Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

I beat you all to it:

OMG you protected The Wrong Version! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Protected

...please work out content disputes here on the talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

clean slate

Good call, Hip. Obviously there are still valid discussions going on, so lets just reiterate some of our concerns here while trying to be civil. A note to BigDaddy, before you continue to "quote" Jimbo Wales, keep in mind the Reuters article you cite doesn't quote Wales as saying "impartial sources", those are the writer's words. I believe we can trust Wikipedia explicit policies over the interpretations of someone who doesn't even use Wikipedia. --kizzle 21:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if I could request that people who want to discuss certain passages here use this as a template, you don't have to but it makes things a helluva lot easier when this page gets cluttered up:

Also to BD: There is no such thing as a supervisor here. There are mediators and RFC's, but no supervisors. "Quotes" by Jimbo Wales are not necessarily policy, for official policies look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Derex 21:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the first thing is to remove those who INSIST on making personal attacks after being warned. Paul Klenk WARNED Ryan that calling my reasoned changes 'vandalism' was a personal attack, yet Ryan has done so since that warning two more times. He has also BLAMED ME PERSONALLY for this article being blocked from editing --"You have succeeded in driving this article single-handedly into an 'NPOV' tag and now, page protection - in short, you are disrupting Wikipedia"-- This is not only a personal attack, it's ridiculous since I didn't do the block, don't know how to do a black and was still trying to edit some pieces when the block was instituted. Bottom Line: We can't work on this cooperatively when obvious violations of the 'no personal attacks' rules are tolerated without consequence.

Quite simply, for the umpteenth time, it's not a personal attack. Your behavior here, on an article that has been relatively civil, has set the tone here... and your deletion without valid reason, followed by your revert warring to preserve your unjustified deletion from rightful reversion (which is one of the definitions of vandalism) caused the block. Will you take responsibility for your actions? -- RyanFreisling @ 22:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, we need to find out what Jimmy Wales meant when he said the articles should be supported with IMPARTIAL sources or if he really said that at all. This is a key issue for getting to the heart of what is and is not acceptable. In addition, I propose that every section that slams Karl Rove be balanced by some praiseworthy note of accomplishment. I can provide just as many positive facts as can his detractors provide negative, as they've so ably demonstrated their ability to do and fight anyone who dares question their particualar credulity.Big Daddy 21:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Reuters article you cite doesn't quote Wales as saying "impartial sources", those are the writer's words. I believe we can trust Wikipedia explicit policies over the interpretations of someone who doesn't even use Wikipedia.--kizzle 21:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Impartiality

I'm shocked and somewhat disturbed by all the advocates of what I can only characterize as 'sliming.'

Either Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia meant what he said when he was quoted as saying the articles must be backed by IMPARTIAL sources, or he was misquoted (and the burden is on those claiming that as no retraction has been made by CNN) or he is a liar trying to deceive the public that Wikipedia is something that it's not and that all you editors chiding me for bringing this up know it is not.

The Reuters article you cite doesn't quote Wales as saying "impartial sources", those are the writer's words. I believe we can trust Wikipedia explicit policies over the interpretations of someone who doesn't even use Wikipedia. --kizzle 22:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we would be better served by finding out, if Jimmy Wales said this and why so many in here disregard his admonition.

The Reuters article you cite doesn't quote Wales as saying "impartial sources", those are the writer's words. I believe we can trust Wikipedia explicit policies over the interpretations of someone who doesn't even use Wikipedia. --kizzle 22:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ps My personal feelings is that you cannot use partial sources and most people know that. For example if someone insisted, on using The Elders of Zion to trash Jews, they would be banned as they should be. But, when it serves the POV of certain editors, I believe they will conveniently defend the use of partial sources to trash people they don't like. Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so... Big Daddy 21:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we would be better served by adhering to Wikipedia's plainly delinated policies, and concentrating on resolving content disputes, instead of attempting to game the system. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just too funny. I'm appealing for IMPARTIALITY and quoting the FOUNDER and I'm accused of 'gaming the system.' I think that counts as not only an egregious personal attack and a violation of 'assume good faith' but really warrants an apology.Big Daddy 22:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Reuters article you cite doesn't quote Wales as saying "impartial sources", those are the writer's words. I believe we can trust Wikipedia explicit policies over the interpretations of someone who doesn't even use Wikipedia. --kizzle 22:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess to some, a 'blank slate' just means 'continue your erroneous arguments'. CNN does not equal policy. You know all this, but you seem unable to modify your argument accordingly... because it is a flawed argument. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Dangerously close to your third personal attack in three tries. Big Daddy 22:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Indeed - thanks Jimmy! Those looking for more on this particular content issue go here [1].

Push Poll

Passage:

According to the campaign manager of John McCain's 2000 presidential bid, a push poll was conducted during the 2000 South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7] Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement. The authors of the book Bush's Brain (also made into a movie)allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush. In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign." No proof of his direct involvement has ever surfaced.

---

Discussion:

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

BigDaddy keeps introducing the quote about the campaign managers not knowing specifically who made the calls as if its mutually exclusive to them believing Rove was ultimately behind the idea. I don't believe such a point is worthwhile to include, as it does no such thing and thus is tertiary. --kizzle 21:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but he was given the opportunity, in a grand forum, to report SPECIFICALLY on what he believed about this incident and SPECIFICALLY said 'he doesn't know.' I'm sorry but that's as definitive as it gets, unless you simply want to put words in someone's mouth.Big Daddy 21:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

At the same time, there are just way too many sources about the push poll. Pick the best one. The initial insertion was a bit WP:POINT. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Amen, I believe the Boston Globe is the most reliable out of the bunch. --kizzle 21:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The sources were added to demonstrate that BD's argument for his repeated deletions - that this was the work of one author (that of the piece 'Bush's Hit Man') - was false. I see no reason to keep any but the Globe, since they are widely known to have 'broken' the story. I don't see it as WP:POINT when done to refute an erroneous excuse for vandalism. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so you added them? Thanks. Good to know. The problem with the sources is that one is a book review of Al Franken's hate screed (not even close to an impartial source) and a couple of them didn't even MENTION Karl Rove. Secondly, you mischaracterized my objection. I do object to the use of Bush's hit man as it's not only biased but because it offers no proof. Now some argue we should just vomit up all the slime we can on Rove and whatever sticks...sticks, and whatever can be refuted, ought to be. I say there comes a point where we are better served by just not including certain things where there is no proof. Especially in this article where there's a BUNCH of proof-less assertions (like him bugging his own office for example.)

Finally, let the record show that although Paul Klenk warned ryan that her use of the word vandalism in my thoughtful edits was a personal attack that she continues to use them, interspersed with other personal attacks, for the third time now. I wonder how this will be handled by Wik supervisors...er...mediators...Big Daddy 22:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to any assistance they might provide - but my use of the term, and my communication to you, despite your constant personal attacks, does not constitute a personal attack, despite what you erroneously call a 'warning' by another user. And your threats and protestations continue... good thing they're so entertaining! -- RyanFreisling @ 22:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I propose:

First choice: DELETION.

Second choice: Until I can be backed up on my first choice:

According to the campaign manager of John McCain's 2000 presidential bid, a push poll was conducted during the 2000 South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". [8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13] Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement. The authors of the book Bush's Brain (also made into a movie) that many critics say was created 'to make Rove look bad'allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush. In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign." In an editorial published in the Boston Globe, McCain's campaign manager said "Insert the quote here where he said he didn't know who where or for how long."

No, to either of your "choices". Your quote: "We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made." Is Purposely taken out of context. The context is: "Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign." [14] You are purposely taking that quote out of context to try and invalidate the testimony of Richard H. Davis, McCain's former campaign manager. 69.121.133.154 22:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, what 'context' are you FALSELY accusing me of taking it out of. The man said he didn't know who did it. Period. Any INSERTION of Karl Rove into this mess is at the whim of the editor. Secondly you are in strict violation of 'assume good faith' as this impugns my motives. Big Daddy 22:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute. In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as "suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute," according to the New Yorker. (New Yorker, 5/12/03)

• After Rove Denied Role In McCain Whisper Campaign, Reporters Concluded He Was Behind It. A December 1999 Dallas Morning News linked Rove to a series of campaign dirty tricks, including his College Republican efforts, allegedly starting a whisper campaign about Ann Richard being too gay-friendly, spreading stories about Jim Hightower's involvement in a kickback scheme and leaking the educational history of Lena Guerrero. The article also outlined current dirty tricks and whisper campaigns against McCain in South Carolina, including that "McCain may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam." (DMN, 12/2/99) After the article was published, Rove blasted Slater in the Manchester, NH airport, "nose to nose" according to one witness, with Rove claiming Slater had "harmed his reputation," Slater later noted. But according to one witness, "What was interesting then is that everyone on the campaign charter concluded that Rove was responsible for rumors about McCain." (The Nation, 3/5/01)

• Bush Campaign Acknowledged Making Phone Calls. Tucker Eskew, Bush's South Carolina spokesman, acknowledged the Bush campaign made such calls, but claimed they were not "push polls." Eskew added, "Show me a baseless comment in those questions." (Post and Courier, 2/8/00)

• Rove Was In Close Touch With McConnell, McCain-Feingold's Chief Opponent. Senior White House adviser Karl Rove was in close contact with Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during McConnell's effort to fight the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill in the U.S. Senate. According to Newsweek, though Rove and Bush have publicly kept their distance from McConnell on the issue, "sources tell Newsweek that Rove is, in fact, in close touch with McConnell as GOP experts study the bill for hidden land mines." (Newsweek, 2/25/02)

And here's some fun ones for the kids!!

