Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Real Name

Confirmed as Irve. NYT and Huffington Post have confirmed it. Unfortunately, I am having trouble citing it. One such reference is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2007/03/13/naming-names-what-the-he_e_43351.html.

That is apparently correct, according to a much older and at least equally reliable printed source, cited in the discussion: 1968 Pot Pourri (Andover, MA: Phillips Academy, 1968), p. 235 gives the name as "Irve Lewis Libby, Jr." and the nickname as "Scooter". Any alumnus of Phillips Academy can confirm on the website (www.andover.edu) that Mr. Libby himself now prefers the full form of his name to be "I. Lewis Libby, Jr." (the site indicates that the information has been supplied by the alumnus himself). Why not credit the printed source as to the form of the name that Mr. Libby preferred in 1968 and also respect his current wishes as to the form he would like used? sloko 12:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)SK

Talk page Policy

From the tag at top: "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles." --NYScholar 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the problems currently facing editors of this article should not have been archived yet. They are still of current concern. They are dated March 6 and March 7, 2007. They need to be consulted before making "substantial changes" to this article. That is the policy for editing this article. Such changes must be discussed here in advance of making them. See also the WP:BLP, which governs editing of this article as well. --NYScholar 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

i agrew with you NYScholar but i dont think that its possible to undo an archiv e even i f its totally retarded. i also wanted to know if you have any clarificaion that Lewis Libby's name was once Leibowitzt becore he changed it to just 'Libby'. Also, it dont htink that its encylcopedic to use a nickname in a serious research article it maeks us look carless a little bit. doe sanyone have any objection to my removing te word "schooter" except as a reference to it JUST being a nickname (dont think that it should in the first paragraph). i think that would make the article 100% much bettered. Smith Jones 03:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

rubbish. If you don't like the archiving, just revert it. Do you know how to do that? 207.107.108.157 03:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While it's possible it's probably not advisiable. I have to agree the archiving we ill-advised tho. Indeed, I'm not sure why the page wasn't just moved if the entire page was going to be archived Nil Einne 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Partisan blogs gossiped about "Leibowitz"; I've seen no notable reliable source that mentions that name as Lewis Libby's name. It could have (or not) been a family name prior to his birth; that doesn't make it his name. But there is no evidence that it was the Libby family name. One would need a notable reliable verifiable published source to cite, and at this stage there is none. See also WP:NOR. --NYScholar 09:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Where applicable, provide a link to the archived discussion. Reviewing the page, it is clear that a small number of editors are engaged in several ongoing debates, the tenor of which smacks of ownership and petty bickering. Sometimes it is good to make a clean start. If you disagree, however, you can always retrieve and paste back into the talk page those debates you feel remain germane to the discussion at hand. Eusebeus 14:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What is his first name?

I find that it reflects on us VERY poorly if we don't even have the first name of the guy who is LINKED TO ON THE FRONT PAGE. Seriously, what's the "I." stand for? Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

His first name has been reported as either "Irv", "Irve", or "Irving". I'd probably go with the last one. Benoit (talk) (contribs)

One can't just "go with" some name; one needs a completely-reliable and verifiable source; such sources have been cited in previous versions of this article; however, none is entirely dependable and several contradict one another. Though the latest source that I've cited (scroll back through editing history is the "alma mater" "librarian" quoted in a news article, and that person said the "I." stood for "Irve," "Irve" could still be a nickname for "Irving"; one just doesn't know for certain; most news articles point out that I. Lewis Libby was not "forthcoming" about what the "I." stands for. The "Jr." in various sources' view is also questionable; just because the New York Times uses it does not mean that Libby still uses it; the court case name ("I. Lewis Libby, also known as "Scooter Libby") does not include the "Jr." at all in any of those documents. Many people do not use a first name and use an initial instead; that's their legal name. I don't know why Wikipedia insists on "changing" people's current names. It seems misleading to me. We don't know his so-called "given name"; we just know the name that he uses in government positions and in court documents, etc. [I will not be editing Wikipedia articles for at least the next week or two. So I will not see replies and comments here.] --NYScholar 09:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Some people normally use their 'middle' name as their first name but their full name is still publicly known. In this case, it appears that this is not the case for Libby so I have to agree the article as is is fine Nil Einne 10:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we call actors by their real name or their stage name? If Scooter is not his legal name wouldn't convention dictate we call him something like Horatio "Scooter" Libby, or whater his first name is? Numskll

His first name is disputed and has conflicting reports. Some editor removed my detailed note on the issue. I'll find out who and add back the note. Jokestress 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was asking about how stage names versus nicknames are handled and which we thought "scooter" was. Numskll 21:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[Moved from my (NYScholar's) talk page here bec. it relates to this disc. directly. --NYScholar 05:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)] I just listed to the NPR report myself, and the quotation that had been in the article previously was verbatim. I was able to get it to work more quickly with Windows Media Player, but they support RealPlayer, too. They have a help section if you are having problems. It is not original research to type out what a reporter says in a radio broadcast. As a reminder, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. See WP:ATT. As long as we accurately cite Pesca, it doesn't matter that he does not cite his own sources. Jokestress 06:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please give me a direct link to a WMP URL for the broadcast. Once one tries to listen to it in RealPlayer, the NPR site doesn't allow one to choose another option. My home computer won't allow me to access the RP clip for some reason (perhaps my security programs), but I can try again some other time in the next couple of weeks. I agree w/ the rest of what you say. But the information about what I. stands for is still speculative and thus we cannot definitively establish (on the basis of some unnamed librarian at his "alma mater" (and it doesn't say which one; he had two postgraduate institutions) that "Irve" is his name; "Irve" could still be a nickname for something else (e.g., Irving). The NNDB says it's "Irving" and could equally be incorrect. Until there is a definitive source for the first name, Wikipedia is (as I think you agree) correct to leave the first line of the introd. as "I." while explaining the discussion of what it stands for in the later "personal history"/"background" section (as is). I also don't think there is any need to quote the sentence that someone transcribed from the Pesca clip; one can just cite the source and people can go listen to it themselves and hear what he says. (Don't you think that this discussion is more appropriately placed in the talk page of the article rather than on my talk page?) --NYScholar 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Jokestress's comments (here/on my talk page, which I've moved above), I've listened to the currently-cited source, Mike Pesca's NPR report, on Windows Media Player (it won't play on RealPlayer for me). In terms of factuality, Pesca's report is not definitive re: Libby's name. Pesca merely cites the librarian of Yale University (mentioning his "Alma Mater" in "New Haven", suggesting his undergraduate institution, Yale, as opposed to some earlier or later school) as leading him to look at a 1972 yearbook, which, he says, lists Libby's name as "Irve"; but then Pesca says that I. Lewis Libby is "junior" and that Libby's father's name in the Lexis-Nexis searches that Pesca himself did turns up as "Irving"; which would suggest that in the yearbook, Libby's nickname (not "given name" first name) is listed. It is common for yearbook listings of graduates to list their nicknames and not their full names (?). Pesca also cites the Wikipedia entry (which a Wikipedia article cannot cite--since it is not a peer-reviewed publication and subject to all kinds of transitory changes); and various news sources that conflict with one another in the name "Irving" or the spelling of the purported nickname ("Irve" or "Irv"). Pesca's own "original research" (e.g., his Lexis-Nexis search for Libby's father's name; his collation of various other accounts) does not appear to me to be a reliable source for replacing the "I." in line one with either "Irving" or "Irve"; but, if Libby's name is the same as his father's, and his father's was "Irving," then "Irve" would appear to have been a nickname that he used at one time and then stopped using in public (sometime after 1972). If his friends and colleagues in undergraduate school (Yale U) [and/or in law school (Columbia U Law School, which is still unclear as well] knew him as "Irve" as well as "Scooter" and/or "Lewis", that would suggest that he had more than one nickname. His "given name" ("first name") could still be "Irving," whereas he may have used the nickname "Irve" (during his undergraduate college days at Yale). If named after birth "junior" in actuality (i.e., on his birth certificate as opposed to some later listing in a federal directory mentioned in an earlier Wikipedia version), then his name would be precisely the same as his father's, if his father became "Irving Lewis Libby, Sr." after the birth of his son. All this is still highly speculative. One needs a definitive reliable and verifiable source to put the correct name in place of "I." in the first line of this entry. (For me, the same kind of factuality is needed for the "Jr.") So far, it appears to me that we don't have that degree of certainty (factuality). It also appears to me that the National Notable Names Database simply has been consulting Wikipedia or other Wikis in changing "Irving" of a couple of days ago to "Irve" (as today), based on a previous Wikipedia version of this article. Now Wikipedia has gone back to "I." One wonders whether or not the NNDB will follow suit. It has an e-mail feature for advising its editors of errors in its entries. (In a related matter: the NNDB currently lists Libby's religion as "Jewish", noting in a source his temple membership (which Kampeas disclosed via the Jewish Telegraphic Services); but the source is not verifiable online (in my own attempts); moreover, a Wikipedia editor on this talk page commented that temple membership is not evidence of self-identification as Jewish--see other topic--scroll up/down.) --NYScholar 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: the NNDB article's cited source for Libby's temple membership, see the topic on Ethnicity/Religion, where I've provided link to Tulsa Jewish Review (NNDB's cited source); it can be searched in the pdf file doc. (Dec. 1, 2005 issue is vol. 76, no. 10). --NYScholar 06:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires notable published verifiable reliable sources; what an anonymous IP user posts here is not such a source. Moreover, what he was called in 1968 and what his name actually is are two different matters. The "I." stands for a name that was his birth name apparently; "Irve" may have been what he was called in 1965 to 1968, but his birth name could still be something else (e.g., "Irving"); a notable published verifiable reliable source is needed to document what the "I." actually was on his birth certificate (fact), not reportage or reported anecdotal information. Every published source that I have seen so far (as cited throughout various versions of this Wikipedia article) is based on speculation and conjecture, not fact. Until one has a notable verifiable reliable source for what the "I." definitely stands for, Wikipedia cannot put it in this article as fact. Right now, the article states that the matter of what the initial "I." stands for is uncertain. "Irve" may have been what people called him during his school years, but that does not mean that the "I." was originally "Irve"; it could have been "Irving" even if people knew him as "Irve" in those years. He now goes as "I. Lewis Libby" (without the "Jr."), as United States v. Libby indicates in court documents. To replace the "I." in the first line of this article with a name, one needs proper documentation, following Wikipedia:Attribution, which has now suuperceded Wikipedia:Reliable sources. (The NNDB listing changed after the NNDB was notified that there were errors in its article; but there are possibly still errors in its article. It is not a reliable source; it is not really a "peer-reviewed" publication, as Wikipedia is not.) --NYScholar 07:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Source Needed . . . When?

