Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 5

Unsourced statement

Before the article was protected, someone added "Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and many other politicians have called on Bush to announce that he will definitely not pardon Libby." before the note citation for the previous sentence but did not provide a source citation for the additional sentence. That is extremely misleading. The sentence needs a "full [source] citation" that can be verified by other Wikipedia users. See the template at top and Wikipedia:Citations, Wikipedia:Verifiability as well as WP:BLP, calling for "full citations" for information added to "controversial articles": Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. [I know that the sentence['s reference to Reid's being against the pardon] is accurate; but it still needs a full citation. Also, the note that it comes before is meant to follow the previous sentence. The new sentence needs to be added after the already-existing note citation (reference), followed by a new source citation documenting that new sentence.] --NYScholar 06:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC) [updated. See my comment directly below regarding the vague and equally-undocumented ref. to "many other politicians." --NYScholar 10:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)]

With regard to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the italics that the original contributor added to the word "not" need to be deleted; the italics make it appear to push the POV and they are not necessary for understanding the sentence; a direct quotation from a cited source would be helpful. The reference to "many other politicians" (who?) is vague and unsupported in the article as well, as there is no documentation of this sentence. This appears to be a clear case of adding POV to the article that needs revision as well as a source citation. --NYScholar 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Given WP:Attribution, when the article is unprotected, unless and until a verifiable and reliable source is provided in proper full citation format, in the proper location (with the current note restored to after the sentence it originally followed), the added sentence quoted above should be entirely deleted. --NYScholar 08:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[....]I have deleted a sentence that is unsourced, because it is placed between a sourced sentence and the source citaiton for the sourced sentence. Whoever added the intervening sentence needs to re-consider its wording (delete the italics to avoid appearance of POV editing) and also to add a source properly ("full citation" according to Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. See my previous comments in this section. Thank you. (The sentence that I deleted is not disputed; its problem is the placement of the sentence between the preceding sentence and the actual source for that sentence and its lack of its own source citation. See above for earlier explanation of problem.) --NYScholar 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a possibility, following the properly-sourced previous sentence with new trans.:

Calls for Libby to be pardoned by President George W. Bush appeared in some newspapers; some of them are posted online by the Libby Legal Defense Trust. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a press release about the verdict, urging President Bush to pledge not to pardon Libby, and other Democratic politicians followed suit.

[see Editing mode for the full citations; they would show up w/ all the previous citations if I add a "Notes" section directly below; to avoid repeating earlier notes too, I'm not adding a "Notes" section below.] --NYScholar 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC); updated --NYScholar 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)]

Correction Warranted regarding alleged crime

{{editprotected}}

The article on Libby as it stands too closely conforms to partisan reporting in the media. Wiki should follow NPV. The specific issue is that the article suggests that Libby was accused or took part in a crime of "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity", and that the crime was not prosecuted because Libby withheld information. Clearly, this is not true. Prosecutor Fitzgerald clearly knew the identity of the person who did disclose Valerie Plamm's identity and Fitzgerald, prior to the multiple instances in which Libby was questioned under threat of perjury. Secondly, while Valerie Plamm did work at the CIA, she was not a covert agent of the sort whose identity was protected by law, nor was the fact that she worked at the CIA a secret. Clearly, Libby was accused of crimes because his recollections changed during the course of the process and a jury concluded that constituted a crime. Clearly, the conviction is fact and newsworthy. However, at the same time the underlying facts related to Fitzgerald's investigation are just as newsworthy. I'm not suggesting that "Fitzgerald's investigation and prosecution appears to be politically motivated" needs to in the article. I am saying that Fitzgerald's knowledge of the identity of the "leaker" prior to his pursuit of Libby is a relevant fact that needs to be disclosed, and that the "leaking" of Valerie's Plamm's name was not, and would not have been a crime. Can an administrator "editprotected" these two points or get a discussion going? --Knowsetfree 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I disabled the editprotected tag. Since this page was protected due to a content dispute, it would be inappropriate for me to make significant changes until the page is unprotected. Everyone who is interested is encouraged to discuss the issue here. CMummert · talk 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi CMummert, looks like you are right about the editprotected tag. I misread the wiki policy, the

underlying article is editprotected already, and I just want the issue discussed. Thanks. Knowsetfree 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction asked for above not needed

Above user Knowsetfree is not giving an accurate account. The article is not "too close to partisan reporting in the media" and does not lack neutral point of view. If the facts are similar to the facts presented in the media, it is because they are the same facts. The one sentence that seems to pertain to what Knowsetfree may be referring to (the user does not make clear what sentence or sentences s/he is referring to), is actually a citation from Fitzgerald's direct interview remarks after the conviction that relates to his pre-conviction, indictment press conference remarks (quoted directly in the notes to this article). [The citation simply documents what Fitzgerald said--his saying it is the fact it documents.] Fitzgerald revealed both in his five-count indictment of Libby and in his post-conviction comments on Libby's obstruction of justice, false statements, and perjury convictions that there may have and probably were more than one person who was an official in the Bush administration who revealed Valerie E. Wilson's classified CIA status (not merely Armitage) and that Libby's lies obstructed the investigation into who all of these people were; Fitzgerald would not name them, because they were not charged in any indictment; only Libby was. F. could not discuss anyone not so charged (not the subject of the grand-jury indictment, he said). The current version of the article makes clear that Libby kept the grand jury investigation into the CIA leak from being able to gather all the facts (whatever they were). This Wikipedia article is clear about that. I do not think that this article requires the revision that that user claims that it does. Its sources of facts stated are cited (except for the sentence added re: democratic politicians and call for no pardon: see #Unsourced statement on that).

Users need to consult the talk page on the article (including the archives) where discussion of these matters have already occurred. Users also need to read the sources cited in the notes in the cross-linked article on the Plame affair, which quotes directly Fitzgerald's press conference remarks and his later remarks, not merely so-called "partisan" media accounts of them. The pertinent primary sources are noted, quoted, and/or listed in the full citations if one needs to verify what they say in this article and various related cross-linked ones. For example, the civil suit maintains charges based on Fitzgerald's previous indictment charges against Libby, which include others in the Bush administration about which the grand jury investigation indictment of Libby did not focus--Armitage, Rove, and Cheney--all of whom it appears that Fitzgerald is not charging with any federal crimes. A civil suit differs from a criminal suit; but the same facts found in the criminal trial would seem to apply to some of the allegations in the civil trial. Libby's perjury before the grand jury and his false statements to federal investigators, and the resulting obstruction of justice ensuing from them are the federal crimes of which he was convicted, and those convictions have become a further basis for the claims of the plaintiffs in the civil suit pertaining to Libby and three other members or former members of the Bush administration: Cheney, Rove, and Armitage. When the civil suit goes to court and is resolved, one can report further facts about that case and that resolution, both of which also involve Libby as well as the others.

