Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Controversial topic

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is obviously a controversial topic. In the event you wish to raise a certain issue, please consider consulting the archives ([all] of them) to see if it has already been addressed or discussed. Eusebeus 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

archive updated; changed "both" to "all" above.

This article has at times become contentious; in the event that you wish to raise a certain issue about how to improve this article, please consult the archives (all of them) first to see if it has already been addressed or discussed. Please do not make controversial or contentious changes to this article without first posting your ideas about doing so in this talk page and gaining a sense of consensus. Thank you. --NYScholar 06:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC) [Updated after archiving. --NYScholar 18:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)]

Excellent. Now take your advice; stop inserting the WP:BLP violating trivia, as there is no consensus for it. The next time I see it, I'll revert all your edits, not just excise the policy violating piece. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 18 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.--NYScholar 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLP#Public figures. Please see the archived talk pages; there is no support for the above claim of "policy violating" and the veiled threats. If anyone is violating WP:BLP and WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as many other Wikipedia users (not just I) have already complained, it is he in such POV-laden judgments as the above comment's false claim of "WP:BLP violating trivia". Apparently, he simply cannot help himself and continues to focus on contributors rather than on content. See the cited policy on NPA. --NYScholar 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content: "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. 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." Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

References; Further reading/External links

I have clearly established the rationale for inclusion of the additional references to reliable sources and annotated sources of a commonly-cited article on Lewis Libby in WP:BLP#Public figures. There is no "biased or malicious content" being placed in this article. Jayjg knows that; he insists on violating WP:AGF and making personal attacks to delete the information that he objects to on other grounds (his own POV and biases). That clearly violates WP:POV and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. He insists on focusing on contributors and attaching pejorative adjectives such as "malicious" to clearly good-faith edits. All the rationale for a "clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability" is already in the archived talk pages. Jayjg's claims have no support in actual Wikipedia policy. Lewis Libby is a public figure. It is not malicious to cite reliable articles about him, especially those published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Jewish community newspapers reprinting its articles. Who exactly is being "biased and malicious" in the sources listed in this article? Ron Kampeas? The Jewish Standard, a Jewish community newspaper published in Teaneck, NJ? I find these reversions are completely without merit. This article still needs non-biased, truly-neutral mediation by administrators who are not involved in editing articles on subjects pertaining to Israel and the Middle East. --NYScholar 18:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has now reverted my changes to this article four times within a short period of time. I am referring him to WP:3RR. I will not engage in such reversions. I am well aware of the policy. He is trying to claim that he is protecting Lewis Libby from "biased or malicious content"; there is no case for that. Lewis Libby is a public figure; WP:BLP#Public figures applies. There is no way in which referring to Kampeas' article or citations of it or various POVs on Lewis Libby contextualized by Kampeas violates any Wikipedia policy pertaining to living persons, public figures, or anything else, despite Jayjg's claims to the contrary. He is an administrator; I refer him, once again, to Wikipedia:Administrators, particularly to WP:ANOT and to Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct#Behavior. --NYScholar 19:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For more information about what must be included in a section called "References" (taken together, along with the section called "Notes," incorporating all the works cited in the article) and/or "Bibliography" and "Further Reading/External links" (which is or are to include additional sources that may be of interest and useful to readers), see Wikipedia:Citing sources. I'll return in a moment to post the section headings that pertain to the sources that Jayjg is deleting from this article and justifying their inclusion. --NYScholar 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Those sections are:

3.5 Full citations Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full citations

4 Notes Wikipedia:Citing sources#Notes

4.1 Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" Wikipedia:Citing sources#Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes"

5 Further reading/External links" Wikipedia:Citing sources#Further reading/External links:

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Some editors may include both headings in articles, listing only material not available online in the "Further reading" section.
All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic.

The sources that I added (mostly several weeks ago, continually deleted since then by Jayjg; I have been out of the country and not online for the past week, just returning to it yesterday) are variations on those section headings; it is permissible in Wikipedia to tailor the Bibliography and Further reading/External links sections to the subject of the article for the convenience of readers; thus "Related external links" and the earlier section "Further reading", which Jayjg deleted several times. Clearly Wikipedia:Citing sources permits and often recommends the use of such sections in bibliographies of articles in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

[Please place comments below]

The constant attempts of two editors in particular, (User:NYScholar and User:Fermat1999) to describe Libby as Jewish are, in my view, a violation of

WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content: "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. 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", and
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, and The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life."

The two editors keep trying to tag him as Jewish in some way or other, without providing any solid sources which indicate its relevance. There is only one reliable source that discusses the topic at all, an article by Ron Kampeas, and even that article indicates that Libby himself has never commented on his ethnicity or religious beliefs, and that most people were unaware of them. Initially article editors (particularly NYScholar) kept describing him as "Jewish" in the article itself, or putting him in various Jewish categories. Then NYScholar stopped describing him as a Jew, but kept adding to the article that he was a member of a Jewish Temple, including in an article about the Temple itself. Most recently NYScholar has stopped trying to tag or categorize him as a Jew, but continues to insert an incredibly lengthy "reference" to the Kampeas article (variously listed under "References", "Further reading", "Other sources consulted", etc.), as a way of getting around WP:BLP, and even went so far as to create an article on Ron Kampeas. Along with that, he keeps linking to the admittedly unreliable source NNDB (which lists Libby as a Jew), and an article that says a prominent Jew is leading Libby's defense (some sort of smear by association). The lengths and various subterfuges NYScholar has used to tag Libby as a Jew have, in my view, gone well into WP:POINT territory.
In my view these attempts to label Libby have also become obsessive. 71% of User:Fermat1999's edits have been to this article or its Talk: page, all attempting to describe Libby as a Jew. As for User:NYScholar, he has made almost 500 edits to this article, more than the next 20 editors combined, and an equal number of edits to the article's Talk: page, again more than the next 20 editors combined. Indeed, a large majority of NYScholar's edits for the past three weeks have been about this topic alone; ways of describing Libby as a Jew. This obsessive yellow badging is disturbing at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a surprising personal attack, and frankly quite misleading and even disgusting by jayjg. I have not labelled Libby as jewish anymore in the MAIN ARTICLE except VERY early on, when I thought it was benign and just missed - I have just argued on the discussion page that he should be jewish since, when it got reversed. I joined as a member because of this issue when the issue became protected (before this I was anon), AND because this is the only edit area where there is no consensus, I have had to keep responding to jayjg's responses because I disagree with him. Notmyrealname, jayjg and humus sapiens have been equally obsessed about this (and a review of their other edits shows an obsession with israeli and jewish issues with a more likudnik POV as opposed to labour). I will not attempt to label Libby as jewish myself, though I may defend other people attacked by jajjg. This, despite the fact that virtually all other comtemporaries have their religion/ethnicity noted on wikipedia if that info is widely available. Like many others, I have basically learned that jayjg runs the middle east articles of wikipedia. And in the end I suppose, anyone that is curious about Libby's background can simply google it and discover he is jewish anyways, or that he was Marc Rich's lawyer, and so forth. I just think it's a pity that since wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of pertinent knowledge on all fascinating topics, events, and personalities, that in the case of Libby, one will have to go to other sources for basic bio info most biographies in the modern era would have detailed. And finally, before jayjg joined arbscom, he had the most negative/hostile nay's from longtime contributors of any arbscom committee member admitted, despite his 'election'. A simple 'googling' of jayjg will find this; as jayjg has no problem publishing my stats for everyone to see. Fermat1999 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Jayjg. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If he hasn't self-identified, then he cannot be categorised as Jewish, or described as Jewish in WP's voice. If another couple of sources emerge linking his notability as a political analyst with his religio-ethnic background, then that discussion might become notable; it certainly isnt at this point, which is what the article actually quotes Muravchik as saying. Hornplease 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The article that I have cited by Kampeas clearly documents that Lewis Libby "publicly self-identifies with the belief...in question [Judaism]," a religious belief, by establishing that he and his family are members of Temple Rodef Shalom; that is an act of public self-identification. [The same information appears in the NNDB article, in the Tulsa Jewish Review (which appears to come from Kampeas' as well), and which I annotated re: questionable reliability due to the mention of "Irve" as his given first name.] The article by Kampeas and the sources cited by Kampeas (interviews with Libby's colleagues) clearly establish that Libby's "beliefs...are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life"--to his public service in the Bush administration's policy making relating to the security of Israel and to the Middle East, including its policy making for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which led to his involvement in the Plame affair and in the CIA leak grand jury investigation and, ultimately, to his conviction on four of five felony indictments in United States v. Libby: all main topics of this article on Libby. --NYScholar 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with jayjg and hornplease. WP:BLP is crystal clear on this issue, and continued attempts to make an end run around the policy should be met with blocks, also per the policy. - Crockspot 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