General naive question: when is a source needed, and when it is not. Someone asked for a source for the fact that he has two children. Why doesn't anyone also ask for the source for his wife's name? Please note, just is not a criticism, but a general policy question. In any event, his lawyer claimed he had two children in closing arguments, noted many places, including here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sholom (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

As I understand it any assertation that is challenged (challengable?) should be sourced. This is, of course, a slippery slope (what if all assertations get challenged) but I beleive the hope is that common sense will prevail and only reasonable demands of attribution will be enforced. Numskll 15:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any consistency on it at all, basically someone puts {{fact}} (which appears as {{Fact}}). It just comes down to one individual person adding the template. Mglovesfun 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that sums it up. Numskll 16:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I. Lewis Libby has been disbarred. See: http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/pa_attorney_info.php?id=23330&pdcount=0 Inactive means disbarred or quit in legalese. He should be listed as a "former lawyer" Or "criminal", NOT as a lawyer. Bearian 19:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Bearian ( I am an attorney).

That does not say he has been "disbarred." It says his licensure is "inactive." Until you have a source that specifically says he is disbarred, we can't say that per WP:BLP. Jokestress 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We can say that he is inactive in that state. But he may have been inactive in that state for a long period - based on geography. That is not pertinent to this article. What would be pertinent if there is a change to his status in Washington DC and/or Virginia - which is where he was practising law prior to joining the administration in 2001. So he should still be listed as a lawyer until there is factual evidence about his status. Davidpatrick 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever added that provided no source at all for it; a "full citation" is needed: see both WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; I removed it from the article as it is unsourced (acc. to WP:BLP). --NYScholar 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby

The article needs editiing. The first sentence in 'Background' is grammatically incorrect. It should be amended so as to read, "Libby was born into 'a wealthy family.'" His father was an investment banker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coslow (talk • contribs) 08:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Someone restored the errors; I've tried to correct them. --NYScholar 06:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting 'maximum penalty'?

Given that this is a current event, protected page, and a subject that I know very little about, I do not have intentions of editing this page. However, I would like to pose a question; in the "Indictment, resignation, and trial" section, it states that the maximum penalty may be up to 25 years imprisonment for the 4 felony convictions, while in the next section ("Verdict") it gives a maximum figure of 30 years. Is this contradictory, and should this be changed to a uniform number? Thank you for your time. Vendetta 09:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead needs a rewrite

The lead only focuses on Libby's conviction. It needs to be rewritten to include other information about Libby. This article is supposed to be a bio. It's not a scandal page. Regards, --Jayzel 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Libby's "notability" is mostly due to the indictments and his former position as chief of staff to VP Cheney. Those are the salient facts highlighted in the introd. --NYScholar 06:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Libby's notability stems by and large from his crimes. Having said that I do think we need to avoid perjorative labels like "criminal" , however accurate, in the intro. Numskll 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I revised the sentences in the introd. several days ago to remove "criminal" from one of the sentences. Please see the editing history. The material added into the box was also, in my view of it, very POV, and that has been removed as well. This is still a biography of a living person, and it needs to follow WP:BLP. Injecting POV into this article is not within Wikipedia's most important guideline in editing: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --NYScholar 04:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I too omitted "criminal" but added his conviction to the first sentence.Numskll 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence now reads: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (born August 22, 1950) is an American lawyer, former White House official, and convicted criminal who was convicted of four felony charges relating to the Plame affair. This is bad style ("...convicted criminal who was convicted..." [?]) and betrays animus. With minimal changes we could put: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (born August 22, 1950) is an American lawyer and former White House official who was convicted of four felony charges relating to the Plame affair.sloko 12:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)SK

Ethnicity/Religion

Scooter Libby is an American Jew...why is he not categotized as such is beyond me. Rumsfeld is listed as Prebyterian and German, Bush is listed as a methodist politician of Hugenot ancestry, Einstein is listed as a Jewish Scientist. Every black politician is identified as African American. Why is this being censored??

