Rove's statement to Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in fact violated any laws has not been resolved.

In addition, Rove told Cooper that CIA Director George Tenet did not authorize Wilson's trip to Niger, and that "not only the genesis of the trip [to Niger] is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report" which Wilson made upon his return from Africa. Rove "implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger," and in an apparent effort to discourage Cooper from taking the former ambassador's assertions seriously, gave Cooper a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Cooper recommended that his bureau chief assign a reporter to contact the CIA for further confirmation, and indicated that the tip should not be sourced to Rove or even to the White House. The Washington Post reported that the CIA, contradicting Rove, "maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) -- not by his wife -- largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999", though she is reported to have suggested him for the 1999 trip.

Cooper testified before a grand jury on 13 July 2005, confirming that Rove was the source who told him Wilson's wife was an employee of the CIA. In the 17 July 2005 Time magazine article detailing his grand jury testimony, Cooper wrote that Rove never used Plame's name nor indicated that she had covert status, although Rove did apparently convey that certain information relating to her was classified: "Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'W.M.D.'? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me." Cooper also explained to the grand jury that the "double super secret background" under which Rove spoke to him was not an official White House or Time magazine security designation, but an allusion to the 1978 film Animal House, in which a college fraternity is placed under "double secret probation."

On 13 August 2005 journalist Murray Waas reported that Justice Department and FBI officials had recommended appointing a special prosecutor to the case because they felt that Rove had not been truthful in early interviews, withholding from FBI investigators his conversation with Cooper about Plame and maintaining that he had first learned of Plame's CIA identity from a journalist whose name Rove could not recall. In addition, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, from whose prior campaigns Rove had been paid $746,000 in consulting fees, had been briefed on the contents of at least one of Rove's interviews with the FBI - raising concerns of a conflict of interest with the not-yet-recused Attorney General. 

Rove email
In an email sent by Rove to top White House security official Stephen Hadley immediately after his discussion with Matt Cooper (obtained by the Associated Press and published on 15 July 2005), Rove claimed that he tried to steer the journalist away from allegations Wilson was making about faulty Iraq intelligence. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote to Hadley. "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." Rove made no mention to Hadley in the e-mail of having leaked Plame's CIA identity, nor of having revealed classified information to a reporter, nor of having told the reporter that certain sensitive information would soon be declassified. Although Rove wrote to Hadley (and perhaps testified) that the initial subject of his conversation with Cooper was welfare reform and that Cooper turned the conversation to Wilson and the Niger mission, many months later Cooper disputed this suggestion in his grand jury testimony and subsequent statements: "I can't find any record of talking about [welfare reform] with him on July 11 [2003], and I don't recall doing so," Cooper said. 

White House/Republican reaction
From the beginning, the White House dismissed the allegation that Rove deliberately disclosed classified information as "totally ridiculous" and "simply not true." The White House continued to publicly assert that no Bush administration officials were involved in the leak until after the Supreme Court decision of 2005, the subsequent release of internal Time Magazine email, and Time reporter Matt Cooper's decision to testify to the grand jury. The White House subsequently adopted "we do not comment on ongoing investigations" as their official position. Other Republicans have been more public on what they consider an unfair smearing of Karl Rove.

Denials: July 2003 &mdash; July 11, 2005
On September 30, 2003, Mr. Bush said "if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." He followed that remark with "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan explained that "appropriate action" meant "[i]f anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration," adding that Karl Rove had specifically assured McClellan that he was not involved, and that "the President expects his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and the highest ethics."

Mr. Bush, who repeatedly denied knowing the identity of the leaker, called the leak a "criminal action" for the first time on 6 October 2003, stating "[i]f anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find the leaker." Speaking to a crowd of journalists the following day, Bush said "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." On 8 October 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that "no one has more of an interest in getting to the bottom of this than the White House does, than the President does." On 10 October 2003, after the Justice Department began its formal investigation into the leak, McClellan specifically said that neither Rove nor two other officials whom he had personally questioned – Elliot Abrams, a national security aide, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff – were involved.