These comments [Jayjg's and those agreeing with Jayjg] are quite disgraceful. Jayjg's account is a fabrication. The editing history shows exactly what my changes to the article are. It appears to me that Jayjg simply is enlisting people to support his negative account of the editing conflict here. I haven't been editing this article for the past week; I was out of the country. I just saw what he did to it yesterday, and I tried to restore the missing sources (again). Kampeas' reference to Libby's membership in a Jewish temple clearly establishes that he identifies himself with the belief of Judaism, which is one of the two tests for WP:BLP's inclusion of the category relating to religion (not ethnicity in this case). I have made no "end runs" around policy. I have always stated clearly that Libby is a public figure and that WP:BLP#Public figures applies to him. I am quite distressed by Jayjg's absurd claims about my motives in editing this article. All I have tried to do is to make reference to sources vetted as reliable sources, starting an article on Kampeas when Jayjg started casting aspersions on his reliablity as a source. (There is no attempt to comment on the content of the article; he acts as if I had some nefarious motive in starting it; I started it to provide accurate information about Kampeas, thus disproving Jayjg's false claims about the author.) See Ron Kampeas for the author's reliability. This article is not about Jayjg; it is about Lewis Libby, a public figure who was a key policy-maker in the Bush administration relating to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the security of Israel (2002-2005) and the Middle East (same years and earlier). His involvement in the Plame affair is a direct result of his policy-making role in the White House as a member of the neoconservative Republican Jewish Coalition; the sources cited establish that relevance, among them is Kampeas' article, which Jayjg continually deletes in an attempt to suppress the information. Fermat is only one of the Wikipedia users/editors who complains about Jayjg's censorship of this information. I don't know who these other comments are coming from; but the points that they are making are not accurate. They simply echo Jayjg's also inaccurate POV. --NYScholar 22:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Having re-read Jayjg's personal attacks on my editing, to tell you the truth, all I feel right now is pure disgust. What he is doing just plain makes me sick to my stomach. If this is the caliber of Wikipedia administrators and editors, I fear for its future. --NYScholar 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't enlisted anyone to comment on this, but it's rather amusing to read your lengthy diatribe that complains about my "personal attacks". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be "amused"; I am not. --NYScholar 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Irony is usually amusing, particularly when taken to these extremes. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Request for comment" is no place for your additional comments responding to me; I'm really not interested in where you perceive "irony". I'm interested in the content of the articles that you are suppressing. --NYScholar 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment going nowhere

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Due to Jayjg's attempt to comment first in the section and to present misleading accounts of the content dispute, this attempt to get neutral comments on the dispute is failing to produce neutral comments on the content of the dispute. He presented a biased POV on the content dispute, and thus everything that follows proceeds from that biased POV. Therefore, there is no way to get comments from people not involved in the dispute. They are reading his inaccurate POV on the the content dispute and not examining any of the previous archived talk pages or the editing history themselves. This is now just a waste of everyone's time. The earlier Request for comment produced no comments at all. Jayjg clearly claims ownership of this article, despite WP:OWN. As far as I can tell, he is violating many policies and guidelines in Wikipedia, while claiming WP:BLP. WP:BLP has a larger context: Wikipedia:Manual of style with all its varous links; within WP:BLP one needs to pay attention to WP:BLP#Public figures and WP:BLP#Use of categories directly (not his rendition of them): "Use of categories" says:

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 that I have cited by Kampeas clearly documents that Lewis Libby "publicly self-identifies with the belief...in question [Judaism]," a religious belief, by establishing that he and his family are members of Temple Rodef Shalom; that is an act of public self-identification. The same information appears in the NNDB article, in the Tulsa Jewish Review (which appears to come from Kampeas' as well), and which I annotated re: questionable reliability due to the mention of "Irve" as his given first name. The article by Kampeas and the sources cited by Kampeas (interviews with Libby's colleagues) clearly establish that Libby's "beliefs...are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life"--to his public service in the Bush administration's policy making relating to the security of Israel and to the Middle East, including its policy making for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which led to his involvement in the Plame affair and in the CIA leak grand jury investigation and, ultimately, to his conviction on four of five felony indictments in United States v. Libby: all main topics of this article on Libby.]