It appears to me that the user making the comment above is carrying over arguments already discussed in articles like the Plame affair and trying to bring them back into this article on Libby. It is not appropriate to push some POV on the Plame affair controversy in this article on Libby. That is not within the guidelines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That is the user's own POV, not neutral point of view. Moreover, the user's statement about what is "clearly" the case is not supported by the actual jury verdict; this user was not a member of the jury and there is no place here for his POV: "Clearly, Libby was accused of crimes because his recollections changed during the course of the process and a jury concluded that constituted a crime." The jury convicted Libby on the basis of their not believing his account that "his recollections changed...." yet this user says the opposite; that is the user's POV not fact; it is one of the very basic points disputed by the jury as not at all being what "clearly" happened, in their judgment, despite Libby's defense. The defense lost that argument, yet the user persists in making it here. That is "clearly" not "neutral point of view."

By even implying that "Fitzgerald's investigation was politically motivated" (which is not at all a fact with any support from reliable verifiable sources), the user injects his own POV in this backhanded manner and reveals what his POV is (the user just had to get that in while in the midst of denying that he was trying to do that). Very misleading.

In addition, Fitzgerald's own indictment press conference made it clear that his "Fitzgerald's knowledge of the identity of the various leakers prior to his pursuit of Libby" (note the once-again POV language here: "his pursuit of Libby") is entirely irrelevant, since Libby was being indicted for his own behavior in the grand jury investigation and related FBI investigation. Re: the user's own POV statement: "Prosecutor Fitzgerald clearly knew the identity of the person who did disclose Valerie Plamm's [sic] identity...."; that statement reveals that this user is not knowledgable about this subject of the Plame affair, since there were clearly many people who "did disclose Valerie [Plame's] identity" and not just one person. [I suppose the user refers to Armitage; Armitage was simply the person who disclosed it first to Robert Novak, but he was not only not the only one who disclosed it, but he was one of many, including Libby. See the Plame affair.) Libby's criminal trial did not concern that disclosure as a criminal act; the trial (on the five-count indictment) was about the criminally false and perjurious statements that Libby himself made in the grand jury and FBI investigations related to the leaking of Valerie E. Wilson's classified CIA identity as a covert agent (we know now, given recent House hearing). The trial concerned his indictment counts, not anything or anyone else. (The defense raising the issue of his memory was just that: a defense against those charges; the defense failed on four of the five counts.) See the updates to the articles on all the various other parties linked in Plame Affair article for more information about the other issues. --NYScholar 08:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If Libby had not made false statements, perjured himself, and obstructed justice, he would not have been indicted and convicted for those crimes. Whatever Fitzgerald learned about unindicted figures (as Fitzgerald himself made clear in his press conference about the Libby indictment) is not relevant to this article on Libby. If for some reason, Libby does get a new trial or his case does go to appeal, then this article can be updated to reflect the later facts found out about those matters concerning Libby.

The discussion of the matter concerning the user is already in the other related articles, and this user's POV has not got consensus in any of them either. The user's assumption that there was but "one leaker" is false and contrary to the facts presented in all the related articles. I suggest that he read them more carefully. --NYScholar 07:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[Note: Deleted heading re: staying "on topic" because it referred to a contributor (another user); the user's comments below need threading: headings in talk pages are not supposed to focus on contributors (users); use colons for threading (indenting). Talk pages are not for "discuss[ing] issues" relating to the subject of an article; they are only for discussing making improvements to an article. [If you want a "discussion forum" about any of the issues, go to discussion forums, not Wikipedia.] --NYScholar 06:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines do not permit putting contributors'/users' names in headings; deleted the heading referring to contributor/user. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines are linked in talk page tag at top of this page; see also [[WP:NPA]. (Focus on specific ways to improve the content of the article on Lewis Libby, not on its contributors or on other subjects.); see also WP:AGF.) Please read Wikipedia guidelines for talk pages (see tag above). The article is a biographical article on Lewis Libby. Being "on topic" in a talk page means talking about how to improve the article, not subjects relating to the subject of the article. If one wants to talk about the CIA leak grand jury investigation, go to an online forum where one can debate that subject. This Wikiepdia article is a biographical article about Lewis Libby. What follows is inappropriate in this talk page and needs to be deleted. After it is deleted, it can be found in the editing history. The user's comments below do not follow Wikipedia guidelines for talk pages as they relate to Wikipedia policies for editing articles. The user seems unaware of Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines: see WP:BLP for a start. [Please use colons for threading; see talk page guidelines.] --NYScholar 06:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)]

Exposing Valerie Plame's CIA employment was not a crime

Noone was ever charged with exposing Valerie Plame's former job at the CIA. Fitzgerald never asserted that a crime was committed when Valerie Plame's CIA work was disclosed. Fitzgerald did spend millions of dollars investigating if it might have been a crime. But Fitzgerald never charged anyone with violating any law related to the disclosure of Valerie Plame's former job. Do you understand, do you agree?

Your one leaker argument is merely a straw man. If any "leaker" committed a crime, then why didn't Robert Novack, the person who published Valerie Plame's name in his column, get charged with any crime? Why didn't Scooter Libby get charged with exposing Valerie Plame's name? Fitzgerald determined early on multiple parties who disclosed Plame's former job. Fitzgerald never charged anyone with a crime related to the disclosure because there wasn't any crime in the disclosure of Plame's former job. For example, I am about to disclose that Bill Clinton used to be president of the United States and he spoke with CIA employees. Guess what? No Crime. The only crime of Scooter Libby and Fitzgerald multi - year and million dollar investigation was in lying to investigators. "It is the cover up"

Lying during Investigation was the only crime Fitzgerald found

Perhaps the only fact we can agree on is that Scooter Libby was accused of crimes. He was not accused of exposing Valerie Plame. He was accused of "lying" to investigators". Let me make this simple for you with an analogy: Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading, she was convicted of "lying to investigators".