• Bush Supporters Called McCain "The Fag Candidate." In South Carolina, Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain "the fag candidate." Columnist Frank Rich noted that the fliers were distributed "even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn't hire openly gay people for his administration." (Washington Post, 2/18/00; Rich op-ed, Austin American-Statesman, 2/29/00)

• McCain Slurs Included Illegitimate Children, Homosexuality And A Drug-Addict Wife. Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict." (Ivins column, The Nation, 6/18/01)

--kizzle 22:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide the LINKS to articles where Karl Rove is SPECIFICALLY mentioned as being behind the McCain incident? You've proven your quite able to collect a lot of garbage on rove but a lot of these excerpts either don't mention rove or (in the only legit looking source Newsweek) don't mention McCain. Please try and PROVIDE specific proof for this false allegation that McCain's manager who knows says was done anonymously. Ps It seems to me this non-stop barrage of articles from those who disagree with my position that PROVE NOTHING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER suggests their argument is quite weak. OTOH, I have the facts to back me up. Not slime inneundo and extraneous garbage collecting. Just provide me one IMPARTIAL source who says KARL ROVE was directly involved in the push polling. 'All the way at the top' from a low ranking McCain official does not count as it mentions no names and is jut an opinion backed up by nothing and contradicted by the campaign manager who, while not being impartial himself, at least admitted he just doesn't know. Big Daddy 22:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing, thought you saw it above but I'll repeat it:

Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute. In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as "suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute," according to the New Yorker. (New Yorker, 5/12/03)

:) --kizzle 22:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'd like to see the link please. I'd like to see who in the New Yorker wrote this and in what context it was written. Thanks again, if this checks out, it could be useful. However, if this piece turns out to be something else it will be discrediting. Let's just take a look, shall we? Big Daddy 22:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if there is one... we can still attribute to the New Yorker, if you or anyone else has lexis-nexis, it'd be much appreciated to analyze the article. Until then, I think this serves your purpose. Keep in mind, even if the campaign manager didn't say it, an entire movie and book (both of which satisfy Wikipedia policy as notable sources) was made alleging Rove was behind it, which is enough to warrant the passage's inclusion in this article. --kizzle 22:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast...I did a little research. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you pull this information from the DSSC site (Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee) whose stated purpose is 'electing a Democratic senate'?? Here is the link: http://www.dscc.org/news/roundup/20050708_steele/ The Rove/Mccain reference looks an awful like what you dredged up...

... An AWFUL lot...lol!

Ps Get the article in question so I, and others, can have a look, or no dice. Bush's Brain is no more a credible source than the Clinton Chronicles or The Elders of Zion. Critics say Bush's Brain was created 'to make karl rove look bad.' Not Impartial which I still maintain is the policy not simply 'notable' but I'm getting a clarification on that from someone way high up in Wik as we speak...Big Daddy 22:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Much as you might wish it were so, Wikipedia is not an authoritarian state. There is no one 'way high up' in Wikipedia that wouldn't make themselves known here. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You know that blogcritic article you linked, it was reviewed by some random chick named "El Bicho" who just has a blogspot page... apparently you don't hold movie reviews to the same standards of notability as your other edits. As for impartiality, first of all, the Reuters article does not "quote" Jimbo Wales as saying "impartial sources", those are the writer's words. Secondly, if you maintain that policy dictates usage of only "impartial" sources, then go to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, and Wikipedia:Cite_sources and do a word-search in your browser for "impartial"... tell me how many results you get. To actually quote Wikipedia policy:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
• find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion.

--kizzle 23:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle,

In deference to Ryan's admonition, I'll try not to be so 'authoritarian' lol! Now what blogcritic link are you referring to? The movie review of Bush's Brain? Please be more specific.

As to the point of Wikipedia's threshold - I understand that it's verifiability, not truth. That's not my point.

My point is, as Katefan I think pointed out, you can't just edit the article to say rove is a cross dresser because some guy in a blog posted it. But that's verifiable.

So, it's more than just verifiability. It does ultimately go, as Jimmy Wales says (and for all your protestations that he didn't necessarily say that, why not contact Wik directly and find out if he did, or are you afraid to know? hmmm...) to IMPARTIALITY. We don't have an encyclopedia if it's not fair balanced and impartial.

Now impartial does NOT mean you can't quote the Nation or The Wall Street Journal. But pieces like Bush's Brain and Bush's Hit Man are not legit because they're obvious motive is to smear Rove without regard for balance. So, even if the New England Journal of Medicine published 'Bush's hit man' it would not be acceptable due to bias problems.

Finally, I'm sure if you go to liberal commentators's articles you will find no such debate. What Rush Limbaugh said about Al Franken is not gonna be in the Al Franken article even though it's clearly both notable and verifiable...Big Daddy 23:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Reuters article you cite doesn't quote Wales as saying "impartial sources", those are the writer's words. So I'm not sure if he has said it some other time, but the link you provided didn't contain the quote you are attempting to attribute to Wales. And read the second bullet point, I am quoting a notable opinion as per Wikipedia policies. --kizzle 22:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, we are an agreement that it is more than just verifiability. But if the threshold is impartiality, how come "impartial" doesn't show up once in Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, and Wikipedia:Cite_sources? It's notable and reputable sources, not necessarily impartial sources. --kizzle 00:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

As of August 22, Republican senators...

There is a line in the section about Congressional reaction to Rove that lists a litany of slams from democratic congressman but the only thing it says about republicans is something to the effect that no one has challenged his standing.

But Republicans have had a lot to say about Rove/Plame. I'm wondering why it's missing in here? Could it be EVEN MORE PROOF that there was a liberal tilt to this article before I got here? Well, if you need some information about what Republicans think of plame/rove, here you go:

publican Senators Defend Karl Rove:

NRSC Chairwoman Elizabeth Dole (R-NC): “The Partisan Attacks Against Karl Rove Are Out Of Control And Entirely Inappropriate..” (National Republican Senatorial Committee, “Elizabeth Dole Statement On Karl Rove,” Press Release, 7/13/05)

Dole: “It Is Incredibly Irresponsible For Individuals And Organizations To Make Accusations Based On Rumor And Innuendo. It Is Unfair To The Investigation And Even More Unfair To Karl Rove.” (National Republican Senatorial Committee, “Elizabeth Dole Statement On Karl Rove,” Press Release, 7/13/05)

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN): “My Democratic Friends Would Be Doing The Nation A Great Service If They Spent Half As Much Time Getting Legislation Passed That Will Benefit The Country As They Do In Attacking Karl Rove.” (Sen. Norm Coleman, Press Release, 7/13/05)

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT): “In All Honesty, The Facts Thus Far – And The E-Mail Involved – Indicate To Me That There Is Not A Problem Here…” (Jim VandeHei, “GOP On Offense In Defense Of Rove,” The Washington Post, 7/13/05)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “If Anyone Thought The Anger And Political Sniping That Infested The Capital During The Campaign Would End After The Election, They Were Flat Wrong. Partisan Attacks In Lieu Of The Facts Have Replaced Ideas, Action And Cooperation.” (Sen. John Cornyn, “Attacks On Rove ‘More Anger And Political Sniping,’” Press Release, 7/13/05)

Cornyn: “Sadly, These Attacks Are More Of The Same Kind Of Anger And Lashing Out That Has Become The Substitute For Bipartisan Action And Progress. While Republicans Focus On Accomplishing An Ambitious Agenda For The American People, Some Democrats And Their Allies In The Hyper-Partisan Interest Groups Continue On Their Path Of Smear And Distract.” (Sen. John Cornyn, “Attacks On Rove ‘More Anger And Political Sniping,’” Press Release, 7/13/05)

