Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 4

Recent changes to the sources included in the Bibliography/References List

[added heading for topic. --NYScholar 07:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)]

Exactly; that includes not re-inserting the "Jewish" stuff via the back door. How transparent. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)]

Your changes and own "back door" attempts to remove a source from what has been called both "Bibliography" and "References" for a long time (weeks) has introduced errors of fact into the article. I have restored the source that you keep deleting from the Bibliography/References list, which contains several other articles and resources not directly cited in the article (sources that discuss Libby pertaining to issues already discussed in it); you are obviously not editing in good faith: see talk page archive 3. You deleted the source without any prior discussion that you were going to do that. Your deletion of it does not have consensus in this talk page among many other editors. Many have been objecting to your continual reversions. I issue a preliminary 3RR warning about this. Please desist. You are trying to remove a source that has much discussion in these talk pages. You've already continually reverted any mention of Libby's Jewishness from the article; there is no justification for removal of an entire source that has been read by hundreds of thousands if not millions of readers in the United States. [As I document in archive 3, this source is published by a reputable news organization Jewish Telegraphic Agency and written by its Washington bureau chief, Ron Kampeas, about issues pertaining to Libby's notability in Wikipedia.] Please stop this and review WP:AGF and WP:BLP#Public figures. [Updated in brackets; and added link.]

In summary: I view the Kampeas source as notable and reliable and relevant as it addresses and strives to correct mistaken and false assumptions made about Libby and pejorative views of Libby as a neo-con that Kampeas puts into larger contexts, which will enable Wikipedia readers to understand them better. The article is informative about Libby in conjunction with topics discussed in this Wikipedia article and, in my view, worthy of citation, inclusion, and reference. For my own earlier detailed explanations of the value of the source, see archives pages 2-3. --NYScholar 07:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To prove that Mr. Libby was born Jewish a 'reliable printed source' would not do, nor would his own statement that he is; it would have to be shown that his mother was Jewish (it's absurd to talk about a conversion here, I think); and that could only be shown by producing his mother's parents' Jewish marriage certificate (presumably but not necessarily in Hebrew) or by providing some other proof that his mother was Jewish. Since neither her parents' wedding certificate nor any other comprobatory document is likely to be a matter of public record, you will never, for all your good intentions and strenuous efforts, find a truly reliable source to prove that Mr. Libby is Jewish. And of course only a Rabbi or a Rabbinical Court would be qualified to judge the matter and give an authoritative answer. Since original research is forbidden here, you must therefore simply accept that you will never'know'. Wohl aber lässt sich fragen, ob man dies sinnvoll bezweifeln kann. (Wittgenstein). 137.73.58.204 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)SK

Obviously, the previous comment was written without consulting the full discussion in the archived talk pages. No one is trying "to prove that Mr. Libby was born Jewish" etc.; that is not what is being discussed in this talk page dispute. The comments do not relate to the previous discussion. (Moreover, that is not even what Kampeas discusses; the commenter does not appear to know what he/she is talking about at all.) See the archived discussion.)--NYScholar 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, NYscholar is missing the point. One question is if Mr. Libby is Jewish. That is the question I addressed above. Another question is if his Jewishness is relevant in (or to) this article. I did not address that question. As to using foreign languages (see below), I would have thought that 'scholars' have dictionaries and rudimentary knowledge of the principal Western European languages. The quote from Wittgenstein means: 'Of course it can be asked if it makes any sense to doubt it'. I might also point out that I used the expression 'born Jewish' because there are only two ways to be Jewish: to be born of a Jewish mother or to convert (which requires a Rabbincal Court). 87.74.1.27 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)SK

Again: I do not cite the article by Ron Kampeas to "prove" that Libby is Jewish. I cite Kampeas' full discussion concerning the issue of Libby's so-called "Jewishness" because it is an issue that pertains to Libby's notability in Wikipedia and Kampeas is a reliable source, according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Kampeas, the Washington bureau chief of Jewish Telegraphic Agency, discusses and attempts to correct the record regarding Libby's low profile as a Jewish person, which Kampeas discusses in relation to the then still-brewing CIA leak case. Please read the archived discussions and Kampeas' entire article before making comments on it. Please stick to talk page guidelines: focus on how to improve the article, not on contributors or on Libby or on discussing the subject from your own POV; see WP:NOR. In "controversial" articles, presentation of controversies from a neutral point of view are entirely appropriate: Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; WP:POV; Wikipedia:Verifiability. (Please don't quote German in an English-language version of Wikipedia. There is no reason to expect English-speaking readers to understand it. If you want to write in German, please consider contributing to talk page of the German version of Wikipedia.) --NYScholar 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, please stop adding this disruptive nonsense to the article. Your attachment to that one article by Ron Kampeas is unseemly, as is your determination to somehow yellow badge Libby, even to the extent of inserting his alleged synagogue membership into the article. Please keep WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE in mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg: if anyone is being "disruptive", it is not I but you. I have absolutely no so-called "determination" to so-called "somehow yellow badge Libby"; that is an unsupportable, unfounded, absurd, disgusting, and maliciously calumnatory charge: see WP:NPA. Your perpetual false references to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE have no support and are misleading; you willfully ignore WP:BLP#Public figures, which makes clear that Libby, as a public figure, and the subject of controversy may have issues pertaining to him discussed. I suggest that you let the rest of us improve this article and stop interfering with it. You have not contributed any content to this article yourself; you simply keep deleting properly-sourced references that anyone can read and understand, except apparently you. Please keep your biases out of this article. And please stop casting false and unwarranted aspersions on other editors. You have to abide by the same guidelines and policies that everyone else does on Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Public figures says "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from". In the case of the Jew stuff, you have effectively one source, the Kampeas article. Also, the example given is quite clear: Example: John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out. His synagogue membership and speculations about his ethnicity are not important to the article, as evidenced by the fact that only one writer has ever chosen to write about them. Please abide by WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See BLP Noticeboard: Lewis Libby]. There is no support for Jayjg's false claims. I have already cited the same passages re: WP:BLP#Public figures in support of including Kampeas. See the response to such inclusion in the noticeboard by administrator's review:

I've reviewed the archives you described. In my opinion, Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency can be used as a reliable source. His extensive [y]ears of service with the Associated Press can be verified. JTA appears to be a very small Israeli news agency but kampeas brings sufficient reliability with him from the AP. However, investing a large amount of space in the Wikipedia article to the issue of Libby’s religious beliefs is very questionable. It’s best to reduce such material to one or two sentences, preceded by “Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency says …” NeilinOz1 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard is the second posting of this article; I've given the link there to the first posting, in the Noticeboard's archive 12. [added links in quoted reply by NeilinOz1.] --NYScholar 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[I added the "y" before "ears" as it was an obvious typographical error in the comment quoted from the noticeboard. --NYScholar 00:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)]

Note: I have other work to do, and I cannot waste any more of my time on this. --NYScholar 00:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who NeilinOz1 is, or why you would consider his opinion to carry any weight. Given that the issue is not about whether Kampeas is a reliable source, but rather whether the material violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and given that the JTA is not Israeli, I find it difficult to put too much weight on his statement. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter who NeilinOz1 is; what matters is the reliability of Ron Kampeas as a source, which NeilinOz1 and I and others (Jewish Telegraphic Agency and all those reprinting his work in The Jerusalem Post and many community newspapers throughout the United States) recognize; use of Ron Kampeas as a reliable source is in keeping with Wikipedia:Citation and Wikipedia:Attribution. That's what matters. --NYScholar 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're quoting NeilinOz1 as an auhtority, then it does matter who he is. And the issue is not whether Kampeas is a reliable source, but rather the WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE violating nature of the attention you've given to that lone article he wrote. Please stop wasting time with these diversions. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

NeilinOz1, it turns out, is barred from editing Wikipedia, according to his/her talk page. I am referring not to the contributor (as per WP:NPA), but rather to the reasoning, which I quoted in whole and with which I agree, that Ron Kampeas is a reliable and authoritative source. I am sure that my point is clear. The "diversions" are the previous editor's focus on contributors rather than on content and on his time-wasting references to unrelated policies in WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, which do not apply to WP:BLP#Public figures like Libby. The suggestion of NeilinOz1 made sense to me; s/he suggested that one simply put a clearcut transition like "Kampeas says" (or "According to Kampeas") and a clearcut citation in any sentence referring to what Kampeas discusses. Following all Wikipedia guidelines and policies in Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citation and in keeping with WP:BLP#Public figures, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:POV, that is what I have done and what I have been doing. Any claim to the contrary is simply false. Due to the controversy about this content, the article is now protected. --NYScholar 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection tag

Independent of the dispute with Jayjg, I have noticed that there has been recent vandalism to this article by anon IP users, and, for the time being, until it quiets down, I have restored the semi-protection template on the article page. Doing so has nothing to do with the previous disputed content issues. Those are discussed fully (I think) in the archives pages 2-3. --NYScholar 07:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion - ethnicity/religion categorization

For those that have not weighed in on the debate, what is your opinion on the matter. I think that the category american jews or jewish amerian lawyers should be used. I don't think a disussion in the article is warranted, unless someone wants to discuss how anti-semitic groups tried to use this information as a propaganda tool. In regards to consistency in other articles: Dick Cheney - described as methodist, despite not being in your face religious Donald Rumsfeld - described as presbyterian, despite not publicizing his religion George Bush - methodist and hugenout ancestry Condy Rice - African American and presbyterian Henry Paulson - Christian Science follower Roberto Gonzalez - Mexican and Roman Catholic Dick Kempthorne - methodist Spencer Abraham - arab/lebanese/syrian and orthodox christian Karl Rove - not mentioned, but norwegian stepfather is, as is conflict with catholic girl when young, implying protestant ad nauseum... Fermat1999 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Prior to another user's recent posting of WP:BLPN#Lewis_Libby, I had already tried what you suggest ("unless someone wants to discuss....")--see Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3#Section deleted by another editor but Jayjg deleted that and the source provided for it throughout the article. See subsequent discussion below (as well as earlier archive pages' discussions of same issues). --NYScholar 07:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of categories

See WP:BLP#Public figures and WP:BLP#Use of categories. Discussion and reliable sources (in controversial articles "full citations") are required in the article substantiating the rationale for the use of categories according to Wikipedia policies in Wikipedia:Citations; Wikipedia:Attribution:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

Please read the rest of the material in those sections of WP:BLP in conjunction with both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles as precedents for mentioning affiliation with a church or practice of a faith

I've looked at some of the articles listed by Fermat above and, on the basis of those precedents in Wikipedia articles on living persons, and in keeping with WP:BLP#Public figures, restored the brief reference that I added some time ago to the "Personal history": "Background" section, citing Libby's temple membership (with links in text and appropriate ref. sources) [that is to say: his religious affiliation(s)]--[Updated: to clarify what I mean here: --NYScholar 01:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)]. I'm adding the links to articles you've just cited as precedents, where such information seems entirely appropriate as it does here: Dick Cheney; Donald Rumsfeld; George W. Bush; Condoleeza Rice; Henry Paulson; Alberto Gonzales; Dirk Kempthorne; Spencer Abraham; Karl Rove, so that people can access them easily. If people want to explore the related issues, they can read the sources cited by Ron Kampeas and the Notable Names Database. I had earlier annotated the latter prior to finding the Tulsa Jewish Review source, but left the annotation in because the NNDB source given in its footnote 1 is not the primary source (it appears based on Kampeas) and because the NNDB includes other information that is not sourced at all and thus is not verifiable. This information about the membership in the temple is verified by Kampeas. --NYScholar 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the passage that Jayjg has, once again, deleted:

Libby and his family are members of the congregation of Temple Rodef Shalom, in Falls Church, Virginia.