Fitzgerald is not a reliable source for Wiki

If Fitzgerald was an arbiter of truth, then he would not have needed to talk to a jury. You are disingenuously converting spin and opinion by Fitzgerald into facts when you restate any of his non factual opinions or assertions. The only assertions of Fitzgerald which can be considered fact are what the jury accepted as true. It is the basic nature of law in the U.S. that attorneys for either side make assertions, they are by definition biased working for their client. Fitzgerald won on one very narrow point: "Scooter Libby lied to investigators".

Fitzgerald Never Uncovered Evidence that Bush, Cheney, or Rice Lied

Thanks for referring me to the voluminous archived discussions. There is so much noise, very little content. People are trying to argue about WMD, and Scooter had nothing to do with that, and neither did Fitzgerald.-- Knowsetfree 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knowsetfree (talk • contribs) 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC). Could have sworn I entered the four tildas ....

[Note: Talk pages in Wikipedia are not discussion forums; see heading at top and related links in it: "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." Thank you. --NYScholar 06:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)]

Wikipedia:RFC

Please post comments here. Notmyrealname 02:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use caution on inserting categories

Without rehashing the endless discussion on categories, I hope we can at least all agree to adhere to the most explicit parts of WP:BLP regarding categories. For instance: "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." As it currently reads, there is no case made for the use of the Jewish American Lawyer category. Notmyrealname 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This [inserting category of "Jewish American lawyer" and the content supporting it] is precisely the documented content that is in dispute. (See Wikipedia:RFC.) Users have been continually deleting from the article any reference to discussion of Lewis Libby's "Jewishness" (his being Jewish) by reliable sources reprinting and drawing the information from another reliable source (Kampeas). After making these deletions, then they argue that there is "no case made for the use of the Jewish American category." (A catch-22. [See Catch-22#Concept; cf. No-win situation and Circular logic, aka Begging the question.]) A reliable source for the content, the article by Kampeas, and its reprinting in The Jerusalem Post are, however, still listed in "References" (part of the current content of the article), despite earlier attempts by those users to delete that source. Until and unless the information is restored to the body for the article (after the dispute is resolved), these users have deleted the basis for the category there, but not in its source(s); the NNDB article (listing Lewis Libby as "Jewish" and citing his temple membership in the note) is still listed as well in external links.--NYScholar 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The first comment in this subsection of comments relating to the RFC needs to make the status of the disputed content very clear so that new users of this article are not misled by the comment. As this section of discussion pertains directly to the previous section asking for comments, I have made that relationship clear in the relationship of the headings. Please see the previous sections already discussing this matter both in the current talk page and the archives for earlier discussions and the responses in the Lewis Libby sections in the BLP noticeboard and its linked archives. This section is very misleading otherwise. For information about what "RFC" is, please go to the linked page: Wikipedia:RFC; I added the link in the section heading referring to it. Please see also the section of WP:BLP entitled WP:BLP#Public figures for related guidance; see also Temple Rodef Shalom and Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom as well as above discussions on this talk page and in its archives. Thank you. (I will not be able to respond further to comments about this matter as I will be away for an indefinite period of time of anywhere from several weeks to months.) --NYScholar 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC) [updated: --NYScholar 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)]

Don't think this qualifies as a Catch 22. There are several separate issues that need to be resolved in a particular order. One is about the inclusion of a discussion about the Kampeas article and its main subject, the purported "debate" about his religious identity. Another involves listing his particular house of worship. If these are resolved in favor of your position, then a case can be made to include the various categories, not before. The categories do not need to be included in order to resolve these disputes in favor of your position. THAT would be a catch 22. I was just trying to say that we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. Notmyrealname 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Updated References list

I added appropriately-named subsections to the References (Bibliography), moving some items to the more-appropriately-named subsections. There were a number of references for other reading/additional sources listed when the section was called "Bibliography" that are not cited in the body of the article; they are in the appropriate subsections now under the more general common meaning of a heading in Wikipedia articles called "References." The Notes section contains the "full citations," as required in WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. (I did not delete or add any sources that were not already listed in the article prior to the protection notice being added to it.) [updated. --NYScholar 06:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)]

Due to all the deletions being done despite the lack of consensus about the disputed content, leaving only one resource, an external link, in the subsection that I added for multiple sources and resources, I moved the external link out, returned it to "Related external links" subsection of "References" and removed the empty subsection. This editing content dispute is still not resolved, yet some users keep deleting the content anyway. The article and the disputed content (sources, a category). No one is obsessed with Libby's Jewishness (as stated in a recent editing summary); many reprintings of Kampeas' article and its use in other news sources being cited by many Jewish community newspapers across the United States suggest that the article by Kampeas is of interest and including it is well within Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:BLP#Public figures. I am not taking a position on the inclusion or lack of inclusion of the category "Jewish American lawyers" being debated by other users and editors of this article. But the article by Kampeas reprinted in all those newspapers and the interview sources with Libby's co-workers that he cites do seem to show that Libby is Jewish. Whether or not that is important to readers of this article is something that the readers can decide for themselves after they read the sources relating to that matter. --NYScholar 04:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not been adding the category "Jewish American lawyers" (or any other categories) to this article [since adding that particular category became disputed]. [I don't know what other "categories" are being referred to above. The particular disputed content that I have been supporting is keeping the source by Kampeas and reporting very briefly in neutral language what he discusses as it pertains to who Libby is, what he was responsible for doing in the Bush Administration, and why he has been and still is notable enough to have a biographical article about him in Wikipedia: facts from reliable sources.][....]