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “I Support Karl Rove.” (Tom Raum, “Newsview: CIA Leak Probe Focuses On Rove,” The Associated Press, 7/13/05)

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): “It’s Disappointing That Some Democrats Are Using An Ongoing Investigation To Try And Score Political Points. Instead Of Focusing On The People’s Business, Democrats Are Prejudging An Incomplete Investigation And Doing Nothing More Than Mounting Partisan Political Attacks.” (Sen. Jeff Sessions, “Statement Of U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions On Karl Rove,” 7/13/05)

Republican Congressmen Defend Karl Rove:

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO): “Karl Rove Has Fully Cooperated In Any Investigation, And For More Than A Year Now Has Permitted Investigators To Talk To Him.” (Rep. Roy Blunt, Floor Statement, U.S. House Of Representatives, 7/13/05)

House Republican Conference Chair Deborah Pryce (R-OH):” I Think What The Democrats Are Doing With Karl Rove Is Just Another Politically Motivated Part Of Their Agenda.” (CNN’s “Wolf Blitzer Reports,” 7/13/05)

NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-NY): “The Extreme Left Is Once Again Attempting To Define The Modern Democrat Party By Rabid Partisan Attacks, Character Assassination And Endless Negativity. And As Has Become Their Custom, The Rest Of The Democrat Party Is Standing By Silently.” (National Republican Congressional Committee, “NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds Statement On Karl Rove, Democrat Partisan Attacks,” Press Release, 7/13/05)

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

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA): “Karl Rove Is Just The Latest In A Long Line Of Targets For The Democrats Vitriol And Political Games. The American People Want To Know How Congress Is Going To Keep The Economy Growing, Lower Energy Prices And Keep Them Secure At Home.” (Rep. Eric Cantor, “Cantor Statement on Democrat Attacks On Karl Rove,” Press Release, 7/13/05)

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): “Karl Rove Who Did Not Even Know This Woman’s Name Did Not Have Any Information Of Her Acting In Any Covert Manner. It Is Just Silly.” (“Fox News’, “Fox News Live,” 7/13/05)

Kingston: “The Democrats Are Absent On Issues Such As Social Security, They Are Ambivalent About Iraq To Begin With And They’re Throwing Up One More Smoke Screen Aimed At Karl Rove Who They’re Mad At.” (“Fox News’, “Fox News Live,” 7/13/05)

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX): “This Is Typical Of The Democrats. They Smell Blood And They Act Like Sharks. Karl Rove Is A Good Man. He Was Doing His Job. He Was Trying To Talk A Reporter Out Of Filing A False Story Based Upon False Premise. I Don’t See That He Has Done Anything Wrong.” (Fox News’ “Studio B,” 7/13/05)

Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX): “He Knew Then That Much Of What Joe Wilson Was Saying Was Untrue. The Calls For Mr. Rove’s Resignation Are Simply Partisan Gamesmanship.” (Rep. Kay Granger, “Congresswoman Granger Calls Democrat Attacks On Rove Partisan Gamesmanship,” Press Release, 7/13/05)

AND NOT ONE of these Congress people are quoted in the article. Wow!, huh.Big Daddy 23:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy, you've made your point. Now you need to do the work to move this material into the article. paul klenk 00:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Gladly. 68.40.151.220 02:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC) (Big Daddy)

5RR on Karl Rove by RyanFreisling

The section heading above has been changed back to its original wording. It was changed by another editor [15]. This edit negates the original meaning of the author; it makes an assertion not intended by the author; and thus violates policy (Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism "Changing people's comments: Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning"). I ask your forgiveness in advance if this change seems to open up wounds, but that is not my intent. I would like my own words left intact before this discussion is archived, and kept that way in the archive. I also apologize for not doing it earlier, but it took place during an edit war which I did not want to fuel with a revert. paul klenk 02:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely refute this, but will leave the title as is in the interests of focusing on the article content. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan, for focusing on content; your spirit will benefit this page. I look forward to reading your refutation (you may do so on my talk page, instead of this one.) paul klenk 02:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This matter is closed. I will not participate in any additional discussion about a closed and inconclusive incident report. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have reported Ryan's 5RR on the main page in less than 19 hours. She hides her reverts behind false accusations of "vandalism". Some of us dispute the glut of negative content on the page. Trimming this content does not meet WP's definition of vandalism.

All five of Ryan's reverts were accompanied by their own accusations of POV, bad faith, vandalism, lack of exercise in writing skill, etc. I believe my report is fully justified.

You can read my report at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. I believe it speaks for itself.

paul klenk 03:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! So that's who was removing my clearly discussed and reasonable edits designed to bring this article more in line with Wik's philosophy of nPOV. Good work, Paul. 68.40.151.220 05:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)(Big Daddy)

The admins and other users wisely concluded there was no violation, and no block, nor warning was issued in response to this false report. -- RyanFreisling @ 09:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, the apology you have demanded on the Incident page will not be forthcoming. I fully reviewed the five edits in question, carefully weighed them, reviewed the definitions of 3RR and vandalism. I then made a conclusion, and I stand behind it. Further, please note that I never once asked for you to be blocked or punished; however, the reasons given for not blocking you were because the page was already protected and thus the edit war, caused in part by your five "undoings" of others, was over. Even katefan0 said you were being naughty.

My comments on your talk page stand. I believe that you are exhibiting almost every bad behavior that you are feverishly accusing BigDaddy777 of exhibiting. He is a new user. You are not. I get no pleasure from pointing this out; it truly sickens me.

You seem to take a lot of stock in getting a group to agree with you. The first thing you did was march in and claim victory, without going over the facts and without addressing my arguments. That will only get you so far. I carefully and precisely argued my case, point by point, to the entire group at the Incident page who were discussing the matter. Then I was chastised for doing so. You haven't answered my points. I believe I won the argument on the facts, and you won the argument on being given the benefit of the doubt with a very shaky case, and the fact that BigDaddy777 was an easy target for you.

But perhaps it will not be so easy for you in the future to bully people into silence while you undo their edits with accusations of vandalism, POV, bad faith, etc. We don't all owe you an explanation for every edit we make, and we don't need your permission in advance to make them. It is the ugliness in such demands that we do that I object to the most. paul klenk 10:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Demanded? Please. You reported me falsely - I committed no 5RR. But you felt you had to report me, and you were clearly told by numerous editors, with whom I had no discussion, that I had not committed any violation. You apologized to them for your appalling conduct, but you cannot apologize to me - is such a simple courtesy beyond you? It is actually quite satisfying to know you cannot. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I must insist that you stop suggesting that there has been some judgment rendered in your favor here in terms of Paul's report. Noone has exonerated you (similarly, noone has judged you guilty). Myself and Dmcdevit have simply said that a block is not needed because the page is already protected. I will ask you to please stop misrepresenting this situation. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry - I only meant to indicate that there had been no proven violation on my part... and to illustrate that Paul refused to apologize to me, although he apologized to you and the other admins and posters there. I was unaware I was 'misrepresenting' the situation. Frankly, I don't believe I am, but I will leave it alone if the bringer of the report will. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I apologized for was getting Dmcdevit all riled up, simply because I was discussing the issue. He was mad; I apologized to calm him down -- you don't want to get an admin mad. That's it. I didn't apologize for reporting you, because I was justified and I will do it again and again. I will never apologize for reporting bad behavior. Now that I've identified your bullying tactics, I can encourage others to keep on eye your M.O. This is your M.O.:

You bully people. You stomp on their edits with lightning speed, quickly undoing them, and then leave an accusatory remark in the edit summary. You make them feel like they have to clear their edits with you before making them, which they don't. This is a demoralizing tactic to make your victim feel like a bad editor and put them on the defensive. Sometimes you accuse them of "POV", sometimes "vandalism", sometimes "bad faith," sometimes you just say, "not valid". Your accusations are ugly. You can't hide from your history, Ryan. You did this five times in less than 19 hours. Everyone can look for themselves.

I am not saying you can never undo another editor's actions, or undo the deletion of a disputed text. What you cannot do, is undo an action, an edit, an addition, or a deletion, of another editor more than three times in less than 24 hours, and then cover it up with a false accusation of vandalism. You did it yesterday five times.

BigDaddy and others are entitled to remove excessive or disputed text without being accused of vandalism. Please don't do that again.

And please don't blank my comments on this page, like you did on your talk page, calling them "complete bullshit" -- your words, not mine -- in the edit summary. I find that offensive. Now I will put it to rest if you will... paul klenk 19:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I can delete the contents of my talk page if I find them offensive. I will remain consistent to my behavior - borne out in the page history - of not returning your litany of (now-renewed) personal attacks. The edits in question were completely unsubstantiated removals of text without valid reason - and thus inappropriate, and I reverted them for the right reasons. At the same time, I continued observing all the relevant guidelines for personal conduct. I am civil and cordial, and I do not bully - I reject that personal attack.