Jayjg's first comment precludes the possibility of achieving any degree of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as he presented his POV in it. I do not sense any degree of interest in actually achieving Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in the presentation of WP:POV by reliable sources in this article in what Jayjg writes. Basically, he has sabotaged [and continues to sabotage] this article. --NYScholar 22:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC) [updated within brackets. --NYScholar 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)]

This raises an interesting point, actually. We ask for self-identification. In this case, is it required that an individual stand up and be quoted as saying "I am X", or can research presented in an RS based on publicly accessible records be considered tantamount to self-identification? JAy, please weigh in, and keep it civil. This is more important (in terms of applying policy) than I thought. Hornplease 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

and keep it civil? A rather odd thing to request; perhaps you can lead by demonstrating it in the first place. Care to re-word your request? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the least odd, given your sharpness in the section above. Please do attempt to maintain a certain modicum of civility, this continued defensiveness is very tiresome.

I ask again: is it required that an individual stand up and be quoted as saying "I am X", or can research presented in an RS based on publicly accessible records be considered tantamount to self-identification? If so, why, and if not, why not? I cannot see why this is a difficult question to answer, or requires restatement. Hornplease 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how mere membership in a religious organization qualifies as "public self-identification." That would apply to every active member of any religious group. (Note that the Kampeas article talks at length about how Libby did NOT make a public point about his religion, so that even close colleagues were unaware of it). What's the point then, of even having the rule? The second issue is relevancy. Those editors in support of including this have only cited Libby's official government responsibilities involving Israel. If the official had previously been the head of a Jewish/Israeli advocacy group, then I could see the argument for inclusion. However, there is nothing there in Libby's case. The clear implication of this is that a government official who deals with Israel who happens to be Jewish is somehow different from other government officials who are not Jewish. That assumption, without any other supporting evidence, is on its face anti-semitic. Notmyrealname 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You know as well as I that judaism is functionally as much an ethnicity as it is a religion in the United States. But in regards to your concerns, it is common sense that one's own ethnicity and/or religion can colour one's opinions on political issues. If Mitt Romney were to start supporting polygamy rights, people would be curious if his mormonism influenced his views (40% or so of American just said they would never vote for a mormon, and despite Rommey trying to not make religion a part of his policies, it keeps getting brought up). If Colin Powell started pushing through Affirmative Action policies, people would make a link between his actions and his ethnicity. If any muslim or arab in the US government was supporting policies in support of muslim or arab peoples over Israel, you better believe his 'religion' or ethnicity would be reported on wiki, and people would be interested in knowing. In this case, Libby has supported and developed policies that have generally supported Israeli interests (defending Marc Rich, Pushing Iraq war, Plame affair). Him being jewish may have influenced them. It also may not have. But hiding that information is nonsense. And anyways, aside from a few racist psychos, I'm betting the majority of people interested in Libby's ethnicity are actually jewish. And remember, Richard Franklin spied for Israel, but by all accounts is a practicing Roman Catholic. Few reasonably educated people believe in some crazy protocols of Zion plot - give people some credit. If anything, mindless censorship is the one thing that fuels these noxious theories. Fermat1999 02:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[I had originally placed my comments directly after each point that they relate to, but the user moved them. I had threaded them properly, but moving them into one place lost the relationship between my comments and what I was commenting on. I have now quoted the comments that I was commenting on preceded by "RE:" throughout. (Please do not move other users' comments and thus lose their coherent threading in the future.) --NYScholar 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: "I don't see how mere membership in a religious organization qualifies as "public self-identification." That would apply to every active member of any religious group." (from prev. comment)

Yes, it would. "Every active member of any religious group" is clearly identifying himself or herself publicly with the "belief" of that group. --NYScholar 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: "What's the point then, of even having the rule?" (from previous comment)

Read the full discussion in WP:BLP, including WP:BLP#Public figures and examine the material at all the links, and you will understand that "the rule" is to be in keeping with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the most paramount of which is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.--NYScholar 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: "(Note that the Kampeas article talks at length about how Libby did NOT make a public point about his religion, so that even close colleagues were unaware of it)." (from prev. comment)

Please stop paraphrasing and distorting an article that you and Jayjg have attempted to remove from sources. Your paraphrases are biased and not neutral. One can read the full article for oneself and see what it says if it is among the sources in the article on Lewis Libby. Otherwise one cannot. That is the point. --NYScholar 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

From the article by Kampeas cited in Lewis Libby ("Libby Jewish?"; "Libby's Jewishness...." as reprinted, e.g.) and documented above:

Libby’s Jewish profile at the White House was low, according to Jews who have worked with the administration. Other Jewish staffers knew he was Jewish, but he was not one of the highly identified Jews, such as Tevi Troy, the deputy assistant policy adviser to the president, or Joshua Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The low profile was attributable in part to Libby’s general reserve and to his closeness to power. After Karl Rove, Bush’s top adviser, he was considered the most powerful unelected official in the White House.

Keeping a "low" "Jewish profile" is not the same thing as not identifying oneself publicly as being Jewish: not being "one of the highly identified Jews" is also not the same thing as not identifying oneself publicly as being Jewish; the comparison is to Tevi Troy or Joshua Bolten, who are being given as examples of "highly identified Jews"; speculating that Libby's comparatively "low profile" (which is not the same thing as no profile at all) as being Jewish was "attributable in part to Libby's general reserve and to his closness to power" ["the most powerful unelected official in the White House"] is Kampeas' own speculation; one does not know why Libby kept a so-called "low profile" as a Jew; but, again, keeping a "low profile" is not the same thing as no public self-identification at all. Kampeas says explicitly: "Other Jewish staffers knew he was Jewish": how would they have known if Libby did not identify himself publicly as being Jewish? Clearly, he did. There is no reliable third-party published source that states that he did not. --NYScholar 21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: "The second issue is relevancy. Those editors in support of including this [the article by Ron Kampeas, i.e.] have only cited Libby's official government responsibilities involving Israel. If the official had previously been the head of a Jewish/Israeli advocacy group, then I could see the argument for inclusion. However, there is nothing there in Libby's case. The clear implication of this is that a government official who deals with Israel who happens to be Jewish is somehow different from other government officials who are not Jewish. That assumption, without any other supporting evidence, is on its face anti-semitic." (from prev. comment)

That is an absurd and offensive claim. The POV of a subject of an article is of key importance in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just another attempt to keep the fact that Libby (a public figure) is Jewish out of this article. It clearly is not "anti-Semitic" to state a fact that a person is Jewish [or has a "belief" in Judaism as documented by his membership in Temple Rodef Shalom, i.e.], especially when it is an accepted fact in reliable press accounts [such as that by Ron Kampeas and news organizations reprinting his article]. The point is that there has been discussion by Kampeas of the whole matter and that in a free society (which this is) one should be able to cite the discussion without fear of censorship or without censorship by these users who are deleting mention of such facts from articles in Wikipedia. These users are violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in this article about a public figure and attempting to suppress discussion of pertinent information about him. --NYScholar 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: "Those editors in support of including this have only cited Libby's official government responsibilities involving Israel. If the official had previously been the head of a Jewish/Israeli advocacy group, then I could see the argument for inclusion. However, there is nothing there in Libby's case." (from the previous comment)