Scooter being jewish is something that interests alot of people. If a few racists take that knowledge to try to propagate hate, so be it, but facts should not be censored. Otherwise, perhaps we should take away arab in the description of osama bin laden, or african american in the description of OJ, least we offend somebody. Whoever keeps reverting this back should have to explain themselves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.132.150 (talk • contribs)

• It isn't a matter of censorship, it's a matter of verifiability and compliance with WP:BLP, which specifically addresses the use of categories in BLP articles, particularly regarding religion. For a category to be used generally, it must be justified by something reliably sourced in the article. For a religious category in particular, two additional criteria MUST be met: That the subject publicly self-identifies as such, and that their religion is relevant to their notablility. I would agree that there are a lot of labels in other articles that should be removed. However, Osama bin Laden is a bad example. His religion and ethnicity is directly relevant to the jihad that he has launched. - Crockspot 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just use caution when removing categories or references to ethnicity. I got a one month block for doing that. Anyways, --Tom 18:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the circumstances of your particular block, but my stated reasons for removing the category are well within WP policy, which specifically requires the removal of that category in this instance. But thanks anyway. I know you're just looking out. - Crockspot 18:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. What got me started was a group of anonymous ips added "Jewish-American" to approximately 800 lead sentences of biographes about 15 months ago. Most got changed back per WP:MOSBIO but many others went unnoiticed for quite some time. So no big deal right? But then somebody(s) had the bright idea of adding that tag and also the category tag to all the criminals of Jewish decent. Anyways, I agree with your above analysis that two wrongs don't make a right. The article as it reads now has a little blerb about Libby belonging to a Temple in Virginia, no big deal. Anyways, my point is that it seems that some folks have an agenda for either including ethnicity or not including ethnicity in these bios depending on their bent. Cheers,--Tom 19:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I left you a reply on my talk page. I must have missed the part about the temple, because I did not see anything in the article suggesting he was Jewish. Depending on the sourcing of that statement, my removal may be revertable, as long as the two criteria for use of religious cats in WP:BLP are strictly met. - Crockspot 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, its reference #17. Its so inocuous(sp?) you don't even notice it which is nice. Like I said, I see instances where ethnicity is slammed into an article for its own sake ignoring article flow and relevance. Anyways, no need to add the category now. If I had my way, categories and lists would be removed but that will never happen and thats ok to I guess. Have you seen this user's take on it? Very well reasoned imho --Tom 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert to the category Jewish Americans again. Virtually every jewish american newspaper has described him as jewish, (ie. http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2007/03/09/news/world/scooter0309.txt), he belongs to a major temple in the DC area, and is a member of the Jewish Republicans. Considering that virtually every Bush cabinet minister has their ethnicity/religion described in their BIO, for consistency it should be in this one. I suppose some people may have an agenda in hiding his jewish ethnicity from the readers of wikipedia because some anti-semites might try to connect neo-conservatives with jews and zionists, but that noble goal is no reason for censorship. Reasonable people will not make that connection, but may still be fascinated in knowing his ethnic roots. Fermat

There is a third criteria according to WP:BLP. Even if true, the category must be relevant to the person's notability in a meaningful way. The fact that some people have speculated about his religion is not enough. If John Ashcroft anoints himself in oil in a public ceremony, then it merits mentioning his religious beliefs. Libby's religion, although a point of curiosity for some people, is not directly related to why he is notable enough to have a bio here on Wikipedia. WP:BLP also suggests that no more than five categories be used in any bio, so that the categories themselves do not lose meaning (although five is not an official rule). According to the sources cited here, he only spoke at a meeting of the Jewish Republicans -- he is not listed as a member. Also, he was not a cabinet member of the Bush administration. Further, it seems that less than half of the current and former cabinet members have their religion listed. Further, simple membership in a house of worship shouldn't constitute public self-identification. Otherwise just about any person who actively practices their religion would be lumped into this category. There is certainly room for either side to argue their point, but I don't think we've met the threshold here. Notmyrealname 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The third criteria has been met, in that his jewish background has led to a flurry of conspiratorical articles in much of the world, and has also been of much interest in the jewish american press. The Kampeas article is but one of many. For whatever reason, the connection between neo-conservatism and pro-israel policies has been made by both pro and anti israeli factions, and Libby's ethnic/religious beliefs, him being a prominent architect in the Iraq war, is relevant. It is similar to noting that a muslim army recruit spying on the USA for terrorists was a muslim-american, and not simply an american spying for terrorists (though with obviously muslim names being common, this is often a moot point). All three criteria for the category are met. He is certifiably jewish. He identifies as jewish by membership in Virginia's largest synagogue. As a pro-Israel neoconservative involved in the Iraq war, his ethnicity is of interest to a significant part of the jewish and gentile community. http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20051102LibbyJewishSomew.html Fermat1999 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Fermat1999

The notability of the question of whether or not Lewis Libby is Jewish--as opposed to being a member of a religious organization (a temple) or a Republican organization that lobbies in favor of Israeli interests--is that the question itself is part of the controversy about the subject (Libby); that is what makes this question notable. Whether or not he is Jewish is still a matter of speculation according to some Wikipedia editors and a matter of fact according to reliable published sources like Kampeas, who cites interviews with his colleagues in the Bush administration as well as his temple membership. It is really perhaps not entirely accurate to say in the Wikipedia entry that he "is Jewish" or comes from "a Jewish family" or to include his name in a list of "Jewish American lawyers" or "American Jewish lawyers" unless one can substantiate that claim of fact with notable reliable and verifiable sources. I do think that the fact of the controversy centering on the matter of whether or not he is Jewish is supportable by such sources, however. That is an entirely different issue than assuming that he is Jewish without being able to cite reliable sources. One responsibility of a Wikipedia editor is to decide whether or not the sources at hand are enough to establish his identity as a Jewish person (one way or another--that is, by birth, conversion, other kinds of self-identification). Wikipedia entries aim to be factually accurate, especially with regard to living persons: See WP:BLP and "full citations" are needed in such articles and in articles on controversial subjects like Libby: Wikipedia: Guidelines for controversial articles. Another responsibility of a Wikipedia editor is to decide whether or not the sources at hand are enough to establish that his identity as a Jewish person is a matter of controversy to be reported in the article following both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV. In that regard, I think that they are enough to do so, and I cited Kampeas for that reason. --NYScholar 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Primarily, I just want to see reliable sourcing. - Crockspot 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do too. Scroll up to the discussion of Libby's first name too; I've finally found an online pdf version of a source cited by the NNDB in its footnote for the temple membership (which Kampeas mentions, w/o that source) as Tulsa Jewish Review 76.10 (vol. 76, no. 10). I haven't printed it out, but others might want to scour it to see if it really does mention Libby's temple membership and whether or not it cites Kampeas (who published his article "Libby Jewish?" via JTA on Nov. 1-2, 2005). Which would be the most notable or "primary" secondary source? --NYScholar 06:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've found what the NNDB is claiming as a "source" for its own information that Libby is "Jewish" (as its bio for Libby states), and, it appears to me, that the TJR is simply summarizing what it found in the JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) article by Kampeas: from page 2 of its "What's Nu" column (!):

I. Lewis Libby Jr., a member of the

Reform movement’s Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va., resigned in October as Vice President Dick Cheney’s top adviser after he was indicted for perjury. Libby was charged with lying to a federal grand jury considering possible charges in the leaking of a CIA operative’s name two

years ago.

The apositive "a member of the Reform movement's Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va." appears to be taken from Kampeas' JTA article/newswire release, which is re-published in so many other Jewish community newspapers that use the JTA as a resource. (The TJR added "Reform," which is in the current linked Wiki entry for the temple.) That is like Wikipedia citing Wikipedia; it is not a reliable secondary source and the NNDB is not providing what Wikipedia:Reliable sources would deem a reliable source for such information of Libby's being Jewish. Looked at another way, Kampeas (indirectly via the Tulsa Jewish Review news brief) is a source for Libby's being a member of a Jewish temple "Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va."--which is how this current version of the Wikipedia article on Libby reads--and not necessarily of his being Jewish (or born to a Jewish family or converted to Judaism, or self-identified as Jewish otherwise): see earlier Wikipedia users' comments about the distinctions (scroll up). The temple membership and the controversy pertaining to the question "[Is] Libby Jewish?" are, however, what Kampeas--our current source--documents. That's what our "reliable source" enables us to state with factual accuracy thus far (not "original research" but verifiably and reliably sourced). Kampeas himself poses his article title as a question: "Libby Jewish?"--though it was altered to a more assumed matter-of-fact question using the previous subtitle in various other versions of his JTA article (some of which later publications edited); e.g., in the Jerusalem Post version several days later: "Did Libby's Jewishness Impact the CIA leak Scandal?" (Even that is still rather ambiguous, as the phrase "Libby's Jewishness" could signify "the matter" or "the issue of Libby's Jewishness" (i.e., whether or not he is indeed Jewish). Even without being Jewish, someone could have such an issue of "their Jewishness" become a controversy in the traditional press and the blogosphere. But talking about it does not make it so. We need a more reliable source if one is to state unequivocably that it is a fact that the man "is Jewish" in this Wikipedia article and to include his name in the already-existing category in Wikipedia: "Jewish American lawyers" (I think). --NYScholar 06:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 07:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)]