In addition, you continue to fundamentally misinterpret 3RR, so any additional 3RR complaints against me by you based on your faulty understanding will likely have a similar outcome. I suggest you concentrate on the article content, and not trumping up false reports of nonexistent violations. Plain and simple - there was no violation of the 3RR on my part - your assertions notwithstanding. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[Back to the left margin]

Ryan, you said:

"The edits in question were completely unsubstantiated removals of text without valid reason - and thus inappropriate, and I reverted them for the right reasons."

With respect, Ryan, you are entitled and allowed to undo those removals of text -- you can defend them with your reasons, the validity of which people can judge for themselves. You can undo the actions of another. That is allowed.

What you cannot do is "undo" actions more than three times in 24 hours -- even if you "think" they're justified. You did it five times in less than 19. What you cannot do is falsely accuse someone of "vandalism" to justify your reverts, because you don't "like" it when they trim away what they deem to be excessively POV or excessively negative. I know the rules.

I encourage others to review the five reverts. I also encourage others to review the edit history of Ryan's talk page and decide for themselves the spirit of my comments and the spirit of Ryan's blanking them. paul klenk 20:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The 3rr incident report is closed - no block was issued - please stop. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing in Good Faith

Kizzle,

I think what's missing here is what lawyers sometimes call 'prosecutorial judgment.' We both agree conceptually with the notion of verifiability but not to the exclusion of other considerations.

What I can't make plain enough is that the days of the Karl Rove article being nothing more than a litany of unsubstantiated hit pieces is over. I and others will go in, re-work it so it reads like a LEGITIMATE encyclopedic article noting his many accomplishment. It will include controversies such as Plame etc but they will be undergirded by IMPARTIAL sources. All this far left wing nonesense has no place in this article. Bush's Brain, Bush's hit man, Bush's Goebbel...etc are not IMPARTIAL sources. You can go around the world as often as you like regarding what Wik's founder 'said' vs 'what CNN said he said' or whatever...Wikipedia WILL be an IMPARTIAL source of information. And to those of you hiding behind YOUR interpretation of the rules to defend the use of these SLANDER pieces...your not gonna get too far with that either. This will be a fair and honest resource. Big Daddy 06:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

May I ask what you consider an "impartial" source? · Katefan0^(scribble) 07:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Gone for the weekend. Have fun everybody. I'll be back soon to make sure this article is EXEMPLARY in fulfilling founder Jimmy Wales vision of an IMPARTIAL trustworthy encyclopedia that everyone will be proud of. I also will bone up on my rules so that I'll know the difference between being in violation of them and being FALSELY accused of being in violation of them in order to suppress my legitimate contribution.

Remember, just because someone starts a rumor about Karl Rove, and a bunch of partisans bounce it around in their paraochial echo chamber, it does NOT mean it's encyclopedic-worthy. It should always be the case, but ESPECIALLY in this article, where the subject has been so unfairly and incessantly ABUSED by entries that are no more than partisan whispers, that we all be extra-judicious in scrutinizing the partiality of supporting sources.

Ultimately sources must be examined on a case by case basis. But I can tell you an article CHOCK full of references (and in some cases sections ONLY supported by references) from articles like 'Bush's Hit Man', or deliberate slam pieces, like 'Bush's Brain', or articles that start out 'Karl Rove is Bush's Goebbels...' are not impartial. All source material for controversial assertions should have ACTIVE LINKS that can be examined by everybody for their lack or presence of partiality. It's true that, in controversial matters, almost everybody has a 'side' and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. But for too long, as has now been exposed by the EXCELLENT detective work of our esteemed collegue Paul Klenk, this article has literally been HELD HOSTAGE to those who capriciously and willfully ignore how fundamentally unfair and ignobly this subject has been treated, even to the point of violating the most basic rules of Wiki, in order to preserve their own territorial and partisan hegemony.Big Daddy 13:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but what exactly is an impartial source? I'm just asking for an example. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

BD's rant is nonsense. He is under the delusion that all Wiki editors who disagree with him are "liberals." Check his profile page for verification of that. It's pure projection on his part, as he would like to build a devotional altar to Karl Rove, full of information only he agrees with. Well, it's not gonna work. BD has been RFC'd, and it's a telling page. It's also a page where he, quite cowardly, has chosen not to comment. When this page is unblocked, objective Wiki editors will continue to edit the article in good faith. I recommend BD be ignored, as his rants are nothing more than trolling. Please watch his edits; they are almost exclusively POV. BD, get this straight: any POV edits you make will be reverted, and and nPOV edits you delete will be restored. Now, go to your RFC page and defend yourself, if you can.

Impartial sources and the Killian documents

This article formerly had a perfectly NPOV account of the allegations against Rove about the Killian documents. Someone deleted the sentence reporting Rove’s denial, then someone else deleted the rest of the passage. The issue is notable because it was raised by prominent opponents of Rove, such as Congressmember Hinchey. There are impartial sources documenting that Hinchey made the accusation and that Rove denied it. We don't need to wait for a criminal conviction before reporting something like this. I suggest this language:

A few months after the controversy over the Killian documents during the 2004 campaign, it was suggested (by Representative Maurice Hinchey, among others) that Rove might have planted fake anti-Bush documents with CBS News. Allegedly, his motivation would have been the hope that CBS would rush to report the story with unverified documents, thereby deflecting attention from Bush's avoidance of military service during the Vietnam War. [16] Rove has denied that he had any involvement. [17]

When the page is unprotected, this item should be restored. JamesMLane 13:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that LAST thing this article needs is more paranoid delusional Rove = Boogeyman entries. I'm trying to get rid of the UNSUBSTANTIATED ones already here! This is not a place to put all this garbage even if Rove's denial is included. It becomes a farce (Democratic Senator sasy Rove is BigFoot but Rove denies it in the Washington times....Leading critic says Rove wears his mother's army boots, but Fox News Bill O'Reilly denies....Please!(Big Daddy on the road)

Sorry, but your argument is inconsistent with the NPOV policy. The issue isn't whether a particular charge against Rove is true. Similarly, the issue isn't whether it's paranoid, delusional, substantiated, unsubstantiated, garbage, etc. The issue is whether it's notable. We certainly shouldn't report disputed points as being true, but if they're properly attributed, that's different. We make a truthful statement that a particular named person or source said thus-and-such about Rove.

If a Democratic Senator said that Rove were Bigfoot, yes, that should be included in this article. It would be a very telling illustration of Democrats treating Rove as a bogeyman. Some people will read the Hinchey comment in the same vein. A criticism by some random blogger somewhere wouldn't need to be mentioned. We report disputed allegations, such as the charge of cheating leveled against bridge player Terence Reese, and even the bit about Richard Gere and the gerbil. JamesMLane 00:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, no encyclopedia would be complete without the Richard Gere gerbil story! Keep in mind, if what you say is true, and this article is allowed to remain as what I've called a virtual dumping ground for allegations from every paranoid delusional Rove-hater on the left (as long as they can find a 'notable' source to prop them up), then I feel, to make it fair and balanced, EVERY 'allegation' should be countered. I've got plenty of verifiable quotes from notable sources. That whole scenario seems silly to me: 1) Find someone who will allege a wild charge. 2) Find someone who will denounce it. 3) Quote them both. But,if that's how Wik does it, then...I'm all in. Big Daddy (on the road)

That's the point, not every allegation "from every paranoid delusional Rove-hater on the left" is put here, only notable opinions on the matter. On a side note, I am highly curious as to your definition of impartiality, because if that was the criteria, I would think Karl Rove would be the very antithesis of impartiality due to his personal involvement in the case. --kizzle 18:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with kizzle. Our problem is that we can't adopt either of the nice, easy, simplistic solutions -- including every allegation, from whatever source, or including no uncertain allegations (what would be acceptable? a court ruling?). This isn't a left vs. right thing. We have a whole daughter article about the allegation from paranoid delusional Kerry-haters on the right who claim that there was something fishy about Kerry's Vietnam medals.

Because we can't adopt either simple solution, we have to exercise some judgment. The point of NPOV is that "judgment" doesn't mean our personal opinions of whether the allegation is true, or well-founded, or whatever. It means our best good-faith attempt to assess, in a nonpartisan way, whether the allegation is objectively notable. A Democratic member of Congress making a charge like this is notable. Some crackpot posting delusional ravings about Rove on his website isn't. So, "Find someone who will allege a wild charge" isn't the Wikipedia approach -- nor is "Report only charges that have been established to be true beyond any shadow of doubt." JamesMLane 05:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to content

All -- I know things have gotten a little heated, and some mud has been thrown on both sides. I would encourage everybody to try to set personal stuff aside and concentrate on resolving content disputes instead of demagoguing. The article won't be unprotected until some agreements are made about the pertinent content disputes. But that won't happen until the noise-to-signal ratio on this talk page narrows considerably. (And this is intended for everybody -- both sides need to refocus their attention on resolving content disputes.)

