Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for responding to this request. Please read my introduction and answer the questions I have posed. Type your response next to your name on the list below.

Thank you. paul klenk 08:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Survey

Using Microsoft Word, I have performed a rough word count of the body of the article on Karl Rove. For the purpose of the count, I deleted the table of contents and the end notes, but included the section headings that appear within the body.

By my rough count:

  • 8344 words make up the full article
  • 5839 words make up the section devoted to the Plame affair
  • 2505 words make up the rest of Rove's life and career

In other words, Wikipedia editors have devoted approx. seventy percent of Karl Rove's article to the Plame affair.

Please answer the three following questions, giving your own personal opinions. Please answer yes or no (or weak or strong yes or no), followed by explanations or arguments:

  1. For this particular subject (Rove), do you think it is appropriate to give this affair seventy percent of the weight of the piece? (Please focus on this specific article, as written, not a theoretical subject.)
  2. Would you object to either moving this section to its own article OR merging it to an existing Plame article?
  3. Do you think someone could reasonably object to giving this amount of space, percentage-wise, to the Plame section of the article, on the grounds that the given weight, and the detail provided in it, indicates a POV by contributing editors?

[edit] Respondents

I have identified all logged-in editors who have made at least one edit in the last month or so. Please type your response next to your name:

  • Android79
    1. No. As it stands now, one would get the impression that Rove is only notable for his involvement in the Plame affair, which is certainly not the case.
    2. I have mild objections to a move, but a merger sounds like a great idea. A substantial summary of Rove's involvement should remain in this article.
    3. The amount of material on the Plame affair in proportion to the rest of the article indicates a possible POV problem.
  • Arnoldlover
  1. Yes. Most of Rove's fame among the general public centers on his reported role in the exposure of the CIA identity of Valerie Plame, so it is reasonable that most of the article be on that topic.
  2. I guess so. More players are appearing- Scooter Libby turns out to be Judith Miller's source and she has agreed to testify, so it makes sense for there to be a more central repository to avoid duplication.
  3. Yes. But I think that this can be ameliorated by making sure that items that are removed to the Plame Affair article are still briefly referenced here- it'll still be a substantial chunk, but as I said above, I do believe Rove's fame with the general public is mostly because of this.
  • ArnoldReinhold
1 Yes. The White House initially dismissed the notion of Rove having anything to do with the leak as "ridiculous" and said anyone involved in it would be fired. Rove has now admitted at least some involvement, he is still a key Bush advisor, and the White House has refused to explain its earlier statements. That makes the story white hot and justifies the amount of space devoted to it.
2 Not necessary. The material in the present article deals with Rove's involvement in the scandal. The Plame article is big enough as is. and I don't see the need for a Karl Rove's Involvement in the Plame Affair article. That's not to say nothing can be trimmed. There are probably bit and pieces that are now less important (the Rove/Ashcroft conflict of interest, could be reduced to a sentence or two, for example). When Fitzgerald reports his findings, a major rewrite will probably be required anyway.
3 No. The volume of details is simply a measure of the depth of the scandal. If there are arguments on the other side, they should, of course, be included. However some efforts by Rove supporters do not withstand close scrutiny, such as their claim that early White House statements about firing anyone involved only applied to someone who committed a crime. Past White House statements have to be cited chapter and verse to refute them. This adds to the bulk, but is necessary to get at the truth. --19:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • BigDaddy777
1 No, the disproportionate amount devoted to this still as of now very much UNRESOLVED issue, makes the article read less like an encyclopedia article, and more like Phil Donahue's blog.
2 I think, until the matter is resolved, that is the wisest approach. Plame should have a couple paragraphs in the Rove article. One on the accusation and another EQUALLY IMPORTANT about how unfair many think Rove's accusers are and how it fits into this long-discredited underlying template of 'Rove as bogeyman.' Then just link it to the Plame page.
