Jump to content

Talk:Karl Rove

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changed "agnostic" notice

[edit]

While I don't want to discount the reference that had been given to affirm Rove's agnosticism, I think that the ProCon.org quote that seems to have come directly from Rove (I think it is a sufficiently credible source) casts enough doubt on his purported lack to warrant my changing what was there. However, if anyone finds what I wrote overly long, feel free to cut it down to the essentials. I also know that the book used as a reference seems to come from after the ProCon.org quote was given, but as it stands, I think its far more likely that the comment in that book about his agnosticism was made without knowledge he had deliberately denied such a claim. It is entirely possible that Rove is some kind of crypt-atheist/agnostic, but as it stands, I think his own words about his personal beliefs are more credible than a secondary source. Kevin Corbett (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History, and the current state of the article: a proposal to merge

[edit]

I was involved in this article in the 2009-10 era. There were two editors who worked from what I would term a pro-Rove perspective, both eventually blocked numerous times, both who saw fit to change their identities, and eventually one was banned and the other sanctioned at ArbCom. At the time, I gradually tired of their endless efforts to, as I saw it, sanitize Rove and his record, and walked away. (It might be worth noting that I was never blocked.) One aspect I found particularly unfortunate was the splitting of the article in two, namely the section on Rove during the Bush Administration being removed. That separate article seems quite weak to me, as it is isolated, and I suggest we reincorporate it back into the article and expand it. Given editor interest in this article, I would like to see it improved, but would like to gauge editor interest. In other words, who is actively interested, both in the article and my suggestion that we merge the orphan article back into the main one? Jusdafax 12:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised by the lack of reaction. I'll give it a bit more time, but a closer look at the article reveals serious flaws. Sections read like a resume. Jusdafax 18:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one line addition notable?

[edit]

[[1]] It seems that this one line comment isn't notable and was only added to provide a link for a new article of questionable note. What do other editors think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The addition is noteworthy and a significant viewpoint reliably sourced to multiple reliable sources including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. If you believe the subject of this article is not notable, you may nominate it for deletion. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is wp:note. Your addition is not and it's inclusion is questionable due to wp:weight. Including it to attempt to bolster an article you recently created is questionable editing. Springee (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content is a significant viewpoint prominent in multiple reliable sources, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, International Business Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others; please see WP:DUE.

In February 2012, Rove said Chrysler's Halftime in America Super Bowl advertisement featuring Clint Eastwood was a sign of Chicago-style politics.

  1. Peters, Jeremy W.; Rutenberg, Jim (February 7, 2012). "Republicans See Politics In Chrysler Super Bowl Ad". The New York Times. p. A13. Retrieved September 5, 2015. "The leadership of auto companies feel they need to do something to repay their political patronage," Mr. Rove said on Fox News, where viewers of the network's morning program "Fox & Friends" rated the ad their least favorite of the game. "It is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising."
  2. Bennett, Jeff; Vranica, Suzanne (February 9, 2012). "Corporate News: Super Bowl Ad Goes to OT --- Chrysler, Dealers Deny 'Halftime' Ad Was Political; Furor Draws Web Shoppers". The Wall Street Journal. p. B2. The following day, the advertisement became fodder for talk shows after Republican commentator Karl Rove said he was offended by the commercial. He described it as "a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising."
  3. Weiner, Rachel (February 6, 2012). "Karl Rove 'offended' by Clint Eastwood's Chrysler ad". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 5, 2015. "I was, frankly, offended by it," said Karl Rove on Fox News Monday. "I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising."
  4. Rivoli, Dan (February 6, 2012). "Clint Eastwood Super Bowl Ad is Chrysler's Pay Back for Auto Bailout: Karl Rove". International Business Times. Retrieved September 6, 2015. I was, frankly, offended by it. I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood. I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, he added. But it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best wishes of the management, which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back.
  5. Horsey, David (February 8, 2012). "Clint Eastwood's Super Bowl ad riles Karl Rove". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 7, 2015. Rove said he was offended. He said it was Chicago-style politics at work.

Hugh (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Karl Rove. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Karl Rove. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did Karl Rove write the article?

[edit]

Did the super controversial Karl Rove write the article himself? Karl Rove is considered one of the dirtiest players in the history of politics and is equal to Machiavelli in reputation. Why isn't that somewhere within the opening summary of the biographical figure? I am sure there is plenty of literature and investigative journalism out there on the Web to corroborate Karl Rove's controversial side and in many cases, criminal activity... Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

[edit]

by what standard of evidence would Wikipedia accept a source for verifying Karl Rove as having the most punch-able face? Please and thankyou, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.233.182 (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Rove&oldid=1252189166"