Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 2

Minor Edits

I've removed some inflamitory comments in this article, "libby is an american criminal and a dirty republican etc". While I may personaly aggree with these comments this is not the place to express them. If whomever keeps adding these bits keeps doing so I recommend someone request the page be protected as it is a current event and possibly a target for further vandleism. --Spazzz 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected. See history. --RWilliamKing 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I don't think NewsMax.com is a good place to reference from. It's nothing close to academic or scholarly, in fact I'd consider it a propaganda publication.

Trivia

Per the Manual of Style, I have incorporated the "trivia" into the article, but these two items don't really seem worthy of inclusion:

• Libby's former office in the Old Executive Office Building was the office of Theodore Roosevelt when Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
• Apparently, Libby injured his foot during the final days of the grand jury investigation; he was using crutches publicly as of October 26th, 2005.[1]

Anyone who feels they should stay in, please state reasons here. Jokestress 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Given name

I tried to streamline the info about his first initial, but there are other sources of varying quality I will add here:

• http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chomun.uchicago.edu/committees/NSC_back.pdf

Jokestress 03:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandra Libby

As per e-mail from Sandra Libby's representative, she is not related to Lewis Libby in any way whatsoever, nor has she ever met him, and neither has her husband. The last name is just a coincidence. DS 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions that Wikipedia readers want answered

On 23 Jan the AP reported that during Libby's trial, his lawyer, Ted Wells, "alleged that administration officials sought to blame Libby for the leak to protect Bush political adviser Karl Rove's own disclosures." Why would Wells do this, given that it's now known that Armitage, not Rove, disclosed Plame's CIA status? 199.46.245.230 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, this kind of speculation is not appropriate here. Wikipedia is not a publisher of opinions and is not a discussion forum. This is space to discuss the article and improving it. There are plenty of online forums where you can speculate on Wells' actions. Jokestress 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying this isn't a place to discuss additions to the article? That's preposterous -- it says "discussion" right at the top of the page.

Did I ask that speculation or opinion be added to the article? No, never. It's entirely possible that a factual answer to this question could be added to the article, without getting into speculation or opinion. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that delve into the arguments and reasoning that have been used in various legal proceedings. Sheesh. 199.46.245.230 00:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone using the name GPS Pilot (talk · contribs) is in fact insisting on adding exactly that speculation/opinion to the article. csloat 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

csloat, Wikipedia is not a place to take a defense attorney's statments at face value and unquestioningly accept them. By not pointing out the flaw in Wells' logic, this article takes on a decidedly anti-Karl Rove POV. Maybe you like it that way, but let's try to keep a neutral POV, and not blindly accept what Wells said.GPS Pilot 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not Wikipedia's role to take sides in court disputes. If you can't find a WP:RS mentioning that speculation, Wikipedia shouldn't be making it. Speculate all you want on the talk page but keep it out of the article. csloat 23:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As it says 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. If you have published sources discussing reasons for Wells' actions, by all means add them to the article, or cite them here for discussion about their inclusion in the article. Jokestress 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby's legal defense strategy is certainly something that should be explored in an article about Lewis Libby. The media has done an inadequate job of explaining why this strategy was chosen, and I don't regret soliciting help from other Wikipedia contributors to come up with citable sources that will shed some light on this. 199.46.245.230 00:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources about the trial and defense and prosecution strategies are already cited in the main article on the trial, United States v. Libby and in the section of this article on "press coverage", providing access to a multitude of citable sources. [See, e.g., the politics.tv discussion of Mon. Feb. 12 on politics.tv; with links to the video clip in which the "defense strategy" is discussed and also the original post in The Huffington Post.]

But this talk page about the main article about the person is not an appropriate place for extensive discussion of the trial lawyers' strategies. This is an article about a living person and it has to follow WP:BLP as well as the guidelines for all Wikipedia talk pages. The discussion is supposed to be about making improvements to the article on the subject of the article, in this case, the man Lewis Libby, not specifically his trial. Discussion about making improvements to the article on the trial is located in the talk page for the trial. These articles are cross-linked; see the cross-links as well as the sources provided and cited in both articles. --NYScholar 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blogger credentials at trial

There are some edits here about the media credentials given to bloggers that strike me as suspicious. Robert Cox is given way too much credit for acquiring press credentials for blogging in the referenced NYT article, and it's at least possible that he's behind edits here to also magnify his role. The people at Firedoglake claim that he has had a minor role in their own credentials, at best. They express their annoyance with Robert Cox in these two posts:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/02/on_bringing_me_.html

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/15/about-those-jury-instructions/

I'd like the main article to acknowledge the groundbreaking work done by Jane Hamsher and the rest of the Firedoglake crew in reporting on the trial, and to give Robert Cox the attention that he deserves, which I believe is none. I'm hoping the reverts were simply an honest mistake. If not, we might be in for a little edit war.

Update: Thanks User:NYScholar for cleaning up my changes. I agree that the article reads much more encyclopedically now. A mini-barnstar for you! -- Raph Levien 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Raph Levien 21:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of pertinent information by users

Such deletions violate Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Isarig initiates and engages in such violations in other articles that I have contributed to; he is engaging in editing wars and multiple reversions of others' work. He needs to desist. See the source citations in the article. I provided the source for information originally added by other editor(s) without such a source. Currently, the source is note 3. It appears to me that Isarig is now trying to make further trouble by going to other articles that I have edited and not behaving "in good faith": he is not reading talk page discussions or prior editing history or even the sources currently cited in the article, which support notability and verifiability and reliability of material in it. He is not explaining his edits in talk page discussions; he is just deleting sourced, pertinent, notable, and verifiable information disregarding consensus on talk pages. --NYScholar 00:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations supporting notability and pertinence of Libby's being a "Jewish American lawyer"

Here are the references cited (the one in note 3 comments on need for sourcing in note 2, which it provides): here they will appear as notes 1 and 2:

--NYScholar 00:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You should actually read what those sources say. The Information Clearing house note says "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.". WP is not the place to give credence to these anti-Semitic conspiracies which originate in blogs. Isarig 02:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Disclosing the fact of one's being Jewish is not anti-Semitic. Read the source cited in note 3 in its entirety and stop removing notable, pertinent, reliably-sourced information and taking other information that is not permissible on Wikipedia (right-wing blogs) out of context and attempting to promote either anti-Semitism and/or charges of anti-Semitism. Edit in good faith and without advocating your own POV. What you are attempting to do is disgraceful. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Don't cite rightwing blogs; they are neither reliable nor admissible in Wikipedia. You should know better. --NYScholar 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLP; Note 3 is permissible within those guidelines. The fact of one's Jewishness is not libel or libelous; it is simply a fact. That the fact is a matter of discussion in reliable sources published by Jewish organizations attests to its pertinence and notability. --NYScholar 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the previous user (Isarig), who has been harassing me for days and deleting information that is properly sourced in Wikipedia when it is not to his personal liking (POV), has missed reading the rest of the article, which explains the pertinence of the fact of Libby's being Jewish in full context of the full article (which is newsworthy and citable and reliable): <<

Muravchik’s mistake [assuming that I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby is not Jewish] was one a lot of people have made. Two other prominent Jewish neo-conservatives insisted to JTA last week that Libby was not Jewish.

Libby’s Jewish profile at the White House was low, according to Jews who have worked with the administration. Other Jewish staffers knew he was Jewish, but he was not one of the highly identified Jews, such as Tevi Troy, the deputy assistant policy adviser to the president, or Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The low profile was attributable in part to Libby’s general reserve and to his closeness to power. After Karl Rove, Bush’s top adviser, he was considered the most powerful unelected official in the White House.

Not every Jew who works in the White House likes to wear his identity on his sleeve, said Jay Footlik, the Clinton White House’s liaison to the Jewish community.

“If they didn’t choose to self-identify as a member of the community, if they didn’t express a concern on a particular issue or ask to be a part of a meeting when a Jewish organization came into the White House, then we might have known they were Jewish, or we might not,” Footlik said.

Some of the misapprehension apparently has to do with Libby’s persona. His Andover prep school education; his nickname, “Scooter”; and the Jr. tacked onto the end of his full name as it appears in the federal directory — I. Lewis Libby, Jr. — seem to indicate a non-Jewish background.

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 Reform movement and the synagogue were reluctant to discuss Libby’s involvement. Acquaintances don’t remember seeing him at shul, aside from High Holy Day services.

Libby’s membership in the Temple guide lists his wife, Harriet Grant, a former staffer for congressional Democrats, and two school-age kids.

“His name never even came up when talking about Jews in the administration, not even as part of the so-called ‘neo-con cabal,’ ” said one Reform official who asked not to be identified.

The Jewish Virtual Library, a Web site, listed Libby as Jewish, though its sourcing was unclear.

Libby’s only other ostensible Jewish involvement was with the Republican Jewish Coalition, and only since he joined the Bush administration. He made an appearance at the RJC’s 20th anniversary celebration last month.

Libby is known as a workaholic but he has a busy private life which could have kept him from spending much time on extracurricular Jewish activities. He’s an avid skier, plays touch football on weekends and has written and published an erotically charged novel set in Japan.

A number of Jewish leaders told JTA they didn’t think Libby’s Jewishness would become a factor in the leak scandal that has obsessed Washington, but his name already appeared on numerous anti-Semitic Web sites long before JTA published an item over the weekend reporting his synagogue membership.

