Talk:Karl Rove

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karl Rove article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is part of WikiProject University of Texas at Austin, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to The University of Texas at Austin, the people, history, and sports teams of the University, and promoting development of related articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. UT Portal

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: "Rove, Bush's top strategist, to speak here on Thursday", Helenair.com Independent Record, March 30, 2005. (details)

To-do list for Karl Rove:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Note: Clicking the "edit" link above takes you to this todo list page where you can add or edit items to be done. When finished, save the page and return to the article's main discussion page. Click on "purge" to update the todo list items. Shorten considerably the information on the Plame affair or summarize it thoroughly on the main page and offload its full contents to a daughter article Remove article-wide NPOV notice; replace, if necessary, with section NPOV disputes Verify article sources, determine level of impartiality and notability Clarify the timeline and the pertinent facts in the Vietnam War/Draft section. Talk page: Improve format of comments from new users

Archives

* /Archive 1 (to ~July 15, 2005) /Archive 2 (to ~July 21, 2005) /Archive 3 (to ~Sept 16, 2005) /Archive 4 (to ~Sept 22, 2005) /Archive 5 (to ~Oct 10, 2005) /Archive 6 (to end of 2006)

Seems like the article has some editorializing, arguing. For instance, the "but McGovern was a B-29 pilot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.130.94 (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Huge gap in article 2 Watergate? 3 Bush's Brain 4 Investigation by Office of Special Counsel (political presentations investigation) 5 Tagged controversial 6 Tagged section; renamed "Trivia" section; it needs close scrutiny still 7 Parody in American Dad! 8 Vietnam War and the Draft 9 "Armitage was responsible for the leak" 10 Readability of Article 11 Vague temporal references 12 Excessive external links 13 Current Event Tag 14 Louis C. Rove 15 2000 smear campaign 16 Headline text 17 Louis C. Rove - again 18 Source for his supporting Richard Nixon at age 9? 19 Number of children in famly 20 Number of Children in Rove famly 21 Footnote #31 isn't closed. 22 Mother's Death 23 Lead section is inappropriate 24 Copy error 25 Minor edit to link in the Satire/Blogs section 26 Pranks, Rove and the 'goodbye' prank at the White House 27 E-mail scandal 28 Activities Since Resignation 29 Family section, what is going on?? 30 Sam Sparks libelled? 31 Karl Rove joining the fox political team? 32 Add Category:Fox News Channel 33 Mark Hanna 34 Seigelman 35 Recent Vandalism 36 Dismissal of lawsuit and McClelland

[edit] Huge gap in article

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

[edit] Watergate?

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

[edit] Bush's Brain

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

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

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

[edit] Investigation by Office of Special Counsel (political presentations investigation)

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

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

[edit] Tagged controversial

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

[edit] Tagged section; renamed "Trivia" section; it needs close scrutiny still

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

[edit] Parody in American Dad!

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

[edit] Vietnam War and the Draft

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

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

[edit] "Armitage was responsible for the leak"

Reading through the Rove article, I came across:

   In late August 2006 it became known that Richard L. Armitage was responsible for the leak.

Of course that was a specific leak referring to Novak, but Rove, Libby and others were involved in leaking Plame's name to other journalists. Whether Rove or Libby were charged for any illegal acts or not in leaking her name, they leaked as well.

Please fix the wording somehow.

[edit] Readability of Article

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

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

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

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

Woele 22:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vague temporal references

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

[edit] Excessive external links

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

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

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

[edit] Current Event Tag

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

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

[edit] Louis C. Rove

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 2000 smear campaign

I removed the following: During the bitterly-contested 2000 Republican primary, allegations were made that Rove was responsible for a South Carolina push poll that used racist innuendo intended to undermine the support of Bush rival John McCain: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" ^[1] Although McCain campaign manager Richard Davis said he "had no idea who had made those calls, who paid for them, or how many were made", the authors of the 2003 book and subsequent film Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, ^[2] allege that Rove was involved. In the movie, John Weaver, political director for McCain's 2000 campaign bid, says "I believe I know where that decision was made; it was at the top of the [Bush] campaign". Rove has denied any such involvement. ^[3]

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

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

[edit] Headline text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Louis C. Rove - again

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

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

[edit] Source for his supporting Richard Nixon at age 9?

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

Can anyone provide one?

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

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

[edit] Number of children in famly

Karl Rove has five brothers and sisters. Please correct.

Paul Harris, “Geek gets it” ^[4] The Observer, Sunday October 23, 2005 He was born in Denver, Colorado, the second of five children.

[edit] Number of Children in Rove famly

Larry Abramson and Madeleine Brand, “Karl Rove Dodges Indictment in CIA Leak Probe”.^[5] June 13, 2006 , NPR Legal Affairs

Born in Denver on Christmas Day 1950, Karl Rove was the third of five children. The family moved often during his childhood -- from Colorado to Nevada before settling in Salt Lake City.

[edit] Footnote #31 isn't closed.

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

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

[edit] Mother's Death

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

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

Nicholas Lemann, >, “The New Yorker profile: The Controller: Karl Rove is working to get George Bush reelected, but he has bigger plans", ^[6] May 12, 2003. The New Yorker Magazine

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

[edit] Lead section is inappropriate

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Copy error

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

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

[edit] Minor edit to link in the Satire/Blogs section

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

[edit] Pranks, Rove and the 'goodbye' prank at the White House

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

After he announced his resignation, members of the White House staff wrapped his car in plastic wrap and added stuffed bald eagles and an "I love Barack Obama" bumper sticker to it as a prank.^[7] [6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] E-mail scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Activities Since Resignation

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

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

[edit] Family section, what is going on??

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

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

[edit] Sam Sparks libelled?

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

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

Is this necessary, absent some evidence of malfeasance?

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

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

[edit] Karl Rove joining the fox political team?

How about a section on joining the Fox News program? I will go research more information on it... --unrgsrd 21:41 Saturday 02 February 2008

[edit] Add Category:Fox News Channel

Now that Rove is working for Fox News Channel, the following category should be added: Category:Fox News Channel

[edit] Mark Hanna

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

[edit] Seigelman

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

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

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

[edit] Recent Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Dismissal of lawsuit and McClelland

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