Push Poll

Passage:

According to the campaign manager of John McCain's 2000 presidential bid, a push poll was conducted during the 2000 South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". [18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23] Since McCain was campaigning with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, an image quickly gathered around that statement. The authors of the book Bush's Brain (also made into a movie)allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his intimate role as campaign advisor to Bush. In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign." No proof of his direct involvement has ever surfaced.

---

Discussion:

Has there been a consensus achieved on this passage? · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no...as I've repeatedly stated there are numerous problems with this section. The supporting 'sources' include an Al Franken book review, a Cal Berkley school paper op ed starting with "Well found rumor has it...", an obscure left wing editorial endorsing John Kerry for President and at least one source that FAILS to even mention Rove. I, in good faith, assume you did not look at these sources because I can't imagine anyone insulting our collective

intelligence with a suggestion that this section has been agreed to. Perhaps you were just asking where we were on that. I hope this answers your question.

To the greater question however, this article DOES NOT need pieces like this. There is no proof, the man who is most likely to know says it was anonymous sources. The (relatively) low level McCain operative does not specifically finger Rove. He said the top which I could infer to mean Bush, Cheney, Hughes or Rove. Besides his finger pointing is trumped by the campaign director (see footnote from Boston Globe) who says 'he doesn't know.' Now, in a bit of tortured logic only a pretzel could appreciate, it has been argued that he doesn't know doesn't mean he doesn't know but really means that Rove did it! lol!

Bottom line, I object to it's inclusion unless someone can come up with something more solid than a clip from Bush's Brain hit piece that STILL doesn't mention Rove. And, since I'm gone this weekend, I just happened to check this on the road, understand that on Monday when I return, I won't have changed my mind about this or any other comments made about my serious concerns regarding the POV of this article. I don't expect Wik to stop running when I'm gone. I'm merely pointing out if people plan on agreeing that there's a concensus, knowing full well my objections, there won't be a concensus come Monday. Please understand that ALL these UNSUBSTANTIATED rumors (which is what they are no matter how much they resonate in the echo chambers of democratic party headquarters)are not acceptable for an encyclopedia entry. For a better idea of how Rove should be treated, go to Hillary Clinton's article. It's not all positive but it's fair. One editor even suggested to another that, if they didn't like Hillary, they should find another article to edit. Can you imagine if that policy were adopte here? lol!! I'd have to do just about all the work myself!

(Big Daddy on the road. )

Ps. I'm just asking for fairness.

Misunderstandings of Policy

Sigh... please listen to what I'm saying BigDaddy.

• The Reuters article you cite doesn't quote Wales as saying "impartial sources", those are the writer's words. I believe we can trust Wikipedia explicit policy over the interpretations of someone who doesn't even use Wikipedia. So I'm not sure if he has said it some other time, but the link you provided didn't contain the quote you are attempting to attribute to Wales. Until you provide a source, please stop attributing this claim of using impartiality as a threshold for sources to Wales.

• We are an agreement that it is more than just verifiability. But if the threshold is impartiality, how come "impartial" doesn't show up once in Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, and Wikipedia:Cite_sources? It's notable, reputable, and verifiable sources, not necessarily impartial sources.

--kizzle 00:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are in essence arguing that Wikipedia can have articles filled with partial, biased sources so long at they are notable, reputable, and verifiable. And this does stand in contradistinction to Wales public pronouncements which he has not asked to be corrected. I am getting a clarification on this but in the meantime, do you really want to call Jimmy Wales a liar (for promoting Wik as a place where impartial sources are de rigeur when they in actuality are not. Or incompetent for not forcing CNN to correct this 'misrepresentation'?

My take on the matter is that it will ultimately be shown that impartiality is an absolute hallmark of Wikipedia. But, in the 'be careful what you wish for' department, if it turns out that is not the case and we can source passages with references that are completely partial so long as they are notable, reputable, and verifiable the Rove despisers might be disappointed with what starts getting included in this article. Think about it. Ps I'm merely asking for fairness. Why is that provoked so much controversy?

Big Daddy (on the road)

Impartiality in general is an absolute hallmark of Wikipedia. Impartiality of sources is not. Media Matters, for example, is a clearly left-leaning source, however they extensively document and source most of their reports to official transcripts, thus the information they rely upon is pretty reputable and verifiable to others. We should not exclude reports from them simply because of their partisanship. If impartiality was indeed the threshold for inclusion of sources, we couldn't use about 80% of all sources, as its pretty hard to define impartial, a lot of people say the NY Times is a liberal rag, even more say Fox News's slogan of fair and balanced is false to the point of being Orwellian; are we truly going to remove all references by these partisan organizations?

As for whether I view Jimbo Wales a liar, of course I don't, because he made no such comment, the writer did. Your assumption that he tacitly agrees with this policy because he didn't call them to correct the story is pure baseless speculation, and ignores many other likely possibilities.

Irrespective of either of our views, there are some fundamental truths that are not up for debate. One of these is that as it stands currently, impartiality is not a significant criteria, if one at all, in selecting sources according to Wikipedia official policy . Your view that it will "ultimately be shown" may be true eventually; not today, though. --kizzle 18:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's more probably baseless speculation on your part to conclude that he was misquoted with ZERO proof (like a retraction or request for one) to back it up.

As for your intimation that impartiality is too ambiguous to be defined, I submit you may discover that what's considered notable, reputable, and verifiable is also subject to intrepretation. Therefore, the debate could rage on in a different venue. Be that as it may, if everyone agrees that sources do not have to be impartial (Paul Klenk??) then I think we have a concensus until Jimmy Wales comments are clarified...I also think this means we have a lot of work to do on this article to bring some semblance of balance. Big Daddy (on the road)

Of course those three are ambiguous as well. Re-read my comments, the crux of my argument did not rest only upon the ambiguity of defining impartiality. And don't get me wrong, I'm not promoting the converse by saying we should only use partial sources, all I'm saying is that information shouldn't be dismissed solely based upon the partisanship of its source. There are other more important factors, such as if its notable, reputable, and verifiable.

I'm sorry, but there's no other way to interpret the Reuters article you gave: Wales wasn't quoted as saying "impartial". Note there's no quotation marks around what he said and it said "in other words", a pretty clear indicator that its the writer's words. That's not speculation. That's a fact. --kizzle 18:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The salient point here is that there is no policy page like Wikipedia:Impartiality. There is, however, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, all of which articulate a policy structure and give guidelines for how to follow them properly. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Totally unproductive

The discussion on this page is totally unproductive. This article should remain protected untill people stop talking about Karl Rove and start talking about the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think that talking about Karl Rove would be a refreshing change from the current dominant theme of editors talking about each other rather than the article in question. Really, the liberal-conservative cross-talk is just pathetic. This is a discussion page for creating a better article about Karl Rove - not for one's own ego-stroking or soapboxing. Much of what I've seen happen here and in the article proper would get people banned (or at least AbComm'd) a year ago - are admins so afraid of seeming partisan that they actually will not attempt to enforce policies on individual users here? This constant and unchecked bickering about nothing substantive makes it imposible to have productive discussions on this article, and makes those who might be interested in creating a better article run quickly away to edit something less dominated by "Crossfire meets Rush Limbaugh"-style meandering confrontations. Really, if you are really upset about things, go make a blog, go to your streetcorner and chat up the public, go door-to-door, chat with your families and friends, etc. This is not the place for it.