That is another inaccurate statement. In citing Kampeas and other articles about Libby, I have pointed out that Libby was a key member of Bush's policy-making team relating to the policies leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and particularly "security affairs" involving specifically the "security of Israel." Before making such statements, such users really need to read the full article on Lewis Libby and the sources documented in it. They clearly know little to nothing about the subject of the article (Libby). --NYScholar 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: "The clear implication of this is that a government official who deals with Israel who happens to be Jewish is somehow different from other government officials who are not Jewish. That assumption, without any other supporting evidence, is on its face anti-semitic." (from prev. comment)

Stop attacking other editors with claims of "anti-Semitism"; users engaging in these personal attacks have no way of knowing whether or not the editors they attack with such false claims are themselves Jewish. They need to tread more carefully and to stop violating WP:NPA. I personally strenuously object to such claims being attached to my editing. Citing a person's documented membership in a temple is not anti-Semitism and never has been. Moreover, of course it is relevant what a person's POV is. Wikipedia has a policy of establishing such points of view of subjects of articles and various points of view in published reliable sources about the subjects: see WP:POV in a manner that meets Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This censorship and name-calling violates Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. Until this dispute is resolved, the deleted sources discussing Lewis Libby in this article need to be restored for the benefit of readers of the article. Readers can read them and decide for themselves as to their pertinence to the subject. -NYScholar 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[Again: I have had to present the quotations that I was referring to because this other user moved all my comments from where I had originally placed them and where I had properly threaded and signed them. This user should not be doing that. --NYScholar 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)]

I was not referring to the above editor, but rather to the argument. The argument, put forth repeatedly by those in favor of including this, has been that Libby was involved with policy between the US and Israel, and that in itself made relevant whether he was Jewish or not. I can go through the logs if requested, but the record is very clear. The contention that the rfc "is going nowhere" is quite absurd. The other editors who have commented are quite capable of reading the relevant sources and the many thousands of words that have been written on this talk page. Notmyrealname 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a waste of everyone's time. I have reinstated the request for protection (semi-protection) due to the deletions of relevant sources from this article. --NYScholar 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has been protected. I have deleted the comment directed at me; I did not use the term the user claimed; I was citing someone else's use of it in another article. I removed the reference when it was pointed out that it is a term not to be used in Wikipedia. I did not know that. The rest of the comment is irrelevant as it pertains to material not in this comment. As my own talk page points out, I remove personal attacks when I see them and substitute the template: Focus on the content of articles not on contributors.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --NYScholar 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a personal talk page. I did not make personal attacks. I was referring to the above editor's comments that "Another Wikipedia user describes what is being done by these other users as "fascistic" editing; I agree." Please do not remove other users comments just because you feel that you are being attacked. This is not the proper way to resolve disputes. Notmyrealname 17:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed my own comment as it was objected to. I do not intend for it to be added back into this talk page. Since it has been added back in without my authorization, I repeat my own comment again:
This article has been protected. I have deleted the comment directed at me; I did not use the term the user claimed; I was citing someone else's use of it in another article. I removed the reference when it was pointed out that it is a term not to be used in Wikipedia. I did not know that. The rest of the comment is irrelevant as it pertains to material not in this comment. As my own talk page points out, I remove personal attacks when I see them and substitute the template: Focus on the content of articles not on contributors. [Please see the "General reminder" that I post below. I have no interest in responding to the above user any further. The user's constant focus on other contributors instead of how to improve the content of this article clearly violates the notice at the top of this talk page.] --NYScholar 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC) [updated in brackets. --NYScholar 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)]

[Context: The comment that I was citing and that I removed after it was objected to is posted in Talk:Neoconservatism#Page protection by Wassermann. --NYScholar 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)]

Clearly, the reason why this RFC is going nowhere is because these other users insist on making uncivil and personal comments about other contributors (however veiled and indirect) and persist in engaging in pushing their own POV, which appears in their other edits in Wikipedia articles. It appears to me that they have no actual interest in the subject of the article (Lewis Libby) or any knowledge about him as they contribute no content to this article and just delete reliably-sourced content and both reliable sources and properly-annotated commonly-cited sources from it. I have requested protection of the article due to such problems. These problems go far beyond mere editing "content disputes"; there is something far more dangerous going on in this article and others in Wikipedia, which appear to be systematic if one checks the editing history of other articles where similar kinds of deletions are being made. I have alerted Wikipedia to this problem for some time and am doing so again. --NYScholar 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you requested protection so you could get it protected on your version. You then tried the same trick with Temple Rodef Shalom, but people were on to you, and you only succeeded in getting yourself blocked for 3RR violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I object to such slanderous claims. This was not the case. I requested protection due to the continual reverting (deleting) of reliably-sourced content by Jayjg (over an extended period of time and several times within 24 hours and his clearly enlisting 2 other users to do the same; between them they reverted (deleted) the content at least 6 times. They attempted to get me blocked and succeeded in doing so (it was their "success" not mine); I was trying to make corrections to the presentation of what I regard as reliably-sourced information; the Libby name was inserted initially by another user, but the sentence had errors and needed sourcing. Jayjg's continal incivility toward me and other Wikipedians (scroll up) who do not agree with his POV needs sanctioning. This behavior on the part of an administrator clearly violates Wikipedia:Administrator and appears to me and others to be Wikipedia:Administrator#Abuse, as I have stated before (Please scroll up and see archived talk pages). As an interested party in this content dispute, this administrator should not be engaging in such uncivil behavior, such as engaging in trying to get other contributors (like me) blocked. I object to his tactics, as do many other Wikipedians (Please scroll up). This content dispute (concerning Lewis Libby; Temple Rodef Shalom) is now in arbitration. --NYScholar 08:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction of errors into this article

To those it applies to: Please stop deleting correct and reliably sourced information from this article as these users are doing in other articles in Wikipedia: the category "assistant to the President" is correct: see the introductory paragraphs and sourcing: e.g., Archived White House biography of Lewis Libby, already documented in the article. See what is going on in the article Neoconservatism (Talk page and editing history there) for evidence of the biases and POV being used in Wikipedia articles pertaining to Lewis Libby (just one other example). --NYScholar 16:51, 19 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. --NYScholar 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagged article due to lack of neutrality in editing

I have tagged this article; it was previously protected from deletions of the sources recently deleted after the [earlier semi-]protection was lifted. See the editing history and archived talk pages. --NYScholar 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC) [corrected in brackets. --NYScholar 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)]

