Talk:Robert Novak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Someone should mention the book he wrote. It's on Amazon.

It may be worth mentioning that Novak recently (April 2006) donated $1.25 million for a named chair at UIUC, the Robert D. Novak Endowed Chair in Western Civilization and Culture. I'm not sure how to fit it in to the 'Early Years' section. Eripsa

"The Prince of Darkness" reference can be found in the recent Vanity Fair article about him. (posted by 65.5.196.200; originally unsigned)

This article is in serious need of NPOV'ing. I thought I'd smack this tag on here before I set to work on it in a few hours, to let others chime in. --BaronLarf 23:02, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

What are the serious problems with the article? (I didn't write it, just threw in that piece about him being known as "the prince of darkness") From what I have read about him, this all seems to be accurate. I left out some of the other things people have said about him, ie "He has never done an unselfish thing in his life", but I found the "prince of darkness" bit amusing, so I added that. --65.5.196.200

This article is also in need of some cleanup and an image.

"Prince of Darkness" might be a misattribution on the part of Vanity Fair ... Richard Perle is the one most commonly referred to by others and himself as the "Prince of Darkness." "Prince of Darkness is the title of the news article linked to the reference, i am going to remove the pov dispute.Scranton

Dick Darman was also known as prince of darkness, there is on in massachusetts too (the secretary of state bill galvin -- i think its valid 68.116.195.72

Novak has been called 'the Prince of Darkness' for YEARS, and it is sometimes suggested that he started the practice himself. He certainly has never seemed upset about it. Some of his critics actually call him 'the Prince of Dimness' instead. CBDunkerson

Because the truth is unflattering to Robert Novak it shouldn't be changed? Believe me, worse things could be mentioned in this article.

what is the procedure to remove the tag?

When people agree to it in talk, you simply delete the pov check thingy at the top of the page in edit. 216.165.29.131 02:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL neutrality message, there's actually people who like him?

Contents 1 "Allegedly" 2 Categories 3 Opus Dei 4 Inside Politics Incident 5 Useful Article 6 Photo Suggestion 7 Douchebag of Liberty 8 Crossfire kerfuffle 9 NPOV/Organization

[edit] "Allegedly"

On the 'allegedly' controversy. How does Rove's statement to reporters that she is "fair game" NOT prove that this was retaliatory? Rove had >claimed< that he only considered Valerie Wilson 'fair game' AFTER Novak's column came out, but we now know that this was a lie... he told Matt Cooper about her CIA status three days earlier. The TRULY stubborn >might< (I say might) still be able to pretend that this was not vindictive retaliation, but the actual wording of the article does not go that far;

"Novak gained notoriety in 2003 for revealing in print the name of an undercover CIA official, Valerie Plame, as part of a Bush White House effort to discredit her husband, the former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson (a critic of the intelligence used to justify the Iraq invasion)."

There is nothing 'alleged' about that. They were telling reporters bad things about Wilson and telling them not to believe him. These are known facts. Ergo, they were trying to discredit him. Unless you think their motive for saying he was a liar was to make him seem more credible? CBDunkerson 11:08, July 11 2005 (UTC)

Where is the proof that Novak was a part of the plan? Where is the sourcing that proves that there indeed was a White House plan to discredit her? This is encyclopedia; we shouldn't be reprinting rumors, no matter how convinced we may be of their veracity. Cheers. --BaronLarf 17:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Proof that Novak was part of the plan = The fact that he was one of the 3+ reporters now known to have received the leak in early-mid July 2003. Are you asking whether he was 'in on' the plan? Impossible to determine, but doesn't matter, the statement calls it a White House plan rather than a Novak plan. You also ask about a plan to discredit "her" while the statement indicates it was aimed at Joseph Wilson. Sourcing is readily available from Novak's own column, Walter Pincus's, and the various stories on the Cooper e-mail... The White House told three separate sources (at the least) negative things about Joseph Wilson. That can reasonably be described as an effort to discredit Joseph Wilson... no rumors involved. Facts all around. So what's the problem? Do we really have to reference sources that are common knowledge for EVERY statement even when they are linked elsewhere in the article? --CBDunkerson 10:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

When there is a dispute over content, yes. No where else in the article does it say that Novak was a part of a Bush White House effort to discredit Plame's husband. --BaronLarf 13:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The problem for me is that the sentence really seems (at least to me and a few others) to flat-out say that Novak was in on the White House effort. We can't really say that he was (at least, not yet), so I don't see why "allegedly" is an issue.

Don't agree with me? Then let's try the same wording in other cases. Here's the sentence in dispute: "Novak gained notoriety in 2003 for revealing in print the name of an undercover CIA official, Valerie Plame, as part of a Bush White House effort to discredit her husband..."