Notes

From what I can tell, none of these articles mention the specific church/synagogue/temple/mosque/gurdwara etc. that the people in question belong to. Can you quote the ones that do? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ron Kampeas gives the name of the temple and I have linked to the Wikipedia article on it; the name of the temple is given both by Kampeas and by the NNDB article in its note 1: Temple Rodef Shalom. The article on Dick Cheney cites his affiliation with the United Methodist Church, a religious denomination; the article on Condoleeza Rice cites specific religious churches; and so on. Your comment is yet another red herring to avoid citing facts that are reliably established by a reliable source Ron Kampeas (and all those who have reprinted and cited his article in Jewish Telegraphic Agency (many sources): see archives. --NYScholar 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

NNDB is not a reliable source. The Cheney article mentions a denomination, not a specific church. Please specifically state other articles which mention the specific church/synagogue/temple/mosque/gurdwara etc. that the people in question belong to. Can you quote the ones that do? A glance through the articles you've listed indicate that few, if any, do so. You've made a claim, now back it up. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have documented the mention appropriately. I was the one who added the question about reliability in the NNDB annotation when others had originally added ref. to it in this article. There is nothing inappropriate about the material that I have added to this article. It is consistent with all Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have no more time to waste with your arguments. I have more important work to do, and I am signing off and do not intend to deal with your red herrings any further. Consult the BLP noticeboard and the previous sections (scroll up). Your attempts to remove Libby's Jewish affiliations from this article really have no support. --NYScholar 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You've made false claims that other articles mentioned which specific church/temple etc. a public figure belongs to. You don't back them up because you can't. The rest of your claims are equally false. Please desist from further WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE violating disruption. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make that claim; Fermat did. I followed up his claim and read the articles that he cited as support for mentioning religious affiliations in articles on living persons who are also public figures. I am not violating any such policies or being so-called "disruptive": it is you who are doing that. And stop attacking me. WP:NPA; WP:AGF.--NYScholar 01:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course you made that claim, in this edit. It's in this very section, why do you claim any different? You specifically mentioned those articles as precedents for listing the specific church/temple that an individual belonged to; yet none of the articles actually do that. Please stop wasting time with obvious falsehoods. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

They are precedents for citing Kampeas on the matter of Libby's being Jewish and its significance to other issues discussed in this article on Libby. Please stop taking what I state out of context and twisting my words to state what you want them to state. Any neutral observer understands what I am stating. You are clearly not a neutral observer. There is no other conclusion that one can make about your disuption of this article. Please stop replying to my comments. I have no further time to deal with your distortions. --NYScholar 01:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You claimed precedent for citing the specific church/temple a person belonged to. You clearly had none. If you want to stop discussing this, you're free to. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated: See #Articles as precedents for mentioning affiliation with a church or practice of a faith: comments from top. (Re-read it.) Once again Jayjg has reverted; what is "getting serious" is his continual and additional reversions: see Wikipedia:3RR. If he thinks that I am going to violate 3RR, he needs to think again. --NYScholar 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Condoleeza Rice#Early life and education: currently reads:

Rice was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and grew up in the neighborhood of Titusville. She is the only child of Presbyterian minister Reverend John Wesley Rice, Jr., and his wife, the former Angelena Ray. Reverend Rice was a guidance counselor at Ullman High School and minister of Westminster Presbyterian Church, which had been founded by her father. Angelena was a science, music and oratory teacher at Ullman.

Apparently, that last sentence is not accurate; "her father" is "Reverend Rice"; it should read "his father."[italics added: See source for that information Condoleeza Rice at notable biographies.com]; the Wikipedia entry appears to have a typographical error, which I will correct in a moment.] Clearly, while growing up, Condoleeza Rice would have attended the specific church that her grandfather founded, named in the article. (It would seem redundant to say that.) Moreover, this church is specifically mentioned by name. Granted, religious faith appears to be far more prominent a factor in her life than it may appear to have been in the life of Lewis Libby, for whom Ron Kampeas' sources say kept a "low profile" [at the White House, leading to "misapprehension" about his "Jewishness" (or degree of lack thereof)--whatever the case may be]; however, the Wikipedia on Rice presents a precedent for mentioning churches (or temples) by name, especially when they are matters of fact and pertinent specified reliably in the verifiable source being cited as evidence of it (e.g., in the case of Libby, Ron Kampeas' article duly noted). --NYScholar 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [Updated: I made some typographical corrections in the Condoleeza Rice article; and came back to add a clarification here in brackets. --NYScholar 05:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)]

Note: Wikipedia has an article and disambiguation for Westminster Presbyterian Church, but the one founded by C. Rice's father is not yet a subject of a Wikipedia article; I removed the link [corrected my typographical error; I didn't save the link in the version of the C. Rice article where the name of the church currently appears], though others may want to add a proper link if an article on that specific church is added to Wikipedia in the future. --NYScholar 03:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why I added the charges and penalty back

I did so because it's the standard form of the infobox {{Infobox Criminal}}, all articles with this infobox should contain charge and penalty, pursuant to WP:CRIME, look at other criminal articles like Unabomber, Ted Bundy, Ken Lay, etc. And indeed, he is a criminal, so the box is suitable for him. Wooyi 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note you can discuss about this in the project's talk page section here. Wooyi 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. (Please provide such explanations in the editing history and talk page as per the talkheader and tagged notices.) I have been wondering about that material each time it's been reverted. If others want to discuss improving the presentation of what is provided in the infobox, this section of this talk page is a possible place to do it. --NYScholar 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles as precedents for NOT mentioning affiliation with a church or practice of a faith