Muravchik said it’s an old ploy to ascribe ulterior motives to neo-conservatives having to do with the Jewish origins of some movement leaders.

“It’s certainly a slur that has been repeated by people who are enemies of neo-conservatives or who are enemies of Jews,” he said.

The underlying argument is that the movement led the Bush administration into war with Iraq in hopes of protecting Israel. That argument ignores the low Jewish profile of many other Jewish neo-cons.

It also ignores the essentially American origins of a movement that seeks to spread democracy overseas.

The sympathy for Israel is simple, Muravchik said.

“It’s a lone democracy in the Middle East, and it was a chief target of the Soviet bloc,” opposition to which helped shape neo-conservatism. “It was also the chief inspiration of dissent in the Soviet bloc at the time when there was very little in the 1970s.”

Referring to a 1996 paper by three prominent Jewish neo-conservatives that pressed Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister at the time, to engage against Iraq, Muravchik wrote in Commentary that it would “make more sense to say that, in preparing a paper for Netanyahu, they were trying to influence Israeli policy on behalf of American interests than the other way around. Indeed, most Israeli officials at that time viewed Iran, the sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas, as a more pressing threat to their country than Iraq, and (then as later) would have preferred that it be given priority in any campaign against terrorism.”

In an interview this week, Muravchik noted an emerging split between American neo-cons and members of Israel’s ruling Likud Party over the movement’s enthusiastic backing for President Bush’s Middle East policies, particularly his support for Palestinian statehood.

“I’ve had numerous private and public exchanges on this topic with Likudniks and non-Likudniks who say, ‘You Americans are nuts, you don’t know these Arabs. We know them; the idea that they can resolve differences peacefully is hopelessly farfetched,’ ” Muravchik said. “I’ve been in rooms where Americans were talking about democracy for the Arabs, and Israelis were ridiculing it.” (Italics added).

>> See the source already cited in the article (n. 3) and here (n. 2). Wikipedia articles are supposed to present relevant "facts" about subjects, not editor's own points of view. Libby's being Jewish and American are facts. The relevance of these facts is discussed in the source as cited. Isarig is intent on suppressing facts throughout this and other Wikipedia articles. I do not know his motivation. To me it seems very peculiar and dubious. --NYScholar 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: why do the following personalities, related to the Libby trial, not have their religion prominently noted? Patrick Fitzgerald, Valerie Plame, Joseph C. Wilson, Ari Fleischer, Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney. Why should Libby be any different? -- Sholom 17:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a reasonable question. As I was not the initial editor to insert that information, and indeed had removed it also some time earlier, I wondered that too. Then, in my attempt to learn whether Libby's being a "Jewish American lawyer" had some rationale (his being "Jewish" or at least born Jewish has for quite some time been in his "early family life" history section), I encountered the sources cited in notes 3 and 4 in the article now. I provided notes 2, 3 & 4 [now nn. 5, 6, & 7] for documentation purposes.

I think that the matter has been discussed in the cited articles by Kampeas (notes 3 and 4 in body of this article) in a way that explains the relevance of his being a "Jewish American lawyer" in the introd. paragraph (or in more fully developed in a paragraph placed elsewhere in the article).

Apparently, there had been an incorrect assumption that he was not Jewish, and then a correction of that false assumption, and then discussion in the mainstream Jewish press about the relevance of his religious affiliation to what was being written about in the so-called blogosphere in a negative manner that needed an ethical journalistic response.

It seems to me that the matter could be discussed in this article in a respectful and neutral manner. I've provided the sources. Personally, speaking for myself, I don't think that simply making reference to someone's being Jewish (as in a category "Jewish American lawyer") is anti-Semitic. I think that the only rationale for mentioning, however, is the fact that it has been discussed extensively in the mainstream and alternative press and the matter needs to be "set straight" in neutral terms.

I myself initially had thought that there was a problem with making reference to "Jewish American lawyer" in the introduction. But with the source cited, I do not think so. Plus, there is a category in Wikipedia for "Jewish American lawyers"; the category itself is present. There is no intention (on my part) to be negative in making it clear that Libby is a "Jewish American lawyer" (I cannot vouch for the motives of other editors and anon. IP users making changes)> To me the fact that Libby is Jewish and American and a lawyer are just facts that relate to the biographical and news articles cited (showing the relevance). Cf. Alan Dershowitz, which seems to have had or has a similar problem in the introductory paragraph among editors (that is, whether to say that he is a "Jewish" lawyer.

I myself will not restore "Jewish American lawyer" in the first sentence of the article. There needs to be some consensus on this matter. I think that readers of this article need to read the sources cited (article notes 2, 3 and 4 [now nn. 5, 6, & 7]), and, as editors, consider how to handle the information provided in them. I myself have not figured out out an appropriate place in the body of the article to develop some presentation of information given in what is currently notes 3 & 4 in the article. Clearly, there was some controversy that occurred regarding assumptions about his religious affiliation, but whether or not it is appropriate to discuss those details needs to be carefully considered. Up to this point, I thought that it was just more respectful and neutral simply to provide the citations and let readers judge for themselves. --NYScholar 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have rechecked the article on Alan Dershowitz and see that the current version has no "Jewish" before "American" in "American lawyer"; some time ago, it did. I think that there was an editing war about that. If there is no phrase "Jewish American lawyer" in the first line of a Wikipedia article on Alan Dershowitz, then it would seem reasonable that there be no such mention in an article on any other "Jewish American lawyer," including Libby. (One might wonder, in that case, why there is a category "Jewish American lawyers.") The same point can be made of any article about anyone's religion or ethnicity in Wikipedia. (How does one decide whether or not and when it is germane enough to mention such a fact early on?) Without the reference to Libby's being "Jewish" in line one, the notes 2, 3, and 4 [now 5, 6, & 7] would need to be source citations for some additional statement or development in the article that isn't currently in it? Is it relevant to mention that his parents were Jewish later in the article? (Why is it mentioned there?) I leave that work to others. --NYScholar 01:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [Updated: --NYScholar 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)]

I added back his ethnic background since this is included in most if not all bios. No biggy. --Tom 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

With the word "Jewish" no longer in sentence one, the notes that were 2, 3, and 4, now appear only in the family background section (currently renumbered: 5, 6, & 7).--NYScholar 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, you seem to be a bit overly invested in this issue. Maybe you should have a request for comments to get some outside perspective. The fact that there is no "Catholic American laywers" category (or Protestant, or Mormon, etc.) indicates that those who created it have a particular agenda. He is Jewish, this is true, but he may also be left handed, heterosexual or not, etc. These are also facts, but not necessarily relevant. No other editors seem to agree with you. The sources are rather obscure. I think the cue of relevancy should be taken from the people themselves. Dershowitz has written books about his faith. Ambramhoff has also made his faith a public issue, as have George Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Mitt Romney. For biographies, that should be the standard.Notmyrealname 16:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

>> My my...aren't we touchy? Look at it this way...don't dislike him because he's Jewish. Dislike him because he's a lawyer!

WP:3RR

Warning to Isarig: see above and editing history. --NYScholar 07:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete media coverage section?

The relevance of this section strikes me as very dubious. It reads mostly like an advertisement for the various blogs it mentions. I recommend it be deleted entirely.Notmyrealname 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NMRN: Please do not enter this article and make deletions of material fully discussed already in this talk page. Scroll up and see the previous discussion and the notes cited. Re: the deletion of a category: Do not delete categories that are in Wikipedia already and that pertain to this subject (see "Personal History"). --NYScholar 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete press media section

The sources cited explain its notability. Please read the quotations from them and consult the notes. Blog coverage of the Libby trial is described in the major national media as a historical event in American media coverage of trials. These bloggers have U.S. federal court-accredited press credentials; their coverage of the trial in their blogs (which are also featured in the Associated Press (see the citation) are news accounts and thus reliable sources of the events that they are reporting on (they have been part of the court media pool). --NYScholar 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

First, please sign your posts using four tildes. The source seems rather self referential. I think it merits a mention, but most of the information here is superfluous. I think this section could be cut down substantially.Notmyrealname 16:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I do sign my posts using four tildes. My preferences in Wikipedia govern how it shows up; it shows up the way I want it to show up. There is no reason to cut the section, as it conveys important information and in doing so cites notable and reliable and verifiable sources. It follows Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I suggest that you actually read the sources for their information rather than to make such unwarranted snap judgments. Also, take a look at the "preferences" link above your own page when you log in; apparently, you don't understand how they function in Wikipedia. Use of 4 tildes simply puts in the user name according to one's prefences and adds the UTC time and date stamp. And, while you're at it, please consult other Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies, such as WP:AGF, WP:BLP, and W:Reliable sources, and WP:Cite. (signing with the four tildes right after my two hyphens/dash). --NYScholar 07:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tilde clarification. I've never seen it used that way before. It makes it more cumbersome for others to see a users other edits. But, to each their own. I just removed the bulk of this section from this page. The same exact information is included on the United States v. Libby page. That is the appropriate place for this. This page is a biographical page for Libby, and the bulk of the information here should be directly relevant to his life and actions.Notmyrealname 16:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Until the confusing notes/references format in the main article United States v. Libby is fixed (which may take editors some time), I had put this section in this article (because it has only one notes section). I would have preferred it to be in the US v. Libby article. But until that article is fixed (see editorial interpolations in editing mode there), this section is also in this article. If one examines both articles (which are now-cross-linked still), one can see the problem with the other article's notes. Since I am not familiar with the References citation format that an earlier editor had developed there (which is very messed up because there are also many numbered external links not incorporated as full citations there), I chose to create this section in this article and, originally, put a cross-reference there. Now I've put the same section in both articles until the problematic Notes/References situation is corrected in the US v. Libby article. Please be patient. Perhaps other editors who can fix the Notes/References format in US v. Libby article can solve the problem. It should have one prevailing format in which all the citations that are serving as notes show up as full citations. These are controversial articles and full citations are required by Wikipedia policy. --NYScholar 08:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete information that is sourced with notable reliable sources, already verified, as provided by other editors