Here's two other sentences with the same structure: "Mohamed Atta al-Sayed piloted a Boeing 767 into the World Trade Center as part of an Al Qaeda effort to humiliate the United States." Or, "John Gotti went to prison as part of an FBI effort to hamper organized crime". The first sentence reads the way it was meant to; al-Sayed was obviously in on the Al Qaeda effort. As for the John Gotti sentence, it sounds a wee bit wrong, and would be worded better as "Gotti was imprisoned as part of an FBI effort..."--Rroser167 14:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thank you for explaining it better. I don't see the problem with including the word "allegedly" in there.--BaronLarf 15:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I'm not convinced that this article should be in the Category:U.S. political scandals category. Novak himself isn't a scandal. And while he is involved in the whole Valerie Plame scandal, that's not the only thing notable about him. Bill Clinton was the central character in the Whitewater affair, yet he's not in that category. --BaronLarf 17:23, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I can't claim to have followed this scandal (or Novak in general) too closely, though. Dave (talk) 17:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Toytoy has replaced the category again. It's up for a vfd, though, so I'll let it stay until that's over. --BaronLarf 20:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei

The article says, "He is a member of the secretive far-right Catholic group Opus Dei." Can anyone substantiate that or cite a source? I find none. Calicocat 05:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inside Politics Incident

Looks to me as if this is probably excessive coverage of this one incident which is only interesting because of what it says about Novak's involvement in the Plame affair. I corrected the statement that said Novak was enraged because he clearly was not, in fact the tape shows him appearing curiously detached, as if he recognized that he had contrived the argument. Also his anger is directed more at Henry than Carville. The excessive length is not a problem for the time being, for the next few weeks it is probably what people will be looking for in the article. But the article can probably be pruned considerably as soon as the full Plame story comes out. It is unlikely that Novak will turn out to be more than a bit player in the actual scandal even if he ends up prosecuted for his actions.--Gorgonzilla 12:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article should loose the first half describing pretty irrelevant details of the interview and instead give useful context.

OK I edited out the blow by blow description of the interview which is not all that interesting. It would be better to link to a video of the incident. I added in the fact that Novak claims his walkout had nothing whatsoever to do with the Plame affair questions and balanced this with the list of facts that make this claim not very credible.

• This account of the "inside politics" incident is HUGE and totally unnecessary. It is longer than all of the other scandals put together, despite the fact that it is totally minor. Should be slimmed to three sentences. Sdedeo 23:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree entirely. Dedicating a whole section to an on screen walkoff is absurd. Most of his other controversies are far more notable, yet they have a brief mentioning in the previous section. Remy B 12:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have gone ahead and been bold. The IP incident is now under the controversies section, and greatly reduced in length. A large portion of the IP story was actually just a re-re-re-re-re-recounting of the Plame affair story, which has its own page. I tried to find a source for the statement that Novak walked out to avoid questioning about the Plame affair, but couldn't -- not even in postings on the liberal blogs like Daily Kos -- but have left it in in case someone has a source. Sdedeo 23:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Henry implicitly made that exact allegation immediately after the walkout. Novak denied the allegation in his widely reported appology, commenting that he denied Henry's implication. Clearly nobody can know Novak's motives or mental processes with absolute certainty but the interest in the walkout is entirely due to the belief that it is Plame related.

At this point it appears highly unlikely that Novak is going to work for CNN again as a direct result of the walkout. The incident is quite likely to be a career breaker. A walkout on air is a major breach. It is certainly now impossible for Novak to return until he has answered the questions. I have reverted. The questions raised by the walkout are going to be central to the question of whether Novak ever returns to mainstream broadcasting.

• Hi there. You say: "but the interest in the walkout is entirely due to the belief that it is Plame related." Entirely is too strong a word. But here is a source you can cite. [1]; Carville suggests that Novak fled because of fears of Plame questioning. Having paragraphs and paragraphs devoted to this event is ridiculous, and will eventually get deleted anyway. I have no desire to get into an edit war over what seems to be your hobbyhorse, however, so include below the text of the slimmed down version in case someone else wants to work on them. Sdedeo 05:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Carville also made the exact same claims in an interview with John Imus. They were and are the party line of the left wing blogs. The reason the section is large at the moment is that there are a great many questions. Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary, it is not limited by space, nor is it committed to keep the same space allocation as more becomes known. It is most likely that at some point in the future that there will be a clarifying event that makes the in-depth description unnecessary. At the moment it appears that this incident has quite likely ended Novak's CNN career. --Gorgonzilla 14:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• 2005 Inside Politics incident

