Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 4

message: OMG you protected The Wrong Version!  Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I beat you all to it: 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  clean slate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  As of August 22, Republican senators... 

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

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