Talk:Scooter Libby/Archive 9

Moved items

[Note: Moved July 3, 2007 comment [and next sec. newly posted on April 30, 2007] comment some users posted at top to chronological place in sections order; they was placed here backward; new sections are added at bottom of talk pages, not at top of talk pages: Please see the talkheader instructions/links on top of page. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (Updated. ---NYScholar 00:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)]

The name of the institution that Libby attended from 1965 to 1968 is NOT 'The Phillips Andover Academy'; it is called simply 'Phillips Academy' (no 'The', no 'Andover'). (The confusion is the public minds arises from the name of Phillips Exeter Academy, founded around the same time). If you cannot get that right, give up. ~~maurice boaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice boaz (talk • contribs) 11:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial topic

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. [updated after archiving of all below. --NYScholar 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

Is there a need to constantly archive this talk page?--RWilliamKing 19:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When the current talk page gets too long, messages appear saying that it should be archived [e.g., "This page is 80 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for guidance."]; moreover, if you want the evidence of the previous contents of the talk page not to be "tampered with", as you stated (see archive 6 now), then archiving the talk page contents will protect it from such tampering. See the header on the archived talk pages. People can consult the archived talk pages for their contents. --NYScholar 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See particularly Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When pages get too long for more info. --NYScholar 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[NOTE: material between 25 April 2007 and 2 July 2007 [96K] archived in archive page 7. --NYScholar 01:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)] (added the same note below between those dates.) --NYScholar 01:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please follow proper procedure

From the heading: "Put new text under old text." Please also do not reply to another user's comments by breaking them up. Notmyrealname 23:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

To all users: ...See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for the actual Wikipedia guidelines and "proper procedure." It is Wikipedia "proper procedure" in talk pages to thread one's own comments in responding to others' comments. See the archived talk pages for the contexts for the need to follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and consult the guidelines themselves for "proper procedure"; proper procedure includes threading (use of colons) in responding to parts of another user's comments; for more, see the headings in the guidelines, such as: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments; other offficial Wikipedia guidelines may be found on the main page. See the same link to these guidelines in the header at the top of this current talk page. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See particularly, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments for the bulleted guidelines on "Interruptions"; namely, "In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (If the contribution introduces a new topic. In that case, add "Headline added to (reason) by NYScholar 00:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)"). In such cases, please add —This is part of a comment by USER NAME OR IP , which got interrupted by the following: before the interruption." For exact guidelines, please consult the linked material. [E.g., Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Technical and format standards.] Thank you. --NYScholar 00:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was following "Answer underneath a post: Then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts" when I moved NYScholar's post about "POV forking" below the earlier post that I had made. My other comment in the RFC was not of sufficient length to justify breaking it up. Notmyrealname 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not alter other people's posts unnecessarily; it can result in altering the actual chronological order of posts (as it did earlier--see archive page 6, where my post was moved to after another one posted later). When an editor adds a note in brackets, the brackets indicate clearly that it is a necessary addition as deemed by the editor who added it. Please respect other people's civil comments. WP:NPA applies to non-civil comments, and they may be removed by those offended by them. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments and WP:NPA. Thank you. As I stated above in this section, users can consult the guidelines themselves, as they are clearly linked both at the top of this page and in this section. They are unambiguous. [Please note: As an academic editor, I do correct my own minor typographical errors (tc).] --NYScholar 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolving disputes

The disputes previously affecting Lewis Libby are detailed in the archived talk pages. Before participating in them or participating in them further, please consult for advice: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Matters currently still in arbitration and relating to the protection of this article on Lewis Libby are linked in archived talk page 6. --NYScholar 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[The arbitration case is resolved and "closed" as of July 13, 2007. Please see the updated current case link at Requests for arbitration/NYScholar (Closed) and scroll down or select sections from table of contents for the Arbitration Committee's Final decision. --NYScholar 22:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC) [Copied from later section for information of newcomers to the article. --NYScholar 01:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)] [Please also see notes about archiving in archive pages 7 and 8 below. Thank you. --NYScholar 07:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)]

---

[NOTE: material between 25 April 2007 and 2 July 2007 [96K] archived in archive page 7. --NYScholar 01:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)]

---

[NOTE: material between 2 July and 18 July 2007 [approx. 130K] archived in archive page 8. --NYScholar 07:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)]

---

Disputed Article

So, um, let me ask a silly question: why is the neutrality of this article disputed? Sure, he's a controversial figure, but there's been zero activity on the talk page for months, and the article looks reasonable to my eye (actually, it looks amazingly detailed, but it's not one-sided). I'd like to remove the tag unless there are specific objections to sections that are not neutral, and we should start working to fix those sections. Pro crast in a tor 20:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The template is obsolete. I removed it. --NYScholar 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by new users

Please do not introduce errors into this article. The article was correct and a new user changed it to incorrect information in the lead. I corrected the errors. The sources support the current version. --NYScholar 03:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The likelihood that Mr. Libby became a partner at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis one year (1976) after leaving law school (1975) is remote. The citation ostensibly supporting that assertion (number 27, currently) appears to be flawed. Unless suitable evidence is advanced, someone should remove that reference to partnership. I was a partner at Schnader Harrison and recall references to Mr. Libby's work as a lawyer at the firm but never heard Mr. Libby described as a partner. If Mr. Libby achieved partnership at a firm of Schnader Harrison's caliber within a year of arriving at the firm as a first-year associate, that accomplishment might be more remarkable than any aspect of his riches-to-rags public service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepItFair (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Criminal infobox

This is a format for convicted criminals; it has been discussed extensively in archived talk pages. Please do not enter the article, which is a controversial article, and make changes to material that has already been fully discussed and justified in previous discussions. See Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, WP:BLP#Well known public figures, and other guidelines for editing articles like this one. This article has been semi-protected due to earlier editing disputes detailed in this articles archived talk pages. The infobox format is correct for a well-known public figure who has been convicted of multiple federal crimes and sentenced and then whose reduction of sentence was highly controversial as well. These facts are part of his notability. --NYScholar 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Disbarred American lawyer