Article protection: Request for editing assistance

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In adding a source (Slate article), I accidentally made a typographical error resulting in some unintended material when I was providing the source citation in a note: The unintended material accidentally appears in the text and is:

By Karen Kwiatkowski

Opinion:].</ref>

That typographical error is in Lewis Libby#Government public service and political career just prior to the cross-ref. to the PNAC (Project for the New American Century); the new additional source is informative about Libby's political contexts. [Please delete extra spacing as well. The cross-ref. needs to follow the note number. Thank you.] --NYScholar 17:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Mahanga^Talk 01:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

General reminder

Quoting the notice tagged at top of this page:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lewis Libby article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

It is also not a forum for discussion of other contributors or to demean their contributions. --NYScholar 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Concern about POV Forking

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It seems that NYScholar has been inappropriately inserting the content in question into the page of Temple Rodef Shalom. This appears to be a version of POV Forking. While not a violation of official policy, this is really an unhelpful action in this ongoing dispute. Since the issue originated on this page, I am posting this comment here. The editor had initially created a subcategory on the Temple page called "Notable members," with Libby being the sole person listed. After I removed it, noting that Kampeas' article is dated 2005 and therefor not current, he changed it to "Notable members (past and/or present)." Again, Libby is the only member listed. Notmyrealname 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[NOTE: There is no so-called POV Fork; the user posting this offensive charge is totally inappropriately doing so here. --NYScholar 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC) See Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom for contexts and the editing history 115116972 for the editor who originally inserted Libby's name with no source into that article; I provided the source and attempted to improve the sentence as explained in editing history summary there. See my further comment below. --NYScholar 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)]

This claim is completely untrue and another attempt on the above user's part to comment on contributor rather than content. An earlier editor (on Mar. 14, 2007) added Lewis Libby as a member of the temple to its article. I saw it via the "links to" section in Libby. I updated the description of Libby (which had been awkwardly worded and somewhat inaccurate) and added sources as there had been no source given to document that Libby was a member of the temple. There is no so-called POV Fork etc. as this user claims. I object strenuously once again to the personal attacks. This comment about the article Temple Rodef Shalom is inappropriate here. Users should examine editing history more carefully before casting such aspersions on the contributions of others. This user is dead wrong and again wholly inappropriate.... [Note: "Notable members" or "Notable residents" (re: states and cities) is a common heading in Wikipedia. There was no heading before Libby's name as inserted by another editor some time ago. I provided an appropriate Wikipedia-style heading for the information. This user attempts to revert the information continually. Warning to the user about such reversions of properly-sourced factual information. --NYScholar 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, I find your obsession with Libby's Jewishness utterly inappropriate. Also, plerase stop intimidating other users on this page. See WP:OWN. Please stop this. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that others stop trying to intimidate me. I did not post this section. Another user did. I am not obsessed with Libby's "Jewishness"; those who attempt to remove the article documenting it are. --NYScholar 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected that the user was not the first to place Libby's name on the temple page. My other comments stand. Notmyrealname 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments that the above user's claims are totally without support. --NYScholar 08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

General reminder

Quoting the notice tagged at top of this page:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lewis Libby article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

It is also not a forum for discussion of other contributors or to demean their contributions. --NYScholar 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional sources

[My original heading was changed by another user: It was: "Some representative additional reliable sources pertinent to improving development of this article's discussion of Libby's role in Bush administration foreign policy pertaining to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, national security affairs relating to the Middle East and particularly to Israel" --NYScholar 16:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

Some of these are historically pertinent; more recent articles refer back to their contexts:

Frankel, Max. "The Washington Back Channel". The New York Times 25 March, 2007. Accessed 21 April, 2007. (TimesSelect subscription required.) [Checked and verified; letters to the Times (beginning April 8, 2007) and numerous other sites critique Frankel's views.]
"Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'". 60 Minutes 21 May, 2004. Accessed 21 April, 2007. [Printable transcript and video links].
Guttman, Nathan. "Secret Briefing by Zinni Seen As Key in Aipac Duo Trial". The Jewish Daily Forward 30 March, 2007. Accessed 21 April, 2007.
Logan, Justin. "Joel Mowbray Libels Gen. Zinni". Letter to the editor. Townhall.com 4 January, 2004. Online posting. justinlogan.com (personal website of author). Accessed 21 April, 2007.
Mowbray, Joel. "General Zinni, What a Ninny". Townhall.com 31 December, 2003. Accessed 21 April, 2007.

The above sources discuss I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby's prominent role in the formation of Bush administration policy pertaining to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, his role as part of neoconservatives' involvement in such policy formation, and the importance of these Bush administration foreign policymakers in forging such policy as an outgrowth of the Project for the New American Century and other key organizations and documents produced by such organizations. See these articles in relation to that by Kampeas for the political contexts relevant to Libby.

E.g., from the printed transcript of General Anthony Zinni's 60 Minutes appearance, it is clear that Gen. Zinni (former commander-in-chief of CENTCOM and former Bush envoy to the Middle East) broke with the Bush administration and the policies of this group in the White House, State Dept., and Defense Dept. (incl. Libby, Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and key members of PNAC--see article's links for Wikipedia articles on these) and questioned their political and military "strategy" in developing the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In "Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'" (back in May 21, 2004), the context is clearly stated:

Zinn is talking about a group of policy makers within the administration known as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stablize American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams [sic]; and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.... Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq.... "I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody--everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do," says Zinni. ...."And one article [See Joel Mowbray's TownHall.com column], because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelieveable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested." .... Adds Zinni: "I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary [of Defense] to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from." .... Zinn said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century. ...."All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the take down of Iraq as a priority," adds Zinni. "And what we have becom enow in the United States, howe we're viewed in this region is not [as] an entity that's promisiing positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world." (Italics added.) [60 Minutes]

Zinni addresses the "personal attacks" on him for being purportedly "anti-Semitic" when he was actually criticizing political and military "strategies" of this group of (it was well known at the time) mostly Jewish "neo-conservatives," even though he himself did not mention that they were Jewish at all. See Mowbray's highly-criticized response, which observes that yet calls him "antisemitic" anyway.

Mowbray's response is the same kind of response that I and other Wikipedians have had to experiencing "personal attacks" (his phrase) being made by users posting on this page and elsewhere, who have engaged in contentious disputes about any content that mentions that Libby is Jewish: e.g., Notmyrealname, Jayjg, and humus sapiens. They attack one for simply citing various reliable sources that state Libby's ethnic and/or religious affiliation (a matter of public record) and for citing Kampeas' documentation pf Libby's so-called "Jewishness" as it pertains to the kinds of controversies that the neo-conservatives have found themselves at the center of due to their policies concerning American foreign policy pertaining to Israel and Iraq. Documenting the matter that such controversy exists is not the same as being "anti-Semitic". These users need to understand that. I cite these other articles to provide further contexts for this controversy, which does relate directly to Lewis Libby's foreign policymaking role in the White House from 2002-2005 and to his subsequent trial.