On 10 June 2004, eight months after the formal outside investigation was begun and five months after the appointment of an Independent Counsel, President Bush was asked by a 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?" The President responded, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."

'If Someone Committed a Crime': July 11, 2005 onward
On 11 July 2005, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who had since become a grand jury witness himself, refused at a press conference to answer dozens of questions, repeatedly stating that the Bush Administration had made a decision not to comment on an "ongoing criminal investigation" involving White House staff. McClellan declined to answer whether Rove had committed a crime. McClellan also declined to repeat prior categorical denials of Rove's involvement in the leak, nor would he state whether Bush would honor his prior promise to fire individuals involved in the leak. Although Democratic critics called for Rove's dismissal, or at the very least immediate suspension of Rove's security clearances and access to meetings in which classified material was under discussion, Rove remained working in the White House.

Neither Rove nor the President offered immediate public comment on the unfolding scandal. Rove was vociferously defended by Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman and by many conservative news outlets and commentators, some of whom followed cues laid out in a "talking points" memo, circulated among Republicans on Capitol Hill, which questioned Joseph Wilson's credibility. Among others, David Brooks, conservative New York Times editorialist and NPR commentator, attacked Wilson on 14 July 2005 by falsely alleging that Wilson had claimed Cheney sent him on the Niger mission, and that in speaking to Cooper, Rove was merely correcting a misconception about the Vice President's possible involvement. In an even more extreme example of partisanship, the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal praised Rove on 13 July 2005 for leaking Plame's identity, referring to him as a "whistleblower." Fox News's John Gibson said that even if Rove is not being truthful, he deserves a medal for leaking Plame's CIA identity because Joseph Wilson opposed the war and "Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody."

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."

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.

Reactions of members of Congress
Ninety-one members of Congress from the Democratic Party signed a letter on July 15, 2005 calling for Rove to explain his role in the Plame affair, or to resign. Thirteen members of the House Judiciary Committee, all Democrats, have called for hearings on the matter. 

A Resolution of Inquiry has been offered by Rush Holt (D-NJ) and John Conyers (D-MI), requesting that the Bush Administration release all documents concerning the exposure of Plame's CIA identity.

Barney Frank (D-MA) and John Conyers (D-MI) have authorized the Library of Congress to research legal precedent for the impeachment of White House staffers. 

Twenty-six Democratic Senators, including seven members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have issued a public statement authored by Senator John Kerry, calling for Congressional hearings to investigate the Plame leak. 

As of 22 August 2005, none of the 306 Republican members of Congress had expressed public concern about Rove's continued role in the Bush Administration.

Opinion polls
A poll conducted by ABC News in mid-July 2005 revealed that 53% of respondents were following this story closely, and 47% were not following the matter closely. In the same poll, 47% believed the White House is not cooperating fully with the ongoing investigation, 28% had no opinion and 25% thought the White House was fully cooperating.  

A CNN poll dated 22 July - 24 July found that 49% of respondents say Rove should resign, 31% said he should not, and 20% had no opinion. USAToday

A poll commissioned by Newsweek and published 8 August 2005 indicated 45% believed Rove "guilty of a serious offence", 15% "not guilty of a serious offence", who 37% who "don't know."

Legal opinions
The unusual circumstances of this case led a number of media organizations to file a friend-of-the-court (amicus curiae) brief on behalf of the journalists who were subpoenaed (Matthew Cooper, Judith Miller, and Time Inc.). In this brief, lawyers representing 36 media organizations, including ABC News, AP, CNN, CBS News, WSJ, Fox News, USA Today, NBC News, Newsweek, and Reuters, argued to the court that "there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Protection Act in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper." Victoria Toensing, the principal author of the amicus brief, also contended that Ms. Plame didn't have a cover to blow, citing a July 23, 2004 article in the Washington Times which argued that Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA agent may have been known to Russian and Cuban intelligence operations prior to the Novak article.