Please stop removing sourced information and already-verified notable and reliable sources. "NotMyRealName" and others are repeatedly going into articles that I am also working on and deleting references that it has taken me a long time to provide. I don't appreciate that. Deleting information of this kind also violates Wikipedia editing policies; you need to read them more thoroughly and carefully before you wily-nily delete information provided by other editors who have preceded you. Show some respect for our work. And read talk pages of controversial articles and the policies regarding such articles (scroll up to top of page and read the linked material there). --NYScholar 07:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of his parents religion

I think it is fair to say that reasonable people are disagreeing. Perhaps we should get some outside input through a request for comments? BTW, this is the only article that NYScholar has edited that I have made edits on. If you don't like people editing your work, then perhaps you should not be contributing on Wikipedia. I have made careful arguments about the reasons for my edits. I believe that they conform to Wikipedia editing policies. I don't think Libby's religious affiliation is germane to this page. Others agree with me. Some others agree with you. Things get hashed out. Such is life in Wikilandia. Cheers!Notmyrealname 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing deletion of pertinent notably-sourced information; the articles cited by Kampeas are reliable and the content of his articles indicate the pertinence of this information. Stop deleting it. There is no consensus for your deletions. I have cited: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Reliable sources; Wikipedia:Cite. You cite no policy in Wikipedia to support your deletions of these sources and this information. Find the basis for your argument in Wikipedia policy: give a link and quote it. Until you can do that, stop these deletions and reversions of earlier editors' contributions to the article. --NYScholar 05:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts from Wikipedia guidelines and policies

According to WP:BLP, categories, such as Jewish American Lawyers, should only be included if "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life." Relevance has not been demonstrated. He is no more a "Jewish Lawyer" than he is a "Right Handed Lawyer" (assuming he is right handed). This is not an appropriate category label for Libby. Further, the absence of similar categories for lawyers of other faiths should give us pause as to the value of the category altogether. Notmyrealname 16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is already also posted below: I just saw this additional section, which I hadn't noticed before. The previous material that I posted responds adequately: [In response to nmrn's comment posted later:]

According to WP:BLP "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: * The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question * The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life." If this is true for category tags, why not the content of the article?

These criteria have been met: in the article by Kampeas cited in my various versions of this Wik. article on Lewis Libby, Kampeas points out both Libby's membership in a reform Jewish temple (a clear act of "self-identification") and to his involvement with the Republican Jewish Coalition, as well as a variety of contexts of controversies relating to the subject of his Jewishness pertinent to other sections of this article: his political work in the Bush administration, the trial United States v. Libby, and so on (already explained in my later contexts and in the current version of this article. I also respond throughout this talk page clearly to other faulty statements made about what I have been documenting in this article in other users' comments. I don't know what the problem is that this users have with acknowledging that Libby is Jewish and that he himself in a variety of ways that are documented has acknowledged that publicly: but whatever they are, they do not have basis in Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies as I read them. These users' attempts to delete such properly-sourced information from this article appear entirely wrong-headed to me. --NYScholar 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it very weird that NYScholar insist on including the Jewish Virtual Library reference. A quick look shows that it is not a reliable source. Kampeas himself says it does not explain its sourcing. Why include a link?

The point is so that one can see what Kampeas is referring to, because the source with the problematic sources is what he discusses; there is no Wikipedia guideline that prohibits providing identifying a possibly-unreliable source discussed by a reliable source; it is the context of his point--and I quoted directly to establish Kampeas' criticism of the JVL source. --NYScholar 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[(Updated):Please scroll down to the main section where this dispute occurs; I really have said all I have to say about it. I stand by my edits in the current version of this article. --NYScholar 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)]

Virtual Jewish Library not reliable source

The Virtual Jewish Library has been cited by editors here as a source for Libby's ethnicity and religion. A quick visit to the site shows that the entry on Libby cites Wikipedia as its sole source. Under the section Jews in the Bush Administration, it lists as its sources "News Reports" and the Republican Jewish Coalition. However, the only reference to Libby in their website does not have any mention of Libby's faith or ethnicity. Notmyrealname 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Notmyrealname: Stop deleting notable reliable sources and the information documented by them. Libby's Jewish heritage and the pertinence of it is discussed in articles that you have been deleting; Kampeas refers to the other article in Jewish Virtual Library (which actually cites Wikipedia as a source and thus is not the main source of this information); Kampeas explains that it has been used as a source by others, and he provides further information; his articles are notable and reliable sources acc. to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The information provided by Kampeas is important because he corrects previous misinformation and faulty assumptions spread throughout the internet on unreliable sites by other people. --NYScholar 05:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Libby reversion

[addressed to NYScholar; moved here from that personal talk page. --NYScholar 05:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)] Hi. Can you please only edit the section(s) you intend to edit when making edits or reversions? Your latest edit to the Libby Scooter article "ran over" and discarded several good-faith edits by multiple editors in sections unrelated to the one(s) you intended to edit. Please be more careful next time! --ElKevbo 05:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo: Sorry; I am in the process of trying to incorporate a number of changes (some provided by others earlier) but I am checking and verifying all of them first. There are people deleting information that is from notable reliable sources from this article according to their own POV, contrary to Wikipedia's editing policies. Fixing these citations (which I spent a lot of time contributing earlier and that were wiped out by earlier edits) will take time. I will try to do it in stages. --NYScholar 05:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo: I cannot find the editing changes in the editing history; all I find is the deletions by the user calling himself/herself "Notmyrealname". If there are actually notable and reliable sources that need restoring, please restore them. The changes that some editors introduce create problems in the citation format and make notes not show up because the initial reference to them is deleted later by others. It took a lot of time to get the references in this article accurate, and I don't appreciate that work being wiped out by a POV editor who refuses to acknowledge that Libby is Jewish, as documented by the Kampeas in The Jerusalem Post; there is no justification for the removal of "born to a Jewish family"; I will produce a sub-section on this controversy in the press about Libby's Jewish identity if necessary; I thought it better simply to document the personal history section with the two versions of the article by Kampeas, which have the details of the controversy in them. If people read the articles, they will see how inaccurate and unwarranted these continual deletions and reversions of others' work by "Notmyrealname" are. --NYScholar 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you reverted to the last version you had edited on February 27. Since then, five different editors have made ten edits to the article. Some are major edits (and likely the ones to which you object) while some are minor (such as my correction of one reference and an anonymous editor's correction of a quote). Again, I ask that you be careful when editing and not discard good-faith edits in an attempt to undo another editor's edits. I realize it's a pain if you have to undo old edits and that's it easier to simply revert but it's a disservice to those editors who have made non-controversial good-faith edits in the intervening time period. --ElKevbo 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I replied earlier, I am sorry and didn't intend to lose good-faith edits; some aren't even distinguishable in the "editing history" as I read it. If something important needs to be restored (like a typo. corr. to a reference, or an entire notable reliable source), please advise. If you provide the information with links to source here, I'll try to put it into this article's prevailing citation format, if you don't want to do that. Thanks. I'm rather tired now, and it will be hard for me to sort out tiny details in punctuation; but give me a link to the edit that you produced, and I will try to get it back in eventually. Thanks. --NYScholar 06:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ethnicity being removed, why?

Why is reference to Libby's ethnicity continually removed? This is very standard, no biggy, stuff? If there is an agenda or reason to not have this mentioned, please advise. Thanks, --Tom 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I, too, am confused about why this is controversial. Do editors take issue with the cited sources and their reliability? --ElKevbo 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the talk page discussion, there is some disagreement as to its relevancy, the particular wording, the reliability of sources, and conformity to Wikipedia policies. I'm also concerned that NYScholar is forgetting that she or he should WP:AGF, despite the fact that I have carefully read and challenged NYScholar's sources, cited the appropriate Wikipedia policy, explained my edits on the talk page, and engaged other editors in the discussion (many of whom agree with me).

First, as I noted earlier (I repeat it here, as these things tend to get lost in a scrolling discussion), according to WP:BLP, categories, such as Jewish American Lawyers, should only be included if "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life." Relevance has not been demonstrated. He is no more a "Jewish Lawyer" than he is a "Right Handed Lawyer" (assuming he is right handed). This is not an appropriate category label for Libby. Further, the absence of similar categories for lawyers of other faiths should give us pause as to the value of the category altogether. So, let's stop including this category tag (and start using a little common sense).

NYScholar expressed concern that I had not read the sources carefully enough. I took a closer look at them and discovered that of the three sources that NYScholar cited regarding Libby's religion, one was a duplicate article of the second, and the third was a questionable cite that listed Wikipedia as its primary source, clearly not conforming to Wikipedia:Reliable sources policies.