See comment on yet another more-recent deletion from this article of an entire section relating to this matter (on talk page below: #Section deleted by another editor). --NYScholar 09:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the NNDB article on Libby in external links

The NNDB article on Libby appears to me to be "poorly sourced" (WP:BLP); what is the view of others re: keeping it in this article as an external link? Given that I've just mentioned some of its problems in this talk page, is it useful to be included in the external links for purposes of comparison? I plan to add an annotation by way of qualification. --NYScholar 07:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First name

This article claims his first name is "Irve". Also, during his perjury trial, FBI agent Deborah S. Bond testified that the FBI had had a lot of trouble getting him to reveal what the I. stood for (the trial transcripts should be online by now someplace). 64.160.39.153 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This "claim" is not a definitive source; it's a blog post in The Huffington Post with links to articles that are also not definitive. The citation to the name of I. Lewis Libby (Jr.)'s father says "Irve" but "Irve" there could also be a nickname for Irving etc. It is one source and still speculative. I changed the beginning of the sentence to "Libby"; this source does not establish what the "I." stands for in any definite way. Pesca's citation of the librarian is also still ambiguous, as the particular yearbook cited may have a standard practice or a variety of practices in presenting names and what those practices are is not clear--does the yearbook use nicknames or legal names or both? Do people listed choose how their names are presented in it, or not? The blog post is a third-hand account. Pesca's actual account in the NPR audio clip differs from this presentation of it. --NYScholar 05:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC) [updated]--Note also that that blog post does not qualify as a notable reliable source in this article on a living person according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. (The accredited press blogs about the trial are different; those writing them had accredited press passes to attend the trial like other traditional press journalists.) To use this blog post as a source of Libby's first name is not reliable, and, if one reads the linked material, it too is still speculative and not definitive. --NYScholar 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Selective neutral POV application?

Over the last 2 years, I have anonymously edited articles in usually non-political areas such as math contests, the animal kingdom, and medicine. What led me to register was this article, and what I found to be a shocking level of POV application under the illusion of applying a NPOV policy.

I fully understand that jayjg and slimvirgin have very strong pro-israel views, and i suppose strong pro-zionist views. That is fair, and as I am sure people with strong anti-semetic views vandalize pages regularly, it is good to have people regularly monitor pages to root out such vandalization. But what I am finding, in this article in particular, is that these two individuals (and others) seem to want to prevent people from noting that he is jewish because he was convicted of a notorious crime. All this, despite the fact that ethnicity is noted for basically EVERY american politician in wikipedia (and for that matter, normal encyclopedias). His ethnicity is of note to much of society, as there has been much written about it outside of the USA and in the jewish american press. As Libby was one of the strongest proponents for the Iraq war, which mainstream paleo-conservatives have consistently felt pro-israel voices helped push, completely ignoring this bit of information many people are interested in, is really a sort of censorship. This is partically noteworthy, because wiki articles show up first or second for most google searches.

I would buy hiding his ethnicity if this was consistent policy everwhere. But I have reviewed the edits of jayjg , and there is a strong trend to delete when something might make a jewish person look bad, and revert when it might make someone that is an anti-zionist or muslim look good. In addition, he has no problem keeping the jewish american moniker on well respected jewish politicians/celebrities/scientists (even those that don't overly publicize their 'jewishness'). Once again, I respect his right to have strong POV and to push it; I just feel that wikipedia should have strong checks and balances against this sort of selective use of power, to my eyes at least, from very powerful admins. I would like other people to comment on this. I understand that if i do take this to arbritation, as a junior member I will probably lose, but it might be worthwhile to see how the process goes if it comes to that.

Just to clarify my opinion, I feel that with the well documented resources and traditional pattern of american politician articles, that he should be in the category american jews or jewish american politicians. I don't think that it should be mentioned in the article per se, and listing his membership in a temple is somewhat silly (unless that temple was involved in something remarkable which to my knowledge it was not, other than having a female rabbi).Fermat1999 01:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fermat, please see the ethnicity discussion above. What happens in other articles really should not be relevant to this article. Inclsusion/exclusion of material is based on guidelines and manuals of style and community consensus. Thanks, --Tom 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg is applying the MOS here. You are arguing that he does the opposite for articles about well respected jewish politicians/celebrities/scientists. Please don't make empty allegations. If you really believe what your saying is true then go through the dispute resolution process and present your evidence instead of disrupting this page. Or better yet, go do something productive. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.181.117 (talk • contribs) 04:03, March 16, 2007 (UTC)

[(Updated: For discussion of this matter, please see archived discussions and more recent section in this talk page below: #Section deleted by another editor. --NYScholar 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)]

The nickname "Scooter"

Material added to the background section is entirely misleading. The exchange between King and Libby is not at all evidence that there "is" any factual "relation" between Libby's nickname "Scooter" and "Phil Rizzuto": Libby simply says that King, like others, "ask" him about that; he deflects the possibility by a kind of a joke re: not having the "arm" etc. In no way is he saying there there there "is" a connection; indeed, he appears to any neutral observer to be saying just the opposite; that there is no relation between his nickname and "Phil Rizzuto." He says he got "it" (the nickname "Scooter") when he was a child, which would be consistent with other sources already cited. The second source given simply refers to the same exchange with King. To cite either of them as if "it has been reported"/the so-called "reports" are accurate or factual is misleading and there is no point in citing them this exchange at all, as it is the opposite of what the background phrases added claim. I will correct that presentation of this exchange: it shows that even though "some people ask" Libby "if" [interrupted by "crosstalk") "it's related to Phil Rizzuto," clearly Libby is saying that "it" [his nickname "Scooter"] is not "related to Phil Rizzuto": he jokes the suggestion away by saying "I had the range but not the arm." That is about as far from his agreeing that there is a "relationship" between his nickname and "Phil Rizzuto" as one can get. Anyone who subsequently used this exchange to "report" that there Libby's nickname "Scooter" derives in any way from a "relation" to "Phil Rizzuto" misconstrues and misrepresents what he says in this exchange with Larry King:

KING: Where did "Scooter" come from?

LIBBY: Oh, it goes way back to when I was a kid. Some people ask me if ...

(CROSSTALK)

LIBBY: ... as you did earlier, if it's related to Phil Rizzuto. I had the range but not the arm.

[I wrote more but an "editing conflict" intervened and it's lost. An encyclopedia article should not perpetuate an erroneous allusion to an exchange that says the opposite: the Washington Post report does not "cast doubt on" Libby's other references to how he got his name; anyone should be able to see that. --NYScholar 00:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)] --NYScholar 00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC) [Here is the rest of what I was writing when the "editing conflict" intervened:] This is the clause I've removed (with the sources):

although it has also been reported that he got the name because of a "childhood comparison to New York Yankees Hall of Fame shortstop Phil 'Scooter" Rizzuto.'"

I've read and re-read Leibovich's allusion to the above-quoted exchange between King and Libby. It does not support what the "although" clause says. It is not accurate at all to say that "it has also been reported that he got the name because of a 'childhood comparison to" Phil Rizzuto" etc. Leibovich clearly falsely reports the exchange as saying something that it does not:

The quotation:

"The same year, in an interview with King, Libby spoke of a childhood comparison to New York Yankees Hall of Fame shortstop Phil "Scooter" Rizzuto ("I had the range but not the arm," Libby said)." (Leibovich)

Leibovich misrepresents the exchange between King and Libby; to repeat what Leibovich says as anything but a "false" conclusion is terribly misleading; it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about Libby in any way except to highlight its falseness.

