Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 8

Prison ID Number
Scooter just got his prison ID number: 28301-016, but I don't know where this can be inserted. I want to put it in his biography box in the top right, but where is an appropriate place? If you see a good place, you can place it in the article, I just think this would be a good addition.Billy Nair 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your reliable and verifiable source for this information? --NYScholar 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since posting this [question], I've found reliable and verifiable source(s) and added the related content and citations to this article and to the one on United States v. Libby (see related proposal above). I still don't think that it is appropriate to put Libby's "prison number" (as per the citation to Apuzzo's AP article) in the infobox.  If editors disagree, please provide Wikipedia links to other Wikipedia biographies of living persons (well known public figures) who have such prison numbers in their infoboxes. (see my earlier comment posted below and above.)--NYScholar 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated.  --NYScholar 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * Here is a WWW.BOP.GOV (Federal Bureau of Prisons) link to Scooter's info including his ID number: http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&LastName=libby&Middle=lewis&FirstName=i&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=337&y=293 With the .GOV domain I am pretty sure most people will believe it is fairly reliable. You are right about the infobox issue, it doesn't need to be in there, it was just something I was thinking about at that time, but like you said, other prisoners don't have theirs in the box either (but it is something I think would add to the "information gathering" Wikipedia is designed for)  From what I have read on other news sites, if I understood it correctly, this ID number is his to keep forever, if ever he gets busted for dealing crack in Yosemite (a federal crime) this would be the number they use for that trial too.  I saw that you added his ID# in the footnotes (in this and the other article), I was hoping for a "in article" location, but I guess as long as it is in here somewhere I can sleep at night.Billy Nair 16:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In general reply: I don't think it's appropriate or necessary to "insert" his prison number in an infobox for Libby. What is appropriate is updating the content of the article on USA v. LIBBY (and current article relating to it in this article), citing a reliable source, which I find to be, e.g.,

(and/or w/ citation[s] to other reliable and verifiable news accounts/articles. The "prison number" would need to be reliably and verifiably sourced with such an account in a "full citation."  I may work on doing that. But see my previous discussion.  The information (update) is most pertinent to United States v. Libby, and I think that cross-linking to that article would work (as I state above).  I have not seen "prison numbers" in other infoboxes or articles about convicted felons in Wikipedia.  If there are, please add some links so that we can see them as examples. --NYScholar 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cary O'Reilly, "Libby, Ex-Cheney Aide, Must Go to Jail During Appeal (Update2)", Bloomberg.com, 2 July, 2007, accessed 2 July, 2007.
 * I also added the citation to Matt Apuzzo's AP news release about this development. --NYScholar 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For examples of infoboxes for other American criminals, see the project category and consult specific biographies; e.g., John Gotti has no "prison number" inserted in the infobox about him. To insert it in the infobox for Lewis Libby seems inappropriate. I cited the information in a quotation from Apuzzo as an annotation in that note citation.--NYScholar 19:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New section needed to mention commutation - ADMIN ATTENTION NEEDED
Currently, the news about the commutation is under "Presidential Pardon". This does NOT belong under the section discussing pardon options, as the commutation of the sentence was NOT a pardon (and he's still being fined, and some other minor punishments). Kindly edit.BlueSapphires 23:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * [Thanks for posting this. Sorry I forgot to say that first.]  I've done what I can; I have to go offline now.  Others can work on fixing the remaining typographical formatting and other problems.  I fixed the info box a while ago in Lewis Libby and the related parts of United States v. Libby.  Ongoing vigilance obviously needed for these articles.  [Making such changes does not require the attention of administrators; would prev. ed. consider removing the caps of sec heading? ("Shouting" not Wikipedia etiquette as well)].  --NYScholar 23:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 00:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * I've condensed the sections again (and tried to clarify that the commutation is not a pardon - feel free to clarify it even further, if it is not clear). The commutation section is too small to stand on its own, from a layout perspective; if there is more info coming later, it can be eventually split, but not when it only consists of two sentences. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting this; I just saw your comments here; I expanded the section with an appropriate q. from the document; the condensed heading referring to a "Presidential pardon" in place of the current "Presidential pardon issue" was still misleading and inaccurate; Libby has not been pardoned. The q. from the President's longer "Statement" (linked via the citation) documents that.  It's no longer only two sentences.  I expect that as reactions to the action are published in reliable and verifiable sources, this section may have some more added to it (as long as it doesn't get too long).  See my proposal regarding shortening this article (the article on United States v. Libby has much of the same content as do the articles on the other cross-linked subjects in Wikipedia.  (Please scroll up.) Thanks.  --NYScholar 00:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Libby's novel
Various passages describing this novel (sometimes improperly sourced) have been in this article for a very long time. (Examine the full editing history over an extended period of time.) Removal of [pertinent and significant] reliably- and verifiably-sourced information violates Neutral point of view and WP:POV. The claims in the editing summary by the editor deleting the descriptions of the novel from the account in The Guardian about the motives of this editor (me) are false and violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF. See the abitration comments provided regarding various disputed parts of this article. I object to his false characterization of my motives in the editing summary. They are unfair and they violate WP:AGF. I edited the passage changed by another editor so as to provide the source and accurate quotation from it. The earlier editor had deleted properly-sourced quotations and then made a statement with no source to document it (one which had been in this article a long time ago). I deleted that pejorative statement and simply quoted from the cited source, the critique published in The Guardian, which is a reliable and verifiable source in Wikipedia according to Reliable sources. If the editor wants to be "sympathetic" to Libby as he says in the arbitration comments, that is his own point of view, but it is not Wikipedia policy. Neutral point of view is Wikipedia policy. The cited source provides a much-needed description of this novel that is not from only the author (Libby's) point of view. To cite only the author's point of view on his own work [which I incorporated in the block quotation earlier, counter to the claims in the editing summary about motives] is not in keeping with either Neutral point of view or WP:POV. To cite only Larry King's laudatory description of the novel made in 2002 [which I had also incorporated but which another user deleted subsequently] belies later descriptions of the novel made since then. fuller perspective on this novel is presented in the article in The Guardian and in many other potential sources; it/they can be cited in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Otherwise a false impression of the author's "creative writing" is presented in this article. It leaves out acknowledgment in the text of its post-2002 critical reception. --NYScholar 10:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC) [added to; updated. --NYScholar 10:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC), NYScholar 10:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC), and NYScholar 10:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * I added another source (USA Today article), which describes the novel in terms similar to those in the Guardian article; it is a description that used to be in this Wikipedia article on Libby in unsourced statements made by other editors (review the editing history). --NYScholar 10:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference to Stephen Smith's account of the novel's reception used to be in this article on Libby; somewhere along the line it got deleted. I've added it back in, followed by the citation. In my editing summary, I observe that it might be useful to have additional development (from other points of view) of the more recent reception of the novel (briefly). (Following Libby's conversation w/ King, the novel has not been made into a movie.) --NYScholar 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Some other editors have been going back and forth adding and deleting material to this section; they changed "Creative writing" to a section heading with the novel title The Apprentice; someone added a very large jpg photo; then some deleted all the very pertinent biographical content in which Libby talks to Larry King about his view of himself as a novelist in relation to his position on Cheney's "team"; then someone added and someone deleted passages describing the novel; there is exceedingly non-neutral editing going on in this section and the remaining cover photo wholly overwhelms the tiny amount of text left by someone who keeps deleting critical discussion of Libby's novel. There is no other article in Wikipedia where discussion of Libby's "creative writing" part of his life and his first and only novel appears. Excising other editors' pertinent reliably- and verifiably-sourced content without any prior discussion with other editors about it on this talk page is not in keeping with talk page guidelines or with Wikipedia etiquette. The policy in Wikipedia is Neutral point of view, not pleasing the subjects of articles: see, e.g., WP:POV for the specific guidelines pertaining to composing articles about well-known public figures like Libby: WP:BLP. It is not up to editors to make up their own rules about how to write articles in Wikipedia; policies and guidelines are clearly linked so that all editors can equally consult them. What is going on here? The person making the deletions does not provide adequate or convincing explanations in short editing summaries of all those deletions of material provided by other editors (plural). --NYScholar 01:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Proper weight of this section is about 3 sentences. Prurient details extracted to cast Libby in a bad light are a BLP violation. Therefore, stick to the details about the book. Fiction. Setting. General plot. Overview of reviews and popularity. That's it. Three pargraphs exploring the sexual proclivities of a few characters is not proper in this venue. --Tbeatty 01:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Accusing other editors of trying to cast the subject of the article in a bad light is an AGF violation. Therefore, stick to comments about article content. Any NPOV overview of "reviews and popularity" will note the fact that many commentators noted these prurient details.  They may have intended to cast Libby in a bad light, who knows, but whatever their motives, it is our duty to insure the article reflects the true nature of this commentary, and not just favorable commentary. Please respect the work of others and don't delete it with the offensive suggestion they are motivated by the intent to libel. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 02:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reread my comment. I didn't accuse anyone of trying to cast the subjct in a bad light.  I stated as fact that prurient details extracted as such IS a BLP violations.  That's a comment on content.  Please see other authors bios where the content of what they write about is in braod subjects, not prurient details.  See Stephen King.  Subjecting Libby to additional details violates BLP, and undue weight.  Regardless of what his critics have said, we are an encyclopedia that must adhere to NPOV and BLP.  --Tbeatty 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See the main article on the book, which is now cross-referenced in this article: The Apprentice (book). Libby's notability and notoriety are such that his biography is governed by WP:BLP.  Critical reception of the book's [imprints] [first ed., 2 paperback eds.--reprintings] (pre- and post- Plame affair) is well documented in that main article.  [If one wants to do so, one can develop that article further.]  Apparently, many commentators have focused on the novel's "prurient details"; its sexual "prurience", for example, is a striking feature of the book, according to such reviews.  The article on Libby does not engage in "original research"; it reports published points of view on Libby and his work, including his single published novel.  WP:NOR as well as Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and Guidelines for controversial articles all apply here, within the policies stated in WP:BLP; I see no violations of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLP in this article (currently).   Again: WP:AGF; many of us are being highly vigilant about any such possible violations and deleting them on sight (as per WP:BLP, and we have been doing so for several months.  --NYScholar 23:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 23:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)]

Timeline of investigative knowledge
I think our readers would be better served if we emphasized what investigators such as Patrick Fitzgerald knew - and when they knew it.

The two main themes of the Plame affair are:
 * 1) Who revealed what to the public (and did they have a legal or moral right to do so?)
 * 2) Who in the legal community found out about inappropriate leaks, and what legal action did they take against the leakers?