You need to realize that the reason for citing the sources of Kampeas are to show what newspaper he published the article in; there are clear cross-references indicating that the articles relate to each other; all anyone has to do is read them. They are published within days of each other; one is only accessible via the Information Clearing House now; the other is accessible via the Jerusalem Post, but the ICH version pre-dates the JP version. --NYScholar 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please visit BLP noticeboard and you will see that several other editors have questioned the appropriateness of including Libby's religion on this page (in regard whether it conforms to WP:BLP guidelines).

Now, the interesting thing is that the main article that NYScholar cites, the original JTA article by Ron Kampeas (the Jerusalem Post article appears to be a reprint), goes to great lengths to say that hate groups, primarily those run by KKK leader David Duke, have written blog posts accusing Libby of being part of a Jewish Cabal running the country. However, the Kampeas article finds that although Libby happens to be Jewish, most of his colleagues had no idea. The point of the article is that Libby's religion was not relevant to his public life. That's pretty much the extent of the coverage of this issue (in contrast with NYScolar's contention that it has been widely reported in the mainstream media).

I have found the articles by Kampeas (various versions) re-posted in many places and he refers to the controversy as a fact; the Wikipedia article is within W:Neutral point of view and WP:POV by reporting that there has been a controversy re: Libby's Jewish heritage and identity relating to his government political work and his involvement in the CIA leak grand jury investigation and United States v. Libby. This is relevant information pertinent to his "personal history" and not to be suppressed by unwarranted deletions of notable reliable and verifiable sources. Kampeas points out the unsourced nature of the online Jewish Virtual Library source, which has been used all over the internet; it thus serves to document information that is undocumented in that source; the reason for the cross-references in the notes are to refer readers to Kampeas qualification of JVL source. Both mention Libby's being Jewish; Kampeas explains the history of misinformation and false assumptions about Libby and quotes a source who corrected his earlier mistatement. Read the sources and you will see what they say. Don't depend on someone else's description of them; they are linked so that you and other Wik. readers can read them. --NYScholar 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP we should "ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject." Just because it is published and true, does not make it relevant. For biographies, one should err on the side of privacy.

Another point of concern is that the current wording reads that Libby was "born into a Jewish family." This is an awkward description, and completely unsourced (where has it been shown that his parents are Jewish?). This language should not be used (both for reasons of aesthetics and accuracy).

One way to resolve this might be to describe the chronology: he was accused of being part of a Jewish conspiracy by David Duke; a reporter checked it out and discovered that although Libby is Jewish, it is irrelevant to his public life. However, I think this would be unfortunate in that we are basically helping publicize the work of a hate group, when it is unnecessary to this article.

On another note, I cut down the media section, as it was not relevant to the page and had word-for-word duplication of the content in the linked page. This despite being inappropriately warned by NYScholar not to do so. Notmyrealname 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Notmyrealname, your suggestion above to describe the chronolgy is original research/pov. I do agree that ethnicity should be properly sourced and worded so the article flows. This biography seems detailed enough where talking about ethnicity is that out of place. Anyways --Tom 18:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than for Jew Watch, David Duke and other conspiracy mongers, why is his religion/ethnicity important to mention? Does it play any significant role in his bio? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is so important to keep it out? I tried to remove ethnicity from bios and got a month block for creepy jewish edits. Ethnicity is mentioned in 99% of wiki bios, why is this different? Oh course people push for inclusion or exclusion based on agenda, I am more concerned about agreed upon standardization of bios. Anyways--Tom 15:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This cite, used to support his religion/ethnicity, doesn't mention that he is Jewish. Which are the cites that report this as an issue? <<-armon->> 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up to earlier discussion prior to Notmyrealname's coming along, and afterward. The sources are properly cited in the article; he/she keeps removing them. To answer questions, people need to read the entire article by Kampeas (as cited): e.g., he begins:

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.

[sources already noted above and in text of article].

The rest of the article goes into considerable detail about the debate and controversy about various reports and misstatements about the matter of Libby's Jewish background/identity/self-identification, and the confusions that his name (Jr.) created for people who mistook him for not being Jewish due to the "tacking on" of Jr. to his name in a federal directory, etc. Kampeas' account is not only interesting to read, but it appears to me to be written from a neutral point of view as far as Libby himself is concerned; on the matters of concern to Israeli politics, I cannot say that he is neutral; but the reason for citing the article has to do with the subject of this article (Libby) and not the other issues that Kampeas discusses in the article. I really do suggest reading the article from a non-biased, neutral perspective for the facts that it presents in relation to not only Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but also WP:POV. Those Wikipedia guidelines on how to present reliably-sourced pertinent information in a Wikipedia article must be read in tandem. --NYScholar 10:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment made above about "privacy" etc. is not part of Wikipedia guidelines in WP:BLP; there is no potentially-libelous content in the article by Kampeas that is cited or the reasons why the article is being cited; it is being cited to establish that confusions about Libby's identity as being not Jewish or being Jewish entered the debate about American politics in which he is very much front and center (especially this year, given his ongoing trial, now in its jury deliberation phase). Libby is not a "private figure"; he is a public figure, a former official of the Bush administration whose life is very much a subject of public discussion due to his involvement in what is often called the "CIA leak scandal." Part of the news coverage of that scandal involved accusations about Libby that appear patently unfair (from at least some points of view), and it is factual to document what those were and how they were dealt with by the reliable press (not the blogosphere). The reliable press (e.g., Kampeas) is simply reporting on what happened in the traditional press and in the alternative media (blogosphere), and those are facts. To say that people charged this or that is not to give credence to the charges, but simply to state that such charges were made and dealt with in various ways more responsibly and factually by (a) reliable journalist(s) in a reliable publication (given Wikipedia guidelines in WP:Cite and W:Reliable sources and WP:BLP. Citing the sources that I have cited for the reasons that I cited them is precisely within Wikipedia's guidelines for responsible editing. --NYScholar 10:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: * The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question * The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life." If this is true for category tags, why not the content of the article?

These criteria have been met: in the article by Kampeas cited in my various versions of this Wik. article on Lewis Libby, Kampeas points out both Libby's membership in a reform Jewish temple (a clear act of "self-identification") and to his involvement with the Republican Jewish Coalition, as well as a variety of contexts of controversies relating to the subject of his Jewishness pertinent to other sections of this article: his political work in the Bush administration, the trial United States v. Libby, and so on (already explained in my later contexts and in the current version of this article. I also respond throughout this talk page clearly to other faulty statements made about what I have been documenting in this article in other users' comments. I don't know what the problem is that this users have with acknowledging that Libby is Jewish and that he himself in a variety of ways that are documented has acknowledged that publicly: but whatever they are, they do not have basis in Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies as I read them. These users' attempts to delete such properly-sourced information from this article appear entirely wrong-headed to me. --NYScholar 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it very weird that NYScholar insist on including the Jewish Virtual Library reference. A quick look shows that it is not a reliable source. Kampeas himself says it does not explain its sourcing. Why include a link?

The point is so that one can see what Kampeas is referring to, because the source with the problematic sources is what he discusses; there is no Wikipedia guideline that prohibits providing identifying a possibly-unreliable source discussed by a reliable source; it is the context of his point--and I quoted directly to establish Kampeas' criticism of the JVL source. --NYScholar 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding NYScholar's latest edits, several issues arise. First, as Tom suggests above, this may qualify as original research. Second, we should get rid of POV qualifiers like "widely reprinted and cited" (in regard to Kampeas' article). It seems to have been printed once and reprinted once. There is no need to have citations to the same article under different headlines. This is not very scholarly. Third, I don't think a case has been made that it has been widely discussed in the mass media. Where are the other references to Kampeas' article? Lastly, if we are to include this, it should be mentioned that the discussion in the blogosphere has been confined mostly to hate groups affilitated with the KKK. Notmyrealname 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides the Jerusalem Post reprinting of the Kampeas story, I don't think there are any other reprints that qualify as falling under the definitions in Mass Media. A few marginal internet-only sites reprinted it, and some Jewish news services, but that's about it. I don't see a wide discussion of this whole thing in the blogosphere either. These things really need to be backed up if there are to be included at all. Notmyrealname 01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[Once again: nmrn is incorrect. --NYScholar 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)] Kampeas' article has been reprinted in numerous sites, that is the fact. Whether or not they are "marginal" or otherwise is a matter of POV. Notmyrealname's POV and opinion of where the article has been widely reprinted is of no relevance. I will provide a link to reprints. The sources where the article is reprinted are not relevant; the fact that the article by Kampeas has been reprinted widely is a fact. I'm tired of Notmyrealname (who may have previously posted in this talk page using an anon IP or another name) deleting pertinent reliably-sourced information. The reliable source is the Kampeas article, which has been printed in three places cited in this article on Lewis Libby. Those citations meet Wikipedia guidelines.