What other pages do is not really relevant for this page. Precedents are a legal concept, not Wikipedia policy. There is no official policy that public figures should have their faith listed. As examples from Cabinet members of George W Bush that do not mention religion: Paul O'Neill (cabinet member), John W. Snow, Henry Paulson, Robert Gates, Gale Norton, Ann Veneman, Donald Evans, Carlos Gutierrez, Elaine Chao, Rod Paige, Margaret Spellings, Alphonso Jackson, Norman Mineta, Mary Peters (politician), Spencer Abraham, Samuel Bodman, and Anthony Principi. None of the others that DO include such references mention the specific congregation that they are members of. That seems like a pretty obvious violation of WP:BLP. Personally, I think that few of the cases where religion is mentioned is really justified according to WP:BLP (and keep in mind, Libby was not a cabinet member). However, the matter at hand is whether it is relevant here. Notmyrealname 04:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A few of those examples (spencer abraham) actually do have their religions noted. Abraham, being arab, is of particular interest to many Americans. And most of the others have references to their ethnicity tossed in (hispanic/cuban, japanese, arab, etc). In modern parlance, jewish is as much ethnicity as it is religion - certainly Einstein, Woodly Allen and Jon Stewart are all considered jewish even if they don't believe in G-d. Lastly, anyone of particular notorierty has more detailed biographies outlining personal background just from increased public interest. Fermat1999 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Abraham only has his religion listed in the categories section. Since there's no support of it (or reliable sourcing) in the article itself, it would appear to violate WP:BIO as well. In the case of the others you mention, Einstein had to flee Europe because he was Jewish, Allen and Stewart have very explicitly made their Jewishness part of their public personae. WP:BIO says that categories should be used judiciously, need to be incorporated in the articles themselves, and need to be properly sourced. However, religion and sexual preference notably have further restrictions. I'm not aware of anyone having their particular house of worship included. That seems an obvious no-no. Notmyrealname 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no stated policy against mentioning where people worship in Wikipedia if the information is provided by a reliable source in relation to a pertinent discussion about a controversy relating to the subject who is a public figure: WP:BLP#Public figures. It is not "an obvious no-no". That phrase implies that there is such a policy or even a guideline, and there is not. The temple membership that Ron Kampeas cites is cited, he says, as a "fact" ("in fact....") in support of his correction of "misapprehension" and false assumptions made about Libby before he published his article. His article has been widely reprinted in many Jewish community newspapers because of its significance to the readership of those newspapers. If those newspapers can cite Kampeas as a reliable source, so can Wikipedia in this article on Libby, a public figure. No violation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies has been done by any material that I have added to this article. I stand by all my earlier comments about the Kampeas source. See WP:BLPN#Lewis Libby. See below (and the archived talk pages and above in this current talk page) for queries and comments by other user(s) about "censorship" in the editing of this article. --NYScholar 06:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See, e.g, Harry Reid, where not only is his religious faith (Mormon) mentioned in introd. sec. of bio, but more-extensive discussion and mention of specific church that he worships at is included in quotation in Harry Reid#Background and family life, though it needs a full citation still. (The link appeared in someone else's unsourced additional sentence that I mention in last comment I placed on this talk page about another matter. I just happened to read the article again (I had read it before this) and noticed these references. These are "precedents" in the general sense, see #Precedents for discussion of such details in biographies of living persons who are also public figures, in keeping with WP:BLP#Public figures. --NYScholar 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Precedents

In contradistinction to some of the rather absurd comparisons being made in the tit-for-tat previous section added by an longtime opponent of citing any discussion of "Libby's Jewishness," or including Libby in the category of "Jewish American lawyers" (others' attempts continually being reverted by basically the same two users), I will observe that the word precedent has ordinary, non-technical, everyday English-language usage that does not denote only "legal" denotations; I used the word in its everyday sense of something that precedes or that might serve as an example of prior use (in the general sense); the attempt at claiming so-called WP:Wikilawyering#Negative connotations--a common ruse of this opposition--just boggles the mind. I did not insert a Wikified link for my use of the word precedent and I intended no such strictly-"legal" sense; I meant it in the everyday ordinary general usage that I just stated. Please look up words in a print dictionary, not just online and in Wikipedia (Wikipedia, it should be clear by now, is hardly an accepted reliable source). And try to be sensitive to rational argument. This opposition to referring to what Kampeas discusses in his article is beyond the pale. --NYScholar 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you must refer to an online dictionary definition, try the ones provided for precedent at Answers.com: sense 1 a. is the most common usage (preferred sense): "An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances."

The legal sense is the less common, less preferred usage.

General usage is thus the first sense, and that's the usage that I obviously intend. I was simply using the word, following Fermat's presentation of "examples" as such (general-usage sense) "precedents." I am sure that the other users know this. The matter at hand is exactly what I have already stated, some kind of bias that is preventing two users from allowing others to cite a reliable source about a pertinent matter relevant to the article. The other administration officials mentioned are hardly on a par with Libby in terms of their significance due to public scandals, trials, and so on. If one clicks on Libby's own predecessors in the offices that he himself held in the Bush administration, people far less notable than he, one will find that their lesser notability is reflected in the relative brevity and lack of detail in their biographical articles in Wikipedia. Their biographies are far shorter and far less detailed. --NYScholar 05:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[Case in point: the Wikipedia article on Libby's successor states that VP Cheney's new chief of staff, David Addington, is described "by U.S. News and World Report as 'the most powerful man you've never heard of'" and the article on him is very brief, as are the articles for the other three men listed there. These subjects are not comparable to Libby in notability, obviously, or even as public figures in Wikipedia. Libby has become a far more notorious public figure as a result of the Plame affair and United States v. Libby than any of those others in comparable positions. The degree of detail in an article about him is, by virtue of that fact, going to differ considerably than Wikipedia's articles on any of them, and the degree of necessity to develop neutral-language, reliably-sourced discussion of related controversies WP:POV also, by virtue of that fact, differs. --NYScholar 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)]