On August 4, 2005, Novak was appearing on a live broadcast of the CNN show Inside Politics, along with Democratic strategist and analyst James Carville, and moderator Ed Henry. Novak responded to a comment by Carville with an obsenity, saying "well, I think that's bullshit. And I hate that." To the moderator Ed Henry, Novak turned and said "just let it go" before removing his microphone and walking off the set. In response to the incident, CNN suspended Novak for one day, calling the outburst "inexcusable and unacceptable." Critics have alleged that Novak's departure from the set was motivated not by anger with Carville's comment, but by the desire to avoid questioning about the Plame affair later in the show, which was expected to be intense.

[edit] Useful Article

The following article provides some very useful context on Novak that may explain the curious fact that it took his CNN colleagues over TWO YEARS to ask him about Plame. Novak is an executive producer of many of the shows he appears on. Henry was the first reporter who interviewed him who did not depend on him for their job. http://washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0412.sullivan.html

I think someone should add this very interesting fact to the main article.

[edit] Photo Suggestion

On http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/07/20/rovenovakPicture.html there's a picture of Rove together with Novak. Rove has a button attached to his suit that says "I am a source, not a target!". Not a photoshopped image! 80.217.225.208 01:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the copyright status?

[edit] Douchebag of Liberty

I am tempted to remove this comment as it is simply one individual's insulting reference rather than a name that is widely used. The Prince of darkness on the other hand is used very widely to refer to Novak and there is some evidence that he even encourages this - his staff on Capital Gang use it.

I agree and it adds to the perception that the whole entry is an outlet for someone's anti-Novak opinion - BillK

I was inclined to agree that this was a non-notable epithet, but I see that it gets quite a few Google hits, about 4,500 total of which about 360 are unique. That compares to about 13,700 (529 unique) for "Prince of Darkness". Therefore it appears to been adopted by the broader public beyond Jon Stewart. Perhaps there is another way of wording this section? Instead of a "trivia" section maybe just a sentence that lists notable epithets? -Willmcw 01:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

One could also type in George Bush's name in google along with an unflattering adjective, and receive well over 4500 hits, yet we don't see George Bush being dubbed certain monikers in his bio. This article is terribly left-wing bias and definately should be cleaned up. Boort 04:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crossfire kerfuffle

...seems awfully large, so much so as to possibly be unbalancing. It's longer than all the other text put together. Considering that it was basically a tempest in a teapot, I think it ought to be significantly cut. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Cut a lot of fat out today, particularly some speculative stuff that had more to do with the Plame leak than the CNN incident. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:32, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

You cut out way way too much. The incident is widely regarded as meaning the end of his CNN career. That is pivotal. There is quite a bit of cruft there but his direct involvement in the Plame affair is critical. Novak is a minor player in the Plame affair itself, Rove, Libby, Bush, Miller are the central figures so I would not expect a detailed account there. But the Plame affair is going to be the biggest single incident in Novaks career. His prevaracations over it are important.--Gorgonzilla 15:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Is "widely regarded" by whom? Don't use weasel words. Also, even if it were the end of his CNN career, who says it's pivotal? CNN is only one pot Novak has his hand inside. I have no problem with including information on the Plame incident (which is much more serious than the Crossfire one). But it doesn't belong in the Crossfire section. Instead create a separate section on Plame and put it there. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

(As an aside, I don't mean to sound antagonistic. I'd be glad to help build the section. It just doesn't belong under the Crossfire thing.) · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV/Organization

This article starts out in a straightforward manner, detailing Novak's career up to 1972. From then on everything is either a controversy or a scandal. I renamed "Controversies and scandals" to "Notable reporting", but that's just a bandaid. Can we make this into more of a biography? Did anything happen to him personally after 1972? Job changes? Marriages? It'd be great if we could make this into more of a narrative, chronological biography. (Not a bad article, just oddly arranged) Cheers, -Willmcw 12:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It is for the above-cited reasons, and failure so far on the part of wiki contributors to correct or even address the problem, that the NPOV tag has been added. This is not an article, let alone a neutral one; it's a scandal sheet, and requires heavy editing before it can possibly be considered a credible item. SchutteGod 15:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty funny that no one seems to care enough about his reputation to clean up his article. Maybe someone should tell him to get someone on that. ;) Schwael 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Very constructive. Thank you for that. SchutteGod 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the Left has added the usual ficticious accounts claiming that Novak admitted Rove was his source for Plame. Laughable in hindsight.

He did admit it - read this article http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/cia.leak/index.html mbc362 5:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)