His disbarrment is discussed in the main part of the article; leads are to mention briefly subjects discussed in further detail in the main part of the article. Please see Wikipedia's Manual of style re: these aspects of the article and its core policies, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:V, especially WP:V#Sources. These policies are followed in this article. --NYScholar 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

   There is a problem here: his disbarrment was neither a major headline nor a major accomplishment. Veritas100 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotation

(The quotation marks removed by another user are from a direct quotation from a cited source. Please read the sources more carefully. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Their decisions made Libby the highest-ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since National Security Adviser John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra affair two decades ago" (Sniffen and Apuzzo--the source cited right after the quotation). [updated] --NYScholar 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Phillips Academy, Phillips Andover (Academy), Phillips Andover Academy

[moved comment to where it belongs: please see the template message (top of this page) for how to add new comments to the page. Thanks. --NYScholar 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)]

[added heading. --NYScholar 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)]

TO NYScholar: if an ERROR is contained in an exact quotation, get another quote! It is a matter of public record, and has been since 1778, that there is a private school located in Andover MA called Phillips Academy; not 'The Phillips Academy', nor (worse) 'The Phillips Andover Academy'. I am holding in my hand an official document from that school and can read the letters clearly. You can check in on their website or in thousands of other ways. Can't you see your way clear to presenting a single well known fact? That an error is in quotes doesn't do much for its truth value. ~~ maurice boaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice boaz (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no "error" in the quotation; the Wikipedia article for Phillips Academy already states that many people refer to it as "Phillips Andover" (Phillips Andover Academy); it is common to do that; the link to the school indicates precisely what it is. --NYScholar 01:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[... There is no reason that the quotation cannot be used; the link to the school identifies clearly what it is. Please don't use capital letters; it's considered shouting; please use italics for emphasis instead. Thanks.] [Moved this part of my earlier comment here. --NYScholar 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)]

From the school's own webpage "About Andover": "Phillips Academy, better known as Andover, is a coeducational independent boarding high school of 1,087 students, known for its extensive and rigorous academic program. A diverse community of teachers and students, the academy was founded in 1778." (Italics added.) The website is linked in the Wikipedia "External links" section of the article on Phillips Academy. --NYScholar 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for 'shouting' (using capital letters; I wasn't aware of these nuances). I find your arguments wholly unpersuasive. The school is wrongly called 'Phillips Andover' and 'Phillips Andover Academy'. Everyone, including students, alumni, teachers, etc. often (or even usually) call it 'Andover'. That is its nickname, if you like. But 'Phillips Academy Andover' is simply not the name of the school, and a responsible editor would cut that part of the quotation and replace it with a phrase not in quotes but with the right name. We all know what 'Berkeley' means when referring to a university. But surely you would not and should not allow an article to say that so-and-so attended or teaches at the 'University of Berkeley', as (e.g.) the British Broadcasting Company has been known to say in its broadcasts. The name of that school is 'University of California, Berkeley'. Another error is 'Chicago University' (as the BBC calls it), when they mean 'The University of Chicago'. The name of the school in question here is, without any question, Phillips Academy. All of us who graduated from Andover know at least that much! ~~maurice boaz

This article is about Lewis Libby, not Phillips Academy; the quotation addresses more than that school; it is accurately quoted and accurately linked to the properly-named Wikipedia article, as per Wikipedia linking style. There is nothing wrong with this. See WP:CIVIL regarding your attacking the "responsibility" of another editor, and see also WP:AGF. Your point of view on the school is not relevant to this article. If you want to work on the article on the school, you are free to do so. The quotation is quoted accurately. --NYScholar 22:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That said, I made some slight changes in presenting the information from the source (Shane) in the way that it is quoted; it is now part paraphrase, part quotation, still with proper Wikipedia linkage to the school and also its location. --NYScholar 23:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Though it may seem a small point, could you now also please remove the article 'The'. One says, for example, The University of Chicago, or The Johns Hopkins University, and in both cases 'The' is correct, but here the article is not used. ~~maurice boaz

p.s. I do not believe I was being in any way uncivil by suggesting what a responsible editor would do. But thanks for telling me what the article is about; I hadn't noticed. Incidentally, why do you call yourself a scholar if your standards of scholarship do not allow for accuracy in detail? ~~maurice boaz

The word "the" was an inadvertent minor typographical error. I deleted it. Please see WP:NPA. Focus on content not on contributors. Thank you. --NYScholar 01:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

See archived discussions; the user who keeps deleting it is incorrect. Libby's conviction stands; he has not been "pardoned"; read the article and cross-linked Wikipedia articles on United States v. Libby; part of his sentence has been "commuted"; his conviction stands. --NYScholar 21:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC) [After his conviction, his lawyers said that they would be appealing his conviction. Unless that conviction is overturned on appeal (or unless he is fully pardoned at some time in the future), his conviction stands. Updated other parts of article and restored related source citations which had been affected by others' recent edits. --NYScholar 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]

See archived talk pages; please stop making such changes to this article without consensus and without prior discussion. This is a contentious controversial article and making substantive changes to it requires prior discussion. Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; other talk page templates. WP:BLP#Well known public figures pertains as well. Subject's main present notability as a public figure is due to his criminal indictment and conviction and the subsequent commuting of his prison term. Criminal infobox is warranted. Fully discussed in archived talk pages. --NYScholar 19:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Libby's current notability is not due to any current "political" position that he holds (he holds none); it is due to his losing his political viability as a result of criminal indictment and conviction and his being disbarred from the practice of law as a result of illegal behavior that resulted in his conviction. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires accuracy of focus on who the man is not a misleading disproportionate focus in the lead on who he was. As a public figure also, he is covered by WP:POV with respect to WP:BLP#Well known public figures. --NYScholar 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Please stop edit warring over this matter. Consult the talk page above and archived talk pages of this article. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. please note that Mr. Libby is a criminal but not a gangster; the criminal infobox is reserved for notorious serial criminals, not people with the likes of Libby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbill66 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a comment in the criminal infobox template as well. Thanks. The matter is Libby's notabililty. To warrant a criminal infobox, one need not be "a gangster"; the template is just a guideline not a policy. The criminal infobox is warranted in this article where it is placed (opposite the lead paragraphs relating to the matter). --NYScholar 20:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.. there is a criminal infobox (sans photo) under "trial and sentencing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbill66 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You have now violated WP:3RR well over four times in 24 hours; [I restored] the previous content. Thank you. Your changes do not have consensus in this article. --NYScholar 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]