I found the expiration date for the notice is actually listed as April 3: see Libby in protection log. --NYScholar 08:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion. Attempts to get this in via the back door are noted, and rejected. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing "back door" about it; please stop questioning other editors' good faith; WP:AGF; WP:NPA. Doing so violates Wikipedia policies. --NYScholar 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this for Libby's religion? Jay, why are you so dead set on not having Libby's religion mentioned in his article? Anyways, --Tom 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes NNDB a reliable source? Regarding your other question, I've stated the answer many times: insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. No-one has clearly demonstrated the relevance of this information to this person's notability. As I've said before, Einstein's Jewishness was relevant to his notability - among other things, he was forced to leave Nazi Germany because of it, and he was offered the presidency of Israel because of it. Where is the relevance here? As far as I can tell, Libby has never even commented on this topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't know much about that site. It seems that most bios mention religion/ethnicity as a matter of course. Anyways, no biggie --Tom 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We do in fact have reliable sources stating that Libby is jewish (jewishvirtual library has stated it on it's website SINCE 2002...before WIKI...as proven by old archived data), as well as the widely circulated JTA piece and the old Adbusters article. There has never been any published data that contradicts these claims from reliable sources. And in regards to notability...jayjg does not believe that his ethnicity is notable and it is impossible to prove 'notability' to someone that has it clear in their mind that it is not notable. It's like trying to prove to someone that hates rap, that rap is great music. I don't think jayjg should have the final say on wiki just because he is senior though; wiki theoretically not a monarchy. In regards to notability: It is notable to much of the middle eastern world (and much of Asia and Europe), where many believe that the Iraq war was at least partially done at Israel's behest/benefit, that a non elected influential person that strongly pushed for the Iraq war actually is affiliated with a religious group that tends to morally and financialy very strongly support Israel. To belittle this percieved non north american opinion as simply 'outsider antisemitism' is a regional bias. While one could make a case for latent and not so latent antisemtism in the middle east leading to the concern on Libby, I think blanketedly stating that all european or left wing north american groups that find libby's jewishness notable as anti-semitic has no provable factual basis (though the new antisemitism article does debate it). Nonetheless, I do find it weird that while virtually all bios on CONTEMORARY notable persons have basic ethnicity/religion in them, jayjg is so heartfelt in banning it in this case. And at the same time (see above discussion), seems to in a subtle manner imply that anti-semitic reasons are the motivation for people including his ethnicity/religion (see yellow badge and 'libby the jew' comments above) which puts many of us on the defensive. Being labelled anti-semitic, even if indirectly, especially when one in their own eyes is very strongly not, is a very hurtful and damaging libel. I won't try to edit this article further - I just hope a consensus of admins reads this discussion page and does the right thing. Fermat1999 21:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I keep talking about policy, you keep talking about other editors, other (often non-reliable) sources, and various straw man arguments, and whining about "antisemitic implications". Well, quite frankly, I think the argument that "Libby's alleged ethnicity is important because he's a Jew, and Jews support Israel and were behind the war in Iraq" is at least borderline antisemitic. But if you do want to discuss editors, I note that you've made fewer than 80 edits to Wikipedia in total, most of them to this article or its Talk: page. So, yes, I do think my understanding of Wikipedia and policy is better than your Now please stop obsessing about ethnicity, and move on to something productive. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I have edited anonymously for some time. As as admin, I'm sure you've checked my IPs used and found that there have been other edits from them. I created this id to enter this when it became protected. In terms of understanding how 'wikipedia' works...yes...I'm sure you know very well how it works in terms of policy and procedure. Better than 99% of us. BUT, it does not give you licence to impose your POV with impunity - or at least that is what wikipedia seems to profess. Many (including myself in a few cases, after reviewing your edit history) have found your edits to be backdoor borderline islamophobic and anti-christianity in terms of motivation; but I'm quite sure that you feel that you aren't and might be offended at that statement. And it probably has to do more with your inherent POV as opposed to any actual malice. I do note that you have a page of a select history of your edits where you edit in the "other direction"; the need to 'show' bipartisanship suggests that you yourself sense this bias a bit and feel the need to defend it. Anyways, for a simple matter of principle, I think that ethnicity should be categorized in this article. Virtually all contemporaries of similar notablilty have their ethnicity/religion noted, as do most online bios on politicians and most modern paper encyclopedias. Why this article is an exception, only because of a few editors narrow reading of the WP:BLP policy is beyond me. And I would appreciate more CIVIL behaviour from jayjg (telling people to move on and be productive because of disagreement is rude), less TROLLING (caustic comments about other editors with little explanation to provoke anger that can be used against the editor), and more assuming GOOD FAITH when there is little concrete evidence to suggest malicious intentions in editing. Fermat1999 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "imposing my POV", I'm making sure that WP:BLP is followed. Respond to that, and that alone please. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Continual POV deletions and reversions of content

General response to the above section: Clearly, by making these continual deletions and reversions, Jayjg (a "Wikipedia administrator") and a couple of other users are "imposing [their] POV", as pointed out above repeatedly above. In doing so, they willfully ignore objections to their changes by others on this talkpage based on WP:BLP#Public figures and WP:AGF. As a result of their own biases (POV), they continually delete sources that have been consulted and annotated properly for this Wikipedia article, and that do satisfy Wikipedia:Citing sources. They are not following basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. See this current talk page, archived talk pages, disputed editing content notices in the archives of the WP:BLPN. This dispute has not been resolved yet by truly neutral administrators. Those making the deletions are "interested parties" to this dispute (demonstrating conflicts of interest). They should not touting administrative authority to revert changes to this article to match their own POV. See Wikipedia:Administrators and WP:ANOT (with incorporated links) to understand that; administrators are all still just like any other Wikipedia user: they must still abide by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and other Wikipedia policies, including all those that I just linked and have linked before. They just ignore such guidelines and policies. The claim that a reliable source (Kampeas) is "junk" (see recent editing summaries and earlier ones with POV pejorative value judgments) clearly are judgments reflecting their own biases and POV (not that of published reliable sources). There is no support for such POV judgments in any published reliable source: see WP:NOR. Many other published reliable sources reprint the article by Ron Kampeas. The information provided in it is repeated in the Tulsa Jewish Review cited in the NNDB biography, which, otherwise has some questionable details about Libby, but which I have annotated specifically and properly purposefully to make its possible unreliability clear. (Such annotations are recommended in Wikipedia, when giving external links to sources.) Because NNDB articles are frequently cited in references and external links presented in Wikipedia articles (as this NNDB article was for a long time, without any qualifications), the annotation is an important qualification of such a source. By continually deleting information and sources that many other Wikipedia readers do find relevant and useful, these users are obstructing (not following) Wikipedia policies and guidelines, making up their own rules to suit their POV and then referring, misleadingly, to WP:BLP. WP:BLP includes WP:BLP#Public figures, which pertains to a public figure like Lewis Libby; that statement of policy relates to WP:POV and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, all also linked via talkpage headings above. It requires following WP:Cite/Wikipedia:Attribution/WP:Reliable sources, which have been followed via the annotations and the heading "Works consulted". The deleted sources and the relevant subheading need restoring. --NYScholar 19:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC) [updated: I have made those changes, referring to this talk page in the editing history. --NYScholar 20:14, 8 April 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.

