Talk:Karl Rove

BLP Violation Removed

Bill Moyer's personal attack on Karl Rove's religious beliefs has been removed from the Bill Moyer's page for BLP violation. I have removed it from Rove's BLP. Please do not add this back.Malke2010 22:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in Archive 7 after you removed it previously (Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 7#Rewriting this article for neutrality & accuracy & a few other places). It was then discussed and then a majority wasn't established for removing it. Most people seemed to be against its removal. You were then blocked for continuing to remove it despite being told you needed consensus first. Now after its died down a bit you removed it again without even having first started a discussion. I just wanted to say that I don't think this is appropriate. You knew perfectly well this was going to be a very controversial thing. I'm willing to discuss it again, but I just wanted to warn you that many people will view this as edit warring again on your part.Chhe (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just had a look at the Bill Moyer's talk page at Talk:Bill_Moyers#On Karl Rove and not surprisingly the section you seem to be referring to doesn't have anything to do with what your saying. From a cursory read it seems to be discussing whether or not the section "Ad Hominem Attacks on Karl Rove" should be added to the Bill Moyer's article. You advocating its inclusion and the others against it. I don't know what this has to do with these paragraphs.Chhe (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The section was removed from the article. It is the same section that I wrote and placed in the Bill Moyers article. It was removed by another editor yesterday. You, as usual, don't pay any attention. You just revert.Malke2010 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring by Chhe

This edit [1] was written by me after lengthy attempts by me to reach consensus, which btw, Chhe did not participate in. It was also on the Bill Moyer's article but has recently been viewed as a BLP violation and deleted. I have deleted it from this page as well, but once again, Chhe is inciting an edit war, without discussion on the talk page, simply making another revert. I will take this to the BLP/N board.Malke2010 23:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted this as non notable and also deleted the 2000 smear campaign stuff. Here is the the previous discussion and the one below it. --Tom (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very good. I hope that will be the last of Chhe's edit warring. The whole bit was more of slam against Moyers which I had not even considered until it got removed from his article yesterday. I'm embarrassed that I wrote the damn bit.Malke2010 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The "material" has been readded by Chhe with the edit summary about no discussion about its removal and no consensus for its removal. There should be consensus for its inclusion, not the other way around it seems. If 5 folks say keep and 5 say delete, it shouldn't be in. If 10 say keep and 5 say nuke, then it should stay (give or take a few :) ) Anyways, hopefully others will comment? I thought Rove would get more eyes, but I guess he is yesterday's news :)..cheers! --Tom (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be removed. It is a WP:BLP violation. It's already been removed from Bill Moyers' page.Malke2010 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom, from my head count there is a lot more than 50% of the people who have commented so far that want it included. The exclusion people are in the minority. Additionally a compromise inclusion of it had already been reached by Malke 2010 and these other contributors who wanted it included, which was why I thought its removal by Malke a few months later is not equitable or honest. You have to go into the archives though to read their comments though since this is a rehash of a very old issue. The thread where the compromise was made can be read here--->Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 9#Religion Redux. The compromised addition ended up being a paragraph that Malke 2010 agreed to include. It was then included and the matter was dropped for some time. Then for some reason Malke came back and just removed this compromised upon paragraph. Thats why I think it should be left in until consensus can be reached for removing it.Chhe (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the paragraph. It turns out it is a violation of WP:BLP and has been removed also from the Bill Moyers page. You are not correct in stating that 'for some reason Malke came back and just removed this. . ." I made it very clear in the edit summary why the edit was now being removed. Please read WP:BLP.Malke2010 16:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Chhe, please remove the personal attack where you characterize me as not being honest. Thanks.Malke2010 16:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Haven't heard back from Tom yet so I'm starting an RFC below.Chhe (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Karl Rove Religion Again