The best one could do is to point out that a reporter falsely presents the exchange between King and Libby. It is very important for Wikipedia not to perpetuate false reports. --NYScholar 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The above statement seems a rather WP:POV interpretation. The additional citation from the Washington Post [1] was included to show that a reporter in a mainstream news organization read the Larry King interview and wrote that it cast doubt on the origin of the nickname. I will leave it to others to read the sources and draw their own conclusions. Notmyrealname 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A "neutral point of view" presentation of Leibovich must point out that he takes what Libby says to King entirely out of context and presents the exchange in an entirely-misleading way so as to state something that Libby does not state. Libby does not "speak of a childhood comparison" being made between him and "Phil Rizzuto": instead, he responds to a question about such a comparison being asked by King and others (see the "if"); Leibovich latches onto to one sentence and takes it out of that context. If included at all, one would include the primary source (the King/Libby exchange), quote it in full, and then explain how Leibovich misrepresents it in what he says in his article. --NYScholar 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In my view, this is a "trivial" matter and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. That some reporter took something out of context and made something of it that counters the primary source is not worthy of mentioning. It's one reporter who made a mistake. Citing it here would be like citing errors in a game of telephone. If this Wikipedia article about Libby is to cite Leibovich about the nickname at all, it should point out how he takes the sentence out of context of the full exchange and mangles it; then Wikipedia could straighten out the record and quote the full exchange between King and Libby, which entirely shows how mistaken Leibovich is in what he wrote. Since it's only one reporter who did this, it's not necessarily "notable" and worth including in an encyclopedia article. If many other news sources go on to quote Leibovich misrepresenting the King/Libby exchange, then it might need straightening out. Anyone who can read can see that Leibovich misrepresents what Libby is saying in his answering Larry King's "if" question. --NYScholar 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The POV presentation by the editor is the sentence "wrote that it cast doubt on the origin of the nickname": that is POV. Leibovich does not say that; that is the editor's POV. If one reads the primary source (King/Libby interview), one sees for oneself that there is no "doubt" "cast" "on the origin of the nickname"; Libby was asked, and he answered truthfully [though wittily, it appears to me]. He got the nickname in childhood; King like others "ask" him "if" there is a relation to Rizzuto; he, in effect, answers, no: he had the "range" but "not the arm"; so, in other words, "no." It's his as it were witty way of responding that gives himself some credit. I don't think there is any kind of "doubt" being "cast" etc. here; that is the POV of the editor, and not even Leibovich. Leibovich just misrepresents the exchange. He does not attribute any kind of negative ("doubt cast") interpretation of the exchange. That is what the editor is doing. Making something nefarious out of an inconsequential misrepresentation of the King/Libby exchange. Leibovich is making nothing nefarious about it. I see no "doubt" "cast" on the origin of "Scooter" already in the background section at all (except by the editor's presentation in the "although" clause removed). --NYScholar 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I find that the transition in Leibovich's article "Likewise, there are differing accounts of where "Scooter" comes from." is particularly misleading (and what appears to have led to the editor's seeing "doubt" "cast"; but it is Leibovich and the editor who are "casting doubt": not Libby himself).

First Leibovich writes: "He told the New York Times in 2002 that his father, an investment banker now deceased, coined it upon seeing him crawl across his crib." Then Leibovich adds: "The same year, in an interview with King, Libby spoke of a childhood comparison to New York Yankees Hall of Fame shortstop Phil 'Scooter' Rizzuto ("I had the range but not the arm," Libby said)."--that presentation is wholly misleading, as explained above. I see no reason to repeat this false transition as if it were fact. It is not. It is a reporter's (Leibovich's) false statement about an exchange in a primary source (King) which contradicts what Leibovich says. If Leibovich's full presentation is cited, then Wikipedia needs to point out the falseness of the phrase "differing accounts" attributed to Libby by quoting the full exchange between King and Libby. Libby gives no such "differing account" to King. Read it again. What Libby says is completely consistent. The "crosstalk" interrupts the exchange. He refers to the nickname being gotten in childhood and answers King's "if" question in a witty manner, saying in effect no there is no relation between his nickname and Rizzuto (he may have the range but not the arm). I see no contradiction in that exchange at all. --NYScholar 01:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[Afterthought note: The fact that the then-more famous Phil Rizzuto is nicknamed "The Scooter" and that the then-less known Lewis Libby is nicknamed "Scooter" just appears to be a mere coincidence, which has led some people to "ask" Libby if there is some "relation" between his nickname and Rizzuto himself; from Libby's answer to Larry King, it would appear that the answer to that recurrent question is no, there is not some such "relation" (beyond coincidence); it is just apparently still a mere coincidence that people "ask" him about. Leibovich fails to recognize that and jumps to a conclusion by taking what Libby says out of the context of the full exchange. [I do observe, however, that Libby seems to enjoy extending the unintended comparison of the names to assert having throwing "range" if not "arm." One might say he gets in a bit of self-flattery in that quip; but that's not the same thing as deliberately misleading and claiming some other "differing account" of his nickname; he's just responding to King's (and others') question about it, with what appears to me to be an indirect sentence establishing no. (The comparison is so partial ["the range but not the arm"] that it wouldn't pertain as the origin for the nickname.)] [Please note also that my disagreement with the other editor is simply about this content (as in the other cases) and that there is nothing personal at all in it.] --NYScholar 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, and I appreciate that the editor has confined his/her comments to the content of my edits. However, the simple issue is that an article in the Washington Post that claims that "Likewise, there are differing accounts of where "Scooter" comes from. He told the New York Times in 2002 that his father, an investment banker now deceased, coined it upon seeing him crawl across his crib. The same year, in an interview with King, Libby spoke of a childhood comparison to New York Yankees Hall of Fame shortstop Phil "Scooter" Rizzuto ("I had the range but not the arm," Libby said)." According to WP:A "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." That an editor disputes the author's interpretation is irrelevant. Incidentally, the main source for the other version of the nickname's origin is the New York Times article that contains a much disputed claim about Libby's first name. Again, I encourage other editors to review the sources, Wikipedia policies, and weigh in. Notmyrealname 04:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: Leibovich's statement " The same year, in an interview with King, Libby spoke of a childhood comparison to New York Yankees Hall of Fame shortstop Phil 'Scooter' Rizzuto ('I had the range but not the arm,' Libby said)." is an entirely-misleading and false representation (misrepresentation) of the primary source (the King-Libby interview) and its errors should not be promulgated in an encyclopedia article. --NYScholar 09:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Section deleted by another editor

Related controversies pertaining to Libby's involvement in the Plame affair

"Libby, Judaism and the Leak Probe"

Libby's Jewish affiliations are explored by Ron Kampeas in "Libby Jewish? Some Wonder How Neo-con's Faith Impacts Leak Scandal" (Jewish Telegraphic Agency [JTA]), which has been reprinted and published and cited in various versions in The Jerusalem Post and in other reputable Jewish community newspapers throughout the United States. Writing in 2005, Kampeas cites Libby's family membership in Temple Rodef Shalom, in Falls Church, Virginia, and presents contexts of various points of view on his religious self-identification as a Jew, attempting to sort out fact from fiction and how the matter of his religious identity entered the debate about the CIA leak scandal.