Appropriate Citation

I had an exceptionally informative external link bumped for the usual "explanations" and was wondering if it could be re-inserted in the following form:

Presidential Pardon Research Data archive sponsored by the popular Jurist "Presidential Pardons Page (University of Pittsburgh), as cited in The Hill. "White House: Since Late 20th Century Presidents Not as Forgiving as Predecessors" (3/9/07) and Congressional Quarterly. "Presidential Pardons Chart" Vol. 59, No.8 (2/24/01).

If I need to pile on more secondary sources, please let me know.

best,PSRuckman 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Does that belong here or on the Libby Plamegate page? Notmyrealname 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that would an enitrely different set of concerns. I guess I would like to tackle everything, but one thing at a time. Is there anything at all wrong with the form of the citation you see above? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PSRuckman (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Mediation

As the protecting admin, I just thought this should better be mediated quicker rather then staying on full protection for a longer — if not an indefinite — period. It appears that the most of the issue here is whether to include that Libby is Jewish in the article or not. It'll be fair to say I'm only partly with Jayjg on this — on one hand, I'm definitely against including discussion of such in the article's context. This article should only focus on Libby's profession, achievements, and press related to it. Discussion on so-called trivia such as religion and ethnicity should generally be avoided unless it has been very significant throughout his career. We should also keep in mind that WP:BLP prohibits the addition of biased content that might promote unnecessary point of view towards its subject, which can be easily cased with this discussion. On the other hand, I'm not sure why we shouldn't include Category:Jewish American lawyers here. That page has about 70 other articles, and it doesn't look like any of them are controversial. Solely grouping this biography among other biographies with the same ethnicity would be literally harmless. Hopefully consensus will be made to unprotect this soon. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your intervention here (regardless of how it turns out). I've been trying to get some third-party administrators involved in resolving this dispute without much success. My concern with your comments above is that the [rules on categories] state that "the case for the category must be made clear in the article text." In regards to Category:Jewish American lawyers, I don't see much of a case to be made for Libby's inclusion here. The Kampeas article argues that he is very private about his faith. It would seem that this category would be more meaningful if it included people who's Jewishness actually had something to do with their public persona or lawyering (Alan Dershowitz for instance). Notmyrealname 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He's Jewish, and he's a lawyer; so I think he should be in the category -- if you look at others in the group, a number of them are not notable for being Jewish at all. Judge Judy for example. --Shadowlink1014 15:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In which case the category should be removed on his article as well. Please read the discussion throughout. Michaelas¹⁰ 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Michael. As I have stated earlier, a long discussion on his 'jewishness' serves a minimal point in the article (despite good intentions I suppose from NYSCHOLAR). But in terms of categorization, I think he should be under the category. He is jewish, there is evidence that supports it, most prominent US people have their religions/ethnicity/origin categorized if there is proof, and people might be interested to know his background. Him being identified discreetly as jewish is harmless; I'm not even sure how it would be abused. People finding out that ONE political criminal is jewish is not going to create a tidal wave of anti-semitism. Fermat1999 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how it conforms to the WP:BIO policy noted above. I've shown that inclusion of these categories is rather random, even for Bush Cabinet members. That some other people have this listed shouldn't be the issue here. WP policy calls for moderation in the use of categories, in any case. That means, among other things, that we should include the most relevant ones. I just don't see a case that his religion has been relevant to his public life, and certainly not to his career as a lawyer (a non-practicing one at that!). The main article in question already shows that the folks interested in whether he is Jewish or not are conspiracy theorists and white supremacists. I'll do my best to shut up for a while about this now. Notmyrealname 18:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Notmyrealname; there seems to be no encyclopedic reason for including the claim, which undoubtedly violates WP:BLP. The arguments we keep hearing is "it's there for other people" and "people are interested in this stuff" and "this is CENSORSHIP!!!!!", which are, in my view, hardly sufficient to warrant violating WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it settles it then. Looking through the relevant centralized discussion, there's consensus not to include biographies in these categories unless significant and verifiable, neither of which applies here. Move to unprotect? Michaelas¹⁰ 12:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How does it settle it? The two people that are against it (notmyrealname and jayjg) are the same people arguing it against it everywhere. A cursory review of their edits reveals a strong POV in other articles (something we all have at some level). Michael, the fact Libby is jewish was PUBLISHED by the JEWISH TELEGRAPH AGENCY and reprinted by virtually EVERY major jewish community newspaper in America and Israel. A simple googling will find that. And I do believe it is notable - as I have explained above. Jayjg, virtually every major modern politician where we have verifiable ETHNICITY, is well documented in categorization. RUMSFELD is listed as german and prebyterian...has he ever talked this in the public eye? Gonzalez is listed as Mexican and Catholic - yet he has never mentioned his religion publicly. But both are documented. What I am finding to be the case is that jayjg in this case does not want him to be categorized as jewish because he does not want people to know that he is jewish. But for other notorious people in Bush's cabinet like Rumsfeld, Rice and Gonzales, who do not openly talk about their religion and try to minimally talk about their ethnicity, he is quite happy to leave their religion categorized (rightly in my opinion). My belief is that jewish is an ethnicity as much as a religion (growing up with reform traditions on my dad's side, i can attest to that). And we know that Libby is jewish. It should be categorized the same way as anyone else. In terms of notability, even a cursory read of the news reports about this earlier this yr and last year, in asian, middle eastern and even european newspapers notes that Libby is jewish with interest. Fermat1999 23:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Inclusion of either religion or ethnicity in major public officials is rather random. I think you make a good case for deleting it from the ones you have listed above, as they appear to violate WP:BLP. Let's not repeat the same mistake here. I have deleted other non-Jewish religion references where inappropriate and backed up Jewish ones where appropriate. Please assume good faith and stay on topic here. Besides the rather spurious Adbusters piece, the Kampeas article is the only piece of journalism on the subject. Although it has been REPRINTED in local community newspapers and the Jerusalem Post, I find it very significant that there has been no further REPORTING on Libby's Jewishness, except in anti-semitic and white supremacist blogs. That tells me that it is NOT notable. Just because something rates a single wire story does not make it encyclopedic, especially when it comes up against the standard of self-acknowledgment of religion established in WP:BLP. Notmyrealname 13:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The only reason given why it might not violate WP:BLP is the claim that if he's Jewish, it might have an impact on U.S. foreign policy. But which reliable sources make this claim? None that I'm aware of, only Wikipedia editors make that claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The concept of removing ethnic lists has not reached a consensus. A simple click on Michael's link above states that quite clearly. In terms on notability, I think the Kampeas article itself is enough for notability - Kampeas is the bureau chief of the jewish telegraph agency. I don't think that there is a set number of unique articles one needs for his 'jewishness' to be notable. The fact that the jewish virtual library has listed him as a jewish cabinet member SINCE 2002 (before wiki existed!!) also suggests that the jewish community is interested. His involvment as Marc Rich's lawyer, and the very strong Israeli connection in obtaining his pardon from Clinton, also suggests some pro-Israeli philanthropic beliefs that may tie in with his ethnicityhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103001130_pf.html and http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021601.html. Sources that have written about his ethnic notability include al-jazeera and the english chinese daily; though not originating from white english speaking nations, many wikipedians would not consider them reliable sources (an unfortunate bias I think). Fermat1999 07:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A single source for a claim does not make it notable, and nothing in this article addresses the question of its notability. Moreover, the links you provide aren't relevant to Libby's alleged religion, as neither mention it, and one is a blog. All these "suggests" claims you are making - which reliable sources (not Wikipedia editors) make them as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify — my link above and its corresponding discussion pages show that there wasn't consensus in removing those, but there was consensus in regards to filtering them out. Rather that continually providing links to non-reliable — as some may proclaim — articles provoking allegations of him being Jewish, can you provide at least one article that'll confirm he was somehow involved in the Jewish community or has given public opinions about Jewish-related issues let alone being Marc Rich's lawyer? If not, I advice immediate unprotection avoiding any further discussion. Michaelas¹⁰ 13:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library is very unclear on its sourcing and should not be considered a reliable source. Also, the two links you provide above have nothing to do with the issue at hand (and one of them is a blog). Notmyrealname 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article for now. Lets try this out. Michaelas¹⁰ 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"can you provide at least one article that'll confirm he was somehow involved in the Jewish community or has given public opinions about Jewish-related issues let alone being Marc Rich's lawyer?":