I've asked for administrative assistance. Your reversions do not have consensus. Your "compromise" is not a consensus change. Please stop violations of Wikipedia policy: WP:3RR. There are differences in Wikipedia between "guidelines" and "policies"; you are violating policies: see WP:V#Sources as well. The lead and infobox are well sourced. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your passion on this subject but I would like to talk about a compromise on this. There is a criminal infobox under the trial section. As to the disbarrment, it is included in the lead but putting "disbarred American lawyer," while accurate, implies that his first and foremost accomplishment was losing his law license. I agree it should be in the lead that he was disbarred but appeal that making it part of the first sentence makes the article seem to have a negative or bias POV, almost political. It would be like beginning President Bush's bio with "..is a misled president of the united states" or that President Clinton "..is an acquitted president" or that President Reagan is "...a senile former president" etc. Sure, Mr. Libby is technically a criminal but he would not have been a criminal had it not been for his rise to political position and that should at least dominate the lead sentence. Let the following sentences insult him for his criminal behaviour but for goodness sake, his grandchildren may read this bio and he is a living person. Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbill66 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:3RR and WP:Edit warring. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a third party give an opinion.. I will hold off on a revision or revert for now as you feel strongly about it but I am not sure why that is.. maybe another opinion (or 2 or 3) would be a great idea ;) Veritas100 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason to stop reverting is WP:3RR (policy) and to avoid being blocked due to violating those policies. Your reasons do not have consensus. Libby is not comparable to a President of the United States and he is not notable as a politician primarily. He was a low-key member of the administration who largely was unnoticed until his involvement in the Plame affair. He was a high-ranking advisor to a president and a vice-president, not a polician himself. He advised the people who made political policies; but he did not hold elected office. His advisory roles were appointments by those who did. In the process of being an advisor to the president and the vice-president of the U.S., he violated federal laws, was indicted for felonies and convicted of them, losing his license to practice law in the process. No notable contributions to society or politics or the law have followed (as yet) after his conviction. It is not clear what stage his appeal of his conviction is in. His notability is currently stated accurately in the lead. He is not longer most notable for being a former advisor to executive branch officers; he is currently most notable for being a now-disbarred lawyer who was a member of the Bush administration convicted of four felonies, disbarred for that, and whose prison term was commuted by a U.S. president. English Wikipedia is read by English-speakers who are not Americans. Wikipedia guidelines and policies for editors do not state that they are to write for readers who are family members of the subject (e.g., Libby's "grandchildren"). This is an encyclopedia, not a public relations mechanism. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:BLP#Well known public figures and the template message links above and previous archived discussions. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC) [clarifications. --NYScholar 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]

A useful thing to do is to examine the development of this article from the "earliest" point in its creation 975668 (2003) to the present 160997861. It will give one an idea of what Libby was notable for in 2003 to 2005 and from 2005 to the present. His biography as it was created in 2003 consisted of one (unsourced) sentence [actually fragments], which is updated in the first two sentences of the current version160997861, which indicates clearly why he is no longer what he was in 2003. [For the history of earlier editing content disputes, one needs to consult the archived talk pages of this article. Thanks.] --NYScholar 21:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC) [addition in brackets. -NYScholar 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]

re: disbarrment.. I understand your POV. However, his posts in the White House did not require him to be a member of the bar and thus disbarrment was not the most notable result of his criminal mistakes. Indeed, it might be better to say he "..is a formerly trusted policy advisor" rather than a disbarred American lawyer. I know of no other articles in the Wikipedia that start xxxx is a disbarred lawyer.. can you point out if there is?

re: criminal infobox - it was already in the body of the article but you have reverted to a duplicate in the lead. You suggest that the template usage guideline is only a guideline but surely it is temporarily set in stone when there is a disagreement (i.e. it's a tie-breaker). Best regards.. Veritas100 22:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not "already in the body of the article" until you put it there in your reversions; in addition, you kept deleting and reverting the information in sentence one. These changes do not appear to be in keeping with WP:AGF. --NYScholar 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

re: agreed that many Wiki articles are sparse but that does not imply that they reflect the popular media or thought. If he's a "nobody," then maybe we just need to delete the article altogether but clearly not every lawyer gets to advise the White House. I know maybe you have negative feelings for Mr. Libby, but must we highlight the negatives when all it serves to suggest a lack of NPOV? Veritas100 22:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no feelings whatsoever relating to Lewis Libby. The article is an encyclopedia article and well sourced according to WP:BLP#Sources and WP:V#Sources. One's "feelings" toward the subject are irrelevant as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --NYScholar 22:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use one user name in posting; usiing two different names is confusing and makes it appear that you are two different users when you are one user (See the rationale in WP:Sockpuppets, which links to WP:Username). Only in editing mode or highlighting the signature can one see that Mrbill66 and Veritas100 are one and the same user. Please don't violate Wikipedia policies. I have already explained the rationale for content that I have contributed to this article. Your changes are not supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and using two different user names when you are one and the same user is misleading. Your changes do not have consensus. (Another editor also reverted them.) --NYScholar 22:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC) [I am not saying that "Mrbill66" is a "sockpuppet" but rather that the use of two different user names in signatures (some posted by bots due to lack of four tildes above) is confusing; "Mrbill66" and "Veritas100" are one user and not two users. The user name in the editing history is "Mrbill66" not "Veritas100"; assuming good faith, I point this out so that others will not be similarly confused [about the user's two different identities] as I was. --NYScholar 22:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)][added link. --NYScholar 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]