Perhaps because Toensing's brief did not address issues relating to (possible) perjury and obstruction of justice charges, nor many other possible violations associated with the disclosure of classified information, many of these same news outlets continue to suggest the possibility that Rove may have violated the law. (The amicus brief predated the publication of internal Time email, as well as Cooper's own testimony and published account of Rove's role.) Although some reporters speculate that Rove's (future) legal defense might be built upon testimony that he was ignorant of Plame's protected status at the time he outed her as a CIA employee, most agree that if it could be proven that he had heard of her CIA covert status or knew material was classified when he spoke to journalists, Rove could face far more serious charges.

A New York Times story of 16 July 2005 suggested that the Independent Counsel grand jury has questioned whether a particular top secret State Department briefing which named Plame in connection to Wilson may have been the source of Rove's information.. Colin Powell was photographed carrying the briefing during a visit to Africa, in the company of the President, in the days following the 6 July 2003 publication of Wilson's Op-Ed piece. (According to Time, Powell received the briefing, dated 10 June 2003, nearly a month later on 7 July 2003.)

The Wall Street Journal reported on 19 July 2005 that the briefing "made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared." Specifically, the briefing marked Valerie Wilson's name and CIA responsibilities as "snf", for "secret no foreign", meaning the information was so sensitive it could not be shared even with allied foreign security agencies such as Britain's MI6.

Although some legal pundits felt that Rove was unlikely to have been in violation of the narrowly-worded Intelligence Identities And Protection Act &mdash; in fact, the CIA's original "crimes report" submitted to Fitzgerald apparently did not mention the Act&mdash; many others argue that by compromising Valerie Plame's position, Rove may have broken one or more federal laws. According to John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist and former presidential counsel, Rove is likely to have violated Title 18, Section 641 of the United States Code, which prohibits the theft or conversion of government records for non-governmental use. In 2003, this law was successfully used to convict John Randel, a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, for leaking to the London media a name of someone that he believed the DEA was not paying enough attention to in a money laundering investigation (Lord Ashcroft). In a statement to Randel, United States District Court Judge Richard Story wrote, "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country." Having pled guilty, Randel's sentence was reduced from 500 years in a federal prison, to a year of imprisonment and three years of probation.

This may be seen by Bush's political opponents as setting precedent for the prosecution of similar leaks, and Karl Rove is likely to face greater consequences than Randel if indicted for violating Section 641. Whereas Randel leaked sensitive information about an individual whose name could be found in the DEA files, unlikely to affect the national security of the United States, it is argued that Rove may have leaked the identity of a CIA agent, an expert on weapons of mass destruction, at a time when the United States had gone to war based on the perceived threat from such weapons.

Fallout from the affair
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 debate over the damage caused by the leak, and the areas into which that damage may extend, particularly in relation to Plame's work with her cover company, Brewster Jennings & Associates. Legal filings by Independent Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald contain many pages blanked out for security reasons, leading some observers to speculate that Fitzgerald has pursued the extent to which national security was compromised by the actions of Rove and others.

While a preponderance of evidence to date appears to suggest that retaliation for Wilson's public contradiction of the Bush Administration claim (that Iraq had attempted to obtain enriched uranium) was the motive for the leak, another explanation holds that the leak was an attempt to sabotage an investigation into Saudi oil reserve (see peak oil).

Rove
Karl Christian Rove (born December 25, 1950 in Denver, Colorado) is an American political consultant, and U.S. President George W. Bush's senior advisor, chief political strategist, and deputy chief of staff in charge of policy.