As some of these other sources (and many more also reliable published sources do), Kampeas discusses Libby's being "Jewish" in relation to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which is the core matter leading to the Plame affair and Libby's February 2005 indictment and his March 6, 2007 convictions on 4 of the 5 counts against him. Kampeas develops a context also (as Gen. Zinni does even earlier) for the charges of antisemitism against those discussing it. Some charges of "antisemitism" appear justified--e.g., those leveled against David Duke, who is recognized by many reliable published sources as a well-known anti-Semite (though one must note that the Wikipedia article about him cites his denial that he is motivated by antisemitism). But to level the same charges against others simply pointing out that Libby is Jewish or that he is a member of a Jewish temple (matters of fact) who cite Kampeas or the NNDB to support those facts is absurd. Kampeas himself is not "anti-Semitic" for merely chronicling the controversy as it pertains to these political contexts of Libby's role as a neo-conservative member of President Bush's foreign policy team making and defending these policies leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq against those pointing out the false bases for that invasion in claims of nuclear proliferation (e.g., former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson). I am not "anti-Semitic" for citing Kampeas. Such matters (WP:POV) are pertinent to the subject of Lewis Libby and the trial in which he was ultimately convicted of 4 out of 5 federal felonies. It is not "anti-Semitic" to define these points of view on Libby and his work in the White House from 2002 to 2005, when he was forced to resign due to his indictments by the Fitzgerald grand jury.

Improvement of this article will make these matters clearer by citing representative reliable sources and discussing these political contexts of Libby's work in a neutral manner (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must be able to define these relevant debates pertinent to Lewis Libby's foreign policymaking role in the Bush administration and how it relates to the full facts of his biography (taking into account both WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Public figures. It is certainly relevant to note that someone is Jewish and/or is a member of a Jewish temple in discussing his role in Bush administration's meetings with members of the "Jewish community" (who, reportedly, as documented by several reliable sources cited in this Wikipedia article, considered Libby "sympathetic to Israel") in relation to American foreign policy affecting Israel and leading to a war of, now, over four years' duration that has killed over 3,000 American servicemen and women, injured thousands more of them, and killed and maimed scores of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, as well as many thousands of Coalition military personnel and non-military personnel as well. If, as many reliable sources state, there is a strong connection between the support of the United States for Israeli security in the Middle East in its war in Iraq, and if members of the Bush administration like Libby were key proponents of the war, then this aspect of their background (neoconservative; Jewish and/or not Jewish) would seem to be at least relevant and something to mention not to hide. That, to me, seems common sense. Not mentioning such facts, not disclosing such facts, would seem to be a means of censorship based on editors' own POV and biases. There should be a way to state reliably-documented facts presented in reliable published sources without fear of being accused of bias and prejudice. As someone else has already pointed out, some of the contributors who are attempting to define these facts honestly and openly are themselves Jewish. It is perverse and offensive to accuse these Jewish editors of antisemitism. --NYScholar 13:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Source pertaining to Libby's law license

[This heading was changed by another user from my original heading, which was: "Source to update currently unsourced (unattributed, undocumented) statement re: Libby's law license in Washington, D.C.". --tc: updated. --NYScholar 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

Schwartz, Emma. "Scooter Libby's Law License Loses Its Wheels". Legal Times 6 April, 2007. Online posting. law.com. Also posted online at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Both accessed 22 April, 2007.

I had attempted to add this source to this talk page earlier but had an editing problem and lost whole list above and this source; restored earlier and now. The CREW site seems to be having some glitches, so I have provided the law.com site version of the article.: This article can also document that Libby first "became a member of the D.C. Bar in 1978"; it observes that "...the D.C. Bar suspended Libby's law license Wednesday [April 4, 2007]," a "temporary suspension" that "is a result of his conviction last month for perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice" and that "The suspension is effective until the Board of Professional Responsibility decides whether to boot Libby from the ranks of the legal field for good." It also observes, as some previous eds. pointed out but had given no verifiable reliable sources to document:

Of course, Libby wasn't exactly a member in good standing before. The Bar suspended his law license in October 2006 for nonpayment of dues -- something he could have fixed by paying the approximately $180 annual fee.
Libby, a Columbia Law School grad who became a member of the D.C. Bar in 1978, was also suspended for nonpayment of dues in December 2001 and reinstated in November 2005.

Given Libby's suspensions for the nonpayment of relatively small fees, I now would question whether or not he keeps up the membership dues in, say, Temple Rodef Shalom, which may be much higher as they appear to be based on income levels. (Though perhaps, as chief of staff and then as defendant, that membership was more important to him and his family (until his conviction) than his law license, since he stopped practicing law (as this Wik. article documents) for periods from 2002 to 2005. The uncertainty is thus one reason why I think the phrase "former and/or current" was reasonable to add to the heading in the other article, though, as I state in response to Quatloo re: that article's talk page and elsewhere, I am not sure that the temple is even notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia devoted to it, and I would recommend its deletion entirely if others agree with him as well. But I have no strong views about its staying in or going. I just think that if the temple article stays in Wikipedia, and if Libby has a Wikipedia article that can cite this reliable published source that he is or was a member in it (for many years as of 2005; same year his law license was "reinstated"), then it makes sense to link him to it in a respectable manner. I tried to do that, but my attempt has been called into question and maligned. I have no more time to devote to this article now. --NYScholar 15:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What links here

[My original heading linked to a Request for Arbitration (RFA) with a title focusing on the articles rather than on me (a contributor); however, an administrator changed the heading in the RFA back to focusing on me; the link to the RFA is now in "What links here" in the Lewis Libby main article; see the content directly below, where I provide the direct link. Headings in article talk pages are not to focus on contributors; see tagged talk page guidelines at the top of this page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. [Updated: added explanation for this heading. --NYScholar 19:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

For links to other articles in Wikipedia that link to the article on Lewis Libby, please see the link to "What links here" on the main page of the article. Those links currently include a link to Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration.[1]. My own statement is there; my own fuller statements are archived in my own talk page sections beginning in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4#ArbCom/Lewis Libby; Temple Rodef Shalom. --NYScholar 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

About Lewis Libby and Talk:Lewis Libby

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

[moved from my talk page reply to Crockspot; it applies to Lewis Libby and to this talk page on improving this article and thus is relevant to this talk page. --NYScholar 17:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

I provided some additional sources on Talk:Lewis Libby, so that people who are primarily interested in actually improving the article on Lewis Libby can read them and see how central a role he had in formulating U.S. government foreign policy regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including issues pertaining to national security affairs (one of his main roles in government from 2002 on as well as before that when he worked in national defense), including the security of Israel.