Conservatives and liberals disagree, of course, on what is "moral" or "inappropriate" - and may even wrangle over how to apply the law - but who know what when seems to be pretty well agreed upon by both sides. --Uncle Ed 13:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These matters would seem to be more appropriate for a discussion forum not a Wikipedia talk page (see tagged notice above: ["This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lewis Libby article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."]). Some of the matters are already appropriately developed in the main articles (already cross-linked) on the Plame affair and its own cross-linked articles, such as the "See also" items such as Plame affair timeline (still a poorly-documented article, in my view).  See the talk pages of those articles.  This biographical article on Lewis Libby is not the place to debate the subject of the article (not a forum on the subject of Libby or the Plame affair)--see the tagged notice at the top of this page.  Moreover, Wikipedia editors are not what Wikipedia terms "reliable and verifiable" sources--Reliable sources and Verifiability--on these matters of legality and morality; such discussions must be documented with material found in published sources that are considered "reliable and verifiable," and those are already cited in the other article(s). So please see the other articles (listed in "See also" and the cross-linked references throughout) for further information.  Thanks very much.  --NYScholar 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC); [Updated by adding q. from tagged notice in brackets, fyi. --NYScholar 14:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * [Updated further by adding Wikipedia and WP links above; see the problematic edit just reverted by another user due to lack of documentation; those matters are already discussed in the Plame affair anyway and see the short section here on Armitage. --NYScholar 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC); see also CIA leak grand jury investigation for more info. on "themes" mentioned above. --NYScholar 14:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)]

Link to Valerie Plame
Valerie Plame's name should link to her page. I feel it would help balance out the article, readers would be able to understand her situation and the weight of Libby's crime.Becomingcloser 14:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Mike


 * Valerie Plame's name does link to the article about her: Valerie Plame aka Valerie E. Wilson. I'm not sure why you say that it doesn't.  Wikipedia policy, however, is not to use the links over and over.  They are used sparingly and when useful, not every single time a person's name is mentioned in an article.  (I'll check to see if a link needs to be added earlier in article or some other remedy.)  See also sections contain related articles.  Relevant cross-referenced articles contain Wikified links to her name/article too. --NYScholar 14:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC) [I added a new topic for the above user's comment.  It is different from one before it? --NYScholar 14:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * It seems that some are removing such links; hard to keep up with the deletions; I restored some links to the names of Joseph and Valerie Wilson and some other people so that they link to the pertinent Wikipedia articles about them. (Recent editing history.) --NYScholar 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Just a casual observation but there seems no reason for a link to Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, it is never mentioned in the article, and Libby's pro-Israel position is only a small part of his life, treated as such, and not related specifically to this organization. Linking to this organization may hint at a connection between Libby and it which does not exist or exists only in the most tenuous form, while other see also links would have been much more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.151 (talk • contribs) 13:02, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

hehehehehehe! just a small part of his life? that is like saying the catholic church is a small part of the pope's life.


 * Please sign comments w/ four tildes. Thanks.  I added the unsigned template above.  There are sources documenting the inclusion of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).  There is considerable discussion of Libby's "pro-Israel position" in the article referring to source citations in Lewis Libby.  Libby held a key policy-making position in relation to foreign policy pertaining to US-Israel security affairs; advising the VP and the President about security affairs pertaining to the 2003 Iraq War in the Middle East (involving the security of Israel) was one of his recurring main responsibilities and the subject of meetings cited in this article.  The See also section reference to the Wikipedia article on JINSA pertains to that discussion.  JINSA is mentioned in the documented sources cited in this article section: Lewis Libby. If it were not for his positions discussed in that section (esp. as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney [see link to JINSA in "what links to," who directed his work tasks and to whom he reported), Libby would probably not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia: he held that position when indicted and that position is part and parcel of his involvement in the Plame affair and the CIA leak grand jury investigation leading to United States v. Libby and his conviction as a result of that case.  Such government service as a foreign policy-maker (inc. his involvment in the U.S.'s interest in maintaining the security of Israel) is one of the key aspects of his notability.  "See also" sections contain references to articles in Wikipedia enabling readers to understand the subject of an article better.  An item does not have to be cited directly in the text. JINSA pertains to issues discussed relating to Libby's role as a government "official" in cited articles in that section. Following the links in See also can be useful in understanding contexts for an article. --NYScholar 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Info Box
I find it odd that the info box on Libby includes charges and penalty. Is this the appropriate place for that information? A.S. Williams 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I kept trying to remove it but someone kept undoing it. It's obviously bad for the article and whoever's doing it really needs to put something here as to why this is somehow neccessary in the Info Box. Also, don't delete my discussion stuff, it's rude. Combat52

It is appropriate: it is a "Criminal" infobox: see the template: see archived talk page discussion for my similar question and another more-experienced editor's answer, resulting in the infobox staying as it was. Please don't keep deleting the relevant information from it. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See the previous discussion: Archive 4. --NYScholar 00:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that the criminal info box is entirely appropriate here. The reason being that Libby is notable for many other accomplishments. I would think that a criminal info box is warranted for someone who is primarily known as a criminal and is not notable for any other reason. Libby does not fit this description, and it is highly likely that if the conviction is not overturned then he will be pardoned anyway. A.S. Williams 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Catagory: American Perjurors
It was added by someone and then reverted by someone else. The person who reverted the information said perjury was a specific crime and one he wasn't convicted of...but...wasn't he infact committed of it twice? Or is the article wrong? (Not that I am necessarily infavour of the catagory, but it piqued my curiosity) Narson 17:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia article itself says he was. I will seek an external source. BaldPete 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Liddy's indictment specifically mentioned perjury. To my knowledge, he was convicted of all charges.  Reverting pending additonal documentation. BaldPete 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding link to US Code mentioned in indictment. BaldPete 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Liddy convicted on four of five counts. BaldPete 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The specific counts of which the jury convicted Libby are already quite clearly stated and documented with reliable and verifiable sources cited in the article sec. on Lewis Libby; e.g., see the various news articles cited and also "The Counts" in the NY Times (which I've just added another citation to); external links contain the references as well (NYT, CNN, etc.).  Please use only full citations in this article.  Please do not add external links without identifying what they are in the prevailing citation format; doing so is not proper in this article.  It needs to follow WP:BLP requirements for full citations. --NYScholar 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC) [amended. --NYScholar 18:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)]

I may have been mistaken, it was my recollection that he was convicted for making false statements to investigators, which is not "perjury", because you have to be under oath to commit perjury. If he was convicted for making false statements while under oath, then it is perjury, and the cat is proper. Is that what the Washington Post says? I cannot access the source. - Crockspot 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Oh, BTW, if Bush DOES end up pardoning him, then the category must come off. A pardon is a "wiping clean" of his slate. - Crockspot 20:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is another link to the Libby indictment.  He was convicted of Counts 1,2,4 and 5 and acquited of Count 3.  BaldPete 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The article has been exceptionally clear for a long time what the counts are and which ones he was convicted of. The only count that he was not convicted of is one count of making false statements (concerning his grand-jury related/FBI testimony about one of his conversations with Matt Cooper); the other counts involved 2 counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice, and he was convicted of all of them (four counts). "The Counts" in "The Verdict" in the NYTimes articles in the notes citations right in the text in Lewis Libby couldn't be any clearer: see the check marks and the descriptions. There seem to be a lot of people trying to edit this article who are not familiar with the subject, and that is leading to having to repeat points that are in the sources (one can read the sources for the linked information). Due to the very current event, a large number of newcomers are trying to change this article, yet they are doing so without consulting previous discussions (which are extensive) in the current talk page and talk page archives. Please consult the archives and discuss substantive changes prior to making them: see Talk page guidelines pertaining to Guidelines for controversial articles: both linked in tagged notices at top of this talk page. Otherwise, there is a lot of wasting of time in unnecessary discussions of points already discussed in great detail in the past. [I have sometimes replied directly to queries on my own talk page and in this talk page from user(s) posting comments in the past few hours or so who never even read my replies to them and then complained in an arbitration about not knowing about things already discussed, as if they were never discussed; but the topics were discussed. They just never read the discussions.] Thanks. --NYScholar 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: If one is unfamiliar with Libby as a subject in related articles: United States v. Libby; the Plame affair; CIA leak grand jury investigation; Valerie Plame; and Joseph C. Wilson, then one needs to read them carefully before trying to edit this article and to examine the Plame affair timeline as well. I've worked on all of those articles at various times for varying periods over the past several months (about half a year).  We can't use this article as a forum for asking questions about matters already clearly detailed in those other articles.  This is not a forum about Libby.  The sources of information in notes citations and other references are the material for the articles, and if one is unfamiliar with the sources, then one has not got a full grasp of the subject.  Hit-or-miss editing (guess-work) in the "vacuum" of one article without knowing the contexts of the others is problematic.  Core policy of all of these articles is Neutral point of view and all the other policies and guidelines linked in WP:BLP and WP:BLP apply to editing this article (see tagged notices at top of page).  Thanks again. --NYScholar 22:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Bush won't rule out pardon
. Someone else can add it, I'm bored with the silly American affair Nil Einne [15:37, July 3, 2007 (UTC)]


 * I added it. Please use four tildes in signing so one knows when you posted the comment.  If you're "bored with the silly American affair," then why bother reading the article and posting about it?  I myself am tired and going offline.  It's is a lot of work to get the source citations right, and it is troubling to do all that work and then have it reverted or altered to something incorrect; so I'll be leaving to take a much-needed break for what I hope is an extended period of time.  Please maintain vigilance in editing this article and particularly in providing full citations to reliable and verifiable sources of information for it (not just embedded external links): see WP:BLP regarding that requiredment.  --NYScholar 22:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry one tilde was missed out. I happened to check out google news and saw a reference so I came here to see if the article already mentioned it (it didn't) and then considered adding it myself but abandoned that idea when I decided it would be too difficult to phrase it properly. I haven't really read the article much & I'm not that interested in the affair since it barely affects me except that I continue to find it bizarre what American's let their leaders get away with. I also find some of the stuff that goes in in this talk page somewhat amusing. Anyway I'll stop soapboxing. Well done, I've noticed from the talk page that you've been heavily involved Nil Einne 19:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it bizarre that you speak of things of which you have limited knowledge regarding.A.S. Williams 02:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

withdrawn by proposer. Dekimasu よ! 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Lewis Libby → Scooter Libby — In the news and media, he is more commonly known by his nickname rather than his actual name. Wikipedia follows the most commonly-used name for persons. For example, the 42nd president's page is Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton. —-- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 20:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose this request. See reasons in additional comments below. (It's been tried many times before and returns to "Lewis Libby" each time.) --NYScholar 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support As per request. Oppose. My own request, but evidence shows that his nickname is not the most commonly used name for him in the news. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the template; it has no support if requester doesn't support it anymore. People can still comment and poll, but interfering with the talkpage header (given all the newcomers) is problematic. --NYScholar 00:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * See the move history of past if accessible: This article has already been moved back and forth many times from one to the other; for a long time the consensus has stayed with "Lewis Libby"; his name is I. Lewis Libby; his alias and nickname are "Scooter"; a lot of newspaper articles have shifted over to "Lewis Libby" and/or "I. Lewis Libby" as per the court case. See United States v. Libby, e.g.  The naming of the article itself has been a bit of an "edit war" in the past.  See if you can check the archived talk pages and their editing history and that of the article for evidence of title changes.  In relation to the "Jr.": I'm not sure how accurate that is.  It seems dubious in some accounts.  As if he just added it later in life.  I don't think that his name is exactly the same as his father's, but it's hard to know given so many contradictory accounts.  He doesn't tend to use the "I." except in formal court documents; he goes by "Lewis Libby" and he goes by "Scooter Libby"; the more formal name seems more neutral to me.  To go with "Scooter" I think privileges that name; as if Wikipedia were "friends" with him.  "Scooter" may be okay for newspaper headlines; but I don't think that it is appropriate for this encyclopedia article, although I know that many other Wikipedia articles do use common nicknames.  I think "Lewis Libby" covers more bases than "Scooter Libby".  Do a Google e.g. search and see what comes up in terms of prevalence (hits) of the names.  (I haven't done that.)  --NYScholar 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They are as follows:


 * "Lewis Libby": 2,110,000 results
 * "I. Lewis Libby": 1,980,000 results
 * "Scooter Libby": 1,960,000 results
 * So, fair enough, I suppose. It wasn't as common as I had thought. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disbarred American lawyers
He now belongs in

Category:Disbarred American lawyers

The article states that he was disbarred in Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.185.42 (talk • contribs) 16:11, July 3, 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought the category was already added some time ago. ??? --NYScholar 20:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I re-added the category. --NYScholar 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the unsigned template. Please sign comments w/ four tildes. (The lack of signature led me to think that the user posting the "Discussion" section heading had posted it.  The Category heading must have intervened? --NYScholar 20:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[ Please allow people to post their own section headings; they are added after most recent section heading; Adding what you added "Discussion" is confusing. Do you want people to discuss your own section heading subject? They can do that without ":Discussion". --NYScholar 20:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC) [I think that the "Discussion" subheading just needed to be moved up to underneath the Request move section. --NYScholar 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * That's great, but there's no need to delete the discussion section from the requested move section. Make your own section for new topics. Also, be bold when it comes to adding someone to a new category. You don't need permission. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 20:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wish past experience w/ this article//on this talk page supported what you say above, R'son-W; unfortunately (in my view), there has been a lengthy arbitration going on relating to specific categories pertaining to ethnicity and/or religion--e.g., "Jewish American lawyers"--he's no longer a lawyer so that's moot--and "Jewish Americans"--and "Jewish American writers": all are incorporated in the "matter" in arbitration that another user ... filed against me in May. The material is linked about it above; it's been very unpleasant from my own perspective.  Eaten up vast amounts of time (my time, that of others), and I just don't want to be embroiled in any of it anymore.  I just try to improve the development of the main text via sources in articles and typographical presentation and correctness of grammar, etc.  Too much time spent on this due to "breaking events"; going offline.  I explain just about every change I make in detail due to the endless complaining in the arbitration request and the inability to please everyone.  Just doing my best and hoping that others will follow WP:AGF as I am striving to do. --NYScholar 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry: I didn't see a "requested move" section that that pertained to. I'll try to add it back.  If I do it incorrectly or if you do it incorrectly, please repost it properly.  I've seen such sections before and they make it clear that they relate to a "move" proposal.  --NYScholar 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I got it already. It's okay, no harm, no foul. ^_^ -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just found it; it's in the right sec. now. Very sorry. --NYScholar 20:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all good, dude. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?: "Favorably"
[fixed this heading: see user's comment below. --NYScholar 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)]

Under the heading "Indictment, trial, conviction, and sentencing," under subheading "Order to go to Jail Pending Appeal," it is stated that the judge's quoted response was "favorable" toward the defense team, yet it's actually quite a sarcastic reply.

"...Walton granted the scholars permission to file their brief, and wrote favorably of them

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of this nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it."

At the very least, the word "favorably" should be dropped for a more neutral term.
 * For the time being, I've dropped "favorably." The source provided for the quote hardly mentions (or even implies) that the judge's opinion was "favorable." I agree it sounds like POV; if we do look for another descriptor, it should probably be sourced. It may be adequate to leave it as it is, now, though. I'll leave the editprotected template, for now, in case anybody else wants to have a look, but feel free to remove it if you like. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "favorably" is not in the source; it's a Wikipedia editor's insertion of his/her own POV and doesn't belong there (The actual quotation from the source a passage that I originally supplied and documented; see the eding history); obviously, "favorably" is a false word to use there; it isn't at all what the statement says. Walton was saying the opposite; he was not favorably disposed toward that brief.  Just delete the inserted POV word entirely (as done).  There is a problem w/ the template added above.  Just need a normal heading, which I'm supplying above.  The edit protect template belongs on the article page, not the talk page.  Removed the template.  Doesn't really belong here at all.  "Edit protected" is something entirely different; it means that the main article is protecting from editing by anon IP addresses and newly-registered users and administrators add that template after consideration of either semi- or full-protection on those Wikipedia pages.  Please use "Help" to find those.  Thanks.  --NYScholar 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Full citations required in BLP
Please do not just toss external links into this article. I've moved this passage recently added here: whoever added it can make a properly-formatted note citation and others can check its pertinence, verifiability, and accuracy, and whether putting it where it was is in keeping with Neutral point of view. It is dubious, since there are many points of view expressed about this controversial matter, and just citing one pov from Fox News does not seem appropriate there; there is an article on United States v. Libby, where such issues are discussed as well in more detail. Why insert it in this article in this manner? Please do the necessary work and prior discussion on talk page before making such controversial insertions in the article:


 * Fox News has noted that the sentence is typical, with the average prison term for convictions in obstruction of justice being 64 months (and most in the range of 13-31 months).

[not my passage. There needs to be a full citation: WP:Cite; check editing history for user who added it. Thank you.] --NYScholar 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[Moved from my talk page. --NYScholar 17:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)] Can you please clarify your removal of the Fox News quotes which states that the Libby verdict was normal and not excessive. Sad mouse 05:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I did already on the talk page of the article. You need to avoid engaging in adding potentially point-of-view additions to the section and to use "full citations": see WP:CITE and the prevailing notes citation format in the article. Don't just put in external links. See the format in the rest of the references in notes in the article. The person who adds new material is supposed to format the full citations for it. Please read the notice tagged at top of the talk page in Talk:Lewis Libby and then see whether or not what you want to add is within Neutral point of view. Please don't just throw in external links in this article. See the previous discussions in the talk page and archived talk pages for the problems relating to this article. Someone removed the neutrality tag. I'll be adding it back on. (I'm moving this to the talk page of the article, where it belongs. That's where the section on the addition is.) --NYScholar 17:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding New comments and sections for new comments on talk page
Are added at end of previous sections (or threaded with colons after the comments they pertain to in sections--see instructions in Talk page guidelines), and new sections are added at end of talk page. Someone added a comment from July 3, 2007, at very top of page; that's backward: see Talk page guidelines: please read talkheader tagged notice at very top of page for instructions about posting on talk pages. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Criminal" infobox
Please stop changing the "criminal" infobox; it was already correct and has been in this article for over 3 months; deleting key information from it does not have consensus. See previous discussion of the matter, Before July 3. Archive talk page (from way back on March 26, 2007): Archive 4. --NYScholar 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just want to remind people that notices on archived talk pages say that they are not to be edited/changed/altered. One can comment on the criminal infobox (a special infobox format according to the archived user's explanation) in the section above.  Or here.  (Scroll up to see earlier section about this from July 3.) --NYScholar 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the criminal info box is entirely appropriate here. The reason being that Libby is notable for many other accomplishments. I would think that a criminal info box is warranted for someone who is primarily known as a criminal and is not notable for any other reason. Libby does not fit this description, and it is highly likely that if the conviction is not overturned then he will be pardoned anyway. A.S. Williams 03:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If you examine the dates and kinds of content in Lewis Libby via its editing history (click on "earliest"), you will see what made Libby most "notable" for Wikipedians; it is clearly that he was indicted and then convicted in an extremely-high profile federal trial. The notability is in the introduction; consensus so far has been that the criminal infobox (a pre-formatted template in Wikipedia) is appropriate. If you click on the link I provided in my earlier comment in this section, you will see that originally I did not know that there was a special "infobox-criminal" that the editor creating it was using; that editor convinced me that the current infobox-criminal with its current content is appropriate in this article on Libby; his indictment, trial, conviction, and now commutation of his sentence are probably among the most notable and most significant aspects of his life (even from his own point of view); President Bush's own statement justifying and/or rationalizing his proclamation commuting the sentence present that argument as well. Please read and/or re-read it. Thanks. --NYScholar 06:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The condescension is not needed, I already read that discussion, you are not answering my point. The point of the article should not be what most wikipedians find him notable for, it should be what the general public finds him notable for. As stated by Tbeatty, my point is that a criminal infobox should be used for someone primarily famous or infamous for being a criminal, Ted Bundy or Danny Rolling are examples of where it is appropriate. Libby was Cheney's Chief of Staff, you might not think that the Chief of Staff of the Vice President of the United States is all that big a deal, but you will find yourself in the minority on that point.A.S. Williams 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, do we have articles on every other person that is convicted of the things that Libby is? The answer is no, so therefore there needs to be a different infobox. The guidelines for criminal infobox needs to be clarified, because we could put criminal infoboxes on anyone with so much as a speeding ticket at the rate this is going.A.S. Williams 14:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with A.S. Williams. Libby's long list of accomplishments as a public figure do not warrant the box. He is primarily know for his role as Cheney's Chief of Staff. Indeed, his conviction is only notable because he was chief of staff. He not a notorious criminal, but he is a notorious political figure. --Tbeatty 06:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Similiar example with competing infoboxes: John Wayne Gacy is serial killer. His notoriety and notability is due to this fact. He is also a painter and artist. Because his notability stems from his crimes, the criminal infobox is appropriate. While a "painter" infobox might be applicable it is not the reason he is notbale and therefore is not appropriate. Libby is notable for his high rank in government. His crime is only notable because of that rank. Whence, a public figure/politician info box is appropriate. --Tbeatty 06:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Current" event tag: the current notoriety of Libby is clearly and indisputably his indictment, resignation, conviction, sentencing, and commutation of his sentence--the criminal infobox is pertinent to Libby's current notability. His former positions in government are obsolete.  He would not have as extensive a Wikipedia article about him (two articles if one includes United States v. Libby if he were not a convicted felon who was once a high-ranking government official.  Wikipedia requires following Neutral point of view(core policy in Wikipedia) and WP:BLP are different in policy than other living persons.  One need not "pussy-foot" around this; the criminal infobox is factual, reliably- and verifiably-sourced by the content of this article, which focuses most on his involvement in the Plame affair and his loss of public reputation as a result of his conviction in United States v. Libby.  There is no policy in Wikipedia for exerting sympathy toward convicted criminals.  If and when the facts change and if and when Libby's conviction is overturned on appeal or if and when he is pardoned, then the infobox-criminal can be updated to reflect those new current events.  Thus far, it is accurate and current.  Other than my own earlier and withdrawn comment questioning it (and deleting its conviction-related info earlier without understanding that there was a "infobox-criminal" template in Wikipedia), there is little opposition to the box expressed throughout these talk pages.  Two people opposed to it do not constitute a consensus.  --NYScholar 21:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, his notability is because of his office. We have articles on Vice President chiefs of staff.  We don't have articles just because someone is convicted of perjury which happens every day.  The criminal indictement/conviction/commutation is a current event but his public service is what makes him notable.  You are arguing that John Wayne Gacy should have the "artist" infobox because his most recent current event was selling a painting.  And one person replacing it consitutes even less consensus.   --Tbeatty 02:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * His notability is due to *both* his office and his crime. Were he a White House official with no involvement in the Plame Affair, there would still be an article about him due to his position, but it would obviously be much shorter.  Had there been, say, a White House janitor indicted in this case that was later convicted of perjury, there would certainly be an article about him, though it would probably contain less info about his background.  Either way, you can't deny that his crime has contributed greatly to his notability, and therefore, the box should stay. (To put it another way, had OJ Simpson been convicted, wouldn't he have ended up with a criminal infobox, in spite of having been previously notable for other reasons?) --Haleym76 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with those who argue that the infobox-criminal is not appropriate in Lewis Libby. I think that it is justified by the content of this article. If from 2001-2005 during his high-level Bush adminstration appointments, Libby kept such a "low profile" about his own "accomplishments" (etc.), no one would find him "notable" at all if it were not for his getting "caught" in his own perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice. His conviction in United States v. Libby makes him most notable, as President Bush's own statement linked in his sentence commutation proclaimation stresses. Beating a dead horse. If something stays in an article for a long time without significant opposition (that is opposition from many editors citing Wikipedia policies [not idiosyncratic interpretations of the subject), that indicates what Wikipedia regards as Consensus. There would not be a template for infobox-criminal in Wikipedia if it were not appropriate to use it in articles such as this one, where a well-known public figure has become a convicted felon. Libby became well-known only as a result of the Plame affair and the CIA leak grand jury investigation. Before that, he was not a "well-known public figure"; he was simply a public official that few people knew anything about (and we still don't know for certain what the "I." stands for or the exact date of his marriage, despite all the investigative reporters' work). Libby's inclusion in Category of American criminals [can't link to it here properly apparently], American perjurors, and List of disbarred lawyers supports the infobox-criminal as well [He is in five categories relating to aspects of the trial and conviction so far; more may follow; e.g., relating to commutation, maybe eventual pardon]. Scroll up to users who say that they have come to this article to learn more about what he was convicted of and what the commutation of his sentence is. The infobox-criminal makes that information (and updates to it) clear in a quick perusal. It also lists his former occupations; it does not omit them. They are included in it. As the deletions have shown, otherwise there is almost nothing in his infobox, and it is not as informative an infobox, given the events of his life thus far. --NYScholar 04:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC) [Corr. & updated. --NYScholar 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer, Theodore Kaczynski, Charles Manson, and Lewis Libby all having infobox-criminal? The infobox-criminal is wholly inappropriate as now used in this biography. By positioning it as the main infobox, it singles out a relatively small aspect in a long public life and is used to give undue weight to that aspect of his life. The present use of infobox-criminal as the main infobox in this article violates WP:NPOV policy. As is clear from the posts by A.S. Williams, Tbeatty, and myself, consensus is clear that infobox-criminal use in this article needs to be revised. An acceptible revision would be similar to how the infobox criminal is being used in Winona Ryder and in Martha Stewart. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 15:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no clear-cut parallel with e.g, Winona Ryder (or Martha Stewart--[who should have an infobox-criminal that is complete, not white-washed publicity for her; look at the size of that photo, e.g.; it appears to make the Wikipedia article a promotional ad for her]) [proverbial "apples and oranges"]; Libby was one of the highest-ranking White House officials convicted of very "serious crimes" pertaining to a federal government scandal [see the article links in See also], resulting from a federal investigation pertaining to events of international significance (the 2003 War in Iraq) [and whose scope was extremely far-reaching, making it all the more notable an event in his life--contrary to Ryder or Stewart's crimes, which were more personal in nature and significance; confined to their own personal lives]. Libby's crimes are federalfelonies of high order (pertaining to a federal investigation of the leaking of a classified covert CIA agent's name--federal laws relating to which are "high crimes," such as treason), his indictment the result of a federal grand jury investigation, and his sentence (before commutation) involved federal imprisonment for multiple felonies (four counts).  The desire to minimize the infobox-criminal appears to be an attempt to minimize the significance of his crimes and his conviction of them; that does not appear to be in keeping with Neutral point of view and WP:POV in relation to a biography of a well-known public figures/public official (WP:BLP.  Neither Ryder nor Stewart[, who are celebrities working in the entertainment industry,  not government,] served in federal government high public office in the highest-ranking White House echelon of public officials.  The notability of Lewis Libby's crimes parallels the notability of his high-ranking public office at the time of his indictment for them.  --NYScholar 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated]
 * For examples of closer parallels with Libby, see the category at bottom of article: "American criminals", among whom is, e.g., G. Gordon Liddy. (John Poindexter could use an infobox-criminal? He has no infobox at all.)  Click on other examples to see how government officials convicted of federal felonies are described in infoboxes.  There are parallels for this infobox-criminal for Libby.  It still seems reasonable and neutral to me.)  --NYScholar 17:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See also the tagged notice at top of this talk page: "This article is on a subject of top-importance for Crime-related articles." That is a strong reason for the information about Libby's crimes, conviction, sentence, and commutation (thus far) included in this infobox-criminal. --NYScholar 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