Rove's election campaign clients include George W. Bush (2000 and 2004 U.S. president; 1994 Texas governor), George H. W. Bush (1992 U.S. president), John Ashcroft (1994 U.S. senate), William Clements, Jr. (1986 Texas governor), and Phil Gramm (1982 U.S. house).

advising many successful election campaigns for state and national offices. These include Republican George W. Bush's 1994 gubantorial race against incumbent Ann Richards, and both his presidential campaigns; Democrat Phil Gramm's 1981 bid

surprise win against Ann Richards in his

HW Bush 1980 campaign unsuccessful 1981 phil gramm 1986 clements repub. gubantorial victorious Ashcroft successful 1993 1992 h.w. bush pres. 1994 dubya bush gubantorial: successful against incumbent Ann Richards Dubya Bush 2000 and 2004 -- successful

Rove has been a frequent target of critics of the Bush administration, and is presently embroiled in controversy for possibly having revealed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame to at least one reporter, allegedly in retaliation for her husband's criticisms of the administration.

Bread Story
The Bread & Puppet Theater is a regular participant in New York's Village Halloween Parade, noted for its use of giant puppets. Bread and Puppet was first invited to march in the parade by puppeteer and director Jeanne Fleming when she took over the event.

In 2001, Bread & Puppet did not march in the parade. The Theater's plans that year included a presentation protesting the war in Afghanistan. The Halloween parade was to occur fifty days after and 1.5 miles away from the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. It was this event which precipitated the war Bread & Theater was protesting, and the company's "anti-war stance" reportedly "...already placed it at odds with some New Yorkers," according to Dan Bacalzo of TheatreMania.com. Other macabre elements in the parade were also retired by Fleming, and the parade didn't receive a final go-ahead to take place until October 25.

Elbow commented, "We certainly weren't saying 'Hooray for the terrorists.' We were saying, 'Look what you're doing to the people of Afghanistan.'"  An unattributed quote in that report — "What you're bringing, we don't want" — suggests it was the group's selection of material that was unwelcome, not the group itself; Fleming denies that they were "disinvited." Bacalzo's report did not make it clear how the decision was made, or who made it; the incident was included as secondary background material in a piece publicizing on upcoming B&P show.

Template for photo credits

 * Description: Subject
 * Year: [] or unknown, please add.
 * Photo credit: [photographer]
 * Download domain: www.blank.com
 * Download page: from: www.specificpage.com
 * Date of download: [date]
 * Permission granted by [name], [title] on [date] with [link].
 * Licensed under GFDL ver. 1.2
 * Used by permission.
 * License secured by: Wikipedian Paul Klenk via e-mail.

Suspicious Anon IPs

 * 24.53.123.144 on Dirty Jobs
 * 69.227.31.39 on Dirty Jobs
 * 68.123.204.81 Imdaking admitted it is him, on Ryan's page, and used for "block warnings" on mine. Removing Chriss P.'s comments from Imdaking's page. Revision of photo following Unike edit on Prison Break page.

Use of television
The film makes continued use of actual television clips throughout. These clips are part of the ambient visual and audio background, presented as a natural occurrence of a television being on in the room where the scene is taking place. The clips were chosen by Dianne Schroeder, and are referenced in the film credits as "Special Television Effects."

These clips are an essential element of the film, and one of its signature features. They provide a window into the mind of Chance, who knows nothing of the world outside the old man's home except from what he's learned on television.

A time-capsule of American culture. Broad references to American culture, from television and newspapers, adult and children's programming, products and services in many commericials, chrono like Fuzzbuster and the now famous "You can call me Ray," Budweiser commercial, athletics, weather, serious and frivolous music,

The film's opening shows an orchestra playing a famous work. It starts somber, growing in melodic intensity, with Chance blankly looking on. It seems to be setting the tone of the movie. Chance is fixed by it, sitting on the edge of his bed and moving intensely forward and back to its rhythm. Then he suddenly loses interest and changes the channel, to a cartoon of a dog in a jalopy non sequitur.

"I hear you're going to stop being my Super Cop Clobberer!" "Anyone who tries to stop him has got to be totally stupid!" "Stupid?" "Hey, Mambly, come baaack!" "Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck."