From the text of this Wikipedia article on Lewis Libby:

Libby was also actively involved in the Bush administration's efforts to negotiate the Israeli-Palestinian "road map" for peace; for example, he participated in a series of "meetings... [with] Jewish leaders" in early December 2002 and "an unusual meeting" with two aides of then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in mid-April 2003, culminating in the Red Sea Summit, held in Aqaba, Jordan, on June 4, 2004.

From the works consulted list: the article consulted and continually deleted by the same POV editors without any rationale that establishes the large degree of support for Libby from the Jewish community and the fact that the head of his defense fund is identified (in the headline) as a "Jewish Republican." These matters are relevant to his involvement in government policy for the Bush administration, a key part of his job in the administration. It is absurd to argue differently. There is no violation of WP:BLP in citing these articles; the material is wholly within WP:BLP#Public figures. Libby was and is a public figure, not a private person without such public notability and notoriety.

Other sources consulted

• "Jewish Republican Heads Libby Defense Fund". Jewish Standard (Teaneck, New Jersey) 22 February 2006, World News. Accessed 6 March 2007.
• Kampeas, Ron. "Libby Jewish? Some Wonder How Neo-con's Faith Impacts Leak Scandal". Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) ("The Global News Service of the Jewish People") 2 November 2005. Accessed 17 March 2007. Rpt. in Ron Kampeas, "Did Libby's Jewishness Impact the CIA Leak Scandal?" Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), 6 November 2005. Updated 7 November 2005. Accessed 26 March 2007. Cf. "Lewis Libby," Notable Names Database, as listed below.
• Lewis Libby at nndb.com. Accessed 5 April 2007. [Some details about Libby listed here may be of questionable reliability. N.B.: Note 1: "See Tulsa Jewish Review, Volume 76, Number 10 [Dec. 2005]," repeats information from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article by Kampeas, as listed above.]

Notes

--NYScholar 07:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please build consensus before entering contentious edits

I have never seen a "sources consulted" section on a biography page. Is it part of a standard template? It seems that this would be a poor way to insert contentious material. I hope we can also agree on another point. the NNDB is not a WP:RS. Inserting an unreliable source, even with a caveat is not acceptable according to WP:RS. Another point: can we stop listing reprints of a wire story? This is unnecessary and does not show relevance. Showing relevance would be to show other original stories that cite the wire story, not that reprint it in full or in part. Also, hiring a Jewish lawyer does not show "involvement with the Jewish community," nor does meeting with Jewish leaders, in a meeting with several other non-Jewish policymakers, signify anything. Should we just start listing whether policymakers are either Jewish or not Jewish if they deal with Israel? Finally, please refrain from name calling (e.g. "POV editors"). It is really not helpful. Notmyrealname 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You've never seen a section like that because it doesn't exist in any other article; it's just NYScholar's WP:POINT way of trying to claim Libby is a Jew. The rest of your points are extremely well taken. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But do keep in mind that we all need to be civil to move this thing forward. Notmyrealname 01:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please build consensus before deleting material from this article

