Talk:Robert Novak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeRobert Novak was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 16, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

old comments[edit]

Someone should mention the book he wrote. It's on Amazon. (His memoir "Prince of Darkness" is now listed in the References section. There are earlier books,too, probably written with Rowland Evans. AndersW (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]


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?

Novak talked about his nickname in the NYT interview; I added it before checking here, but it's properly sourced. He gave the same answer on [Meet The Press 7/15/2007.] Bokonon42 05:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Allegedly"[edit]

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)[reply]
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)

Categories[edit]

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)

Opus Dei[edit]

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)[reply]

One link in that section is a blog thats broken and the other one is a pay site. I removed that section per wp:BLP. --Tom 17:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think by definition this cannot be in Wikipedia. Or it wouldn't be particularly secretive. ~~----
That was an error. He's actually part of the not-so-secret order of Opus Penguin. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Politics Incident[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

Useful Article[edit]

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.

Photo Suggestion[edit]

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)[reply]

What is the copyright status?

Douchebag of Liberty[edit]

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)[reply]

HastelloyX 05:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Is every Jon Stewart joke/insult worthy enough of an entry on Wikipedia? A single comment attributed to a comic hardly seems to be a worthwhile addition to an article that is designed to supply useful information about the subject matter. If how many hits on the web a joke makes is all that is needed to justify whether it belongs on a Wikipedia page, somebody might as well start adding Robin Williams comments comparing partial nuclear disarmament to partial circumcision to the Wikipedia page on nuclear disarmament.[reply]

Crossfire kerfuffle[edit]

...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)[reply]
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)

NPOV/Organization[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)
Late to the game, I know, but Rove was not the primary source. The way the article describes his role now is more accurate. 70.181.171.159 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and the Palestinians[edit]

I added the fact tag to the intro sentence of that section. If not sourced, that whole section should be removed as original research, imho oh course :). Thanks --Tom 17:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Inside Politics Incident[edit]

The article says something about the 2005 Inside Politics incident being the last time Robert Novak was seen on CNN. While this was the last time he was on there while being employed by CNN, I do seem to remember an interview he gave Wolf Blitzer some time later. Shame I can't remember more about it. I'll have to do some digging. Illinois2011 15:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty for What[edit]

The section amensty, abortion, and acid needs to specify: amnesty for what. Boris B (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Car Hitting[edit]

Granted, this isnt the best source, but apparently Novak even tried to drive away from the scene. He was chased down by a lawyer on a bike. Novak was released with a $50 ticket for not yeilding to someone in a crosswalk. Dude who was hit (66 years old) is now in the hospital. Qb | your 2 cents 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already in there with a better source [2] :) Course, I'm not sure personal life is the best place to put it, but it didn't belong in the lead either. Feel free to tweak. Shell babelfish 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I wasnt trying to overrule the good source we have. I was just detailing and givin ya the beltway gossip. Wonkette's having a fieldday with this. Qb | your 2 cents 18:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's apparently got a history of "aggressive" driving, too - various liberal blogs are having several field days with this. Dfunk1967 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake! WP:NOT#NEWS. Does every injury traffic accident get a paragraph in Wikipedia? There's no reliable sourcing as yet that he did anything wrong. In most cases one or both parties are at fault and one will get a citation. A citation is an unproven charge. Per WP:BLP we normally don't report unproven claims. Per WP:WEIGHT I don't think this is worth a mention at all, much less a heading and a detailed (if neutral) description, even if it turns out he was negligent in his driving. He hasn't been charged with hit-and-run, and looking at his statement[3] it seems quite unlikely he will be. If anything, this belongs at Wikinews. Wikidemo (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Auto/Ped and brain tumor sections be combined since one was related to the other? --Hourick (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this accident even worth having in Wikipedia? It sounds more like Tabliod fodder than an encyclopedia section. --64.173.240.130 (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Brain Tumor by Robert D. Novak has the man's own recollections (or failures thereof) on the matter… Asteriks (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The words "hit and run" refer to a crime, an element of which is that you know you've been in an accident. Replacing with "Car Accident" for now. I don't think it is encyclopedia material either. My step father was involved in 4 minor accidents in the weeks before being diagnosed with a brain tumor (he died within days). This is quite common.192.55.54.37 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this, it might be worth merging it into the tumor section, rather than in with his career? Shimgray | talk | 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Tumor![edit]

Bob Novak has announced he has a brain tumor

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1077958,novak072808.article Tenio (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And his first article since surgery is devoted to the matter: My Brain Tumor by Robert D. Novak. Asteriks (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tense Past/Present[edit]

I realize that he's not dead, but as of now, his journalistic career is over I believe in MOST cases, the tense was correct. If/when he recovers, then it should be changed back. --Hourick (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN[edit]

This article only talks about his leaving CNN and when he left but says nothing about when he joined the network and very little about what he did there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.133.202 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't he charged?[edit]