Sometimes the clips provide a humorous or ironic comment on the scene in which they occur. An example where a commercial seems to parallel the scene takes place early in the film. It is morning, and Chance visits the old man's room. The old man is lying dead in his bed, face ashen, and clearly deceased, his body covered with bedclothes up to his chest. Chance gives him a look, and tenderly touches his forehead, then sits on the edge of the bed with him. As he watches the television, a Sealy mattress commercial plays, showing a beautiful, vibrant woman in a nightgown lying on a mattress. The pitchman tells the viewer they're going to "feel so good it shows." Then the jingle lady sings, "It's a Sealy... Posturepedic morning! Yeah!"

The love-making scene makes a more blatant parallel, in which the character deliberately parallels the behavior he is seeing.

They are also used for their humorous appeal, such as when


 * Orchestral program.
 * Commercial, more offices than anywhere in Virgina, people treat you so nice."
 * Captain Kangaroo, "There're lots of animals in the barnyard. Want to go with the rooster to see them?'
 * Scene from Jezebel, "Keep in the shade, Alvin." "Yes, ma 'am."  "I won't have the horses standing in the sun. You hear me?  Stay in your seat."  "Yes, ma 'am."
 * News: "This morning, the President met in the Oval Office with foreign dignitaries and cultural exchange students from the Republic of China."
 * "The Price is Right" game show, "It's a new car!"
 * Sealy mattress commercial, "...feeling so good it shows. Because Posturepedic is designed in cooperation with leading orthopedic surgeons for no morning backache from sleeping on a too-soft mattress." "It's a Sealy Posturepedic morning!"
 * Sesame Street, "Friends? I have no friends." "Big Bird, we came to see you drive," with song, "Different People, Different Ways."
 * Lt. Mumbly cartoon, "I dare you to stop me in my Super Cop Clobberer." "Anybody who'd try to stop him has to be totally stupid."  "Stupid? Hey, Mumbly, come back. And make it snappy."
 * Basketball Jones cartoon, "I've got more moves than Ex-Lax!"
 * Get Smart, "Tell me, were you very close to Max?" "Are you kidding? We were inseparable."
 * Fuzzbuster commercial, "You wouldn't think of driving without your rear-view mirror. And yet some people still drive without a fuzz buster."
 * Quaker State Motor Oil.
 * Gatorade commercial, "Ever see athletes on TV chuggin' this stuff down? Ever wonder why?"
 * Yoga exercise program.
 * Love-making scene from ''The Thomas Crown Affair," featuring Faye Dunaway and Steve McQueen.
 * Local TV news broadcast "...snow that fell over the whole weekend, and the blizzard is one of the worst, as you can see, one of the worst in that city's history."
 * Documentary about a wheel-chair bound man who gets his Masters degree.
 * Bud Light's, "You can call me Ray" commercial.

Clips are also included which were made especially for the film and not taken from actual programs, sush as Chance's appearance on the Gary Burns Show, and the president (Jack Warden) appearing on television.

Categories
already in: parades, new york city culture


 * Masks
 * Death
 * Undead
 * Death diety
 * Death gods
 * Death godesses
 * Life
 * New York City
 * New York City history
 * New York City cultural history
 * New York City in popular culture
 * New York City neighborhoods
 * Holidays of the United States
 * 2001
 * Holidays
 * Costume design
 * Costume designers
 * Festivals by country
 * Festivals in the United States
 * Seasonal traditions
 * Seasons
 * Travel
 * Festivals in the United States
 * Gay and lesbian culture
 * Gay art
 * Gay artists
 * Gay villages
 * Halloween
 * Halloween traditions
 * Circuses
 * Circus performers
 * Circus skills
 * Equilibrists
 * Clown
 * Acrobatics
 * Mardi Gras
 * Street
 * Crime
 * Crime prevention (new needed)
 * Quality of life (new needed)
 * Drag queens
 * Neighborhood development (new needed)
 * Counterculture
 * Drama
 * Exoticism
 * Comedy
 * Visual arts
 * Pop culture
 * Neighborhoods
 * Puppets
 * Puppetry
 * Puppeteers
 * International broadcasting
 * Freedom
 * Freedom of expression
 * Censorship
 * Music
 * Audience
 * Paganism
 * Mythology
 * Legendary creatures
 * Moon myths
 * Anthropomorphism
 * Personifications of death
 * Metaphysics
 * Existentialism
 * Spirituality
 * Autumn
 * Cultural anthropology
 * Culture
 * Travel
 * Photography
 * Event lists
 * September 11, 2001 attacks
 * Manhattan
 * Manhattan neighborhoods
 * Night
 * Night photography
 * Photojournalism
 * Candid photography
 * Photo essay
 * Street light
 * Light
 * Photographs containing nudity
 * Images containing
 * Images of New York City, New York
 * Images of leisure
 * Images of art
 * Images of clothing
 * Images of people
 * Images of body parts
 * Community
 * Community organizers
 * Fantasy
 * Acting
 * Creativity
 * Shapeshifting in fiction
 * Fantasy creatures
 * Art
 * Stagecraft
 * Fashion design
 * Design
 * Designer
 * Manhattan community board 1 2 3 4 5
 * Streets in Manhattan
 * Role-playing