Is there an Admin in the house, ready to help? --NightMonkey 22:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I am one of the participants you mention, but I would gladly welcome a focus on the article, and the sections under debate, than personal attacks and name-calling vitriol. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be "without sin" as far as Wikipedia guidelines and policies - see the Talk:Remote Viewing page for more of my past learning experiences. Everyone, especially when you are editing an article on a topic that is close to your heart, can succumb to passion. But, what is happening here is just too much interpersonal partisan carpet-bombing, with an intentionality that is more than just "losing one's cool" - it is soapboxing and destructive edits just to prove a point. These additions (both in the article proper AND this Talk page) should not be tolerated, and repeated violations must have some negative consequence for individual users. I ask that the Admins intervene and monitor not just the article, but individual contributors who are participating in article edits that are blatantly against WP policies, and those who troll - and feed the trolls - on these talk pages. While I understand that the Admins have their hands full, and that there are never enough Admin eyeballs for all of the articles in Wikipedia, repeated egregious policy violations on specific articles should garner more attention from Admins until the problems subside. Thank you. --NightMonkey 23:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I protected the article for that very reason. Now everybody must start to play nice and build some consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Katefan0! I hope you (and/or other Admins) will stick around after unprotection, and start slapping editors (even me) if we veer significantly past the goal here, or disrupt discussion. Even the RFC on BD777, which clearly states that discussion does not belong on the article main page, is now riddled with informal discussion, and rapidly veering off course. We need you, Sheriff! ;) --NightMonkey 23:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Another view: I agree this page could be toned down, and that both sides have behaved miserably from time to time. I can't believe how lengthy this page is. However, calling it totally unproductive misses a few points:

1. There are clear disputes about the Rove page. This is the place to talk about those disputes. Doing so is completely within the spirit of Wikipedia, and no one should feel afraid to do so.
2. These disputes cover a wide variety of topics, and some fundamental ideas about sourcing, weighting, "what is encyclopedic," etc. These disputes represent firmly-held beliefs and biases on both sides of the debate, and -- unfortunately -- require a lot of discussion. We are covering a lot of ground -- sometimes productively, sometimes not so much.
3. Asking people to "go make a blog, go to your streetcorner and chat up the public, go door-to-door, chat with your families and friends, etc. This is not the place for it" -- although well-meant, well-said, and completely valid -- also effectively (seem to) tell people who disagree to "go away." We do not want to even appear to ask those who disagree with us to leave. (Hipocrite, I'm not suggesting you are.) :-) We want varying opinions here, even when they are annoying.
4. I hope my efforts on this page are moving the article and the discussion of it in the right direction, and that I am helping to fix the problems which I identify. I cite my recent survey, which has yielded a number of varying opinions. My goal in that survey is to listen to everyone's views as I attempt to offload the "70 percent Plame section" into a daughter article, while leaving a substantial summary on the Rove page. I would welcome any criticisms or suggestions about my efforts -- either here, on my talk page, or in private. paul klenk 23:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not have you in mind, Paul. Fundamental disagreements with the various policies should not be held here - the discussion on "impartial," for instance, is wholy uninformed, and wholey innapropriate. I made a simple attempt to fix one paragraph, and that discussion was beaten into a bloody pulp by the POV warriors from both sides. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

With regards to #3 above: Paul, I respectfully disagree, but only in part. I do want people who disagree with, or show disdain for, Wikipedia policies and repeatedly make flagrant WP policy violations to leave. Leave the article and head straight for the policy and guideline articles (to read and learn them), go to the Sandbox to learn how to edit a Wiki, or to actually leave Wikipedia entirely if they cannot follow the principles established here. Too much tolerance of those who flagrantly and repeatedly violate policies after due warnings will quickly make mush out of Wikipedia. I do agree that opinions on the article's substance belong here, of course. But, just to collect peoples' opinions without bounds is not the point of Talk pages, on any article in Wikipedia, AFAIK. I just want to make sure my point is made clear, and that I can regain some hope of more focused discussions. And thank you for your efforts! :) --NightMonkey 01:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but all this controversy seemed to have started when I came in and began questioning the blatant leftward tilt in this article. A characterization which I don't believe anyone has seriously challenged. You write as if you are the 'rules expert' and no one else 'gets it.' It's true that some of us are newer than others and perhaps haven't memorized the playbook yet, but I do know at least one rule and that is Don't bite the newbies. I also know that people with an agenda can use the rules to hammer someone with whom they disagree whilst ignoring the same or worse violations from those with whom they do agree. I have personally been a victim of such a double standard. So, if you're asking people to leave who don't agree that the article was fine before I started questioning things - My resonse is - Thanks but no thanks. I think I'll stay. But if you're suggesting that, changes are made with a baseline concensus as to what the editorial standards are, I'm with you 100%. Big Daddy (on the road)

Rove and Hurricane Katrina

When the page's protection is lifted, I'd like to introduce the following topic, illustrated by the following content and sources:

After Rove was assigned by the President to oversee The administration's 'damage control' effort following the political fallout surrounding the administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, the administration was criticized for making numerous false statements and attempting to shift blame for the failures, claiming that Louisiana Governor Blanco had not declared a state of emergency.

From the New York Times (Sep 5) [24] reprinted in full here (emphasis is mine to illustrate the core points for this talk page):

"Under the command of President Bush's two senior political advisers, the White House rolled out a plan this weekend to contain the political damage from the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina."

""It orchestrated visits by cabinet members to the region, leading up to an extraordinary return visit by Mr. Bush planned for Monday, directed administration officials not to respond to attacks from Democrats on the relief efforts, and sought to move the blame for the slow response to Louisiana state officials, according to Republicans familiar with the White House plan."

"The effort is being directed by Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and his communications director, Dan Bartlett. It began late last week after Congressional Republicans called White House officials to register alarm about what they saw as a feeble response by Mr. Bush to the hurricane, according to Republican Congressional aides."

From the Washington Post (Sep 4):

"Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday (Sep. 4), Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said."

This allegation has been proven false (see Snopes.com). And accordingly, the Washington Post's retraction later on that same day read as follows:

"Earlier today we noted that in today's papers the Post passed on a claim from a "senior Bush official" that "as of Saturday [i.e.,Sept.4], [Gov.]Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency."

"A Sept. 4 article on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina incorrectly said that Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) had not declared a state of emergency. She declared an emergency on Aug. 26.

Moreover, in conflict with the original Washington Post piece, the WhiteHouse.gov web site read:

"The President today declared an emergency exists in the State of Louisiana and ordered Federal aid to supplement state and local response efforts in the parishes located in the path of Hurricane Katrina beginning on August 26, 2005, and continuing." [25]

Last, Governor Blanco's letter declaring a statement of emergency read, in part:

"Under the provisions of [the relevant federal law], I request that you declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period beginning August 26, 2005, and continuing ... In response to the situation I have taken appropriate action under State law and directed the execution of the State Emergency Plan on August 26, 2005 in accordance with Section 501 (a) of the Stafford Act. A State of Emergency has been issued for the State in order to support the evacuations of the coastal areas in accordance with our State Evacuation Plan ... "

I question the timing of this as well as it's substance. For one, even the Snopes piece which you sourced says - "Sorting out who should have done what, and when, to head off the disaster in New Orleans produced by Hurricane Katrina will undoubtedly take a very long time (and the issue may never ultimately be resolved)."

So what's the rush to bring in Karl Rove into all of this? Hmmmm...

Secondly, and I admit I'll need to bone up on these new charges (sheesh so many scurillous allegations against Karl Rove...so little time!) as I understand it, she indeed invoked authority granted her as governor under LA law to declare a state of emergency. What she refused to do until it was too late was invoke Federal law that passes authority to FEMA to coordinate crisis response.

So, at least initially, there was a state level emergency in LA rbut not a federal one. That request was made on August 27 and responded to within hours. [26]

And the 'Bush administration officials' in the Washington Post piece said she hadn't done so until Sept. 4. Thanks for the corroboration. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I will also point out that on the Press Release page are links to editorials with titles such as: "Blanco making jobs her work",

"Bush Out of Touch with Us", "Come Fly with Me", "Coastal Advocates Dismayed by Bush's Opposition" etc so there's some obvious politicking (some might say butt-covering) going on here. The confusion apparently is a result of in-fighting between the feds and Blanco which no one denies happening.

And finally, the Washington Post says it received the incorrect informaton from "an anonymous high level white house source." Sorry, no Karl Rove mention. Unless the Washington Post says it's Karl, it doesn't belong in this article. Big Daddy (on the road)

Rove is linked to the story in the articles, in the titles, etc. It is valid, current and linked directly to Rove by the news organizations themselves - see the NYTimes:

"{The White House} sought to move the blame for the slow response to Louisiana state officials, according to Republicans familiar with the White House plan. {...} The effort is being directed by Mr. Bush’s chief political adviser, Karl Rove". That's very much a mention to me and in and of itself validates this section, much less the other information here. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, you've not provided any information that challenges that fact - so imho, it clearly belongs. Allegations of Rove's involvement in the disinformation are now a matter of public record, not to be 'un-spun'. As Arianna Huffington put it in her latest editorials 'Karl Rove's Big Easy' and 'Karl Rove off the Record on Katrina':

"Rove’s genius (aside from a Mensa-level mastery of dirty trickery) is for using imagery, spin, and atmospherics to turn political liabilities into political opportunities."