3 Yes, I think I answered that already. The sheer volume screams bias.
  • Bobo192
  • Borisblue
  • Curpsbot-unicodify
  • Cynicsm addict
1. I feel that this Valerie Plame affair has been written far too much into this article. However, it is a current event revolving around a viciously controversial figure, and the affair may be demoted in its percieved importance eventually and thus less and less space will be spent on it as pointless speculation is pruned and the rest of that article is expounded as Rove takes a new direction after the Buash administration.
2. Merge the majority of it into the Plame article, leaving a base description and, of course, a link to said article.
3. It may be that people always feel the joy of being the first to add something when news breaks, so the submissions may have gotten out of hand. However, there is no denying that this is a significant part of Rove's image right now, and as such deserves some attention. I don't feel it's POV, people may have just gotten a little caught up in things.
  • Derex — Basically, what Kizzle said.
0 Updated view here: I think for now, leave it as is. At the moment, the majority of traffic is probably people curious about Rove with reference to the Plame issue. So, I think it's most useful as is for the readers (our goal). In a couple months, we'll have a better idea what to do with the material for the long term (Fitzgerald is supposedly wrapping it up). No need to rush into a major restructuring just now. (An aside: I doubt Rove will be indicted. Bush just appointed him head of Katrina reconstruction. Why give him more visibility if the hammer's about to fall?) Old answer below:
1 It's clearly too much emphasis on a (so far) minor episode in his life for the main article. But, there's no reason to delete the material from wikipedia, particularly since it may very well become quite pertinent within a couple months. Also, as ArnoldReinhold point out, it is quite important as a White House scandal: reneging on the 'firing' promise, apparent failure of Bush to simply ask his senior staff about their involvement, etc. I think that aspect is at least as important as many of the Clinton scandals with daughter articles Travelgate, Filegate, Kathleen Willey, etc.
2 Just merge it into the Plame article or make it into its own article (with a summary and link here). I did that a while back with the various Clinton scandals. Makes the Clinton article readable, and gives room for the scandal articles to grow appropriately.
3 As to length implying POV, of course it doesn't indicate that; it just reflects that it has been in the news a lot recently. That always happens for current events articles. Derex 19:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Discobolus
1. Yes. When people want to know about Karl Rove's particular role in the Plame affair, they come to this entry. If a person needs a timeline specific to Karl Rove, they can get it here. Personally, and from an aesthetic point of view, I prefer an understanding of the scandal that centers around a single individual's role in it, which is why I have been drawn to editing this article. Like it or not, Rove is a central figure in the scandal, and he is the only one whose known acts are distinct enough at this point, and documented by third parties, to provide readers a reasonable means to test their legality.
2. Not necessary. Again, it's important that all of the Plame material be here until a legal resolution occurs, since the White House still officially claims that Rove was "uninvolved" in the leak. The White House has also said that it will not answer questions on the matter until the resolution of a criminal investigation. The possibility of criminal charges against Rove dictates that this Wikipedia entry keep all matters involving and relevant to Rove's involvement in the Plame affair open and available for public reference. (And by the way, that's not subject to a vote.)
3. Length has nothing to do with POV. Personally, I would prefer that more time be spent expanding that other 30%, because I would like to know more about Rove's other responsibilities in the White House.
  • Drini
  • Eclipsed
  • Everyking
  • Func
  • Gamaliel
  • GregNorc

You've overanalyzing. That's the biggest event to happen in Rove's life. It's like claiming a Nixon article talks to much about Watergate, or an article on Hitler shouldn't talk mostly about his time as leader of Nazi Germany. (Not saying Rove is like hitler :))

  • Gyrofrog
1. No.
2. No objection.
3. Not necessarily, see preceding comments by GregNorc.
  • Gzuckier

What kizzle said. Gzuckier 09:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Hipocrite
    • I agree with Kizzle below.