There has been extensive debate at the Karl Rove talk page extending back many months involving the inclusion of a section discussing Rove's religious affiliation. There have been several people, Bill Moyers, Christopher Hitchens, etc. claiming in articles that they wrote that Rove wasn't religious and that he had confided at times with other colleagues with regards to this. That section talked about these accusations and Rove's subsequent response to these in detail (Rove eventually went on tv after Moyers claimed it on his show, saying that Moyers was wrong and that he was really a Christian). Anyway a user Malke 2010 came and deleted it and argued at the time that any mention of sacrilege was an insult to Rove and should be removed for that reason. This discussion can be found here ---->Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 7#Rewriting this article for neutrality & accuracy. It was subsequently voted on here ---->Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 7#Should Hitchens quote be Removed? the vote then stalled. It was then rediscussed here ---->Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 9#reliable citations. At the time it seemed most people wanted it included. Then a compromise was reached here ---->Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 9#Religion Redux with Malke 2010 writing the compromised upon paragraph. At the time, the informal compromise was to remove the religion section and the part about Hitchens, but to still talk about the controversy that emerged after Moyers accusations. Malke 2010 added in the paragraph in the personal section of the article. The matter was then dropped until a few days ago when Malke 2010 removed this compromise paragraph. It should be mentioned that Malke was blocked several times a few months ago prior to the compromise being reached due to removing these sections despite consensus. I'm not sure what the most appropriate thing to do is so I'm starting an RFC to get others opinions as to the most appropriate way to deal with this situation.Chhe (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the next step is some sort of administrative review (which I've never attempted before). I've been going through a very similar process on the Sarah Palin page. In fact Malke2010 is one of the very same users who deleted my entry as well. I had my suspicions before- and now, after reading your RFC, it seems quite apparent he engages in politically motivated disruptive editing practices.LMRusso (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

From RfC. I'm inclined to believe that it is possible to mention it, though the compromise paragraph seems to quote unnecessarily, giving it a little bit of undue weight. I couldn't really see a good reason for any of the quotes, as simply laying out the claim and the response with the ombudsman's agreement should be plenty. My personal opinion is that the folowing would be fine:

On August 16, 2007, in response to Rove’s resignation announcement, PBS journalist Bill Moyers claimed Rove had confided to friends that he was an agnostic. Rove complained to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler, who found no basis in fact for Moyer's claim, noting Moyers had sourced his assertion on a blogger's comments at the San Antonio Express.

I don't agree there's a BLP violation, though you could post over at the BLP Noticeboard as well if there are still allegations of BLP issues. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about BLP, but I would ask why is this "material" so noteable for this article? Is Moyers some Rove expert? Why do we care about Moyer's opinion? Has this "material" been widely covered by 3rd parties? I would rather include this "material" in the Moyers article, and even that seems like a stretch. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been removed from the Bill Moyers page for WP:BLP. I removed it from here for the same reason. If anything, it's more relevant on Moyers' page since it's his opinion.Malke2010 17:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you explained why this should be considered a BLP issue, as I, and apparently others, are not intuitively grasping the logic behind this. Citing WP:BLP is not a method to instant-win a dispute. How does it apply? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP. If you read through this page you'll see all the points mentioned that will apply here. In addition, it's WP:UNDUE. What does Bill Moyers' comments attacking Karl Rove's religious beliefs have to do with Karl Rove leaving his White House job? But I do like your edit above. We sure could have used you during the consensus gathering for the edit. This edit might be a good edition on the Bill Moyers' page, but I'd ask on the talk pge first. Malke2010 19:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

After rethinking things and looking again at what Tom had to say above, I'm inclined to change my position. Given that the dispute had very low coverage in the press, it could be considered placing undue weight on the incident or possibly is just in the wrong article. It's possible, though I haven't fully checked it out, that the above suggestion could be added to the section in the Bill Moyers article on Karl Rove, since it was more about Moyers' opinions than it was about Rove.