As folk have noted that he wasn't charged with revealing Plame's identity, the question remains as to why. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own research next time. If you really believe this to be an important question, search Google for "Robert Novak" "not charged" and you'll get some answers. (If you're adding anything, please do be careful not to synthesize your own conclusions from multiple sources). My accusation of pedantry was directed not at you as an individual, but at your choosing to unnecessarily tag the article rather than adding the relevant piece of factual information. I believe this to be a case of following the letter of Wikipedia procedures and missing the spirit of improving the article. --Brhaspati\talk/contribs 23:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you're wrong, on practically every count, Brhaspati. First of all, the whole point of the 'why' template is for when you do not know why a piece of info is present within the article or its pertinence. I did not add the initial info, and I figured that some other brilliant mind might save me the time I do not have and already have a cited reference as to why Novak was not charged. And please, do yourself the enormous favor of not accusing me of synthesis - I am pretty sure that my understanding of what is and isn't synthesis is pretty much beyond reproach. For example, perhaps you are a wee bit too close to the subject of the article to understand that I was tagging that information which either needed citation or wasn't clear as to connection. That benefits our readers, who might not be experts on the subject. Now, you might want to review WP:AGF, as I am pretty sure you closely avoided being trout-slapped by myself. Put a civil tongue in your head, mister man. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's neither any call to take offense nor one to issue threats; the latter in particular does not help your case. There is however a rationale for my actions: the reality might very well be that you have a genuine curiosity for information that's not your primary area of expertise and therefore are requesting a clarification and/or expansion from others. However, the perception that this gives is one of laziness and demanding high-standard work from others while not being seen to do so oneself. Again, I emphasize: this may not be reality but it is the perception, especially when coupled with your statements about the value of your time. I can't blame you for it -- I used to tag articles with "cn" and "fact" myself until some years ago, and then it was rightly pointed out to me that my actions were not helpful like I had thought them to be. (It's sometimes far more effective to track down the editor who added the statement and leave them a personal request for citation -- I've found personal requests like that to be satisfied more willingly and quickly than an impersonal change to the article). For this particular article, if you really want to retain the "why" tag, I'll concede the point -- I have no particular investment in the article one way or the other. But please do realize that I genuinely believe that tags like "fact" and "why" do more harm than good in the long run -- they tend to encourage an unconscious lazy-web attitude of "I'd like to know this stuff but instead of finding it out myself let me tag it and see if someone else does a few hours of work for me", and sooner or later a person who uses them will be called on their actions. Again, my complaint is not with you, but with your actions and the impressions they convey. Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 18:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I urged you to review AGF, Brhaspati. Instead of asking me what I was doing, you assumed I was being lazy and whatnot. To reiterate, if I had the time, I'd go out and seek the citation myself instead of tagging it; finding the citation seems a far more useful use of time than trying to track down the editor who added the uncited info to begin with. I do not think that tagging an article for citation is bad (if the article needs it). It serves two purposes: it serves as notice to the editing crew that there is information needing referencing and citation. It also lets the reader know that what they are reading isn't cited to a source, and may very well be inaccurate or biased. I will agree that excessive tagging isn't helpful (esp. when section tagging might very well be far more effective). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clear it up![edit]

“ Journalistically, I thought it was an important story because it explained why the CIA would send Joe Wilson – a former Clinton White House aide with no track record in intelligence and no experience in Niger – on a fact-finding mission to Africa.[27] ”

In fact, Joseph Wilson is a former United States Foreign Service diplomat who had been posted to African nations and Iraq during several administrations, including the George H. W. Bush administration. 


   The second paragraph written by Wikipedia appears to be structured to try and disqualify
the statement spoken by Mr. Novak.

Reguard;

{I thought it was an important story because it explained why the CIA would send Joe Wilson – a former Clinton White House aide with no track record in intelligence}

Response;

['In fact, Joseph Wilson is a former United States Foreign Service diplomat}'''' 

   A foreign service diplomat is not in the intelligence feild. No contridiction here.

Reguard;

{no experience in Niger – on a fact-finding mission to Africa.[27] ” }

Response;

[who had been posted to African nations and Iraq during several administrations, including the George H. W. Bush administration.] 

   "African nations and Iraq" is not Niger, again no contridiction. Which administration employed him
is non sequitur and appears to be added only to quantify the Wikipedia conclusion.

   The Wikipedia response to Mr. Novak's remarks needs to be ammended. If the words "All true,"

were added to the beginning of the Wikipedia statement it would read correctly as a statement 

of opinion and point of view of the author, which it clearly is.