Raising all those other people as comparable to Libby in Wikipedia is like the old adage of "comparing apples and oranges"; they are both fruit, but otherwise they are different kinds (genus). Likewise, while the positions may be similar in their being in the same administration, they did not hold the same positions as he, and the other people who did (also serve as the VP's chief of staff and assistant to the VP on national security affairs) are not notable for the same or even similar reasons that Libby is notable. The others were not convicted of four federal crimes and have not and are not the subject of ongoing debate and discussion by a grand jury investigation and a federal trial reported by the mass media (incl. the public media) over a period lasting now about four years. I find it hard to fathom the absurd lengths to which these other Wikipedia users are going to try to keep this information out of an article that discusses topics pertaining to it. For others who cannot understand it either, I simply suggest reading the source article by Ron Kampeas for oneself and coming to one's own conclusions. --NYScholar 05:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The original list cited Bush cabinet members, as did mine. The original list included Dirk Kempthorne and Spencer Abraham. These are hardly household names, nor do they have very long Wiki articles. Notmyrealname 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Condoleeza Rice was notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about her prior to her being a Bush Cabinet member. One needs to examine the editing history of such articles to see when the articles on any current and past cabinet members were first created and when the mention of ethnicity/religious affiliation entered the articles. In the case of Condoleeza Rice, a biography of her prior to her being a cabinet member would likely have included mention of the role of religion in her personal history/background section. (If it didn't, it would not have been a very thorough article.) Many other United States cabinet members (over many years, in the history of Wikipedia) were notable far prior to their becoming cabinet members (or else they would not likely have been so appointed) and their personal histories/background sections could easily already have included their ethnicity and religious heritage or affiliations as part of those sections in routine biographies in Wikipedia and other sources. There is no guideline or policy in Wikipedia saying that this information is not appropriate in biographies of living persons. One needs to take account of whole contexts, not partial ones. If, as the user states earlier, the other articles are not relevant to the matter, why is the user making this argument listing all those other articles? Clearly, the argument provided makes no sense and appears to be yet another red herring, ignoring the extensive previous discussion in the current and archived talk pages of the pertinence, notability, and reliability of the source by Ron Kampeas that I and others have cited for supporting a discussion of a controversy pertaining to the subject of this article, in keeping both with WP:BLP#Public figure and WP:POV, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. I see no logic whatsoever in the above user's claims. Clearly, there was no basis whatsoever for the attempt at WP:Wikilawyering#Negative connotations, nor does the previous comment make any sense to me. The only basis for the arguments appear to be a bias against allowing mention of "Libby's [so-called] Jewishness" (Kampeas et al.) in this article, despite its being a subject of discussion by Kampeas with those he interviewed for his article, and a bias against allowing anyone to add the category "Jewish American lawyers" to this article. I myself have not been re-adding that category, but, if one scrolls up, one can see that other users have wondered why it cannot be added. I do not know whether or not Libby is Jewish; but I do know that a reliable source (Kampeas, and all those who cite and reprint his article in their newspapers) appear to believe that that is the case. According to WP:POV, one is able to cite such sources in articles about living persons who are public figures, as long as one does so in neutral language and giving a "full citation" according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. This article is not attempting to "prove" whether or not Libby is "Jewish"; it is simply documenting that there has been some discussion of the matter as a consequence of Libby's involvement in the CIA leak grand jury investigation and what followed it. I have no interest in citing Kampeas other than as a source for attribution in this article on Libby. Clearly, the so-called WP:Wikilawyering#Negative connotations didn't work to convey a logical argument against including reference to Kampeas in this article. Neither has the "cabinet member" argument. It makes no sense at all. --NYScholar 03:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One also has to take account of when information that provides material for biographies of living persons becomes available. In the case of Condoleeza Rice, the information about her father's church and her religious affiliations in relation to her personal history/background was taken from a published encyclopedia article about her that was then added to the Wikipedia article: see the sources. The availability of the source and Wikipedia editors' use of it does not relate to her being a cabinet member necessarily, but rather, more likely, to her increased notability as a cabinet member that led Wikipedia editors to look for more information about her to develop the article in Wikipedia. The higher the position, the more likely interest in the living person holding it increases. It is not logically because a cabinet member is a cabinet member that ethnicity and/or religious affiliation is mentioned in a Wikipedia article; it is more likely that greater notability leads to more information being supplied by sources accessible to Wikipedia editors. Or, in the case of a public figure being involved in legal action, there becomes more information available in the press and other sources to cite as Wikipedia sources. More becomes known about people who were once unnotable or have later become notable and researched by many, many reporters and others. As the information becomes available about a living person who has become an increasingly-notable or even notorious public figure, the Wikipedia article sections on personal history/background have more material for development. All the same Wikipedia guidelines and policies apply for WP:BLP#Public figures, none of which rules out mentioning ethnicity/religious affiliations when these matters are discussed in keeping with other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. There is no need to make up one's own rules; the rules are already clearly stated in Wikipedia, as I have continually linked them. See, most particularly, with regard to the other linked guidelines and policies, the "core policy" in Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Verifiability. --NYScholar 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You said the two lists were not comparable. I showed that they are. Most dictionaries (on and off line) show the legalistic definition of precedent as the first entry. In any case, citing a handful of other wikipedia entries is not relevant here. In many cases (e.g. Spencer Abraham) the listing of a religious category is directly in violation of WP:BLP as it is not mentioned in the article, there is no citation, and there is no evidence of his public acknowledgment. No point in repeating errors here, even if they are quite common. The only relevant thing to cite is wikipedia policy itself. Notmyrealname 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"The only relevant thing to cite is wikipedia policy itself"

Which I have done and am doing, many times over now: WP:BLP#Public figures, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citations, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. Anything else is a red herring. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are followed in many of the articles that I and others have been citing as "precedents" (in the general sense of prior examples), illustrating the application of Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines in such controversial articles as this one, on Lewis Libby, a public figure who was a powerful member of the executive branch of the United States government, in this case in the administration of George W. Bush and who, in this case, is notable primarily due to his policy-making role in that administration and his subsequent conviction for four federal felonies directly relating to his role as the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, the VP's assistant for security affairs, and assistant to President Bush (all prior to his resignation after his indictment). --NYScholar 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Libby immune to correct categorization?