Karl Rove, President Bush's top political advisor and deputy White House chief of staff, spoke at businessman Teddy Forstmann's annual off the record gathering in Aspen, Colorado this weekend. Here is what Rove had to say that the press wasn't allowed to report - on Katrina: "The only mistake we made with Katrina was not overriding the local government..."

"So here is the White House’s Katrina Plan in a nutshell: block any independent examination of its failings, put the Einstein of damage control in charge of reconstructing New Orleans, keep the dead bodies out of sight, try to get away with general platitudes and palliatives, offer watered-down acceptances of “responsibility” while trying to pin everything you can on local yokels and fall guys like Brownie, and let Bush’s corporate cronies get fat on hefty no-bid reconstruction contracts." -- RyanFreisling @ 19:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Nice try. But your ellipses don't connect Rove to this anymore than the truth. If the Washington Post ID's their source as Rove, it MIGHT be relevant. Otherwise, no dice. The onus is not on me to disprove this potential smear but for you to prove it. But it's still WAY too early to tell much of anything about Katrina other than the busses that could have been used to evacuate were left underwater by Mayor Nagin (but I'm sure Karl Rove hid the keychain:) And sorry, Huffington's blog posts are utterly useless when attempting to discern the truth...Utterly. Big Daddy (on the road)

Your response is typical of the claims raised on your RfC. You avoid the patently obvious, flippantly accuse and reverse the onus of proof, and incorrecly cite policy. The post stands, the elipses are there to remove content not directly relevant to the point (though that content is easily seen in the original post and citation) and it is eminently valid, as is the noteworthiness of Huffington's pieces. Please provide information disproving the connection of Rove to the administration's lies surrounding responsiblity for failure to assist the dead and dying of Hurricane Katrina, if you feel this is non-factual. -- RyanFreisling @

"Your response is typical of the claims raised on your RfC. You avoid the patently obvious, flippantly accuse and reverse the onus of proof, and incorrecly cite policy..."

Now, if this is not a personal attack...what is?

Ps The Katrina connection is invalid until the Washington Post who got the information, reveals who told made this honest mistake. The onus is on the claimant. The defendant is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Therefore this information has NO place in an article already filled to the gills with partial, slanderous, unproven and downright cheezy inneundo. Big Daddy (on the road)

It's not a personal attack - it's describing your bad behavior, which continues. That is not a personal attack. And I am finished feeding the troll for now. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering who's responsible for escalating the incivil and personal attacks here, just read above. Both of her comments have been reported. I'm not about to mud wrestle with someone just because we disagree on the facts. Big Daddy (on the road.)

BD, you are responsible for any incivil comments you make; as is every other editor here. "They started it," "They made me do it," or "They escalated it" are pitiful excuses, even when used by children. How about not "mud wrestling" period? This is not the place for discussion of anything but the facts, and a neutral presentation of them. And while I'm at it, a response to the RFC about you would demonstrate a decent respect for the norms of wikipedia. Derex 00:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So would not using Wikipedia to electioneer, but that's exactly what YOU did in 2004, shamelessly, too. 64.154.26.251 02:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

How does this accusation help us write this article? --NightMonkey 04:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

RyanFreisling continues her unprecedented personal attack on me and what is Derex's resonse? Why...attack me! of course. You know, I think I'm finally starting to figure out this Wikipedia thing...Big Daddy (still on the road)

BD, please read "personal attack". I think it might clear up some misunderstandings. Derex 21:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's try this again

BigDaddy777, since you're the primary one with a problem with the way the article stands currently, what else do you want to see changed? Please pick one change you're seeking and propose it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Fuck Karl Rove, Slimy little bastard, If it was up to me what to do with this cretin, I'd throw him in a boiling pot of water.--Jack Cox 04:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

And your vulgar opinion helps us craft this article how, exactly? --NightMonkey 05:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he's suggesting that a steaming bowl of Rove Soup would fortify us for the work ahead...? paul klenk

Well, it's true. I would have paidwhoever Jack Cox is to make those comments. But, he gladly donated them to my cause, free of charge. lol! Why are his comments so important? Because they reflect what I believe to be the PREVAILING opinion of some if not all of those who are fighting me in cleaning up this article. So, in the most perverse way possible, good job, Jack. lol!

An administrator named Katefan has said this: "BigDaddy777, since you're the primary one with a problem with the way the article stands currently..."

Now if that doesn't capture what's at the heart of what's wrong here, nothing does. Here you have an administrator looking at this total sliming of Karl Rove. This toxic waste dump of every unsubstantiated trashy paranoid rumor and fantasy the most strident of Karl Rove haters could conjure up each assigned it's very own paragraph and she ADMITS that I am the primary person with the problem with it. Truth be told, administratior Kate, with maybe one or two exceptions, I'm the ONLY one who has fought to clean up this cesspool of hate masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Now what does that say about the current state of editing and administrating at Wik if apparently NO ONE ELSE is willing to admit what a slimefest this article has become and that editor after editor trump up some phoney baloney straining at the gnat charge to indict me as a cover for their abject hatred of what I'm trying to do here at Wik? Wow! This is really revelatory.

Here's what I propose for the Karl Rove article - That it be a legitimate, honest fair and balanced encyclopedia article. Crazy, I know. So that means, even if we ARE allowed to use impartial sources, we shouldn't unless they help bring balance. Got that? Balance. The article is NOT balanced. If anyone does not see that, they need to resign from editing administrating or whatever and take a job with their favorite political advocacy group.

Now, if the rove-haters here are allowed in the short term to continue to trash dump, I'll just counter their venomous poison with equally as impartial sources from the other side of the spectrum to balance it. I've already got a stash and am adding to it. But, ultimately Wik will be free from this sort of cheap shot character assassaination articles. Be it Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Tom Delay or any other left wing bogeyman, you are just not gonna be able to come here and turn Wik into metafilter meets democracy now. Big Daddy (on the road)

Please stop demagoguing and commenting on contributors, including myself. If you're suggesting that you're calling for my resignation as an administrator (If anyone does not see that, they need to resign from editing administrating or whatever and take a job with their favorite political advocacy group), then I would encourage you to open an inquiry on me. Otherwise, stop smearing me on various parts of Wikipedia, please. Comment on CONTENT. Discuss CONTENT. That's what the talk page is for. Otherwise we'll get nowhere. By this I mean making specific, discrete suggestions for what you want changed. Nebulous complaints don't move the discussion forward. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Dixon Redux

For those who don't remember, a very long argument about BigDaddy777's deletion of the 'Dixon Campaign Prank' section of the Karl Rove article [27] in which Jimmy's name was invoked centered around a piece in the magazine "The Nation" that BD777 felt was from an impartial source - and his voiced intention to delete similar passages throughout the article. I believe that that section has been attributed to a valid source (in fact, more than one) according to Jimmy's example.

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

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

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

With this post challenging the piece began this long debate, in which doubts around the source's 'impartiality' became a reason for deleting sourced content. I hope that this discussion can now return to a discussion of the facts, and stop orbiting around attacks by and upon the individual editors. In this instance, once page protection is removed I believe the Dixon section should stay, as per the discussion in the section titled 'Impartiality'. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this charge against Rove should be reported, for the reasons I stated above with regard to Rove's role in the Killian documents. On a related subject, the Dean comment about Watergate is properly included if specifically attributed to Dean rather than stated as fact. JamesMLane 15:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The sources are not partial. However, my correspondance with high up muckety mucks in Wik have led me to believe that what Jimmy Wales said (or is said to have said) may not be precisely correct. (Forgive me for believing CNN and doubting Bush's Brain. lol!) It's still a serious issue for me as the impression has definitely been made by this article that was picked up by Reuters etc that IMPARTIAL sources are the ONLY acceptable sources. So, I will continue to press for an answer as to why that was said if that's not precisely true. What I've been told by the higher up in response for my request that this matter be clarified is that while the article needs to be impartial, the sources don't necessarily have to be. So, for the moment I stand corrected. There was conflicting information and I chose to rely on Jimmy Wales comments (at least as ascribed to him by an actual reliable source (not Bush's Hit Man) but it turns out, for the time being anyway, the concept of 'impartial article comprised of not always entirely impartial sources' is the prevailing one that will govern our actions.

Oh my god. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Just because a Reuters article on Wikipedia has a few quotes from Wales, are you seriously suggesting that every single word in the article is attributed to Wales? There are no quotations around "impartial". That moment you stand corrected is not going to end in my lifetime. --kizzle 19:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What I've been told by the higher up in response for my request that this matter be clarified is that while the article needs to be impartial, the sources don't necessarily have to be.