There are scores of additional articles, but those are a starting point. One can see that there is considerable discussion of what Kampeas discusses both before and after the Jewish Telegraphic Agency published his initial article about Libby in 2005 (e.g., 2004; 2007). I have a subscription to TimesSelect and access to LexisNexis Academic Universe, which enables me to verify, check, and read these occasionally-limited access articles. I have been working on articles pertaining to the Plame affair and Lewis Libby, as well as other articles in Wikipedia, for some time, and occasionally working on one article leads to others via internal links. I do not generally work on articles that deal with Jewish matters or Israel; sometimes I have come upon them while working on articles not dealing with those subjects. For anyone to assume differently is a mistaken impression. Generally, I work on trying to improve documentation of sources in Wikipedia articles and in striving to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and overall accuracy of citations. I usually am very thorough about summarizing the nature of edits that I make; my editing history is clear. Frequently, I do many hours of work prior to previewing, and often I find typographical errors to correct later; that is why there are many edits. I have contributed a great deal of content to Wikipedia, mostly in the way of sources, and I am unhappy about aspersions being cast on my work. When I spend many hours providing sources and then have them [these sources] deleted, and when these sources are in keeping with all Wikipedia guidelines, as I believe they are, I protest, as I have done. I am wholly opposed to censorship and POV editing in Wikipedia, which violates its central and most important tenet: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the accompanying WP:POV. I have stated this many times over, but these points are being ignored by those singling me out in the RFA. My further responses to this current RFA pertaining to Lewis Libby are archived (archive 4). --NYScholar 15:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot: Having just checked a few of the links in your Sandbox [mentioned in previous section][2], I recall that you said that you were just interested in accurate sourcing; it is almost funny, in retrospect, that I actually was (I thought) in part responding to you, when I attempted to keep providing as accurate a citation as possible to sources of Libby's so-called "Jewishness" (which, in his case, is, I believe, not "ethnicity" necessarily (since we don't yet know that for sure) but rather a matter of religious belief self-identification); Kampeas is that source. (I was an editor who removed "Jewish" from in front of "family" in the personal history sec. of the article Lewis Libby some time ago, because (as per the talk page discussions) that is not necessarily documented. It is not clear whether or not Libby's parents are both Jewish and whether or not his "family" is Jewish. So I thought it reasonable to remove that adjective from that sentence in that section. Instead, I also thought it reasonable, to add the documented information that Libby [and his current family (wife and children)] were, according to Kampeas, members of Temple Rodef Shalom, which had been information added without a source by some other Wikipedia user to the article on the temple. I saw that article via "links to" in the Libby article. --NYScholar 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing that supports his public self-identification as a Jew, to be more precise. That is the other criteria (besides relevance to notability) that is mandatory per WP:BLP before you can tag someone with a religious category. If this case gets accepted, I am going to try to get the ARBCOM to issue an opinion that these criteria are not limited just to categories, but to statements in the article. It makes sense that this was the original intention of the rule, but since it doesn't state that, a lot of editors try to argue that this rule only applies to use of categories, and not to article content. It makes no sense to me that there would be a rule forbidding the use of a category under certain circumstances, but would not at the same time forbid the insertion of content that does pretty much the same thing. BTW, if you haven't really done anything to be worried about, I wouldn't sweat it right now. ARBCOM, once a case is opened, is very good about crawling up the ass of every editor and edit, and determining exactly who did what. (One of the reasons I was not all that happy about being named in this proceeding, no one likes ARBCOM crawling up their ass.) From my own edit list, the only person named in the ARBCOM request who made a "bad" edit was Fermat1999 - Crockspot 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot: I am not one of the users who kept re-adding the category: "Jewish American lawyers" to the article on Lewis Libby after it became clear that the category was contested. The information that Lewis Libby is "Jewish" (whether or not he belongs to a Jewish temple) is, however, clearly supported by the article by Kampeas and many other sources both reprinting and citing him and by many other third-party sources, some of which I added yesterday to Talk:Lewis Libby. People can read the articles and find other articles to cite as reliable sources of this information. Most articles in Wikipedia that cite the religion and ethnicity of a living person who is also a public figure have absolutely no evidence where the person publicly says "I am...."; public participation in religious faith-based organizations is evidence of self-identification. Some public figures (say, Alan Dershowitz) may repeatedly allude publicly to their being Jewish or to their own identification with and as Jewish people, but that is not the only kind of "self-identification" that is used to meet WP:BLP#Use of categories, which is still Wikipedia policy (until and unless it changes) and which Kampeas' and the other articles (several now) listed in Lewis Libby and more recently for your and others' information in Talk:Lewis Libby clearly documents. I suggest that you find a public statement where Lewis Libby has said "I am not Jewish" or "I do not publicly identify myself as Jewish" to support your claims that he does not identify himself publicly as Jewish. The articles listed in Lewis Libby as sources, which meet WP:Citing sources as reliable third-party sources, establish that he publicly identifies himself as being Jewish (or as having the "belief" that is [Reform] Judaism by being a member of Temple Rodef Shalom) and that his colleagues interviewed by Kampeas attest to his being Jewish. They were all interviewed by Ron Kampeas for publication in an article by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and they spoke with him about Libby's being Jewish without any kind of qualification stating that he does not identify himself publicly as being Jewish. Not one of those cited stated that Libby did not want to be known publicly as Jewish. Kampeas simply speculates that perhaps because of his high-level position in the Bush administration Libby may not have focused on his being Jewish in a "highly identified" way; that he kept a "low profile" [see my addition about this to Talk:Lewis Libby]; that is perhaps, of course, because his position involved high-level negotiations involving the Israeli-Palestinian Middle East peace process, which is still ongoing (cited in the article Lewis Libby)] Yet, as a public figure engaged in such negotiations Libby's own so-called "Jewishness" was repeatedly documented in reliable third-party sources; and that is what Wikipedia:Citing sources requires in establishing WP:POV and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view].