Grenademagnet (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)grenademagnet[reply] 

How does being stationed in Iraq give someone a " track record in" intelligence or "experience in Niger"?
Is the wiki editor suggesting these can be attained by posts in African nations?
Clearly Wilson had some experience in Africa or at least according to his now famous letter.
"I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council
 official in the late 90's."
 Now here the question remains whether this was sufficient to put him on the CIA's short list of people to send
 or whether his wife's influence put him in the number one slot?
 Still more, one has to remember context. Clearly, the statement below concerns a time prior to Novak's article mentioning
 Valerie Plame. That is to say Novak may or may not have known about Wilson's "qualifications " prior to researching the story:
 "Journalistically, I thought it was an important story because it explained why the CIA would send Joe Wilson – a former 
  Clinton White House aide with no track record in intelligence and no experience in Niger – on a fact-finding mission to    
  Africa."   
  I would assume Novak had at least a general idea about said qualifications. However, even if he knew or later learned that 
  Wilson" had been posted "to African nations and Iraq during several administrations, including the George H. W. Bush
  administration" this would not alter the substance of his original question: whether this was sufficient to make Wilson the   
  right person to send or whether it required his wife's influence.  More importantly, Novak had stated, early on that Plame's
  occupation was revealed in the previous years Who's Who in Washington.  ~Spiker_22  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.242.44 (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q74JDfjI_3w  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.242.44 (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious POV[edit]

"Despite the fact that he himself is of Jewish ancestry"

Robert Novak has taken a pro-Palestinian stance. First of all, why do we need the first part? Is it appropriate to imply that being Jewish means you reflexively support Israel?

Ludicrous. This is POV, as the context is from the POV of a person who believes Jews ought to support Israel due to their Jewishness.

If it narrowed down WHICH Jews and within WHICH group of Jews within the larger group - and carefully worded it as such - then I could accept the caveat.

Like if it said:

'Unlike most mainstream reporters of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry in the UNited States, Novak supports the Palestinians.'

You have to narrow down who we're talking about. ALL JEWS? Some Jews? Jewish people within the mainstream media in the United States?

Simply saying 'of Jewish ancestry' is vague/broad and inappropriate. I'm deleting it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.104.139 (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You're too emotional to contribute to this article. Your deletion was disconsidered as partial, emotive and biased.200.142.114.24 (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"disconsidered as partial, emotive": And I have "disconsidered" your comment for poor grammar and making no sense. Cresix (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Novak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and formatting[edit]

  • According to this tool, there are a number of dab links and one double redirect that should be fixed
  • Contractions should not be used outside of quotes
  • As a bio, the article should conform to WP:PERSONDATA
    Did this one. Wizardman 17:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should avoid wikilinking the same term more than once
  • Some problems with missing/misplaced hyphens
  • "Novak's wrote" -> "Novak wrote"
  • The article could use a general copy edit for clarity and flow
  • "Amnesty, Abortion and Acid" -> "Amnesty, abortion and acid"
  • Since Valerie Plame is linked in the article text, it shouldn't be linked in See also; same with Evans

Accuracy and verifiability[edit]

  • "He had also had what he called a "chilling" conversation with a Syracuse University student whom he thought had channeled the Holy Spirit." - source?
  • "During 2005, there were questions in the press regarding the apparent absence of focus on Novak by the special prosecutor Fitzgerald and the grand jury, specifically questions suggesting he may have already testified about his sources despite insisting publicly that he would not do so." - source?
  • All web references need access dates (and author/publisher where available)
  • Refs 8, 21, 49, 52, 56, 58 are broken

Broad[edit]

No issues noted

Neutrality[edit]

  • Be careful to maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times
  • Per WP:WTA, certain words should be avoided to prevent the appearance of editorial bias

Stability[edit]

No issues noted

Images[edit]

  • Do you have a response to the personality rights tag on the image?

No work done, so you can fail this. Wizardman 15:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-word[edit]

"At his height, Novak was one of the fifth most read columnists in the U.S.[9]"

Perhaps this should read "At the height of his career, Novak was in top 20 percent of columnists most frequently read in the U.S."

My computer will not allow me to check the reference to make sure that this is what the original sentence means, but if it is, a re-wording of this sentence could make it sound less awkward. WesUGAdawg (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the source said one of the five most-read columnists. I've edited accordingly. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  21:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference list[edit]

Does anyone oppose the use of columns in the reference list? I originally implemented {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, but that was considered to narrow by some, so I guess 45em would be okay. Does anyone disagree? —bender235 (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Novak. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 14:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Novak. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 06:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Novak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 09:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Robert Novak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Robert Novak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable events - added Clinton administration (use of Robert Hanssen)[edit]

Since his published 2001 admission of using Soviet/Russian spy Robert Hanssen as a primary source to criticize at least Janet Reno during the Clinton administration was a notable event, I've footnoted using two (2) secondary sources as expected, but also added a third ref linking to that original admission itself — even though it is an original source; at this point I don't need it as verification, I am offering it for detailed information, letting the late Novak speak for himself (and, oddly enough, in favor of Hanssen) in my own utter neutrality. – •Raven  .talk 02:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Epsilon Pi secret handshake[edit]

HI Can someone give input on the following:

He became a brother of the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity, at the time a mostly Jewish college fraternity, while attending the University of Illinois. Novak would later use the group's 'secret handshake' whenever he met fellow alumnus Wolf Blitzer.

The cited source had previously written in the obituary that the Jewish faith was a very small part of his life. Does it justify two sentences in the wikipedia? Scranton (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Novak&oldid=1194467921"