American Jew?
Just curious why Libby is not included in the American Jew category? If there are going to be categories like this, it's probably important that it be used in these situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Georgefarthur (talk • contribs)
 * It's a long story. Best to wait until this arbitration case is resolved before we reopen this can of worms. Notmyrealname 02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For questions like this one, please consult the archived talk pages for previous discussion about such questions: please see their table of contents for section topic headings: e.g., beginning in Archive 1; continues through Archive 4 and afterward. (See archive contents box above and click on each page listed there.) Thanks. --NYScholar 17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The arbitration case is resolved and "closed" as of July 13, 2007. Please see the updated current case link at Requests for arbitration/NYScholar (Closed) and scroll down or select sections from table of contents for the Arbitration Committee's Final decision.  --NYScholar 22:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After that, an administrator added the category "American Jews"; sources already in this article do support that category (as did the sources deleted by interested parties considered in the now-closed arbitration case); but, if another reliable and verifiable source is needed to document the statement that "Libby is Jewish," please consult the following information published more recently by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA):


 * On July 2, 2007, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) published this item of "Breaking News: Bush Commutes Libby Sentence" regarding President Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence, citing (again, as it does in its previous news releases and articles by Ron Kampeas, its Washington, D.C., bureau head) the fact that Libby is Jewish: "Libby is Jewish, and a significant portion of those who had pleaded with the judge for a lenient sentence are leaders in Washington's Middle East policy community. Also pleading on his behalf was Natan Sharansky, the former Israeli Cabinet minister and prisoner of the Soviet gulag."
 * Pertinence and notability of that reliably and verifiably-documented source of information is clearly developed in the sections Lewis Libby, Lewis Libby, and Lewis Libby. If needed, it can be added as a citation to the source by Kampeas concerning Sharansky et al.'s pleading leniency for Libby already cited in the text; via "Cf." (confer). --NYScholar 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the arbitration committee did not issue a ruling or opinion regarding the issue of categorization, so this is still an open question. Those who are against it (well, myself, in any case) argue that he has not met one of the requirements laid out in WP:BLP, namely that his mere membership in a house of worship does not satisfy the requirement that the person publicly self-identify with the religion (or sexual preference). Notmyrealname 03:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the arbitration committee's final decision, there should be no edit warring over this matter by anyone. The category was added by an administrator citing the arbitation findings. I referred everyone to their full decision. --NYScholar 18:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added the source citation documenting the administrator's addition of the category. According to the arbitration final decision, Kampeas and the JTA articles are reliable and verifiable sources and they are appropriately cited in this article. The abitration committee's final decision is clear on that matter. The material that I have added is an entirely-pertinent direct verbatim quotation, followed by the full citation to the source of the quotation. See my earlier comments for initial discussion. The policies ("principles" in the arbitration final decision) that apply to this matter are WP:AGF, WP:BLP, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability. Multiple reliable and verifiable sources document the fact that Libby is Jewish; it is not a fact that is disputed by reliable and verifiable sources. [Disputes of such reliably- and verifiably-sourced factual information by Wikipedia editors amounts to their own points of view and original research: see WP:NOR.] It is a fact that is added to this article in good faith. Again, I did not add the category after the arbitration committee closed its case about this matter. Citing its final decision, an administrator did. Several sources already in this article do support that addition. Arguing in the talk pages about this matter any further may appear disruptive to others (including the arbitration committee); I have made my position on this matter clear. I see no need to do so any further. As far as I can tell, the arbitration committee's final decision decided this matter and sanctioned the inclusion of the category (added by the administrator). The direct quotation that I have just added from the JTA supports it unambiguously. --NYScholar 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC) --[clarifications, typographical corrections (tc). --NYScholar 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * As I and several others, including members of the arbitration committee have stated, since Libby is a well-known public figure, it is not necessary for him to identify himself publicly as holding a "belief" in Judaism in order to cite reliable and verifiable sources mentioning the fact that he "is Jewish" and its relevance to his former U.S. government foreign-policy making role concerning the security of Israel and the support that he has subsequently received from the "Middle East policy community" (including many Jewish people).
 * If it were necessary for Libby to identify himself publicly with the "belief" of Judaism for the fact that he is Jewish to be mentioned [in the text of the article] and the category "American Jews" (e.g.) to be included, however, then one does note that he has clearly done so by virtue of various highly-public acts before and after he entered government and relating to his policy-making work, not merely his membership in a Reform Jewish temple--a fact that is not even being referred to in this article currently; other editors have cut all references previously made in this article to that membership and they have deleted the articles documenting it by Ron Kampeas.
 * There is other documentation of his identifying with the "belief" of Judaism (or being Jewish); his childhood friend and roommate Nick Bromell (see the note to two sources by Bromell cited in this article) points out that Libby is Jewish and that was a public fact of his attendance at schools as a Jewish boy in a WASP environment was known to his peers (such as Brommel) since he was at least eleven years old.
 * In multiple articles mentioning Libby that Kampeas writes for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and related newspapers carrying his byline and/or the JTA byline, there is a phrase like "who is Jewish" or points out otherwise that Libby "is Jewish"; such reliable and verifiable sources are alredy cited in this article (See Kampeas' and the JTA's references to letter from Natan Sharansky et al.).

Opinion?
I'm kinda confused about this - "The vice president's former aid has essentially been given a slap on the wrist for perjuring himself in front of a grand jury." - Bush only commuted his prison stay, the man can't get a job as a lawyer, AND he has to pay a 250k fine. Shouldn't this be omitted from the article, or at the very least, have a specific citation? As I said before, the man will basically have to use his schooling to get an entirely different job when he returns to private life. Sure won't be lawyering or lobbbying. 68.99.174.17 14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone already did it. 68.99.174.17 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[Subsequent section heading deleted. This is not a discussion forum. See tagged notice at top of page. --NYScholar 17:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * [Scroll up to very top of this talk page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lewis Libby article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." --NYScholar 21:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)]