Notes

The continual deletions of this material from this article appear to be censorship, not following Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:POV; I do not believe that such edits are being done in good faith. They are POV edits. See other editors' complaints of this kind of deletion of pertinent information from this article. The judgment that the author is "minor" and that the material is "nonsense" is contradicted by the fact that the article has been reprinted in The Jerusalem Post and in award-winning community newspapers thorughout the United States. The editor's own opinions about and his own POV on the source are not permissible in Wikipedia. Those expressions of opinion and POV re: the source violate Wikipedia editing guidelines already cited in this comment and earlier, despite the claims to the contrary. There is a clear pattern of this kind of censorship going on in articles in Wikipedia which I have brought to the attention of the BLP noticeboard. Such practices are not neutral point of view editing. They are POV editing. --NYScholar 09:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a giant section about one little article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency about his alleged ethnicity; one which is never resolved, I might add. The fact that a few other publications picked up the wire story is irrelevant; that doesn't count as reliable sources. It seems to have no relevance to Libby himself, and violates WP:BLP. See also WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While I do agree that the section by nyscholar might have been too big, it was probably done with that much referencing in a hope that it would not be deleted. His ethnicity as jewish is not even debated outside of wikipedia because it's a known fact; though if he practices/believes in the religion is another matter, but jewish is felt to be as much an ethnicity as a creed in the US. Yet this bit of information, which is of strong interest to much of the world, keeps getting deleted here. I simply think categorization as "Jewish American" or "Jewish American Politician" is all that is needed, as is done with virtually all prominent politicians of any faith or ethnicity. Because of this type of editing/reverting/POV bias, I will probably go back to updating golf, medicine, wildlife, pop culture articles under by new moniker instead of political ones involving israel or muslims; it seems only 2 or so editors have the right to how any article on those matters flows. On review of jayjg edits, i do believe that he is sticking with his stance because of stubborness on this issue; on some rare occasions, he also fights extreme anti-palestinian editors. I will respect his POV; but in this particular situation by entirely disguising Libby's jewish identity which is well referenced, he is in the wrong. But i do agree with him that there is no need to have a huge section on it in his bio; just a passing reference or categorization would surmise. Fermat1999 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a "known fact" that he's a Jew? Even the JTA article doesn't make that claim. As for your updates, you appear to have made about 35 edits total. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated above a few discussion edits ago, i used to do all my edits (mostly minor pop culture articles, like the one on Miss Nevada) anonymously until this article became semi-protected and i started using fermat1999. In regards to him 'being a jew', several politicians have made note of it in several articles, adbusters detailed it years ago, and he is a known member of a synagogue. Mainstream jewish sources accept him as jewish (ie virtual jewish library; http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/bushjews.html). How much proof does one need? This reminds me of my first year analysis professor demanding i give a proof that 2+1=3 using basic axioms. Fermat1999 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever look at the Jewish Virtual Library's article on Libby? At the bottom it gives its source. Guess what it is? Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That does seem like a bit of a strawman argument; that example being poor does not nullify the fact that the mainstream jewish press accepts him as jewish (as opposed to the immediate repudiation with proof they offered when michael richards claimed he was jewish). OK, I'll bite. The virtual library has stated him as jewish on their bush list since at least 2005 (Kampeas states this), at which time wiki did not describe him jewish for any extended period of time ( going through those old versions was a headache!). The reference to wikipedia is on the the biography page (which i now clicked on), not the list page; so it's unclear if wikipedia was used simply for basic biodata, not actual verification of ethnicity. Kampeas does state with pretty convincing evidence that he is jewish though - a membership guide at a temple that lists him and his family, and that close staffers were aware that he was jewish; though obviously he did not wear it on his sleeve. Fermat1999 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

From 2002: [2]. From today: [3]. My suggestion is we mention that he's jewish in his biography, or maybe briefly remark it, but not devote an entire paragraph to it.--Urthogie 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained the problems with the sourcing in the Virtual Jewish Library (scroll up and read the previous discussion). I have not listed it as a source in this version.

[updated: I have also looked at the second source (dated 2002; "from today" seems misleading) linked in the previous comment; it does not state that Libby is Jewish. It simply says that, as a official of the Bush administration, he attended a meeting with "Jewish leaders" pertaining to the Middle East: "...some Jewish leaders also met Wednesday with Bush administration officials, including the deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, and Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney....The message from those meetings, attendees said, was that the United States will not deviate from Bush's June 24 speech, in which he called for new Palestinian leadership and, possibly, a Palestinian state within three years." In that sense, it resembles article by Steven R. Weisman, published in the NY Times in 2003 (just added to the Bibliography section), which says that Libby is one of the officials of the Bush administration that Israel found to be "sympathetic" to Israel at that time. ("It was considered significant that the White House meeting with Mr. Sharon's aides on Tuesday [April 15, 2003] was attended on the American side not only by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, but by others in the administration whom Israel considers more sympathetic.... These other officials included Elliott Abrams, the top White House adviser on the Middle East, as well as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and Douglas J. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy." (Italics added.)--NYScholar 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)]

I have also not devoted "an entire paragraph" to Libby's being (or not being) Jewish. I have written five lines about a controversy relating to whether or not Libby is Jewish (his so-called "Jewishness").

Jayjg and some others have continually removed any and all references to Libby's Jewishness (as an issue); whether or not he is Jewish (by birth, conversion, or other choice) is not why I added the section. I added the section (and five lines are hardly a "giant" section!) because there is a notable and sourced controversy about this matter directly pertaining to the reason why Libby himself is notable enough to have a biography in Wikipedia: his involvement in the CIA leak grand jury investigation and the Plame affair. The matter of statements and misstatements, assumptions (true and false) about this public figure's Jewishness pertains to his notability. WP:BLP applies differently to biographies of private figures than it does to public figures. I am sure that jayjg knows that. He continues to blur these distinctions; as a public figure of public controversy and much debate, there are notable pertinent controversies involving Libby which are relevant to this article. The section heading allows for additional short (along the length of five lines or less) paragraphs (or even eventually asterisked bullets), as these become worthy of inclusion in this article on Libby. I am not trying to create a situation where poorly-sourced or non-notable material is added; but I do think the section heading is useful for legitimately-sourced discussion. The controversy about Libby's "Jewishness" is a fact. Libby has strong support from other Jewish people (the chairman of his defense fund is a prominent Jewish person); see the references section, and the subject is relevant.

It seems to me that Jayjg (and some others) tends to assume bad faith in the addition of references to this controversy. It is, in my view, better and in better faith, to present a neutral account of the controversy than to omit it as if it is "unmentionable." If it is not unmentionable in The Jerusalem Post and other well-respected community newspapers in the United States which get their feeds from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (and that is not just "a few" newspapers, there are several of them, enough so that the mention matters), then why is it "unmentionable" in Wikipedia. I have, by the way, already clearly pointed out the problems with the Jewish Virtual Library sources and the NNDB entry (which in effect cites a community newspaper in Tulsa, OK, which apparently gets its information from Kampeas). I think that it is better to present the sources of the controversy accurately and clearly than it is to omit the controversy. His POV is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles (which this article is) or in keeping with WP:BLP as it pertains to public figures. His references to WP:BLP are misleading. All this has already been discussed in earlier sections by me and other Wikipedia editors; it appears to me that the editorial consensus to refer to the controversy is against Jayjg's POV attempts to delete references to it.

(I would also appreciate Jayjg's not dragging this down to a personal level by continuing to comment on the length of my comments or disparaging my editing otherwise, as he has been doing previously. Like all other Wikipedia editors, he needs to focus on the actual content of the five lines and to stop characterizing them as what they are clearly not. WP:NPA.)