Terms of the new theme
On September 15, Fleming decided to set a new parade theme. It was only four days after the two jet-powered birds, wings turned vertical, flew into the towers and burst into flames. Although no one knew whether the event would take place, she commissioned a new lead puppet from the workshop of Superior Concept Monsters, one of the many puppet groups that participate in the event. Designer Sophia Machihelles and the puppet makers began their work.

Fifty days ago, the towers still rose high into the air. New Yorkers had watched two planes tilt their wingspans and fly into them, bursting into flames. They watched thousands die in the epic collapse, their bodies pulverized in fire, ashes and smoke.

Today, they watched the Phoenix -- the mythical bird that builds its nest, ignites into flames and dies. From its fiery, smoking ashes, a new, young bird springs to life, spreads its wings and rise into the air.

Smoke
Organizers believed the parade would give the city a much-needed emotional release, reform the community, and help it to begin the healing process. They felt that this was the most positive way they, as artists, could serve the city at such a desperate time. "This is the meaning of the Dancing Skeletons that always lead the march: they know better than anyone what they have lost, and so they dance this one night of the year to celebrate life,"  Fleming told CNN in an interview.

The tragedy, only 1.5 miles from the parade, presented Fleming with a challenge as a "celebration designer" — find an appropriate way for the parade to acknowledge the reality of the fiery collapse and the deaths it caused, one that would bring people hope and a reason to celebrate. She had to communicate this through ideas associated with a physical object, one that could be realized as an animated puppet.

By September 15, four days after the planes flew into the towers and burst into flames, Fleming had scrapped her plans and chosen a new theme. Although no one knew whether the parade would take place, she commissioned a new lead puppet from the workshop of Superior Concept Monsters, one of the many puppet groups that participate in the event. Designer Sophia Machihelles and her team began their work.

It was not until October 25 that the final go-ahead was given for the march. In light of the widely established community relationships which Fleming had cultivated, and the parade's long tradition, Mayor Rudy Giuliani insisted the event go on. However, the Dancing Skeletons were retired that year. It was felt that not everyone would understand their mythic significance.

Audiences lined Sixth Avenue on October 31 as they had before, and looked south towards Lower Manhattan to watch the oncoming parade. As they waited for their first glimpse of the new lead puppet, they saw smoke in the distance, rising from the "pile." It was visible from the entire parade route, through a new gap in the skyline where the towers had appeared in every preceding parade.

Then "The Phoenix", the mythical bird that rises up out of its own ashes, came into view. Fleming's new theme took shape in a fragile, incandescent, red-orange baby bird. The animated creation was mechanically configured to spread its wings and rise out of fiery ashes, represented by flickering lanterns lifted on poles, encircling the parading figure. "It was the first chance many New Yorkers had for a joyous mass gathering post 911, and to say to ourselves and the world, that we are still alive and kicking," wrote resident Alec Bennett.