Why is Category:Jewish American lawyers continually removed from this article without any justification? Is Libby somehow immune to factual, fully sourced categorization solely because of his recent legal problems? User:Jayjg -- PLEASE cease your censorious behavior in regard to this article (and others) and please end this cycle of sneaky editing (i.e., saying in the edit summary that you are removing a POV paragraph and then removing this factual and relevant category at the same time). If other Wikipedians reading this recognize that the irrational, censorious, and POV behavior of certain editors has become a serious problem here on Wikipedia, I'd encourage you all to join an appropriate Wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. --WassermannNYC 06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WassermannNYC: I think that the reason for the deletion of the category, or agreement with the deletion of the category, is that some people do not believe the article by Ron Kampeas cited as support that Libby is Jewish: [I quoted the full passage, but, once again, Jayjg threatens to delete it; he also interrupted my earlier reply to you, which I have put back where I had originally posted it; I've deleted the passage; you can, however, find it in the article as cited.[....][In my view, the rest of the article is worth reading in whole for the full discussion of the contexts of this matter that Kampeas and others term "Libby's Jewishness" or the question of whether or not he is Jewish.]

Apparently, for some Wikipedia editors that material by Ron Kampeas ("Libby Jewish?"--note the question mark in original JTA piece; shift to "Did Libby's Jewishness...?" in JP version published 5 days later), published in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and in the Jerusalem Post and reprinted with a variety of other headlines in Jewish community newspapers throughout the United States does not provide enough certainty that Libby "is Jewish"; thus, they are not permitting the category "Jewish American lawyers"; some editors feel that the very citation of this information is somehow promoting anti-Semitism; I do not agree with the latter argument at all. [At this point, I don't really agree with the former argument either.] I think that citing the information that Kampeas provides in a neutral manner is an open way of discussing this controversy. I do not agree that there has been "no controversy" about this matter of "Libby's [so-called] Jewishness" as some Wikipedia users (e.g., Jayjg) claim. It is, in my view, better to cite the information (as briefly as possible in as neutral a manner as possible) than to cause confusion through the multiple contradictions that this Wikipedia article's omitting this information creates in conjunction with other biographical information posted about Libby in other online encyclopedias (wikis and others) and in the NNDB article (see external links). The source of the temple membership is cited by NNDB as evidence of Libby's being Jewish; the source given, Tulsa Jewish Review obviously based its "What's Nu" piece citing the temple membership on the JTA information provided by Ron Kampeas, though it does not identify its own primary source as such: the passage is from page two of the Dec. 2005 downloadable TJR: "What's Nu". [I had initially repeated the information for the benefit of WassermannNYC, in reply to his question: I was replying in good faith. I object to the repeated nasty insinuations being posted about me and other users by Jayjg: WP:NPA. (Quoting a passage for clear-cut purposes of illustration in an intellectual discussion is within fair use of copyright laws.)

Notes

--NYScholar 07:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, you must have repeated this material on various Talk: pages at least a dozen times now. People can see page histories, and your constant repetition is not only disruptive, but probably a violation of U.S. "fair use" laws. In the future just provide a link to the material in question; I'll be deleting it every time it appears on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[The next comment is actually directed in reply to WassermannNYC and was posted after I posted the first reply to that user. I've put it back where I posted it originally and threaded the replies accordingly. --NYScholar 09:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)]

[To WassermannNYC:]