Libby's own current status is of his own making; his former status as a high-ranking government advisor (a positive aspect of his biography prior to October 2005) became a negative aspect due to his own behavior, his indictment, and his conviction: that is reality which is well-sourced in the lead and in the body of the artice. See the recent addition of the quotation from Predident Bush's commutation proclamation to the lead as well. The article conforms to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as well as to reality. --NYScholar 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, regarding Mr. Libby, why are you averse to placing his disbarrment in the 2nd or 3rd sentence that notes his other bits of infamy? Is there some lack of veracity by placing it in the second or third sentence? Again, my reason for moving it is for style and also not to make it look like the article is biased. There are many disbarred American lawyers. The fact that Mr. Libby is in that category doesn't make him worthy of an encyclopedic article. I haven't looked at the article for boxer Mike Tyson yet, but I presume it doesn't say he is a rapist boxer.. that's the style that I am perceiving by saying "..is a disbarred American lawyer" etc. Doing this only serves the critics on the right who say it's just 'sour grapes' due to the commutation. How about we prove them wrong?

(Thanks for the sockpuppet clarification. Indeed my username and signature are different but I get signbot warnings if I don't sign.Mrbill66/Veritas100 22:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Please see also the previously-posted comments in User talk:Mrbill66. Thank you. I am not dealing with this matter any further. --NYScholar 22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC) And please read the previously-archived discussions in the archived talk pages. Thanks. --NYScholar 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I already clearly stated in my edit summaries that present tense (who he currently is) appears in sentence 1 of a lead. So and so is ...; what he was comes next. That is the usual order of a lead sentence in a BLP. --NYScholar 23:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) [If one examines the archived talk page discussions and editing history, one can see that sentence 1 at one point was that Libby is "a convicted criminal"; that was changed over course of editing. Libby is currently "a disbarred American lawyer." That may change; unless and until it does, that is what he is. --NYScholar 23:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]

I don't think the fact that he was disbarred is in dispute. What is at issue is why the political infobox was changed a criminal infobox when there was already a criminal infobox in the proper section and simultaneiously moved the fact that Mr. Libby was disbarred to the first phrase. This suggests either a personal issue with Libby or a political one. Is there any other explanation that I'm missing here? I recognize a convict (Libby) when I see one but I also know a biased POV when I see one, especially when it comes from someone who is neither willing to compromise nor willing to discuss his reasoning for recent action. It just does not seem like proper conduct in the spirit of Wikipedia. Mrbill66 Veritas100 04:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There was annother info box there because you added one. It was not a pre-existing info box. A second info box is thoroughly redundent. So it comes down to which one infobox best represents Mr Libby. He is best known, internationally, as a criminal. Had he not committed criminal acts he would have been forgotten by all but the most avid white house watchers, hence, he gets a nice shiny criminal info box. Or do we classify Billy Connolly as a Steelworker rather than an actor or a comedian (for which he came to fame) because he was a Steelworker first? Narson 04:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians have a responsibility to be neutral in their points of view. With politicians, it's even more important to make the articles viewless. When someone goes to the Lewis Libby page, the first thing they see is "...is a disbarred American lawyer" - so the tone is set that this is a corrupt lawyer. But then suddenly -hey - he was a White House insider! A major player. This was not a common charlatan. So why would "disbarred lawyer" be there? Because it's a political statement - not good. My conclusion is that this is yet another wikipedia article that gives the hard right critics a reason to label Wikipedia as "overrun" by liberal bias. Do we want to continue that? I think not. Let's fix this, folks. comment added by Mrbill66 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be there? Its factual, and much more important for wikipedia, its verifiable. He is famous as a criminal and a disbarred lawyer. I believe 'disbarred lawyer' was chosen over 'convicted felon'. And I can safely say I'm not part of whatever 'American liberal conspiracy' you think you see. It wasn't me or my country Mr Libby acted against, so, I'd still have a pint with the guy. Narson 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"convicted felon" would be more to the point. "Disbarred lawyer" is not what he's noted for. He was an insider in the current White House circle and to just dismiss him as a 'disbarred lawyer' sort of minimizes his significance. Sort of like saying Michael Milken "is a banned securities dealer" as the opening line instead of "was a notorious junk bond dealer." This is not a newspaper article but the first line should hit at the heart of who this person is - catch the attention of someone skimming first-lines. Someone trying to find out who that guy was who worked for Cheney and lied to the FBI is going to see "disbarred lawyer" and move on. Let the lead be a key, not a side note. The trvial secondary fact that he was disbarred should be included but should not be the lead phrase. Mrbill66 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Libby's current status as a "disbarred lawyer"

A large portion of the main text of the article pertains to Libby's career as a lawyer. His profession is that of a lawyer not a politician. The infobox lists his profession ["occupation"] as "former lawyer" first because it is the priority in the totality of his biography and career (educational background and experience); he spent more time in his life as a lawyer than as someone engaged by government (to perform his function as a lawyer for the most part). [He was only a high-ranking government advisor to elected officials for four years (2001–2005). The rest of the time prior to that and presumably after that--if his law license hadn't been suspended and he disbarred by the DC Bar--he would be back to being a lawyer/legal and/or policy advisor. The fact that he is currently disbarred is crucial to his life (biography). (See the quotation from George Bush, the president who commuted his prison sentence.) The rest of the article relates also to a major criminal legal case leading to a trial in which he was convicted of major crimes (from the point of view of the law and lawyers). For a lawyer to be convicted of perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice is also a crucial matter. It is appropriate for the reference to his current status (disbarred lawyer) to be in line one of the biography. This is the biography of a living person who is also a public figure. The lead reflects the body of the article. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines for writing leads (WP:LEAD). Thanks. --NYScholar 10:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC) [additions. --NYScholar 10:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)]