  • Jredmond
  • Kewp
  • Kizzle
    • Paul, I think you're spending too much energy trying to beat around the bush... There has been several discussions to merge all the plame material in here and on Valerie Plame to a separate plame affair article with the exception of a summary on each page, and in most of these discussions, everyone agreed that it had to be done, just no one wanted to. Its not even a question of bias or POV, but of improper weight given to something that should be a daughter article. So I think you're going to find a lot of support here to offload most of the plame info to a daughter article with the exception of a short summary. --kizzle 18:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Paul August
  • Paul Klenk
  1. No, but the affair deserves to be covered fully and fairly, in as much detail as is available. It is an ephemeral media storm, and could as easily be construed as a witchhunt as it could a legitimate controversy. Both views deserve attention.
  2. I propose a well-written, medium length, summary of the Plame affair included in the Rove article, plus a well researched companion article, covered in detail, but not weighted by negative, biased sources.
  3. Yes, it is a reasonable conclusion -- doesn't make it right, but reasonable. The news media by its nature relies on sensationalism and controversy -- "if it bleeds it leads" -- in selecting its content. An encyclopedia should not model itself on sensational coverage simply for the sake of reflecting "what's out there". (Repeating "per others" is just as easy by either side of this debate, by the way; it does not give one's argument more weight or validity -- just more mouths repeating it.)
  • Pburka
  • Philwelch
    1. No, I don't think it's appropriate.
    2. I would not object to that, that seems to be perfectly standard practice in Wikipedia. It certainly doesn't make sense to destroy perfectly encyclopedic content because there's more of it than content about other aspects of Rove's live. Of course, do leave a summary in this article, and the standard note under the heading linking to the main article.
    3. In terms of intent I'm still going to assume good faith and attribute to the uneven development inherent in the wiki system instead of the editors' POV. In terms of effect it does bias the article.
  • Reinyday
  • RoyBoy Merge and write an awesome lead, and if someone could figure out why its 800x600 busting, that would be grreaaattt. - RoyBoy 800 15:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Rx Strangelove
  • RyanFreisling
  1. Yes, as per numerous other users. If he is a subject of another investigation by the DOJ, we can talk about splitting that 70%. But I don't need to know his dog's name or his favorite vegetable - I need to know the salient details surrounding his exposure of a CIA agent, interfering with an investigation, making false statements to FBI agents, and other serious criminal acts, if proven. 70% sounds about right.
  2. Yes, I would object to either. I feel it is not necessary, as per others. This article should detail only issues of Rove's involvement. It is thus most correct and most informative when left with the current structure, unmerged.
  3. No, as per other posters. If there are other episodes in Rove's life as current, complex and prominent as the investigation surrounding his confirmed leak of a CIA agent's identity they will undoubtedly take up a similar amount of space - but it may be hard to find something equally noteworthy as this possible treason and related criminal behavior, currently under investigation by the U.S. DOJ. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Shanes
    1: No I think that's too much, and considering the article is now 72k, much of it should be either deleted or moved or merged somewhere else.
    2: As noted above. But a summary of his role in the Plame affair should of course be left.
    3: Unless the Plame affair is the all important part of what makes him notable, focusing on it to a this high degree could indicate a POV, but not necessarily. Though it will most likely look like it to the informed reader. Shanes 10:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Shariputra

I agree with ArnoldReinhold, Discobolus, GregNorc, and lots of others who use Wikipedia. Keep its as is, with all the detail. The Plame leak made Rove a household name. This is the #1 Karl Rove Google hit on the Internet for one reason: it's a great summary of what Karl Rove is most famous for. Nearly everyone writing in favor of a merger is pretending as if Plame is over, and this is all past and historical. It sounds as if they want to bury the story and Rove's involvement. With specific charges pending, people expect to know the facts and the timeline and how it relates to him.

  • Evolauxia
1 No. It most certainly should be covered in detail, but the section in the Rove article should be condensed to more fit the rest of the article. It's an ongoing issue that I think should have a summary with a link to a larger article on the Plame affair itself...
2 No. The merger, however, should not lose any valuable content or quality.
3 There can be at least the appearance of POV, though it is a very signficant and ongoing event so it's somewhat understandable as well.
  • Thomask
  • Trevor mcinnis
  • Zoe

The proportions are OK but the whole article needs trimming to about 2k5 words. mikeL 09 /03/06

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/r/Talk%7EKarl_Rove_September_Survey_c1e9.html"