• If those making such unsupportable value judgments as those in the preceding section really knew how to document sources, they would know that there are a variety of kinds of bibliographies possible in Wikipedia--read the links provided in Wikipedia:Citing sources, previously WP:Cite, particularly Wikipedia:Citing sources#References: "Works cited"; "Works consulted"; "Selected list of works cited"; "List of works consulted" and so on (various conventional bibliographical headings); "References" is a general catch-all; the list of formats in Wikipedia:Citing sources#References makes that very clear. Wikipedia does not have one prescribed style for listing references; it provides some examples; not all Wikipedia articles use the heading "References"; some use "Bibliography" and/or subheadings within "References" or "Bibliography", including "Further reading" etc. [In some cases there are entire Wikipedia articles that serve as the bibliography section of long Wikipedia articles; see, e.g., Rwandan genocide, with a section called "References" (Rwandan genocide#References), which links to Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide. See also the category that it includes for other examples of bibliographies in Wikipedia:Category:Bibliographies by subject. There are a variety of formats used, not just a single format, depending on the discipline of the subject and the abilities of the Wikipedia editors to construct bibliographies (which vary).]
• The phrase "POV editors" is not name-calling. It is descriptive. I am quite tired of these two users constantly claiming that my citations of reliable sources or my annotations of possibly unreliable sources (of use to all readers of Wikipedia) are in some ways POV (opinion; biases); that is their own POV (opinion; biases) which makes them, descriptively, "POV editors." These are not so-called "scare quotes" (themselves "scare quotes"); these are simply quotation marks. I really do not think that the users complaining about these sources consulted and referred to in "References" or "Bibliography" have actually any interest in the subject of this Wikipedia article on Lewis Libby; they simply delete anything indicating that Libby is Jewish.
• These Wikipedia users are, however, not Wikipedia's official watchdogs on all matters touching on anything Jewish. (There are no such official watchdogs.) They appear to be self-appointed watchdogs, alleging that other users are in some way being anti-Semitic (a ruse) by simply citing reliable sources (Kampeas and those publishing later versions of his updated articles relating to Libby's being Jewish. There is nothing anti-Semitic about stating that a person is Jewish or in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (hardly an anti-Semitic organization) publishing that fact; there is nothing anti-Semitic about Kampeas' references to others who have misused this fact about Libby--his so-called "Jewishness" [Kampeas' word not mine]. By pointing out that such misuse of Libby's Jewishness occurred historically both before and after Kampeas' own reference to his temple membership was published, Kampeas puts it in a context that Wikipedia readers can benefit from knowing. Kampeas refers to points of view that are documentable according to WP:POV. The self-appointed watchdogs of all matters Jewish may want to delete the references to POVs that they do not agree with in all Wikipedia articles. But to do so in the context of this article on Lewis Libby (a public figure) violates both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV.
• During his government service and especially as Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Libby was one of the Bush administration's chief representatives speaking with members of the Jewish community about government policies pertaining to Israel; he was a (even the) key administration member in the formation of those policies relating to the Middle East (as the currently-cited articles state).
• Libby himself is a member of the Jewish community by dint of his membership in a Jewish temple, Temple Rodef Shalom, a fact also deleted by these users from this article. These users have been attempting to delete the very evidence of his involvement with the Jewish community. Clearly, these users have not "consulted" (read) the articles about these facts (those are facts, not simply POV [opinion]).
• The rationale for the subsection "Works consulted" is directly related to Jayjg's continual earlier deletions of these sources consulted from "References" and "Bibliography"; apparently, he still does not know that the word "References" and the word "Bibliography" can include both works cited and works consulted. Wikipedia exists in the context of prior scholarship and criticism; encyclopedia are just one kind of reference sources; all reference sources (including Wikipedia) exist in the context of reference sources (scholarship) prior to them. The section of Wikipedia dealing with citations contains links to formats.
• These users are not the arbiters of Wikipedia formats; the pages of Wikipedia devoted to such information are. [E.g., There is no "template" required for "references" or for "bibliography" or for "notes" sections; there are recommended guidelines for formats to use but not requirements for these features in Wikipedia.] Do not depend on their or on my interpretations of Wikipedia policies and procedures. Read them for oneself, as I have done. I have read the links to the various disciplinary formats that Wikipedia provides, and, as I teach disciplinary formats, I know what they are. Clearly, they do not.
• Also, very clearly, I am not the one who "claims" that Libby is Jewish; the articles listed now in "Further reading" establish that he is Jewish. That Libby is Jewish (his "Jewishness") is not a "claim"; it is a fact. The reason that it ("Libby's Jewishness") has not been debated in the mass media publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post since 2002-2007 is because it is a well-established fact.
• If there is any evidence that Libby is not Jewish, cite it. Find the sources and cite the evidence in them, documenting the sources with what Wikipedia terms "full citations."
• The only people now still questioning that Libby is Jewish are the two users posting in the above section. Two users do not make "consensus." They simply fight reality due to their own POVs, which make them, in my view, POV editors.
• Try to find some contributions to this article's content on Lewis Libby made by those two users. There is very little that is not connected to deletions of the sources that I have provided.
• Go through the full editing history and find the content that I have provided. I have no POV on whether or not Libby is Jewish; I am just interested in adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in articles on a public figure who is also the subject of controversy, and thus following Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles as linked via the tag at top. According to the sources now listed in the Selected bibliography, it is a fact that Libby is Jewish.
• Arguing that Libby is not Jewish (in these talk pages) is not consistent with the reliable published sources. Arguing that he is not Jewish (in these talk pages) is "original research" and doing such original research violates WP:NOR. Readers of Wikipedia are not interested in the original research and POVs (opinions) of editors; they are interested in facts and POVs (opinions) established by published reliable sources: WP:POV.
• As other users have argued in this talk page and its archived talk pages, the sources saying that Libby is Jewish (Kampeas and those reprinting his work) accept his being Jewish as established fact not speculation. It appears that that is why these two users insist on deleting those sources from any kind of bibliography or list of references cited and/or consulted.
• The term "Bibliography" is a heading for both works cited and works consulted. By using "Selected," I have indicated that the list does not include all of the works cited in the article. "Further reading" is the list of other works consulted. If the article does ultimately include the fact that Libby is Jewish, then the article(s) by Ron Kampeas (Washington bureau chief of Jewish Telegraphic Agency, previously with Associated Press), can be listed as a work cited in the first section of the bibliography. Jayjg has repeatedly deleted any such content from the article by Kampeas in order to banish reference to that reliable source. All sources reprinting and citing versions of the article by Kampeas consider his article a reliable source. There is no evidence to the contrary. Jayjg's claim that Kampeas is not a reliable source is Jayjg's own POV (opinion). There is no published evidence supporting his claim. There is no reason why this article on Lewis Libby has to adhere to Jayjg's own POV (opinion). That violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV. --NYScholar 07:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC) [Updated; bullets added and fleshed out. --NYScholar 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)]

From WP:POV:

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy.

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:
Who advocates the point of view

What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

If there is evidence in a reliable source that Libby is not Jewish, these users need to provide it. Otherwise their arguments in this talk page that he is not Jewish and that his established Jewishness is not fact or that it is not relevant or important are simply their own POV, and basing this article on those arguments violates both WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The only reason that Libby's Jewishness is "contentious" is because these two Wikipedia users "contend" it and thus make it so. They are the source of this "contentiousness"; their "contention" of reliable published sources establishing that Lewis Libby is Jewish and a publicly-recognized supporter of Israel in formation of United States government policies regarding Israel and the Middle East while working in the Bush administration and during his earlier government service (as documented by published reliable news sources) has no support from reliable published sources. Their "contentions" are, therefore, simply their own POV (opinion). Their POV (opinion) does not govern what appears and what does not appear in Wikipedia articles, according to Wikipedia's own policies: e.g., Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, WP:BLP#Public figures, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. --NYScholar 08:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For Wikipedia policy on the inclusion of categories in biographies of living persons (in this case one who is also a public figure), see WP:BLP#Use of categories:

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....