It is entirely permissible in Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies to define controversies in a neutral manner: WP:POV. That is in part what articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be doing. This is a controversial article by definition (Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles), and readers of Wikipedia expect to find controversies pertaining to this living person who is a public figure defined in it. I have provided some multiple sources (there are several more at least) because they represent the widespread interest in the controversy. --NYScholar 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the issue is encyclopedic. The controversy that Kampeas refers to seems limited to a passing reference in Commentary Magazine (that does not appear to be available online), and references in White Supremacist blogs like those of former KKK leader David Duke. The question seemed to be mainly whether Libby should be lumped in with other Jewish Neoconservatives or not. Libby's personal role in the articles and blogs were only mentioned in passing (e.g. Duke's blog post was "One More Jewish Neocon Traitor"). If we are to include this topic it should mention this context (as does Kampeas, who is the source for all the other mentions in the local community newspapers). On the other question of categories, especially "Jewish American Lawyers," I think that even if there is consensus about Libby's religion and/or ethnicity, it is kind of meaningless to put him in there. Should this category include every American lawyer who happens to be Jewish? WP:BIO strongly encourages the use of editorial discretion in assigning categories. I think that a reasonable (i.e. WP:NPOV case can be made that this is not among the most relevant. If individual editors continue to feel strongly about including this issue, I suggest having a vote and/or requesting further input from editors who have not already staked out their positions on this page. Notmyrealname 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not a "controversy", it's one article about some minor accusations, mostly from non-reliable sources. WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP both apply. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The "controversy" is a controversy reported by a reliable source--Kampeas (Jewish Telegraphic Agency; The Jerusalem Post and other newspapers reprinting the article with various headlines selected by the news organizations)--"minor accusations" are not being documented here; the discussion presented by Kampeas is; he includes interviews with Libby's colleagues and others in the article. "minor accusations" is a POV judgment. The source is not cited to document any "accusations"; it is cited to document the facts provided about the discussion of the matter pertaining to Libby's involvement in the CIA leak grand jury investigation and the Plame affair. There are clearcut guidelines for presenting various points of view published in reliable sources in articles about a public figure in Wikipedia. What I have supplied (the five lines and recent earlier versions that were also deleted) is in keeping with those guidelines and WP:BLP. "Encyclopedic" is a catchall term that has no definition; the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style and associated links define what is "encyclopedic." The citation of Kampeas (in the five lines that I wrote) is within the guidelines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Attribution,Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, and WP:BLP: particularly, WP:BLP#Public figures. There is nothing "unencyclopedic" about the "issue" or the citation pertaining to this matter as it relates to Libby. --NYScholar 19:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's one source, even if other papers picked up and re-printed the wire service story. It was never seen of or heard from again. Newspapers print millions of articles a year. This is a non-notable tempest in a teapot that is being promoted by you so you can link Libby to being a Jew in some way. It violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Move on please. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"is being promoted by you so you can link Libby to being a Jew in some way." That is an absolutely ridiculous and scurrilous and false accusation. WP:NPA and WP:AGF: the originator of those words should be ashamed of himself and if he or she is an administrator he should (and does) know better. Jayjg: Stop dragging content matters down to personal attacks. It is really unforgiveable at this point. --NYScholar 02:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover: the linkage of Libby "to being a Jew" is in the published interview sources cited by Kampeas in his notable and reliable article published and distributed by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and it does not originate with me or with any of the editors referring to it in Wikipedia or in the other news organizations citing it. The problem seems to be Jayjg's. (Scroll up to other editors' observations.) --NYScholar 02:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the reliability of the source (for those who are interested in evaluating the writer [the source]): Ron Kampeas is the Washington bureau chief of the JTA: for an audio interview (conducted on April 16, 2004 by David Essing) and to learn more about him, one may listen to the following audio interview via Isracast.com; scroll down the page to the accompanying description:

JTA: The View From Washington: JTA's Ron Kampeas: (April 16 [2004]) An interview with Ron Kampeas, JTA's bureau chief in Washington. Kampeas discusses the Bush - Sharon summit meeting. Audio Interview (10:36)

According to its "about" page, "IsraCast is a Jerusalem-based multimedia broadcast and distribution network. Launched in the aftermath of the terrorist attack against Israelis in the port city of Netanya on the first night of Passover (March 2002), its purpose is to disseminate reliable and accurate information and provide the public throughout the world with an objective picture of events in the Middle East." Some of Kampeas' reports are recommended on Campus Watch (Documents). It might be helpful if someone were to develop a Wikipedia article for Ron Kampeas, so that his name could be linked to an article in Wikipedia and Wikipedia readers can assess his reliability as a source. [In Wikipedia, in relation to Campus Watch, one may also want to consult CampusJ ("A portion of CampusJ's content is syndicated by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.") for related information in trying to improve this (and other) Wikipedia article(s), aiming toward providing Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in covering WP:POV.] --NYScholar 03:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby's involvment in the Bush administration's prior meetings with Sharon, a context of David Essing's 2004 audio interview of Ron Kampeas, is mentioned in the April 17, 2003 New York Times article by Steven R. Weisman that I've added to the Bibliography of this Wikipedia article on Libby. (I also updated a comment above, where I quote the relevant passage.) --NYScholar 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

More information about the source that Jayjg disputes (Ron Kampeas) may also be found in a brief biography listed in the "about" the "staff" section of JTA's official website: Washington Bureau: Ron Kampeas:

RON KAMPEAS is JTA's Washington bureau chief, responsible for coordinating coverage in the U.S. capital and analyzing political developments that affect the Jewish world. He comes to JTA from The Associated Press, where he worked for more than a decade in its bureaus in Jerusalem, New York, London and, most recently, Washington. He has reported from Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Bosnia and West Africa. While living in Israel, he also worked for the Jerusalem Post and several Jewish organizations.

. --NYScholar 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Jayjg's last comment was out of line. Let's focus on the topic at hand and not speculate about people's motives. I also agree that determining what is "encyclopedic" is a subjective business. But that is what editing is all about. We have to decide, as editors, and through discussion (ideally leading to consensus), what is worth including on a particular entry. As stated in WP:NOT-"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." We don't include Libby's eye color, even if it is published somewhere. WP:BIO sets a higher standard for beliefs and sexual preference in bios than for other things, and also states that categories in particular should be included judiciously and backed up in the text of the article. This discussion has changed a bit in the past few weeks from just including mention of Libby (and his family) being labeled Jewish, to the more detailed discussion recently included and then reverted.

I do not see at all that a case can be made that Kampeas' article, nor, more importantly, his discussion of Libby's Jewishness, has anything to do with (as the other editor says) "the facts provided about the discussion of the matter pertaining to Libby's involvement in the CIA leak grand jury investigation and the Plame affair." The only mention of Libby's Jewishness is in the context of discussions about whether or not "Neoconservatives" are made up primarily of Jews. Authors do not write headlines, and the headline clearly does not relate to the content. If we are to include mention of this article (and it is just a single article that did not generate any further coverage besides reprints) it should be about this larger issue of White Supremacist and other groups promoting Jewish conspiracy theories. However, this is really not the place for this discussion, and it is already covered (poorly, at the moment) on the Neoconservativism page under the heading "Neoconservatism, American Jews, and "Dual Loyalty.""

Finally, citing Kampeas' credentials is besides the point. It has been argued here that a claim made in the Washington Post is not worthy of citation on this page, yet, one presumes, this does not disqualify the author or the newspaper from being cited in other areas (a general point made clear in WP:ATT. Further, just because it is published does not mean that it is appropriate for inclusion on this page. Notmyrealname 04:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I really do not agree with the points stated directly above at all. Citing Kampeas' credentials as a reliable source when he has been attacked as not being reliable is exactly on point. The various titles of his articles on this subject as originally published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and by the several other publications definitely relate directly to the content of those articles. (It truly amazes me that these Wikipedia editors believe that they have more insight into what the articles concern than the editors of the news organizations publishing them.) I have no idea why nmrn, jayjg, and others are so adamantly opposed to mentioning briefly (I have done so from one line to five lines at most, and all have been deleted by them) this obviously-reliably-sourced information. Kampeas directly points out in his article (as featured in some of the headlines) that his subject relates specifically to Libby's political work in the Bush administration and to the CIA leak scandal. It is counterintuitive for these Wikipedia users to argue otherwise. What they are saying simply does not match the article being cited. I suggest that they re-read the article with a more open mind and try to counteract any biases that might be affecting their judgments of it. I simply cannot find any other reason for the adamant reaction to mentioning briefly what Kampeas discusses in this article on Libby other than some kind of undisclosed biases affecting these users' judgments. I myself feel that I come to this article with no such bias about Libby; I did not originate this article on Libby, and I did not originate the discussion in Kampeas' article; he wrote it, not I. I am simply referring to it and attempting to sum up what it states in language that is as neutral as possible. To do so is totally in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, in my reading of them. Again, I assert: I edit in good faith. WP:AGF --NYScholar 04:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to assume the good faith (and open-mindedness) of others who disagree with you. The fact that many of the headline writers put a different spin on the article would seem to suggest that it is quite reasonable to think that the original headline was not the most accurate one. I honestly (and without bias or a closed mind) do not see how the paragraph quoted below shows anything but what I have described above. Kampeas is saying that the only ones that are suggesting that whether Libby is Jewish or not are those with an antisemitic agenda.Notmyrealname 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is one relevant passage from the article (again):