Please observe WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP. In particular please note WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. As has been pointed out, the relevance of Libby's alleged "Jewishness" seems mostly relevant to neo-Nazi message boards, where they push the notion of a Jewish cabal running America. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some neo nazis might make a note of this is irrelevant. If Libby was non-jewish, he would be described as someone bought out by jews. If anything, this bizarre censorship plays into neo-nazi stereotypes "look at how wikipedia censors this". I wasn't even aware of all this excessive accusations of a jewish cabal until you started mentioning it, and a bit of googling found a whole slew of racist sites. But I digress. The notion that someone's identity should be hidden on an encyclopedia so fringe groups can't make their fringe arguments is awful. Perhaps muslims can say that reporting terrorist attacks is dangeorus, because anti-muslim groups can use them for propaganda (and i'll bet that wiki is referenced on those pages). Anyways, you are strongly in the wrong here, and your obvious biases and possible paranoia (sp?) in my opinion is leading you to believe that this sort of censorship is for the greater good. It is, I'm afraid, not, despite possible good intentions at heart. And lastly, alot of people are interested in the ethnicity and religion of their high level officials. Blacks, East Asians and Latinos normally do not have the luxury of 'hiding' their ethnicity, nor do most muslims. So defacto, these individuals are 'outed'. To find out if someone is jewish, we normally need a reliable source describing him/her as such without a reliable source also contradicting it. We hav that in this case. Fermat1999 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You ask why "someone's identity should be hidden"? What an extraordinary thing to say. Is Libby's "identity" now that of an alleged Jew? Libby the Jew? Even in the one article that speculates about it, it makes clear that he himself has never referred to it or given any indication of it. As for your statements about "paranoia", "censorship", etc., please observe WP:CIVIL, which is policy, and then re-read WP:BLP, and try to think of exactly why Libby's alleged Jewish "identity" is relevant to his notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Was Carl Sagan's "Jewish 'identity' relevant to his notability" and career as an astronomer? NO, of course not, yet he is categorized twice as a Jew with no problem whatsoever. You and others have no problem adding these Jewish categories to that article and nearly every other article where the person is a Jew, yet here you resist...why is that? Basically everything else that is publically known about Libby is in this article (including his status as a Jew), just look at the length and depth of the article for such a 'minor figure.' But when it comes to this article (along with others), why do you continue your blatant censorship Jayjg? Face it Jayjg: you are clearly practicing censorship in this case, and you practiced it in the case of the (former) List of Jewish American businesspeople article/list, and on numerous other occasions here on Wikipedia. Your behavior down this twisted path of censorship, irrationality, and utter ridiculousness is now spiraling out-of-control and only exposes you as the ruthless censor that you are. I believe that even now you are beginning to recognize your own administrative shortcomings and thus should take a Wikipedia:Wikibreak (if only to allow yourself some time to reflect upon you irrational actions, your inability to maintain a NPOV, and also to examine a possible Wiki-addiction on your part). Also, please note that WP:NOT#CENSOR is a POLICY (NOT A GUIDELINE) that you should clearly examine again. It is not YOUR call Jayjg to decide "what is notable" based upon your own personal whims -- this is an encyclopedia...if it is a known fact (and defining Libby as a "Jewish American lawyer" is indeed a fact) it belongs in the article: case closed. --WassermannNYC 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have spoken to you about WP:CIVIL many times now, yet you insist on ignoring it. I am busy now, but will deal with this issue soon. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article, from the JTA, states he is jewish as a matter of fact, and mentions that Libby belongs to a synagogue. There has been no refute to this in any media. The jewishvirtuallibrary has listed him as jewish since 2002...before WIKI!(please see links to archived pages in the archives of this discussion, that another editor provided). Libby, for whatever reason, may not want the world to know that he is jewish (he probably is just private), but as a public figure, that does not mean that this info should not be published in a bio/encylopedic article about him. I'm sure he's not a big fan about his criminal conviction being all public either. Other major politicians may not want background info out there either (did obama want it publicized that his atheist father was of muslim ancestry to the american masses? I'm not sure if he did, though of course his one mention of it is well detailed in wiki), but they are still published. Basic ethnic background/identification is standard for major politicians. It is why Rumsfeld is described as German, JFK Irish, ad nauseum. I am also sure that you are aware of Adbusters, a mainstream left wing consumer advocate magazine from Western Canada (I'm Canadian) that 5 or so years ago published a list of neo-cons, and listed Libby as jewish (i had to bring up the article online to confirm that they in fact did list him). While personally offensive and causing a lot of controversy at the time, it does suggest strong interest from a mainstream audience; if admittedly left wing. While you and I might see that incident having currents of maybe unintended or intended anti-semitism, that is merely my/your POV. And in regards to my being CIVIL, I am afraid that some of your curt/rude comments, and even insinuating anti-semitism from some editors with long standing histories with no concrete evidence at all, goes way beyond the pale. Provoking anger by offensive comments and edits, and then taking advantage of that other person's anger is not a fair game jayjg. It can be contrued to be in poor faith. Fermat1999 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby is not a "major politician", and ethnic/background is hardly "standard"; we don't list Gerald Ford's ethnic background or religion, for example, and he was the President. As for the rest, I haven't insinuated antisemitism, and there's no justification for your incivility. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Gerald Ford IS listed as English American (ethnicity) and Espicopalian (religion) - check the categories. They have been there for a long time. And Libby is a major public figure/politician, as he is at the centre of the biggest scandal in DC in at least a year. Even before this, as head of chief of staff of what many consider the most powerful VP in history, he was notable but not so prominent. And in regards to not making an acusation of anti-semitism, how am I (we) supposed to take your comment about "Libby the Jew" or "yellow badge"? I don't even think that his 'jewishness' should be so much in the article, if at all anyways...just among the categories in the bottom.Fermat1999 05:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right about Ford, but then again, he was the President, Libby wasn't. How about a more relevant individual, say John N. Mitchell? Regarding "Libby the Jew" or "yellow badge", again, attempts to identify Libby as a Jew are odd, unless you think it is "relevant to his notability", which is a requirement of WP:BLP, as explained above. Do you think it is "relevant to his notability"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with using Mitchell as a comparison is that his crime was in the early 1970s, and he died in 1988. In fact, the year he died, many of the more active wiki users were between 5-15 yrs of age. Few were born, or were mere toddlers, when his crime was committed. In addition to that, online reliable sources are harder to find on non prez/vp older officials of note. I would be pretty darn sure that if he was attorney general now, his ethnicity and religion would be categorized as is the case with the most recent attorney generals(Barr is listed as roman catholic, John Ashcroft is listed as norwegian and pentecostal, Reno as Danish (emphasized in article as 1 of 2 in cabinet) and Gonzales as mexican and roman catholic). And in terms on notability, it's as notable as if he is married, has children, other typical basic bio stuff. People are interested in these bio details. Some might argue that as a strong influence on MidEast/Israel policy making, him being jewish is of note, though it seems in the Kampeas article that any neo-con sensibilities he has are minimally influenced by religious beliefs. In the meanwhile, I'll try to get some basic data and perhaps update Mitchell's bio. Fermat1999 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your responses are interesting, but have