Scooter not "the highest-ranking White House official convicted"
Scooter Libby was not the highest-ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since National Security Adviser John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra affair in 1990. It was and still is Henry Ciseros U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1997. He left public office, after pleading guilty to making false statements to federal officials. 68.215.120.252 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim is referenced with a reliable source so unless you can find a reference which contradicts it, we have to trust the source, not you. I don't know much about either or the US order of preference to say whether chief of staff to the VP is lower than U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Are you sure it is? Regardless, perhaps the issue is that the Henry Cisneros affair is not really a goverment scandal since the scandal had nothing to do with his conduct as/while a goverment official but instead was to do with his conduct before he became an official which he then lied about during a background check to determine if he was fit to be an official. Nil Einne 19:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * HUD Secretary is in the line succession to the President. We don't have to state that Libby was the highest ranking official so I would suggest just removing it.  I also think "government scandal" is the operative word as Webster Hubbel was also removed.   Dan Rostenkowski was also convicted in a government scandal during that time frame and it seems he would be pretty high up. --Tbeatty 19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the Wikified link to "federal-level government scandals" that is now in that sentence: federal-level government scandals; there is a Wikipedia article on them; this one--Plame affair (most-recent name of article for it; has had others that are redirected now)--is listed in "2000-" subsection there. Updated it.  --NYScholar 20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Responses to the Presidential commutation
Would it be possible to get a "Responses to the Presidential commutation" section added? The last paragraph kindof does this, however, I don't think it goes far enough. In particular, it alludes to people who are mad at Bush for not granting a full pardon. If such people exist, I think they should be mentioned. TerraFrost 21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a reasonable request (though I do not know how or what others will respond to it). I myself do not have time to do that, but I have provided some material in the current section that others may want to develop.  Thank you for posting this here. Please understand that I do not want to carry on discussions like this or any other matters pertaining to the content of this or any other Wikipedia articles on my talk page.  Thank you.  Please respect that.  Thanks again. --NYScholar 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can indeed respect that. I also apologize if I sounded harsh on your talk page (seeing as how you added the NPA template to it, presumably because of me...) TerraFrost 21:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just came back here w/ another thought relating to your proposal in this section: You (and/or others) might want to consider creating and developing a separate article on "Reponses to the Presidential commutation" [of Lewis Libby's sentence], because one might forsee it getting quite long and even contentious and perhaps overpowering this biographical article. One needs also to keep in mind that such an article would be subject to WP:BLP (both President Bush and Lewis Libby) [and also any other living persons mentioned in such an article in Wikipedia (or sub-section to this one) are subject to relevant parts of WP:BLP.]  Right now the amount of content in the sec. is not so much that it seems to need a sub-section.  If you or others create and develop an article on the (sub)topic, it could be cross-linked to this section in Lewis Libby via a template.  All for now.  Thanks again for understanding. --NYScholar 21:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (I removed the template.  If you wish, check the editing history summary for expl. of that.  "N.B." on my talk page has pertinent link.  Thanks again. (Updated.)  --NYScholar 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC))
 * [Just adjusted the sec. slightly for better coherence before going offline. --NYScholar 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)]

The latest addition to that section seems pertinent to me. Now, finally, after correcting some typographical errors, offline, I hope. (To watch the fireworks elsewhere.) [Happy Independence Day to those who celebrate it!] [Before doing so, I added a few additional citations that others may find informative.] --NYScholar 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 00:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * As the guy adding the "latest additions", I would second the thought of moving the content of the section elsewhere, lest it overwhelm the bio. I would suggest United States v. Libby but, as this is the first time I've edited this article, I figure the regular editors have a better idea of the structure that is best suited to the articles. - BanyanTree 01:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for response. You and others might be interested in a previous suggestion (scroll up) in Talk:Lewis Libby. Thanks again.  --NYScholar 06:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations format
The citations format in the article has been consistent for some time; periodically, people are altering correctly-formatted notes citations to incorrect formats that are inconsistent with the rest of the article. Please do not do that. BanyanTree et al.: if I lost some well-sourced and pertinent significant changes that you introduced (other than those faulty citations format changes), please re-enter them; there were too many faulty changes to already-correct citations to have to re-enter each one of them. I'm sorry for any inconvenience. I wish that those new to editing this article would be more careful and not introduce inconsistencies into it. It takes a lot of time to format the citations properly. The templates do not work right with punctuation and order of items in the prevailing notes format: here it is first name, last name, title of an article in quotation marks, title of publication in italics, date of publication, date accessed [with the article title as an ext. link when possible and the publication and dates as Wikipedia links]. Thanks. See WP:CITE and WP:Attribution with related links there. --NYScholar 05:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Currently unpopulated Wikipedia links
Common Wikipedia editing style is to have red links for notable potential subjects for which it would be helpful to have other Wikipedia editors create new articles. Then they would become populated. Dates of publication and access are Wikipedia links; important dates of publication and events are Wikipedia links. Please don't keep deleting them. It takes a lot of time to format them properly as they are. -NYScholar 05:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Suspended" in Pennsylvania
The citation regarding Libby's status in PA does not include the information that whoever is using it claims it does. It lists Libby as "inactive" which is a status that an individual attorney can choose, and not indicative of a form of punishment. Also, the discipline section in his entry is blank. I hope that whoever readded this will take the time to read the cite, rather than rely on it blindly. Cheers, JCO312 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't cited "blindly"; the information on the site says that his license is "inactive"; it was initially suspended because he hadn't paid to continue it at times before his indictment; the site information about that search indicates that those listed as "inactive" have had their license suspended. Claim that it is "a form of punishment" is not in the statement in Wikipedia that that note citation relates to. In any case, convicted felons are not licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania or other jurisdictions. Use common sense. See the proclamation from President Bush referring to his loss of ability to practice law in the United States as a fact resulting from his conviction in United States v. Libby. I'll add that to the citation though it shouldn't be necessary. --NYScholar 20:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[moved from my talk page; please don't post discussions about this article's content on my talk page. The assumption of the poster is incorrect. --NYScholar 20:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)]

I see that you removed the fact tag on the Pennsylvania bar admission line in the Lewis Libby article. The PA Bar Disciplinary Committee reference does not support the assertion that Libby was suspended from practice. It lists him as inactive, which is something that the individual attorney chooses; it is not the same as a suspension. The discipline section of his entry is, notably, blank. Cheers, JCO312 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not remove "the fact tag" there; perhaps someone else did. [Not sure about this now; perhaps I did some time ago.] There is no way that Libby is able to practice law in Pennsylvania.  It's a moot point.  See the earlier comment.  I'm moving this to the article's talk page where it belongs. --NYScholar 20:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [strikeout & bracketed comment added. (updated). --NYScholar 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * That is simply incorrect. Those attorneys who are inactive have not had their licenses suspended.  If you can point to a specific line about that on the disciplinary website, I'll obviously retract my opposition to this.  The fact remains that there is nothing listed in the "discipline" section of his entry.  The process of suspending an attorney is not as automatic as you seem to think.  There would have to be some sort of notification sent from DC to Pennsylvania, which would result in an order of the PA Supreme Court suspending/disbarring the attorney.  Nothing of the sort has happened, at least not according to the website.  Also, a search of the PA Disciplinary committees website for recent discipline also shows nothing relating to Libby. JCO312 20:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From the PA Disciplinary Board If your status has changed so that (1) you have retired or (2) you are not engaged in practice in Pennsylvania and you desire to assume inactive or retired status, check off box 16 or 17 under Section D, sign and return the registration form without the fee. Thus, a person may choose to enter inactive status, it does not mean they have been suspended. (http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/faqs/attorneys.php#attorney). JCO312 21:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it is now factually correct (if it wasn't before, and we don't really know that). I believe that this matter was discussed by others in previously-archived talk pages of Talk:Lewis Libby.  If it was I who did remove the "fact" tag (some time ago--my memory is now vague about it, but it would be in the editing history) it was in good faith; I did think from what I had read on the PA disciplinary board main site that it was the case.  I do not think that Libby is eligible for having his license reinstated in Pennsylvania at this time.  If President Bush pardons him or if his conviction is overturned on appeal, perhaps he would re-apply and be granted a law license in Washington, D.C. (where his disbarment is subject to reinstatement if conditions are deemed by the DC Bar to warrant that--see the note about that) or in PA or some other state, but he would have to apply.  According to what President Bush has said, if it is correct (and that is debatable perhaps), his reputation in the legal profession is "forever damaged"; whether it can be restored is another matter and pure conjecture and speculation.  (My own perspective: On the one hand, it is hard for someone convicted of perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice to be considered of [unimpeachable] legal reputation, but, on the other hand, people who have made mistakes that they regret and express contrition for are given second chances in life.  [Some point out that Libby has not expressed such regret and contrition, at least not publicly.  Perhaps because the verdict in his case still might be appealed; he pled innocent, not guilty, and his lawyer Wells persists in declarations about his innocence--as sourced in this article.)  The blogosphere--which is uncitable here except for the court-approved trial sites--is full of such conjecture and speculation, espec. since July 2, 2007.  We can't cite those comments in an article about a living person, even one who is a well-known public figure, as they are neither reliable nor verifiable sources in Wikipedia.  Thanks for your vigilance; I hope that the sources now document what the statement says. --NYScholar 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [added the "un" in "unimpeachable"; that was a typographical error; I meant to type "unimpeachable." Updated later in brackets.  --NYScholar 07:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * BTW: Libby's listing in the PA disciplinary board search facility has not changed since before his conviction; it may not be up to date; as he was already inactive, they simply may have no cause to do anything to it: from the same webpage previously linked by the other user: "How do I obtain a statement regarding disciplinary complaints filed and/or discipline imposed? ... If you need a statement regarding your fitness to practice, your written request must state that you authorize the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to search and release any information (public or private) found in your disciplinary file." We don't know if Libby has a "disciplinary file" or not because the search results may not have been updated after he was first listed as "inactive" (pre-March 2007). [Since he was probably originally listed as "inactive" for non-payment of license renewal fees--see earlier archived discussions about that--it is unlikely that he would have contacted the PA Bar disciplinary board after his indictment asking for any such "statement regarding [his] fitness to practice."  These issues seem rather moot to me, given his current situation as a convicted felon.] --NYScholar 21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [updated: --NYScholar 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * There is also a "recent discipline" and "discipline reporter" available on the disciplinary committee website; neither list Libby. Any suspension or disbarment of an attorney has to be done by the Supreme Court (on the advice of the disciplinary committee), and there is no record of anything having been done.  It may be, as you said, that since he was already inactive that no action is necessary.  Incidentally, sorry for posting on your talk page regarding this.  I should have read your preferences before posting (I saw that you had removed the fact tag in the edit history and wanted to give you the heads up).  I agree that it is factually accurate as written.  Cheers, JCO312 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for your vigilance and help. --NYScholar 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reliably- and verifiably-sourced material and quotation marks from sources
[See earlier section in this talk page for earlier discussion: [sic]. --NYScholar 02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)]