Moreover, JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) which is an original source of release of the article is picked up (as are AP and other news services) in many newspapers and magazines--e.g., those listed in "Libby Jewish? Some Wonder How Neo-con's Faith Impacts Leak Scandal" search and "Lewis Libby" "Jewish" "Ron Kampeas" search; if you scroll through those, you will find the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, The Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Review, Washington Jewish Week, and other newspapers and magazines (as well as blogs). I have not seen any source contradicting the facts in the report that Kampeas makes, and I cite Kampeas in the personal history section as a reliable source. --NYScholar 08:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC) [updated --NYScholar 08:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)]

Further information about the Jewish Virtual Library, which is cited by Kampeas as well, for whose identification of Libby as Jewish he provides more specific documentation, is provided at the website of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise--its publishing organization--in the following "About" webpage. --NYScholar 09:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: The current version of Wikipedia's article on Lewis Libby does not cite JVL's entry for "Lewis Libby" because the source given is actually Wikipedia (a previous version of this article)--Wikipedia articles cannot cite Wikipedia as a reliable source. The current version of Wikipedia's article on Lewis Libby cites the JVL's entry on Jewish members of the Bush Administration (which is not based on a Wikipedia article): "Jews in the Bush Administration"; "sources" cited in it are (generally) "news reports" (pretty vague) and the Republican Jewish Coalition (more specific; but it's not clear from which of those "sources" the JVL establishes Libby's inclusion in the list). Kampeas rightly points out that the JVL's biographical entry on Libby is not well sourced (as it cites its source as "Wikipedia", which is not a peer-reviewed [reliable] publication). That is another reason why I cite Kampeas, because he documents his discussion of Libby's self-identification as being Jewish in the context of other published media accounts which are verifiable and reliable sources and discussions among Washington people, whom he quotes specifically by name. [Also note that statements about Libby's being from a "Jewish family" in previous versions of this Wikipedia article are not my contributions; they originate with earlier editors. From what I have read in sources cited in the article, that appears to be a fact. According to Kampeas, the "Jr." appears to be something that Libby added to his name (in a federal directory listing; it's not in his White House biography or other official biography), and it is still not clearly established by verifiable sources [in the article at the point that I was talking about it, because nmrn and/or others had actually deleted the source from this article; I restored it after posting this--NYScholar 22:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)] that "Irve" is his first name (the same as his father's first name earlier Wikipedia editors claimed); nmrn and/or other editors removed sources about Libby's nicknames from this article recently. I don't know why they did that. It makes discussion of the relationship between his name(s) and false assumptions about him more difficult to connect in this article, since the contexts have been deleted and/or reverted when they were restored. --NYScholar 09:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Pertinence of Libby's self-identification as "Jewish"

Re: the previous section heading in this talk page: I don't regard whether or not Libby is Jewish as an issue relating to his "ethnicity"; it appears more to be a matter of his religious affiliation; religion is not an ethnic category per se. It is a matter of choice. Whether or not Libby was "born" to "Jewish parents" seems to be contested by others in this talk page. I don't know the answer to that question. I will point out, however, that the use of "Jr." (junior) and "Sr." (senior) does not document whether or not a man is Jewish; Jews commonly do not use those distinctions (or I, I, III, IV) etc. Historically, it has been and may still be fairly common for Jewish people who wish to avoid confronting bias caused by widespread anti-Semitism, at least early in their careers (while they are building them), to mask the fact of their Jewish background, changing their names or using a first initial instead of a ostensibly-Jewish first name, in order to protect themselves and their families (their livelihoods) from such prejudice. Being sent to traditionally non-Jewish institutions for an education relates also to the context of Libby's choice of how to present his name at various times in his life and how much or how little he publicly identified himself professionally as Jewish (or not). The practice that Kampeas alludes to--that someone might add a "Jr." to his name (in a federal directory) that may not actually be on his birth certificate for such reasons--is part of the context in Kampeas' discussion of these matters as they pertain to recent and current political and legal issues in which Libby was and is involved (as cited in this Wikipedia article, currently). It is possible that people who are not Jewish and who have not experienced or heard about such matters in their own family histories are unaware that such measures have been taken by Jewish people (especially by men entering and returning from basic training in various parts of the United States and from the U.S. armed services from the 1940s and 1950s); e.g., during World War II. It is thus not possible to tell from (particularly) the name of a man of Libby's generation whether or not he is of Jewish descent or heritage. False assumptions based on his name (the "Scooter" and the "Jr." which apparently he emphasized while in school and government service) seem to have led to confusing assumptions in the traditional press accounts and blogs that Kampeas is referring to; and sometimes also to mean-spirited and unethical anti-Semitic attacks in the latter, as Kampeas observes.

Moreover, it is Wikipedia policy to be factual and neutral (not interpretive or to take sides or engage in pushing POVs). I provide the previous points only as they relate to why the information from Kampeas is pertinent in this article. By citing Kampeas' discussion of this matter as it pertains to understanding who Libby is (in a biography of a living person) and the pertinence of these facts of his personal history (family background) in relation to his professional life and particularly to his current notability, this Wikipedia article enables readers to understand more information about the subject (I. Lewis Libby), not less; more information that pertains to debates about him relating to recent and current political (and legal) events in which he has been directly involved. Therefore, in my view, the paragraph that I have added to the personal history section is an improvement to this article. --NYScholar 11:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[Furthermore, with respect to the inclusion of the Wikipedia "Category" called "Jewish American lawyers" currently in this article on Lewis Libby: I would suggest that users (including editors) of this encyclopedia keep in mind that many and perhaps most people are proud of their self-identification as Jewish and would be quite pleased to be included among the many respected, renown, and admired jurists listed already in that category in Wikipedia. Many if not most Jewish people like other people are proud of their heritage and of their religious affiliation, and these individuals would object to others attempting to remove knowledge of it "in their name" as it were. If these people have identified themselves over the years in various contexts as being Jewish, then pointing to that fact is well within Wikipedia guidelines stated and linked in WP:BLP. (Consult tags above.) --NYScholar 00:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)]

I respectfully ask that NYScholar stop suggesting/insinuating/implying/etc. that I have been using other Wikipedia accounts to make edits to this page. This is false, utterly unfounded, and an abuse of WP:NPA rules. I have fully explained my edits on this page. I have worked to broaden the discussion on the WP:BLPN page. Other editors happen to disagree with your edits. I have not, as you have again falsely accused, stalked you on other pages. My edits are within the norms of Wikipedia and are not directed at you personally. I will also not be intimidated by your posts and will continue contributing edits to this and other page as I see fit. Notmyrealname 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I never "suggested" "insinuated" "implied" etc. that; re-read the comments; I am stating that you are deleting pertinent reliably-sourced and verifiable information from this article provided by other editors and that you have been continually doing so without consensus or adequate prior discussion on this talk page. Wikipedia editing and talk page guidelines prohibit doing that. Please review them. --NYScholar 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar said, and I quote "I'm tired of Notmyrealname (who may have previously posted in this talk page using an anon IP or another name) deleting pertinent reliably-sourced information." Notmyrealname 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about you personally; I am talking about your reversions and other edits. They (the content) are wrong-headed (perverse) in my view. The content that you delete is adequately sourced acc. to Wikipedia guidelines.

The fact that Scooter Libby being jewish is not even debatable...he is. Many conservative publications, defending him, have noted that he is jewish, and that he may be the fall guy simply for that reason. Why that has been removed is beyond me; virtually any criminal of black or muslim or asian descent would have their ethnicity noted on Wiki. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=9313 and http://canadiancoalition.com/adbusters01/index.html are two of the multitude of respected publications noting him being jewish.

Response to various claims

[It violates Wikipedia talk page guidelines to single out other editors and place their user names in headings: read the policies. That violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Removed my user name from the heading. --NYScholar 22:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Sorry about that. Notmyrealname 22:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the sources that you cite. The [New York Times] article you cited clearly states that Libby's father's name is Irve Lewis Libby Sr.

That is why I added the information and the citation; your own and others' previous edits and reverts had removed the source; I restored the source and explained that in my editing history explanations. Why don't you read them more carefully and follow the editing history and the problems in citations that your deletions create. When I need to correct a typographical error, I do so and call it "tc" for typographical correction(s). --NYScholar 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no mystery here. When Kampeas said that "Jr." was "tacked on," it is clear that he was using an artful turn of phrase, and not implying that Libby Jr. was up to something. Your history of Jewish assimilation is bizzare, completely inappropriate, and not in any way related to Libby or the discussion on this page.