nothing to do with policy. I'm sure people are interested in all sorts of things; ethnicity, religion, sex lives, minor scandals, embarrassing allegations, paparazzi pictures, etc. However, WP:BLP is quite clear; only things that are "relevant to his notability" should be mentioned. Exactly who are the people who you refer to when you say "Some might argue that as a strong influence on MidEast/Israel policy making, him being jewish is of note"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While I will of course disagree in general with your stance (we can agree to disagree at least), I think your argument would be of stonger strength if you applied this policy to people of all backgrounds, not almost exclusively in cases involving jewish people or the israeli/palestinian conflict. As you are a current admin and even a former arbcom member, I would expect better. For example, in the Robert Fisk article, there seems to be undue weight to a CAMERA opinion/quotation about him (CAMERA is considered a strongly partisan group with relatively little International exposure) and your strong promotion of it's inclusion. It's inclusion in an article of a journalist (not even a major world figure) seems to break wiki policy for undue weight (the whole article, including the pro FISK stiff seems way too long for that matter). The inclusion of his wife being Afghani also seems to suggest 'duel loyalties' (look - he's married to an afghan!!). What I am suggesting is that we all have biases about selectively applying WP rules, and that when it comes to editing, sometimes it is best to have a neutral observor or the arbs comittee decide what is fair. For the record, I think that every prominent figure should have their ethnicity/religion listed if there is a reliable source. If somehow fringe anti-islamists, anti-zionists, anti-evangilicals or whatever use that real information for their propaganda, so be it. And for those that find his religous notability interesting: many jewish people (as suggested by Kampeas), left wing groups (suggested by addbusters), newspapers in much of Europe, Asia and the Islamic world, paleoconseratives, and some prominent political scientists (Mearsheimer/Walt types). And yes, also some anti-semitic groups (but they will blame jews no matter what the truth is). Don't you think that being jewish and strongly influencing MidEast/Israel policy is not possibly notable? Zalmay Khalizad is by most accounts a non-practicing muslim, yet that is highlighted in the 2nd line of his opening article; in no small part because he is a presumed influential politician on US mideast politics. Fermat1999 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Some might argue that as a strong influence on MidEast/Israel policy making, him being jewish is of note" - what kind of conspiratorial nonsense is this? FYI, Jews hold the entire spectrum of opinions on anything. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See Humus sapiens comments above. WP:BLP applies. As for Fisk and CAMERA, the material in question was not bringing up irrelevancies about Fisk's religion or ethnicity, but was giving CAMERA's opinion about some of his controversial statements. There's no comparison between the two. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That article brought up the irrelevancies of his wife's ethnicity (to imply that his afghani wife gives Fisk an 'otherness' that clouds his opinions; not neutral AND not even his own ethnicity). Imagine if prominent politicians were described as having a jewish wife in an opening paragraph!! And the undue weight to CAMERA is comparable to your accusuation of undue weight to NYSCHOLAR adding the JTA article in a one paragraph piece in the libby article. Does an obscure piece by CAMERA deserve a WHOLE paragraph on a journalist? He is not even a noted politician/convicted criminal like Libby. And for the record, I did't think a whole paragraph on Libby's jewishness was warranted either. Fermat1999 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly jewish people have a whole range of opinions. Where did I even suggest otherwise?? However, being of a certain background (ethnic/racial) certainly can have an influence on one's opinions. The average jewish person is more likely to be zionist than the average muslim, or the average korean for that mattter. An african american is more likely to support affirmative action than say a white american or asian american (polls have shown this consistently). For that reason, some people might be interested in knowing Libby's background - did a jewish background or fundamentalist christian background influence his politics? I'm not sure that they did actually, but we should provide the honest concrete facts and let people decide with all the information available. And lastly, I am becoming aware that many editors are sensitive about jewish topics because of the fear of anti-semitism. To that, I would like to say that not everyone is an anti-semite simply because they want to provide basic bio detail on a prominent public figure. And that no ethnic group/religion should be treated differently (either in a preferential or a "demeaning" manner). Fermat1999 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize this is a very touchy issue, I would like to kindly express my opinion on it. Personally, I think we should have him in a category or two that identifies his religion, as there appears to be many, many other categories for all kinds of religions, and there are all kinds of people in those categories. It seems to me that what people are upset about is not so much that we are categorizing people under certain religions, but that we are categorizing people based on religion in general. Certainly, when you start lumping people into broad categories of "Christians", "Jews", "Buddhists", etc, there are some ethical questions that arise. On the other hand, Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of human knowledge - I have once heard it called the modern Library of Alexandria. So, I would say that the categorizations are a "necessary evil"... lumping people in groups based on their race or religion is never really a great thing to do - it can be generalizing, perhaps even de-humanizing. However, I think we should just present the facts, and hope that the reader makes good, responsible ideas and decisions from them. And please remember, we are all striving towards a common goal: To create the best respository of knowledge the world has ever seen, so I think it would be best if we concentrated at the matter at hand, and avoid making statements or insinuations on one another. --Shadowlink1014 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the article on Andrea Mitchell. I do not find any source cited in the article that documents that she is Jewish, yet the article says that she is a "Jewish American journalist" and includes a category as such as well as the category "Jewish American writers." Does anyone dispute this article's use of that information in line one and in its categories listed, as per WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Public figures? If so, then the article needs editing accordingly. If not, then why can the same kinds of information about "Jewish American lawyer" or "is Jewish" (in this case documented by reliable sources), not be left in this article on Libby? I see no consistency in these two articles in Wikipedia. This Wikipedia article on Andrea Mitchell shows up in a search for "Lewis Libby" in Google because the Wikipedia article also discusses her conn. to Libby and the Libby trial vis-a-vis the CIA leak investigation. --NYScholar 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that article, I've cleaned it up. Next time please clean it up yourself once you notice unsourced claims, per WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Libby's notability

If one has any real interest in the subject of this article (Lewis Libby), one would read the whole article and examine and read the sources cited in its notes and references. According to most discussions of Libby, in whom interest grew after his indictment by Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation in the Plame affair, Libby was one of the most important and key influences on development of the Bush administrations' (both Bushes') foreign and defense policy relating to the Middle East and Israel, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq (a current subject relating to this article on him). Thus, he is more important than a "major politician"; he was a key political policy maker. Read the article and the sources cited. Kampeas' discussion relates to his role as a policy maker in the current Bush administration and the resulting political "scandal" euphemistically termed the Plame affair in Wikipedia (due to continual contentiousness about it). Not only is Libby notable due to the recent convictions; he is notable for his role in the Bush administration leading to them. [He is also a public figure, and exceptions to general WP:BLP apply to him, according to WP:BLP#Public figures.] --NYScholar 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC) [updated: --NYScholar 08:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)]