I have restored two quotations that were doctored by earlier users; these statements originally had quotation marks in them; previous editors removed the statements (with the quotation marks) over a series of past edits and their restoration is warranted. See the cited sources; I've added new transitions identifying the publications (CNN and the Associated Press). For policy: see WP:POV and Attribution. This matter is discussed earlier and the recent deletion of this sourced material has no consensus. The issue raised in earlier discussion is the "government scandal" being a federal-level government scandal. The one someone replaced does not rise to the level of the Plame affair or involve the highest levels of the government (Vice President's chief of staff; the Vice President [in trial arguments)], the same level of issues: the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the leaking of a classified covert CIA agent (the laws implicated); this is not personal malfeasance of a lower level. The indictment involves five counts of federal felonies. Again, it appears that people are trying to minimize the seriousness of the Libby indictment by a federal grand jury investigation (CIA leak grand jury investigation) and a major federal trial (United States v. Libby). The sentence that I restored is properly sourced. --NYScholar 01:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While you claim that people are trying to minimize the seriousness of the charges and so on, you yourself appear to be in a hyperbolic fever about maximizing them. You simply cannot make judgments about what is or is not more serious with regards to government scandals as defined by the requirements that they are 1. a scandal and 2. they are in the government. What is or is not allegedly more serious is completely irrelevant to the fact of the matter. Whether you agree with it or not, Cisneros was a federal official who was guilty of a crime and therefore is the most recent federal official guilty of impropriety. You seem determined to nail Libby to a cross as being the last one since Iran Contra when this is simply not a fact. Making the prettiest citations with the most information included in them is merely a smokescreen for what seems to be a political cause on your part. The facts are very simple and comparing Libby to other people is something that does a disservice to the readers of wikipedia looking for information. It is not relevant that he is the first person convicted since fill-in-the-blank. It is as relevant as what his favorite slurpee flavor is. The article should include basic facts, there is no need to embellish it with all these footnotes. Furthermore, your insistence that he be tagged as an assistant to the president is also curious as no major media refer to him that way. He is almost universally referred to as the former chief-of-staff to the vice president and the reason for this is because there is only one CoS for the VP. There are many many assistants to the president and mentioning that Libby was one is akin to mentioning that Libby has two eyeballs. My ultimate point is that you seem inordinately determined to paint Libby in the most negative light that you can. A.S. Williams 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Henry Cisneros: he was not "[convicted]" by a federal grand jury in a federal-level "government scandal" grand jury investigation (like the CIA leak grand jury investigation); according to the Wikipedia article "He left public office after pleading guilty to making false statements to federal officials" about other kinds of matters [involving his own appointment and confirmation to his cabinet post] (not the leaking of a classified covert CIA agent's identity). There was no "federal-level government scandal" of the order of the Plame affair (CIA leak scandal (2003); Plamegate) relating to as significant a subject as the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ensuing Iraq War. These differences have already been pointed out in earlier discussion of this matter on this talk page (scroll up). "Full citations" are necessary in biographies of living persons; linked policy is WP:CITE; moreover, Henry Cisneros is a living person and full citations to reliable and verifiable sources are required in referring to him as well. The sources already cited (and restored to this article) are notable, pertinent, reliable, and verifiable. The verbatim quotations [as amended properly in brackets] are in the sources (as checked and verified); these statements in the sentence are not the product of Wikipedia editors' "original research" (WP:NOR). They follow Wikipedia policy. [I don't see how the ref. to Cisneros warrants mention in this introduction re: the notability of Libby's indictment and subsequent conviction. But if one wants to work out an accurate wording of an additional sentence following the two quotations from the source, with full citations (author [if there is one or authors], title of article, publication title, date of publication, date accessed), then perhaps that would be a useful addition. As inserted in place of the quoted material (whose quotation marks had been lost in previous edits), it is not a useful addition (in my view). The facts of Cisneros' case are not as notable as those of Poindexter's. One might want to identify ("gloss") in bracketed editorial interpolation who was indicted 130 years ago (as of 2005). (I haven't done that.) [Updated.] --NYScholar 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See specifically: Henry Cisneros--Cisneros lied about personal matters involving money and an affair with a woman; that investigation did not involve a federal-level political scandal as the CIA leak grand jury investigation does (it is not yet formally closed), and it did not implicate higher-level elected officials like the Vice President or Karl Rove (President's advisor). Cisneros was not a "White House official"; he did not work in the White House; he was a cabinet officer, a member of the administration, but not a "White House official" as Libby was. It is inappropriate to add Cisneros here when the two sources refer to more relevant comparisons to the Libby indictment and conviction?  ("Apples and oranges" again.  Cisneros left office without a jury trial; he pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge through a plea agreement and was eventually pardoned (see controversy discussed at above link).  Libby pled not guilty to an indictement involving five felony counts, was presumed innocent, and was convicted by a jury of four of those five counts in a federal trial, sentenced to prison, etc., and, if the prison term part of his sentence had not just been commuted by Pres. Bush, he would be serving that 30-month sentence.  Whether or not his conviction will be overturned on appeal or, if not, whether or not he will be pardoned in the future is not yet known yet.   The notability of his indictment and conviction is cited in the fully-cited sourced quotations.  --NYScholar 01:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 02:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)] [Updated after further investigation: see below ("Moving the contested passage....")  --NYScholar 02:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)] [corr. --NYScholar 03:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)]

Moving the contested passage to talk page for further discussion, verification
"According to CNN, 'Libby is the first sitting White House official to be indicted in 130 years,' and, according to the Associated Press, 'the highest-ranking White House official convicted in a [federal-level] government scandal since National Security Adviser [sic] John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra affair' in 1990."


 * Query: I've added parenthetical explanation of the 1875/1876 "White House official" to which CNN reporters appear to be referring; but the information as they describe it, if it is William Belknap is not accurate; if it is he, he was impeached but not convicted by the Senate (the vote fell short), and he resigned after his impeachment. See his biography for more information and sources.  If the reference is to some other "White House official" "130 years" prior to 2005 (or so) then the person to whom the reference is made generally (repeatedly in the CNN transcript and article cited) needs identification (in brackets or a parenthetical explanation).  Perhaps others want to work out these problems.  I've removed the quotations (both of them) because they are controversial and, at least the first one, appears to be possibly incorrect.  With such problems, I don't see how it can remain (uncorrected) in the article.  These statements are pervasive in articles about Libby's indictment and conviction.  --NYScholar 02:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If one wants to help by working out the kinks in these cited comparisons, I leave the passages and the notes here for ease of reference. As a biography of a living person, we need to be vigilant and "right" (accurate and correct) as well as "neutral"; though see WP:POV and WP:BLP for related policies. The difference between something being sourced and something being "true" is mentioned there; I don't think that refers to introductory information in an article making historically-based statements. They need to be accurate. If CNN and/or the AP are incorrect, other reliable and verified sources can be cited as corrections elsewhere in the article in developing various documented points of view on the subject. (???) --NYScholar 02:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone put the statement back into the article, omitted necessary quotation marks, and provided only partial citation (see above). I deleted it for same reasons mentioned above. The CNN statement does not seem to be supported by historical fact, and, until it is deemed accurate, it does not belong in a biography of a living person: such contested controversial material is deleted on sight. WP:BLP. --NYScholar 22:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Scroll up: the passage is this one (with proper quotation marks for the verbatim quotation from the source):"According to CNN, 'Libby is the first sitting White House official to be indicted in 130 years.'" [See notes in section show preview or at end] --NYScholar 22:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Other proposed passage
Inserted by another editor; moved here due to its apparent inaccuracies, lack of proper "full citation" or "full citations"; this is not a quotation from the source; and it's not verified; I leave it to others to work on whether or not this material belongs in the introduction to Lewis Libby: "Libby is the highest-ranking White House official convicted in a federal-level government scandal since Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros in 1999."

That passage needs to be checked and verified and the citation needs to be a full citation. I leave it to others to do that work. I don't know whether or not it is accurate. It depends on whether a "White House official" refers to a cabinet member or someone else (like Libby, not a cabinet member). Also, I've already pointed out the discrepancies between facts of Cisneros' situation and Libby's; Cisneros was not "convicted"; after indictment by an "Independent Counsel," he entered a plea bargain of guilty to one misdemeanor (not a plea of not guilty to five felony counts), and he was not convicted of anything (e.g., in a trial by jury, as in Libby's case). Cisneros resigned and was after that pardoned by President Clinton. The biography gives details; perhaps sources that can be used for verification. The "government scandal" was not of the order of the Plame affair etc. (as already explained), and so on. --NYScholar 03:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The line says nothing about "Independent Counsel" and "convicted" is merely parsing words, I suppose it could be changed to "guilty" to satisfy your contention. A cabinet member is a White House official as he/she is one of the President's advisors. Cisneros is more a White House official than Libby. The point of referring to the Iran Contra scandal is not neutral and quite frankly doesn't even need to be in the article to begin with. But if we are determined to point out the last time someone connected to the White House was guilty of a crime, then this is the best way to do it. As far as a full citation, please clarify what you mean by that. The link goes to an article in USA Today which is a legitimate news source. The arbitrary nature of determining what was a bigger scandal has nothing to do with the point of the line.A.S. Williams 04:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the source; it does not support the passage that I removed from the article. The Poindexter ref. by the AP (given this other source) seems more accurate. Full citation needs to be developed for the external link inserted in the article earlier; that is not the prevailing citation format for this article. Please follow the prevailing format (scroll up to earlier section[s] about this problem). --NYScholar 03:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a "full citation" to that source in addition to the other AP source following the quotation in the article now. It is useful, but the passage based on it earlier followed by the external link is not an accurate presentation of what it states (or of the facts relating to Henry Cisneros). I think this is the "best of both worlds" (compromise) kind of solution to the problems that I mention above. --NYScholar 03:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the apparently determined motivations to include the information, I will agree with this compromise. I still think it really ought to be removed completely.A.S. Williams 05:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Assistant to the President?
Libby was never an assistant to the president. The sources cited state only that he was cheney's chief of staff and national security advisor. They never state that he was a direct assistant to the president. Perpetualization 21:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Multiple biographical sources cited in this article document that Libby was also an assistant to President Bush. Please do not introduce errors into this article. Read earlier discussion of this already-discussed correction. --NYScholar 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From the USDOJ indictment: "Beginning on or about January 20, 2001, and continuing through the date of this indictment, defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as 'SCOOTER LIBBY,' was employed as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. In the course of his work, LIBBY had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S. intelligence community, as well as other government officials, regarding sensitive national security matters."

Please stop deleting reliable and verifiable sources from this article and introducing errors. Due to this apparently-ongoing problem, I've tagged this article with a "cleanup" notice; earlier accurate category/categories and reference citations need to be restored so that the other coded refs. to them work correctly. Please read the talk page of the article (and archived talk pages) and please do not make such substantive and controversial changes to this article without first doing so and posting your concerns about a passage on this talk page. See tagged notice about controversial articles in Wikipedia and Guidelines for controversial articles. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored some of the missing citations. I don't know if I caught all of them as there have been so many deletions of sources since July 2 from this article. Leaving the cleanup template in place in case I and others have missed fixing these various citation errors.  Thanks to those correcting actual errors for their vigilance.  --NYScholar 01:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Debate soc. head insertion/needs reliable, verifiable source
Moved to talk page due to lack of proper source: [referring to Libby's education at Phillips Academy:] "There he was the head of the Philomathean Society, 'the oldest secondary school debate program in the [United States].'"