For a similar first sentence, see Francis Lee Bailey (which had a problem of coh. which I just corrected; the writer of that sentence was apparently trying not to use past tense "was" but created incoherence (see editing diff.) in using "is" followed by "prior"; disbarment is a process and the transitive verb formation (past participle used as an adjective in Lewis Libby sent. 1) is appropriate. For sentence one in Lewis Libby, I would accept, e.g., Lewis Libby is an American lawyer who was disbarred after being indicted and convicted in United States v. Libby. That was one of the versions that I had been working with when the article was protected; however, I still think the current first sentence in Lewis Libby is fine; it is properly sourced and neutral. --NYScholar 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Libby as a "convicted felon"

Re: "convicted felon" or some such language: please see earlier archived discussions. Clearly, the user making objections has not read them; that kind of language was removed from the lead for persuasive reasons much earlier ("neutrality" issues). It was consensus to remove it. The position argued by the user has not got consensus from other editors.

Please consult archived discussions. Lewis Libby is a highly-controversial subject and the editing of this article has already had considerable disputes resolved by previous resolution processes. Making contentious changes to well-established, well-sourced information in the lead without having consensus violates Wikipedia editing policies for articles like this one. Please see the tagged notices. The previous edits which I have disputed have also wreaked havoc with source citations, losing coded references (footnotes) and leading to missing citations and error messages (see editing history: "diffs.") Please take greater care in editing so as not to wipe out reference source citations which are provided via the "ref" and "/ref" method, a recommended method in Wikipedia. Thanks. --NYScholar 10:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The statements that the lead sentence is any kind of "dismissal" or any other nefarious insinuation stated in or implied by the user's previous remarks are unfounded and violate WP:AGF. --NYScholar 12:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Got NPOV? H [A?] hallmark of good faith is when you compromise. My attempts to compromise were unmet by WP:AGF but instead with knee-jerks of bad faith (which were termed dubious by an admin). AGF seems a bit inapplicable in a case where only one party is willing to discuss and compromise. I've never seen this kind of behaviour from a Wikipedian who promotes NPOV. Though I prefer not to criticize other editors, my honestly compels me to admit that I am not pleased to meet someone who fuels the right-wing's critical suggestions about Wiki articles (whether intended or not). I certainly hope this is a one-off and not part of a serial activity that demonstrates an agenda (I hesitate to check other contributions since I really don't want to believe what my instinct suggests).

Let's change this article from a snub of this convicted White House advisor to a real article. Again, everyone knows he lied to investigators. But he is not famous as a revoked attorney, is he? If so, let's delete the whole article and not waste a single byte of Wiki space on this "disbarred American lawyer" Mrbill66(Veritas100 03:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

The hypocracy of screaming 'Obey WP:AGF' while accusing the other editor of bad faith is amusing. :) Narson 04:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[Touché. I fixed the threading; I think the initial "H" was supposed to be "A"; I hope the previous user does not mind adding "A" in brackets with a ? and my fixing the posting problem. I refer user Mrbill66/Veritas100 to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and messages on his/her own talk page. S/He really needs to watch his/her tone to avoid being blocked from Wikipedia. --NYScholar 11:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]

Also, given what that user says, it really seems that s/he has a misconception of what a lead in a biography of a living person WP:BLP is; it does not have to focus solely on "what the person is famous for" ["notability" is not the same thing as "fame": see WP:NOTABILITY, Wikipedia:Notability). It is a biography; it begins by focusing on what he is currently (a disbarred lawyer; his "occupation" was primarily as a lawyer until his more recent involvement as an advisor in the upper echelons of the White House, which did not begin until 2001). He was well known prior to that [as a lawyer; see the body of the article] but did not have a Wikipedia article on him until after he went to the White House and was in the news due to the Plame affair (2003 on), which directly led to his disbarment due to his crimes being committed as a result of his statements during the FBI investigation pertaining to that grand jury investigation. It is highly relevant that Libby is a lawyer who has been disbarred as a consequence of his indictment for and conviction of four of the five charges in United States v. Libby. The relevance is cited in President Bush's own remarks on commuting the prison term part of his sentence (quoted in the lead and in more detail in the main body of the article). I do not find the user's complaints convincing in any way or even marginally related to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies for WP:BLP#Well known public figures or leads for Wikipedia articles WP:LEAD. (They seem very illogical to me.) (See also: Wikipedia:Relevance of content; WP:RELEVANCE: that a public figure whose primary occupation/profession is that of lawyer has been disbarred is a highly-relevant and highly-notable biographical fact; it is his present status (see "who and what he is", as opposed to "who and what he was"); what a person is (or does) [using present tense] generally comes first in biographies of living persons.] [See also: Wikipedia:Manual of style section on "biographies" Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies): see also "First sentences".] for further guidelines or help in the MoS.] Relatively-new users of Wikipedia need to consult the links provided on their talk pages (in the welcome message) and other talk pages for these guidelines and policies, and to take the time that an article is being protected to learn more about them before editing content of controversial articles (or any articles); see WP:Consensus for direction too. I have provided links to these Wikipedia guidelines and policies throughout my comments to be helpful in that process. --NYScholar 14:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)] [Added links (Updated.) --NYScholar 17:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]

Once again: take a look at the editing history of the article; it was started in late May 2003, and "lawyer" was listed first in the very short bio first line, which isn't even a sentence. Scroll up to prev. disc. He is no longer a lawyer; he is a disbarred lawyer. If/when that description needs to change, one can update it then. Until that were to occur (if it does), the statement is factual, accurate, and well sourced (documented with a "full citation"), following Wikipedia policy in both WP:V#Sources and W:BLP#Sources. --NYScholar 18:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]

Updated article - Libby still a member of the DC Bar but currently suspended acc. dcbar.org. Technically, he could be disbarred (recommended) but in the mean time he is suspended both for non-payment of bar fees and his federal convictions pending appeal. Mrbill66 Veritas100 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Further updated: He is dropping his appeal. There will be no reversal of his convictions in the courts. I've restored the reliable and verifiable sources that other editor(s) has (have) erroneously deleted. Those are authoritative sources. Please stop deleting them. Doing so is screwing up the citations throughout the article, which have codes in them. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles

Please scroll up to top of talk page, to the template notices for related links and warning messages: e.g.,

"This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.

Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles."

--NYScholar 14:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Jury makeup

I reverted edits which seemed to be prompted by a specific pov push. I am curious if anyone (a) has citations for the material, and (b) has thoughts of how to integrate it into the article (if relevant). I feel prefacing each section with a disclaimer saying "the jury which convicted Libby was made up of his political opponents..." is not really in line with WP:NPOV. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 18:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

agreed. Aceholiday (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon != Grant of Clemency

I went through and changed where I saw it say pardon/pardoned. He was NOT pardoned, President Bush granted him clemency, meaning his sentence/punishment was commuted in some way, but his conviction still stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.60.122 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there NO ARTICLE safe on wikipedia from agenda-driven anti-semites??

I mean seriously now, how does an article on Libby manage to contain 5 paragraphs on the supposedly all-powerful Israeli lobby? Even the FOOTNOTES contain multiple paragraphs on this subject!

I mean seriously, there are wikipedia pages devoted to this very subject. It would be wonderful of believers in the ZOG would confine their manic squelches to THOSE pages. In the event that we're all puppetted by the Jewish Lobby we'll find out about it there. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnuez (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The heading itself here is horribly offensive; the issues have already been through extensive (months long) arbitration [which, ultimately, supported the verifiable and reliable sources provided]: see the archived discussions and this talk page links. Calling other editors "anti-Semites" is not only offensive, it violates WP:AGF. This section may and should be deleted. The heading itself is not permissible in Wikipedia, according to editing policies. WP:NPA. (Several of the editors who have worked on this article are themselves Jewish, not members of any so-called "Jewish lobby," and are offended personally and particularly by such a heading with its offensive implications followed by the equally-offensive comment.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

what does agenda driven mean? Aceholiday (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an antisemenite. Shalom that!

Infobox criminal?

Is this appropriate? Why not add the infobox criminal to all politicians? Is there an infobox lawyer? If so, that's more appropriate. Infobox criminal seems to be agenda pushing. If the same standard is used, the two presidents who were impeached should have the criminal infobox placed.

Let's get neutral. Replace the infobox, keep the criminal stuff in the article.Chergles (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that too many people here have a hard-on for tagging Libby principally as a criminal and it is to the point as to be laughable and really destroys the credibility that Wikipedia strives so hard for. Don't ask for anything but a "criminal" infobox, it would completely ruin the day of NYScholar at the very least. A.S. Williams (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above (and possibly archived) sections on the infobox. Narson (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Such personal attacks are absurd. The return of the same old arguments about the infobox is related to previous contentious discussions. The consensus has been that the criminal infobox is entirely appropriate in this article. Please read the detailed (and archived) discussions. Please also see: WP:NPA. These are editorial matters not personal ones. The omission of the conviction for felonies in the infobox would "really destroy the credibility that Wikipedia strives so hard for" etc. As for "ruining" my day or that of anyone else: those claims are purely irrelevant. Try to strive for maturity in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is no doubt about the facts included in the infobox and the infobox format itself is entirely neutral. If it were not, it would not be a permissible infobox in Wikipedia. The criminal infobox is completely in keeping with these Wikipedia editing policies. As one who has worked very hard to provide reliable verifiable sources for this article for many months, I resent the implications. But they don't "ruin my day"; however, I do perceive such comments as in keeping with a lot of the contentious other material in the talk page of this and other highly controversial articles: it is purely illogical and makes no sense in view of the properly-sourced material in the article supporting the material in the infobox, which is appropriate. Please see the tagged notices at the top of this talk page and please follow the links to the policies in them. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to the day when Libby gets fully pardoned and we can finally remove the criminal infobox as clearly, Libby is not in the same category as Ted Bundy and was convicted of a process crime, which in all likelihood is simply a case of him not remembering the exact words he said on a given day. The man is notable for much more than perjury. Of course, this matters not to you because through ALL of the arguments, you have slavishly fought to keep it here. Don't tell me to go read everything again because I already have and even participated in the debate. I don't have a personal quest with this article like you seem to have, consequently I am not going to go over the argument again because you simply refuse to drop it. So I will wait until Libby gets pardoned and has the conviction removed from his record in about a year from now and then remove the box. I am assuming you won't be able to find a valid argument against the Constitutional power of the president to remove convictions. As for ruining your day, that was facetiousness. You clearly understand what I am implying.A.S. Williams (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the remark above: "Don't tell me to go read everything again because I already have and even participated in the debate. I don't have a personal quest with this article like you seem to have, consequently I am not going to go over the argument again because you simply refuse to drop it." (A.S. Williams):

I am not the one who posted this section. I simply replied to the posting of this (in my view redundant) section by another user: scroll to beginning of this section [and see the archives [everyone, not simply A.S. Williams]. Again, I strongly advise A.S. Williams and others to review the previous discussions (as mentioned below, again, before that comment was posted) and also WP:NPA and WP:AGF. (Cont. in subsequent paragraphs. --NYScholar (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)]

[If one goes back far enough, one will see that, initially, I actually questioned the references to Libby's crimes in the infobox; along the way, some other editor added the format for the infobox-criminal, which developed "neutral point of view" in presentation.] [Cont. in next para. --NYScholar (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)]

Speaking for myself, I do not "have a personal quest with this article"; I am simply trying to keep it within Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines and for it not to violate those. I suggest strongly again that others stop assuming and implying that my editing of this article is "a personal quest" or in any other way a "personal" matter. It is not. I am a scholar and I believe in accuracy of citations, which I supply. [Cont. in next para. --NYScholar (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)]