There is a good possibility that the New York Times is basing its statement on pre-existing internet information; the NYT article provides no source for its assertions; these news articles tend to repeat one another and even at times to take information from Wikipedia articles, which are unreliable themselves--my point. I clearly present the problems with JVL in the citations (by citing Kampeas' point about it, because the JVL entries are being cited all over the internet (including in newspaper articles, without identification of the lack of clear sourcing); that's the point. I find your resistance to such facts "bizarre". It is a fact that there is debate of Libby's "Jewishness" or lack of "Jewishness" and WP:POV allows Wikipedia articles to document such debate. You clearly don't understand the relationship between WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:POV. --NYScholar 22:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather incredible assertion. Can you back up this claim? Why is there a good possibility of this? The New York Times employs a lot of fact checkers. They tend to get into a lot of trouble when they mess up. You need to provide some evidence for suggesting that they just got it from "pre-existing internet information." The article is also the source for his nickname. One might presume that they actually interviewed the guy or his father. Please don't nitpick over typos. You've made quite a few yourself. Notmyrealname 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, JVL is not a reliable source, whether linked to the main page or Libby's entry in particular. The only sources it lists are Wikipedia and unnamed news reports. WP:SPS states that "# A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking." The fact that the bio for Libby links to the Wikipedia page should be sufficient to show that there is no reliable fact checking going on at this site. Including it because it is mentioned by Kampeas (who only mentions it in passing to say that it does not use clear sourcing) is unwarranted. Kampeas also mentions an article in Commentary Magazine (which would be appropriate) and vitriol put out on a site run by KKK leader David Duke. We should only cite reliable sources. Readers can do further research if they so choose. Notmyrealname 21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

One can point out the problem in sources for the benefit of readers who might be misled by them; that is what I have been trying to do and what you constantly have been deleting. --NYScholar 22:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, and I hope this is "finally" (as your stubborn resistance to sourced information and facts presented in them is totally wrong-headed), I entirely disagree with you; the sources are cited and the citations explained for the benefit of Wikipedia readers (in talk page above and in the citations as I have provided them prior to your deletions and interference with their proper presentation). If you can't live with it due to your own POV on Libby and related matters discussed in this article, then just don't read the article or the sources. But don't revert irresponsibly (as you have been doing). You cannot delete the information from the article when it is properly presented, cited, sourced, and explained. The citations of these sources are in keeping with WP:Reliable sources and WP:Cite. Stop removing categories that include Libby. You really need to read sources cited in their entirety and stop deleting sourced information and pre-existing categories in Wikipedia. Your reference to WP:BLP has no grounds in reality. Your interpretations of my comments as "bizarre" and your speculations about Kampeas as "using an artful turn of phrase" are irrelevant. Stop engaging in personal attacks and stop deleting reliably-sourced facts from this article. You are violating Wikipedia's editing policies: WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --NYScholar 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. In the past day NYScholar has called me stubborn, totally wrong-headed, and has repeatedly made baseless accusations that I have been stalking her/him and using sockpuppets and IP addresses. I have made reasonable edits. Justified them. Engaged others in the discussion. Several other editors have agreed with my arguements. Notmyrealname 22:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are neither reasonable nor within Wikipedia guidelines. Read the policies. No one has agreed with facts in your arguments. They have agreed with false presentations of facts in your arguments. I make that clear throughout. Read the comments and updates to them. I have not said that you are "stalking" me--that is your own projection; no one has any way to know how many different names or IP addresses anyone is using in these talk pages except himself or herself. I myself know that I have contributed to this Wikipedia article using only one user name and no anon. IP addresses. What others have done and/or are doing in editing, I do not know. Once again, I refer you to WP:NPA; Wik. policy is to focus on the content not on the contributors. --NYScholar 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I based the above claim on the following statement by NYScholar: "'NotMyRealName' and others are repeatedly going into articles that I am also working on and deleting references that it has taken me a long time to provide," as well as the comments noted in the previous section. I disagree with your characterization of my edits and representations. I would be happy to submit this to arbitration. Would probably be good for both of us to leave the editing of this page to others for a few days. Notmyrealname 23:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[moved from wrong sec. by NYS] Go ahead: submit this article to arbitration. I welcome that. [ran into editing problem early and it posted in wrong sec. when I copied/pasted it.] [updated] NYScholar 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments objecting to the removal of references and other editing matters on this talk page. --NYScholar 23:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for user to stop harrassing me

N.B.: I made this request of the user posting this heading prior to his posting it. I have refused to "agree" to his attempts at further harrassment. I have stated that I refuse any further interaction with him prior to his posting this. His comments following my added note here are not, in my own view, an honest presentation of this situation. Clearly, prior to his posting this heading, I had already asked him to stop posting repeated personal attacks on my talk page. Those attacks began on my talk page after I had originally followed Wikipedia procedure by courteously asking him on his talk page (where one is supposed to do that) to desist in personal attacks on me in this article's talk page, when he continued to make personal comments, as he does below (instead of focusing on the content of the article). I do not use a link in my signature, and I remove his putting in links to my name in the comments below. Doing so violates my chosen preferences in Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --NYScholar 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not make any personal attacks on the user above. Instead, I have been the victim of such attacks, as noted below. I have also courteously requested that this user refrain from making such attacks. I tried to engage in mediation, as the user had previously indicated a willingness to participate. However, the user has refused. I leave it up to the careful reader to evaluate the situation. I continue to welcome mediation, arbitration, or other intervention by Wikipedia administrators. Notmyrealname 15:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The user NYScholar has continously attacked me, rather than the content of my edits. This user is now harrassing me on my talk page. A brief list:

I have made reasonable challenges to the validity of sourcing and the relevancy of edits of the user and others. I have fully explained my reasoning on the talk page and on the WP:BLPN.

Of me and my edits, NYScholar has said on this page: ""NotMyRealName" and others are repeatedly going into articles that I am also working on and deleting references that it has taken me a long time to provide," (completely unfounded and false),

"No one has agreed with facts in your arguments. They have agreed with false presentations of facts in your arguments." (A weasely way of saying I'm a liar?),

"don't revert irresponsibly (as you have been doing)" (I have not been doing this, but thanks for the suggestion),

"your stubborn resistance to sourced information and facts presented in them is totally wrong-headed" (glad NYScholar is not making this personal...),

"I'm tired of Notmyrealname (who may have previously posted in this talk page using an anon IP or another name) deleting pertinent reliably-sourced information." But then you later say that this isn't about me, it's about my edits.

I will not edit this page for a little while to give this situation a chance to cool down. I suggest that NYScholar do so as well. I resent the harrassment of NYScholar and ask this user to refrain from further posting on my talk page. Notmyrealname 03:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's best to ignore most of what that editor puts on Talk: pages, as it is always extremely lengthy, and rarely about article content. I've removed all the speculation about Libby's "Jewishness"; it's all based on one source, it's irrelevant to Libby himself, it was extremely poorly written (it ended up being a lengthy paragraph about which sources had used the JTA article and a bunch of original research about how the other versions of the original JTA article differed), and it all violates WP:BLP. And by the way, alleged membership in a Reform Temple is not "self-identification" as Jewish. Self-identification as Jewish is a statement from Libby in a reliable source stating "I am Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What did I tell you? Point proved, look at the section below. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Objection to the removal of pertinent reliably-sourced information and its verified and verifiable reference citations from the content of this article

N.B.Please do not respond to any of these points and interrupt their presentation. If you respond, do so after my signature. If you respond, respond only to points relating to the content of this article and not to contributors. See the talkpage header with its link to WP:NPA and the header "Controversial" for further guidance in editing this article.]

1. Jayjg is involved in editing disputes in Daniel Pipes; see Talk:Daniel Pipes; he/she is not a neutral observer; his/her unwarranted evaluative remarks about another Wikipedia contributor (me) is not a statement of fact; it also violates WP:NPA's policy that Wikipedia users (including administrators) are to comment on content not the contributors: "It's best to ignore most of what that editor puts on Talk: pages, as it is always extremely lengthy, and rarely about article content." That is not the statement of fact; and it is not a statement made by a neutral and impartial observer.
2. Knowing that I disagreed with the so-called "mediation" request that the other user posted, and that that process is set up to respect all users involved, and that the mediation has a seven-day expiration, nevertheless Jayjg has stepped into an editing dispute in this article that was listed (by the other user) in the BLP noticeboard, in which multiple other Wikipedia users commented.
3. His interpretation of what "self-identification" of being anything (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Arab, Israeli, American, Italian, English, African, Dutch, German, etc.) is absurd: thousands if not hundreds of thousands of articles on living persons do not follow his interpretation of "self-identification"; there are multiple ways to identify oneself publicly as Jewish: in this case, of Lewis Libby, he has identified himself as being Jewish, he is listed in the category in Wikipedia entitled "Jewish American lawyers" on the basis of that self-identification; as (at that time) senior-level White House public official, he is not a private figure; he is a public figure.
4. For related information, see internal Wikipedia link to Republican Jewish Coalition cited in the quotation included in the article by the verifiably-documented source Kampeas in its multiple reprintings, also cited.
5. It was the other user who posted personal comments continually here in this talk page about a contributor (and kept doing so, even adding sections highlighting such personal contributor comments) even after being requested on his/her talk page to desist, which violates WP:NPA.
6. In the above comment, Jayjg does not focus on the actual content of the article cited (by Kampeas).
7. Kampeas' article is a reliable source, according to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines; the way that I presented it is fully within the policies of WP:BLP. There is nothing detrimental or potentially libelous in pointing out that there has been a debate in the public media about whether or not Lewis Libby (the subject of this article) is Jewish and that that debate centers on his being a public figure and involved in government political policy (which a large part of the article concerns) and in the CIA leak grand jury investigation leading to United States v. Libby, which much of the rest of this article concerns, as linked to Plame affair. These are matters of content.
8. Kampeas's JTA article reprinted in several other reliable publications is going to be accurately and appropriately listed in a new "Further reading" section of this article pertaining directly to the subject, which is Lewis Libby (not nmrn or jayjg or me or any other contributors to Wikipedia).
9. Reminder:Focus on content not the contributors: WP:NPA.
10. Administrators in Wikipedia are violating this standard Wikipedia guideline and taking sides in contentious editing disputes in controversial articles that invariably seem to concern matters relating to Jewish subjects.
11. The report of Libby's membership in a Jewish temple by a reliable source [Kampeas publishing via the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)] evidences self-acknowledgment by Libby of his being Jewish. Libby has not publicly denied that he is Jewish; his colleagues discuss the fact that he is Jewish and that he has identified himself as being Jewish to them and to others in the interviews quoted by Kampeas.
12. Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), which reported this information and discusses its relevance to the controversies involving Lewis Libby arising in relation to his government public service, is a reliable and verifiable source; it meets the criteria for a reliable source in W:Reliable sources; referring to the article by Kampeas (JTA) violates no policy stated in WP:BLP; defining what Kampeas reports is completely in keeping with the guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV.
13. The content of this article is being distorted by those attempting to delete pertinent information cited from reliably and verifiable sources; the source by Kampeas is verifiable: one can click on the various links to the article and read it to check its existence as a source.
14. The presentation (deleted by jayjg) adheres to policies and guidelines presented in WP:NOR and the other policies and guidelines linked in the tagged notices at the top of this talk page and throughout my previous comments about the content of this article and the content of this talk page of this article.
15. I have posted this response out of concern that readers of this article on Lewis Libby are being deliberately misled by the other users deleting presentation of the information reported in the article by Kampeas. Deleting such information violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV; it violates standard Wikipedia editing guidelines. Suppressing such information is not "encyclopedic" according to Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies.
16. See the talkpage header with its link to WP:NPA and the header "Controversial" for further guidance in editing this article.