You could have just listened to me yesterday:

Impartiality in general is an absolute hallmark of Wikipedia. Impartiality of sources is not... --kizzle 18:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

--kizzle 19:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Having said that, I think we ought to strive for impartial sources or be skeptical of the claims made by impartial ones if they are the only supporting ones. Further, and this is my problem with the McCain push poll slander and the Katrina slime job, some of the sources used don't even MENTION Karl Rove. Partial...impartial or somewhere in between...sources in that category don't cut it and will rightfully be removed. Big Daddy (on the road)

You said: sources in that category don't cut it and will rightfully be removed. Remember that you are not the sole arbiter of what should be in an article (nor is anyone else), and what should not. If the consensus on this page is to keep any certain information, then it will be retained, and you need to respect that consensus even if you disagree with it. That's the way Wikipedia works. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Let the consensus rule. Big Daddy (on the road again)

Thanks, BD. I appreciate your comment. I should also point out, of course, that the same is true for removing information -- if there's a consensus to do it, then it should be done. Right now, unfortunately, there is very little consensus about anything because people are spending too much time either a) arguing or b) complaining about the arguing. If everyone could re-focus on content, we'll get back to the heart of the matter faster and maybe see some progress on agremeent, which will help unpoison the interactions on this page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Karl Rove is a controversial figure, but having read through the article and talk page, it's clear the NPOV disputes apply to particular sections and not the entire article itself. Can we unfreeze the page and add section-NPOV headers? I think that would both clarify and help resolve the current disputes. Shariputra 17:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think an unprotect would help anything at this point. It was protected to prevent an edit war, and so far the discussions have not produced an iota of agreement. Your help is appreciated in gathering a consensus on the disputed sections here. Just as an FYI, I have listed this article at RFC. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)\

Actually the POV disputes go right to the heart of the article. If we are, in the short term, unable to get any kind of consensus, than I propose we, at the very least, add a section similar to what's found on the Cindy Sheehan page called 'Critiquing the Critics.' That way we can provide some context to this seemingly never-ending list of cheap shot inneundo attacks on Karl Rove.

I suggest something like the following NOTE: This is a very roughdraft.

Upset that Karl Rove was the architect of two successful presidential campaigns on behalf of George W. Bush, Rove's critics have attempted to smear him as the perennial boogeyman. Critics have, without proof, accused Rove of being behind virtually every nefarious action in recent political history from Watergate to the release of Osama Bin Laden terror videotapes to Hurricane Katrina.

This above paragraph meets ALL the criteria we agree are necessary for inclusion in a WP article: Verifiability, notable sources, you name it. Personally, I don't think we need to include this litany of cockamamy charges to begin with. But, for however long they remain, let's give them a framework. Big Daddy (on the road thru tomorrow)

BD, i assume that is a sarcastic suggestion. the appropriate place to dispute content in the cindy sheehan article is on the cindy sheehan talk page. poor editing elsewhere has nothing to do with this article. Derex 20:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No actually, in yet another attack on me, you are in violation of the tried and true Wikipedia concept of 'assume good faith' as I'm not being sarcastic at all.

And you are fooling yourself if you think this article exists in a vacuum and with just one wave of your magic wand you can pretend that how other controversial figures are treated in Wikipedia have no bearing on this one. It's a thorougly illogical and discredited concept. Finally, the suggestion that I was 'disputing content' in the cindy sheehan page is exactly backwards. I am suggesting we use it as a model. No kidding. No sarcasm. Big Daddy (coming back soon)

Assume Good Faith does not mean Ignore Bad Acts. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Like I said. Chill on the hate. It's not productive. Big Daddy 21:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me be clear - you proposed a violation of WP:POINT. Do not violate WP:POINT. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to be clearer. That is a false charge and a continuation of poisonous comments you've made about or to me under the guise of me breaking some rule. To suggest that I'm disrupting Wikipedia because I want to eliminate bias is so laughable as to not dignify a comment. Same with the false charge that i'm engaging in 'bad acts.' Furthermore, this is part of a long time pattern of behavior you've engaged in at Wikipedia in order to 'punish' editors with whom you have a philosophical difference. You couch it in terms that ostensibly sound like a professional critique, while you harrass, stalk and bait the object of your scorn until they do something you can legitimately accuse them of.

But, rather than respond to your venom with the same, I'll offer a friendly suggestion - It's quite obvious that you need to take a break from this page. Emotional outbursts resulting in actually titling sections 'Screw This!'indicate an unhealthy emotional attachment that procludes objective evaluation. Using that kind of language is both unprofessional and unhelpful. Big Daddy 17:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Taking you at your word that you're serious about inserting this passage:

• The passage assumes that the critics' motivation is resentment of Rove's role in helping Bush.
• The term "smear" has a connotation that the charges against Rove are false. Charges that are in dispute should not be presented as true or as false.
• A loaded term like "boogeyman" is unencyclopedic.
• It's clearly POV to boldface a particular phrase just because you really really like it and want to make sure the reader notices it. This is even more true where, as here, the boldfaced phrase is itself subject to dispute.
• The list of supposed accusations is false. For example, to say that Rove was a protege of Segretti's and that the Watergate prosecutors had some interest in Rove is far from saying that he was "behind" Watergate.
• I just looked at the "Criticism of the critics" section of the Cindy Sheehan article. I found verbatim quotations from named critics, supported by citations. The Sheehan passage is appropriate. If Ann Coulter or some nitwit Republican Congressman or some such person has said, "Rove's critics have, without proof, accused Rove of being behind virtually every nefarious action in recent political history from Watergate to the release of Osama Bin Laden terror videotapes to Hurricane Katrina," then, fine, include the quotation, name the source, and provide a citation.

By the way, while you're looking at the Sheehan article, you might note that it doesn't stint on reporting criticism of her. No one could consider the likes of Rush Limbaugh to be an impartial source, yet he's quoted in the Sheehan article. The reason is that Wikipedia policy doesn't call for the kind of constraints you've tried to impose on reporting criticisms of Rove in this article. JamesMLane 23:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

PERSONAL ATTACK, PERSONAL ATTACK, PERSONAL ATTACK. Rush Limbaugh 00:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

James,

Let me break it down for you point by point:

• The passage assumes that the critics' motivation is resentment of Rove's role in helping Bush.

I can document that with quotes from US senators. Is that an acceptable source?

• The term "smear" has a connotation that the charges against Rove are false. Charges that are in dispute should not be presented as true or as false.

Charges that are in dispute should NOT BE INCLUDED until they're proved, especially a litany of them. But, if people insist, then the context I suggested providing is wholly and totally approriate.

• A loaded term like "boogeyman" is unencyclopedic.

I don't think that's a loaded term at all. However, I will happy to find another term or perhaps I'll find that this term is used in other articles in a similar vein. Either way, no biggie on boogey...man.

• It's clearly POV to boldface a particular phrase just because you really really like it and want to make sure the reader notices it. This is even more true where, as here, the boldfaced phrase is itself subject to dispute.

I just can't stop laughing at you accusing me of introducing POV for trying to eliminate the UNDISPUTED POV in this article.

• The list of supposed accusations is false. For example, to say that Rove was a protege of Segretti's and that the Watergate prosecutors had some interest in Rove is far from saying that he was "behind" Watergate.

No, these allegations are valid. There are all kinds of things blamed on Rove with no proof. And don't think I'm unaware of how this comports with the mindset of far left wing idealogues. I know people get upset when I bring this up, but I don't know why. If you read a Wikipedia article and you think to yourself 'this could have been lifted from michaelmoore.com', you have a major problem. And finally, smearing Segretti with the Dixon prank is dishonest and needs to be eliminated.

• I just looked at the "Criticism of the critics" section of the Cindy Sheehan article. I found verbatim quotations from named critics, supported by citations. The Sheehan passage is appropriate.

If Ann Coulter or some nitwit Republican Congressman

Wow! I wonder why all the critics attacking me for every imagined rules 'violation' haven't jumped on him over this?

or some such person has said, "Rove's critics have, without proof, accused Rove of being behind virtually every nefarious action in recent political history from Watergate to the release of Osama Bin Laden terror videotapes to Hurricane Katrina," then, fine, include the quotation, name the source, and provide a citation.

Fine. Will do.

By the way, while you're looking at the Sheehan article, you might note that it doesn't stint on reporting criticism of her.

Nor does this article stint on criticizing Rove. Or are you questioning that as well?

The reason is that Wikipedia policy doesn't call for the kind of constraints you've tried to impose on reporting criticisms of Rove in this article.

In fact, Wikipedia policy calls for IMPARTIALITY and we now have the words of Jimmy Wales exhorting you to avoid highly impartial sources. This article is in violation of that. And, if we don't eliminate all the smears, and even if we do, I am going forward with my proposal that we include a section called 'Looking at the Critics' sourced and documented in a way that will satisfy every objective observer. Big Daddy 16:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)