---

And so, the theme of "The Phoenix", the bird that rise up out of its own ashes, was selected. A new lead puppet was commissioned from the workshop of Superior Concept Monsters, one of the many puppet groups that participate in the event. Designer Sophia Machihelles fashioned an animated, incandescent, red-orange baby bird. The creation was mechanically configured to spread its wings and rise out of fiery ashes, represented by flickering lanterns lifted on poles, encircling the parading figure.

Smoke effects were provided, but not from the puppet team. As onlookers faced south towards Lower Manhattan to watch the oncoming parade, they saw smoke in the background — visible from the entire route. It was rising through a large gap in the skyline, from the pile, exactly where the towers had appeared in every preceding parade.

Puppet Groups

 * Superior Concept Puppets

Reviews

 * Ministry O Info great crowd photo

http://www.newyorkcool.com/archives/November2004/nystories_1.html


 * New York Cool unbelievable photos
 * Dummies.com: Deciding When to Go to New York
 * photoserver by Carnaval.com last year alone hosting 17 international television crews and countless print media. A telephone link-up with Japanese Radio the night of the Parade relays the Parade Director's command "Let the Celebration Begin!" "the Parade has been praised for the role it plays in controlling crime in the Lower Manhattan area on a night which is dangerous and costly in all other parts of the City which don't have the large and happy crowd that attends the Parade. There is less crime the night of the Parade than on a typical night in Greenwich Village the rest of the year round."
 * New York Times Slide Show great slide show

Other New York City Halloween Events

 * Halloween is a Scream in New York City

Photo galleries

 * PhotoArts great photos
 * Zheng Martin more photos, some I used
 * Photo gallery, amateur
 * [ /]

Quotes

 * USA Today, A Year's Worth of New York: New Yorkers have elevated celebrating Halloween to an art form, and as in art, in the Greenwich Village Halloween parade absolutely anything goes. Stand along the Sixth Avenue route, from Spring Street to 21st Street, starting around 7 p.m. and be prepared to drop your jaw.
 * /Fodor's: Thousands of revelers, many in bizarre but brilliant costumes or manipulating huge puppets, march up 6th Avenue (from Spring to West 23rd streets) in the rowdy Greenwich Village Halloween Parade.
 * Frommers Halloween at its most outrageous. You may have heard Lou Reed singing about it on his classic album New York -- he wasn't exaggerating.
 * Improvised Growth, by Gregory Sandow "...Halloween is serious business in New York..."
 * Reason.com vagine, national tv


 * Ralph's Page
 * Omega

Ralph Lee
Ralph Lee is an Obie-award-winning mask and puppet maker living in New York City. In 1973, he staged a wandering neighborhood puppet show in Manhatan's Greenwich Village that would become the inspiration for New York's Village Halloween Parade, which continues to this day, now attracting audiences of two million.

Lee is the Artistic Director of Mettawee River Theatre Company, an experimental theatrical company which uses masks and pageant sized puppets in its productions. The company has won two design awards from the American Theatre Wing for The Popol Vuh Project and Wichikapache Goes Walking.

Each year, his company presents a children's puppet production of The Little Engine That Could at the New York Botanical Garden in the Bronx. Lee also produces a Halloween production at The Cathedral of St. John the Divine featuring his puppets.

Lee was motivated in part by a decrease in the celebration of the holiday, especially by children. This drop was attributed to the city's high crime rate, and stories spreading about tampered candy. Lee believed a puppet parade would create a sense of safety and attract neighborhood children back into New York's streets on Halloween. The event is now a model for city crime prevention.


 * Mettawee River Theatre Company
 * WNYC.org radio feature

Theater for the New City
Theater for the New City is

In 1975, it adopted an informal wandering neighborhood puppet show, started in 1973 by mask and puppet maker Ralph Lee, and staged it as a formal march as part of its "City in the Streets" program. Eight years later the parade was attracting audiences of 100,000. Today the parade is a Halloween fixture in Greenwich Village, and attracts audiences of two millions.