User who added the information (since revised for coh.) is responsible for providing a full citation to document it; the source supplied needs to be both reliable and verifiable; see WP:BLP and WP:CITE. Thanks. --NYScholar 20:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeat of United States v. Libby
More than half the summary and the entire Trial, conviction, and sentencing section is about the court case United States v. Libby. There is already an article about this, and the Lewis Libby article ought to focus more on Libby and less on his court case. Perpetualization 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this: Please see earlier sections of this current talk page; e.g., ; no responses there or where referred to later in talk page. --NYScholar 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See related comments in Valerie Plame; rationale for the content of such articles is the notability of the person being so closely related to a highly-notable series of events in American political government scandal relating to them. Please go to Plame affair, e.g., and see the righthand list of notable people involved in it.  None is perhaps more directly inovlved than the Wilsons and Libby at this point.  There are differences in the ways that these articles are developed; they are not repetition per say; in many cases the material in U.S. v. Libby originated in this article on Libby and was then focused on there.  Some sections are more developed and the transitions differ (for coherence).  There is not a great deal more to focus on about Libby other than what has already been focused on.  His accomplishments in government work, for example, are not as well documented as his notoriety due to his involvement in the Plame affair.  Part of that was due to his so-called "low profile" in government; he was very secretive and his work did not find much public scrutiny.  Some might wonder why and want to investigate that, but that runs counter to WP:NOR.  One needs to find reliable and verifiable sources to document Libby's notability.  So far, this article does that.  Deletion of reliable and verifiable sources of notable content and such notable content is contrary to the core policy in Wikipedia: Neutral point of view.  Imagine that you never heard of Lewis Libby; re-read the article with that reader's perspective in mind.   --NYScholar 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Current Event?
I believe that only United States v. Libby is a current event, not Lewis Libby himself. Unless anybody objects, i am going to remove the current event tag. Perpetualization 02:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no necessity or useful purpose in removing the tag, which reads "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." That information is accurate; the template serves to warn readers of this article that its "information may change rapidly as the event[s]" (which are multiple) "documented" in it progresses/progress. The template only refers to "event" in the singular but clearly may apply to more than one event. The notice is a courtesy to readers as it explains why there may be rapidly-changing content ("information") in the article. (If one clicks on the link in the template notice, one is taken to a page in Wikipedia (Portal:Current events) in which there are other biographies of living persons listed [via links in the descriptions of the events]. Again, the tag just seems to serve as a useful notice to readers; it appears on the biographies of living persons when their lives involve [notable] current events and thus the content of those articles may "change rapidly" as those events "progress.") --NYScholar 17:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC) [updated in brackets and within parentheses. --NYScholar 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * E.g., see the listing of Scooter Libby in that portal's current events for July 2, 2007. Thus, the tag still on this article seems quite justified, at least while the matters pertaining to Libby are still currently being reported; also, e.g., the House Judiciary Committee hearing just occurred on July 11, 2007, and it has been in the news all week.  [That hearing involved Lewis Libby the person as well as the events leading to the presidential commutation of his prison sentence.]  --NYScholar 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated in brackets. --NYScholar 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)]

Time to archive again soon?
The current talk page is approx. 200K long; it seems wise to archive it (in perhaps more than one portion, chronologically; perhaps splitting it up into quarters (about 40-60K each) to make access to it more manageable. Please scroll up to top of the current page for discussions pertaining to archiving.  Thanks.  --NYScholar 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The section w/ disc. is (which was refactored by another editor some time ago; see refs. there pertaining to archiving a talk page when it gets too long): Talk page guidelines. --NYScholar 23:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Archived about half of the material [96K] in archive page 7. Added notes re: that in appropriate spots above. --NYScholar 01:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

subsection on Armitage
have removed it as i don't think it directly relevant to Libby, and is taking up a fair amount of space in an already long article, especially given the second shorter mention in Comment on the verdict by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald

i can live with a short mention if it is the case that this article states allegations that Libby was specifically the source that Armitage owned up to being (i.e. the "initial and primary source" for Novak's article).

i am planning to remove some more content from this article that do not directly address Libby, under the "This is the Libby article, not the Plame affair or CIA leak grand jury investigation article" argument. but will respect any "hang on, i have/will have something to say about that soon" request from contributors.

some such content i've identified:


 * paragraph beginning "During his media appearance outside the courtroom after the verdict in the Libby case, Fitzgerald fielded questions from the press about others involved in the Plame affair and in the CIA leak grand jury investigation, such as Armitage and Cheney..."
 * Collins offers a day-by-day account of his experience as Juror #9 at the Libby trial in an "Exclusive" at The Huffington Post.
 * the extensive quote from Judge Walton addressed to the amici curiae beginning "Walton granted the scholars permission to file their brief, and wrote of them.."
 * also inclined to chop or remove the section on Press coverage of the trial

also planning the axe on some non-notable or current event-ish statements Doldrums 07:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Libby did not speak to reporters" (after verdict)
 * "some of them [Newspaper calls for pardon] are posted online by the Libby Legal Defense Trust."

Opposition to above section comments
There are full citations embedded in the content of this article that editors delete. Any deletions need to be both warranted and those making the deletions need to keep intact full citations being referred back to in ref. citation abbreviations ("ref name = [x]/"]. In the past I have spent hours restoring missing citations caused by others' deletions.  Editors making deletions are responsible for making sure that the citations continue to work fully throughout the article after their deletions and for maintaining the integrity of the article's source citations. --NYScholar 18:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The section in question is so very short that removing it and its full citations is hardly warranted. Instead of improving the article, the deletion caused major problems in the posting of citations referring back to the full citations given in that passage. I've restored the passage; if the editor is going to delete it, which is not really an improvement, in my view (and I was not the editor who added these Plame-affair subsections to this article initially; I just tried to improve them after another editor or editors added them without proper sourcing), then that editor needs to make sure all the citations in the article still work properly after such a deletion. (There were blank notes left after the deletions made earlier.) --NYScholar 18:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The section re: Armitage was originally created by other(s) editor(s) due to their deleting ref. to what the CIA leak grand jury investigation concerned and eventual disclosure that Armitage was Novak's primary and orig. source of the leak for his column from the introduction of this article: see the editing history for how it was developed. If the material is not placed in the main text (see the previous tag on length of introd. recommending moving such material to the text from the introd.), then it will go back into the introd. so that the article is fully coherent. People keep putting in and taking out the same material that has been subject to previous controversial edits. See the tagged notice at the top of this page re: controversial article editing guidelines. Guidelines for controversial articles. I myself was never particularly comfortable with the section on Armitage (or even the one on Miller), but I worked on providing full citations as required--all the people involved are living persons and WP:BLP and WP:BLP apply to statements made about them; such statements must be documented with reliable and verifiable citations (full citations): WP:CITE. --NYScholar 18:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose deleting the other reliably- and verifiably-documented passages that the above user says that he wants to delete; see the same guidelines pertaining to editing controversial articles in Wikipedia: Guidelines for controversial articles; deleting reliable and verifiable sources of pertinent information is not an improvement to the article; Neutral point of view and WP:POV pertain, as does WP:BLP. Unless deletions actually improve an article, there is no rationale for making them. The deletions will weaken the article. One may want to find better ways to incorporate information, but to delete it entirely violates Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. --NYScholar 19:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to make some related changes to strengthen coherence and to correct misplaced citations; I've added an important editorial interpolation questioning the relevance of one citation to an interview with Tim Russert, as I can't see how it documents the statement that it follows. It appears that another source is needed. Perhaps I'm missing something in the source. Help needed with it. Thanks. --NYScholar 20:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the irrelevant source and added relevant ones. I also refocused section on Armitage so that it is not highlighting Armitage and relates directly to Libby. If there are other places where the focus needs to be more coherently on Libby, such revisions of focus will solve those problems. Blanket deletions of reliably- and verifiably-sourced information is not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Editors need to work harder on incorporating the relevant material in a coherent manner perhaps, but to delete properly-sourced information that does pertain directly to the subject (Lewis Libby) is not acceptable. It is clear that up until the present time and for some time in the future, a key feature of the biography of Lewis Libby is his testimony and statements to investigators pertaining to the CIA leak grand jury investigation and [leading to] his conviction in United States v. Libby. He is not simply a principal public figure in the Plame affair, but, thus far, he is the principal public figure in it, next to Valerie E. Wilson and Joseph C. Wilson in public prominence. See the list of figures in the Plame affair for his relative importance in relation to it in order to understand the focus of this biographical article on how that the entire series of events have affected his life (his biography). The focus of this article is on Lewis Libby; the focus of the other articles is on their subjects. Again, occasionally, there may need to be adjustments in presentation for sharpness of focus; but blanket deletions of relevant content and associated source citations do not accomplish that; more sharply-focused writing accomplishes that. As this article is still semi-protected, other registered editors who are able to do so may wish to engage in accomplishing such work. --NYScholar 22:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) [tc; supplied inadvertently-omitted word and corrected a typographical error (tc). --NYScholar 02:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)]

Update re: (previously) "Armitage" subsection
After working on the passage for a while longer, I recognize that a later transitional comment in the section on Fitzgerald's comments on the verdict seems to suffice, and I don't see any citation deletion repercussions: here is the passage (revised earlier) which the other editor wanted to delete: I've deleted it and moved it here in case further discussion is needed:

No federal charges for sources of leak
For over three years media speculation focused on Karl Rove, Libby, and others as sources of the leaking to columnist Robert Novak of the then-classified, covert identity of now-former CIA officer Valerie E. Wilson. But on August 30, 2006, the New York Times and other sources reported that Deputy Secretary of State Department Richard Armitage was the "initial and primary source" for Novak's article of July 14, 2003, which identified the wife of Bush administration critic former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson (the author of a New York Times op-ed critical of the Bush administration's Iraq War rationale, entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa" ) as an "agency operative" named "Valerie Plame."

While Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has not charged Armitage, Rove, Libby, Cheney, or anyone else with breaking any federal laws for leaking Mrs. Wilson's CIA identity, he did charge Libby with five other counts relating to the investigation of the leak. [adding signature; forgot to do so earlier.] --NYScholar 01:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of categories
The recent ARBCOM ruling (see Requests for arbitration/NYScholar) in no way modified the criteria required by WP:BLP. Until and unless reliable secondary sources are provided that meet both criteria, religious categories may not be applied to this article. I am particularly concerned by a lack of sources showing public self-identification. The relevance issue is more debatable. - Crockspot 16:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up:
For previous discussion, please scroll up and see the archived talk pages.
 * The arbitration case is resolved and "closed" as of July 13, 2007. Please see the updated current case link at Requests for arbitration/NYScholar (Closed) and scroll down or select sections from table of contents for the Arbitration Committee's Final decision.  (Please consult that page for the full "final decision" of the arbitration committee as it pertains to Lewis Libby, its decision acknowledges that Lewis Libby is a "prominent public figure": see WP:BLP.  --NYScholar 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