Malke 2010, I'm not sure you quite understand what WP:BLP is about. It's not a catchall policy when working on a living person's biography. It's intended to add extra weight to removing problem additions until any issues can be resolved on the talk page. Looking at Bill Moyers, the BLP problem had more to do with placing undue weight on the conflict and non-neutral wording that did not reflect what the sources said. BLP is more about adding urgency to removing potentially wrong information from an article, not ending the discussion about what may potentially be included. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Excerpt from WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

Moyers' personal attack on Rove's religious beliefs seems very much a 'titillating claim' and 'sensationalist', and lacks reliable sources. Moyers' attack was not reported by the mainstream media probably because they recognized it for what it was. Since there is no validation of Moyers' claim, (and how could there be? How does Rove 'prove' he's not an atheist?) by reliable sources, it violates BLP and has been removed.Malke2010 13:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Moyers' claim can be validated is not necessarily the issue. Controversy/conflict involving notable people is often included if there's sufficient sourcing/notability for the conflict itself. If there were sufficient press coverage, the issue would not be whether it was true or not, only that Moyers made the claim. However, if coverage was very low, then it probably creates an undue weight situation on Moyers' article, and would require much heavier coverage before being considered appropriate for Rove's. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources to validate what Moyers' claims, then absolutely that is the issue. It's nothing more than a personal attack, and according to policy it should be removed, and it has been. Malke2010 03:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is mostly settled anyway, but I'll make this last reply. I still believe you're missing the point. The piece of information under debate in the articles is not, "Karl Rove is an agnostic." That would very rightly be unverifiable. The information is, "Bill Moyers has claimed Karl Rove is an agnostic, though an independent ombudsman has found no basis for the claim." That piece of information is verifiable, though the issue became one of undue weight and proper context. For an interesting read on WP's approach to controversy, see WP:TIGER, but also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the "enemy" and Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. If we scrubbed all of the unverifiable, much less obviously untrue, things one person said about another from WP, we probably wouldn't have anything left from certain pundits. If you still feel like discussing this, we should take it to one of our user talk pages. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If the original source is "a blogger's comments at the San Antonio Express" then I don't think it is reasonable to include it. If the original source is "a friend of a friend who confided in a friend" then again, it shouldn't be included. I can't believe this had to actually go to a RFC. This should be obvious to anyone, on either side of the aisle. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree completely. I think the RfC should be closed.Malke2010 14:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What's worse, is that people are arguing about Rove's personal beliefs. To even discuss something like that in a biography article, you have to have really good sources to start. Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

His Father

I found some interesting facts about Karl Rove's father. Wonder how much of it is worth adding to the article? [2] [3] [4] Stonemason89 (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference [16] is probably ok, but it would likely be best if you used the book as your reference.Chhe (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Activities" section

I tagged this section. A summary of what he does for a living would be appropriate but not where he goes on speaking tours, etc., especially as he's made about a hundred other speaking engagements, and continues to do so. Can't post them all. Not appropriate for a BLP.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Atheist"

I've reverted the following insertion:

According to multiple media reports, Rove is an atheist.

First of all, all three of these "sources" are really the same source -- they're all citing the first, Christopher Hitchens in New York Magazine. So we could perhaps say "Hitchens claims Rove is an atheist", but that wouldn't even be correct; at most, given the language of the interview, we can say "Hitchens claims Rove is not a believer", a far weaker claim. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

University/Alma Mater

According to Karl Rove in numerous interviews he does not have a degree from any of the Universities at which he attended. The words "Alma Mater" should be removed from his bio as they are used for a person who graduated from school. The words should be replaced with something suitable such as "Attended" or "Studied at". Tiberiusuhl (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you point us to a Wikipedia policy or guideline supporting your opinion expressed above? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about his memoir?

I don't see it mentioned in here at all. The memoir that he made, Courage and Consequences. J390 (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, it is mentioned, but not enough detail is given into it, the statements made in the book. J390 (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)