It may have come as a surprise to some of those who did not know him personally who assumed from his nickname "Scooter" or his Ivy-League background that he was not Jewish, but those are not reliable published third-party sources; those are people just guessing from a nickname or a degree. According to publications both before and after 2004 and 2005, it was a publicly-cited Washington fact that Libby is Jewish; and it was publicized that he was both a neoconservative and a supporter of Israel (New York Times article cited in Lewis Libby). If he did not identify himself publicly as being Jewish, in attending public events in the White House pertaining to celebrating the Jewish holidays or meetings with other Jewish Republicans, or as identifying himself with the belief of Judaism (e.g., via being a member of Temple Rodef Shalom), how would any of those people know that he was among the group of neoconservatives in the Bush administration who also happened to be Jewish? Yet many reliable third-party sources state that he did so.

No reliable published source quotes Lewis Libby stating that he does not identify himself as Jewish. (The Carter administration public relations person cited by Kampeas is speaking in general about people he knew in that administration and the matter of "self-identify[ing]"; he is not speaking specifically about Lewis Libby.) Such a claim to the contrary has no documented support. Unless you can support that claim with a currently-accurate reliable third-party source, you have no basis for that claim. Wikipedia:Citing sources works both ways. --NYScholar 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In my view, if he keeps a "low profile", then I would assume that he sees his religion as a private matter, and that is really the crux of the policy; the privacy rights of the subject. Take a look, for example, at Olympia Snowe. She is publicly active in the Greek Orthodox church. She attends public events, hosts public events, speaks at public events, and it is reported on by the press. Her article is reliably sourced showing her out in public, having her picture taken by the press and answering reporter's questions as a Greek Orthodox Senator. That is what I consider public self-identification. If there are reliable secondary sources that report Libby hosting a Rabbinical lunch at the White House, or speaking at a public temple event, then I would accept that as public self-identification. If he just goes to a temple, and sits in the pews, and his name happens to show up on a donor or member list, or somebody else says that he is a member of the temple, that is not what I consider public self-identification. - Crockspot 23:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, we and a number of others disagree about what constitutes public self-identification (which applies so far in Wikipedia only to WP:BLP#Use of categories); WP:BLP#Public figures applies to the whole article. (The example that you give is merely one instance of a kind of public self-identification; there are clearly many degrees of public self-identification of one's beliefs and sexual orientations; that is one example; Lewis Libby is another. Some people are "high profile"; some people are "low profile"; some people may be "medium profile"--there are no clear-cut definitions of those three categories of "profiles" in Wikipedia at all; there is simply a reference to public self-identification, which is not defined. Moreover, the issue is moot, as I have already stated many times, since I myself have not recently been adding the category "Jewish American lawyers" to this article on Lewis Libby; that is what others have been doing. The reference to public self-identification with a "belief" or a "sexual orientation" is in WP:BLP#Use of categories. It pertains only to such use. It does not pertain to citing reliable third-party sources (several, even many) that refer to the public self-identification of a public figure--WP:BLP#Public figures--with the belief (Judaism, Reform Judaism in the case of Libby)--through his membership in a religious organization (in this case a temple) or his cited public identification by his colleagues as being Jewish, or his own documented participation in public events hosted by the White House celebrating Jewish holidays, or his own documented participation in meetings with other members of the Jewish community reported in reliable third-party news sources, or in his own documented high-level governmental meetings also reported by such sources, all of which are currently cited in the article Lewis Libby. There are multiple reliable third-party sources referring to this public figure's affiliations as a Jewish person and/or adherent to the belief Judaism [Reform Judaism]; Lewis Libby is not a private person; he is a public figure, and, as such, his ethnicity and/or religious belief is a matter of public knowledge (public information), due to the publication of this information in reliable third-party sources such as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, which can hardly be claimed to be biased against Jewish people or to engage in antisemitism or similar prejudice. I [left] this discussion here until later...to give Crockspot an opportunity to read it; then I [archived] it; I will not be responding further to discussion of this matter. [I have since moved it to this talk page on Lewis Libby, where the matter still pertains.] I have not got the time or the interest in doing so. I have stated my position on these matters clearly and consistently. My citations of Kampeas et al. are well within WP:BLP#Public figures. I have quoted the passages from WP that apply. People can review all this in the talk pages of the article Talk:Lewis Libby, its archived talk pages, and my own talk pages. [See my own fuller statements about this editing content dispute in my archived talk page 4.] --NYScholar 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC) [Updated: --NYScholar 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

To Crockspot and others: If you want to debate matters pertaining to improving the article on Lewis Libby, please do so in its talk page Talk:Lewis Libby, not [on my talk page]. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC) --[updated. Moved from my talk page and talk page archive. --NYScholar 17:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

Arbitration

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As this case is still under Arbitration, please don't adjust anything on the talk page, as that would be considered "Tampering with the evidence."--RWilliamKing 18:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

[For the record:] I myself have not "tamper[ed] with the evidence": someone else altered my own [recent] earlier headings, which I noted clearly in brackets, making the changes even clearer than they had been (in brackets stating that and with clear signatures). This talk page is subject to editing (correction of typograhical errors, for example, which I have been doing in my own comments); it is not protected from such typographical corrections to one's own comments. (I am not changing comments originated by others.) I have not attempted to remove any "evidence." The headings were corrected by another user, and I made that clear. See the editing history.--NYScholar 18:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: changes to the talk page: see what another user has been doing to my posts [see editing history of this talk page]: I had written earlier (April 19, 2007): "[NOTE: There is no so-called POV Fork; the user posting this offensive charge is totally inappropriately doing so here. --NYScholar 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC) and s/he moved it.]" The note was added by me originally exactly where I intended it to appear. --NYScholar 18:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I had originally written:

[See Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom for contexts and the editing history 115116972 for the editor who originally inserted Libby's name with no source into that article; I provided the source and attempted to improve the sentence as explained in editing history summary there. See my further comment below. --NYScholar 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)]

and another user moved it today; s/he also moved all my comments replying to her/him earlier, which were properly threaded, and grouped them together so that what they pertained to was no longer clear: I had to add the quotations from the comments that I had originally been responding to to make that clear.--NYScholar 18:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I hadn't noticed what Notmyrealname did most recently in the editing history before saying that the "allegations" [my word] by RWilliamKing above were "ridiculous" (a word ["ridiculous"] which I deleted after realizing that those changes were being made by that user and perhaps other users). I see now that some other users have' been changing and moving my own earlier comments around on this talk page. I made it clear (see archive talk page of Lewis Libby) and in my own editing comment today that headings on an article's talk page are not to include the name of contributors (I made the heading more neutral and gave the exact link to the RFA): see the tagged talk page policy/guidelines re: that; doing so violates WP:NPA. I have had to remove my name from talk page headings in Talk:Lewis Libby before (see the archive talk pages). Please stop making this talk page on Lewis Libby about contributors (me). The talk page is supposed to be about improving the article, not about contributors to it. Repeating template message: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. --NYScholar 18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC) [corrected. --NYScholar 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]