[Please do not respond to any of these points and interrupt their presentation. If you respond, do so after my signature. If responding, please respond only to points relating to the content of this article and not to contributors.] --NYScholar 21:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculation about Libby based on one article alleging membership in a Reform Temple, and contradictory statements about his "Jewishness" from various individuals, is not nearly good enough to make the information encyclopedic and pertinent, constitute "self-identification", or conform to WP:BLP. In addition, most of the section was original research about various versions of the JTA story as it was edited re-printed by various newspapers, not about Libby. Please re-read my comment in the section above, please respond directly to the points already raised, please do not fill the Talk: page with 1000 word 16 point diatribes, and please don't ask me to repeat this a third time. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A request for calm for all, and while I'm here a minor note of my own opinion- some reform temples let people who do not self-identify as Jewish and have no Jewish ancestry be members of the temple (often if they are married to a temple member). So in general, being a member doesn't necessitate self-identification. In fact, it might be quite hard. The example that occured to me when I was actually trying to justify going in the other direction (arguing why membership did constitute sufficient self-identification) was the following- if we had a source or even the person saying that he takes communion at the local Roman Catholic church you might think this was enough. But! Russian and Greek Orthodox are allowed to take communion from Catholics and Catholics will give it to them. So even being involved deeply in a religion's rituals are not necessarily enough to conclude that someone is a member. JoshuaZ 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Content of Kampeas' article pertaining to the content of this Wikipedia article on Lewis Libby

<N.B.I place this content here so that people will read it in full (as linked in "Further reading" in this article on Lewis Libby), instead of being dissuaded to read it for themselves by misrepresentations of this article characterized by earlier posters here. Again: please do not interrupt this comment before the end of it; if you respond, please do so after my signature.> This is just some of the relevant content from Kampeas' article "Libby Jewish?" (documented in "Further reading" sec.; dated 2 Nov. 2005) that justifies its consideration by readers of this article. The first page of the article provides context for the second page (it is a two-page article online in some versions; one page in the JTA version). [Note: The link to this article via JTA's own search facility is called: "Libby, Judaism and the leak probe".]

The article begins with a quotation from Muravchik expressing his own embarrassment for his originally falsely assuming that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr. was not Jewish:

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 [2003].

"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. (Italics added.)

Further context of the controversy relating to whether or not Libby is Jewish is as follows:

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.

In addition to DeMuth, Schmitt and Bolton — who now is U.S. ambassador to the United Nations — prominent non-Jewish neo-cons include Bolton’s predecessors Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former CIA chief James Woolsey and former Education Secretary William Bennett.

Conversely, polls have found that a majority of American Jews embrace liberal and centrist views. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, last year’s Democratic presidential candidate, won up to 77 percent of the Jewish vote.

Muravchik’s mistake was one a lot of people have made. Two other prominent Jewish neo-conservatives insisted to JTA last week that Libby was not Jewish.

Libby’s Jewish profile at the White House was low, according to Jews who have worked with the administration. Other Jewish staffers knew he was Jewish, but he was not one of the highly identified Jews, such as Tevi Troy, the deputy assistant policy adviser to the president, or Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The low profile was attributable in part to Libby’s general reserve and to his closeness to power. After Karl Rove, Bush’s top adviser, he was considered the most powerful unelected official in the White House.

Not every Jew who works in the White House likes to wear his identity on his sleeve, said Jay Footlik, the Clinton White House’s liaison to the Jewish community.

"If they didn’t choose to self-identify as a member of the community, if they didn’t express a concern on a particular issue or ask to be a part of a meeting when a Jewish organization came into the White House, then we might have known they were Jewish, or we might not," Footlik said.

Some of the misapprehension apparently has to do with Libby’s persona. His Andover prep school education; his nickname, “Scooter”; and the Jr. tacked onto the end of his full name as it appears in the federal directory — I. Lewis Libby, Jr. — seem to indicate a non-Jewish background. [Italics and bold added throughout.]

Kampeas--a journalist reporting for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)--refers to as a "fact" what JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) reported (as posted in its participating newspapers and magazines such as Jewish Review online on 1 November, 2005 via its wire services). In para. 3 quoted above, from the beginning of "Libby Jewish?", his phrase "after it emerged that the man at the center of the White House leak scandal indeed is Jewish" refers to the prior emergence of Libby's Jewishness as a fact ("indeed is"). In the article featured and published by JTA on its own website on 2 November, 2005 (and published in many other newspapers and magazines which receive their wire services feed from JTA), after the previous discussion already quoted, he writes (on page two, in some versions) further:

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 Reform movement and the synagogue were reluctant to discuss Libby's involvement. Acquaintances don't remember seeing him at shul, aside from High Holy Day services.

Libby's membership in the Temple guide lists his wife, Harriet Grant, a former staffer for congressional Democrats, and two school-age kids.

"His name never even came up when talking about Jews in the administration, not even as part of the so-called 'neo-con cabal,' " said one Reform official who asked not to be identified.

The Jewish Virtual Library, a Web site, listed Libby as Jewish, though its sourcing was unclear. [I discussed this in my earlier comments and made this problem clear in my citation of Kampeas' article, since deleted by Jayjg.]

Libby's only other ostensible Jewish involvement was with the Republican Jewish Coalition, and only since he joined the Bush administration. He made an appearance at the RJC's 20th anniversary celebration last month.

Libby is known as a workaholic but he has a busy private life which could have kept him from spending much time on extracurricular Jewish activities. He's an avid skier, plays touch football on weekends and has written and published an erotically charged novel set in Japan.

A number of Jewish leaders told JTA they didn't think Libby's Jewishness would become a factor in the leak scandal that has obsessed Washington, but his name already appeared on numerous anti-Semitic Web sites long before JTA published an item over the weekend reporting his synagogue membership.

Muravchik said it's an old ploy to ascribe ulterior motives to neo-conservatives having to do with the Jewish origins of some movement leaders.

"It's certainly a slur that has been repeated by people who are enemies of neo-conservatives or who are enemies of Jews," he said.

The underlying argument is that the movement led the Bush administration into war with Iraq in hopes of protecting Israel. That argument ignores the low Jewish profile of many other Jewish neo-cons.

It also ignores the essentially American origins of a movement that seeks to spread democracy overseas.

The sympathy for Israel is simple, Muravchik said.

"It's a lone democracy in the Middle East, and it was a chief target of the Soviet bloc," opposition to which helped shape neo-conservatism. "It was also the chief inspiration of dissent in the Soviet bloc at the time when there was very little in the 1970s."

Referring to a 1996 paper by three prominent Jewish neo-conservatives that pressed Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister at the time, to engage against Iraq, Muravchik wrote in Commentary that it would "make more sense to say that, in preparing a paper for Netanyahu, they were trying to influence Israeli policy on behalf of American interests than the other way around. Indeed, most Israeli officials at that time viewed Iran, the sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas, as a more pressing threat to their country than Iraq, and (then as later) would have preferred that it be given priority in any campaign against terrorism."

In an interview this week, Muravchik noted an emerging split between American neo-cons and members of Israel's ruling Likud Party over the movement's enthusiastic backing for President Bush's Middle East policies, particularly his support for Palestinian statehood.

"I've had numerous private and public exchanges on this topic with Likudniks and non-Likudniks who say, 'You Americans are nuts, you don't know these Arabs. We know them; the idea that they can resolve differences peacefully is hopelessly farfetched,' " Muravchik said. "I've been in rooms where Americans were talking about democracy for the Arabs, and Israelis were ridiculing it." (Italics added.)

[Note added later: Some reprinted versions of this article are shortened, edited versions, and they omit the last two paragraphs. --NYScholar 10:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)] <N.B.I place this content here so that people will read it in full (as linked in "Further reading") in this article on Lewis Libby, instead of being dissuaded to read it for themselves by misrepresentations of this article characterized by earlier posters here. Again: please do not interrupt this comment before the end of it; if you respond, please do so after my signature.> This content of the article by Kampeas pertains to the content of this Wikipedia article on Lewis Libby directly; it is "pertinent" and "notable"; it pertains to his public service as a senior-level official of the Bush administration engaged in policies and projects relating to United States official governmental policies in the Middle East pertaining to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Coalition-led war in Iraq, and the Plame affair deriving from both and leading to the CIA leak grand jury investigation and United States v. Libby, all topics covered in the content of this article on Lewis Libby.