When Joshua Muravchik, perhaps the pre-eminent expert on the interventionist foreign policy that has become known as neo-conservatism, was looking for non-Jewish neo-cons to prove that the movement isn’t pervasively Jewish, he naturally included Lewis Libby.

“Non-Jews figuring prominently in current foreign-policy debates and today called neo-cons include Libby, (John) Bolton, American Enterprise Institute president Christopher DeMuth, and Gary Schmitt of the Project for the New American Century,” Muravchik wrote in Commentary magazine two years ago.
“Go easy on me,” Muravchik laughingly told a reporter this week, after it emerged that the man at the center of the White House leak scandal indeed is Jewish.
Libby resigned last Friday as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff just hours after his indictment on perjury charges related to the leaking of the name of a CIA operative married to a prominent Bush administration critic.
Across the blogosphere, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel conspiracy theorists were quick to tie Libby’s Jewishness to his role in selling the Iraq war, imagining once again a neo-con cabal that has a singular agenda: promoting Israel at all costs.... Yet the fact that many people in Washington — including neo-conservatives — had no idea that Libby was Jewish underscores how tenuous the Jewish-neo-con link actually is, said Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Jewish himself.

“One key measure of the falsity of the argument is that the non-Jewish neo-cons are equally pro-Israel as Jewish neo-cons,” he said.

Kampeas goes on to cite interviews with people who have worked with Libby in the White House and so on in relation to this "low profile" as a Jewish person that, Kampeas says, has led to people's falsely assuming that he is not Jewish. Kampeas refers also to his own reference to Libby's membership in a Jewish temple (mentioned again later in the article) relating in part to Muravchik's own realization that his assumptions about Libby's not being Jewish were initially incorrect. [I ellided the reference to Duke's website headline to which others object; if one moves on past the ellision, one can see that Kampeas is citing Muravchik's view on "how tenuous the Jewish-neo-con link actually is" in relation to the Bush administration's "pro-Israel" policies (in which Libby helped to develop--other articles cited by earlier editors point that out). Because Libby is a public figure who served in a very high-ranking position in the Bush administration when such political policies were being developed, the information is relevant and pertinent and worthy of mention in this article. It is not irrelevant, as the other editors/Wikipedia users are claiming. One could actually develop a section of an article on Libby that relates to his involvement in the formation and development of political policies relating to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and to other aspects of Middle East policy, which Kampeas' article on Libby relates directly to. But these editors are not permitting the material to be developed. In my view, that barrier to developing the article is harming not improving it. The 2003 Iraq war is at the very heart of the subject of the CIA leak grand jury investigation and the Plame affair and Libby's trial. How is it that these relationships are being deemed "irrelevant" and "minor" and not worthy of mention, etc.? It truly boggles the mind. ["Libby's Jewishness" is Kampeas' own phrase in the article, not mine, and not an editorial headline.] --NYScholar 04:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyone objecting to including information about the CIA leak grand jury investigation, the Plame affair, or the Libby's trial, although since these are quite established independent pages, there is no need to go into detail on Libby's bio page. That some Jewish people (well, one anyway, according to the site) support him is hardly relevant, as there are many non-Jewish people who support him as well. There is no evidence in Kampeas' article or elsewhere that Libby's being Jewish or not in any way influenced his involvement in policy towards Israel (he was sympathetic, but so were many non-Jews, as Kampeas and others note). This is only a controversy, according to Kampeas' article, among people who see a Jewish Cabal running the country. This is a topic already covered in Neoconservatism, as noted above. Notmyrealname 21:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[Updated after rereading other ed's comment above: the phrase "being labeled Jewish" seems a misleadingly-pejorative characterization. In my references to Kampeas' article, as an editor of this article, I have not been "labeling" Libby and his family as "Jewish"; I have no motive to "label" them. I have simply documented reliably-reported information about Libby's "background" ("personal history") as it pertains to his political significance as a public figure in the Bush administration. Kampeas' presentation of that information about Libby includes discussion of how it pertains to Libby's political significance as a public figure who was a high-level official of the Bush administration involved in political policy-making and decision-making leading up to and including the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent CIA leak scandal; the relevant historical and political contexts are the involvement of high-level officials of the Bush administration (including Libby) in policy-making and policy-decisions leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent CIA leak grand jury investigation, the Plame affair, and United States v. Libby, which resulted in his conviction for federal felonies in March 2006, a main topic of this article. --NYScholar 19:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)]

I assure you as well that I edit in good faith and that it was not meant in a pejorative sense. Please WP:AGF. There was a tag next to his name with a link to Jew, one for his family, and another in the category page. I do not know or care if you were the editor who placed them there. I used the word "label" in a purely descriptive sense. There is nothing in Kampeas article that states that Libby's being Jewish or not had anything to do with the Plame affair or the other things mentioned. Notmyrealname 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, you (and others) are missing my emphasis above on Kampeas' point in citing Muravchik (re-read the quotation) that whereas

"Across the blogosphere, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel conspiracy theorists were quick to tie Libby’s Jewishness to his role in selling the Iraq war, imagining once again a neo-con cabal that has a singular agenda: promoting Israel at all costs....

Yet the fact that many people in Washington — including neo-conservatives — had no idea that Libby was Jewish underscores how tenuous the Jewish-neo-con link actually is, said Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and Jewish himself.

“One key measure of the falsity of the argument is that the non-Jewish neo-cons are equally pro-Israel as Jewish neo-cons,” he said." [Italics and bold face added.]

Note well: the phrase "Libby's role in selling the Iraq war"--leading to Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson's debunking in "What I Didn't Find in Africa" of the Bush administration's Niger yellowcake uranium claims (State of the Union speech) and to the Bush administration officials (Libby et al.) subsequent involvement in the "CIA leak" etc.--is the core issue of the CIA leak scandal, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, and United States v. Libby. I still do not understand your and others' not accepting what Kampeas writes in that article cited and reprinted in so many Jewish community newspapers across the United States as related significantly to discussion of Libby's role in these controversies.--NYScholar 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of this article on Libby--his notability at all-- relates to these controversies, and they are developed considerably (and appropriately, in my view) in this Wikipedia article about him. If it weren't for his involvement in those controversies, he would probably be an administration official that operated under Wikipedia radar for the most part; he might not even have an article written about him in this encyclopedia at all, or be included in the Notable Names Database (he wouldn't be as "notable" a "name"). I've actually worked very hard to develop other aspects of Libby's life and work that are appropriately covered in an encyclopedia article (see editing history) so that his notability due to these controversies (some call them "scandals") do not overpower the article on him here. [Ironically, I am actually in agreement with those who do not want to present Kampeas' article in any kind of distorting manner; I am hopeful that perhaps some editor(s) not involved in this dispute thus far may be able to offer some way of presenting the information in a neutral and useful manner that improves the article and has consensus.] --NYScholar 22:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 00:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)]