The article by Kampeas (primary source and reprintings in other reliable publications) cites Libby's public self-identification with the [religious] belief (Judaism) through his membership in a Jewish temple, Temple Rodef Shalom, deleted by Jayjg from the main body of the article, where the information used to be in the "personal history" section. That public self-identification, along with citations by Kampeas of other public servants' (his colleagues') knowledge of his being Jewish, satisfies the first requirement; the temple membership is a form of public self-identification with the belief; his attendance at Jewish holiday services at the temple (cited by Kampeas and another news source) is also such a self-identification with the belief. Other articles already cited in the main body of this Wikipedia article on Lewis Libby establish that Libby's various connections to the Jewish community are relevant to his notable activities and his public life; they state that he was recognized by Israel as one of the Bush administration's supporters of Israel when he was included in meetings concerning U.S. government policies affecting Israel and other parts of the Middle East (see the section on his public service) and that, as a public servant (publicly) who was a high-ranking member of the Bush administration, he attended White House functions celebrating a Jewish holiday, etc.

Those who want to include the category "Jewish American lawyers" in this article on Lewis Libby would seem to be well within those two requirements. The reliable published sources (Kampeas and those reprinting and/or citing him) appear to me to establish the accuracy of the category. It really appears to me that the other two users delete Kampeas and articles reprinting his article in part or as a whole (not merely a wire service report) so as to delete the rationale for other users to add this category. [That has nothing to do with me (since I have not added the category).] That has to do with their own POVs (opinions). To any neutral observer, it should be clear that a government offical's being Jewish and/or belonging to a Jewish temple, and thus being a member of "the Jewish community"--however "low profile" or not one keeps one's Jewishness in Washington otherwise--and Israel's recognition of that government official's [Libby's] "sympathy" with Israel (cited in the body of the article; see the sources) is pertinent in discussing that government official's [Libby's] advocation of policies relating to Israel and the Middle East. That is not to say that all Jewish people are or would always be sympathetic to Israel (many are not); but the sources do establish that Libby was considered sympathetic to Israel by representatives of the Israeli government at the time that he participated in the meetings. Such information is not "trivia" as some users above claim; it relates directly to his government policy-making functions in the White House, part of his job.

Including the fact that he is Jewish or a member of the Jewish community is just simply a piece of information about him [pertinent to his prominent role as a public official in government policy-making] that readers can make up their own minds about. Wikipedia editors are not here to make up people's minds. Wikipedia editors are here to present reliably-sourced information about the subjects of articles and to provide sources for information cited and for "further reading" should the readers of the article be interested in exploring such sources on their own.

Warning about the possible unreliability of a commonly-consulted source of biographies of notable people in an annotation--the Notable Names Database--is a service to readers who might otherwise be misled by its discrepancies from this article in Wikipedia. Many Wikipedia articles include biographies in the NNDB in their references and/or external links. If the NNDB article on Libby were not included with an annotation, then some user down the line would probably add it without the qualification. (It used to be in this article without any annotation. I added the annotation due to the lack of certainty (see archived talk pages) about the apparently-given first name that the initial "I." stands for, which is still somewhat disputed in this Wikipedia article, whereas the NNDB article presents his given first name with definitiveness as "Irve." That information in the NNDB entry could easily have been taken from an earlier version of this Wikipedia article!)

At this point, I do not dispute that Libby is Jewish, as the NNDB still states as well. I believe that Kampeas establishes the correctness of that information (and hence the inclusion of his name in the category "Jewish American lawyers" in Wikipedia). But because such a category of people's professions according to religion is problematic and has raised contention in this talk page (incl. archives), I myself will not add the category to this article. Others may want to do so on the basis of reliable source(s) cited and/or consulted.

There should be some non-contentious way that Wikipedia editors can include the reliably-sourced facts and reliably-sourced points of view in this Wikipedia article. I suggest that people work on how to accomplish that. While they do so, they need to be alert to how their own opinions and own biases may be preventing them from achieving what Wikipedia calls Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --NYScholar 10:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 14:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)] [Updated further, with additional threading. --NYScholar 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)]

For further reference, please see the Wikipedia article on Religion and material linked to it. --NYScholar 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, can you please make your comments longer :) j/k. Seriously, most editors, or me at least, are put off when they see the volume of your comments. Is there any way we can reduce this aurgument to something manageable. Maybe list a FEW points that we all AGREE on and then go from there? Anyways, just a thought, cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeafterthree (talk • contribs) 10:40, April 18, 2007 (UTC)

The editor might also do well to reread the following Wikipedia policies: WP:AGF and WP:OWN. As the latter states:

"You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Notmyrealname 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, you should understand a few concepts. First of all, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not here for you to push what you believe is your interpretation of wikipedia policy against the general consensus which has been represented here time after time. Also, because Wikipedia relies heavily on the "consensus", you should understand that WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. The fact that you are constantly reciting WP policy from "Your point of view / your understanding" is also in itself violating WP:NPOV. You are failing to take into account the spirit and the understanding of the project, and my recommendation to you is that your continual beating of a dead horse needs to stop.

Please understand that while we know that you are attempting to make edits "in good faith", your continuing persuance of something that is rejected by the community is serving no one any good, and is creating a self-image for you of something you do not want. From all the time that's been wasted here debating this very minute detail, more effort could be put into creating articles or improving others. I suggest just moving on and focusing your efforts onto something greater.--RWilliamKing 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So, RWilliamKing, more briefly, there is not evidence that what I discuss above is "something that is rejected by the community"; two users are not "the community." In response to the earlier comment: I do not need quotation of editing policy placed at the bottom of every Wikipedia entry. I know what it says. I expect there to be editing of articles that I contribute to. I do not oppose clear-cut good-faith editing. I oppose the continual deletions and reversions of Wikipedia-permitted content pertaining to a public figure due to POV of two users. Others posting comments on this talk page, the archived talk pages, and the various entries in the Noticeboard for BLP have objected to the deletions as well. The comment above does not take account of many others' objections to the deletions by the two other users. I am not the only member of this "community" objecting to such POV deletions (Scroll [way] up; consult the BLP noticeboard archives; see talk page archives). Note the heading of this section: I refer to true "consensus," not to a false claim of consensus by two users with clearly non-neutral (POV) agenda. My objections are simply a more thorough account of the problems in the deletions/reversions that other users have also objected to. --NYScholar 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)