Even if Libby were to be pardoned, that would not change the fact of his originally having been convicted, though the felonies for which he had been convicted would be removed from his legal record. The fact of the conviction is still always going to be part of his (public) biography (what this article is: following WP:BLP. [Cont. in next para. --NYScholar (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)]

Criminal infoboxes are often simply updated to reflect changes occurring over time (if any do occur). Should he be pardoned, editors of this article will deal with that matter. I do not think that it would be wise to delete the infobox, because doing so would make it impossible to update it to include the (possible fact of a) future pardon. (Cont. in next para. --NYScholar (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)]

Again, I am writing this comment in good faith: WP:AGF; please don't forget that. Thank you. (I have been sick for the past two solid weeks and only editing some articles; I just saw this comment. I have to turn back to non-Wikipedia work offline. Thanks again. (I did detect the humor in A.S. Williams' comment (about ruining my day), btw; my day had already been ruined by being sick, so I actually appreciated the bit of humor, but I wanted to set the record straight re: matters of Wikipedia editing policies/guidelines.) The criminal infobox is a format feature of Wikipedia that, in this case, applies to the subject of this article, who is currently a convicted felon. All criminals do not have to be of the ilk of Ted Bundy (serial killers) to have a criminal infobox in a biography of a living (or dead) person; the criminal infobox itself clearly states the nature of the crimes of which the person is accused and/or convicted, etc. [Cont. in next para.] --NYScholar (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point in time (16 Dec. 2007), Libby is still far more notorious for his conviction in United States v. Libby (as part of the Plame affair/CIA leak grand jury investigation, than for his five years of service in the Bush/Cheney administration; his government work is known as a result of the investigation and trial/conviction, rather than vice versa. In the future, in terms of a biography of a living person (a fluid matter), those circumstances may change; right now, they are still pertinent to why there is an infobox-criminal in this article; some people (above) may object more to the name the infobox (genre) than to its actual content, which is all factually accurate and neutral. Ordinary readers of the article who are not editing it don't see the name of the kind of infobox it is; they just see the accurate, neutral facts. --NYScholar (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: the statement by Williams above: "Libby ... was convicted of a process crime, which in all likelihood [sic] is simply a case of him not remembering the exact words he said on a given day.": that is Williams' POV, not the verdict of the jury in Libby's trial, which convicted him "beyond a reasonable doubt" of more than several counts, including more than one count of lying to federal investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice; those are all felonies, not misdemeanors. [Cont. in next para. --NYScholar (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)]

Attempts to minimize or deemphasize the importance or relevance of the crimes of which Libby was legally convicted by "a jury of his peers" in a U.S. court of law are not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; they reflect biases of editors making such statements (or others with whom they are agreeing [cited in sources linked in the article already, quite fairly], they are neither reliable nor verifiable statements (using sources in keeping with WP:BLP#Sources), they smack of editorial point of view, and they are not permissible in Wikipedia articles, talk space, user space, etc.: see WP:BLP for policies. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See [the talk page of] Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography#Lewis Libby controversy (and more recent comments relating to that project's different kinds of criminal infoboxes below. --NYScholar (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages of articles are for suggesting and discussing improvements to these articles; not for developing one's own point of view about the subject or his crimes. What we editors think of the "likelihood" of how Libby got into such legal jeopardy is not relevant; the facts of the case are public record and cited in the article; jurors' own post-conviction speculations are cited in the related articles. But, like the statement made by Williams, they are speculations, not facts, and they are not documentable (at least yet). [When Libby writes his memoir (if he does), he will present his own "side" of the story to add to what his lawyers presented on his behalf in court; one keeps in mind that he did not testify in the case on his own behalf and that VP Cheney did not testify either.] --NYScholar (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC) [added bracketed comment; tc. --NYScholar (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)]

E.g, see Archive 8 and earlier (follow the links in their table of contents): e.g., [1]. Suggesting "improvements" to articles include doing so in light of previous discussions. With eight archives of discussion, there is much to review prior to making comments. Omitting the criminal infobox would reveal a lack of neutral point of view, not neutral point of view. Please review WP:BLP for policies relating to well known public figures (already linked many times in talk page/archived talk pages): namely, WP:BLP#Well known public figures.--NYScholar (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the New York Times headline in the source about President Bush's failure to pardon Libby in the 29 pardons he granted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, just added as a source to the lead in the update, these continual arguments against including the criminal inbox appear all the more absurd and appear themselves to be arguing the "point of view" of those making such arguments. Such "point of view" deletions of well-sourced and pertinent information in an infobox are not permissible in Wikipedia and contrary to both Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:BLP#Well known public figures. --NYScholar (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC) The Wikipedia format template criminal infobox includes facts, not points of view. [See also: WP:Point of view. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)]

Re: discussion above: Serial killers have their own special infobox: see the template links at top of this page to the Crime Project in Wikipedia, with more information about the infobox criminal template and other related templates (as for serial killers like Ted Bundy) used in this and other articles in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography#Criminal Biography InfoBox. A different infobox-criminal is used in this article than the one used in the article Ted Bundy. The reference to there being some disparity (citing "Ted Bundy") due to the use of the current template in this article is incorrect. No comparison is being made; the infoboxes are different ones. --NYScholar (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC) [added direct sec. link. This infobox is the one added by another editor some time ago: see the archived discussions and editing history. --NYScholar (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)]