WP:NOR governs Wikipedia editors. It does not govern bonafide reporters and investigative journalists, whose articles (our sources) Wikipedia editors are supposed to be able to cite from reliable publications as long as others can verify the existence of these sources; in this case, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA); the JTA is a reliable source (given Wikipedia criteria in Wikipedia:Reliable sources); citing it is parallel to citing Associated Press or United Press International; like them, it is a news wire service agency.

(Jayjg's opinion of how well written the article is is not relevant to this discussion; that's his POV, not "neutral point of view". Like every other Wikipedian, Jayjg is a user and/or editor and all Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to him/her just as they do to any other Wikipedian (See WP:Administrators and WP:ANOT). Such value judgments are not within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:POV, and Wikipedia:Cite; they belie the general assumption that an administrator is being "neutral.")

For more information about JTA, click on the internal Wikipedia link to Wikipedia's own article about Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Citing published verifiable sources is not "original research"; citing several published verifiable sources of the same content article is not "original research"; all Wikipedia editors who document their sources and who are following WP:Cite are finding sources and citing them, not engaging in "original research": WP:NOR. Providing a source for information relating to a "controversial" Wikipedia article about a living person (as Lewis Libby is tagged "Controversial"; WP:BLP), following WP:POV and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, requires giving "full citations", which I have done. The deletion of them harms rather than improves the content of this article on a controversial living person who is also a public figure. As tagged: "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." I have been following this requirement. The speculations about Libby's Jewishness are a topic of relevance to this article, and I have been following Wikipedia guidelines in referring to it. --NYScholar 00:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to some earlier comments about what membership in a Jewish temple might or might not signify: some people who are Jewish were born Jewish (to two parents both of Jewish heritage--whether or not they so-called "self-identify" themselves to be Jewish)--that is a matter of fact; some people are Jewish because they have one parent (a mother) who is Jewish (according to Jewish religious tenets); some people are Jewish because they convert to Judaism; some people consider themselves Jewish but don't tell anyone; some people who are Jewish tell some people and not other people; some people join a temple for family reasons, when they themselves were not born Jewish; some people join a temple whether or not they were born Jewish (to two Jewish parents, or a Jewish mother), because they choose to be affiliated with the Jewish temple. Those are not details in the content of the article cited. The article is cited to support the fact that there is controversy about this topic and the controversy deserves some coverage in this Wikipedia article on this public figure (See WP:BLP policy pertaining to Public Figures). Kampeas' article is germane to other topics covered in the article about him. I do not cite it to "prove" what kind of Jewish identification or self-identification Libby may or may not have (The very title of the article has a question mark!); I cited it and cite it to document the controversy about the topic. The topic itself (the controversy) is a fact. --NYScholar 01:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, your latest comment was only 2,250 words; that's hardly enough to do the issue justice, don't you think? Could you possibly expand a little on your point, say get the comment up to 5,000 words? That way we'd all have a much better chance of fully understanding what you're trying to get at. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The content removed from this article that pertains to my previous comments

Given my previous discussion of the content of the article by Kampeas, here again is the passage that Jayjg deleted totally from the article, erroneously citing WP:BLP and WP:NOR, neither of which pertains either to my citing of these sources or to a biography of a public figure (Lewis Libby):

In "Libby Jewish? Some Wonder How Neo-con’s Faith Impacts Leak Scandal", published initially by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and the Jewish Review, and reprinted in The Jerusalem Post (with a somewhat different headline), the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, Washington Jewish Week, and other public media, Ron Kampeas reports that Libby is "a member of Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va," close to his Mclean, Virginia, home. According to Kampeas, speculations, assumptions, statements, and misstatements about Libby's Jewish heritage, Jewish identity, and/or Jewish self-identification, or lack thereof, have been the subject of debate and controversy in the public media, in both the traditional press and the blogosphere, by both critics and supporters of the Bush administration's policies regarding the Iraq War and other controversial matters; most particularly, by those following the CIA leak grand jury investigation and Libby's subsequent trial in United States of America v. Libby, when interest in his personal history heightened.

Notes

I had provided the additional sources to verify my stating that the JTA article by Kampeas was widely cited in the public media (which nmrn incorrectly stated was false); I altered "mass media" to "public media"--but actually I was correct earlier--the mass media includes both traditional press sources public media and the blogosphere ("internet media") wherein the controversy exists. There is no so-called "original research" in that note; it presents its sources as full citations and 2 links to verify them as being included in a search for the topics of this controversy relating to Lewis Libby. (After I wrote that full citation re: JTA, I realized that one can view the full article as a guest even without the free registration; in fact, each time I tried to register on the site, the registration process did not work; instead the article is viewable if one chooses to view it without registering, when given the choice.) I have no objection to deleting the links to the searches, but, once again, they do not qualify as "original research"; they are links to citations for those who need to verify that the reprinting of Kampeas' article is "widespread" in the public media, as a version of that paragraph that I wrote earlier says. WP:AGF (Some of the notes showing up are keyed to earlier comments in this talk page.) [I added the Washington Jewish Week full citation to the earlier paragraph later for people's information, so they don't have to look for it in the additional 2 links given as verification; and I noticed later too that some of them are shortened, edited versions, so I added that.] (updated) --NYScholar 09:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

convicted

i guess there is a god after all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.83.66 (talk • contribs)

That's great, but incredibly unencyclopedic. I'm leaving it as mildly historic, but noting that as of when I replied (1 hour after the reading of the verdict, it is unattributed). There have been several defacings of this article and it should probably be protected, though I will make no move in that direction for some time longer. Trelane 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are currently two problems (at least) with this article pertaining to the conviction of "Scooter" Libby. The first is that he was convicted on one count of making false statements to the FBI, two counts of Perjury, and one count of obstruction of justice (Not "4 of 5 counts of purjery and obstruction of justice," as the article reads.) Secondly, should we really be calling it federal "pound me in the ass" prison? I'd fix it but the article is protected. --71.113.70.133 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to article in response to recent events

In response to Trelane's comment I believe a motion should be carried for temporary protection. --RWilliamKing 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Already requested. Jokestress 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--NYScholar 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Caution: Problems with newcomers editing this article on March 6, 2007

I notice that one newcomer or some newcomers to this article are re-inserting "Jewish" in the introduction and/or body of this article and that someone re-added the category "American Jewish lawyers." They are not using the required "full citations"--required by Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. These users are apparently not consulting the talk page of this article prior making such substantive changes and discussing such changes prior to doing that (which violates Wikipedia editing guidelines for "controversial articles" and WP:BLP). They are not recognizing that consensus already exists not to insert the word "Jewish" in the introduction and that it is problematic (due to talk page controversy) at this stage even to add it to the background section. Please see earlier comments about this contentious matter. At this point, I would propose simply making a statement of fact at the end of the "personal history" subsection like: "Libby is Jewish." and to follow that sentence immediately with citations (references full citation format) to both Ron Kampeas's November 2, 2004 JTA article(s) and the March 6, 2007 JTA article added today. These citations are already present in the main body of the article and its "Bibliography" (also see them quoted above). Please discuss this proposal. (Please keep in mind that it is not I who is re-adding "Jewish" into the article or adding the category "American Jewish lawyers" at this time. There are also possibly other pertinent lists categories in Wikipedia. Some of them are those that other Wikipedia users may be adding his name to after this conviction.) --NYScholar 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is simply to state factually: Libby is "a member of Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va.." followed by the "full citation" to Kampeas and the NNDB biography, which also states that and gives a source (which I haven't found). --NYScholar 07:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, but who knows anymore. --Tom 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Shouldn't this page be unprotected now that it is on the Wikipedia Front Page?

It's not a Featured Article on the Main Page, it's part of an ITN item. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Convicted criminal" in lead

I vote for taking the "convicted criminal" phrase out of the lead sentence, instead mentioning the conviction in the lead paragraph. --Christopherlin 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving it out of the lead sentence sounds reasonable to me. steventity 06:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Civil suit

Should we mention the civil suit against Lewis Libby? Obviously it's convered in detail in other articles but I wonder if we should include a one liner mentioning it Nil Einne 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

added it earlier. --NYScholar 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Liebowitz

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see anything that explains the presence of the name "Liebowitz" in the opening line. Was it his birth name? - in which case there should be some reference to "born as..." and later on in the article a note about his name change. If it is an ancestral name that he was not born with - then surely that would go with family background - not the opening. This may have been discussed/debated before - but it is unexplained at present. Davidpatrick 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a specious unsourced statement. Remove it on sight if it doesn't have a source. Jokestress 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed odd. Davidpatrick 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The box

someone added a box last night that includes "charges" etc.; that kind of material is not strictly speaking "biographical details" and seem inconsistent w/ the box format used for other BLP. I took the information listings out; they appeared to be gloating and thus not NPOV. It's clear enough from the first paragraph and the rest of the article what the charges of the case are etc. Unless someone can find models of boxes used in BLP in very similar subjects, and can discuss the rationale for adding such details that are not strictly speaking parallel to the other biographical details (birth date, death date, spouse, children, parents [if one actually can verify exact names of them, which in this case is problematic it seems]), then the information should be deleted (as it is now), I think. --NYScholar 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)