....neoconservatism is an episode, an important and interesting one, in the intellectual and political history of Jewish America, and it is impudent to call anyone who mentions this a bigot. Schoenfeld suggests that only racist crackpots ever query the commitment of senior Washington officials, but it was Jack Straw, himself a descendant of Jewish immigrants, who said of Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff: "It's a toss-up whether Libby is working for the Israelis or the Americans on any given day." .)
 * Since its "final decision" on July 13, 2007, citing its decision, an administrator (Xoloz) added the category "American Jews" to the article Lewis Libby"Diff", stating in his/her editing summary as follows: "ArbCom decision supports the disclosure of ethnicity."
 * Then, on July 15, 2007, another administrator (FeloniousMonk), reverted the first administrator's (Xoloz's) insertion of the category "American Jews", stating in his/her editing summary: "rm cat. no such arbcom ruling, and not supported by sources, per WP:BLP.""Diff""Diff".
 * [Note well: after the "final decision" of the arbitration committee, I did not add the category, the first administrator (Xoloz) did. I do currently believe that multiple reliable and verifiable sources currently cited in this article (as the article and reprints by Kampeas deleted from it by "interested parties" in the dispute earlier) clearly support the addition of the category, as do the reliable and verifiable sources by Kampeas (orig. and reprints) removed by editors earlier  (see item 3 in "locus of this dispute").  All along (since about Feb. 2007), I added all such sources to this article in good faith; see the core principles of Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and WP:AGF.]
 * FM's editing summary ("rm cat. no such arbcom ruling, and not supported by sources, per WP:BLP"), it appears to me, is false; there is "such" an "Arbcom ruling" and the category "American Jews" is "supported by sources, per WP:BLP" (both WP:BLP and WP:BLP).
 * [Note well: I have never seen either of these two administrators' user identities (Xoloz or FeloniousMonk) before and, to my knowledge, neither of them has edited this article before July 13, 2007. The arbitration committee's final decision "remedy" applies to them as it does to any other Wikipedia editor.]
 * The "locus" of the dispute is "Lewis Libby ..., specifically whether Biographies of living persons applies with respect to disclosure of Lewis Libby's ethnicity and religious affiliation"). (See WP:AGF and the other "principles" stated by the arbitration committee.)
 * The arbitration committee's finding that Libby is a "prominent public figure makes it crystal clear that WP:BLP applies to this article about him.
 * Reliably- and verifiably-sourced significant information pertaining to "disclosure of Lewis Libby's ethnicity and religious affiliation" is warranted: Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Such "disclosure" that Lewis Libby "is Jewish" (Jewish Telegraphic Agency; Ron Kampeas, Bromell, et al. cited in this article) as well as "American" [in the current text of the article] (including the addition of the category based on that reliably- and verifiably-sourced "disclosure") does not violate WP:BLP; it is in keeping with all the principles and findings of the arbitration committee's "final decision."
 * Any "ambiguity" in WP:BLP and the appropriateness of adding the category "American Jews" to this article appears to be in the eyes of the beholder, depending on his or her point of view and whether or not, in the case of this particular subject (Lewis Libby), he or she wants to include the already-disclosed and reliably- and verifiably-sourced information that Libby "is Jewish" by listing him in the category "American Jews."
 * As pointed out in the arbitration dispute by various "interested parties" and observed by the arbitration committee, those who object to adding the category to Lewis Libby do not lodge objections on the same grounds to including the same and similar categories in articles about others who have not been convicted of federal crimes.
 * For the others included in Wikipedia's "American Jews" and similar national identity and religious categories, one merely needs to go to the category and peruse the alphabetical index of names included. How consistent is the application of WP:BLP throughout Wikipedia?
 * For a comparable category and those included in its index, see the category "British Jews" in Jack Straw.
 * Those who prefer to see "ambiguity" in WP:BLP as it applies only to Lewis Libby stress that. Others do not observe such "ambiguity" as it applies to Libby's inclusion among other "American Jews" listed in that category in Wikipedia.
 * Contrary to those deleting references to Kampeas' article (and reprints of it) citing Libby's public self-identification with the "belief" of Judaism in his membership in the Reform Jewish temple Temple Rodef Shalom, and the "relevance" of Libby's identity as "Jewish" with regard to mass media controversies pertaining to the CIA leak grand jury investigation and United States v. Libby, as well as to his previous American foreign-policy making roles concerning the Jewish State of Israel and other Middle East nations, I do not find any "ambiguity" in WP:BLP as it applies to Lewis Libby.
 * As several other "interested parties" in the same arbitration dispute have already stated (see the links throughout the arbitration case), Libby publicly identifies himself with the "belief" of Judaism in numerous ways (including his membership in a Reform Jewish temple, documented by by Kampeas in various versions of his article deleted by other editors from Lewis Libby and Temple Rodef Shalom but accessible via these archived talk pages, Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom, and linked in the arbitration case:
 * "In fact, Libby, 55, for years has been a member of Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va., a five-minute drive from his home in McLean, a wealthy suburb known for multimillion homes housing top lobbyists, lawyers and Bush administration officials. ... Officials of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) and the synagogue were reluctant to discuss Libby’s involvement. Acquaintances don’t remember seeing him at shul, aside from High Holiday services. ... Libby’s membership in the Rodef Shalom guide lists his wife, Harriet Grant, a former staffer for congressional Democrats, and two school-age kids."
 * [As I have stated many times already, such reliably and verifiably-documented public membership in the temple and public attendance at such Jewish religious ceremonies and celebrations (at the temple [and the White House]) are evidence of Libby's public self-identification with the "belief" of Judaism. Other evidence is already cited in the article Lewis Libby and documented by the note citations to reliable and verifiable sources.] [Added and updated. --NYScholar 03:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * In the case of Lewis Libby, it is counterintuitive to claim that his "belief" in Judaism" is not "relevant" (both to his own life and work and to the lives of American and Israeli citizens affected by his life and work) if he belongs to a Reform Jewish temple; such temple membership is "relevant" to one's own and others' lives. It is precisely evidence of such "relevance" as well as of Libby's public self-identification [of his affiliation with the "belief" in Judaism].
 * The political (topical) relevance of Libby's "ethnic and religious identity" as Jewish is clearly that he was considered by the Israelis themselves to be one of the Bush administration's "most sympathetic" members and that he dealt with foreign policy matters pertaining to the Middle East and to the security of Israel, leading to subsequent vocal support by that community (the Jewish community, including Israeli members, part of the Washington, D.C. Middle East policy community). Readers of Wikipedia would indeed find this information "relevant," as did the sources documenting its "relevance" in this article.
 * The "relevance" of "Libby's Jewishness" is clear from the titles and content of various versions of articles written by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency's Washington, D.C. bureau chief Ron Kampeas, summarized in JTA news releases, and from his later articles alluding to his earlier documentation of Libby's so-called "Jewishness" and its "relevance" (to his wide readership in the United States and elsewhere).
 * The relevance of "Libby's Jewishness" is stated in other reliable and verifiable sources cited in the section of Lewis Libby on his government employment; they address directly the relevance of his being Jewish to his work with high-level government officials of the Jewish state of Israel, who considered and consider him "sympathetic" to the "security" of Israel amd to his past and ongoing support from members of "the Jewish community" and the "Middle East policy" community, including many other Jewish people.
 * The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and The Jerusalem Post state unequivocably: that Lewis Libby "is Jewish." No antisemitism or any such anti-Jewish motives can or should be attributed to the JTA, to the Jerusalem Post, or to Wikipedia editors citing its articles, who cite them in good faith; see WP:AGF, a core principle of Wikipedia (See arbitration "principles").
 * British foreign secretary Jack Straw ("himself a descendant of Jewish immigrants") commented that Libby's loyalty to Israel sometimes even appeared to take precedence over his loyalty to the United States in foreign policy matters affecting the security of Israel undertaken while Libby was in his high-level government roles (2001-2005). (Cited in Lewis Libby: currently n. [57] citation to Wheatcroft [The note citation number will change in the course of revisions to the article. Updated. --NYScholar 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)]: "Wheatcroft quotes Straw:
 * After his conviction in United States v. Libby, Libby received and continues to receive strong support from members of the Jewish community in Washington, D.C., Israel, and from among other members of the Washington, D.C. Middle East policy community.
 * Edit-warring over the addition of the category "American Jews", which is based on both reliable and verifiable sources given in the article (and those deleted from it but which can be restored to it), may be subject to sanctions (like blocking or loss of sysops status), according to the arbitration committee's "remedies".
 * Editors (including administrators)--see Administrators, Administrators--need to consult the editing history of this article and its talk pages (including archived talk pages) prior to engaging in controversial edits of this kind that are addressed in the arbitration case's final decision. [I may come back to edit this later; I have to log off Wikipedia to do something else.]--NYScholar 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) --[Updated; sorry forgot to re-log in before. --NYScholar 02:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * What part of public self identification are you missing? - Crockspot 02:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The act of going to a house of worship, and having a third party report that he saw him there does not constitute public self identification. The category criteria makes no exception for public persons. The arbcom ruling does not bar the the third party reporting of his jewishness in the content, based upon his being a public person, but the category criteria clearly still bars the use of the category. I will stand firm on this point. - Crockspot 03:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no justification for continued misinterpretation of WP:BLP (I quoted the two criteria above again). Kampeas reports the evidence of Libby's membership in Temple Rodef Shalom as published in its membership directory.  (Temple Rodef Shalom is a religious membership organization, not only a "house of worship"; it even has a "biznet" in which it identifies its members via its online website for networking purposes.)  WP:BLP states that one can cite evidence of public records in reliable and verifiable sources (as well as the public records themselves).  The citation to Kampeas is a citation documenting the public record of the membership guide in which Lewis Libby identifies himself with the "belief" of Judaism by virtue of being a member in that religious organization.  The arbcom ruling specifically finds that Libby is a "prominent public figure," which makes it crystal clear that WP:BLP applies to this article about him and that "Reliably- and verifiably-sourced significant information" pertaining to "disclosure of Lewis Libby's ethnicity and religious affiliation" is warranted in this article about him. The "final decision" also finds that these sources that I have been citing by Kampeas for several months and which the above editor and others have repeatedly deleted are "reliable" and "verifiable." --NYScholar 04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [To Crockspot:] There is no point in "stand[ing] firm on this point" if your stance has no explicit support in the arbitration committee's "final decision," and for you even to try to revert categories on this "matter" (the "locus" of the dispute as they judged it)--even by mistake--is very risky, as it could lead to your and others' being blocked. I would suggest just leaving the category adding to other, more neutral editors who were not "interested parties" in the arbitration case.  More neutral editors can read the same cited sources and decide whether or not the category is warranted.  I have not added the category; I just corrected a typographical error in a date (as I think you realized later). --NYScholar 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am citing reliable and verifiable sources so that other more neutral editors can read them and see what they say. "Interested parties" in the arbitration dispute are not "neutral" editors in this "matter" by virtue of their "involvement" in that dispute.  I am providing sources as asked.  As I interpret the sources (as I read them), they document the fact of Lewis Libby's public self-identification with the "belief" of Judaism, and they also document the "relevance" of the fact that Libby "is Jewish."  I am not engaging in so-called "original research"; I am providing documented reliable and verifiable sources that are acceptable in Wikipedia. I have no interest in adding or deleting the category "American Jews"; however, I do think that the category is warranted by the sources currently in this article on Lewis Libby.  --NYScholar 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [Note: In the above comment, I've Wikified the phrase "American Jews" for people's reference; the Wikified link is a link to the Wikipedia article on "American Jews"; for the category itself, one needs to click on its category link in an article containing it (such as that one). --NYScholar 04:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * For biographies of living persons, see, e.g., Matt Lauer. I have no idea whether or not Matt Lauer has publicly identified himself with the "belief" of Judaism or what its relevance is to his biography; I just found him listed in the index of the category because I was looking at "L" after Libby was listed there by the administrator, as noted earlier.  [The Wikipedia article text states only that Matt Lauer's father is Jewish. [The source was miscoded; I just fixed it so that it posts and read it, finding a quotation that makes the category dubious; I added a query in Talk:Matt Lauer.] How would these Wikipedia editors know whether or not Lauer is "self-identified" with the "belief" of Judaism?  [The quotation does not make that clear at all.]  Otherwise, the textual ref. to his father's being Jewish [citing the source that didn't show up earlier] seems the basis used in that article for including the category; in my view, a much weaker rationale than we have with Libby.  To see whether or not WP:BLP is being followed consistently in Wikipedia, one needs to check articles in such categories that pertain to "religious affiliation" and "sexual preference."  In the past, just in passing, I have found wide discrepancies in the ways such categories are being applied by various editors throughout Wikipedia. [Updated.] --NYScholar 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to this source, Lauer is not Jewish. I'll fix that one. - Crockspot 04:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Added category American Jews
Why was this such a big deal? Can we move on now? Thanks, --Tom 13:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)