Re: initial query by user posting this section about whether or not there is an "infobox" for "lawyer": as a result of his convictions, Libby has lost his legal licenses to practice law. He has been disbarred by the DC Bar and his license was suspended by the Pennsylvania Bar after his convictions. Unless he is pardoned, it is unlikely that he would be reinstated, because he has dropped his appeal of his convictions since then. and the temporary nature of the disbarment by the DC Bar relates to the filing by Libby's lawyers of his intention to appeal his convictions; since they have announced his decision to drop his appeal, a Presidential pardon would be necessary to wipe out his convictions. Unless he applies for and is granted reinstatement to the DC Bar and reinstatement of his law license in Pennsylvania, as things stand, he can no longer practice law in the jurisdictions in which he was formerly admitted to the bar. [These points are documented by sources cited in the article. Some editors have tried to delete the sources, but the sources are reliable and verifiable and in keeping with WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources.] [Cont. in next para.] --NYScholar (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The infobox already indicates his former professional employment as a lawyer. That he was a practicing lawyer is listed in the current infobox. He is not currently able to practice law. One has to be accredited (admitted to and a current member of a bar) to do that. If there were an infobox for lawyers (as queried), it would not be appropriate for the subject of this article (currently); he is not (currently) a lawyer. He is someone with a law degree who cannot (currently) practice law. If that situation changes, the infobox and the article will be updated. The criminal infobox is still appropriate for an American convicted felon (see the categories listed and click on those links for various lists: e.g., American perjurors, perjurors (the more general category), etc. The criminal inbox correctly and appropriately indicates what the nature of his felonies is: the charges of which he was indicted in 2003 and convicted after a high-profile trial in 2007. There is no lack of "neutrality" in stating those facts in the infobox. --NYScholar (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It could also be said he is not famous as a lawyer. He is famous as a political advisor and only really famous as that due to his criminal acts. Narson (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I agree w/ Narson above): [see my earlier statement: "At this point in time (16 Dec. 2007), Libby is still far more notorious for his conviction in United States v. Libby (as part of the Plame affair/CIA leak grand jury investigation, than for his five years of service in the Bush/Cheney administration; his government work is known as a result of the investigation and trial/conviction, rather than vice versa." [Cont. in next para.] --NYScholar (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Until the CIA leak grand jury investigation, many people would not have known that Libby was a lawyer (at the time). See the article for chronological details of the professional aspects of his biography. (He went into and out of government service prior to the first administration of GWB (2000) and his final five years in government.) --NYScholar (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC) [addition in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)]

Though trained as a lawyer, and though he represented one high-profile client and testified before Congress in favor of that client, Mark Rich (who was convicted and pardoned by Pres. Clinton)--see the article--he was not practicing law for the most recent years he was in government service and, as a lawyer, he had dropped out of the public eye as far as WP:BLP#Well known public figures goes. Operating "under the radar" (so to speak) for VP Cheney & Pres. Bush (in advisory capacities), he was not as "well known" a "public figure" until the Plame affair and the CIA leak grand jury investigation, which brought him more into the "public eye" due to the press attention and his indictment and conviction. Those events make the criminal infobox especially appropriate, in his case (as a subject of a Wikipedia article). Take a look at the editing history to see what this article looked like in the beginning (its length and his "notability" at that time)--see 2003 (e.g., Earliest version in edit. hist.) to mid-Dec. 2007 (now). --NYScholar (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: On May 29, 2003, he was still "a lawyer"; currently (mid-December 2007), he is "a former lawyer." --NYScholar (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict): As far as the initial statement charging "agenda pushing": to accuse editors of "agenda pushing" because one does not like the facts included in the criminal infobox violates WP:AGF: see Wikipedia: NPOV dispute#POV pushing for further information. (Those who object to the infobox criminal charge lack of neutrality and "agenda [or POV] pushing", but they have a POV as well, and advocating it is not in keeping with Wikipedia: Neutral point of view ("neutral"). Their perspective appears to disagree personally with the jury's verdict in United States v. Libby and to try to promote their own viewpoint (POV) that the verdict was in some way unjustified or unfair and/or that the felonies of which he was convicted are not important. The prosecutor (who won the case) and the jury which convicted Libby have stated otherwise: see the documentation (sources) in the article and cross-linked articles on the case. For one who was trained as a lawyer and then licensed to practice law in two U.S. states (such as Libby), Perjury and Obstruction of justice and Making false statements (lying to federal investigators) are all especially serious crimes (crimes against the system of justice per se). Lawyers who are convicted of such felonies are (in the words of the DC Bar order of Disbarment) said to have engaged in "Moral turpitude". (See the sources in the article.) Omitting the criminal infobox with the stated aim to omit its references to these significant legal convictions would violate Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC) [threaded.] --NYScholar (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that the 'procedural' crimes he comitted were in aide of covering up an incident in which someone comitted an act that would, in times of war, be considered treason, as I understand it. I really don't think the idea that his crimes were somehow 'minor', because they were non-violent and fairly 'white collar', stands up. Narson (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not "forgotten" that argument (it is the Wilsons' argument); but it was not part of the trial and did not relate to the verdict in his case that is summarized currently in the infobox. We are just providing reliable and verifiable sources for the verdict and convictions in the infobox, not judging him ourselves or making judgmental statements about him. A "crime" is a "crime" and the infobox-criminal just presents the charges in each case and the facts of the case; it does not make such value judgments. The kinds of crimes of which he was charged and convicted are clearly stated in the infobox. Libby was not charged with treason and he was not convicted of treason; the point of view about that matter is not supported by the sources or the trial in this case. It is the Wilsons', some editors' (and others') opinion; but it is not developed in this article in detail; the sources allude to the points. See WP:BLP: you might want to delete some of that based on the project page admonitions about talk space etc. Again, we are just supposed to be trying to talk about how to improve the editing of this article; not the subject itself or presenting our own viewpoints about it (Libby). Statements need verifiable sources, as per WP:BLP#Sources throughout this article. I have tried to supply them. (Got to go offline now.) --NYScholar (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Never said he did commit treason, or that anyone comitted treason infact. (Not to mention I couldn't give a monkeys if anyone did, not my country.). I was merely pointing out that his crimes were not simply procedural etc as had been asserted by the previous person. Though I have no idea why this conversation is going on to be honest, the Williams chap hasn't posted in days and you have already responded with 10x the text he started this all off with :) I am sure he has the point. Narson (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)