Superior Concept Monsters


Superior Concept Monsters is a producer and presenter of pageant puppetry and processional art in upstate New York. It was "born out of" New York's Village Halloween Parade, in which it is a regular participant. Its name is derived from the company's desire that the ideas, or "concepts" behind its monster puppets, are greater than, or "superior" to, the puppets themselves.

Its chief puppet designers, Alex Kahn and Sophia Michahelles, have received numerous awards for their work. Michahelles is the designer of the celebrated phoenix puppet presented in the 2001 Halloween parade as a response to the September 11, 2001 attack on New York.

Superior Concept Monsters presents workshops in pageant puppetry at the Omega Institute, and each year since 2002 it has hosted a puppetry workshop in Italy, in the Alpine village of Morinesio.

Sophia Michahelles
thumb|A twenty-foot caterpillar puppet spreads its wings to became a [[Luna Moth in the 1998 Halloween parade in New York's Greenwich Village.|right]]

Sophia Michahelles is one of the two chief artists and puppeteers of Superior Concept Monsters, makers of pageant puppets and other processional art in upstate New York. She works closely with co-chief designer Alex Kahn. Their work is regularly featured in New York's Village Halloween Parade, the largest parade of its kind in the United States, and in festivals in the U.S. and worldwide.

Many of Michahelles' giant rod puppets, known as pageant sized puppets, are lit from the inside, making them suitable for night parades. They are operated, or "articulated," by teams of puppeteers. For the 1998 Halloween parade, Sophia, Alex and their team designed and created twenty-foot high caterpillar puppets which transformed into giant Luna Moths. In 2001, as a response to the attack on the World Trade Center, Michahelles designed an incandescent baby phoenix puppet for the New York parade. It was designed to spread its wings and rise out a fire, represented by lanterns lifted on poles.

Michahelles and Kahn often work in collaboration with other master puppeteers, such as Basil Twist, Jeanne Fleming, Debbie Lee Cohen and others.

She also presents workshops in pageant puppetry at the Omega Institute, and, since 2002, in Italy.

Talk sandbox

 * Click on this special message   page if you are an admin, a heated debater, or a troublemaker.

Photo drive sandbox
GFDL Photo Drive For Wikipedia

GOAL: License a large number of new, high quality event photos into GFDL, based on the work of talented photographers, both both professionals and serious amateurs.

HIGH QUALITY: Beauty, composition, energy, color, human, story, high resolution, cropping, documenation.

SUBMISSIONS: Can license everything submitted, or submit and license desired selections. Summary submissions preferred.

DATA:
 * Photographer/copyright owner, if different.
 * Does Jeanne hold the copyright on everything?

INVITATION:
 * Ask help from Jeanne.
 * Consider getting license up front, ask what they sign, who is the owner, copyright, etc., and what they allow Jeanne to do.
 * Copyright in perpetuity, must be credited, link to site, still can sell the photos. Others can use it and sell it, must credit you, many make changes, your work in its original state is protected and so is you.

The event, all aspects:

People
 * Audience
 * Participant
 * Staff
 * Police
 * Marshalls
 * Media/Photographers
 * Children

Activity
 * Side street set up
 * Staging
 * Puppet line-up
 * Beginning
 * March
 * Interaction
 * Playing to the crowd
 * Leaving
 * Birthday
 * Travel
 * Police

Things
 * Costumes
 * Presentations
 * Acts
 * Puppet varieties
 * Floats
 * Barricades

Organizations

Creation

Yiddish sandbox
The schmendrik stands there and scratches his head wondering how this all came about, and the schlump doesn't care.

A shmendrick is small, short, weak, thin, a young *nebech*,

Words With Friends
culture articles and reviews
 * similarity to Scrabble
 * Copyright or agreements with Scrabble
 * date introduced
 * devices introduced
 * chess with friends
 * tile counts and values
 * problems with updating / criticisms
 * number of downloads; number of facebook club
 * links to newtoy, fb page, etc.
 * word list used; notes on word list copyrights
 * pictures
 * bingos
 * strategy